Movie Review Based On Social/Legal Issues: Pink (2016)
Movie Review Based On Social/Legal Issues: Pink (2016)
Issues
Pink (2016)
The film is based in New Delhi, known for its atrocities and
crime against women. Deepak Sehgall (Amitabh Bachchan)
is a lawyer suffering from bipolar disorder who experiences
frequent mood swings. One night, Rajveer (Angad Bedi)
and his friends get drunk and try to molest Minal Arora
(Taapsee Pannu) and her two roommates (Kirti Kulhari-
Falak and Andrea Tariang-Andrea) leading to an accident.
How Deepak fights the girls’ case against the three
influential lads forms the crux of the story.
Characterisations
• Minal (Taapsee Pannu) is their natural leader, a
professional dancer (not that the movie shows us much of
that) who was the one who attacked Rajveer.
• Falak (Kirti Kulhari) is a more conservative character, the
kind who believes that the best offence is a good defence
— at least until things get to her.
• Meanwhile, the third is Andrea (Andrea Tariang), a timid
girl from Meghalaya who assumes the role of frightened
only child trapped between two warring parents.
• The men, on the other hand, are portrayed as typically
loutish, privileged Delhi youths, with patriarchal attitudes
and political connections (Rajveer is an MLA's nephew).
• The movie's main problems lie with the sketchy, larger-
than-life character named Deepak Sahgal (Amitabh
Bachchan), a grizzled old man who seems to emerge
from the shadows the way mechanical monsters do at
'haunted' theme park rides.
Review
• Pink does not attempt to give us a truthful picture of the
legal process. As evidence, the film revolves around three
girls accused in a false case of attempted murder and
soliciting — when one of them defends herself against a
would-be molester and injures him. The man is politically
connected; he and his cronies try to intimidate the girls
and the trial is where it eventually leads.
• What is significant, however, is not that the girls are
acquitted after being put through trauma but that the men
involved are also ‘found guilty’ — in the same trial —
although they have not even been formally charged!
Perhaps this short cut was necessary to provide the
audience with emotional satisfaction, but my point here is
that the film is better understood as a discursive exercise
with a message, and questioning the story’s plausibility is
futile