Alaipayuthey is more than just a Bollywood "Romeo and Juliet." This story ties tradition with modernity, upper-class with lower-class, and mystery with romance. Karthik and Shakti are two lovers who secretly marry despite family disapproval. The two characters struggle to balance family tradition with their modern-day marriage. Karthik is a computer engineer who is determined to start his own computer business despite having a large inheritance. Shakti is a medical school student, whose middle-class family has saved every penny for her schooling. Karthik initially pursues Shakti, and after their secret marriage becomes public their love begins to waver. Alaipayuthey may be a romance film at heart, but also acts as a commentary on class, marriage, and love.
The Indian setting brings issues of arranged marriage, love, and gender, but the issue of class ties all of these together. In the beginning of the film, Karthik tells Shakti to come to a family event and wear a sari, not a salwar kameez. By assuming Shakti would wear a salwar kameez, he assumes she is more casual about her appearance. This is the first time the characters subtly reference class differences. Shakti defies gender stereotypes by becoming a woman doctor from a middle-class family, disproving any doubts that you cannot have a successful Bollywood romance with a working woman character. Her status as a woman doctor walks the line between being upper-class while also being a working woman. On the one hand, she is rising in class because of her high-paying and well-respected career as a doctor. On the other hand, traditionally a woman of high-status would not have to work, because her husband would earn the living (or in Karthik's case, would inherit it). This battle is one example of how Karthik and Shakti are attempting to live a different, modern lifestyle. Karthik is also attempting to break from the mold. He chooses not to become a lawyer like his father, but instead start a computer business. Towards the end of the movie, his company lands a huge deal. This plot point is interrupted by Shakti's disappearance, but this deal could mean the end of working for Shakti. Hypothetically, she could stop working and become a traditional Indian housewife. The viewer can only assume that, given her character, she would continue working as a doctor. In this manner, Shakti again would break from the female stereotype of the pious Indian housewife.
This film has made some progress regarding gender roles. Not only is she a doctor, but Shakti- a woman- also proposes to Karthik. However, in the end, the film still uses the "damsel in distress" plot line. It is Shakti who gets hit by a car, and Karthik must come to her side for her to wake up from her coma. If the Karthik was hit by the bus, and Shakti was rushing to find him, the film would not have the same emotional impact on the viewer. Even though Karthik does not actually do anything to save Shakti's life, the viewer is much more likely to be emotionally invested in the well-being of "poor" and "fragile" Shakti than Karthik, who is privileged and wealthy.
The movie plot also addresses the question of whether or not a marriage can survive if it consists not only of beings from two different social classes but also from a love-match. The present-day scenes act as a reminder that this marriage might be doomed, that love-marriages are not nearly as strong as marriages arranged by family members. The two characters try to ignore what their different backgrounds suggest, but Shakti's loyalty to her family never leaves her. Throughout the film, there are reminders that family bonds- even though Shakti damaged them- will forever remain strong. When Shakti's father finds out about the secret marriage, Shakti cries on his shoulder, even though her husband is standing right next to her. This raises doubts about where her loyalty truly lies- to her husband or to her family? Shakti doubts her love-marriage after her father dies, and she is crying to her mother, wondering why she did not have an arranged marriage. Even in the final scene, when Shakti wakes up from her coma, it is her mother and her sister she sees first. In the end of the film, Shakti and Karthik lay next to each other, with her family surrounding them. This was what they both had wished for in the beginning. The problem with the plot lies in the ending. Can only a near-death experience reunite family and love? Is there no other way in which their marriage could have been saved and accepted by Shakti's family? Perhaps Karthik was trying to redeem himself by reuniting Shakti's sister with her suitor.
One of the most interesting character of the film is Shakti's sister. While she understands and supports Shakti and Karthik's love-marriage, she wants an arranged marriage for herself. She supports her sister even after it is Shakti's marriage that causes her only suitor to retract his initial interest in marriage. When Shakti gets married, her sister knows it will be harder to find a husband. It is not normal for a younger sister to be married before her older sister, and because Shakti's sister knows this when she supports their marriage, the sister sacrifices more than Shakti herself. This is another example of Shakti's strong bond with her family. Shakti is indebted to her sister because of the sacrifice she made.
The film is edited in a way that echoes the plot line of love, marriage, and drama between Shakti and Karthik. The majority of the film is a flashback of Karthik and Shakti's love and marriage, intertwined with present-day scenes in which Karthik is looking for Shakti who has gone missing. The film begins as two separate stories and merges into one as the flashbacks turn into the present-day as the film progresses. The first flashback is so upbeat that at first the two plot lines seem like different stories. They are, in fact, different genres-thriller and romance- and are not supposed to be together. However, Shakti and Karthik are not supposed to be together either. The film's editing parallels Shakti and Karthik's own romance; two separate entities that merge together. The present-day scenes act as a reminder to the viewer that their romance, however cheery it may seem in the flashbacks, is ill-fated. After Shakti and Karthik are married, just as after the story merges, their lives are filled with tension and drama. As viewers, we do not know the ending of the film, just as we do not know the fate of Shakti and Karthik's relationship. Only in the very end does their relationship (and the plot) end on a positive note.
The mise-en-scene of present-day scenes contributes to the plot mystery. It takes place at night, the diagetic soundtrack is tense, and the scenes have a blue tint. Karthik shares his anxiety with the viewer, as both him and the viewer do not know what has happened to Shakti until the very end. Karthik is often the only person in the scenes, which causes the viewer to wonder if he really is alone and Shakti has left him. The drama of the night adds an additional layer of mystery. Had Karthik been looking for Shakti during the daytime, neither his character (nor the viewer) would not be as tense.
Alaipayuthey may come off as a romance film, but the intricate love story between the two main characters cannot be summed up into one genre. Alaipayuthey succeeds at creating a layered story with complex characters and unique production and editing.
While I agree with most of Hannah's review, I found the movie to be centered on issues of marriage, gendered roles, and familiy than about class. The sari/salwar kameez incident I thought reflected more of the formality of the event instead of a class issue. To wear a sari to an event indicates its signifance, that it is not just an everyday event. Similarily, when Shakti wore a sari on the day of her secret marriage, it seemed out of place because to her parents, it was an ordinary day. But to Shakti, her sister, and her friends, the sari represented an important occassion.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated Hannah's comments on the hypothetical situation created by Karthik's deal. It had never even crossed my mind that Shakti would no longer work after Karthik had struck a deal because of the time, effort, and money required for Shakti's schooling. A lot of emphasis was placed on her becoming a doctor and the how important it was for her to succeed. The gendered roles presented in this hypothetical situation are only complicated by ties to family, and therefore class. Karthik's family does not really care what he does with his future because they have the means to support him even if he fails. However, Shakti's future as a doctor is a means to support not only her life, but her family's as well. That might be a reason she seems so much closer with her family than Karthik does, because Shakti's class status requires the entire family to pool their resources together to survive, whereas Karthik's family is supported by his wealthy lawyer father.
Overall I think Hannah's assessment of the movie is really successful in the ways in which she explores issues of class and gendered roles. She also mentions a lot of the technical aspects which added to the emotional investment of the audience.
Posted for Eva-Claire
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this review I could not help but continuously compare the two movies we have watched thus far. It surprised me that despite how different the two movies are the characters love situation on paper could be seen as somewhat similar. In Robots case you have a tech/science genius who is obsessed with his work who is in a relationship with (I assume, possibly wrongly, that they are in a love relationship) a young, doctor student who is hurt by his lack of interest in her life and it is not until she is in danger or almost lost that he treats her well. Not to mention that the young doctor student lives, not in a huge, white mansion like the man’s parents but a home her family runs for war widows. In Alaipayuthey the relationship is between a rich, young man who is focused on starting a computer software company and a young, lower middle class medical student (then doctor) who spends time providing help to the less fortunate while at medical camp. This relationship is also a love relationship and like in Robot the woman does not receive the attention she needs when she needs it until she nearly dies which makes the man realize he has to treat her better because he could lose her.
Obviously, though, the two movies are drastically different, one extremely realistic and complicated, while the other comes across so dumbed down it almost feels like a parody. Possibly, though, this says something about what movies are willing to show and what they are not. Only looking at two movies is not proof of a rule across the board but it does make me question certain aspects of Indian cinema. For instance, how love marriages and relationships are portrayed, how over emotional states of women are treated by men in movies and what it takes for a man to take the side of his wife and focus on her before all else. I think that comparing the two movies would create an interesting starting point to begin to look at these issues of acceptability and portrayal of relationships in Indian cinema.
Hanna's fim critique reads much like an academic paper and, in that sense, does a good job critiquing the content of the film, its characters, its theme, etc. Hanna makes good points about the presentation of females, the way the film addresses class, and its treatment of arranged vs. love marriages.
ReplyDeleteI think this critique is missing the film part. It would be interesting to delve deeper into the role of music, for example, in the film, or the actors' success or failure in portraying the characters and themes.
I also think Hanna should be careful about making assertions without backing herself up. For example, she says, "Had Karthik been looking for Shakti during the daytime, neither his character (nor the viewer) would not be as tense." I think this is an interesting point and definitely has to do with the directorial choices. I wish Hanna had gone into more detail about the cinematic aspects of the film.
Overall, Hanna did a very thorough job discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the film as a social commentary, though she just barely touched on its success as a cinematic project.
I appreciated the parallel Hanna made between the way the film was spliced together and the coming together of two different worlds of class. While I think this point is valid – I believe the flashback sequences were more a suggestion of how the past, present, and future are related and highlights the role of fate and dharma. The intersecting storyline reminds viewers of the power of fate. We are led to believe that the love of Shakti and Karthik could only be rekindled by tragedy.
ReplyDeleteHanna also notes the powerful role of the female doctor that brings depth to the dynamic character of Shakti. I too was pleased to see such an empowered character featured in the bolIywood. As I mentioned in my critque of Robot – women do not have to me stupefied to be romanticized. This is captured in Alaipayuthey. I was also surprised and pleased to see Shakti propose to Karthik.
I like how Hanna pointed out the role of Shakti’s older sister. This was a complicated and dynamic character that embodied several conflicting emotions: grief, loyalty, love, and anxiety. The character was played with an appropriate amount of delicacy and energy.
As a Broadway buff – I couldn’t help but compare this film to the timeless classic “Fiddler on the Roof”. Both confront the balance between family, love and tradition and both include the alienation of a daughter and both end in tragedy. (Fiddler with the evacuation of Anatevka, Alaipayuthey with the death of the father and car accident).
Hanna notes that the present-day storyline suggests that a love-marriage is weaker and than an arranged marriage. I disagree - I think it is important to point out here that in the lend, the film illustrates the power of love over all odds. It is Karthik’s love that awakens Shakti from her coma, and it is love that brings the family back together.
I found Alaipayuthey's take on the hardships of a marriage--one that challenges the tradition of arranged marriage, nonetheless--successful in shedding light on issues that affect all couples: class differences. As a child of parents who divorced at least partially due to differences in how they were brought up (those differences being both related to class as well as attitudes toward wealth in general), I have come to understand how love can be tested by countless obstacles which society places upon it. For example, my host father argues arranged marriage is the only option simply because it guarantees the help of your family should you find yourself quarreling with your spouse: "in arranged marriage, if you fight with your wife, you call your family. Your parents come and talk to her parents and they figure everything out. In love marriage, who comes? No one." In Alaipayuthey, Shakti and Karthik's marriage suffers largely because of different attitudes by both their respective parents as well as the attitudes that have been put upon them. Hannah's commentary on the uncertainty about where Shakti's loyalty lies is one worth thinking about: regardless of her love for Karthik, she--in times of desperation--turns to her family, the same people who rejected her love marriage in the first place.
ReplyDelete