Contemplating Cancel Consent Culture: Maybe Jazz and Anna HAD a point

In defense of the ‘problem child’ heroine from Namastay London and it’s bengali counterpart Poran Jai Jaliya Re

-By Krabbit

Disclaimer: This article is a product of my random musings and does not in any form aim to insult the cast and crews involved in the makings of both films. This article , however ,does seek to criticize (insult)the problematic undertones of the script (with doses of humor of course). Also - Spoiler Alert!

“তুমি আমার ভালোর জন্যে আমায় ঠকিয়েছো। আমিও আমার ভালোর জন্য রাজকে ঠকালাম। (you tricked me for my own good so I for my own good tricked Raj as well)” justifies the rich spoiled brat Anna or Anamika (brought to life by Bengali Actor Subhashree) as her reason for fooling her family into thinking she’ll marry good boy Raj only to betray him on arrival in London (according to Wikipedia) or Malaysia (according to my eyeballs). Her Bollywood predecessor Jazz or Jasmit- played by Katrina Kaif- pulls off the same trick with finesse. Hence the ‘spoiled evil westernized Indian girl’ trope is well established. The only thing left for the Hero is to prove the power of the ‘perfect Indian man’ to sweep the uncivilized girl off her feet and make her sanskari #AlokNathapproved. That’s literally the plot of Namastey London and it’s Bengali remake Paran Jay Jaliya Re. Seems easy and hardly something to rant about …right?

Not really.

I was gorging on my favorite fish that I don’t know the name of and watching a rerun of  PJJR one cold and sunny afternoon when one of Anna’s dialogues caught my attention and kept it there to the point that I’m writing an article on it. The aforementioned scene showed Anna scoffing at her family’s joy and in typical villain fashion reveals her grand designs: she agreed to the marriage to appease everyone but really was planning to get out of the deal as soon as she arrived home. In the Bollywood original Jazz executes this master scheme with ease, appearing more indifferent and crueler than her Bengali counterpart. Both had this idea planted into their heads with help from their best bros Sid and  Imran respectively (in Ana’s case Sid is literally her big bro). The final boss of the plan was the legal loophole: Marriage in India can’t be accepted in foreign nations without a registry as proof. Which means you are technically still unmarried and religious ceremonies don’t apply (I actually don't’ know if this is a legit thing though so don’t come at me. Come at movie logic). I have to admit I went "Damn girl" at this even before I knew "Damn girl" as a phrase back when I watched the Bollywood version.

 

As an adult I still see this scene as a case of simple genius. Woefully independent and westernized Indian girl makes her family believe she's ok with their decisions but makes sure to leave out legal proof, bringing them back home abroad only to go “lmao where’s the proof I’m single AF” and simultaneously shocking both her parents and the poor lovestruck boy. Sanskar is in danger! The zor zabardasti mariage is in mortal peril! It is now up to the chosen one to bring down You-know-Who and make her fall in love with him and be a good wife! Let the power of tradition and love prevail! Hallelujah! 

The rest of the plotline of these movies is pretty much Banglar gorbo Raj and Punjabi munda Arjun striving to save their marriages, show their girls the goodness of a pure ghee- eh sorry pure Indian husband who is manly and so nice, convert  them from spoiled rich girls with short skirts to refined Indian women with sindoor in sarees and suits with no tie, with the parents practically supporting their jamai  from the back with pompoms. I don't think even Christian missionaries in India were this aggressive about conversion during the Raj.

So boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, boy turns girl, girl falls for boy, happy ending. That’s the basic structure of both films occasionally interspaced with foot-tapping songs. What bothers me rests upon the dominant plot point which turns the wheels of the second half of the film : the marriage and the scheming. To make sure, I re-watched both films from a secret source (No, it’s not pornhub) and was dumbfounded to discover that unlike my child self, who listed the Bolly version as her favorite film, my present self was left visibly disturbed by what I saw. Education is a wonder in itself. It can make you see something you’ve known or loved as a child in a completely new light after gaining a substantial amount of knowledge and awareness and sometimes that light can be a more dirty basement lamp than Syska LED white. I find to my displeasure, that these movies are pure white bulbs covered in thick, grimy dust of what we consider as Indian tRAdItIoN : to specify, the normalization of lack of consent.

Yup, it’s true. Namastey London and Poran Jai Jaliya Re have this visible lack of understanding of consent and yes, even spoiled arrogant dolts have the right to it. Both Jasmit and Anamika are given one-dimensional representations. They are the  epitome of the 'problem child’ female lead. They are unruly, uncaring, love to live life on their own terms, chooses their own partners, are materialistic, wears short dresses, drinks and chases off unwanted suitors with their antics. Oh and they despise being Indian. Their fathers are proud Indians who lament about their daughters not learning any Indian cultures and losing their moral compass (who moved away to foreign cities for a better life in the first place huh?). They blame their wives which is like pointing fingers at that one person in a group project who actually does all the work. The wives retaliate with fitting replies which was satisfying to see. So the best solution to this major problem is The Wedding. Because only holy matrimony can tame wild girls into refined women. Bapuji from DDLJ agrees with an aggressive passion .

(“And what about Simran?” you may ask “what’s her opinion on this?”

“LOL who cares” is the standard answer to your queries)

 

But they can’t convince her to come to India for that so they basically emotionally blackmail her to come breath in the fresh air of Bharat *laughs in Delhi*. On a side note, it was actually the father in both the films who plans and orchestrates the entire thing while the mother reluctantly goes along with her husband. Hmmmm.

Jazz and Anna reluctantly yields to their parents’ wishes, travels to India, meets up with relatives and to their dismay suddenly finds themselves in an engagement they never wanted; or, to use the appropriate term, CONSENTED. So they go down the ‘fighting fire with fire’ route and pulls an Uno reverse card on their families and the heroes (see I’m not a complete boomer, I know my pop culture terms.)

Furious and devastated, the parents ask what they did to deserve this. Jazz and Anna show them this article.

Heh. Just kidding.

 

Their reason, to summarize in short, was this : their parents tricked them to do something they didn’t say yes to and pushed them into a corner. So they tricked them in return to do something they wished to. Of course the parents have their justifications: the old-as-time “we did this for your good'' but the inflamed daughters are not ready to listen. They assert their right to decide who they’ll marry and since their rights were being compromised, they resorted to the same means their parents had taken.

I'm not about to go on defending the parents. Because the films do that enough already. The basic framework of characterization places the parents and the heroes in the sympathy zone while the heroine is villain-zoned. That's one zone most (read: all) women can do without.She wants to take control of her own life? Screw her! All these western ideas messed her up! Sounds familiar ladies?

 

Marriage in both of these films appears to be treated as both an antidote and the only just path for Jazz’s and Anna’s ‘salvation’. A review of this can easily recast the trope as a rope to bind down the heroine’s wings and ground her. I’m not going to stereotype or preach about Indian marriages though (my grandmother will beat me😖) but I do stand by the fact that every matrimonial union ought to require equal acceptance from both sides. And for Jazz and Ana, this was clearly not the case.

 Did I write this entire thing down to defend Jazz and Anna and portray them as angels? No. All of their actions can’t be justified. Both characters disregard and disrespect their Indian culture and roots. They are rude to their loved ones and don’t really give much thought to other's feelings. Instead of coming clean to the heroes, they fool them into thinking that they want to marry too, eventually breaking their hearts. Communication is key, you stupid idiots.

 

But does it make them undeserving of the choice to decide whom they'll spend the rest of their lives with? Absolutely not.

  

Both the original and it’s rip off-ah I mean remake- has this lesson on not forgetting your roots. Apparently those roots include normalizing marriage without approval from the bride. Because that’s actually what happened. To share a highly controversial viewpoint on this, I think these films would have lost half their flavors if the writers had given two cents about feminism and consent. NL and PJJR would have turned into those vegetable soups which taste bland but are actually good for you. These problematic elements provide the masala in the Maggi. Maggi is dope though! Non-consent? Not so much.

To conclude this random outrage, I would like to disclaim that I'm not here to give advice on how to write a film. The motion picture after all imitates life only. The only piece of preaching I'll put forward though is this : listen to both sides of the story. Give the Jasmits and the Anamikas you might know IRL a chance because even villainous women have the right to consent. No after all means FREAKING NO .