By H. Prasanna
“Hell hath no fury…” said William Shakespeare, who some believe was a woman. “There are no greater misogynists than women and gay men” goes the trope. Was William Shakespeare a gay man or a woman, or did they use a man to make it as a playwright, does it matter? None of this matters. Was he starting a trope for centuries when he said that? Yes, that matters. The reality TV gold in every Suchitra interview is that she never tells us why it matters. And she similarly jumps from one seemingly unhinged theory to another. This time, in an interview with Kumudam, she has captured lightning in a bottle much like her contemporary Vanitha Vijaykumar, who did it during the pandemic.
The conflation of “real” stakes and “reality” stakes is so engaging that I wanted to jump up and scream at my mobile screen. From Shakila’s proxy motherhood of a girl she has never met to YouTube Moms guilting their children, how fascinating her trains of thought that leave the station never to come back.
Does it matter that the interviewers don’t let women speak?
In an interview almost exclusively chronicling the misdeeds of men, the coveted “worst male” award goes to Suchitra’s interviewer. He interrupts her with his moralizing so much, that we would not have this gold if not for Suchitra’s sheer force of will breathing him down. The interview gets away from him very quickly. He cannot keep her on track and he cannot keep her off track.
Bill Burr, in a recent podcast with Bill Maher, said “You are someone with a fantasy football team who believes he is a GM.” He was responding to Bill Maher saying “he was the only brave one” for standing up to students protesting in American universities. Interviewers more often than not seem to believe that they and the audience have some personal stake in the interviewee’s life. This man is no exception.
Does it matter that we (the royal “we”) men are held accountable for our actions?
The problem for us reality TV audience is (to borrow from “Blue Sattai” Maaran) the villains are weak. Much of the content created by men are between blasé and banal. Bailvan Ranganathan (BR), a “reporter” who called her a nymphomaniac, is simply attacking her by calling her “a criminal psychopath” and Karthik Kumar is asking for “positive vibes” on Instagram.
The fact that Suchitra gave an interview and not a one-man show like BR and Karthik Kumar matters. It shows what women are really up against when holding men accountable. We need a male interviewer there to legitimize that what she is talking about is not just a “woman’s issue”. And the fact that he interrupts her constantly makes us realize she needs to be heard.
The most interesting thing about Karthik Kumar’s rebuttal was what he didn’t say. Suchitra piles on a million reasons about how he is human garbage. Maybe he is not. But, he doesn’t care about those things. He only talks about sexuality. Not his sexuality, sexuality in general. Does it matter if Karthik Kumar is a closeted gay man? It doesn’t. But it does matter if he was in a marriage with a straight woman!
He does not need to address that. But then he didn’t need to address anything, and with these fake reality TV stakes he could have really made this blossom. With him being a comedian who writes his own material for a living, I really expected more. But, he just vaguely rambles on about sexuality: “all types of sexuality are normal.” “Gay people have to say pride to be accepted as normies.” “Be proud to be all types of sexual.” Thanks for nothing, Karthik Kumar.
The responsibility and work of emotional competence in the light of abuse is not on the victim, if he is the victim. But, is it ever typical that a man conducts himself with emotional competence when accused of something by a woman? He refuses to contextualize himself or present his case in any coherent manner. He simply asks for support, which is he is getting, mostly from women. At its worst, it is a reality TV dud, a banal passive aggressive jab against a mountain of viral content.
Does it matter how we are held accountable?
It does matter how we are held accountable, and it should not descend into abuse. The fact that Suchitra gets a platform and her open disdain shows us she is privileged and empowered. She doesn’t mince words, she minces those she accuses. She calls them names. She soulfully manifests that they get no IPL tickets (equals a slow painful death in cricket fandom).
But, Suchitra’s brand of rage is extremely familiar to men. It is the reason women talk to husbands when they are driving or at the dining table. Because men run away and women are not heard and things remain the same. It is the quiet simmering ember that lives on the surface fuelled by the our (man’s) refusal to learn emotional competence and address the real issue, learn thought leadership and take point at least sometimes, and learn to be kind when we are right. Watching this interview is like plunging into the ashes of those embers.
Suchitra says she lost her career because of something that men did. I don’t know what is going to happen to BR or Karthik Kumar or the others, but I can guess. They never need to take any responsibility or change. They will be supported through this ordeal, probably by the law as well. It will not end their careers, quite the opposite, at least for Karthik Kumar, who had previously positioned himself as a woke comic. This is not a glitch in the system, this is the system. I think I am pretty safe in assuming Suchitra knows this, and every other woman too. So, you have already lost your career and no one will be held accountable. If it is not “right,” how she speaks at least makes sense to me. But does it matter?
| ReplyForwardAdd reaction |
Contribution by: H. Prasanna
Genderally Cinema 