The unreal Reality TV!

https://www.reddit.com/r/LGBTindia/comments/1mgqjr8/l
esbian_couple_in_bigg_boss_malayalam_7/

Everyone's actions and inactions are being scrutinised with a fine-toothed comb. Their activities may become a yardstick by which their downline can measure themselves. People are always on the lookout for gossip as well as something new to try out, no matter how outlandish or impractical it is. In other words, monkey see and monkey do, bypassing the higher centres altogether. It is referred to as fashion or high culture, depending on the context.

Fashion and culture are constantly shifting. What is considered the latest avant-garde idea today could be outdated in the blink of an eye. Tomorrow's runways in Milan and Paris will feature fashions that your grandmother wore in the 1970s. 

The media plays a vital role in determining what is in and what is out. What magazines and newspapers used to popularise in the 20th century is now done by TV and social media. People perform outlandishly silly and dangerous things just for the fleeting moment in the limelight. 

It started with putting the camera in front of people to see how they would react in a potentially embarrassing moment. The final outcome turned out hilarious. Everyone had a good laugh. The antics seen on "Smile! You are on Candid Camera" remain iconic to this day.

Then somebody thought, "Why not put the camera in front of the faces 24/7 and see how they react!" Thus was born the concept of reality TV, as seen in shows like Big Brother and Survivor. People became accustomed to living their day-to-day lives under scrutiny. Slowly, their real, hidden, ugly sides began to show. When elimination of contenders remained the mainstay of the game, the contestants had to dig deep to make a pact with the devil to bring down the other.

Maybe because it is actually voyeurism—a trait scorned in decent societies—reality TV provides a legitimate avenue to peep into people's private lives and vote them in or out. If voyuerism is an accepted behaviour, surely bad-mouthing, foul language and evil intent are alright, as that is what happens in real life. They must call it reality TV for a reason. So that kind of behaviour is the norm, then bitching and cuzzing must surely be. 

What people fail to realise is that, even though it is called reality TV, the whole thing is, in reality, scathingly scripted to boost viewership. The producers will continue to push the boundaries of obscenity and impolite social etiquette just to earn money. People, being spineless, will use them as the yardstick for what it means to be current, just as the Kardashians set the standards for how family dynamics should be.

Recently, on Big Boss Season #7 Kerala Edition, the participation of an openly lesbian couple, Adhila Nasarin and Fathima Noora, created a lot of discussions amongst the conservative section of society. Whilst the younger generation feels everyone has the right to live life as they wish, and moments like this were profoundly affirming, others think shows like these try to normalise LGBTQ culture. By the way, after years of struggle, the couple obtained a landmark injunction from the Kerala Courts in 2022, affirming their rights as consenting adults to live together.

Broadly speaking, Donald J Trump is actually the product of one such reality TV show and is currently living in an illusion of an episode of his 'The Apprentice'. He makes sudden, unprovoked, random statements, then retracts his statements. Then one of his sycophants would sing his praises and suggest something outlandish, like nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize, to get everyone talking. Like in these shows, where viewership and rating are everything (to draw advertisers), he is perpetually in the headlines all the time to boost his own rating. This is complemented by the constant blowing of his own horn. It is out of tune, but who is going to tell?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

div style="text-align: center;">

Normalising woke culture?

Kadhalikka Neramillai (No time to love,  காதலிக்க நேரமில்லை;  Tamil, 2025)

Director: Kiruthiga Udhayanidhi

https://www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment/kadhalikka-neramillai-ott-release-
when-and-where-to-watch-this-romantic-drama-starring-jayam-ravi-a
nd-nithiya-menon-article-12936421.html

It would have been just another Netflix recommendation that I would have ignored. Having such an unoriginal name, which had been used before, did not excite me. For the ignoramus, in 1964, the Tamil cinema was taken back by Sridhar's superhit. Its psychedelic, picturesque Eastman moment came to be defined as Tamil cinema's first rom-com. The hit song. 'Visvanathan, velai vendum!' became to be sung as the voice of defiance of the oppressed.

My interest was piqued when a YouTuber of a channel I follow went into a tirade trying to tear down Netflix and its moviemakers for thinking out of such a crass movie. Other Tamil movie reviewers were kind to the movie, praising it for its modern approach to storytelling and refreshing filmmaking. They probably did not want to offend the First Family of Tamil Nadu, as the ruling CM's family is involved in the film's direction, production and distribution. My YouTuber accused Netflix and the producers of trying to tear down every fibre of decency and threaten to destroy the Indian way of life. The prescribed Indian or Tamil way of living, where a female is supposed to follow specific rules regarding sex, weddings and patriarchal lead, is torn down.

The movie starts with a rebellious daughter, Shriya, working as an architect in Chennai, asking her mother how sure she was that her unmarried daughter was still a virgin. The mother almost faints whilst the father ducks down, avoiding the confrontation that ensued. 

To put things in order, it is a story about a daughter who plans to migrate to the US after a civil marriage with her 4-year-old boyfriend and obtains her visa. One day, after returning from work earlier than usual, she finds her husband in bed with her best friend. She annuls her wedding.

The 1964 version

In another town, Bangalore, another architect, Sid, is all set to engage his model girlfriend. After a minor misunderstanding, the fiancée decides not to turn up. As is often the case, he goes on bedding beaux one after another for revenge. 

Meanwhile, Shriya realises that her biological clock is ticking away and wants a baby as soon as possible. What does she do? She goes straight for donor insemination. And guess whose sperm she receives? Don't ask how, but she receives Sid's from another state. Sid had once accompanied his gay friend to donate his sperm for future use. Sid does the same. This gay friend reappears later to marry his partner. This became a point of contention for the commentator as if the film is normalising gay weddings in India. For the record, while the third gender is recognised in Indian law, gay weddings are not. 

The purists also have issues with the casual portrayal of alcohol consumption by both sexes and across all layers of society. The familial decorum, such as the parent-child barrier often observed in traditional Indian families, seems to have disappeared. Single parenting is depicted as the most natural thing. It is trying to shove in the Woke's gender agenda. 

Most Indian movies end with all the characters agreeing that the Indian way of life is supreme as if to resolve all the issues. No, not here. The protagonist decides to live with the sperm donor as her live-in partner. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The schizophrenic society...

Das Lehrerzimmer (The Teacher's Lounge, German; 2023)
Director: Ilker Çatak

I feel lucky to have been born at the time I was born. If I were born to be a young adult at the present time, living in a 'so-called' developed nation, there is no absolute reason why I should not be a raving lunatic. The society is broken. Nobody respects anybody anymore. Power is too democratised. People with the most miniature brains are given on a silver platter the right to manage something they cannot handle - their rights. People think they know what they want, but they know diddly-squat. The individual is more important than the community. Personal liberty is more important than the common good of the community. Everyone demands the right to know about everything, but at the same time, there is a compulsion to protect information and privacy.

This schizophrenic environment of today makes eccentricity the default mode of people's response. For every move perceived as offensive by the other, the whole extent of legal jargon is employed. The long arm of the law is utilised for what will make everyone more miserable than they already are. The lawyers are the only ones who seem happy in the process, laughing all the way to the bank.

The society members immerse themselves in a pool of paranoia, low-esteeming and suspicious of their neighbours, and high-strung in a cesspool of siege mentality. 

The movie takes us to a German secondary school where somebody notices money goes missing in the teachers' lounge. The disciplinary teacher decides to run a spot check on students. A student of immigrant background is found to have a lot of money. The student's parents insist that the money was his allowance and accuse the school of racial profiling. Carla, a newbie class teacher of the student, decides to conduct her own investigations. 

She leaves her laptop camera on to record the possible thief. She thinks she possibly recorded a probable offender and confronts that person, Kuhn. Unfortunately, the accused denies everything and turns against her, accusing Carla of invading her colleagues' privacy. Carla reports the situation to her principal, who worsens the problem. She decides to report the case to the police. Kuhn is suspended. 

That soon develops into a living hell for Carla. Kuhn's son, who studies in Carla's class, demands to know what is happening? As investigations are ongoing, the school board decided to keep it under wraps. Soon, all the students' parents insisted on knowing what was happening. The student editorial board demands to know the whole truth. They publish truths and half-truths under the banner of freedom of expression. The school is in mayhem, doing everything except teachers' teaching and students' learning. 

In this modern generation, schools are doing everything except learning. They try to pinpoint scapegoats for all their failures and bring down others for making the level field lopsided, in their minds, of course. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fighting the system?

Lipstick Under My Burkha (2016)

Director: Alankrita Shrivastava

This is one of those movies which could not be screened at a film festival in India because the censors could not clear it for public screening. I was later accused of being too 'female-centric' and pornographic in its audio and visual narration. After a few cuts, it was passed for viewing.

The fact of the matter is that they cannot be too kosher when the theme of the story is about female sexuality and its suppression thereof. To be frank, this 2016 film is mild compared to what people in 2023 can access on their streamed platforms in their dialogue and boldness in showing skin.

On the subject matter, one cannot help but compare it to 2023'sAmazon Prime's 'Four More Shots'. Both may appear to be talking about women's empowerment or feminism. At deep scrutiny, one will realise that the emphasis is different, poles apart. It also shows how the women's movement had evolved from one demanding their deserved rights to equal opportunities to one which wanted to dominate the other.

'Lipstick Under The Burkha' shows how ladies of a time screamed discrimination and yearned not to be pushed down from doing their own thing. It tells the story of four ladies who want to escape social oppression. A teenage girl from a conservative Muslim family dreams of a carefree life where she dresses up like her pop idol, Miley Cyrus - dressed sexily, with makeup and accessories that go with it. Forced to don a hijab and spend time in the family business of tailoring, she wants to participate in a band, wear sexy clothes and join the popular clique of students. To sustain her secret lifestyle, she goes shoplifting.

Next, a hijab-clad housewife is living a fearful life with a hostile husband who wants sex on demand and refuses contraception. The husband hardly brings home money but rejects the idea of his wife going to work. The wife, on the sly, works as a door-to-door salesgirl and a very good one at that. She even wins the best employee award. One day, she spots her husband in the romantic company of a young lady.

The small-time beauty parlour artist wants to be able to see the world. She desires to escape the rat hole she lives in. She lost her father at a young age, and her mother worked hard to sustain life. Her mother wants to get married as marriage assures her a respectable place in society. She knows because she went through hell trying to earn some money. The mother tries to matchmaker a groom. The groom wants to make her a full-time housewife, but the girl has a sizzling affair with a photographer who is only interested in her body. They plan to elope.

The final character is a 55-year-old spinster who is a respectable figure in her colony. She plays a matriarchal figure in handling day-to-day issues. Her secret indulgence is reading trashy romance novels. While babysitting some children at a pool, she is tricked into jumping into the pool. The children's swimming instructor offers her swimming lessons because she cannot swim. She develops a crush and starts stalking the instructor, engaging in phone sex. The instructor has soft spots for another girl and assumes the caller is the girl he fancies.

All the clandestine activities finally come out into the open - the shoplifting, the part-time job, the plan to elope and the double life of the 55-year-old spinster. The ending is not pleasant, highlighting the double standards of society. It is predominantly patriarchal and cultural as well as religious teaching just gives an authoritative seal of approval for it to continue. 

On the other hand, 'Four More Shots Please!' (FMSP) gives the vibe that its message could be anti-establishment, anti-patriarchal or downright anarchical. The four ladies again, seen in FMSP, range from a divorcee, one in the marriage market for a suitable match, a free-spirited bisexual, to a lawyer who all share a common bond. They enjoy meeting up in a drinking joint, overindulging and pouring out their hearts' discontent about life with no restraint. It is said to be India's answer to the U.S.' Sex in the City' (SITC). LUMB and SITC try to educate their viewers about an entity called female sexuality or the lack of its awareness in India (in the case of LUMB). In my view, FMSP portrays all males as shallow and evil. They paint a picture of Indian ladies swimming in a cesspool of male toxicity. To be able to stay afloat, they need to fight the patriarchal society, the system and fellow members who are immersed in the system.

Hindu temple in Lahore

Even under slavery or apartheid, people were not in unison supporting the status quo. Pockets of dissent were heard from people who were victims as well as those who benefitted or were not involved in it. One should assume that if the other party is not one of them, they must be against them. Jews would not have escaped Germany. Pakistani Hindus are still able to fulfil their Vedic requirements despite the presence of an intensely hostile environment against idolatry there! It is the system, not the people. But then, people make the system and can be herded to change their thinking, which could change the status quo.

N.B. Why is the lipstick generally red? It is postulated that sexual arousal increases blood perfusion to the lips. In fair-skinned females, lips assume a redder hue. Hence, the application of red lipstick entices the observer to see what is in store!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Are you man enough?

Straw Dog 1971

Director: Sam Peckinpah

Nature has made the male species biologically different from their counterpart. Nature's constant need to improve the quality of their offspring to survive the competition with other species has made the male species fight it out to qualify to sow their seeds. 

Their robust physical attributes made it handy when hunter-gatherers settled down in communities. The male gender is assigned to protect the weaker segment of the community. So, a male is expected to play his role as virile, aggressive and fierce. 

With time, power is no longer at the tip of a sword or a fist's knuckle. Culture made people less volatile and able to reason out things. To ease this, the rule of law was rolled in. The need for women's empowerment also arose. Power is a zero-sum game. The women's gain must be indeed a loss to men. Increasingly, men are said to be domiciled. That is at a macro level. 

At a micro, things may be different. A man is still expected to protect his wife and family. He is expected to defend them tooth and nail. A cultured man is supposed to be less combative and give everyone their space and due respect. But when caring for his family, he is supposed to man up, rise as the man of yesteryears, and use his physical attributes to defend the pride and dignity of the people under his care. He is expected to use his primitive defences to make them feel the females feel important.

At one time, the women felt fed up with the chivalrous gestures showered up. They thought they were treated condescendingly. They wanted to prove to the world that they were in no way inferior to their male counterparts. Hence, it started the spree of the female gender to outdo the male. Liberation went on so far that the women took a 360° turn. Now, they reminisce about the times when they were treated as princesses.

So, being a man in the modern world is challenging. On one end, he is expected to be mild-mannered, able to articulate and express his concerns and not resort to violence to air his opinion. Protecting one's safety has been outsourced for this exact reason. Everyone is expected to work within the ambit of the law. Being violent is, they say, low-brow.

To complicate things, women, with their newfound freedom, flaunt the very thing that used to be taboo all those years. They know very well that men have to restrain, failing which the mighty weight of the law may befall them. In the immediate future, they have their men at the beck and call for protection, like a guard dog. 

In its time, this movie created a lot of controversies for its gruesome depiction of rape and glorifying violence. There is even a scene where the rape victim is apparently seen to enjoy the act. It is debatable whether, as the perpetrator is her ex-boyfriend, she longs for the good old carefree sex-filled days. She has sexual tensions with her husband.

It is a story of a couple trying to spend a short stint in the English countryside of Cornwall. The husband, David Sumner (played by Dustin Hoffman), is an American maths professor doing sabbatical research. The wife, Amy (Susan George), who is less academically inclined than her husband, used to grow up in Cornwall. Her sojourn is like a chicken coming back to roost. All her contemporaries, with whom she shared a common past, are still there, albeit stuck with their low-brow ideas and behaviours, doing menial jobs. They are hired to do some home repairs. 

The peace in the couple's home is shattered as the workers lust on the flirtatious wife. The pacifist husband tries to deal with the situation in a cultured way, but it is futile. Things turn sour when the mentally challenged man accused of molesting a teenager is harboured in the Professor's house. The incensed townsfolk are out for his blood, but the Professor is adamant that it is his duty to protect the accused. Thus started a blood bath. The Professor is finally able to show his true grit and prowess. Through quick planning and execution, he manages to defeat the aggressors. 

On the one hand, the modern man is pussified and domesticated to fit into a non-combative world where the duty of law and order is outsourced to the nation. Culture teaches him non-aggression, but he is still expected to rise occasionally as society deems it necessary. The thing is, man has to choose his battles carefully. He needs the wisdom to wage unnecessary wars and how to avoid being suckered into it. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.