Pink is a blazing indictment of the Indian society view of women although it is not as smart as it pretends to be.
Brain-o-meter Rating: 7.5/10
Pink is a must watch for sure. Let me get this clear right here. But there is more than what meets the eye. A freak assault on the MLA's son gets three urban girls in trouble. Amitabh Bachchan who plays the lawyer for the girls tries his best to release Taapsee's character from the clutches of wrong evidence and eventually get justice for her.
The first half is intriguing and enticing particularly due to the tight screenplay and direction. But the second half which features the court proceedings is heavily in favor of the antagonists on the basis of evidence. There is absolutely no circumstantial proof of any of the girls' actions other than the assault that is proved directly by Piyush Mishra, the opponent lawyer with disdain on the back of some ham-handed acting. I do not understand that when the evidence is locked in favor of the boys, how come the judge played by veteran actor Dhritiman Chatterjee came to the conclusion of the innocence of the girls. The dialogues are expository at best. The intentions are revealed by speculating only. Then how come a court comes to a decision which does not do justice to the rest of the movie.
The acting is top-notch overall from Taapse, Kirti and the newcomer Andrea. Even the Delhi setting adds to the paranoia. Amitabh Bacchan though starts off well, but loses steam of his character midway. The stumbling, the forgetfulness is given away by the second half, since he does not carry the character there. He automatically becomes much more confident, clear, featuring oratorical skills of the highest caliber. This is not his best performance by a long shot. His performance in Teen needs to be lauded though.
Shoojit Sircar has been the brain of several good movies in the past decade and he has produced this movie too. Many have claimed this movie to be an eye-opener for the Indian society. Yes, it is a good movie and the message is loud and clear but what it tries to do with the court-house scenes is nothing short of a sham. I went through a recent report where the director claimed that he had an alternate ending in mind, which in my opinion, would have catapulted the movie to be a scathing satire. The message at the end was that any woman, whether she was a sex worker or someone who is of questionable character, needs to give consent before anyone can be physical with her. But the film points a finger at certain kind of men – those who do not want their sisters or wives wear a short skirt and do not want them to go to parties or drink alcohol. But judgment is necessary here, sometimes. That is how people judge each other, by their clothes, schedule and work. How can equate all judgment based on feudalistic notions only? Also, since the court scenes were not strong enough, it is easy for women with ulterior motives to target men in these occasions especially if things do not go their way. Yes, the film was required to be shown, but somehow, it also aids some other agendas too. All said and done, the message of the movie is important and needs to be heard, the overall screenplay was top notch and the acting of the girls, particularly Taapsee Pannu is magnificent. Watch it for the above factors, and not for some courthouse logic in any way.