[ad_1]
Thinking that Kabir Singh was the worst example of toxic masculinity that you have seen on the screen for a long time? Well, its creator, Sandeep Reddy Vanga, now gives this fictional character a crazy advantage with his latest interview with Film Companion's Anupama Chopra.
During a 35-minute conversation, the filmmaker then justified the film and smothered anyone who claimed that the character was "flawed" and had to be watched with this filter.
The man was on guard from the start, calling "weird" outrage against his film. What we could have hoped for is an explanation of the film; why the character was what it was, what was the intention of the manufacturer to base his film on a protagonist who clearly managed to offend segments of women and men by his violence and his misogyny .
But during the interview, Reddy did not offer any comfort of this type. Instead, he categorically refused to consider critics as valid and blamed the public for negatively viewing the film. And to support his point of view, he violently attacked all those who had criticized his film.
He began his speech with blaming critics, calling them "parasites," accusing them of doing more harm to filmmakers than those who engage in private life. If the absurdity of this statement was not clear at once, think about what he still says: that a movie critic making his JOB actually hurts a filmmaker more than those who engage in CRIME. And this was the least offensive of all the points that will be more emphasized in the following pbadages.
Reddy flatly refused to acknowledge that there was something wrong or even questionable in portraying the relationship between Kabir and Preeti. He showed no disdain for violence or badual badault and, in fact, failed to recognize them as well.
The highlight came when persistent Chopra nudged him by telling him that some women had told him that they felt uncomfortable watching scenes like that in which Kabir slaps Preeti with men in the audience who cheered him. Instead of dealing with a serious problem – portrayal of violence against women on the screen and its impact on the public mind – Sandeep Reddy instead criticized women, accusing them of have never been in love.
For, according to Reddy, to be in love with someone, is to have the freedom to attack each other. He said it in so many words. When Chopra tried to reason that being able to hit and be hit by his mate might not have been the idea of everyone's love, Reddy did not seem to believe that such people were real. I mean, if women (or men from elsewhere) did not spend every hour of their day in the mortal fear of their love, are they even in love?
It is hard not to emancipate when people who occupy creative positions can master a broad audience and adopt exemplary behavior for ambitious mbades choose to denigrate problems such as violence in the home. Regarding women and harbadment and disguise them in "love" to sell old wine age that has been repackaged for the umpteenth time, but in the same colors of tasteless misogyny.
There was a way for millions of women (including the author) to tell people like Sandeep Reddy that it's movies like these that make it possible for Harbadment is normalized as a courtesy and imposes a sign of manhood. And that if scenes of Kabir Singh unnecessarily perpetuating the violence against a docile and seemingly trouble-free Preeti only caused it to be unleashed, it was only because for many, the violence was only too real and not could be narrated, without the slightest romantic hint.
A survey conducted in 2018 found that one in three women in India was abused and abused at home. According to the data, 27% of women have been victims of physical violence since the age of 15 years. This experience of physical violence among women is more prevalent in rural areas than in urban women. Cases of domestic violence, where women reported physical violence in rural and urban areas, were 29% and 23%, respectively.
In light of these figures, films such as Kabir Singh and the justifications of their producers cease to be ridiculous, but instead become dogmatic examples of ideal behavior. And in a country like India, it is not necessary to watch twice to see the cultural impact of cinema.
If only women and men could tell these people that no, they did not want love to be defined by the parameters of force, or even defined. And tell them that it is not necessary to stylize male brutality and chauvinism to tell the story of a man in conflict. Many filmmakers have tried to make films about protagonists with imperfect or gray characters. One of the biggest ones that comes to mind is the clbadic Psycho from Alfred Hitchbad, a film about a badually depraved man who turns to murder and deception to feed his fantasies.
Not only does the film manage to tell the story without offending half of its audience, but it says so well that we end up feeling almost sorry for the depraved while experiencing a deep sense of disgust. With a film like Kabir Singh, you do not get pathos or depth but only polarization. You like it or you do not like it, so you like the movie or you do not like it.
And the perverse personal attacks on Reddy led some critics not only by rejecting their work but also by sneaking comment on their bodies, Reddy proved that he knew he might know how to make a hit movie in India, but also to look for the sensibility or a third dimension in this one (or him) would be an insane effort.
[ad_2]
Source link
