MovieChat Forums > Pink (2016) Discussion > Rubbish...

Rubbish...

posted 7 years ago by neobandara
2 replies | jump to latest

Based on ratings, I’m not sure if I saw the correct movie….

(Quotes based on English subtitles)

A.Clients’ stories vs. lawyer’s attack.

Raunak Anand’s story – girl went into room with him, tried to molest him, he refused, DID NOT PAY.

Rajvir Singh’s story - girl was alone with him in a room, tried to seduce him and asked for money, he refused, DID NOT PAY. Girl was pissed and threatened to cry rape and later assaulted him.

What the lawyer tried to establish – “You did! You did take money! Of course you did. None of this would've happened if you hadn't. You could've all gone your separate ways. You're trying to defame innocent and decent boys.” (to Falak Ali)

In the end, Falak Ali “accepted” that they took money and claimed that Minal changed her mind after taking the money.

Who the hell wrote this script? What money?? The boys clearly said they did not pay. So what the hell is their lawyer talking about? His statement “You took money” effectively ruins the story he already established. Falak Ali “accepting” that they took money (and no cross questioning) again ruins his story.

So either the lawyer was high or the dude who wrote the script is an idiot.

B. “The court finds Rajvir Singh guilty under section 354 of outraging a woman's modesty.”

Which court? This one in the movie was “State Vs. Minal Arora” and she was found not guilty. That’s fine, we understand that.

When was Rajvir Singh charged with “section 354”? Which police investigated? Was the charges explained to him? Did he plead guilty/not guilty?

Don’t get me wrong, court choosing to believe Minal’s story over Singh’s story is acceptable. But what happened to the due procedures? The movie clearly wants us to take law seriously. So why make a joke out of the law?

C. “Ankit Malhotra and Raunak Anand under 340... and the IT act.”

Are you serious?? Who made those charges? Who investigated them? And didn’t Deepak clearly say “Ankit Malhotra and Raunak Anand along with two of their friends” did it? So two other people were involved. What happened to those two? Police couldn’t find them (was the police even involved?)? Maybe the “State” decided to hold a separate trial for those two?

Seriously, what a crazy movie!

And even if there was an investigation, how exactly can those charges be proven? The only witness is Deepak who has a frail mind and won’t do well on the stand. He never saw the number plate or anything linking Minal and those 4 people. No police ever found any evidence about her kidnapping. You can’t even prove that she was kidnapped. You can’t prove what happened inside the van. Her word against theirs, that’s all it is. Shouldn’t any criminal case be proven without any reasonable doubt?

According to this movie, when a court decides to believe someone’s story, it goes all the way, accepts everything he/she says and charges whomever it wants based on hearsay evidence and find them guilty without any due procedure.

This whole thing could have been improved with some good writing.

Ex – Consistency between state lawyer’s story and his questioning, court ordering police to investigate BOTH Rajvir Singh and Anand under 354 (may or may not proven guilty). Court ordering police to investigate the incident of backdate police entry, Police investigation into kidnapping (4 suspects, not 2) etc.

[–] SPyWorks 7 years ago

I liked the movie but you have some good points here. BUt here's what I got

A.Clients’ stories vs. lawyer’s attack.
I agree with you on this totally. nice catch

B. “The court finds Rajvir Singh guilty under section 354 of outraging a woman's modesty.”
C. “Ankit Malhotra and Raunak Anand under 340... and the IT act.”
This was mentioned at the beginning when they were announcing the whole thing in court but yes I was waiting for those guys to be questioned. They never showed anything and randomly decided the verdict.

I think they were focusing more on the commentary than the entire case. It would have been better if they had fleshed things out a bit

[–] BlackOpsBaby 7 years ago

Nice Observations .

A.Clients’ stories vs. lawyer’s attack.
Here the lawyer wants to establish two things

1.The girls were prostitutes who tried to Extort money from his clients to which they DID NOT PAY in response to which one of the girls ,Minal tried to make a scene by claiming rape and assaulted him .

2.A.To make the above statement believable he tries to portray the girls in poor light.Hence he tries to prove the girls are prostitutes by suggesting they "Take Money".Even though it made no sense like you said but seeing it as he wanted to portray them in poor light he says that.

2.B.Realizing that the sole intent of the lawyer was just show them as prostitutes Falak goes in an outburst and says that she/they did take money to scotch the argument and shifts the focus to CONSENT and says that Minal didnt give consent and that by law is still an offence irrespective.She want to highlight that it was against Minal's CONSENT .

But here a new problem starts that .By accepting to have taken money prostitution comes into play .Prostitution is legal in India , but what she takes money and denies service ?Then if she has done that is Section 17 "FRUAD" applicable ?

For the sake of the movie we have to ignore such points and just see that she wanted to bring back the focus on the fact that it was against Minal's will

B.You are right . Guess like SPyWorks said maybe they wanted to focus more on the commentary and wanted us to stitch those ourselves .But singh's Excited utterance at the end can be seen as evidence in the court of law for section 354 .

C.Completely right .Yes it could be improved .Maybe that's why we have a large number of cases where men are falsely accused .The cry for providing a safeguard against misuse of such laws is unfortunately going to deaf ears .