Perhaps the name of this post should have been ‘Everything wrong with Dhadak’. But let’s play nice. If you came here looking for an unpopular opinion on the movie, click away. This is an explanation of a popular opinion associated with the airbrushed version of Sairat – also fondly known as Dhadak.
Dhadak’s problem is its focus. It seems to be a classic case of “Ramayan ke baad puche Ram kaun” (asking who Ram is after listening to Ramayan) . Sairat’s heart wrenching narrative is grounded in reality. It knows its focus – the right to love without boundaries born of caste and creed. Prashant , also known as Parshya, played by Akash Thosar, and Archana, also known as Parshya, played by Rinku Rajguru, are the main protagonists of the movie. They dare to break the rigid boundaries of caste and fall in love. The caste divide is clearly depicted in the movie. Parshya’s father is a fisherman who belongs to a lower caste, while Aarchi’s is a wealthy upper caste landlord and politician. These two worlds according to the norms of the society, are ones that aren’t meant to meet. Not even in the middle. Yet, it’s the simplicity of their story and the struggle to be together that makes the audience cheer for them as they make their way through each obstacle, and cry when the two face the worst the world can offer to them. From the way the story is spun, to the way the characters look and behave, everything about Sairat is believable -often making the audiences forget that they are watching a movie.This works well considering the issue that the movie deals with and the message it wants to give out.
In contrast to this, we have Karan Johar’s ambitious Dhadak which seems more like Bollywood’s nth adaptation of Romeo and Juliet and nothing more. From the beginning, it was marketed as the debut of its leads – Jhanvi Kapoor and Ishan Khatter. The attention is got was more because of the leads, and less about the fact that it was the remake of Sairat. If one has to sum up the difference between the two, it is simply the difference between what is real and reel. which by the way is poles apart (In case many are still living under the delusion that half of what happens in Johar’s movies can be real) . Dhadak is grandiose. Madhukar, also known as Madhu, played by Khatter, and Parthavi, played by Kapoor, are supposed to be the Hindi equivalents of Parshya and Aarchi. But the difference here is the Bollywood touch.
Beginning with the way they look (as shallow as we sound), to their narratives, the Bollywood touch to everything starts throttling the movie even before the script does. At no point do the leads look relatable. From their clothing, to their hair styles , every inch screams done up. Considering the setting, and the narrative of the ‘boy/girl next door’, the director fails miserably to make them relatable. The characters fail fit the part of the aam aadmi. They simply reek of Bollywood. The Bollywood touch is prominently seen in the popular song, Zingaat. The celebratory dance which seems natural in Sairat is perfectly choreographed in Dhadak.
Now let us consider the characters’ background. Unlike Parshya’s father, Madhu’s father owns a hotel and leads a lifestyle which according to our standards is considered ‘middle class’. Parthavi’s father who is a rich politician. The problem here is that the caste angle that Sairat so beautifully portrays, is missing in Dhadak. The conflict that the lovers face in the latter is more about a rich girl falling in love with a regular boy, than it being about a bigger and more concerning problem – caste.
They fall in love, are discovered, and eventually elope to Kolkata. But unlike Aarshi and Parshya, who do the same and then struggle living in the slums, Parthavi and Madhu seem to have it a lot easier. The big conflict that the couple faces in the city is Parthavi being unable to adjust in a new city and missing her family. At many point in the movie, Parthavi comes across as an entitled brat who can’t, or rather lacks, the maturity to understand the gravity of the situation,especially when she throws a tantrum about wanting to go back home. Yes, one may argue that it is human tendency to miss your family. However, when you know that your family almost killed the man you love, and are still ‘hunting’ for you, this tantrum of her’s makes their love story seem more like a high school romance gone wrong. Aarchi and Parshya on the other hand win you over as they go through each struggle, whether it is emotional, mental or physical, together – a word Parthavi and Madhu probably need to learn about. At this point, the movie is no longer about caste and its concerns, rather becomes a sale Bollywood drama.
They marry, get promotions, have a child and are miraculously able to afford a flat within two or three years. A typical ‘Middle class’ family cannot afford one in ten years. So considering that we were asked to believe about Parthavi and Madhu, are ‘struggling ‘ in the new city and both have not completed formal education, it is simply unbelievable.With Parthavi’s call center job being the greater contributer to their income, the spacious ground floor flat seems to be a blessing from papa Johar.
Parthavi’s family eventually discover their whereabouts and take revenge on her for eloping with Madhu and bringing ‘shame’ to the family by killing Madhu and their child. Re-emphasizing on the reason that they are angered by the fact that the family’s name has been dishonoured, caste is never shown, or emphasised on as being the reason. It is more about family pride and ego. While opinions may differ, this sheer inability of the Hindi adaptation to recreate Sairat’s humble and heart-wrenching narrative is probably why it doesn’t stand a chance when they are compared. To sum it up one last time, Sairat’s focus was to promote love beyond boundaries while Dhadak’s seems to be ‘lets promote Ishaan and Jhanvi’.
Jeevan Biswas
Leave a Reply