Review : Shakti

Loosely inspired by the English film “Not wthout my daughter” and a remake of a south-Indian film, Shakti is the story of one woman’s strength. The film is unusual in that the protagoinist is a woman, fighting her personal battle against patriarchial society. It is also unusually violent, to the point of goriness, and brings home to the viewer the sheer animal-like violence in the village where the action ensues.Karisma Kapoor is Nandini, an orphan living in Canadian with her restaurant-owning uncles (Jaspal Bhatti and Tiku Talsania). The uncles provide the comic relief, while the orphan niece romances her living-in-Canada friend Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), and marries him. Nandini and Shekhar later also have a son, Raja (Jai Gidwani). Their idyllic life is soon to be shattered however, and the bad news comes via that king of the media-waves, the television.

On TV, Shekhar sees the news of riots and bloody fighting in parts of Rajasthan, and appears extremely worried and tense. Apparently he has family there and is very worried about them (especially his mother). When he and his family finally visit India, Nandini is shocked by the violent and regressive atmosphere she is introduced into.

Shekhar’s parents live in a village, in a feudal like atmosphere, where his father Narasimha (Nana Patekar) is uncrowned king. Narasimha is invoved in violent guerilla war-fare with his rival Beecha (Vijay Raaz). The men of his (Narasimha’s) family and their cronies have apparently perfected patriarchy, violence, and the abuse of women to a fine art, and regard Shekhar a sissy when he refuses to partake of the same imbecility. While Shekhar’s father taunts Shekhar for his “unmanly” aversion to violence, and Karisma on her “modern” attire, Shekhar’s mother (Deepti Naval) tries to welcome them with love and kindness. Highly uncomfortable in her feudal surroundngs, Karisma pushes for a return to Canada, but is beseeched again and again by Shekhar’s mother to stay, just a little while longer.

It seems they have stayed a little too long, when Shekhar is killed by his father’s enemies. Nandini, grief-stricken, resolves to return immediately, but her plans are foiled by Narasimha, who is unwilling to let go his only heir, her son. Free to go without her son, Nandini stays rooted and wages a heroic battle against Narasimha’s starkly brutal ways to get back her child. Does she succeed ? …..

This in an engrossing, fast-paced, film. Shahrukh Khan plays a small-role of a good-hearted drunkard, who helps Karisma, and he and Aishwarya dance to the requisite “item” number “Ishq Kamina”. Karisma, Nana Patekar and Deepti Naval deliver excellent performances. Sanjay Kapoor is adequate, and so is the direction.

This is a watch-it-and-flinch film, not just because of the violence and the language, but also because you sense it depicts reality or something very close to it. The character of Deepti Naval, a sane-thinking woman kept in near bondage to a deranged maniac (Patekar), rings true. Which is why I was surprised to read other reviews on the Web, calling the film unfit for public consumption, “because of all that violence/foul language”. Come now, are we that faint-hearted? When we see women getting beaten up , or screamed at in vile language on-screen, we get queasy and declare the material unfit. However, semi-clad women on-screen seem to suit us just fine. Thinly covered heaving bosoms, and boldly bared derrierres apparently present no threat to the ogling eyes of our malleable youth. We applaud women who within a blink of an eye go from mini-skirted vamps to sari-clad pativrata naris, with oodles of sindoor in their hair. Ooh, yeah, thunderous applause for the ideal Indian woman; that barefoot and pregnant, subservient, domesticated nymph!

Agreed that the film does not bring closure. Narasimha’s activities are not curtailed, not does punishment loom in sight. That in itself, does not preclude the need for such a film. In thinking that such films inspire men to go out and be vile, we are actually “wagging the dog”. The film is a product of society; it reflects reality, and society’s attitudes towards women. We might wish to keep those attitudes private, and appear “civil” and construe every such depiction as “unfit”, but that cannot wish away the current second-class status of women.