Mr. India/ Half-Truth - Review and Response

 Given that not many classmates watched Half Truth, my responses to other students' reviews on my own presentation and film choice will be quite short and supplemented by discussing the similarities and contrasts between Half- Truth and Mr. India.

First, with Patrick's review, the cyclical nature of violence is certainly seems apparent within Velankar's life as his youth begins with witnessing and being subjective to violence in variations and then with being in a society that is corrupt and oppressive while being in a job that demands personal intervention with the most corrupt and oppressive people on a daily basis, Velankar is in a negative feedback loop in part because he is ill-equipped. Violence has been a method of resolution in his life and when confronted with issues, especially violent ones, then more violence is the rational response for Velankar because of the seeming lack of any other coping or problem solving mechanisms. And so, exactly as Patrick says, “He tries to forge a path as a righteous cop in an unrighteous system, but he doesn't know how to accomplish such a task without violence.”

Then, with Shelby's comment, I feel as though there must have been a conscious decision on behalf of either the author of the short story from which this movie was based or the director for the film itself, to send such conflicting messages with Anant. The character is the protagonist, still, and is explicitly seen doing what could be considered outstanding police-work as he puts away bad guys but at the same time the viewer is being hammered with watching Anant brutally attack people that have certainly done things wrong but the near savage punishment he gives to these people is disproportional to the crimes as Shelby mentions. Shelby's other contribution about the allowance for Jyotsna primarily wearing the pure white sari as an ironic sense of purity is a fascinating point to make and one that I battled with myself to understand but the concept of Jyotsna being passive to changing society due to the paralyzing nature of the patriarchy over women makes a lot of sense. If Jyotsna was a character that decides to refute the sexism that she personally endures daily then she would no longer be able to wear the all-white sari because that, in a patriarchy is not what purity is about. It is a direct challenge which cannot possibly be pure within this paradigm.

The most notable contrast between the film from what I can tell would be the ways in which characters handle issues of masculinity and femininity; one of the films showcases the destructive nature of these socially constructed identities, whereas the other film deliberately makes challenges to these identities by putting characters in different unexpected roles as well as different outfits entirely. Seema seems to be a character that utilizes both the unintelligible body for the sake of humor and also for demonstrating how fluid gender can be (not to be confused with the identity 'Gender Fluid').

The other difference between the films is that they highlight different capabilities or incapabilities as Mr. India shows that with the acceptance of constant changing gender identifications and socially acceptable roles ascribed to genders and sexes, it opens up a much larger playing field for everyone involved. Spaces which were typically off-limits to certain sexes and or genders are opened up to the masses. Whereas with Half-Truth, gender roles and identities are seen as cages and an unfortunate cycle of distress that either pacify members of society from acting out of line or by forcing others to act in ways that directly abuse or repress others.

Whichever stances the films take, both are progressive as they outline the problem with the normative behaviors and identities that influence India but in rather different ways. An interesting way in which the two films are similar is in their portrayal of hyper-masculinity as Arun assumes the role of a superhero, talks with a “deeper and more resonant” voice as Susan mentions in her post and with how Anant only has violence to answer problems with as a last resort, and sometimes as a first resort. The films tackle masculinity in different ways but the effects of utilizing masculinity are still different.

Arun, when assuming the role of superhero, despite trying to sound more “manly” is still invisible and while he tries to exude this hyper-masculine through his voice alone, the character still knows what he looks like and how he sounds and it comes off as comical rather than genuine, mocking the masculine requirement to the role of hero. Conversely, Anant's “manliness” is just a destructive mechanism for him as it ruins his relationships, career, and possibly his life as a whole.

With Mr. India and Half-Truth, both films make great strides for social progression by critically holding ideas of gender conventions under a magnifying glass to point out their detriments either in dramatic fashion or humorously. Either method of criticism functions well and are effective within a commonly consumed medium like that of film. These two films perform their messages effectively, precisely because they are so accessible to the masses without forcing any highfalutin scripts down the throats of its viewers.