When she spoke..

This an entry for the Indus Ladies blog writing contest, on some given topics.

The one topic that hit hard, was titled- "Empowered Women and Increasing Divorce Rates – Related?". That is the one I picked to write about. This is a reflection on the statement.

1943

She was 16 years old when her destiny was tied down to a man she had met on the day of her wedding. A child, who’s schooling stopped at grade 10 because she had to ‘learn to run a house, to cook and to take care of the children’. She delivered at 17 and yet again at 19. Two more followed at 22 and 25. And her whole life went by looking after the children, family, home and in-laws. Now 86, she reflected what her life had been. She could remember the endless hours in the kitchen- and nothing else that was significant. Her husband had never encouraged her to follow her talent for sewing and crochet. He had never even looked at her with affection. She remembered him completely ignoring her in the presence of a third person and completely discounting her opinions on how their life should be. He never stepped up for her when she was insulted or forced to do things she didn’t want to do. And it was her ‘duty’ to take care of his family. But she kept quiet. She stayed true to her husband and served him and his family life long, because she didn’t have an option and didn’t know to expect any better. She couldn’t ever tell her mother how she felt when her husband chose to ignore her. Or her father that her husband didn’t care what she wanted in life. She could never tell anyone her beliefs, aspirations and motivations in life because she understood that no one really cared and even if they did, they would tell her ‘women are tied to their destiny’. At 86 now, this was all she could remember.

60 years hence

Today we believe in educating the girl child. We want to empower our daughters to be able to stand on their own two feet- to work, earn, live and love. But how many of us realize that education means exposure to the world outside? That it means that your child is going to be equipped to look life in the face and take it head on? Today, a woman’s expectations are different because we (society) have empowered her with thoughts, a sense of right and wrong and most importantly- self respect. So when a girl of today faces the same situation her grandmother of 86 faced, she knows that she deserves better. Whether working or taking care of a house, she deserves the love and respect of her husband and her in-laws. She deserves a say in their future. She deserves the credit of bring up her children and taking care of her in-laws. She knows that her dreams and aspirations need not be kept to herself, but shared with her life partner. She believes that a husband’s role is not just that of a sperm-donor or an ATM. He is her support system- a friend, philosopher and guide. He is the person she will give her entire life for. And the least she deserves is affection, respect and a right to make decisions. And when she doesn’t get any of these, she has the courage to look the other way and part with someone who doesn’t recognize that she’s not a baby producing machine, a nanny, a wage earner and an insurance against the future.

It is hence, not only enough to believe that girls should be empowered and educated. It is critical that those who believe in empowering women also understand that society needs to adapt to this phenomenon. It is we, as society, who are changing the way she thinks and yet it is us who are not prepared to change ourselves. Our society needs to change too. It needs to equip the future generations of men and women to accept this change and understand how the roles of both are becoming increasingly dynamic. It is just not enough to empower women if there isn’t going to be a system that would support and enable everyone to move along with times and reduce the friction caused by change.

So, here’s the question we should be looking at- is it empowerment of women that is leading to an increase in divorce rates? Or is it that society hasn’t yet learned that the women of today are different from those of their grandmother’s generation?

Kadal – leaves a salty after taste!

Part of growing up in a Tamil household is constituted of eating ‘thiyr saadam’ (curd rice) with ‘Narthanga’ a bitter and salty savory pickle. My experience of watching Kadal, Mani Ratnam’s latest, somewhat brought back those memories. To some, narthanga is an irresistible savory and to others, it is that necessary evil when your tummy is upset and nothing digests (or stays in) other than this!

 

    Image from: moviegalleri.net

Based in a fishing village near Nagapattinam, the story revolves around three men- Sam Fernando (Arvind Swamy), Bergman (Arjun) and Thomas (Gautham Karthik).  And oh yes! Beatrice (Thulasi Nair) the female protagonist. Sam and Bergman meet at a seminary and the problems begin. An epitome of goodness, Sam walks in on Bergman in a compromising position. Sam tells on Bergman who gets thrown out of the seminary and vows to take revenge. The story from here is predictable. Sam, who’s posted in a village full of fisher folk with no faith, goes on to making them into believers. In the course of his stay, he takes young Thomas under his wing and makes an honest and happy-go-lucky man of him. As fate would have it, Sam and Bergman’s paths cross. The story from here is simple. Bergman implicates Sam, who’s then sent to jail. Thomas (for some reason) decides to immediately join Bergman in his evil exploits. Enter Beatrice (annoyingly called ‘Bea’). She is mentally off somewhere but manages to convince Thomas out of evil.

Arjun’s performance in the movie is, simply put, brilliant. He convinces you of how evil, evil can actually be! He plays his part of Satan comfortably and proves his mettle as an actor. Arvind Swamy, with his boyish good looks and his angelic face played the role of Sam Fernando with ease for most part. However in the last few scenes, where his evil side is to take over, he falters. His confusion between good and bad could have been portrayed better for an actor of his caliber. For a first timer, Gautham Karthik’s performance is good. His transition from a good-natured young man to a baddie is smooth. Thulasi Nair’s role was limited and there wasn’t much acting required on her part and so there was probably no scope to be let down!

The plot is the usual done to death ‘good versus evil’ and ‘everyone has shades of grey’ angle. However, where I think the movie could have risen, to an altogether different level, was in the portrayal of how Thomas, actually stoops to the Satan (Bergman). Having been raised for 15 years as a good human being, it seems inconsistent to me that the boy is willing to trade to the side of evil in less than 2 minutes of reel time! Another moot point was that Thomas's redemption was depicted only through Beatrice's simplistic approach of 'Don't sin again'. It would have been heartening to watch if his redemption was a result of introspection added to Beatrice's love rather than just the latter.

The small nuances in this movie are really what reiterate Mani Ratnam’s genius. The characterization of Bergman is set with a clear context of a child born into poverty, who looks to religion for his next meal. On the other hand, Sam coming from a privileged home is in the pursuit of God having all his worldly needs of food and shelter taken care of. The beauty is that this history, which defines the differences between the two men, is established simply through short, crisp dialogues. No time is wasted in flashbacks or soppy stories of the past. The consistency of Bergman’s character is another ‘yaay’ moment. AR Rahman has produced music which when heard on its own, is soul-stirring. However, in the movie, these tracks don’t seem to create the same magic.

So, very like narthanga, there are those who would love the movie, the tang of salt that its adds to an otherwise plain script. Or like me, there would be those who walk out feeling a raw after-taste of an otherwise potentially good movie.