Well its been long since i've actually felt like writing about a film and thanks to Ishq. Kudos to the actor Shane who really resembled a 'small' boy though it is revealed later that he is an IT professional. He succeeded in pulling off the "innocent" character who isn't aware of the harsh realities of the society and is used to being in his comfort zone always. His character retaliates only when provoked to a great extent. I do have a lot of issues with the content though. The film deal with several serious issues in India especially Kerala - Moral policing, sexual rights, masculinity and femininity (or gender) etc. The character Vasuda played by Ann Sheetal and Sachi of Shane Nigam seems to be problematic. It is shown that she is a First year degree hosteller who manages to roam about with her boyfriend in public spaces but apparently cannot question any intrusion of her privacy by the same public. The instance where her boyfriend scares a man for "looking" at her might be intended to show the possessiveness or heroism of her boyfriend but it also shows how she is rendered voiceless. Does she really want him to take up a protective role? Or was she planning to question the man who was staring at her? Do we ever get ro know what she was thinking?!
Sachi is also a complex character confused about his gender and social position as a boyfriend who should man up! He could shout at a man who was merely looking at his girlfriend but he is silent and puts up with everything when a man verbally abuses her. I was really steaming up in the scenes where both of them silently tolerates the many abusive instances in which Shine's character tear their dignity and humiliate them. The very characterisation of these young adults seem unacceptable to me. The lovers who manages to roam at night should at least be bold. I mean they should be aware of what awaits them in a still to-be-progressive society like Kerala. They should be able to voice their rights and make bold decisions. The fact that they chose to roam at night is itself a sign that they are strong and they are making a bold statement as it is not "normal". They know what their rights are and are exerting them as adults. It is possible to argue that both of them got scared when attacked suddenly. The fact that Shine's character claims to be a policeman and has a video of them might scare them. But there are so many instances in which they get to know that Shine's character is not a policeman! Yet they cling onto their fear.
There are so many instances in which they could just drive off but they never do that. Vasuda seems to be scared and even threatens to kill herself if they go to the police. Seriously?! For a woman who is capable of being aware of her rights, her "dumbness" seems to be intentionally incorporated into her character. She is shown as a weak character who reacts only when pushed to her limits. I don't think that an IT professional and a Ist year degree student is so foolish as not to ask the "policemen" for their ID or to at least question under what circumstances the law prevents two adults to be together. Or are the new, highly educated generation that ignorant? Shouldn't they be portrayed in a better light at least to inspire the young adult viewers?
Shane's character is that of a psycho (and his acting resembled Fahad's Shami, at times even his voice modulations! Or so i felt!). He enjoys the fear of the couple and is sadistic enough to torture them for his pleasure. Ok, if he is suppose to be a villain for his actions (verbal rape together with Jafar's character and sadistic actions) then isn't Sachi too stooping to the same level by trying to prove his "manliness"? Sachi assaults, humiliates and traumatises an innocent kid and a woman (wife and mother) just to make Shine's character confess and apologise for what he did. Ofcourse, Sachi enlighten's Shine's onscreen wife (and his daughter!) about the dark side of her husband and he even apologises to the woman later but even that doesn't nullify what he did to them (the same verbal assault that the other one did). But did he have to choose this way? Is this the only way to prove his manliness? Does that mother and daughter deserve to go through a trauma just because their beloved did the same to Sachi's girlfriend? Women are victimised in both cases!
There is a dramatic turn of events in the climax when Vasuda turn's down Sachi's proposal (or does she? Is it clearly shown?) on realising the chauvinism in Sachi. She is aware of her femininity and turns out to be a feminist right when she questions Sachi (also in an earlier scene) whether he'd have accepted her even if she was raped (or even kissed). She is aware of herself, the patriarchial mentality in Sachi, the fact that he haunted the entire family of Shane's character and Jafar's character to satisfy his male ego etc etc etc but earlier she was shown as weak and silent (contradictory? Or is she now experiencing an awakening? But then again her side of the story is never told). At this instance I began to feel that maybe the movie was trying to be sarcastic about the manliness and heroism and was poking fun of the traditional thought of heroism but these thoughts are shattered later. The question as to whether a woman needs a man to protect her dignity (or chastity) gets explored.
Also the climax scene in which she shows a middle finger to Sachi avoiding her question of (him accepting her) by proposing to her, is applauded. The fact that she asserts herself does give a feminist touch to the film but if her thought process or story was told at least a bit then, this 'touch' would have been validated. It is good to see a female character on screen who questions the chauvinism in her boyfriend but then she is rendered silent again as the movie ends with the middle finger. So she doesn't get to show off her 'womanliness' just like Sachi? Oh i forgot that it is an open ending where we can imagine however we want and yes i just think she has a punch line, gets out of the car and walks in slo-mo accompanied by a thrilling bgm(with a Ray Ban glass of course!).
P.S. Entirely subjective review.
