Hmm. I'm a female. I watched 'Paheli' two times and I still dislike the ending. For me a fairy tale's use in history is "education", the perpetuation of traditions, the transmission of values.
For me this fairy tale would have been right if it had been about the education of the human male to love his wife. Think about it: how many ghosts are there to provide a female with a loving husband? Quite on contrary, the human males have to be transformed into loving husbands! The film succeeds partly when we see the longing of the husband far away. But when he comes home lovingly though still subservient to his father the film crashes for me. For me the film needed to end with a strong husband declaring his undying love for his wife and his acceptance of the ghost's baby, while the ghost needed to go back into his tree or even stay in the water bag (as in the original folk tale).
The wife in this film is for me such a week vessel and hollow shell that I dislike her tremendously (this impression might be enhanced by Rani Mukherjee whom I have seen only once to give a nearly realistic portrayal: in 'Yuva'). The director said something along "This film is about the decision or choice the woman makes". But this woman makes no decision, she says something like "I could not hold the first one, who am I to repulse the second one." For me this is not a decision, but only a concession. In my view, this is a very weak portrayal of a woman's choice. One point more why I dislike this film.
The husband is not likeable in his weakness, but the ghost for me is far more disgusting in his selfishness. He makes some magic for the family (which is already disgustingly rich) so that he can stay accepted, but he does not much for the community, and when the husband sends his messenger, he sends him away without any refreshment. Another point why I dislike this film.
For me this is a very unsuccessful fairy tale with a very good production value. I think the director Amol Palekar was not able to make good use of the lavish support he got from the producers. I did not even like the two performances of SRK in this film, which for me are overdone and not in agreement with a fairy tale but more with a comedy like 'Duplicate' (and I normally like each of his performances). I ascribe SRK's failure to the weak direction. In my view SRK needs good directors to shine. Otherwise he usually hams which often is quite in agreement with the film's intentions and consequently there I have no problems with this style of acting.
Conclusion: in no way is this a fairy tale on par with "La Belle et la bête (1946) [Beauty and the Beast]" by Jean Cocteau or 'Tri orísky pro Popelku (1973) [Three Nuts for Cinderella]' by Václav Vorlícek.
I gave this film 2 of 10 stars. And I just made out of this response my first user comment .
--- each brain develops its own preferences ---
reply
share
Chrysanthepop
17 years ago
elanorji, i think you should also post this on the indian cinema board. it will be an interesting discussion.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
reply
share
HeadleyLamarr
17 years ago
Elanor - each brain has to develop its preferences no doubt. But the brain must fold in the context while doing so. Let me break down all you said into specifics:
For me this fairy tale would have been right if it had been about the education of the human male to love his wife. Think about it: how many ghosts are there to provide a female with a loving husband? Quite on contrary, the human males have to be transformed into loving husbands!
That was exactly the point! The human husband did get transformed into the perfect loving husband. The ghost was allegorical - he represented everything a woman wants. And those qualities were transposed on to the returned Kishen.
he comes home lovingly though still subservient to his father.. Lachchi saying "I could not hold the first one, who am I to repulse the second one."
The context is extremely important here. The story is not set in today's world where a husband tells his father he is moving out with his wife, where a wife tells her husband he cannot leave and indeed leaves with him. You saw that in Guru. And what is true of years ago in all of India is still true in the deep interiors where the man still obeys his elders and woman still is never asked for her opinion or choice. So it is in effect the voice of all those women and the anguish of all those men that Paheli represents.
the ghost for me is far more disgusting in his selfishness. He makes some magic for the family (which is already disgustingly rich) so that he can stay accepted, but he does not much for the community
I think you did not watch it will all your attention. The ghost redeems the family's lost honor by winning the camel race. And before some say trickery recall that the other elders were using bribes to make sure they won. AND even more importantly the ghost makes the family put money into building a reservoir for water. You only have to go on a brief visit into Rajasthan to see how important water is to the poor folk. Some have to trek miles to get water for their daily use.
As for SRK, I think your dislike fo the film got to you. This is one of his finest performances - utterly unlike Duplicate. In Duplicate the best and the worst were distilled out into the two characters and made very black and white. Here there is no good and no bad and yet the two characters are differently played and very well done.
I think Shweta mentioned on a thread here that this is a film which is not presented to us as a package that is ready for consumption. Rather it is something that requires us to think and then to figure out for ourselves what the meaning behind the film is. That is teh true Paheli, the riddle, the enigma. That to me is the biggest appeal of Paheli.
'A wed wose, how womantic'
reply
share
elanor-3
17 years ago
As for SRK, I think your dislike fo the film got to you.
No, I don't think so. This DVD was very costly. I had read many glowing reviews. I really was in a good mood and then I saw SRK playing a dumb subservient son and an arrogant ghost with in my view much overacting and as two very different characters like in 'Duplicate'. Only then I started to dislike the performance of SRK. The film had not yet even crashed for me with its ending.
Then came the love scenes between RM and SRK which worked in no way for me and I began to regret the wasted money. No scenery (the water tank and tree scenes worked very well for me) and beautiful costumes could save the movie for me after the ending when the husband is replaced by the ghost.
The ghost redeems the family's lost honor by winning the camel race
I dislike this scene. For me it is the pinnacle of selfishness. This disturbingly rich family needs in my view no redeeming of lost honour.
AND even more importantly the ghost makes the family put money into building a reservoir for water. You only have to go on a brief visit into Rajasthan to see how important water is to the poor folk. Some have to trek miles to get water for their daily use.
For me this feels more like a bad conscience on side of the ghost and like a welcome for the baby from the mother. It felt not really in agreement with the ghost's character (see how he treated the messenger) it felt more like an intrusion made by the script to allow the last? song-dance. And I knew full well even beforehand that Rajasthan is very dry. Even the introductory scenes make this very clear through the bridal voyage.
I know that I'm in the minority, that most females like the film. Nevertheless, I really dislike this film.
The human husband did get transformed into the perfect loving husband. The ghost was an allegory - he represented everything a woman wants. And those qualities were transposed on to the returned Kishen.
This was not the impression I got from the film. In my view the ghost replaced the husband by magic. And the husband had not enough stamina to develop into the perfect loving husband. The ghost was quite obviously not an allegory in the film as he was presented to perform a row of magical deeds.
--- each brain develops its own preferences ---
reply
share
HeadleyLamarr
17 years ago
1. The cost of the DVD is not going to determine if one likes a film or a performance. As for the love scenes between RM and SRK - again each brain develops its preference and obviously yours is not for Rani. For me Dheere Jalna is a fabulous song that starts with the wonder of being in a corporeal body and surrounded by people who care for you (perhaps for the first time) and culminates in the joyous rain filled moments on the roof top.
2. Why do I get the feeling that for you being rich seems to be some kind of dark disturbing state? The honor redeeming was necessary to bring joy into the life of GajroBai and her child. Again - I think rather than judging whether they were rich and needed to redeem their honor or not, one has to see what had actually happened.
3. The reservoir was very clearly started even before the child was conceived - there is no indication that this is a last minute sop. Reservoir building was something rich families did in that region, and yes they did it out of generosity and as a way to keep their subjects happy - the opening sequences also start at a reservoir built by an ancestor of Kishen.
4. In the end how the ghost and the husband merged into one was exactly a transposition and not a possession. Possession by spirits and witchcraft and exorcisms were not really a part of the Hindu religion. Maybe someone more familiar with these ins and outs could comment. I think this is a key element that determines who is disturbed by the ending and who is not. The merging of two personalities is clear as the Husband/Kishen is actually shown to be doing account books when Lachchi walks in. Why would the ghost worry about accounts?
'A wed wose, how womantic'
reply
share
elanor-3
17 years ago
The cost of the DVD is not going to determine if one likes a film or a performance
quite right, but my investment means that I expected much more than I got.
Why do I get the feeling that for you being rich seems to be some kind of dark disturbing state?
Hmm, I think that for me the wealth has to distributed evenly to make the whole populace happy. Therefore a great variance in wealthy goods is for me a disturbing state of affairs. Yes, for me it is disturbing that some families amass riches and others dwell in the gutter. And for me it is not enough that the rich people are generous and make gifts, I think the poor are entitled to get a part of the amassed bounty. As soon as someone gets very rich his money multiplies because of his tremendous resources he can invest. It is not so much any more a result of his personal efforts.
The reservoir was very clearly started even before the child was conceived
A point for you .
the opening sequences also start at a reservoir built by an ancestor of Kishen.
It was a very beautiful setting!
In the end how the ghost and the husband merged into one was exactly a transposition and not a possession.
Hmm, for me it is a change of character introduced through the ghost and not through the husband's better understanding of his wife. The ghost as representation of the fulfilment of the wife's wishes simply repels me. For me a good fairy tale would have ended with an improved Kishen not with a mixed personality.
--- each brain develops its own preferences ---
reply
share
HeadleyLamarr
17 years ago
I think we have had this debate before - I do not believe in the distribution of wealth other than as charitable contributions - like Gates, Buffet etc. I believe in each person going out and accomplishing something to garner their own wealth. So there is no inherent bias against riches in my book. If people work hard they are allowed to be wealthy and allowed to pass that wealth on to their children.
I think that for me the wealth has to distributed evenly to make the whole populace happy. Therefore a great variance in wealthy goods is for me a disturbing state of affairs. Yes, for me it is disturbing that some families amass riches and others dwell in the gutter. And for me it is not enough that the rich people are generous and make gifts, I think the poor are entitled to get a part of the amassed bounty.
How do the poor get this if not by gifts? By a mass revolution? That is not the kind of film this was!
The ghost as representation of the fulfilment of the wife's wishes simply repels me. For me a good fairy tale would have ended with an improved Kishen not with a mixed personality.
That improved personality is a hard working Kishen who also loves his wife - the end result of the film.
I think you have to see this in another light - as in the ghost is a GHOST - i.e. not a real thing, it is a representation of something that should be.
'A wed wose, how womantic'
reply
share
Val-El
17 years ago
"Hmm, I think that for me the wealth has to distributed evenly to make the whole populace happy. Therefore a great variance in wealthy goods is for me a disturbing state of affairs. Yes, for me it is disturbing that some families amass riches and others dwell in the gutter. And for me it is not enough that the rich people are generous and make gifts, I think the poor are entitled to get a part of the amassed bounty. As soon as someone gets very rich his money multiplies because of his tremendous resources he can invest. It is not so much any more a result of his personal efforts."
so is it safe to say that you don't care how hard anyone works, or how talented they are, or how much time they spend on their education, that all should willingly give away their hard-earned money to those who have done nothing?
- that's called Communism. and it doesn't work.
reply
share