The well received recent Hindi movie Kahaani has a character Satyuki. Satyuki is not a hero. He is a companion to one. A female hero.
Satyuki is simple. Not unintelligent but innocent. Innocent and romantic. Satyuki is a hopeless romantic not unlike Stanley Ipkiss of The Mask. Falls in love easily. Bends over backward to be nice. He is nice with everyone. But he is especially nice to a beautiful woman he is attracted to, maybe loves her in one of the meanings of the word love. He is willing to give up his life, endanger his career, expose his weaknesses. He is running the risk of being used: with the morning-after terrible feeling of being the biggest most-brainless douchebag in the world.
His feelings defines him, propel him; make him exceed his limits, understand himself.
Khan is another character in the movie: a dedicated lover (nationalist), has done very well and risen high in his work, and by definition of his work at Intelligence Bureau, must have prevented wars, saved crores of rupees of possible damage, and thousands of lives, sacrificing a few. Khans of this world make it possible for Satyukis to exist.
Khan gives Satyuki a piece of advice: something on the lines of
प्यार बहुत अच्छी चीज़ है, इसे सही जगह इस्तेमाल करना सीखो
[Love is a nice thing (object/weapon/tool), learn to use it the right way.]
Khan of course is talking nationalism, loving the country versus loving a person. Loving an idea, dedicating to a cause, fused with the discipline and training of emotions which is usually associated with nationalism. But he is presenting it as the most pragmatic idea and oh so logical!
Is there a law of conservation of love? It would seem so, if loving is spending time with, thinking about, and taking care of, surely love is limited by temporal dimension of human existence. Some of my friends who are dating many people at the same while managing a career would agree. Satyuki can survive, keep falling in love with damsels in distress and spend his time and energy thinking and caring. On the other extreme he can be like Khan: serving people with little or no localised sentiment (Aha! that is how harems work). And there are all the shades in between.
I worry about Satyuki. He is what... 22-23 years old? And yet he has a child-like smile and demeanour. Not affected at all. Will he be able to move up in his career? Is it desirable? Is it that being someone who falls in love easily makes Satyuki a lesser person than Khan?
This time is just a beginning. He may be used many times in his life, sometimes by the people he come to trust and like the most. Will he be able to move on and retain his simple loveliness? Will he allow himself to fall in love again, even if attaining companionship is impossible? What if he does, and stagnates in anything else in life? If he does succeed in bringing the ring: his simple loving heart, back to its maker, will he not be Frodo Baggins of the Shire? Will he not be a hero?
Who decides that?
Satyuki is simple. Not unintelligent but innocent. Innocent and romantic. Satyuki is a hopeless romantic not unlike Stanley Ipkiss of The Mask. Falls in love easily. Bends over backward to be nice. He is nice with everyone. But he is especially nice to a beautiful woman he is attracted to, maybe loves her in one of the meanings of the word love. He is willing to give up his life, endanger his career, expose his weaknesses. He is running the risk of being used: with the morning-after terrible feeling of being the biggest most-brainless douchebag in the world.
His feelings defines him, propel him; make him exceed his limits, understand himself.
Khan is another character in the movie: a dedicated lover (nationalist), has done very well and risen high in his work, and by definition of his work at Intelligence Bureau, must have prevented wars, saved crores of rupees of possible damage, and thousands of lives, sacrificing a few. Khans of this world make it possible for Satyukis to exist.
Khan gives Satyuki a piece of advice: something on the lines of
प्यार बहुत अच्छी चीज़ है, इसे सही जगह इस्तेमाल करना सीखो
[Love is a nice thing (object/weapon/tool), learn to use it the right way.]
Khan of course is talking nationalism, loving the country versus loving a person. Loving an idea, dedicating to a cause, fused with the discipline and training of emotions which is usually associated with nationalism. But he is presenting it as the most pragmatic idea and oh so logical!
Is there a law of conservation of love? It would seem so, if loving is spending time with, thinking about, and taking care of, surely love is limited by temporal dimension of human existence. Some of my friends who are dating many people at the same while managing a career would agree. Satyuki can survive, keep falling in love with damsels in distress and spend his time and energy thinking and caring. On the other extreme he can be like Khan: serving people with little or no localised sentiment (Aha! that is how harems work). And there are all the shades in between.
I worry about Satyuki. He is what... 22-23 years old? And yet he has a child-like smile and demeanour. Not affected at all. Will he be able to move up in his career? Is it desirable? Is it that being someone who falls in love easily makes Satyuki a lesser person than Khan?
This time is just a beginning. He may be used many times in his life, sometimes by the people he come to trust and like the most. Will he be able to move on and retain his simple loveliness? Will he allow himself to fall in love again, even if attaining companionship is impossible? What if he does, and stagnates in anything else in life? If he does succeed in bringing the ring: his simple loving heart, back to its maker, will he not be Frodo Baggins of the Shire? Will he not be a hero?
Who decides that?
No comments:
Post a Comment