‘Friendship knows no bounds, they say. But how true is this for women? Are women free to choose their friends in a society governed by patriarchy? Can a woman prioritize her friends over her spouse without spurring any controversies?
Set in a small Rajasthani village, Parched shows the lives of three women, who while dealing with their problems never forget to lend support to their friends.
Like any group of friends, they present a united front. Seeking a similar goal, that of respect and equitable treatment. They boldly face their battles rather than running away from a challenging situation and find paths to succeed even in the toughest of circumstances.
Set in rural India the movie seems to portray the dark side of our society.
Bringing forth the stronghold that patriarchy enjoys, Parched beautiful presents the contradiction in society’s treatment of men and women. It attempts to unveil the true colors of a society where a man who is publically known to fornicate with multiple women is treated with the utmost respect, while a woman engaging in a similar act is labeled polluted and impure. A society that blames a wife for her husband’s indulgences, a mother for her son’s flaws, and a woman for a couple’s failure to reproduce.
Not only did Parched, fail to grasp much attention from the masses, it was also limited in India to just 100-150 theatres that too with only night shows due to its ‘unconventional theme’. While it garnered great acknowledgment abroad, it failed at the box office.
Thankfully, that was not the end of the journey for Parched, it was uploaded on several OTT platforms and ended up gaining a massive reception by a more accepting Indian audience all over the country.
OTT as a platform though, remains inaccessible to the majority, does that imply that only a small section is willing to acknowledge the presence of such disparities?
“Taught from infancy that beauty is woman’s Sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison.” Mary Wollstonecraft – Vindication of the Rights of Women.
Women have been voicing their need for equality since times unbeknownst. While the feminist movement has been successful in gaining momentum through the centuries and achieving equality on paper, there remains the dire need for a radical change in the physical world. Though we have successfully met the need for the right of property, vote, and education, still we lag far behind in the fields of equal pay and justice against domestic violence. It would not be far-fetched to say that women in the 21st century still face an overwhelming number of challenges despite the centuries-long battle.
We live in an era where a woman earning more than a man makes headlines and cricketers donning jerseys with their mother’s names becomes a head-turner. The roots of patriarchy are sown so deep within our minds that we often subconsciously end up normalizing acts of inequality. Just the other day I came across a woman sitting on a bench outside a neighboring society, her arms and neck covered with bruises and eyes filled with tears, a crowd had gathered to watch the damsel in distress narrate her unfortunate tale. As fate would have it, she had just been mugged by two men in broad daylight, ‘a man grappled her from behind, we thought he was her husband or relative and so abstained from interfering, we only realized what was going in when he ripped the chain off her neck and sped away on a waiting motorcycle ‘ a guard narrated, while a handful of kind-hearted people tended to her wounds and brought her water in a desperate attempt to calm her nerves. Shockingly though on being asked for an emergency contact number, the lady burst into tears, stating that her husband would kill her for having worn and lost such an expensive item. She chose instead to stay put for a little while and having gathered herself went home on her own, deciding to keep the incident a secret from her family.
It would be an understatement to say that it is shameful that we live in a society where women have to face such horrendous situations every day. It is almost funny how society stands as an innocent bystander until the harm is done and only then does it open its eyes. In these times when feminism has been diminished to a clichéd concept and the need for a protector reinstated, I doubt whether we have progressed at all. The plight of covid widows during these atrocious years has surely been another great eye-opener. While widows struggle to balance themselves on the tight ropes of society, facing eviction from houses they have inhabited since their marriage, merely days after losing their life-partners, widowers seem to have it all under control, not that their loss is in any way less harrowing, it’s the inhumane treatment meted out to ‘the second sex’ that is ghastly and appalling. It makes me wonder how far are the women of today from the infamous Bertha Mason in Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez is considered to be one of the best writers in the 20th century. Though his primal works did not garner much attention, it was with the publishing of ‘One Hundred Years Of Solitude’ that he gained immense popularity. The novel was translated into several languages and became a favorite among people. Marquez was awarded the Nobel prize in literature in 1982, becoming the fourth Latin-American to receive the honor. One Hundred Years Of Solitude is set in an imaginary, isolated town, Macondo whose history is said by many to be like that of Latin America. Marquez mixed these historical facts with instances of fantasy, a combination that is known as magical realism, and was frequently used by Marquez. As Greg Grandin wrote, Garcia Marquez “took the dependency theory (a social-science argument associated with the Latin American left that held that the prosperity of the First World depended on the impoverishment of the Third) and turned it into an art form.” Marquez’s invention of Macondo coincided with the period of decolonization and anti-imperialism not only in Latin America, but all over the world.
Garcia Marquez stated in an interview that, “One Hundred Years of Solitude can be read as an account of Latin American history, the story of the Buendia family is obviously a metaphor for the history of the continent since Independence, that is, for the neocolonial period.” The novel begins with the establishment of Macondo, by Jose Arcadio Buendia and Ursula, a couple who has fled from their village in Colombia. We can see Macondo as a biblical paradise at the beginning. The town is devoid of any contact with the outside world. Jose Arcadio, maintains the peace of the village, by ensuring that everyone has equal and enough resources, making it a totally happy and peaceful village, where no one has ever died and everyone is under the age of thirty. We can associate the prelapsarian Macondo, with the garden of Eden. This paradise is soon lost though, the first disturbance being the insomnia plague, brought by the gypsies, led by Melquiades. This plague can be seen as a comment on the annihilation of the Red Indians, which caused them the loss of their identity, culture, tradition, and heritage. Its ruthlessness can be seen as the people of Macondo start to forget everything, and have to put labels even on basic amenities to remember them.
Followed by Macondo’s destruction by the civil war. It begins with the appointment of Don Apolinar as the magistrate. He can be seen as a personification of the then present conservative government, he asks the villagers to paint their doors blue to celebrate national independence. It is with his arrival that the people of Macondo become aware of the boundary between conservative and liberals. Jose Arcadio requests him to leave the village alone as it does not require supervision, but just like the advent of the Spaniards disturbed the peaceful life of the Chibchas, the arrival of governmental machinery in Macondo marks the start of Macondo’s destruction. Colombia underwent a series of conflicts post independence, due to the tug of war for power between the liberals and conservatives. This led to the war of thousand days, referred to as La Violencia, this becomes a important historical background against which the Buendia family and Macondo are set. Colonel Aureliano Buendia doesn’t understand the difference between the two ideologies, he along with his leftist supporters wanders through Colombia, trying to revolt against the oppressive regime, he orders Arcadio to impose the order on Macondo. In doing so Arcadio ironically becomes cruel and callous, who is once even tempted to order the death of his aunt’s father, Don Apolinar. When Colonel Aureliano Buendia is ultimately caught and send to Macondo for execution he sees the houses covered with both red and blue paints and realizes that fighting for ideologies is moronic as ideologies cannot be defined in their own terms. The first cycle of invasion ends in the marriage of Don Apolinar’s daughter, Remedies Moscote to the son of Jose Arcadio and Ursula, Aureliano. Though the fight is going on in the outside world, the village is able to maintain it’s security.
The next wave of invasion comes as a result of the lust for knowledge and progress. The increasing communication with the outside world, which brings civilization and thus bringing the banana company. The exploitation carried out by the banana company personifies the capture of the Latin American markets by foreign investors, which at first creates an illusion of modernization and progress by creating job opportunities, as it strengthens its control on the country’s economy. Resulting in recession and the consequential increase in the prices of essential commodities, making life miserable for the common man. The power of this control by the invaders can be seen in the book when the entire livestock of Aureliano Segundo, dies due to heavy rain and the village believes that the rain was brought by the Banana company.
The entire banana company and its brutal method are modelled on the monstrosity of the United Fruit enclave, this cause was so central to Marquez that the very name of Macondo was derived from the word Bantu meaning banana. Marquez was annoyed by the company’s ability to eliminate brutalities from the minds of Colombians. By stating an exaggerated number of casualties, he wanted to unite the people of the country, and remind them of how they were butchered like cattle due to being divided. Marquez wanted to make Colombia the paradise that was found by Jose Arcadio by uniting the country against injustice, he was appalled to learn that the police sided with the oppressors rather than the countrymen, the history was manipulated to show this company as a benefactor of the country. He wanted to end the conspiracy of silence by bringing the facts to the forefront, as he shows through the ruthless killings of protestors by the Banana company, whose sole survivors Jose Arcadio Segundo and a small child are believed by no one except Arcadio’s nephew, Aureliano Babilona, who understands the connection between the massacre, it’s manipulation in the history and it’s resulting in the decline of Macondo.
Marquez believed that history often repeated itself, as progress seemed to be impossible without bloodshed. We see this in Macondo as a cyclic pattern continues, not only with the names of the children of the founder family but also in their circumstances. The first comment is made by Colonel Aureliano Segundo, who when he is sent for his execution, he sees Macondo and feels that in the discorded town, it still remains unclear as to which party progresses. Ursula notices a few years later how the Arcadio’s of the family lock themselves in Melquiades’s room, we see the confusion of days as Arcadio refuses to believe that the day has changed, because everything still looks the same. Further when Ursula starts to lose her eyesight, she easily moves around the house knowing exactly who is where in the house. This depicts the stagnation and repetition of time. Thus Gabriel presents a world that Jose Arcadio dreamed of as the city of mirrors, which becomes a reflection of the non-fictional world. While portraying all the evils he shows small incidents of magic, like the levitation of Remedios, and children born with pig tails, and while these events fail to arouse the attention of the people it is things like the arrival of the train that excites them and leads to their ultimate destruction by the strong winds. We can infer Gabriel’s message clearly from this destruction, it is this hunger for knowledge that led to man’s fall from paradise and it will be this same lust for progress that leads to our devastation.
Sources:
1. What’s Left of Macondo? In dissent magazine, by Ericka Beckman. 2. A lecture delivered, in part, in Liberal Studies 402 at Malaspina University College (now Vancouver Island University), by Ian Johnston. 3. Postcolonial Perspectives in Select Novels of Gabriel, by C. Dhanabal.
Charles Dickens is credited to have made some of the best-known fictional characters and is regarded as the best novelist of the Victorian-era by his readers. Karl Marx believed that Dickens “issued to the world more political and social truths than have been uttered by all the professional politicians, publicists, and moralists put together.” Dickens’s novels show the harsh realities of European society during the 19th century. Dickens illuminates how the idea of home instead of being a safe haven becomes a place haunted by the fear of the changes occurring in the public domain. In Bleak House, we see the inside of many houses that are caught up in the infamous Jarndyce and Jarndyce suit, which is leaves almost all these houses in shatter at the end. Dickens in his realistic style connects the pain and suffering of the residents of these houses through greed, corruption, disease, and death. Thus the small world inside the novel feels devoid of any joy.
Dickens used a unique dual-narrative strategy in the Bleak House. Joseph I. Fradin’s asserted that this method becomes “a metaphor of the divided modern consciousness,” and that the technique“carries the dialectic between self and society.” While one of the narrators is the protagonist of the novel, the other is third-person narration. Dickens has also cleverly divided the domains that each of these narrators describes, Esther, the protagonist, is confined to the personal domain and each time she ventures into the private domain some tragedy occurs, the third-person narrator, on the other hand gives us the details of the on goings in the public domain, which is largely composed of the Chancery court. While Esther’s narrative is full of moral connectedness and individuality, the third-person narrative is full of impersonal tones which are ironic, witty, urbane, and detached, sometimes even providing social criticism. The three areas that are crucial to the plot: the Chancery, the Aristocracy, and the urban poor, being public spheres come under the narration of third-person. By limiting Esther’s narration to the private sphere is seems like Dickens is showing how the women remain confined to the inner sphere and through the examples of, Mrs. Jellyby who being a telescopic philanthropic prioritizes Africa over her family and drifts away from her household responsibilities, and, Mrs. Pardiggle who though shelters the urban poor children, completely fails in understanding their needs and instead focuses all her attention on the projects beyond British shores, is commenting on the troubles that result from the mingling of the private with the public. This can also be seen as a comment on the baffled priorities of England. The rotting imagery of the public sector, which is infested to its roots with evils like corruption, indicates the lack of interest of the representatives of the country as they focus all their attention on their concerns beyond the shore of England.
Bleak house is full of imagery. From the opening chapter itself we see the use of symbolic references to the Chancery through images of mud and stagnant floodwater and most importantly the fog, which is so dense that it engulfs everything, these can be associated both to the continuous fear and confusion of the private domain, and the corrupt and contaminating environment of the Chancery, which represents the public domain. We see another hidden symbolism in the use of disease. A disease sees no social hierarchies, and can easily spread from the urbane poor to the middle class, as it does in the book. It is carried by Jo from Tom’s -AllAlone (a property under the Jarndyce suit) and strikes Esther and Charlie, wards of Jarndyce suit, penetrating the safe heaven of the private sphere. Jo who in the first place got this infection as a result of the poor treatment at the ends of the protectors of the Jarndyce suit enters their own private sphere, thus the public actions ends up in snatching the private luxury of the characters. Cholera had stuck London in 1848-1849 and was to return in 1854 as a result of which Bleak House is seen as prophetic by some, who say that “the book transcends its literal meaning without ever rendering its realistic meaning redundant.”
We see how the two lawyers involved in the Jarndyce and Jarndyce Suit, who are a strong figure in the private domain, are symbolically shown as peace-sucking devils, Mr. Tulkinghorn is shown as a symbol of death, he’s always said to be wearing dark clothes that never shine. He drives Mrs. Dedlock into such a state of helplessness that she finds it fit only to murder him and run away until she meets her demise. Mr. Vholes, on the other hand, comes across as a social cannibal who feeds off of people like Richard, despite knowing their poor and destitute state, driving them to an early grave. Another way of showing the downtrodden state of the public sphere is the direct comparison of Mr. Krook’s shop to the Chancery. The shop is littered with piles of parchment, mounds of rags, and an atmosphere of decay and death, this shop is named as Chancery by the neighbors. Krook himself is addressed to as the lord of Chancery, to which he takes no offence but rather agrees thinking that the court must be full of similar filth. Miss Flite who rents a at Krook’s house, is yet another symbol of death and decay. She, like her ancestors visits the court every day in the hope that a verdict would be passed on her case, her helpless situation is emphasized by the names of her birds, which symbolize the downward course in the life of people imprisoned by the Chancery proceedings.
Though efforts are made both by the public (money) and private (love) to maintain their own independence, they fail miserably as each is essential for the maintenance of the other. So while Richard and Ada’s love for each other maybe undying, Richard’s thirst for money and independence drag him away from the comfort of the private to the monstrous public domain, and thus to an early grave. As a result of the callous nature of the Chancery we are left with a fatherless child of Ada and Richard, deaf and dumb child of Caddy and Prince Turveydrop, and the lost childhood of the grandchildren of Mr. Smallweed, who is so obsessed with making profit out of the Jarndyce case that he completely overlooks them.
Hawthorne says “A system which destroys families is run by people who belong to unhappy families themselves: the system reproduces itself by means of miseries it creates.” Mr. Leicester an aristocrat sanctions corruption rather than reforming the corrupted institution, for that, would result in the rise of lower-class people. Thus we see the aristocratic and the political structure backing each other up, this results in the same moral deadness that prevails in the Chancery. The internal rottenness of the Dedlock estate and the external infection by the weather connects it to the fruitless philosophies of the Chancery. The Chesney Wold, with its lack of an heir, thus becomes an image of the Chancery which are both devoid of a future. Just as a biological parasite weakens and destroys its host, the parasitical corruption of a national institution eventually weakens and destroys the rest of the society, resulting in destruction and peace of not only the urbane people but even the perpetrators, as along with people like Jo we also see powerful figures like Lady Dedlock lying dead on a pauper’s burial in a brick maker’s wife’s dress. Thus the only person who is able to remain unaffected is Mr. Bucket, a detective, who draws a clear demarcation for himself between the private and the public, and refuse to mingle the two. Being an excellent judge of people’s characters he is able to manipulate both the public and the private domains in a way that no innocent suffers. Thus showing a heroic resolve, that all the other characters lack.
Sources: 1. Daleski, H.M. “Bleak House.” In Critical Essays on Charles Dickens’ Bleak House.
Shakespeare is today widely acknowledged as the best playwright in English literature. He has won more acclaim than any other writer in history. Yet what remains ambiguous is his stand on the various issues that he was addressing. During his times, England was ruled by a strict Christian and patriarchal culture, against which it was almost impossible to protest, and so while Shakespeare’s works illuminate the ills of the society, we can only guess whether he upheld these norms or protested against them silently. Whatever his stance might have been, his works give us a picture of the oppression that existed in society. In one of his most famous comedy, Midsummer night’s dreams, written in the 16th century and set in ancient Greece, we are introduced to the brutal dominance of patriarchy. This play is rich in its binaries of patriarchy as opposed to matriarchy.
While ancient Greece was admired for its equality, it would be quite wrong to think that this equality extended to the women. Freedom was only meant for the men of the high-class, who dictated and manipulated the laws of the society to their benefit. As said by Eales, “in early modern England, male dominance was reinforced through a fully articulated political theory of patriarchy in which the function of men as heads of households and as fathers was believed to be analogous to the role of the monarch.”, through this statement, we can deduce that the condition of Shakespeare’s England was not very different from that of ancient Greece.
In the first scene of the play we come across Theseus waiting anxiously for the day of his marriage to arrive, he boasts that he has won Hippolyta by his sword. Theseus and Hippolyta are prominent figures in the Greek mythology, Theseus was said to be a great warrior who kidnapped the Amazonian queen Hippolyta, married her and then abandoned her. Hippolyta to avenge the wrong done to her attacks Theseus with her army of Amazonian warriors, Theseus defeats the army and treats Hippolyta as a trophy. In the play, Theseus’s anxiety to marry Hippolyta can be seen as his need to assert his dominance over her. Theseus’s claim that the punishment for non-obligation of a father’s wish will either result in death or a life as a celibate when Egeus seeks his verdict as Hermia refuses to marry the man of his choosing, seems to indicate the fate that might be meted out to Hippolyta if she tries to escape marrying Theseus.
Theseus’s anxiety about securing dominance is more obvious in their fairy counterparts Oberon and Titania, they too derive their names from popular Greek heroes, though Oberon refers to as a fairy king in renaissance literature, it was associated with a demon in the 15th and 16th century. Titania derives her name from Diana, the virgin goddess, archer, and goddess of the moon. These characters might have been influenced the Ovid’s metamorphosis, thus explaining their marital troubles. In the play, Oberon demands. As Hendricks points out, “Titania’s unwillingness to give the boy to Oberon may, therefore, be more than an example of maternal feelings; it may also echo the […] woman’s challenge to […] patriarchal assumptions about control of the female body” that Titania gives him custody of the Indian boy. While the father was believed to have the rightful authority on the child, and the mother was unable to display her maternal affection, the Indian boy in this scenario, is not Titania and Oberon’s son and so just like Theseus, Oberon wants the custody of the boy to show his dominance. . Titania can be seen to put up a fight, which can be seen as her attempt to establish her matriarchal beliefs, she ultimately has to surrender, and give the boy to Oberon.
Children are a symbol of innocence and vulnerability, and so Titania’s desire to protect her friend’s son can also be seen as her way of protecting these traits. Also as Goddard said, “In scalping patriarchal control, and, in a sense, creating a child together without male involvement, the women have also escaped patriarchal valuation.” Tatiana’s urge to protect the child can also be seen mirrored in Hippolyta’s opposition to her own impending marriage, Hippolyta’s fear of losing her independence is quite similar to Titania’s virtue in her hesitation to hand over the boy. While Hippolyta argues, Tatiana keeps silent as a mark of protest and rejection of male dominance. Sadly while both are fighting to preserve virtue, in a patriarchal world, virtue is not something that women can choose to give away. Thus while Tatiana is punished by marring Theseus, Hippolyta is tricked into sleeping with bottom, and though it seems like she is in control during that scenario when the effect of the potion ends she is quick to reconcile with Oberon and adhere to his desires.
In a contrast to these two women, we see Helena and Hermia, who refuse to comply with patriarchal norms and device strategies to live as they desire. While Hermia is portrayed as the ideal beautiful woman, with rosy cheeks, Helena’s pale cheeks seem to make her undesirable. This shows us the stereotyping of women, who are already subjugated in the patriarchal system. While as Simone-de-Beauvoir correctly asserts that marriage was not between the woman and the groom, but the bride’s father and the son-in-law as the girl is just a property of the father, Hermia refuses to give in to this system and plans to elope with Lysander. They may have succeeded had Helena, not back-stabbed Hermia and made Demetrius follow the eloped couple. Demetrius, who was once engaged to Helena, is still adored by her, and who gave her up for Hermit is tried to be wooed and won back by Helena by showing him that she remains loyal and faithful to him. Thus not only Hermia but Helena too strategies to attain her love. So, in a society where all the positive traits of the children are accredited to the father and the father is supposed to be like God both Helena and Hermia show intellectual resolve and try to write their own destiny, and are ultimately able to marry the man they choose. Though it is startling that a father would go to the extend of punishing his child with death on non-obligation with his desires, the resolve of Hermia to break free of this patriarchal set up is commendable.
At the end of the play, we see Hippolyta taking a stand for the two couples, this can be seen as her way of conveying to the younger generation the necessity to fight back. We also see how all the men are reduced to an ass like images, literally in Bottom and metaphorically in Oberon and Egeus who are blind in their desire for dominance and also in Lysander and Demetrius, while they are perusing Helena under the influence of pansy potion. Ultimately by showing the story of Thisbe and Pyramus, from the Ovid being acted at the wedding of Hippolyta and Theseus, Shakespeare draws uncanny parallels to the madness of Lysander and Demetrius’s eagerness to kill each other in order to win Hermia. It seems as if Shakespeare is trying to ask the woman to beware of the men and stay cautious. We can also presume that by establishing the contrast in the couples Shakespeare was expressing a hope that in the future women will be more independent, assertive, and smart like Helena and Hermia.
Sources:
Jacqueline Eales – Women in Early Modern England, 1500-1700
The Figure of the Changeling: Gender Conflict in A Midsummer Night s Dream., by Dr. Jordi Coral Escolà
They walked together, towards the horizon watching the sunset maybe for the last time. The moment was forever etched in their memories, the future lay ahead, as mysterious as it could be, but the present seemed perfect. They hoped that the day would never come to a close, but as the sun set they knew it was time to part, for good or for bad only time will tell. Maybe the next time they’d share a cup of tea, the sun would fail to set and a never ending summer would finally arrive. But who knows what future held in store. Hope kept the spark alive within her, a hope of a better tomorrow, a hope of a fresh beginning.
At crossroads they stood, their paths divided yet the hearts united, and that was enough for now. As they embraced for the last time, she hid her tears and tried to immortalise the feeling of his arms around her, she inhaled deeply and let that familiar fragrance fill up her insides, in heart of her hearts, she hoped, hoped that this autumn would soon give way to spring and the happiness that she felt in this very moment would engulf them for a lifetime.
Maybe someday the two roads would lead to the same destination, someday when the fog that stood before them now would be lifted and the sun would show brightly and fill them up with happiness as it had once before. Someday, the obstacles that stood in front of them today would move aside and they’d be ready to proclaim their love again. Maybe, in the future if not in the present, she wished, as she turned around and let go of his hand to walk towards what seemed to be a path full of thorns.
“We rip out so much of ourselves to be cured of things faster than we should that we go bankrupt by the age of 30 and have less to offer each time we start with someone new, but to feel nothing so as not to feel anything – what a waste!”
These are the wise words of consolation spoken by a father while talking to his 17 year old son, who has just undergone his 1st heartbreak. This comes with a cultural shock but what caught the attention of audience worldwide is the fact that the lover is not only 7 years older, but is also a ‘man’.
Call me by your name, a critically acclaimed movie directed by Luca Guadagnino is an adaptation of Andre Aciman’s novel, by the same name. It was not until a decade after the book’s release that it was taken up for adaptation. While the reason for this time lapse is arguable, I feel that it was necessary to release a movie with such a powerful message only when the audience could accept and understand this message. It is a story of passion, love, acceptance and above all of self-discovery. Set in 1983 in a small town in Italy, both the book and the movie bring forth stereotypical topics that have the capability of making the viewer/reader quite uncomfortable, yet the presentation is such that gay love seems so natural and beautiful that we are left enamoured and spellbound by the bond shared by the two protagonists. Those who oppose the LGBT movement always say that gay and lesbian love is against the norms of nature, yet the stark presence of nature in both the movie and the novel seems to shout the message that love is the essence of life, and it should be allowed to flow in an unrestricted manner.
While a lot of dialogues and scenes are retained as they were in the novel, certain others are considerably changed. One thing that remains constant though is the complete intoxicating effect Oliver has on Elio right from his arrival as a summer resident. The camera beautifully captures the expressions of Elio as he is completely awestruck by Oliver and is unable to take his eyes off the man who has usurped his room, be it at the breakfast table, the volleyball ground or the library, Elio’s gaze follows Oliver and he roams about irritated when Oliver goes out of house. He seems to be intimidated by the confidence of Oliver and he can’t help but notice the pendant worn by him, which is a proclamation of his Jewish identity, something that Elio wouldn’t dare do in the post world war scenario.
Two of the major differences are the beginning and the ending scenes of the movie. While the movie starts in Elio’s room where Elio and Marzia are clearing things up to make space for Oliver, the book starts with Elio going to receive Oliver and being completely astounded by Oliver’s harsh way of saying ‘later’. This can be the directors way of indicating that Elio gained sexual interest in men only with the arrival of Oliver. The ending of the movie too is starkly different from the novel, as the two protagonists stay in touch in the book, the movie just makes the separation more tragic by the lack of words in their last moment together, while the audience is all prepared to hear Oliver’s later, he doesn’t say anything at all, maybe because he knows that saying later would be making an unfulfillable promise. Yet it is the very last scene, after Elio becomes aware of the impending marriage of Oliver, that the audience feels like weeping with Elio, as the camera captures his tears while he is sitting in front of the fire place which becomes a metaphor for the sorrow that is engulfing him.
Vimini who is the next door neighbour of Elio and ends up sharing a deep bond of friendship with Oliver is completely left out in the movie. The presence of Chiara, Oliver’s female love interest is also reduced to a great extent, probably because the director wanted to portray Elio as the sole love interest of Oliver. While the two share a common balcony in the novel the movie adds a common bathroom to increase the physicality. Bathroom which is a place of rejuvenation becomes a means to peep into each others lives. It is in the bathroom that Elio sees the 3 swimsuits of Oliver, one of which he caresses and puts on later to feel the presence of Oliver. The colours of the swimsuits too become metaphors for nature and love, while red symbolises passionate fire of love, yellow, green and blue are colours that surround us (sky, earth, water) can be seen as symbol of tender love. Another very prominent and one of the most crucial change is the inclusion of the storyline of the Gay uncles, who come over for dinner. While Oliver’s denial to wear a shirt gifted by them seems like an unconscious act to hide his own sexual inclinations, the parents respect and acceptance of this couple shows that the society too accepts such a relation. Andre Aciman’s cameo appearance one of the uncle, shows that the author too embraces this addition.
The movie and novel are also rich in symbolism and imageries, the most prominent one being the peach imagery. Peaches represent the male genitals and Elio can be see gaining sexual pleasure through the use of the fruit. This fruit of Elio’s passion is eaten by Oliver in the book, while in the movie Elio stops Oliver from doing so. Another very crucial reference that both the movie and novel use is that of the Greek mythology, it is present in Elio’s very namesake, which is derived from the Helio the Greek god of sun, whose bust is found in the movie. While in the book the two protagonists talk vastly about Greek hero’s. Greece civilisation was the first to break gender binaries in love and accept same sex love, as can be seen in Achilles and Patroclus’s story in Iliad. Thus lending morality to the story.
The weather is another major symbol used, as rain occurs twice in the movie, both at the time of Elio’s depression, while it is always sunny when Oliver and Elio are together. The director also uses a unique way to show that Oliver is not at home through the absence of one of the cycles. The notepad which Elio scribbles is another innovative way of conveying his thoughts, he scribbles that when he told Oliver that he thinks he doesn’t like his music, he actually meant was that he felt that Oliver doesn’t like him.
The fading out of the lights as Elio’s mother is narrating the story of the Knight who doesn’t know whether it is better to speak or die show the confusion and inner conflict Elio is going through, as he says that “I’ll never have the courage to ask.” When Elio narrates this episode to Oliver, it’s Oliver whom the camera focuses on, despite Elio being the speaker, this shows that the words are indicated towards Oliver, Oliver’s expression too convey that he knows what Elio is trying to say. In the scene where the couple is seen to kiss in a Rome while leaning against the wall, the director does a similar thing by focusing the wall instead of the two lovers which can be a way of adding universality. It seems to be the directors way of saying that they could be any two individuals, what is important is not their age or gender or colour but their love and passion. Yet another brilliant camera technique to portray imagery of love is when after having told Oliver his true feelings, Elio and Oliver cycle towards home, the camera remains still even after the two have gone and we see tall grass on either side of the road, it looks as if the protagonists are travelling the road not taken as very soon after that they share an intimate moment and kiss each other out of love.
As Elio says in the book “We belonged to each other, but had lived so far apart that we belonged to others now.” The journey of the two lovers end with the end of that summer, just like Elio’s father Oliver too ends up marrying a woman rather than confronting the society. Yet this tale leaves us astounded as without even once saying I love you to each other the couple says it all through their actions. Yes they think differently due to their age gap, while Elio doesn’t care about tomorrow and lives in the present, Oliver mourns the coming separation, he replays in his mind their moments together, yet their love is deep and unbroken by time. Both the movie and the novel thus stand in strong support of love, free from all sorts of boundaries.
Still a kid I was, when I went around the world for the 1st time… Sitting in a tiny corner of my room I could see clearly the endless daffodils swaying in the fields all around me. I could feel the wonders of the world unwrap in front of my eyes… It felt like magic, all I did was turn pages and I had already see half the world! It felt as if the secrets of the universe lay naked in front of me… It was a feeling of surprise and aww for a me as a child to discover things I could had only imagined. If was like being gifted a 2nd pair of eyes, a pair of eyes that could make me see the entire world without moving even an inch from my seat. It was the most mystical feeling in the world… The feeling of eureka!
I turned page after page and reached the last. The book was over but the story lived all around me. I had discovered new world, a fictional world, but the most beautiful one! There was no stop now, to this newly discovered infatuation with stories. They became my most prized possession. I read and read one book after the other, I was surrounded by a world of ideas, a world full of freedom, innocence and Enlightenment. It became a hobby first and a passion next.
People all around me went on world tours, I went on tours of pages… Be it hogwarts or the seven Kingdoms, the victorian courts or the Elizabethan, I had seen all the wonders which no flight but that of mind could take one to. I had experienced them all, I had undertaken a travel, definitly not a one, but an intellectual one nonetheless. It is but one thing to visit and another to see, I had seen it all with the eyes of the mind, nothing lies beyond these intellectual eyes be it deep under water or outside the universe I had travelled through it all!
I came across once the beautiful description of paradise, the dwelling of God and his angles it is said to be, no doubt it was the most superior rung of the ladder, a place untouched by human hands and unseen by mortal eyes, yet it lacked something. It was the most mystical place, no doubt, yet it was incomplete. I realised then that paradise would always mean a universe of books to me, because heaven after all is another name for peace and knowledge and through the millions of pages, man could see and learn it all, it could quench the thirst for knowledge by flipping through the Greek empires and the Roman one’s, the war of troy or that of ramayana and mahabharata. Man could learn about the fall of Adam and the birth of Christ and after he had read it all, he’ll find the eternal peace, man will find the heaven he’s searched for through the ages… Paradise was no more unattainable!
‘Who am I?’ ‘What am I here for?’ ‘What is the purpose of my being?’ Are some of the most intriguing and unanswerable questions posed before man. The quest for self discovery is the longest journey one can undertake. Junction, directed by Sandeep Rawat is an adaptation of Manav Kaul’s Aisa kehte hai staged by Samarth Theatre group (on 30th March 2019, in Akshara Theater), beautifully emphasizes the dilemma of life. As the name suggest, the play presents a point where various stories seem to overlap for an instinct, and then diverge further in their own directions.
While on the one hand it seems to be a simple and mesmerizing story of a boy’s undying love for a girl, yet at looking closely we see how essential it becomes to find an answer to these questions. The setting of the play at a railway station gives a deeper meaning to the metaphorical junction that the characters are at. It is a story of boy’s eternal love for a girl and their friendship, that is based solely on the web of stories narrated by the boy. It is through one such story that we come to know how the girl has become the spark in the boy’s life. The story which the boy tells is a metaphorical representation of his own self and the incompleteness that prevails in his life without the girl. It shows his desire to break through societal stereotypes and his need to recognize his own self. He says towards the end that it is no one else but the girl who can and has now lead to the self – discovery of the boy.
Sam, the protagonist of the play, enacted by Bhavya Rampal, is a man of merit. He’s a typical ‘Sharma ji ka beta’ who becomes an example for all the other boys. He seems to have been a decent student, who is now well settled in a government job. A life like his is all that someone aspires. What then can possibly be wrong in the life of such a man? As the play unfolds we see that his happiness lies in narrating stories to Kaya, played by Vishaka Tyagi, who has been his center of attraction right from childhood, and to whom Sam gives the credit of keeping his passion alive. Kaya on one hand appears to be highly motivated and enthusiastic person, ready to undertake the journey of life while Sam seems to be someone who desires a simplistic existence. The victory of their love lies though, not in any compromise but in Sam’s realization that, change is the only constant. He realizes that living without Kaya would be a mere existence, he finds that the essence which has been missing from his life is nothing but his desire to narrate endless stories to Kaya.
While Sam undergoes a metaphorical death in kaya’s absence, Ashish is on the brink of a real one, he seems to be a metaphorical representation of Sam. It seems as if through this story Sam is not telling someone else’s but his own story. Ashish is on the edge of committing suicide, tore between duty and passion Ashish, played by Fanush Saini, feels that death is an ultimate escape from the vicious circle of life. His suffering results from his perceived inability to perform his duty as a son, a husband, a brother and so on. He has lost the motivation to go on repeating the same routine day after day, he has reached the conclusion that the two batteries, which signify strength, motivation and passion, that he has been looking for lie somewhere beyond his reach. It is not until he is at the brink of death, that he realises the greatness of life and embraces the solace he finds in narrating his stories to Saleem, played by Rishab Saini, who has ironically been tutoring Ashish on how best to jump on the railway track for a quick and painless death. We see thus a rebirth of Ashish, who is free of the burdens of life. He finally understands the meaning of ‘living each day as your last.’
‘It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends.’ goes the saying by Dumbledore, we see display of such courage by Aman bajpai, who plays the role of a crow in a group of pigeons. While the songs of the pigeons provide an excellent and innovative chorus, it plays a very crucial role by breaking the binaries of racial discrimination on one level, and emphasising the importance of individuality on the other. The crow’s need to find his true identity is the driving force that keeps him going. While the various dialects spoken by the pigeons show how easily man is influenced by his surroundings, the unquenchable thirst of the crow for self identification emphasis that a life robbed of identity is a mere existence and thus a source of constant suffering. It is only because of the wise words of the old pigeon that the crow realises that happiness lies not in denying your own identity to become someone else but by indulging in self exploration. The crow finally embraces his reality and gains the same peace that Sam gains when he is with Kaya.
Various other subplots run throughout the play, like that of two children who have escaped from circus and are planning to steal a lion, played by Manasvi Rawat and Dheeraj Singh Martolia, Banti and Chotu introduce the strive for freedom in a very innocent way, it is accompanied by a lot of comedy which breaks through the seriousness of the play while also giving a glimpse of the struggle that not only adults but children too undergo. The strive for freedom by these two children is not very different from Sam’s desire for a freedom from his psychological boundaries. The role of Hawaldaar Ishvar played by Raj, the Chaiwala played by Manish Kumar the T. T played by Anop Sengar and the impossible to miss beggar played by Saanvari Kapoor adds the required salt to the play, while also presenting the life of the people who keep on existing without bothering about questions of self-discovery. They portray the set of people who are following the crowd and are completely comfortable in their present scenario.
The group of Samarth consists of brilliant artists who are multi-talented, they don’t only act well but are also mesmerizing singers and musicians. Even though the play consists of long scenes which solely includes a conversation between the two main protagonists, the audience seemed to be completely immersed in it. The play takes us on philosophical journey, it engages the audience so deeply that they can’t take their eyes off the protagonists. The completeness of the setting is very beautiful as the director has been able to skilfully bring to life an actual railway station on the stage, despite the limited space. The waiting passengers, the ear-phone seller, the Chaiwala, the beggar and even the announcements for the upcoming trains makes us experience hustle-bustle of the railway station. It makes audience feel that they were not outsiders but a part of this beautiful journey. Yet according to me the biggest success of the play lies in it’s power of compelling us to look within ourselves and realise the junction we are standing at in our respective lives. It teaches us at the same time that no matter how big the situation seems, it surely has a solution. It tells us that though we are all destined for something, yet if we follow the voice of our conscious we can live a blissful life amidst the chaos of Earth.
The show was no doubt a house full. It has been one of the inspirational play for me and a great experience with a ticket of merely Rs.250/-.
To get to know more about Samarth check out their Website and Facebook handle : https://www.samarththeatregroup.com https://www.facebook.com/samarthhaihum/
Friendship knows no bounds, how true is this statement for women though? Are women free to even choose their friends in this society, which is ruled by the norms of patriarchy? Can a woman priorities her friends over her spouse without spurring any controversies? This is one of the various questions addressed in Parched. Set in a small Rajasthani village, it shows the life of the three women, who aren’t only dealing with their own problems but are also a constant support to each other. Despite leading three drastically different lives they never turn down their friends in the hour of need, their lies no sense of insecurity or competition among these 3 protagonists. They are non-judgemental and fight the challenges thrown at them rather than cribbing or running away and never fail in emerging victorious. The lives shown in this movie are a very realistic mirror to the society. It shows that not only men but women too become propagators of this patriarchal mind-set and hold the women responsible for all the problems they encounter. If a man goes to a courtesan it is the wife’s inability to satisfy her husband, if a couple can’t produce a child the woman is termed barren and if a boy misbehaves the mother is always held responsible. Not devoid of loving and understanding men like Krishna, the movie however shows the deeply embedded stereotypical mind-set is still prevalent in the 21st century rural India. It portrays the reality of a society where a man who is openly known to sleep with multiple women is not only accepted but also respected, while a woman engaging in a similar act is labelled as polluted and impure. The suffering of a widow, with an adult son, who has no sense of right and wrong and repeatedly abuses his mother and wife, show us how deeply the concept of male dominance has been crammed in the mind of the boy since his very childhood, it shows us the result of the devastating effect of uncensored freedom to boys, and the result of a bad company. This might be a story for some it is though the reality of the rural India. The movie also beautifully demonstrates the woes of a prostitute Bijli who with age is losing her charm and thus losing demand. It shows how the life of prostitute unfolds, how her entrance in a public sphere creates a laughing stock of her friends. We are made to question whether it is the professional aspect that should decide which two people can be friends and which can’t. The forever looming thought of Rani that “log kya kahenge?” that is what will people say? Is not a concept alien to the Indian audience, rather is a rhetorical question in itself. The movie exhibits the effect of a brutal and beastly husband on a free spirited and fun loving lady, Lajjo, who for protecting her marriage and normalising her family life goes to the extend of having sex with another man so that she can bear a child. Even then she fails in pleasing her husband who knows that the child is not his own. The accidental killing of Lajjo’s husband by Rani and herself symbolise that the sufferings can’t end until the propagation of such mentality is brought to a halt. The OTT network has empowered the directors and makers to raise such tabooed questions today. Lipstick Under My Burkha a widely acclaimed movie when tried to ask similar questions on the big screen, faced a lot of backlash, not only by the audience after it’s release but with the mere birth of the idea. Alankrita Shrivastava the director of the movie said in an interview that the movie was denied release by the CBFC-the Central Board of Film Certification because of “contagious sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography and a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of the society.” This shows us the narrow mentality of the society who are unable to accept these questions forget about solving them. The resistance faced by the fields of education and development are the most prominent example of the narrow mind-set of this society, where Lajjo isn’t allowed to work, and Rani’s books are snatched away from her, the wife of Krishna is harshly criticised due to her high level of education. So much so are these thought spread in the society and so deeply are they embedded in the society that even Rani becomes a victim and denies education to her daughter in law, Janaki, though she ends up breaking free from this shackle and frees Janaki of her husband and the domination of the patriarchal society preventing thus another generation from facing the troubles that she has. It thus shows that the only way this patriarchal set up is by supporting each other, a united women force can easily defeat the subjugating male power and break the power hierarchy, and thus create a better world for the women to come.
Philosopher's corner 