Readers Write In #572: Reflections on ‘Kaathuvaakula Rendu Kaadhal’

by bollywoodbubbles
0 comment 80 views

To Sindhuja S

It’s been almost a year since KRK’s release, and now’s the perfect time to reflect on how the film landed on me.

From the promo I was hoping it would be a little jaded given the theme, but it’s a clever, possibly humorous, and hopefully unique treatment of the subject of non-monogamy. Or even Veera with star power going through it. But there was always a sinking feeling that it wouldn’t. Unfortunately, it proved to be correct. One was cheering before the release of the movie b. Having listened to the songs over the past few months, and a great cast who have proven themselves to be connoisseurs of film choices in the past.

But KRK was a disappointment for me from the start.

This is the first VJS work that I was disappointed with the content. KRK.

Two beautiful, intelligent, and independent women in real life play beautiful, silly (Google-level stupid…dissociative disorder…really?), non-stressed maiden (80s tropes) characters Why? Proud Iota. As for why Nayang was in this film, I think you can consider it. But I would like to know what VJS and Sam saw in the plot.

A great deal of effort was (unnecessarily) put into providing a solid backstory and “deep” reason/justification for VJS’s character Rambo being a two-time timer. And VJS being VJS actually carries well “unlucky guy finally smiled at him lady luck x2”. You really feel the surprise, the relief, the tears of joy you feel when you finally get to experience the simple pleasures you take for granted (e.g. eating a chocolate bar, getting wet in the rain). You’re happy for him that he’s finally enjoying the first taste of his two chocolate bars instead of one. As Amma foretold, when it rains, it will rain heavily. Amma’s emotions form a strong part of the backstory. But these moments aren’t enough to lift the film from the depths it resolutely delves into.

The movie progresses at a pretty decent pace, with one cringe-ish segment after another, slightly rescued by the talent of the cast. So it was never boring (which is a bigger offense to the film). But in its aftermath, outside the blink of an eye in cinemas, it became increasingly grumbling about the huge waste of a stellar cast. and annoyed.

Metaphors are fine. I love being the biggest and best-selling of all storytelling mediums. What I found inexorable, however, was the trope of the damsel in distress: a woman with clear thoughts and purpose in most respects – trying to organize a groom herself to secure an inheritance, and Raising her two siblings and working as a shoe salesperson to support her family and herself. -You need an ola driver cum thug to protect me from a thug (cousin? relative? random dude?) crouching on her ancestral estate.

Another stunning woman walks around with her boyfriend because her dad owes him (dads in the 2020s do). She has her dreams and ambitions to succeed in creative fields such as music, singing. But she also becomes poor. A woman’s independent self is largely forgotten in the cringefest that followed. No selling shoes, no venturing into a music career (beyond squatting on Kanmani’s sister for 20 seconds)

Is that what you have the biggest problem with, you might ask? Yes, it is. The problem I have is the regressive portrayal of female characters on multiple levels, and how “normalized” they are to the point that the average moviegoer doesn’t notice.

“Why so serious, just enjoy the movie and the song. This is just a movie. It’s the maker’s choice/vision. etc.” These arguments have been made in the past with other movies. Film is a powerful medium for reaching the masses, not ‘just’ a means of entertainment. Aside from tropes, today’s producers and casts have a responsibility to little girls and boys, not necessarily in terms of “message” or values. But at least it adheres to some standard.

This isn’t about political correctness, awakening, or feminism, but I wish the film had gone beyond the contrived and contrived excuse that both women need protection from a heroic savior. A simple wish… So the three were forced to live in a bungalow 24/7. competing for his attention.

It’s more of a rant than a review.

From a filmmaking point of view, it was well thought out… cinematography, music, good performances, editing… but the only department it failed in was the screenplay, so (to me) none of those matters was. It brings to mind this quote attributed to his Atticus, the Greek philosopher of the 100s (more progressive than the 2000s, if this is the prevailing mindset among the average mass). -to-rescue-them metaphor.

She wasn’t looking for a knight.
She was looking for a sword.

You may also like

Leave a Comment