Pages

Friday, October 8, 2010

Desperate – and not just housewives

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation,” wrote Henry David Thoreau in the 1800's and as a stylish 21st century TV drama brings home the point– they still do.

Man or woman, rich or merely comfortably middle class, we’re all desperately seeking something more from our lives.

Desperate Housewives captures that feeling in telling the stories of four suburban American women – and their men – as they seek answers to the questions we were never supposed to ask. Not into our accept-you-can’t-have-everything 30s and 40s. A stage in life when it’s always safer (and wiser) to remember: things could have been a lot worse.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Aur bhi gham hain zamaane mein and all that jazz. The fact that you and me are ‘luckier than most’ is especially hard to ignore in a country where every citizen can’t take two square meals a day for granted. But even as we lucky ones move from roti, kapda aur makaan to salad, short kurtis and SUVs, there remains – often unfulfilled – another basic need.

The need for intimacy.

The need for a man or woman in our lives.

Not just any man or woman but one who understands, who accepts and yes loves us for who we are. The man or woman many of us thought we were getting married to who, somewhere along the way, retreated into a Harry Potter-like Invisibility Cloak or left the building altogether – if not in body, in spirit.

If you take a closer look at the problems of the women of Wisteria lane – they all stem from this very same source. The longing for love and companionship. Acknowledgement and appreciation. As the desperate housewife who blew out her brains in the first episode observes from her permanent philosophical perch: “Human beings are designed for many things. Loneliness isn't one of them”.
Take Lynette, the career woman who gave up her job to raise 4 kids. She’s exhausted and frazzled and of course wondering “did I really make the right decision”. But what’s really eating her is a husband who seems to have no idea what she is going through. How could he even suggest they “take a risk” and have sex without a condom, when there are four such risks already running around the house in muddy shoes?

Then there’s Bree, the everything-must-be-perfect homemaker whose husband wants a divorce because he’s tired of living in a ‘detergent commercial’. But would things really be any different if Bree didn’t subject her family to gourmet meals every night for dinner? Her friend Susan manages to burn even macaroni and cheese, which makes her ‘human’ and ‘real’ – just what Bree's husband says he wants her to be. But hello - Susan’s husband left her for his secretary.

For all its popularity, Desperate Housewives is being called an idiot box illusion - a fantasy which gives the impression of reflecting reality. “The main characters are 21st-century women, with 21st-century wardrobes and attitudes, but they’re dropped into 1950s suburbia,” says one op-ed writer. A suburbia of domestic claustrophobia that does not exist anymore - at least not in America.

According to the most recent U.S. census, 52% of American marriages will end in divorce, so if you’re trapped it’s really out of choice - not lack of it.

But that, I think, is the brilliance of the show. Yes, there is always the option of walking out but even in a society where it is commonplace, people choose to pretend things are working. Or live on hope.

As Mary Alice summarises it from Up Above: “Each new day in suburbia brings with it a new set of lies… We whisper them in the dark, telling ourselves we're happy, or that he's happy. That we can change, or that he will change his mind… Yes, each night before we fall asleep we lie to ourselves in a desperate, desperate hope that come morning - it will all be true.”

If anything, Desperate Housewives reflects more accurately the state of affairs in upper middle class India, than suburban America. A society where divorce rates could potentially be as high as 52% but aren’t because couples somehow ‘adjust’ and carry on.

I once asked a shrink who treats mainly south Madras and yuppie types how many marriages, in his experience, would be classified as ‘happy’. He paused a moment and pronounced: “Three out of ten”. And then he added, “It's funny. That's worse than the cancer survival rate after 5 years!”

So why don’t 7 out of 10 marriages end in divorce in India? Simple. We learn to channelise the energy and passion that should have gone into the relationship elsewhere. Not just into extra-marital affairs – that, of course works for some. But most pour themselves into work, some into religion. For women, it's often their kids.

Marriage becomes a joint project: a lovely well run home in the right neighbourhood... Where the children attend the right schools, the men (hurts to say that, but it's usually the men) make enough money for annual foreign vacations and women quietly polish their life until it gleams with perfection. Except they're perhaps not as suicidal– thanks to domestic help.

Regarding the theme of "Desperate Housewives" and Divorce, there is conflict. Desperate Housewives is a show which predoimananetly exhibits the living culture and societies of west and if we compare them both then its like, we are comparing the exisitence of RAM in US in case they telecast it there both are different countires or rather say world altogether.

However the aping is there in india for western clothes their culture and living styles. But that is only at macro level inside we are still very orthodox societies where divorce/sepration is not an easy task or just a pulse reaction.

Even if a girl belongs to Mumbai or other metros, though the society might deal softer but the question remains the same? Why did not she ignore him the way he is? What is the guarantee if she finds the next one same to her expectations.

I truly agree that happy couples share a lot more than bed but in today's world when double salaries are dominant people prefer to watch cinemas on weekend rather sitting and home and have good chat.
Housewives in the metros lack communication with their spouses. One reason could be the time constraint.The fear of expressing or communicating leads them to frustration of their desires .In fact there are so many articles where women say that they always subject themselves to way pleasing to their husbands and that's where the mutual desires are not met and everything is one sided.

Intimacy may not be fulfilled only by sex.A women needs emotional fulfillment and inorder to get that she may give herself to a man.The lack of emotional fulfillment also leads to chat rooms on the net.At the end of it I think communication between spouses can always put an end to the so called loneliness and desperation.Women in india are totally different from the U.S. of A.One can go ahead and compare Bombay / Delhi to the U.S as whole but not the rest of india because India when penetrated further brings out a lot of cultural and religious truths.The place where i come from that's Udaipur, divorce is looked upon as a kalank whereas my same community, have a different opinion. But at the end of it, no woman/women should subject themselves to an abusive relationship.

One of the great american evangelist and advisor to many U.S Presidents, Dr. Billy Graham once said
"The family is always the a key to the society " that,s where the US fails miserably and India tends to stand strong.

I'm sure every housewife in suburban america looks like she just walked out of a cosmopolitan photo shoot and the police in every county are too busy chasing cats and dogs to worry about murders and crimes being committed right under their nose. I used to like the show in the beginning, but later on it just turned into another harlequin romance novel with twists and turns no different from any other soap opera whose characters are 5 minutes from leaping onto each other in a sex scene like 14 year olds in high school.
It reminded me a lot of that novel The Namesake from Jhumpa Lahiri and that one is famous in every south asian home. Plus Mira Nair's was directing it, i'm sure everyone's going to talk about how many barriers that film/novel broke without ever realizing the irony that its an insult to our ethnicity by a cheapening of our cultural differences by creating cross cultural stereotypes i.e. brown people in a white stereotype (desperate housewives but with indians etc.).

And no, this is not the last word on the subject.

The light is quite bright

The business of newspapers is to give news and that, happily, seems to be the business the Hindustan Times is in.


DNA has been far more aggressive in terms of 'marketing'. But finally, HT pulled the rug from below their feet by not only launching its newspaper  earlier than DNA, but doing so with a really Big Bang.

Not with some mega promotion like "buy this newspaper and get X, Y or Z " free and not because the paper itself is free.

HT said "buy me because I have a story you just have to read". The Salman-Aishwarya transcripts will be remembered for a long time to come. It was not a new story, just concrete proof of something we have always known but chilling for sure, to see the words (and such unparliamentary language) in cold hard print.

Questions which arose:
- Why would someone like Aishwarya put up with this kind of abuse? The tapes are from 2001, she finally broke up with him in 2003. If a woman as beautiful, talented and rich as Aishwarya was willing to behave like an insect in her personal life (aap gaali dete raho, main sunti jaaoon), what hope was there, really?

- Kitna sach aur kitna jhoot in what Salman said about his underworld links. If these links existed, why did he get away with it while Sanjay Dutt and Bharat Shah at least went to jail?

- Why doesn't Salman seek psychiatric help?

Since the story had become a national media obsession, HT continued to milk it on the second day of publication while TOI ignored it completely (sister publication Mumbai Mirror had a cover feature on the subject but refered to it 'as reported in a section of the press').

All in all, HT had managed to pull off quite a coup. In one fell stroke it erased the perception many had of it as an outsider, a 'Delhi paper'. Bollywood and underworld are the two things intimately associated with Mumbai. Two things Delhi does not have.

A story with only Bollywood would have been too frivolous to be a lead and there was too much underworld already, everywhere. What HT pulled off was therefore a 'dream debut'! And a tough act to follow for DNA.

On the whole, HT was an interesting read. There were too many typos in the supplement but I guess that should get ironed out in time. Of course, page 3 people were featured but somehow it was not as in-your-face and low IQ as Bombay Times.

Also, the design of HT is easy-on-the-eye and makes that of TOI look a bit jaded.

HT is definitely on my reading list.
How well Mumbai had taken to HT was, of course, clearer in a month by which time the novelty factor wore off and the real readership pattern emerged.

And it just may have some more surprises to come...

'Phoney videos'

Nokia aired a commercial which focused on how mobile technologies could potentially change film-making. The url www.mobifilms.net appeared at the bottom of the screen.


It was a pretty nifty site, with "lessons" for first-time film-makers. There was an example of how 30 seconds of planning can transform a point and shoot video ("a rag-tag collection of boring jerky shots") into something watchable.

The site also linked to "First Time Filmmakers", an initiative by Discovery Channel which first debuted in 1995 in Europe. FTF commissioned and showcased the work of emerging film makers, and had two successful runs in China. India was next on their radar.

Of course, although the initiative was being 'supported by Nokia', those films were not made using mobile phones. But I don't doubt, a day will soon come when much better filming would be possible. Not television broadcast quality but definitely for mobile and internet viewing.

So yes, becoming a Bollywood director was still a long-shot but I see a day when a few creative individuals - armed with next-generation camera phones - will be able to make a living by selling short films shot and even edited on their phones.

Take a simple example. Today phone providers offer restaurant listings and what not. What if u could actually view a 1 minute video of the restaurant - see what it's like? You might pay 5 bucks to see such a film, before spending 500 bucks there.

The possibilities, really, are endless. 'Interestingly shot' and 'nominally priced' would be the two key factors in success.

Boon or goon
Unfortunately, the reason mobile phone film-making was in the news was quite different. The 'point and shoot' killer application it turns out was porn.

The chart-topper of the week was the Mallika Sherawat video/ MMS. The amusing thing was how many of us watched it just to confirm whether it was really "Mallika or not". But celebrities inhabit a different universe. At the end of the day, they come out of these scandals (self-created or otherwise) unscathed.

It's the ordinary, girl-next-door videos which are really scary. It started with the DPS MMS clip but there seemed to be hundreds of other foolish girls who had let their boyfriends/ husbands film them in various states of undress. And, these clips are floating around everywhere.

There were clips titled 'AmitsGF', 'Policeofficersdaughter' and even 'Suhaagraat' (the woman is wearing mehndi and the chooda traditionally worn after marriage...). In some cases, the women appeared to be unaware they were being filmed, but wasn't be true for all. Mobile phone cameras have to be used at a fairly close range.

So the bottomline is they trust these cads. These women are in love and can't imagine their guy would ever do something as disgusting as forwarding a video of a private moment. These women are idiots. When will the porn clips come to an end? When women stop co-operating with the filming , I should think. Hopefully all the media publicity given to MMS sex clips will drum some sense into their silly heads.

Of course there will always be available bodies , but then they'll be doing it for money - not love. Which makes it cold, commercial and far less exciting than peeping into someone's privacy.

Hopefully, we will eventually tire of all this and the focus will then shift to how mobile phone technology could change the business of film-making. Not just pornography.