Pink (2016)
"No. No, your honor. 'No' is not a word. It is a complete sentence. It doesn't need any further explanation. 'No' simply means 'no'. My client said no', your honor and these boys must realize that 'no' means 'no' whether the girl is an acquaintance, a friend, girlfriend, or a sex worker. Or even your own wife! 'No' means no'! I want someone says so, you stop."
The Good: * Makes important statements regarding social issues includes consent, double standards for females and males, inherent biases, molestation, misogyny, rape, self defense, social strata, and violence against women. This is especially relevant in India, where rapes often go unreported for to fear of public shame and possibly (as portrayed in the film) having it backfire. It is still frowned upon by some for a girl to be independent, outspoken, willful, or to drink or go anywhere in private with a male. * Amitabh Bachchan, due to his seniority, was originally first listed in the credits. However, to show gender equality, he requested to have his name listed after the three leading ladies. It is great to know that the actor was as passionate about gender quality as his character was in the film. * A clever creative choice was showing the scene of what actually happened that night, in slow motion, during the credits. Be sure to wait for that.
The Bad: * Great acting overall by the three leading ladies, but they were quite melodramatic. It alternated between an impressive performance and a performance completely overdone. * Bachchan may have had a powerful presence, but he was also creepy. Whatever the reasons, his breathing mask, combined with his mysterious demeanor and harsh voice, made for more of a creepy presence. Add to that the angles that made his eyes look white in many scenes, he was straight up scary. Supposedly he had bipolar, but I do not even know why that was a detail.
The Ugly: * Unrealistic portrayal of a court debate. These lawyers would not be a allowed to intimidate and yell at the witnesses on the stand, practically coercing them into a false confession. Likewise, they would not be allowed to preach on topics irrelevant to the case. The case becomes a stage for feminism, narrated by Bachchan. * Makes important points, but crosses the line very early on into preaching. To the point that I might call this propaganda. * Unrealistic to the point that I could not take it seriously and became bored in the second hour of this unnecessarily long film.
Conclusion: Many memorable lines, overall good performances,, made a valuable case for many important social issues; but excessive in length, portrayed court cases unrealistically, and it became preaching (practically) propaganda.
"No. No, your honor. 'No' is not a word. It is a complete sentence. It doesn't need any further explanation. 'No' simply means 'no'. My client said no', your honor and these boys must realize that 'no' means 'no' whether the girl is an acquaintance, a friend, girlfriend, or a sex worker. Or even your own wife! 'No' means no'! I want someone says so, you stop."
The Good: * Makes important statements regarding social issues includes consent, double standards for females and males, inherent biases, molestation, misogyny, rape, self defense, social strata, and violence against women. This is especially relevant in India, where rapes often go unreported for to fear of public shame and possibly (as portrayed in the film) having it backfire. It is still frowned upon by some for a girl to be independent, outspoken, willful, or to drink or go anywhere in private with a male. * Amitabh Bachchan, due to his seniority, was originally first listed in the credits. However, to show gender equality, he requested to have his name listed after the three leading ladies. It is great to know that the actor was as passionate about gender quality as his character was in the film. * A clever creative choice was showing the scene of what actually happened that night, in slow motion, during the credits. Be sure to wait for that.
The Bad: * Great acting overall by the three leading ladies, but they were quite melodramatic. It alternated between an impressive performance and a performance completely overdone. * Bachchan may have had a powerful presence, but he was also creepy. Whatever the reasons, his breathing mask, combined with his mysterious demeanor and harsh voice, made for more of a creepy presence. Add to that the angles that made his eyes look white in many scenes, he was straight up scary. Supposedly he had bipolar, but I do not even know why that was a detail.
The Ugly: * Unrealistic portrayal of a court debate. These lawyers would not be a allowed to intimidate and yell at the witnesses on the stand, practically coercing them into a false confession. Likewise, they would not be allowed to preach on topics irrelevant to the case. The case becomes a stage for feminism, narrated by Bachchan. * Makes important points, but crosses the line very early on into preaching. To the point that I might call this propaganda. * Unrealistic to the point that I could not take it seriously and became bored in the second hour of this unnecessarily long film.
Conclusion: Many memorable lines, overall good performances,, made a valuable case for many important social issues; but excessive in length, portrayed court cases unrealistically, and it became preaching (practically) propaganda.