MovieChat Forums > Raees (2017) Discussion > SRK shouldn't have...

SRK shouldn't have...

posted 7 years ago by vinayakkumar
14 replies | jump to latest

... died. I feel he should have continued to live happily ever after. This Im saying, NOT because I'm an SRK fan. Bit because, probably in doing so, the film would have have taken form of an anti-political propaganda(which I support).

Ive stayed in Gujarat for a long time and have come across more Gujaratis who consume liquor than those who do not touch it. Im a non-Gujarati and an anti-national. But I believe as much as corruption should not be condoned, neither should oppressive regimes be tolerated in equal measure and SRK surviving in the end to tie up the loose ends comprehensively, would have proved exactly that point. Unfortunately that was not to be and will be vested in some other director to bring out the issue someday(hopefully soon).

Currently living in Bengal, I love the fact that there is perhaps more freedom enjoyed here than in any other state barring perhaps some of the north-east states(liquor, meat of 'all' kinds...you name it). However, seeing as I do the country turning non-secular and oppressive, how much longer would perhaps be a valid argument.

[–] TejasNair 7 years ago

Majumdar had no explicit reason to shoot Raees, for all I know.

These are the best Malayalam movies of 2016 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDwJUwyoTwE

[–] themanwithnoshame2016 7 years ago

" I love the fact that there is perhaps more freedom enjoyed here than in any other state"

By State you actually mean Kolkata. And maybe certain other major cities. i think rural Bengal will soon be polarized on religious lines and people will take the law in their hands.

"But I believe as much as corruption should not be condoned, neither should oppressive regimes be tolerated in equal measure"

What oppressive regime?

Kapil Routray: The Bengali Hindus will pay for their sins.:)

[–] vinayakkumar 7 years ago

i think rural Bengal will soon be polarized on religious lines and people will take the law in their hands.

Perhaps, but Im talking about the now and not the probabilities.

What oppressive regime?

The nation.

State govt and central govt laws deciding what people can do and what they cannot. What films can be passed through censor board and what cannot. Ban on certain food items at a county or state level. IMO there maybe ratings but not censorship. Information and broadcasting in controlled. The press is not given a free hand. The redundancy of the constitution which needs to be amended at the core level, rather than a few clauses and sections here and there to meet with the changing times. And so on on.
Im blatantly comparing the current affairs with the more liberal western countries where Ive also spent considerable amount of time. At this current pace, very soon we will be comparing our stringent regime with that of the middle east and some south asian countries.

[–] themanwithnoshame2016 7 years ago

" The press is not given a free hand."

Happens in Bengal all the time.

Kapil Routray: The Bengali Hindus will pay for their sins.:)

[–] ke_neth1981 7 years ago

I think op is trying to point out his notion of oppression collectively rather than draw minor comparisons between different states.

[–] themanwithnoshame2016 7 years ago

Which is exactly why we should demand some objectivity from him.

Kapil Routray: The Bengali Hindus will pay for their sins.:)

[–] themanwithnoshame2016 7 years ago

"The redundancy of the constitution which needs to be amended at the core level, rather than a few clauses and sections here and there to meet with the changing times. "

Clearly the present regime is not to be blamed for that. let's blame Bhim, shall we?

Kapil Routray: The Bengali Hindus will pay for their sins.:)

[–] saip009 7 years ago

DUUUUDE! That's a spoiler right there. I didn't know he dies. Use the markups to hide it.

[–] vinayakkumar 7 years ago

OOPs. Corrected

[–] sisyaa 7 years ago

Its funny you talk of Bengal being more open than other states. The atrocities of commies and current didi regime is being hushed up always. Anyway, you seem to be like a supporter of a particular "family". So, better go live in Pak, where perhaps you can feel more freedom. Since you feel Bengal has more free choices, im sure you'll feel heavenly in Pak

[–] themanwithnoshame2016 7 years ago

". Anyway, you seem to be like a supporter of a particular "family". So, better go live in Pak, where perhaps you can feel more freedom."

This is the sort of response the OP was craving anyway.

Kapil Routray: The Bengali Hindus will pay for their sins.:)

[–] vinayakkumar 7 years ago

Er... actually, Im an anti-national. So nationalities mean little to me. Im talking about the film, using examples along the way on how this film could have been remade to create more public awareness about the country's deprivation of certain human rights.

You are talking about living in Pakistan? Why not Australia or US or Canada? Is that what its come to? We are comparing our standard of living with Pak? Whats it gonna be next- Somalia and Nigeria?

[–] usmon77 7 years ago

*SPOILER ALERT*

I feel he should have continued to live happily ever after. This Im saying, NOT because I'm an SRK fan. Bit because, probably in doing so, the film would have have taken form of an anti-political propaganda(which I support).

I don't agree with that. Even though the writers tried to make Raees (character) as likable as they could by adding his "never hurt the innocent in your business" motto, Raees was still a criminal. And a hard core one. He was a bootlegger, smuggler, murderer and a powerful gang leader by the end. Everything he was building for his community was from his corrupt money. The Gujarat police had been looking for opportunities to "encounter" him to solve a lot of their problems. They had media and security pressure on them. Even putting a powerful man like him in jail wouldn't have solved anything, he would've still ran his business like they showed in the film. In the real world, Raees would've gotten away with his family because he wouldn't have come back for his "people". We have many real life examples of that.

[–] vinayakkumar 7 years ago

Would have loved to reply to your point, to point out that the statement is utterly myopic in the context to which Im referring. However now that IMDB boards are closing its doors to the public, its entirely nonchalant.