This is about a new movie called 'Sorry Bhai'...
This is not a review, but the plot in the movie is really interesting to get me thinking. Well, if you haven't seen the movie, please first go and watch the movie and then come back and read this, coz I probably need to unravel the plot here. But it is a movie worth watching, if for nothing else, at least for the beautiful Chitrangada Singh.
The basic plot is this. A family with 2 sons, mom, dad. Elder son is currently in a foreign country ( I think Mauritius) and is about to get married. He calls the rest of the family to Mauritius to attend the wedding. This by itself is a little non Indian, and nontraditional. But then there, the mom (played by Shabana Azmi) doesn't quite get along with the bride-to-be (Chitrangada Singh), but they slowly try get closer.
The twist in the story comes when Chitrangada and the younger brother fall in love with each other, and end up having sex (while the family was attending this girl's wedding with the elder brother). The younger brother now resolves to get married to this girl (would-have-been-bhabhi -- are in in western Europe? :P ).
So far so good. The elder brother initially reacts violently, but then understands that there is no point in fighting this, and gets out of the way. But that's where I think logic ends.
The mother then goes to younger son and asks him to swear upon her that he won't marry the girl. Coz, "he cannot do such a disgusting deed". This is where I was hugely surprised. A mother asking her younger son to give away his happiness for her other son? There was also a scene where the mother talks to this bride-to-be about the fact that the elder son was her favourite. Whoa! what wrong did the younger one do?? If they weren't brothers, wouldn't they solve it man to man? (like the brothers anyhow did?)
Can moms be that way? Was she right in asking her younger son to give away sumone he was in love with? was she right in choosing a favourite? couldn't she be objective between her sons?
I think the mother was totally wrong, and unfortunately unmotherly like when she chose her favourite kid and discriminated against her younger one. Not only that, she didn't look at love the way even the brothers looked at it, where they practically said that u need to love the other person and 'stay' in love while getting married.
But there is a flip side of thoughts too. Where does a commitment to marriage turn in to a point of no return? I mean, if say, the girl and the younger brother would have fallen in love after the girl was married to the elder brother, what should be done in that case? should the existing couple divorce to allow for the 'freshly brewed' couple?
But then the argument remains the same doesn't it? you shouldn't marry (or stay in marriage with ) a person you don't love. I think it is (at least sometimes) natural to fall out of love in a marriage after a few years. So then should you divorce after that? But aren't divorces typically a bad thing? Also, what if they had kids?
I think either we need to look at marriage or at divorce from a new perspective. Maybe the way it happens in the west (not entirely follow that though) could give us some ideas... Should we move to a system where marriage is a permeable membrane that you can easily walk in and out of? But then what happens to the kids? And if not, should two people keep hitting their heads on the wall in a troubled marriage and spoil their lives?
what say?
