‘Chandigarh Kare Aashiqui’: Good Intentions Do Not Make A Good Movie

Featured Image from The Indian Express

‘Chandigarh Kare Aashiqui’ is a social-contemporary film directed by Abhishek Kapoor, which stars eminent actors Vaani Kapoor and Ayushmann Khurrana alongside several other actors like Girish Dhamija, Arav Dua among others.

With a two-hour-long running time, it emphasises acceptance and aims to balance entertainment with a social message.  This movie was reviewed as an average film by many critics. I agree. It had a brilliant message, no doubt, but it manages to give only a mediocre if not a feeble push to conservatism. 

Overview Of The Film

The film revolves around a bodybuilder from Chandigarh – Manu (Khurrana) falling head over heels over Maanvi (Kapoor), a Zumba teacher, and the inner turmoil caused due to some important revelations.

Manu is portrayed as a ponytailed, middle-aged gym owner and bodybuilder. He is a businessman’s son who wishes to be known as the city’s strongest ‘mard’ and a ‘macho’ as a retort to the bullying he faced as a child. This glorified hyper masculinity of Manu is shown endlessly, even during the ending scene with the crowning of – “Chandigarh ka sabse bhaari bharkam mard” (Chandigarh’s most built man). Yeah, no surprises here –  Manu was crowned as the winner after being a two time runner up.

Enter Maanvi, A Zumba teacher who immediately steals his heart. Everything goes smoothly until one sudden moment when Manu learns that Maanvi is a transwoman, shattering him mentally and physically. He made fun of Maanvi along with his sisters who insisted on getting him married to a “chakni, gori ladki” (fair girl).

The “Tu hai kya, ladka ya ladki… Tune mujhe dhooka diya…Jawaab de” (What are you? A man or a woman? You have betrayed me. Answer me) is also an instance of him losing his mind over this matter.

This in itself portrays a harmful stereotype where the common perception tells us that transwomen are deceptive of their identity with cis-men. Though the movie ends on a happy note, the stereotypical representation of deceit plays into harmful prejudicial behaviours that transpersons regularly face.

The director has worked on a script written by Supratik Sen and Tushar Paranjpe, who have scavenged explicitly for humour points even as they probed this sensitive issue. The dialogues, pace and narrative related to the humorous bit could’ve been blended better by the team. Especially in the second half of the film. Because in many ways, it overpowers the actual issues and makes the audience feel particularly awkward or uncomfortable.

The sub-urban jokes also lessens the impact. Also the sleazy jokes by Manu’s dim witted friend and the film’s villain, especially the use of – “Chhakke” (a homophobic slur) was quite over the top.

The dialogues in the film are thought-provoking but include more stereotypes than necessary by far. The ‘mard competition’, verbal abuses, jokes on the community are all stereotypically presented in the film. This also reduces the impact that could’ve been more widely appreciated.

This also reduces the impact that could’ve been more widely appreciated. It also showcases some incidents in poor light, which is disrespectful. These instances are common in the movie’s latter half, where everything was packaged into a messy box.

For example, after Maanvi came out as a transwoman, the onslaught of transphobic words and gestures were ongoing for a major part of the second half. This encourages conservative thinking and sidelines the marginalised community.

The audience praised and hooted on these scenes, which should scare us. The movie can attempt to put forth that these scenes were only played out to showcase the reality of our society. However, the response from the audience portrays a grimmer reality which is horrifying, to say the least.

The movie is fast-paced in the first part, leaving the second half filled with unnecessary details complicating it further. This hurriedness gives a poor finish to the movie and dampens the general image of the film.

Central Idea And Ideology

The film adopts a neutral and contradictory stance at essential stages, undermining the main issue. For example, when the film confronts important questions around resolving discrimination, it goes off point in a matter of minutes, thus acting complicit in supporting conservatism. It could’ve been tackled better.

The film also does not give solid answers to questions asked by society and traditional opposition. Whenever taken up, it just beats around the bush. In this way, it only brushes the main issue and immediately rockets off.

An example of this would be a scene wherein a transgender person is begging for alms at a signal. It was mentioned that they hold a bachelor’s degree in English.

The conversation was initially focused on the person saying that ‘we don’t get white collar jobs even if we are well-qualified’. This was an important question. However, immediately after, Manu says – “Mission abort! apna munda musibat mein.” (Misson abort! Our friend is in danger) putting the actual issue on the backburner.

Also, just when the audience starts to understand the struggles faced by the transgender community, Manu’s sister passes a snide comment – ‘Ab munjal house mein ek kinnar bahu ban ke aayega’ (Now a ‘kinnar’ will come in the house of a ‘munjal’). This gives leeway to the conservatives to continue to spread filth regarding the community.

It’s important to note that during these scenes, the audience were hooting and sniggering. So, this type of stereotypical dialogues does nothing to empower the community. In this way, the filmmakers did not put even an ounce of effort in actually researching the topic and searching for ways that this will empower the community.

In a review published in The Quint, a transperson, Satvik, writes,

“There is also a disclaimer that the film does not intend to hurt the feelings and sentiments of the transgender community and that it hoped to raise awareness. But the movie revolved around the macho hero – Ayushmann Khurrana – who has used the pain of transgender community for comedy.”

Moreover, the filmmakers have tried to make this film more acceptable by encasing it into a love story. The film deliberately overshadowed the struggles faced by Maanvi as the drama and unnecessary events increased in the second half. 

Why must mainstream Bollywood cinema in 2021 continue to make lived experiences more suitable for an audience? Does this mean the fraternity refuses to acknowledge the queer community as being acceptable the way they are?

Ayushmann Khurrana has been under the radar recently due to insensitive comments regarding a misconstrued idea of gender identity. He referred to himself as being gender fluid as he donned nail paint for the cover of GQ. This is not the first time Ayushmann Khurrana has used the LGBTQIA+ community for a box office hit and subsequent publicity. However, the insensitive usage of the gender spectrum as a plot point to mint money has been criticised by many.

The movie uses a cis-woman, Vaani Kapoor, for the role of a transgender woman. This begs the question: What if the film had given the space to a transgender actor to portray the role. Would the film become less impactful? Or would the audience not be susceptible to seeing a transgressional gender identity on screen? Several Twitter users slammed this film for not casting a transgender person in the movie.

While filmmakers, producers and actors have conveniently used the queer identity for their benefit, the actual issues faced by the community remain untouched. While many have said that the film was a commendable effort in the right direction, the lack of proper representation remains a wound left open for too long. 

Why Must Filmmakers Continue To Shy Away From Important Issues?

As a safety precaution by the filmmakers, they didn’t explicitly mention the storyline regarding the struggles Maanvi faces as a transwoman, even skipping it entirely.

When asked, the team responded, ‘We want to make people watch this film. But, if we would include it in the trailer, few people would actually come to watch the film. Nevertheless, it stands for a social cause.’

The surprise element is okay, but this somewhat regressive behaviour by many filmmakers is typical. It has become a money-making sham and profiting from the struggles of marginalised communities. In the beginning, it was done openly, but now – it’s concealed, but still present.

Nevertheless, this is a new beginning and hopefully more culturally appropriate, sensitive and impactful movies are made. Maanvi’s mother’s depiction as a caring mother is well elaborated in the film.

Maanvi’s father was very supportive and it was him who convinced his wife to accept her the way she is. He stands with Maanvi and does not back down even though he faces stiff opposition from his friend circle as well as religious groups. 

Maanvi’s mother was also supportive in this aspect and rose above her initial disregard of the community. Later on in the film she and her husband support the emotionally-wrecked Maanvi.    

‘Tu jaisi hai, best hai!’’ Maanvi’s parents say.

These moments are heart-warming and precious. That connects to the viewer empathetically and spreads a positive message.

The movie does bring to the forefront the issue of transperson rights. In a review in Film Companion, a transwoman, Gajal Dhaliwal, writes,

“Take the scene where Maanvi says, “Main ek ladke ke shareer mein paida hui thi, par hamesha ladki thi.” That is how she explains that she is a trans woman — that she was always a girl, but born in a male body. This sentence defined transness for me, that even before she had her surgery, she was a trans woman.”

Note: The author is part of the Dec ’21 batch of the Writer’s Training Program.