Review : Vivah

Rating : Poor (2.2/5)
Genre : Drama
Year : 2007
Running time : 2 hrs and 41 minutes
Director : Sooraj Barjataya
Cast : Shahid Kapoor, Alok Nath, Amrita Rao, Seema Biswas, Anupam Kher, Sameer Soni, Lata Sabharwal, Anjali Prakash

VIVAAH : REGRESSIVE !

Finally saw the film, and the one erudite observation I must make at the end of it is that, Amrita Rao must have a massive crick in the neck from keeping her head lowered all throughout the film. But I’m being too harsh, there is more to her role than just lowering the head; she had had ample opportunity to smile coyly, laugh girlishly, nod her head in agreement, and generally be such a good, quiet and demure girl, that it makes me want to puke. But it’s not her fault really, it’s the director’s – being caught in an inescapable time warp and all that.

It’s often said about great movies that they leave a mark on you. I don’t know about greatness, but Vivah has certainly left it’s mark on me; it’s scarred me for life. I will wake up in terror at night, roused to sleepless-ness, from nightmares which feature Amrita Rao, resplendent in her good-girl attitude, eyes lowered respectfully, proffering with a faint, demure smile, a glass of water, and whispering softly (as nice girls do) “Jal ?”

Barjatya shows all symptoms of being chronologically challenged. He’s in the 2000s but he thinks he’s in the 1980’s. The characters is his film are too good to be true – they virtually drip selflessness, while the lead pair acts like they’re direct descendants of Ram and Sita. Technically this is a fairly decent film, but content wise I must say it rightfully deserves it’s place on the “Worst of 2006” list.

The film starts off with an intro to Pooja (Rao). Her story is told by Krishna Kant, her Chacha (uncle) played by Alok Nath. Pooja is an orphan, having come into her uncle’s household ater her parent’s death. Nath speaks of her as a “gift”, speaking of his aim in life being to nurture this daughter and to marry her off. Then in the same breath he scorns those who would treat their daughters as burdens. The whole dialogue left me a little dumb-founded – apparently Chachaji (and the scriptwriter) do not realise that this is cause and effect – daughters are considered burdens because their apparent aim in life is marriage, not education, not careers, not independence.

Pooja lives with her Chacha and Chachi (Seema Biswas) and their daughter Choti (Anjali Prakash). Of course the Chachi doesn’t love Pooja much, because she’s prettier than Choti, Choti being dusky of complexion. However the loving Chacha arranges a match for Pooja with the son of a wealthy, industrialist family from Delhi. Much time in the film is spent in celebrating the engagement and the getting-to-know-each-other process. Where Prem (Shahid Kapoor) is the magnanimous bride-groom, who decides that he will spend a month of each year at his wife’s parents’ home (let’s all stand up and clap please), well-brought up Pooja is the perfect shudh Hindi speaking addition to the clan.

The marriage day draws closer, but a fire in Krishna Kant’s house will put Pooja and Prem’s well-behaved love to the test . . .

OK folks this is a cheesy film, complete with corny dialogues. Still, the able cast handles all the corn and the cheese and cooks with it. And then ladles this out in small, edible portions. I think. It didn’t stop me from barfing it up throughout the film. And then the plot – there is no plot. It’s girl and guy, and then girl and guy gone wrong. This makes the film terribly hard to bear, especially during the middle. The beginning and the end are tolerable, since in the beginning you’re trying to get used to the whole time-travel (to the 80’s) deal, and in the end you are all agog with happiness since it’s finally ending. And the songs are unmelodious.

Still, why this leaves me with a feeling of distaste, and why I’m not recommending it, is that the film resoundingly gives the wrong, regressive message. It panders to a reality which has women only as backdrops in a male-dominated play. It treats women as glorified cheer-leaders egging on their men to do the important work, while they are content to serve the household, suppress their wants, speak in hushed whispers, with drawn ghunghats and lowered eye-lashes. It sets a (false) standard for “good” women, in that an ideal woman must be docile, biddable, unsusceptible to normal desires and wants, and must do as she is told. And with a smile.

Men, on the other hand, are tolerable as they are – no set strictures on being a “good” man. Plus, they must be applauded for every inch they give. Whether it’s the father-in-law who wants his daughter-in-law to continue her studies, or the fiance who decides to stick by his fiancee in her time of need, the male characters are glorified a whole lot too much. And really I’m not against glorification. What sets my teeth on edge, is that the very same behavior (for which we applaud the men) is behavior we take for granted when it comes to women.

So, unless you’re into time-travel or like being taken for a ride, this one’s not for you.