This movie - Mani Mangalsutra - is first ever Marathi movie to be premiered in North America. As proud and supportive, I was for the cause, the movie was a let down. I have to write something about it, because Marathi movies need to put in a lot more effort in research and logic.
The movie ventured a comparison between married life and live-in relationships. However the examples were poorly chosen.
The story in short is as follows.
Two couples - First one is a young couple -
Shantanu and Swati - who have been living together for 7 years and the girl wants them to get married. But, the boy doesn't care about a wedding. His argument is shown to be based on the fact that a couple he was well-acquainted with, as a child, never got married and managed to live happily.
This second couple - Savitri and Purushottam- is two generations older and yet they are shown to have been living together, without getting married.
The whole movie is a debate between these two points of view. Unfortunately however, the second example was not a live-in relationship at all. Purushottam couldn't marry Savitri because he had not divorced his first wife. His first wife leaves him because he is impotent.
The movie got mixed up in two entirely different issues- 1. Impotence and 2. The question of marriage.
One question I asked the director:
Purushottam's problem was impotence and not his bombastic thoughts about marriage. What if they had gotten married, and she had found out his drawback... Would the marriage have lasted as a life- long commitment?
I doubt. Well, his first marriage fails exactly because of that. Oh, Purushottam's character makes me so angry. He totally takes undue advantage of helpless Savitri. He makes an appearance of being the "ideal" gentleman, by never touching her etc... Such a hypocrite!
It would have been a valid comparison only if Savitri and Purushottam had an actual "relationship". A different and real example would have helped.
Think before you make movies people!
10 comments:
It could be that the director didn't know what he/she was doing or that there are external factors like MNS, Shiv Sena (the moral brigade) which would prevent a realistic handling of the topic.
After watching this interview.. I think the former is truer... the director has no clue what the difference is between a live-in relationship and being room-mates. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL66iyneMz8
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this a little bit. While I agree that the movie is ultimately not about live-in relationships versus marriage due to Purshottam's impotence, I disagree with the latter portion of your blog. I don't think Savitri would have cared if she eventually found out about his impotence. Furthermore, yes, Purshottam's character is flawed..he is very selfish in that he hides this fact from Savitri all that time, but his character is portrayed in such a way to soften that a bit. Yes, his first marriage ended because of this, but Savitri is, I think, a more understanding woman. Purshottam unfortunately was just not willing to take that chance due to the previous blow to his ego (selfish? of course). This, however, is not a flaw on the director's part. It's ultimately not a debate - the message is that marriage is a symbol. Savitri/Purshottam serve as the backdrop. The whole point was that Shantanu looked up to their relationship when, in the end, it was not what he imagined it to be...
I think you missed the point... Characters in a story are characters... Good or bad... They are human... In fact... I find Purushottam to be a great character... The story was badly told... It is important to tell the story without making any moral judgements.
Simply a story of savitri and Purishottam would have been a stronger one!
The problem is trying to put too many ideas in one basket!
Oh and please watch the video... The director herself says that she meant for it to be a debate!
The director does say that in the YouTube video, but here's the thing: the entire time, you're supposed to think that it is a debate (up until the impotency exposure). Why would she give away the major plot twist in her teaser?
That's exactly why film makers need to learn how to tell a good story... :)
Cheers!
I saw the movie today. I liked the first part. In the second part impotency of the actor is shown. The logic of comparison between marriage and live in relationship changes later. The two aspects cannot be compared. As a movie, I enjoyed it.
There was some logical dialogue shown in some scenes especially during the mangla gauri dance. The story should have been planned properly and it could lead to a good movie. There was some goof up in the story. Finally, I can say its just a movie and not to be taken seriously.
Heyyy :) I'm going to post on the blog each day from 9th Dec. to 8th Jan. under NaBloPoMo (http://www.nablopomo.com).
Do drop by whenever possible.
Since its based on a true story there is no meaning in analyzing the story!!
Post a Comment