If you have already watched the Movie Pink starring Amitabh Bachchan, chances are that you have not only liked it but also agreed to what the movie tried to convey. If we go by normal movie review standards and popular formula of box office hits; this movie may grab many eyeballs and touch many hearts. This is because this time the feminist movie crew actually nailed it with a deadly weapon – victimhood of women, their tears.
The reason “Gulaab Gang”, another feminist movie starring Madhuri Dixit bombed was that it showed women as violent rowdies rather than victims and only victims. The makers of the movie Pink had carefully played with our sentiments with most deadly weapon on earth – women tears. Especially when it comes from young good looking women, it almost gets power to vanquish anything. The very reason that we always connect to others’ pain more than anything else, this formula of showing women’s tears will probably work this time for feminists and that is most dangerous for all of us including you.
In this movie other than strong cues, like acting, dialogue etc. the creative team of Shoojit Sircar had delivered a subtle non-verbal cue that will stick in your mind. I am talking about the tattoo of flying birds on Meenal’s collar bone. A space that was focused most of the time in the movie Pink while focusing on her face and that left a silent message each time it was focused. The message is – “free her“. You may not be aware but your subconscious mind would have thought of the need to free the most modern and educated, working, urban women. Carefully watch the movie again and you will find nowhere in the movie she wore a dress where the tattoo was not visible.
So while you understand that why Pink will probably be successful, let me tell you why this movie is propagating a criminal thought and is dangerous for this society. While saying this, let me categorically state that I don’t support any crime against women, but I am against this hypocrisy around rape that this movie shows.
The movie shows that three girls who were staying in an apartment met three strangers through a common friend and on first meeting these girls not only enjoyed the free dinner offered to them but also enjoyed free drink and agreed to go to the rooms of those strangers alone. Oh, if you have seen the movie you will also tell me how Andrea went there to go to toilet or some other reasons shown in the movie and as Advct. Deepak Sehgal (played by Amitabh Bachchan) clearly reinforced the feminist points that neither a woman’s dress, drink behavior nor anything else could be taken as her invitation to rape or molest her. So true, and I am sure most of you have agreed to that as well, neither do I disagree, too. But I am trying to locate that fortunate guy who being a stranger to woman had met a woman first time in his room and the woman willingly went with him (unless of course she had other intentions), I am also yet to see any decent woman who would do that. The reason given by three girls was they ‘thought’ those three strangers were decent.
Well, I don’t deny the fact that we may be fooled by one’s appearance or behavior and one night is not enough to know anyone. Then why did the girls go? Oh!! We are not here to judge their character. That is strictly prohibited under feminist rules and it is not fair when we are not trying to judge the boys either. In fact, this is not the harmful part of the movie.
The harmful part of the movie comes later. It is in the crux of the issue dealt with in the movie. It is popular feminist concept “No Means No”. That means when a woman says ‘no’ she means ‘no’ and men should respect that. There is no harm in this concept too but the movie tried to promote a crime in order to establish that.
The evidences presented in the movie by the state lawyer (with a twist the boys were shown as the plaintiff here) all goes against the girls and there was no evidence presented in the court that showed that the boys did anything wrong or tried to grab the girls. Rather one of the boys accused Andrea of trying to get intimate with him. But when the girls said that the boys were instead trying to get physical – court and all audience believed that “yes, the boys did it”. Meenal, Falak and Andrea have justified all their allegations with the most dreaded weapon on the earth – their tears. No CCTV footage or medical evidence was presented to prove that.
To arrive at the conclusion Advct. Sehgal (Amitabh Bachchan) used drama and played with our emotions. He started asking her questions whether she was a virgin, when did she lose her virginity etc. Shocked by these kinds of questions any decent person (either male or female) feel ashamed of our court proceedings. But when he asked the final question, “what did you say to stop him” and she said “No”. Thus Amitabh in his final argument said, “she said NO your Honour, a man has to understand that a no means no…”
When a verbal statement of the girl without any other supporting evidence takes precedence over the overwhelming evidence of attempt to murder against her and when the audience believes that to be true, is the main harm that this movie causes.
This movie not only tries to justify a criminal act of causing grievous injury to one person (or even murder) to someone just grabbing a woman when in reality she was openly being sexual (telling sexual jokes, how many stranger women shared sexual jokes with you on first meeting?) and touching the guys in restaurant.
In short, movie Pink shows the low that feminists can stoop to. The feminist crew in Rashmi Sharma Productions wanted to justify murder of men (it is already a law in India that a woman can murder a man in order to save her from rape) on the pretext of molestation or rape and ONLY want to go unpunished. Now, those of you who liked the movie need to understand that here other criminal evidences like medical reports and other witness’ statements are NOT being considered to convict an accused. But what Pink promotes is to convict a man of the most heinous crime (that is how feminists promote rape to be) simply based on a woman’s statement. It was never asked to the men if she had ever said ‘No’ and they were found guilty.
Sadly, the Bengali feminist crew and Rashmi Sharma Productions of Pink nailed it in the movie as one of their protagonist Advct. Sehgall said, – “It is the men who needs protection”.
Addition on 9/19 –
Many have commented whether I consider grabbing of a woman without her consent as a crime. Of course it is but the question here is of what magnitude. Can it justify “attempt to murder”. If yes, I want to know why are Rohtak Sisters not yet punished? Can someone help?
Also read –