Originally posted by IdiotViewer
Such riveting discussions underway, how could one opt for slumber, Hgg bhai
Before I dive into debate, however, a digression, to perhaps better undergird my
This may seem contrary on some level, but the catalyst for my "rants" don't lie in the fact that I'm too passionately involved with SC. However much I may avow, I am not a "fan" by any usual meters. The culprit thus is my innate detachment from SC. My inability to remain 'Ivy' through-out the twenty-two plus minutes of show, each weekday. Indulge following explanation: My field is Film, Television, Media and Law, and while degree years were spent in my "happy place", analysing creative works with impunity, lacking all consideration save academic, post-grad brought upon me a thesis, a distinctly dark exploration, for a naive idealistic intellect, as to the social, political, gender, and psychological ramifications of the creative works which once elicited pure "analysis, appreciation". A view of the "other side of the coin", so to speak. My optic thus compellingly widened, my creative consciousness coupled with newly-found creative "conscience", I could not go back to being a happy camper again. I've preferred a holistic approach to 'creativity' ever since and rather than constrain me, I find it has brought me unlimited freedom, both to appreciate and censure. In my current work, I mostly play devil's advocate. Even while "in-fraternity", my usual view is from outside it. All creative works have in-built social onus, industry standard is that "creativity should be aware", but that standard is rarely strictly adhered to; when someone outside (usually organisations) raises an "intervention", demands a check on media work, my role is to assess the merits of that intervention, and to define, delineate the parameters of that "check". In essence, I tell my employers, to "watch it!"... And right now, I would advise same to StarPlus too. Ergo, it is not my heightened expectation from SC which I need to shed, but rather my default sense of a search for 'integrity' which I must now "renounce", if I am to keep munching popcorn. Let's see how much of a success I make of that
Coming to debate now, Hgg bhai, smrth Bhai, happy & Arshi:
It never fails to amaze me the utterly limitless canvas, and the fathomless ocean of ideas, insights, critique, debate and appreciation that each CB thread holds. Am left spectacularly awestruck each frickin' time. Taking a few steps back from debate proper... From a holistic perspective, Hgg and smrth Bhai's, your respective concerns are but two sides of one coin. They can
be reconciled. In the hands of a better contender and time factors being on-side but unfortunately the current, irresponsible powers at the helm are proving themselves thoroughly incapable of landing on common ground here. As viewers thus, we are stuck on no-man's land
smrth Bhai, a query, ain't there two "crutches" here? For let's re-set all prior to last Wed, there's no indication of any progression as theoretically 'anticipated"... One crutch, as you rightly point out, that of "fate" for Kumud, personal and for Desai's with the power of two now (Dukh baa & Kumud)... But is not another "crutch' still Saras? Has the "Nayi Subah" resolution, all been cancelled, with Kumud not only hiding truth of Saras from Desai's and them likewise, but all still lumping him as "overall culprit" when they know of his reasons. Or is it merely narrative inconvenience now to pay any recourse to Saras? Because prevailing view considers him no better alternative, but simply first culprit, which I agree he is. But for me, as well as being binded "three-ways", Kumud has also been righted and is steadily supported by her "two crutches" now (Fate and Saras), both did wrong by her but she will prevail, over. Verily, she maybe on far steady ground, than we may realise. And there is a twisted nobility to it all, a sense of fair trade-off between Kumud and her two crutches - she is assuming "ownership" for their (crutches), decisions, so how can they, and we, begrudge her the 'lean'?
happy... Hilarious first exposition, my friend. Thank you for the 'tulsi ki aangan' bit. Appearance left me utterly befuddled... This being first exposure. Reading your post, went and googled, got directed to a picture of a telly bahu/beti bawling her eyes next to. Priceless, I thought. We've already started taking recourse in television tropes of old. What's there to "read", anymore? More popcorn, please
happy & smrth Bhai, to jump in, lacking Hgg bhai's elaboration prowess, unfortunately: smrth Bhai, as my off-line self, I will agree with happy and Hgg, not to "educate" strictly, or to become role models (!) but rather to be 'consistent' and walk the path shamelessly touted, that of "adaptation" of "nayi soch". Since producer purchased rights, there is no onus save creative or social for him to adhere to source or blaze a new trail. Legally, he is in the clear either ways. However, SC till date has strayed both sides of the fence. Perhaps our dilemma would be non-existent if the period were true to source, but this has been turned contemporary, and personally, use of skype and "iPhones", is neither marker of, nor adequate representation of contemporary, for me. Contemporary is not the skyline of Dubai, but in the way Saras is. Contemporary lies not in place or technology, but in thoughts espoused, in the characterizations and the way crucial narrative situations are handled. And it is inescapable that in the course of such, "messages" are automatically disseminated. Whether show intends to or not, and also whether viewers actively seek it or not. SC is no exception. Therein lies the scope for nayi soch as well. If core essence of SC is not forfeited, many still view show as a microcosm and the characters as conduits for larger life-lessons. This is 'legacy' of source. Thus how Saras and Kumud are presented and what they do, matters in the larger fabric. Which undoubtedly goes beyond show. This is not a movie, inaccessible unless payment proferred. The default here is not "not watch", but rather "to watch". For the general audience, thought of changing channels comes much, much later.
That being said, since this coin has been split in the middle, and so have my two identities, which cannot now be reconciled, as Ivy I will agree with you. However as 'Ivy' I will also admit that 'character meddling' has become rampant now. Dukh baa being chief on the chopping block, Saras close second. Not so much in case of VC, whereupon you point out alignment with source. But if to reconcile, the "unreconcilable", VC too has been gently meddled with, to find balance between source and adaptation, perhaps? But to what end, such may only hasten character dissasociation, if this outright flip-flop between source and adaptation continues. But crucial here, as you point out. Deceit reigns both sides - Kumud's knowledge has been limited, and so has the Desai's, that too from each other. So perhaps it is worthwhile to hedge bets for now. There is no proper "locus standi" for raging parental intervention, yes, but perhaps, that familial support could have been better executed, instead of making it seem, as happy has brilliantly observed, a (blood) sport being cheered on from the sidelines. Honestly the sole image invading my mind was that of a Roman colosseum, with Kumud being "fatted" before do-or-die gladitorial battle. So bloody were immediate prospects
Thus, to excuse characters for now, I would charge 'execution' as first-foremost, and recurring culprit.
Ivy! That's brilliant! Right from incorporating 'consciousness and conscience' ( may I take a fleeting credit?
) to two crutches and logical ramifications.
My only point- from today's dismay VC and hold outs- though blame for DV Inaction is suspended for the moment, my original response was for its specific incorporation, as I saw it there. Future episode may give some clearer picture, but today we may not 'imply' him convict, as rage was appearing. If you remember, on Wednesday DB ( her bravado) was my chief grouse where all were praising her for her 'loud', 'correct', 'roars'. I saw it as empty talk. But again was sailing against the 'current'. And 'negative'. But when she actually confirmed to the story- as I expected- I was not much concerned. For she is a 'nettlesome' adaptation. And she has to give in sooner or later to the 'course'. And 'nettlesome' only to the extent that she is in someway (as adaption) hindering some brilliance from original- that Guniyal is, but I see viewers largely deprived of it. DB is not that significant for me...the point is, when we are charging VC- and indirectly ' social ramifications' I feel a disjointed reaction from 'story' point of view. And had tried to reconcile it to the objective- that is ' a watch of a tale'. But I am again sailing against current. And naturally lacking the 'finesse' in explaining. So friends, as many times- please take the import.