pink movie review essay

A Feminist Reading Of ‘Pink’

How many times has the value of consent been taken for granted in our society? How many times has our culture considered consent , and specifically, sexual consent , important enough to be acknowledged and discussed? Consent, as simple as it sounds, is not simple to apply in a global culture not only because women are never actually given bodily agency at any point in life, but also because standarized laws do not fit individual lives. There is hardly a space where women can have the agency in terms of their own sexual experience without judgment, and express their sexuality which is squelched, scrutinized and questioned at every point.

Pink (2016)

Cast : Taapsee Pannu, Kirti Kulhari, Angad Bedi, Andrea Tariang, Amitabh Bachchan, Piyush Mishra and Dhritiman Chatterjee.

Director : Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury

Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury’s ‘Pink’ takes this very aspect of consent as its central theme. This is one of those hard-hitting films which talks about the ‘character assassination’ every woman undergoes because she chooses to take charge of her life, and determines its course on her own terms. The film actively questions the pre-conceived notions held by the society with respect to independent women, the type of clothes they wear and the number of men they befriend or choose to sleep with.

The film quite effectively deals with the theme of consent, and specifically, sexual consent. A resounding point that the film means to convey is straight-forward and simple – that a NO is a sentence in itself and it needs no further explanations. Even though there were fundamental problems in how the movie dealt with this, we’ll get back to them a little later!

The opening sequences of the film show two sets of people in their cars late at night. In one car, a young man, lying at the backseat is bleeding profusely, as blood runs down from one side of his face. In another car, the camera shows three women, visibly anxious and nervous over something that shouldn’t have happened. This scene, which shows the visible consequences of the then unsaid and incomprehensible turn of events, highlights how obvious it becomes for any person to blame women even before knowing the complete story. Perhaps, the opening scene was also intended to pre-tell the coiling of the entire narrative that would end up blaming the women who, inspite of being the survivors, are constantly blamed for hurting male ego and dismissing male entitlement.

These women, namely Meenal (Tapsee Pannu), Falak (Kirti Kulhari), and Andrea (Andrea Tairang) share an apartment in a plush South Delhi neighbourhood. Their lives take a major turn the night they attend a rock concert. Post which, the three women are constantly cornered by Rajveer and his friends. Consequently Meenal files a complaint against them. But the influential Rajveer Singh (Angad Bedi) in turn seeks a trial on the charges of attempt to murder against her, because of his head injury. The legal proceedings blame the women for soliciting the men and claim that they turned aggressive because they were refused money. The women take the threats, the intimidation and the sexism by these men head-on and what follows is how they confront them with the help of the lawyer Deepak Sehgal (Amitabh Bachchan) in a court-room battle.

The first half of the film deals with how the lives of these women get affected one by one because of the unrest created by Rajveer and his gang of dudebros (the kind we are all aware of). One of them is forced to take a leave from her work because her picture has been morphed, another woman is threatened through text messages and phone calls, one is abducted and assaulted in a van. And finally, their landlord is threatened to kick them out of the house, but he chooses to believe in them rather than believing a stranger. Yes, sounds like a more or less idealistic situation in today’s times!

There is an inherent patriarchal mindset which is so normalised by now that rarely any Hindi movies bring them under scrutiny, but this one decides to bring them (at least some of them) under the lens. It isn’t presented matter-of-factly that in our society, certain “kind” of girls need to be “punished” , that their social friendliness and gestures are an invitation to men for sleeping with them without even asking them, and that women are blamed for their own assault and violence.

Although the film falters in stretching the screenplay in some parts of the first half, the heated courtroom trials add dimension and life to fit the screenplay in the second half of the film.

Tapsee Pannu (Meenal) stands out in her role as a determined woman who is not ready to back out and is ready to take up challenges. Kirti Kulkhari’s character of Falak is shown as the most collective of all, who, (and we loved her for this) brought in the importance of consent even when it is a sex worker we are talking about. Andrea Tairang (Andrea) does justice to her role with an impactful presence and enforces the idea of the shallow mindsets of most people who think that women from North-East are an “easy-target.”

It is through Deepak Sehgal, a retired lawyer, that the ideas of how the society has maintained the rule-book for women for their character-sketch, and how grim the reality of a patriarchal culture (which most of us are happy to be in denial of) is, are enforced. With a deadpan expression on his face, Bachchan delivers a clean, intense and convincing performance and doesn’t falter, throughout. However, the development of his character takes longer than usual to occupy shape in the mould of the screenplay.

Having said that, being a film that aims to vouch for gender parity, a female lawyer that defends the case of the three women would have been much more empowering than deploying the character of a male lawyer. It would not only have given the characters a greater sense of empathy, but also unfolded the narrative in a much more convincing way. Choosing a male lawyer for the same purpose might reinforce the idea that a man shunning patriarchy, questioning male entitlement and being the “saviour” is more convincing than a female lawyer doing the same job.

This further reinforces the idea that we are somehow less convinced or perhaps are not convinced enough to take her seriously. And usually, when women make a valid argument, the very nature of their arguments are usually deemed as “bossy” or “ intimidating” . The film, therefore, at this point, seems to contradict the very idea it seems to be enforcing and this fault is so glaring, it’s hard to miss it. If this still doesn’t seem like a convincing enough argument, take a close look at the most viral posters of the movie. They have a nauseatingly dominant image of the angry Amitabh Bachchan, whereas the women (who are meant to be the protagonists) are laughably just doll-sized as compared to him. Irony just died a thousand deaths!

What also didn’t go well with me was how certain things were not tied into the larger narrative of the film, which led to a lot of loose threads. One of which was the character of Sehgal’s wife. She had absolutely no relevance in the bigger picture of the narrative and was a passive and silent character throughout and eventually given a sad demise. What was the point, really? Another thing that wasn’t developed on and was almost erased was the traumatic scene where Meenal was abducted by Rajveer and his friends to “teach” her a lesson. The incident was not given a definite closure and was left hanging like it was nothing. Similarly, the stare sequences in the beginning involving Amitabh Bachchan were never reasoned out throughout the film. The way in which he stared and the way it was normalised, without it being given the space for further explanations in the course of the film, was downright creepy and uncomfortable.

Besides that, it also needs to be noted how sex work is looked at in the film. While we shouldn’t have much hopes from the patriarchal and misogynist Rajveer and company, Falak’s resignation to the idea of being paid for sex in front of the court was not taken positively even by her friends (who were shown as empowered, independent women). Even when they weren’t involved in it in the first place, their reactions just furthered the already prevailing association of shame, anxiety, guilt and exclusion with sex work and sex workers.

Now, coming back to the portrayal and representation of consent by none other than Mr. Bachchan’s character! The way he keeps asking Meenal whether or not she said “ No ” to Rajveer when he was forcing himself on her, is discomforting to say the least. It is not just the absence of a “No” that determines the lack of consent, but also the absence of a definite “Yes.” Meenal kept reiterating that she pushed him away, but evidently it wasn’t enough. Flawed and incomplete consent lessons, anyone?

Regarding the title of the film, Shoojit Sircar, in one of his interviews said that the title is meant to destigmatise ‘pink’ as a feminine colour and the various associations that are made with it. But, during the entire course of the film, not even for once, this association has been substantiated and most people are reading it as, “film about women and ‘ women empowerment ‘, hence pink.”

The subtle sledge hammering of what needs to be done in a society choked with prejudices, widespread misogyny and outright injustice is evocative enough in the film and the impact remains solid because of the climax which ultimately collects the bits and pieces of hints from throughout the film and gives it a defining edge, ultimately creating an unbiased space. Of course, male saviour complex is playing itself parallely. And this brings us to the submission that, ‘Pink’, however far from flawless, is an important film. Not only because it deals with a lot of important issues, but also somewhere breaks conventions and reinforcements of mainstream cinema in a lot of ways. At the end of the day, it will make you question a lot of things that are wrong with us even today!

Also Read:   17 Ways Popular Media Like Television & Cinema Could Be More Gender-Sensitive

With inputs from Adishi Gupta

Featured Image Credit: A still from the film

Tatsita is a postgraduate in Public Policy and Governance from Azim Premji University. A film and cultural studies enthusiast, Tatsita is fascinated by the Marxist, Post-Structuralist, Post-Modernist and Psychoanalytic school of thoughts to understand the idea of power in complex human relationships as well as oppressive social structures around gender and caste. Her interests also include film editing, sociology of law and intersectionality of urban housing patterns in India. She can be found on Twitter.

It’s equally patriarchal and sexist to assume that men cannot be gatekeepers of feminism simply because of their gender. The fact that the lawyer was a guy is elemental to make a feminist statement, because to change the power dynamics, it has to happen from within. Men’s contribution to feminism is equally important here, and instead of reifying gender roles and stereotypes, this movie takes into account men and women themselves likewise, that aid and support patriarchy (such as female inspector, society people etc.). Also, instead of making remote childish comparisons, one can read the pairing of the male lawyer to be rather subversive and much more pro-feminist than a female one. Because largely the man understands and empathises with the women, unearths the logic that the men he so called ‘represents’ employ, and expose the fallacy with subversive brilliance and humor. The idea that men are not themselves the subject of feminism is just sad, since A) they are affected by it equally, and B)Their contribution is needed for erasing patriarchy, because they will have to give up such power and privilege to those who don’t have access to it, including many men, women and others.(One of my favourite scenes was when the woman accused put the hood on her face, and he took it off, among many others) The distinction here is important to show since even feminists refuse to get out of their gender framing, as is clearly evident here. A reason why one would feel this way maybe because Amitabh has that persona, which other films have framed.

I’m not sure this makes him have a ‘saviour-complex’, there was no patronising, there was no ‘let me speak for you’. Yes his help as a lawyer was needed, but that not by itself means that women have submitted themselves to the guy, and that their narrative is stolen. The very fact that the cross examination and their witness testimony was the central focus of the film, despite Amitabh in it. In fact, the ability of the director to have such a huge star be embodied into the narrative is by means an easy task. You have wrongly theorised the saviour complex in this film. Secondly, the lawyer is clearly not the most legitimate subject himself because he is retired and considered unstable, due to his mental disorder. This again breaks the stereotype you have imposed in your article that ‘men’ are more heard than ‘women’. Again, the savior complex reference is quite cruel to give him because you are essentializing and gendering who deserves to promote and be part of the emancipatory process.

Secondly, the argument with respect to consent that the author makes is a problem that many debates on consent have still not cleared. Because what is consent? Highly subjective and no objective standard can be established. However, since this isn’t real life but a legal issue, it’s articulation in the film has been satisfactorily observed. Contextually, even a ‘no’ can mean something different, especially with respect to different kinks and sexualities that we have now in place. Obviously at no point in time did the film contend that the pushing away or physical reluctance was irrelevant, legally this is the context on which ‘no’ has been interpreted. The author is clearly not legally sound here. The author should have rather problematized the very black and white notion of consent, and that the film should have shown a grey area that required more thought. For instance in cases where people initially agree to have sex but later choose to not go any further, even while they’re at it. This theme was lacking.

Thirdly, the author of the article must realize the historical consciousness and mindsets that even ‘independent working women’ (Whatever that means) may have . Let’s not put ‘independent working women’ as a category into a pedestal, intersectionality functions on various levels even within ‘independent, working women’. Oppression is the creation of a patriarchal mindset. If all female subjects were shown as perfect feminist models, then the purpose of the film is largely defeated. A character’s internalized misogyny and patriarchy is a creative choice of the filmmaker, and this character’s perspective throws light on some assumptions that even seemingly ‘open minded’ people make. It’s also funny that if you had a problem with this character doing this, you didn’t have a problem when the women were reluctant to go to the police station and file an FIR. Either way, the problem isn’t them but the social and legal environment that makes them take such decisions and have such opinions. The society’s taboo on sex work is so strong, you will find lewd references about them in songs, music, abuses and everything. This obviously makes even fairly open minded women intimidated, not to mention in a court of law which harbours such views many a times.

Having said that, you are right that the conditions were way too ideal and clear cut, which is sad considering the world has come so far ahead, yet we are stuck on archaic questions on past sexual conduct, black and white consent and prohibitions on female desires and sexuality.

Originally commented on the Fb post: First of all, I would love to applaud this well-written, detailed and completely honest and subjective feminist review of the film presented by the author without any fear of backlash (as the majority of the reviews present contradictory or dissimilar views on many of the aspects touched upon by the writer) I myself have some contradictory views being a feminist. However, I would point out the major agreements first. Primarily, I would agree with the loose ends mentioned in the reading which I also very much agree with, one of them being the assault of Meenal by Rajeev’s friends in a van, even I felt that the incident required some definite closure or at least a mention during the highly intense courtroom drama. And that the film required more crisp editing and that some parts from the first half could have been omitted or at least shortened. The disagreements: There is a valid reason why Emma Watson came up with #HeForShe campaign to invite and involve men along with women to fight for women and their rights, she encourages men to be feminists as well and makes them realize that being a feminist they are fighting against the gender stereotypes and the hegemonic masculinities and essentialism according to which even men are assigned certain societal images and roles based on their gender/sex just like women which they don’t always fit into or execute. And how even men can be and are victims of patriarchy in many ways like women. Deepak Sehgal’s character is one such feminist who believes in the cause of women and fights for them because that’s what he believes is right and just. Hence, the absence of a female lawyer in his place doesn’t contradict what film actually stands for or tries to achieve but rather encourages full-fledged involvement of men in Feminism as a whole because men can equally empathise with women and one always doesn’t need another woman but a feminist to understand the cause and question of women and her issues as well and can be equally staunch feminists and dedicate themselves to the cause (Justin Trudeau for the record). You could have highlighted the brief scene in the second half where while jogging Meenal covers her head with the hood but Sehgal removes it implying that she does not need to hide her true identity from anyone as she hasn’t done anything wrong, why should she cover herself in shame? There’s no reason for her to be ashamed and that she hasn’t lost her honour but rather the perpetrators have lost their honour. Also, during the scene where Falak admits that yes they had solicited but later turned it down, Meenal and Andrea react not simply because being a sex worker is looked down upon with disgrace but because of being falsely accused of something that they haven’t done. But Meenal understands that how difficult it was for Falak to accept something which she hasn’t done which is highlighted in the scene where Meenal slaps her a moment and the very next embraces her and ends up crying because she understood that. Another aspect which I believe needs to be brought up is about the common school friend of Meenal and Rajeev. He does try to come up with a solution to establish peace between the two parties which is obviously not acceptable (an apology from the women) but nevertheless he does distance himself from his other male friends and proves that he does not promote equal male entitlement like his friends. His character is a strong hope hinting that men are on the verge of attaining feminist consciousness but require some more guidance/ training/awareness/knowledge/sensitization as its not that easy to shatter the patriarchal ideologies and sexist/ male chauvinistic behaviours/attitudes in an average man which has been internalised ever since he was a child thanks to the inevitable gender-based socialisation which children are almost always exposed to (same applies to girls as well). About the title, I guess, it was very much implied in the film and if still one could not grasp its significance then the poetry by Mr Bachchan during the rolling of end credits does make it quite clear as it talks about redefining and re-establishing one’s identity and true-self, the essence of being a woman and a human which highly suggests the shattering of connotations and symbolism associated with the traditional feminine pink. Also, regarding the online posters, they way I perceive this issue- it was used as a promotional tactic for obvious reasons to gather as many people as possible to the theatres since it is a mainstream commercial movie at the end of the day and not only is it doing a great business but the word of mouth is building up excitement and curiosity amongst people and spreading the much required awareness and indulging in feminist consciousness being raised and lets admit that the movie is nothing short of a much needed gender sensitization workshop coupled with entertainment, mystery, thrill, humour and their likes. So, overall I believe it does a lot of justice to the cause and comes across as a huge pathbreaker from androcentric mainstream movies that happily sideline women and their causes or dismiss them as mere sex objects. This was my personal opinion and Feminism in India can obviously agree/ disagree with this.

Questioning the Patriarchal attitudes: A review of the film Pink by Shoojit Sorcar by Jayashubha Instances of rape are quite common in India. According to National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB), about 93 rapes take place in India every day. Two different perspectives emerge in relation to cause of rapes. There is a prevalent patriarchal view with a base in feudal mindset, which blames the victim. It argues that rapes do happen due to lack of safety practices by victim themselves. Their patterns of dressing with modern outfits, their openness and friendliness interacting with men, their physical mobility beyond certain hours, their activities such as drinking titillates and encourages men to perform the act. Hence it argues that it is for the women to have a control over themselves. This means that they should only resort to traditional clothing, restrain from interacting in free manner particularly men, restrict their physical mobility beyond certain hours and keep themselves away from activities like smoking and drinking. Women with similar patterns according to them are of ‘questionable character’. The counter view argues that acts of rape have a base in patriarchal and male chauvinistic attitude of men. It states that if factors such as dressing, openness, mobility, habit of drinking are by itself a factor, then what could explain instances of rape and molestation of children and even aged women, who are also victims. Even traditional women following the said codes are too victims of rape. It states that it has a base in male ‘masculine’ attitudes which believes women bodies as objects and a property. ‘Force’ is seen as a sign of masculinity of men. This view holds that this attitude hardly pay attention to the factor of ‘consent’ and ‘willingness’ even within and outside the institution of marriage. Their act is seen as a right of display of masculinity and exercise of control over women. The film by Shoojit Sorcar titled ‘Pink’ tries to bring out the hypocrisy related to debates that take around cases of molestation and rapes. The expansion of autonomy and emergence of spaces through modernity, economic independence and autonomy leading to behaviors equated with ‘consent’ are questioned. This is done through the three characters Minal, Falak and Andrea who represent independent modern urban women working in Delhi. Their dressing, friendliness, drinking and participation in rock concert get perceived as indications of invitation and openness. Rajdeep, Dumpy and Vishwa represent men with attitudes perceiving independent women as cheap, slut and whore. In the events that take place, as an act of self-defense one of the aggressors Rajdeep gets physically attacked. The aggressor, in the name of teaching them a lesson resort to mischaracterization of the three women. The film tries to argue that wearing skirts, jeans or T-Shirts, being present in Rock concerts, laughing and being friendly with men, having drink in a company or even with sexual past does in no way represent openness. Women do have freedom to decide and to make choices. Saying ‘No’ is a clear expression of unwillingness. Much of the debate happens at the backdrop of arguments in the courtroom. Some of the dialogues (translated into English) which try to counter presumed view include: • “Any girl at any time cannot go alone with men. If this is done, it is assumed that the girl has willingly issued license to touch” • “During night when girls go out on the roads independently, then vehicles slow down and so their windows come down. No one gets this great idea during the day”. • “Liquor is seen as representing a sign of bad character, only for the girls. For boys it is only an health hazard”. • “If you are present in Rock show, then it is a hint. If you are in library or temple, then it is not a hint. Venue decides your character”. • “In urban areas, no girl can live independently. Men can live but not women. Lonely and independent women confuse the men.” • “The girls who go out to Party and have a drink, they become your traditional right to own” • “If women go out with men for a dinner or drinks, then it is their choice. It is not a sign board that they are available”. • “‘No’ is not just a word. By itself it is a complete sentence. This does not require any rationale, clarification, explanation or sentence.” • “These boys must realize that No means No. The girl who says so could be known person, could be a friend, could be a sex worker or even your wife. ‘No’ means no and when someone says No, you stop. The questions raised by the film acquire importance in contemporary times. It points that the problem lies with the societal attitudes towards female autonomy and female behavior, which is anti-women and patriarchal. It is not the restrictions on female autonomy and behavior that is required but a change in the patriarchal mindsets of men and anti-women societal attitudes.

About the Author: Jayashubha has done her M.Sc in Organic Chemistry. She works as a Teacher.

I liked the film immensely … and I think it is a path-breaking initiative . Quite a few emotions of Indian women suppressed traditionally have been boldly and sometimes subtly brought home to the liberal discerning mind which is educated enough to feel the agonies reserved for the fairer sex in India . The movie , as correctly observed above , falters a bit – though not very much- in the first half . The Histrionic ability and tremendous personality of Amitabh Bachchan … (not to mention his superb dialogue delivery … which is the backbone of the film) ,the easy and natural way the girls performed , and the great peculiarly Delhi-type acting of the main villians’ friend carries the film with elan on it’s shoulders . In a nutshell a film very very much worth watching !!!

Consent is a critical issue. Its use selectively, however, is abhorring. Society does not give any importance to the issue of consent when it is men’s consent that is required. Whether or not a man wants to pay alimony he alone must decide. After all it is his hard-earned money. Not even supreme court has a right to direct him in this matter. Likewise everything, absolutely everything in a marriage should also be based on consent and consent alone.

Why do feminists claim to smash patriarchy? Rights of the men are hated but patriarchal responsibility of men are taken for granted. It is patriarchal responsibility forced on men that make it legally binding on him to take care of women and their children. If you hate patriarchy dissolve all such laws. But feminism and honesty are mutually exclusive.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts

‘Varshangalku Shesham’ (2024) Review: Understanding Its  Success And Self Mockery 

By Vidhupriya

‘Amar Singh Chamkila’: Dosanjh Shines In Imtiaz Ali’s Thoughtful Biopic

By Himalika Mohanty

Katara and Suki in Netflix’s ‘Avatar: The Last Airbender’ Adaptation

By Simran Tapaswi

• International
• Today’s Paper
• Join WhatsApp Channel
• Movie Reviews
• Tamil Cinema
• Telugu Cinema

Pink movie review: A blazing indictment of all that’s wrong with us

Pink movie review: the film starring amitabh bachchan and taapsee pannu sledgehammers the message that when a woman says no, she means no. it underlines a woman’s freedom to her own sexuality..

Pink movie cast: Taapsee Pannu, Kirti Kulhari, Andrea Tariang, Amitabh Bachchan, Angad Bedi, Raashul Tandon, Vijay Varma, Tushar Pandey, Piyush Mishra, Dhritimaan Chatterjee, Vinod Nagpal, Dibang Pink movie director: Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury

All those associated with the making of ‘Pink’, please take a deep bow : finally, a powerful, brave Hindi mainstream film which focuses on real young women who live real lives and deal with thorny day-to-day issues, which young women the world over will identify and relate with.

I know where the young leads in ‘Pink’ are coming from. And I know too many women who have been in their place, or missed being there by a scary, scarring whisker.

Bottomline, when a girl says no, she means no. En O, which means `nahin’, nada, don’t want. It means go away, don’t bother me. It can also be a prelude to stronger language if the aggressor in question refuses to back off. The young woman can wear short skirts or jeans or Tees. She can be present at rock concerts. She can laugh and reach out to a young man in a friendly fashion. She can have a drink or two in his company. She can even be, shudder, sexually experienced.

Hearing the phrase ‘are you a virgin’ in a Bollywood film in a meaningful, non-smirky manner? Fantastic. Underlining a woman’s freedom to own her sexuality? Priceless.

Watch Video |  Amitabh Bachchan, Taapsee Pannu Starring Pink Releases: Audience Reaction

When she says no, it means only one thing. No grabbing. No forcing. Take that groping hand and mouth away. She isn’t easy. She isn’t a person of loose morals. She is not, never, ever, asking for it.

That it has taken Bollywood so long to make a movie which says it so clearly, without beating about the bush, without prevaricating or using obfuscatory language, tells us a great deal about the country we live in, and the social mores that its women have had to live by, buried under crippling patriarchy and misogyny and a sense of mistaken shame—if you are pawed or worse, you must have done something to provoke your molester. So cross your hands across your chest, put your head down, and keep shut.

Also read |  Pink celeb movie review: Amitabh Bachchan film is unmissable, says Bollywood

The three female protagonists of ‘Pink’ are your regular young women. Minal (Taapsee Pannu) is an events manager, whose work can extend into the late hours. Falak (Kirti Kulhari) works in a corporate set-up where image is all. Andrea (Tariang) is from the ‘North-East’ (Meghalaya, she says, but clearly no one is interested in the specifics : girls from the `North East’ are fair game, even if they are covered from top to toe). The girls share a flat in a ‘posh’ South Delhi locality, and we meet them first when they are heading back in a cab in the early hours of the morning, disturbed about something that has just happened.

As the plot (oh joy, a plot, verily), terse and on-point, unravels, we get to know that the trio was in the company of three young men, after a rock concert in Surajkund in Haryana. Things take an ugly turn after the dinner that follows. The women have to make a run for it, and one of the young men ends up needing stitches in a deep bloody gash above his eye.

It doesn’t a genius to discover that the political might backing the injured Rajveer (Angad Bedi) and his friends, Dumpy (Raashul Tandon), Vishwa (Tushar Pandey) and another fellow (Vijay Varma) who wasn’t there but is happy to engineer and participate in the humiliation of the women, will try and turn the tables: instead of being the victims, they will be painted as the aggressors. How do you silence a courageous young woman who has the temerity to ask questions? You label her cheap, slut, whore: the film mutes the word ‘rxxx’, but you can see it emblazoned on the face of the guy who says it out loud and the girls who have to hear it. You can see it in the body language of the female cop (Shankar, just so) who helps nail the wrong person for the crime.

Pink reminded me of Jodi Foster’s The Accused in which her character is gang-raped in a bar: because she wears a short skirt, and has been drinking, she is made out to be a woman on the make. Something similar happens here, but it is all three women who have to bear the brunt of the rage that such male entitlement comes with: ‘aisi ladkiyon ke saath toh aisa hi hota hai’.

Pannu, Kulhari and Tariang, all very good, typify the dilemma of the modern working young women ( they live in Delhi, and the young men who accost them are very much a part of a certain kind of coarse North Indian ethos—they bully but are too cowardly to do this on their own, needing patronage and protection from the nexus of `netas’ and police which exists only to protect them, not call them out on their wrong-doing), but this could happen anywhere , and not just in India.

The young men are also spot on. Bedi exudes menace : when he snarls out that awful expletive during the trial, you feel like shrinking, and wondering — how did we fail this generation, this youth of today, if they still feel like this? Or is it just a continuation of the way generations of men, only surface smooth-and- suave, have felt about women? Scratch a little, and putrid patriarchal pus comes pouring out.

The other three guys are the kind of hangers-on who slip stream alongside a strong leader : if he is having fun (`mazey’ is the word used, and you feel faintly grubby after hearing it used in this manner), then so can they. ‘Behti ganga mein sab haath dho sakte hain’, and girls who refuse to give in and lie back and enjoy it, be damned. How dare they?

The major weak link in this film is the elderly lawyer played by Amitabh Bachchan . (Piyush Mishra takes away some of the sobriety in the court scenes by his unsubtle notes, but he is not so germane to the film’s scheme of things). Deepak Sehgall, we are told, is suffering from bipolar disorder, which means mood swings, which means Bachchan alternating between chewing out dialogue and being growly and forced. He takes on the girls’ case, and we want to cheer because he is the Bachchan and will make everything come right. But because he is Bachchan, the director handles him with kid gloves, and there goes the naturalism with which everyone else is playing their parts so effectively.

Watch |  Amitabh Bachchan and Taapsee Pannu-starrer Pink Trailer here.

For the most part, the thespian comes off mannered, and you want to shout out and say, no, this film doesn’t need Bachchan to be in a pulpit of his own, when he is meant to be taking apart those who are in the witness box. Only occasionally during the second half ( most of which is spent in the court-room with the excellent Chatterjee as the presiding judge), Sehgall forgets he is Bachchan the Baritone, and lights up the screen with a couple of superb moments. It is in these moments you are face to face with the One and Only Bachchan, who should have been in exactly that mode through the film: why are his directors so chary about telling him what to do and how to do it, when he never tires of saying that he is a director’s actor?

Those sporadic moments make you nostalgic. Is there anyone out there who can craft a solid, challenging role for Bachchan? Anyone at all? Being awe-struck is not a good place for a filmmaker. I am waiting for the return of the actor who, back in his day, used to routinely blow my socks off in a way no one has even come close to, in all these years.

Also read |  Raaz Reboot movie review

Meanwhile, Pink, perhaps called thus because the colour is girly, subverts it and turns it on its head. In its best bits, the film blazes, its call-to-arms radiating outwards and forcing us to acknowledge uncomfortable truths. It has something to say, and says it with courage and conviction. Gather everyone and go; and while you are at it, spread the word.

Follow on Twitter @shubhragupta

I met nobody in rural India who saw Modi as Subscriber Only

How Bengaluru’s lakes disappeared Subscriber Only

Vidya Balan & Pratik Gandhi talk about marriage, infidelity & Subscriber Only

Buoyed by Modi factor, Tejasvi Surya sits pretty in Bangalore Subscriber Only

To survive as an artist today, be a megalomaniac Subscriber Only

How FN Souza's art was perplexing yet arresting Subscriber Only

Lakshya Sen & Priyanshu Rajawat hold the key to India's Subscriber Only

Why Shobhaa De says hunger is underrated

‘High growth not possible if we don’t do our own Subscriber Only

Congress president Kharge has requested a meeting with PM Modi to discuss their manifesto after he accused the party of wanting to distribute wealth to "infiltrators" and those with more children. Kharge called Modi's remarks "hate speech" and clarified that the manifesto does not target any religious group. He believes the PM's comments are a diversion tactic.

More Entertainment

Best of Express

Apr 22: Latest News

• 01 Iveco chief Marx quits to become CEO at CNH Industrial
• 02 PBKS vs GT, what caught our eye: Prabhsimran fills in at the start, Harpreet never gets going; Punjab flounder as Ashutosh-Shashank can’t rescue one more time
• 03 SI returning from kin’s funeral dies after his car rams road divider
• 04 Ecuadorians head to polls to toughen fight against gangs behind wave of violence
• 05 Chess Candidates 2024 Live Updates: Gukesh makes history by becoming youngest-ever World Championship contender
• Elections 2024
• Political Pulse
• Entertainment
• Movie Review
• Newsletters
• Gold Rate Today
• Silver Rate Today
• Petrol Rate Today
• Diesel Rate Today
• Web Stories
• Premium Stories
• Express Shorts
• Health & Wellness
• Board Exam Results

• India Today
• Business Today
• Reader’s Digest
• Harper's Bazaar
• Brides Today
• Cosmopolitan
• Aaj Tak Campus
• India Today Hindi

Pink movie review: Amitabh Bachchan's POWERFUL message is unmissable

Amitabh bachchan and taapse pannu star in this week's bollywood release, pink, a social thriller directed by aniruddha roy chowdhury. here's our pink movie review..

Listen to Story

Pink, starring Amitabh Bachchan and Taapsee Pannu in the lead roles, addresses the issue of patriarchal, condescending attitude towards independent women and stigmatising them in 21st century India. Here's our Pink movie review.

ALSO READ: Before Pink, 5 Hindi courtroom dramas you must watch

OPINION: A look at Amitabh Bachchan, Bollywood's most high profile character actor

Pink, the new Amitabh Bachchan film, is a lot like Deepak Sehgal, Amitabh Bachchan's character in the film. Mr Sehgal, a lawyer, inside the courtroom, is all theatrics and showmanship - growling one minute, silent and mumbling the next. Mr Sehgal knows that Indians, particularly, the Indian man, has a hard time understanding Indian women the moment the latter do not fit into the feudal expectations set upon them. Screenwriter Ritesh Shah and director Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury know that as well. Hence, they have made a film which drives home the point with OTT sound and fury, just the way Mr Sehgal likes to conduct business; break open the Indian skull with a sledgehammer and drill into it basic concepts of human dignity, respect and honour because achchhe din is a long time coming for women in India. And while doing such social service, Pink, like Mr Sehgal, is never for a second, boring.

The story revolves around Minal (Taapsee Pannu), Falak (Kirti Kulhari) and Andrea (Andrea Tariang) - three young working women based in Delhi. A bad twist of events involving a few young men with powerful political ties has them caught in a web of social stigma, law-and-order problem leading to an arrest and finally a showdown in the courtroom.

Pink, like Madaari, also written by Ritesh Shah, is a film that has the trappings of a thriller to keep the audience guessing about the outcome every minute, while simultaneously engaging them in a conversation about contemporary society. Pink is about the patriarchal mindset which looks at independent women capable of making the same choices as independent, enfranchised men, as 'loose' or 'characterless'.

The screenplay is among the best-written ones of 2016 so far (even though that list isn't long). It is taut, does not beat around the bush and waste time in exposition; for instance, one could easily fall into the trap of 'explaining' where Mr Sehgal's angst is coming from or sketch the 'Girl-from-the-North-East' character Andrea with more detail, but all of that would only make the film longer than necessary.

When you have a great script along with actors like Amitabh Bachchan, Piyush Mishra, Dhritiman Chattejee plus competent young performers like Taapsee and Kirti, you already have a winner in your hands. As such, Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury, whose Bengali films had a rather sombre, poetic, deliberate aesthetic, does not get to show much directorial flourish in Pink.

A very interesting thing about Pink is how the film holds back the details of the aforementioned 'bad twist of events' up until the beginning of the second half, which is essentially the courtroom part, where everything falls into place. Therefore, the audience is put in the same position as that of the judge, who has no prior information on the plaintiff or the defendant to form an opinion.

As for the performances, Mr Sehgal's role is a cakewalk for Amitabh Bachchan. Piyush Mishra's acting has become very predictable and his turn as the slimy lawyer here too delivers no surprises. Taapsee Pannu is excellent, but more so is Kirti Kulhari. It is refreshing to see her in a strong, demanding role after a promising performance in 2011's Shaitaan. And last but not the least, Angad Bedi. Bedi, as the spoiled son of a politician, rages and froths with hyper-virile masculinity and institutional entitlement. He is a treat to watch.

However, as much as Pink pushes the envelope in Indian films in regard to discussion around morality, women's freedom of choice, etc., one can see Amitabh, the grand old patriarch of Hindi cinema, playing the sole voice of women's rights as regressive. But if not Amitabh, then who? Can one think of a more commanding voice and a more assertive personality than Amitabh Bachchan in Hindi cinema today, regardless of how many 'women-centric' films Kangana Ranaut has done? Pink is a giant leap, sure, but it can only leap so far. Keeping Pink as a starting point, future writer-directors should build on the foundation established by it to make more brave, more daring films on women's issues, where one day, not Amitabh Bachchan, but a woman can stand up and speak for herself and everyone will listen.

(The writer tweets as @devarsighosh .) Published By: AtMigration Published On: Sep 15, 2016 --- ENDS ---

Thanks For Rating

Reminder successfully set, select a city.

• Nashik Times
• Aurangabad Times
• Badlapur Times

You can change your city from here. We serve personalized stories based on the selected city

• Edit Profile
• Briefs Movies TV Web Series Lifestyle Trending Medithon Visual Stories Music Events Videos Theatre Photos Gaming

Arushi Sharma and Vaibhav Vishant finally share glimpses from their surreal wedding ceremony: 'We whispered promises in each other’s tender embrace'

Ayushmann Khurrana reveals he broke up with Tahira Kashyap after winning Roadies: '...Because I was getting attention from other girls'

Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant's July wedding venue, Amitabh Bachchan buys real estate in Alibaug, YRF wins Jabra Fan case: Top 5 entertainment news of the day

Song Ha Yoon, Stray Kids Hyunjin, Seo Ye Ji and more: Korean celebrities embroiled in bullying accusations

Aamir Khan reflects on Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak journey at Srikanth's Papa Kehte Hain 2.0 song launch: 'We didn’t know whether we would succeed or not'

Samantha Ruth Prabhu exudes elegant power dressing goals in a cream jacket and mini skirt

• Movie Reviews

Movie Listings

LSD 2: Love Sex Aur Dh...

The Legacy Of Jineshwa...

Do Aur Do Pyaar

Mamu Makandaar

Luv You Shankar

30 Hours Survival: Gau...

Detective Nysa

Bade Miyan Chote Miyan...

10 times when Keerthy Suresh showed us how to dress like a royal!

Charming clicks of Helly Shah

Neha Malik's shows her curves in these pics

Neeru Bajwa redefines grace with her ethnic avatars

Shriya Saran looks like a goddess in her silver lehanga

Rajkummar Rao, Esha Deol, and other Bollywood stars who sparked plastic surgery rumours

Rakul Preet Singh redefines simplicity and elegance in a pastel linen saree

Nayanthara and Vignesh Shivan are head over heels in love

Samantha Ruth Prabhu serves monochrome magic in classic Gucci set

City Hunter The Movie: ...

The First Omen

Love Lies Bleeding

Knox Goes Away

Godzilla x Kong: The Ne...

Chabak: Night Of Murder...

Finder: Project 1

Vallavan Vaguthadhada

Pon Ondru Kanden

Double Tuckerr

Oru Thavaru Seidhal

Paarijatha Parvam

Inti Number 13

Family Star

Tillu Square

Babu: No.1 Bullshit Guy

Om Bheem Bush

Happy Ending

Varshangalkku Shesham

The Goat Life

Jananam 1947 Pranayam T...

Manjummel Boys

Anweshippin Kandethum

Avatara Purusha 2

Chow Chow Bath

Hide And Seek

Somu Sound Engineer

Bonbibi: Widows Of The ...

Pariah Volume 1: Every ...

Shri Swapankumarer Bada...

Manush: Child of Destin...

Bogla Mama Jug Jug Jiyo

Sarabha: Cry For Freedo...

Zindagi Zindabaad

Maujaan Hi Maujaan

Chidiyan Da Chamba

White Punjab

Any How Mitti Pao

Gaddi Jaandi Ae Chalaan...

Buhe Bariyan

Alibaba Aani Chalishita...

Aata Vel Zaali

Shivrayancha Chhava

Delivery Boy

Sridevi Prasanna

Sur Lagu De

Devra Pe Manva Dole

Dil Ta Pagal Hola

Ittaa Kittaa

Jaishree Krishh

Bushirt T-shirt

Shubh Yatra

Your Rating

Write a review (optional).

• Movie Reviews /

Would you like to review this movie?

Cast & Crew

Pink Movie Review

• Times Of India
• Navbharat Times
• Mumbai Mirror
• Maharashtra Times

In-depth Analysis

Our overall critic’s rating is not an average of the sub scores below.

First look of Amitabh Bachchan starrer 'Pink'

Pink: Official trailer

Pink: 'Kaari Kaari' song

Taapsee Pannu’s fun moments from the sets of ...

Big B, Shoojit Sircar talk about ‘Pink’

Official Trailer - Pink

Tu Chal - Pink

Tujhse Hi Hai Roshni - Pink

Kaari Kaari - Pink

Jeenay De Mujhe - Pink

Dialogue Promo - Pink

Logo Teaser - Pink

National Awards

Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury

Ritesh Shah

Zee cine awards, users' reviews.

Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive . Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.

raghu6300386775 raghu 113 789 days ago

Water Type Script Exicuted With Powerful and Gripping Court Room Drama.

Manoj Shetty 509 833 days ago

Sadafkhanbushra 1083 days ago, iamsakshi955 yadav 1178 days ago.

this movie is just awsm and hatts of to the director actors and all the crew for showing the true side of our society

Souvik Saha 7 1359 days ago

Here Amitabh Bachchan play crucial role . He act as a lawyer and give justice to those girls . So I think this type of person or this type of lawyer we needed . If we are honest and looking for postive we have never gone fail. So as a student i watche several times I thought it was a best story . Every one play good role .overall the film is too good.

Visual Stories

​In pics: Sujitha Dhanush’s stunning looks​

Entertainment

Shriya Saran shines bright in silver shimmer lehenga

How to make South Indian Neer Moru to beat the heat

8 early signs of oral cancer common in patients

Dia Mirza exudes summer elegance in white co-ord set

Ultimate ethnic looks of Priyanka Chopra

10 Maharashtrian desserts every foodie should try

10 relationship tips to borrow from our grandparents

News - Pink

Janhvi Kapoor shares UNSEEN photos from Radhika Merchan...

Mukesh Ambani's luxury car collection expands with Nita...

Janvhi Kapoor walks barefoot to Siddhivinayak temple on...

BLACKPINK’s Rosé wows fans with curly hair look on Daze...

Priyanka Chopra shares glimpses of her little Malti Mar...

Vijay Varma: Pink was a wake-up call for me

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Get reviews of the latest theatrical releases every week, right in your inbox every Friday.

Thanks for subscribing.

Please Click Here to subscribe other newsletters that may interest you, and you'll always find stories you want to read in your inbox.

Popular Movie Reviews

Amar Singh Chamkila

Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar S...

Article 370

LSD 2: Love Sex Aur Dhokha 2

Bade Miyan Chote Miyan

Swatantrya Veer Savarkar

Pink Movie Review

The film is pink because it is about working women  who are vulnerable to a patriarchal and feudal sentiment

Apart from the obvious connotation of coding gender, the color pink has a political association as well. Pink refers to left leaning ideology, not quite red, but in that direction. And, also, in England, the defence lawyer once used to have his brief tied with a pink ribbon, as opposed to a white one for his counterpart in the prosecution. All three meanings have a connection to the plot of ‘Pink’.

The film is pink because it is about working women who are vulnerable to a patriarchal and feudal sentiment which says that women have no right to say no to men once they have given their consent to being alone with them and are free in their conversation and dealings with them. It is pink because it is emphatically against the idea of passing judgement on people, and does not take any rigid position, but accepts that human nature, in matters of sexuality, is complex, and usually falls into the spaces in between a radical feminist position and a more conservative one. Finally, the film is pink, because it is about the law governing these matters and about the defence of the fundamental right of a woman to say no to a man, in respect to her body, no matter what relationship she shares with him, or has previously shared with him – personal, financial or sexual.

All this stuff could have been so top heavy, it could have brought the film down and got it to preach. But that doesn’t happen, thanks to a set of passionate performances by the actresses playing this fictional incident. They portray three working women sharing an apartment in an upmarket area of Delhi. One night they get themselves into a frightful tangle with three young men, and are trapped in a Catch 22 situation. A retired legal luminary takes up their case and argues their defence in a series of court scenes, in which he lays bare the preconceived notions on women and sexuality that distort the views of the public and the state. He proves that this then leads to the manipulation of evidence and testimony in favour of the assailants.

Taapsee Pannu, Kirti Kulhari and Andrea Tariang are convincing in depicting the morally ambiguous situation they find themselves in, and are led in their team effort by Amitabh Bachchan, right now in another purple patch of his career.

The movie might have exposed its didactic rough edges without him leading it. But this actor, now in his fifth decade of the profession, has polished the frayed bits of an otherwise good script and taken it one step higher than its actual content.

In short, this a thinking, actors film with shades of grey that are brought out in a slow and absorbing way.

About The Auth o r

Current issue.

Rushdie’s Knife

More st o ries.

The Playful Past

“The day you say Modi is ‘satisfied’, you can say you are paying homage to him”

Travellers on Trial

M o st popular, congress: is the party withering away, the great disconnect, delusions of the west.

Carlo Pizzati

K Annamalai: Tamil Disrupter

The cult of hanuman.

Kaveree Bamzai

More C o lumns

The Playful Past Rati Girish

“The day you say Modi is 'satisfied’, you can say you are paying homage to him” Open

Travellers on Trial Bhavya Dore

REC O MMENDED STORIES

Sahir’s Legacy

Kaveree Bamzai The poet whose songs defined a generation’s angst was as mercurial as he was brilliant

On Playing a Monster

Kaveree Bamzai Playing heroes doesn’t interest me, says Nawazuddin Siddiqui

The Other Kerala Story

Divya Unny A new breed of Malayalam filmmakers achieves a perfect balance between box office success and original storytelling

© 2019 Open Media Network Pvt. Ltd.

Design & Developed by Pixelvj

India Votes 2024

Over 17,400 citizens write to EC seeking action against PM Narendra Modi for hate speech

Dubai: How a high-altitude jet stream, not cloud seeding, created a storm ‘the size of France’

Ramachandra Guha: Why 2024 is India’s most important election since 1977

Is apple cider vinegar as good for health as it sounds?

Modi’s dog whistle on Muslims not the only time EC has ignored contentious statements by BJP leaders

BJP Surat Lok Sabha candidate elected unopposed as Congress nominee is disqualified, others withdraw

‘On tolerance’: Publisher-poet Naveen Kishore on the dilemmas of the artistic intellect

View from the Margins: In the tea gardens of Bengal, neither Ram Mandir nor Kashmir is a poll issue

Lok Sabha polls top updates: EC declines to comment on PM Modi’s remarks at poll rally

Hate speech, brazen communal appeal: Opposition denounces PM Modi’s remarks on Muslims at poll rally

‘Pink’ movie review: A timely examination of the legal response to sexual assault

Aniruddha roy chowdhury’s drama stars taapsee pannu and amitabh bachchan..

Bengali director Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury’s first film in Hindi opens with a crime that echoes all the way till the end credits. Three women scurry back to their shared apartment in south Delhi, while another vehicle bearing many raging men heads to hospital. Minal (Taapsee Pannu) has smashed a bottle on the side of Rajvir Singh’s forehead after he tried to force himself on her, and Rajvir (Angad Singh Bedi) might lose an eye.

Rajvir’s eye survives, but he thirsts for revenge. Being the nephew of an influential politician, he uses the law against Minal and her flatmates Falak (Kriti Kulhari) and Andrea (Andrea Tariang). Minal is accused of attempt to murder and, along with her friends, of prostitution, and her own molestation complaint against Rajvir is dismissed as harassment. Forced to take the stand instead of Rajvir, Minal finds her reputation and future at stake, and it is good for her and this movie that Amitabh Bachchan’s world-weary lawyer is on her side.

Never once is Rajvir portrayed as a victim of female hysteria, and never once is it suggested that single women like Minal, who wear dresses and shorts, drink at social gatherings, and steal the occasional puff, deserve what comes their way. The coherence, intelligence and sensitivity with which Pink approaches tricky material is so rare in popular cinema that it is almost possible to ignore the occasional sermonising, tonal shifts, and reliance on a knight to save the distressed damsels.

The knight initially resembles the neighbourhood creep. His anti-pollution mask and deeper-than-usual baritone mark him as a cross between Darth Vader and Batman, and up until he swaps his tracksuit for lawyer’s robes, Deepak Sahgal (Amitabh Bachchan) is one of the many men who stare openly at Minal, Falak and Andrea simply because they can. Sahgal is supposed to be bipolar, but his despondency seems to be the result of age rather than his condition. Does he smile at all or approach anything resembling a manic state? One isn’t sure.

Sahgal actually is a vigilante put out to pasture, and together with the overhang of smog and the dull street lighting (the rich camerawork is by Avik Mukhopadhyay), the first hour proceeds like a nightmarish noir. As Minal’s landlord (Vinod Nagpal) is pressed into evicting his tenants, and the women are directly threatened, Roy Chowdhury and Mukhopadhyay create a very real sense of what it means to be at the receiving end of forces that are beyond the imagination.

The tone abruptly shifts in one snappy shot: the door opens to find Sahgal on the other side, all dressed up and ready to sally forth into battle. From there on, Pink moves into an exceedingly familiar world – the screen courtroom where the lawyer (often male) is saviour and truth-seeker, asking the questions that matter, presenting arguments that articulate the filmmaker’s philosophy, and lecturing the audience on justice and prejudice in the guise of cross-examinations.

Bachchan has two bristling scenes, both stellar examples of co-screen writer Ritesh Shah’s muscular dialogue and ability to simplify complex concepts such as consent, mitigating circumstances, and the culture of entitlement that produces sexual assaulters and rapists. In one, Sahgal jumps on the back of the elephant in the movie hall and asks Minal, “Are you a virgin?”

The other scene is of Rajvir’s cross-examination. Angad Singh Bedi’s finely nuanced performance reveals the attitude of his character – and a whole section of society – towards women like Minal, Falak and Andrea.

Although Pink is far removed from other such legal dramas, most famously Raj Kumar Santoshi’s Damini (1993), it shares with that film the stock character of the committed male lawyer who rescues the tarnished woman. Sahgal’s cross-examinations give the film its grandstanding moments. His rival is a caricature, and since he is played by Piyush Mishra, we get the movie’s major bum-note performance.

Taapse Pannu is not too convincing as the victim who becomes a survivor, and she is easily overtaken by Kriti Kulhari. The Shaitaan actress’s fabulously gutsy performance is a scene-stealer, especially when she turns the case on its head by giving the prosecution what it wants.

Pink is not Damini but it is not The Accused (1988) either. Despite its plainly feminist talk, it relies on Bachchan’s practised gravitas to demolish the belief that women of a certain type invite sexual assault. It’s hardly a coincidence that Sahgal’s paternalistic defence is delivered through the clipped tones of the former angry young man of 1970s cinema. Bachchan went from being an anti-establishment figure to a status quoist, but in his recent films Wazir , Ten and now Pink , he has come to represent an angry old man who wills himself into action since nobody else seems to be bothered.

The ploy partially works even if Sahgal’s character is overburdened with pathos – apart from bipolarity, he has an invalid wife (Mamta Shankar). Over Bachchan’s still upright shoulders, the filmmakers deliver a stinging indictment of society’s tendency to judge middle-class women who do not fit the stereotype of the rape victim.

The second minor portrait of aging is of Dhritiman Chatterjee’s judge. A lesser-known angry young man of the ’70s, Chatterjee still has a commanding presence, but the worrying tremor in his voice is an indication that the heroes of a couple of generations ago are now truly getting on.

Among the well-acted cameos is Vijay Varma’s lackey, who carries out Rajvir’s vengeance with chilling zeal. The choppy editing and the rushed and jumpy quality of a few scenes, however, suggest that some material and character layering were sacrificed in the interests of a manageable 136 minutes.

Pink balances its subtlety with its sloganeering through its grim and cynicism-free stand. The leitmotif of looking closely at a headline-grabbing issue is smartly tackled by the screenplay by Roy Chowdhury, producer Shoojit Sircar, and Ritesh Shah. From Rajvir’s one-eyed vengeance to Sahgal’s lugubrious gaze to the use of CCTV footage, Pink demands that sexual assault be looked at with sensitivity.

The end result is perhaps more righteous than intended. One of the most effective films on rape, the legal system, and the right to a fair trial is Otto Preminger’s Anatomy of a Murder (1959). Jimmy Stewart’s down-on-his-luck lawyer chooses to defend an unsympathetic target of rape and convinces the jury to look beyond her clothes and manner and consider the crime that has been committed. In one of the best sequences, the complainant openly comes on to Stewart’s lawyer, who is briefly interested before good sense takes over. Pink ’s issue-based approach prevents it from including such moments of sheer humanity. The movie considerably enriches the screen treatment of sexual assault, but the moment for fewer lectures and greater observation is still some years away.

• Amitabh Bachchan
• Taapsee Pannu

Expert Reviews

Get to know us

All Categories

5 Important Things “PINK” Taught Girls About Indian Laws

The blockbuster movie “Pink” starring Amitabh Bachchan and Tapsee Pannu, as we’ve said before, is too close to reality. The reality of being women in India – and the thoughts and the fears we have in our day-to-day lives. The movie was really hard-hitting, and it has received innumerable good reviews. (If you still haven’t watched it, you should go and book your tickets right away!!) A few days ago, The Times Of India reported that many government officials think it would be a good to use the film to create awareness about the legal aids and resources that we have access to, but we might be unaware of them. And we actually learned quite a few things from the movie. It’s a story of three young working women in Delhi, who weren’t aware of all their legal rights – just like most of us.

In the movie, Minal (the character played by Tapsee Pannu) goes to the police station to file an FIR against some guys who were harassing and threatening her and her friends after she injured one of them because he was trying to assault her. But the officials refused saying that the place where the incident took place was different, and that she would have to file an FIR there. When she goes to a senior officer, though, he introduces her to the concept of “Zero FIR”. This and many other legal terms from the movie “Pink” should be in every girl’s dictionary.

Here are a few terms and laws for women that we learned from the movie and which EVERY girl should be aware of…

1. Zero FIR

Connect with us

© 2024 THE GOOD GLAMM GROUP

Quick Guide on How to Write a Movie Review Essay

What Is a Movie Review

The internet has revolutionized the realm of film criticism. No matter a movie's level of quality, it is always worth analyzing. Despite the growing number of individuals attempting to write about movies, few are successful. Most people do not provide insightful analysis, instead simply state how much they liked or disliked the film.

A movie criticism, usually composed by a professional in film studies, takes a comprehensive look at the film from a historical, social, political, or theoretical standpoint. This is unlike the opinion or suggestion given in a movie review, which is shorter and more concise.

A remarkable aspect of a good film review is that it doesn't just rate the movie but provides explicit views that form the critique's basis. This form of writing, like crafting essays, research papers, and term papers, should be insightful and draw the reader in quickly. It's important to discuss the reputation of the lead actors and directors and to write about what you expected and if they were met. The reviewer must explain a story's development without recalling major plot points and endings. The review must be concise, engaging, and should involve metaphors, specific words, analogies, etc.

Movie Review Purpose

Most film reviews are intended to guide readers in deciding whether to view, rent, or purchase the film. They should provide the necessary information to aid readers in deciding without divulging any fundamental details, such as the storyline or any surprises. This paper is common in schools because the lecturer wants to evaluate the student's ability to think critically and report the event easily for others to understand.

Movie reviews typically present a brief summary of the film's storyline. They provide readers with an overview of the characters, relationships, and scenarios but do not convey the complete narrative. Perusing the review should be different from seeing the movie. Nonetheless, feel free to highlight the essential moments or pivotal points that make the film worthwhile viewing.

Our college essay writing service has put together some advice on composing a movie review essay like a real critic, so let's explore the article further!

How to Write a Movie Review: Movie Review Outline

The structure is key when it comes to the quality of your paper. Don't neglect the power of a good outline, no matter what paper you're writing. Outlines help you stay on track and make sure your paper flows well.

Taking the time to arrange your ideas before starting to write is an effective way to save time further down the line. With a well-structured plan already in place, you won't have to worry about other elements. This will also make the writing process less stressful. Here is a guide on how to organize your movie review outline:

How Do You Start a Movie Review Essay: Introduction

The introductory paragraph is the first obvious step in crafting a movie review essay outline. Here, you want to quickly captivate the reader. Deliver your viewpoint instantly and make it unambiguous. Don't leave the audience wondering whether you enjoyed the film. Tell them right off the bat so you have time to justify your assessment throughout the remainder of the process.

In the introduction movie review should also describe your thesis. Develop the main concept for your essay that you can support using your perceptions of the movie's various aspects. The reader should be able to tell from this statement if you thought the film was fantastic, awful, or simply alright. By including a thesis statement, you may move your analysis beyond the plot synopsis phase into the movie critique category, which is considered a separate creative process.

Crafting Your Essay Movie Review Analysis

According to our research paper service , film analysis is similar to building a case. You're attempting to influence the reader to follow your recommendation to watch or disregard the film. So, you must ensure your essay movie review will be convincing. Giving instances that demonstrate the validity of your personal opinion is the only method to do this. If you find any dialogue in the movie that you think best exemplifies whether the work is strong or not, utilize quotes. This also applies to all of the movie's artistic decisions. But, just because a movie's narrative isn't strong or engaging doesn't indicate the rest of the film is worthless. Carefully highlight how some factors might undermine the movie in your explanation.

The movie's plot is only one component and shouldn't dominate the overall piece. The following are the important aspects to include in your movie review structure:

Cinematography - Cinematography covers much more than simply camera angles. It includes how the picture is lit, how it moves, appears, and what lenses are used. Here you can try the following analysis: 'Warm, gentle colors are used throughout the film, combined with soothing whites and grays, to simultaneously create and gradually tear away the characters' romantic sentiments for one another. There is a painting-like quality to each image.'

Editing - The editing is arguably the absolute star of what creates a good movie review example. It affects both the duration and the flow of a movie. Without effective editing, there would be uncomfortable gaps between pictures and many errors.

Costuming - The clothing the characters wear is called a costume, but there are a number of things to consider while evaluating movie costumes. You should be able to decide if the outfits suit the characters and the movie's atmosphere.

Casting and Acting - Finding the ideal performers to bring characters to life is the goal of casting. This sometimes entails seeing performers portray both familiar personas and figures who are entirely at odds with who they are. Casting, therefore, involves more than just finding talented performers. You can assess the acting in the following way: 'Even though he excels while on the go, his stoic behaviorism causes him to fall short of his co-star during calm scenes where he keeps a blank look on his face.'

Once you have finished analyzing the acting, directing, cinematography, setting, etc., wrap up with concise, stimulating wording to sustain readers' attention. Don't forget to provide a few examples to support your statements about the film.

Concluding Your Essay Movie Review

Finalize your review by coming full circle. Close the review by returning to your introductory fact or thesis. Give your readers a refresher on the movie's most intriguing aspects. It's important to remember that before choosing a movie, viewers check reviews. Finish with a statement indicating whether it is worthwhile for them to view. Be specific about who this movie will be more fascinating to and why in your suggestions. Remember that your ending is your last shot at influencing your audience, so use it wisely.

No matter the kind of movie review you have to complete, our professional specialists are willing to help you. Directly forward your needs to our research paper service and get it done quickly.

Need Help With MOVIE REVIEW WRITING?

No matter what type of movie review you want, our qualified specialists are ready to assist you.

Short Movie Review Form

If you are currently working on a new or old movie review, reading our suggestions should be sufficient to help you earn an A. So what if you'll be writing many reviews in the future? In this situation, we advise you to develop a uniform movie review template, which will enable you to save time and complete your upcoming projects successfully.

So, how to write a movie review template, you may ask? Well, our essay helper prepared a simple yet great movie review template you may use as a foundation for your own writing if you need some help getting started:

Example Papers

Once you know how to review a movie and learn the most valuable tips to handle this assignment, it is time to look at some movie review examples to get you on the right track.

Check out the following pieces to see which of these movie review essay examples you might want to keep at hand when working on your own assignment:

Helpful Tips on Writing Movie Reviews

Here are some extra helpful tips to keep in mind when unsure how to write a movie review essay:

• Add Your Own Personal Feel to Your Movie Critique - You might not have much spare time for your pastime of reviewing. You won't be able to write a movie review, though, if you just wing it without reading what others have said. Make a note of the things that intrigued you, alarmed you, made you uncomfortable, or caused you to pause and consider something, and then use that list as the basis for your research.
• Develop a Distinctive Writing Style - Have an idol—it's good for you. You must be careful not to just paraphrase and duplicate what they say without adding your own original viewpoint. Instead, in order to stand out from the throng, you must discover your own voice. When writing movie reviews, you should also have a distinct writing style.
• Include Extensive Information -Mention the film's photographer, special effects designer, and director. Your review might be significantly impacted by this. Then you may list all the memorable movie moments that also stuck with you.
• Voice Your Views and Back Up Your Criticism - Give your own assessment of the film. Make sure you have evidence to support your criticisms. Use the movie's details that most shocked or humiliated you. Review genuine information rather than merely expressing your opinions without supporting details.

Final Thoughts

Composing a good movie review essay sample is easy if you follow this article's main steps and techniques. Furthermore, we strongly believe that this guide will assist you in achieving remarkable outcomes and ease your writing process. The staff at EssayPro is always available to provide a helping hand if you need a little additional push with movie review examples or even if it's simply coming up with a catchy essay title .

Order an essay and await excellent results! Contact our expert writers and ask them to ' write my essay for me ' – and they will ensure your academic success!

Do You Require a Skilled Professional Writer?

Our writers take extra measures to make sure that your essay is created precisely in accordance with your specifications.

FAQs on Writing an Essay Movie Review

Here are the most frequently asked questions on how to write a movie review. We provided extra details on movie analysis to simplify writing film reviews.

What are the 6 Important Things to Include in a Film Review?

How long should a movie review be, what are the 5 c's in film, related articles.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Movie Review Example

Pink Movie Reviews Samples For Students

2 samples of this type

Regardless of how high you rate your writing abilities, it's always a good idea to check out an expertly written Movie Review example, especially when you're handling a sophisticated Pink topic. This is precisely the case when WowEssays.com directory of sample Movie Reviews on Pink will come in handy. Whether you need to come up with a fresh and meaningful Pink Movie Review topic or examine the paper's structure or formatting peculiarities, our samples will provide you with the necessary data.

Another activity area of our write my paper website is providing practical writing support to students working on Pink Movie Reviews. Research help, editing, proofreading, formatting, plagiarism check, or even crafting completely unique model Pink papers upon your demand – we can do that all! Place an order and buy a research paper now.

Sample Movie Review On Notes

My princess boy movie review, introduction.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your movie review done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

pink movie review

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Press ESC to close

Crafting a Powerful Thesis Statement for a Movie Review: Examples and Tips

• backlinkworks
• Writing Articles & Reviews
• October 28, 2023

Introduction

writing a movie review can be an exciting task, but IT requires careful consideration and thought. One of the most important elements of a movie review is the thesis statement, as IT sets the tone and direction for the entire review. In this article, we will explore the process of crafting a powerful thesis statement for a movie review, providing you with helpful examples and tips along the way.

What is a Thesis Statement in a Movie Review?

A thesis statement in a movie review presents the main argument or opinion that you will be discussing and supporting throughout your review. IT typically appears near the end of your introduction and should be clear, concise, and thought-provoking. The thesis statement should provide an overall evaluation or interpretation of the movie, highlighting the key aspects you will be focusing on in your review.

Examples of Powerful Thesis Statements

Let’s now explore some examples of powerful thesis statements to give you a better understanding of how to structure your own. Remember, these examples are not meant to be copied directly but rather to serve as inspiration for crafting your unique thesis statement:

• Example 1: The movie “Inception” explores the convoluted depths of the human mind, challenging our perception of reality and leaving audiences questioning the nature of dreams.
• Example 2: Through its stunning cinematography and emotional storytelling, “The Shawshank Redemption” showcases the resilience of the human spirit and the power of hope in the face of adversity.
• Example 3: In “Black Swan,” the director delves into the dark and obsessive world of ballet, blurring the lines between sanity and insanity, leading to a mesmerizing and haunting cinematic experience.

Tips for Crafting a Powerful Thesis Statement

Now that you’ve seen some examples, let’s dive into some tips to help you craft a powerful thesis statement for your movie review:

• Identify the central theme: Analyze the movie and identify the central theme or message being conveyed. This will serve as the basis for your thesis statement.
• Be specific: Make your thesis statement clear and specific, avoiding vague language or generalizations. This will make your argument more compelling and focused.
• Consider the audience: Think about the intended audience of your review and tailor your thesis statement to resonate with them. Different audiences may have varying expectations or interests.
• Support with evidence: Your thesis statement should be supported by evidence from the movie. Incorporate specific scenes, dialogues, or character developments to strengthen your argument.
• Stay objective: While expressing your personal opinion is essential, ensure that your thesis statement remains objective and balanced. Avoid overly biased language that may detract from the credibility of your review.

Crafting a powerful thesis statement for a movie review is crucial in setting the tone and direction for your review. IT should provide a clear evaluation or interpretation of the movie, supported by evidence and examples. By following the tips outlined in this article and considering the provided examples, you can create a compelling thesis statement that engages your readers and enhances the overall quality of your movie review.

1. Can I include my personal opinion in the thesis statement?

Yes, you can include your personal opinion in the thesis statement, but ensure that IT remains objective and supported by evidence from the movie.

2. Should I mention the title of the movie in my thesis statement?

While IT is not mandatory, IT is recommended to include the title of the movie in your thesis statement to provide clarity and context.

3. How long should my thesis statement be?

A thesis statement should be concise and to the point. Aim for a sentence or two that effectively conveys your main argument.

4. Can I change my thesis statement after writing the review?

Yes, IT is possible to make adjustments to your thesis statement if you feel IT needs refinement or modification based on your analysis and review process.

Unlock the Secrets of Computer Science: A Beginner’s Guide to the World of Programming for Dummies

Finding the ideal solution: free web hosting for wordpress bloggers.

Recent Posts

• Driving Organic Growth: How a Digital SEO Agency Can Drive Traffic to Your Website
• Mastering Local SEO for Web Agencies: Reaching Your Target Market
• The Ultimate Guide to Unlocking Powerful Backlinks for Your Website
• SEO vs. Paid Advertising: Finding the Right Balance for Your Web Marketing Strategy
• Discover the Secret Weapon for Local SEO Success: Local Link Building Services

Popular Posts

Shocking Secret Revealed: How Article PHP ID Can Transform Your Website!

Uncovering the Top Secret Tricks for Mastering SPIP PHP – You Won’t Believe What You’re Missing Out On!

Unlocking the Secrets to Boosting Your Alexa Rank, Google Pagerank, and Domain Age – See How You Can Dominate the Web!

Discover the Shocking Truth About Your Website’s Ranking – You Won’t Believe What This Checker Reveals!

10 Tips for Creating a Stunning WordPress Theme

Explore topics.

• Backlinks (2,425)
• Blog (2,744)
• Computers (5,318)
• Digital Marketing (7,741)
• Internet (6,340)
• Website (4,705)
• Wordpress (4,705)
• Writing Articles & Reviews (4,208)

Find anything you save across the site in your account

What About “The Breakfast Club”?

By Molly Ringwald

Earlier this year, the Criterion Collection, which is “dedicated to gathering the greatest films from around the world,” released a restored version of “ The Breakfast Club ,” a film written and directed by John Hughes that I acted in, more than three decades ago. For this edition, I participated in an interview about the movie, as did other people close to the production. I don’t make a habit of revisiting films I’ve made, but this was not the first time I’d returned to this one: a few years back, I watched it with my daughter, who was ten at the time. We recorded a conversation about it for the radio show “This American Life.” I’ll be the first to admit that ten is far too young for a viewing of “The Breakfast Club,” a movie about five high-school students who befriend one other during a Saturday detention session, with plenty of cursing, sex talk, and a now-famous scene of the students smoking pot. But my daughter insisted that her friends had already seen it, and she said she didn’t want to watch it for the first time in front of other people. A writer-director friend assured me that kids tend to filter out what they don’t understand, and I figured that it would be better if I were there to answer the uncomfortable questions. So I relented, thinking perhaps that it would make for a sweet if unconventional mother-daughter bonding moment.

It’s a strange experience, watching a younger, more innocent version of yourself onscreen. It’s stranger still—surreal, even—watching it with your child when she is much closer in age to that version of yourself than you are. My friend was right: my daughter didn’t really seem to register most of the sex stuff, though she did audibly gasp when she thought I had showed my underwear. At one point in the film, the bad-boy character, John Bender, ducks under the table where my character, Claire, is sitting, to hide from a teacher. While there, he takes the opportunity to peek under Claire’s skirt and, though the audience doesn’t see, it is implied that he touches her inappropriately. I was quick to point out to my daughter that the person in the underwear wasn’t really me, though that clarification seemed inconsequential. We kept watching, and, despite my best intentions to give context to the uncomfortable bits, I didn’t elaborate on what might have gone on under the table. She expressed no curiosity in anything sexual, so I decided to follow her lead, and discuss what seemed to resonate with her more. Maybe I just chickened out.

But I kept thinking about that scene. I thought about it again this past fall, after a number of women came forward with sexual-assault accusations against the producer Harvey Weinstein , and the #MeToo movement gathered steam. If attitudes toward female subjugation are systemic, and I believe that they are, it stands to reason that the art we consume and sanction plays some part in reinforcing those same attitudes. I made three movies with John Hughes; when they were released, they made enough of a cultural impact to land me on the cover of Time magazine and to get Hughes hailed as a genius. His critical reputation has only grown since he died, in 2009, at the age of fifty-nine. Hughes’s films play constantly on television and are even taught in schools. There is still so much that I love in them, but lately I have felt the need to examine the role that these movies have played in our cultural life: where they came from, and what they might mean now. When my daughter proposed watching “The Breakfast Club” together, I had hesitated, not knowing how she would react: if she would understand the film or if she would even like it. I worried that she would find aspects of it troubling, but I hadn’t anticipated that it would ultimately be most troubling to me.

It can be hard to remember how scarce art for and about teen-agers was before John Hughes arrived. Young-adult novels had not yet exploded as a genre. Onscreen, the big issues that affected teens seemed to belong largely to the world of ABC Afterschool Specials, which premièred in 1972 and were still around as I came of age, in the eighties. All the teens I knew would rather have died than watch one. The films had the whiff of sanctimony, the dialogue was obviously written by adults, the music was corny.

Portrayals of teen-agers in movies were even worse. The actors cast in teen roles tended to be much older than their characters—they had to be, since the films were so frequently exploitative. The teen horror flicks that flourished in the seventies and eighties had them getting murdered: if you were young, attractive, and sexually active, your chances of making it to the end were basically nil (a trope spoofed, years later, by the “Scream” franchise). The successful teen comedies of the period, such as “Animal House” and “Porky’s,” were written by men for boys; the few women in them were either nymphomaniacs or battleaxes. (The stout female coach in “Porky’s” is named Balbricker.) The boys are perverts, as one-dimensional as their female counterparts, but with more screen time. In 1982, “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” which had the rare distinction of being directed by a woman, Amy Heckerling, got closer to an authentic depiction of adolescence. But it still made room for a young male’s fantasy of the actress Phoebe Cates striding topless in a soft-porny sprinkler mist.

And then Hughes came along. Hughes, who grew up in Michigan and Illinois, got work, after dropping out of college, writing ad copy in Chicago. The job brought him frequently to New York, where he started hanging around the offices of the humor magazine National Lampoon . He wrote a story called “Vacation ’58”—inspired by his own family trips—which secured him a job at the magazine and became the basis for the movie “National Lampoon’s Vacation.” Another story caught the eye of the producer Lauren Shuler Donner, who encouraged him to write what became “Mr. Mom.” Those movies helped him get a deal with Universal Studios. “The Breakfast Club” was to be his directorial début; he planned to shoot it in Chicago with local actors. He told me later that, over a July 4th weekend, while looking at headshots of actors to consider for the movie, he found mine, and decided to write another movie around the character he imagined that girl to be. That script became “Sixteen Candles,” a story about a girl whose family forgets her sixteenth birthday. The studio loved the script, perhaps because, in form at least, it had more in common with proven successes—“Porky’s” et al.—than it did with “The Breakfast Club,” which basically read like a play.

A meeting was arranged, we hit it off, and I filmed “Sixteen Candles” in the suburbs of Chicago the summer after I completed the ninth grade. Once we were done shooting, and before we began filming “The Breakfast Club,” John wrote another movie specifically for me, “Pretty in Pink,” about a working-class girl navigating the social prejudices of her affluent high school. The film’s dramatic arc involves getting invited and then uninvited to the prom. In synopsis, the movies can seem flimsy—a girl loses her date to a dance, a family forgets a girl’s birthday—but that’s part of what made them unique. No one in Hollywood was writing about the minutiae of high school, and certainly not from a female point of view. According to one study, since the late nineteen-forties, in the top-grossing family movies, girl characters have been outnumbered by boys three to one—and that ratio has not improved. That two of Hughes’s films had female protagonists in the lead roles and examined these young women’s feelings about the fairly ordinary things that were happening to them, while also managing to have instant cred that translated into success at the box office, was an anomaly that has never really been replicated. (The few blockbuster films starring young women in recent years have mostly been set in dystopian futures or have featured vampires and werewolves.)

I had what could be called a symbiotic relationship with John during the first two of those films. I’ve been called his muse, which I believe I was, for a little while. But, more than that, I felt that he listened to me—though certainly not all the time. Coming out of the National Lampoon school of comedy, there was still a residue of crassness that clung, no matter how much I protested. In the shooting script of “The Breakfast Club,” there was a scene in which an attractive female gym teacher swam naked in the school’s swimming pool as Mr. Vernon, the teacher who is in charge of the students’ detention, spied on her. The scene wasn’t in the first draft I read, and I lobbied John to cut it. He did, and although I’m sure the actress who had been cast in the part still blames me for foiling her break, I think the film is better for it. In “Sixteen Candles,” a character alternately called the Geek and Farmer Ted makes a bet with friends that he can score with my character, Samantha; by way of proof, he says, he will secure her underwear. Later in the film, after Samantha agrees to help the Geek by loaning her underwear to him, she has a heartwarming scene with her father. It originally ended with the father asking, “Sam, what the hell happened to your underpants?” My mom objected. “Why would a father know what happened to his daughter’s underwear?” she asked. John squirmed uncomfortably. He didn’t mean it that way, he said—it was just a joke, a punch line. “But it’s not funny,” my mother said. “It’s creepy.” The line was changed to “Just remember, Sam, you wear the pants in the family.”

My mom also spoke up during the filming of that scene in “The Breakfast Club,” when they hired an adult woman for the shot of Claire’s underwear. They couldn’t even ask me to do it—I don’t think it was permitted by law to ask a minor—but even having another person pretend to be me was embarrassing to me and upsetting to my mother, and she said so. That scene stayed, though. What’s more, as I can see now, Bender sexually harasses Claire throughout the film. When he’s not sexualizing her, he takes out his rage on her with vicious contempt, calling her “pathetic,” mocking her as “Queenie.” It’s rejection that inspires his vitriol. Claire acts dismissively toward him, and, in a pivotal scene near the end, she predicts that at school on Monday morning, even though the group has bonded, things will return, socially, to the status quo. “Just bury your head in the sand and wait for your fuckin’ prom!” Bender yells. He never apologizes for any of it, but, nevertheless, he gets the girl in the end.

If I sound overly critical, it’s only with hindsight. Back then, I was only vaguely aware of how inappropriate much of John’s writing was, given my limited experience and what was considered normal at the time. I was well into my thirties before I stopped considering verbally abusive men more interesting than the nice ones. I’m a little embarrassed to say that it took even longer for me to fully comprehend the scene late in “Sixteen Candles,” when the dreamboat, Jake, essentially trades his drunk girlfriend, Caroline, to the Geek, to satisfy the latter’s sexual urges, in return for Samantha’s underwear. The Geek takes Polaroids with Caroline to have proof of his conquest; when she wakes up in the morning with someone she doesn’t know, he asks her if she “enjoyed it.” (Neither of them seems to remember much.) Caroline shakes her head in wonderment and says, “You know, I have this weird feeling I did.” She had to have a feeling about it, rather than a thought, because thoughts are things we have when we are conscious, and she wasn’t.

Thinking about that scene, I became curious how the actress who played Caroline, Haviland Morris, felt about the character she portrayed. So I sent her an e-mail. We hadn’t seen or spoken to each other since she was twenty-three and I was fifteen. We met for coffee, and after we had filled each other in on all the intervening years, I asked her about it. Haviland, I was surprised to learn, does not have the same issues with the scene as I do. In her mind, Caroline bears some responsibility for what happens, because of how drunk she gets at the party. “I’m not saying that it’s O.K. to then be raped or to have nonconsensual sex,” Haviland clarified. “But . . . that’s not a one-way street. Here’s a girl who gets herself so bombed that she doesn’t even know what’s going on.”

There was a time in my early twenties when I had too much to drink at a party and ended up in a bedroom sitting on the edge of a bed with a producer I didn’t know, lightheaded and woozy. A good friend, who had followed me, popped her head in the door a couple of minutes later and announced, “Time to go now, Molly!” I followed her out, trying not to stumble, and spent the rest of the night violently ill and embarrassed—and the rest of my life grateful that she had been there, watching out for me, when I was temporarily incapable of watching out for myself. I shared the story with Haviland, and she listened politely, nodding.

Haviland, like me, has children, and so I decided to frame the question hypothetically, mother to mother, to see if it changed her point of view. If one of our kids had too much to drink, and something like that happened to one of them, would she say, “It’s on you, because you drank too much”? She shook her head: “No. Absolutely, positively, it stays in your pants until invited by someone who is willing and consensually able to invite you to remove it.” Still, she added, “I’m not going to black-and-white it. It isn’t a one-way street.”

After our coffee, I responded to an e-mail from Haviland to thank her for agreeing to talk to me. Later that night, I received another note. “You know,” she wrote, “the more I think of it this evening, oddly, the LESS uncomfortable I am with Caroline. Jake was disgusted with her and said he could violate her 17 ways if he wanted to because she was so trashed, but he didn’t. And then, Ted was the one who had to ask if they had had sex, which certainly doesn’t demonstrate responsible behavior from either party, but also doesn’t really spell date rape. On the other hand, she was basically traded for a pair of underwear . . . Ah, John Hughes.”

It’s hard for me to understand how John was able to write with so much sensitivity, and also have such a glaring blind spot. Looking for insight into that darkness, I decided to read some of his early writing for National Lampoon . I bought an old issue of the magazine on eBay, and found the other stories, all from the late seventies and early eighties, online. They contain many of the same themes he explored in his films, but with none of the humanity. Yes, it was a different time, as people say. Still, I was taken aback by the scope of the ugliness.

“A Dog’s Tale” has a boy watching his mother turn into a dog. “Against His Will” features an “ugly fat” woman who tries to rape a man at gunpoint in front of the man’s wife and parents because she can’t have sex any other way. “My Penis” and “My Vagina” are quasi-magical-realist stories written from the points of view of teen-agers who wake up in the morning with different genitalia than they were assigned at birth; the protagonist of “My Penis” literally forces her boyfriend’s mouth open to penetrate him, and the male in “My Vagina” is gang-raped by his friends once they discover he has one. (The latter story ends with him having to use the money he saved for new skis on getting an abortion.) The “Hughes Engagement Guide” is an illustrated manual on how to protect yourself against women. It gives examples of women “bullshitting to not put out,” and teaches readers how to do a “quickie pelvic exam,” how to detect “signs of future fat,” and how to determine if a woman has any ancestors of different races, based on what her relatives look like—there is an accompanying drawing of an Asian person and an African-American—and on and on.

The October, 1980, issue included a piece, co-authored by Ted Mann, titled “Sexual Harassment and How to Do It!” The guide explains, “If you hire a woman from another field or with a background that is not suited to the duties she is to assume, you’ve got the glans in the crevice, or, if you prefer, the foot in the door.” It continues, “Not only will her humility prepare her for your sexual advances, it will also help steel her for her inevitable dismissal.” There are sections describing different kinds of secretaries based on their ages, and how best to reward and punish them. (The older ones are “easier,” the younger ones “preferable.”) There’s even a section on arrest: “Sometimes even guys with cool sideburns and a smooth line of patter get arrested for sexual harassment and are issued summonses.” It goes on to suggest different methods for cozying up to the police officer.

It’s all satire, of course, but it’s pretty clear that it’s not the chauvinists who are being lampooned but the “women’s liberation movement.” Women had begun to speak out, in the mid-seventies, against harassment in the workplace. (The beloved movie “9 to 5,” in which three women get revenge on a sexist boss, was released in December of 1980, two months after the Hughes-Mann piece ran.) Mann is now a writer and producer who has been nominated for seven Emmys, most recently for his work on the Showtime series “Homeland.” I sent him an e-mail asking what he now thought of the piece he wrote with Hughes. He replied that he didn’t remember ever having written it. “It looks like one of our art director Peter’s desperate page fillers,” he explained, referring to Peter Kleinman. “It wouldn’t fly today and it never should have flown then,” he went on, adding, “These were degenerate cocaine days.”

I can’t vouch, personally, for any cocaine days that John may or may not have had. When I knew him, he never expressed an interest in doing drugs of any kind, including alcohol—with the exception of cigarettes, which he smoked constantly.

John believed in me, and in my gifts as an actress, more than anyone else I’ve known, and he was the first person to tell me that I had to write and direct one day. He was also a phenomenal grudge-keeper, and he could respond to perceived rejection in much the same way the character of Bender did in “The Breakfast Club.” But I’m not thinking about the man right now but of the films that he left behind. Films that I am proud of in so many ways. Films that, like his earlier writing, though to a much lesser extent, could also be considered racist, misogynistic, and, at times, homophobic. The words “fag” and “faggot” are tossed around with abandon; the character of Long Duk Dong, in “Sixteen Candles,” is a grotesque stereotype, as other writers have detailed far more eloquently than I could.

And yet I have been told more times than I could count, by both friends and strangers, including people in the L.G.B.T. community, that the films “saved” them. Leaving a party not long ago, I was stopped by Emil Wilbekin, a gay, African-American friend of a friend, who wanted to tell me just that. I smiled and thanked him, but what I wanted to say was “Why?” There is barely a person of color to be found in the films, and no characters are openly gay. A week or so after the party, I asked my friend to put me in touch with him. In an e-mail, Wilbekin, a journalist who created an organization called Native Son, devoted to empowering gay black men, expanded upon what he had said to me as I had left the party. “The Breakfast Club,” he explained, saved his life by showing him, a kid growing up in Cincinnati in the eighties, “that there were other people like me who were struggling with their identities, feeling out of place in the social constructs of high school, and dealing with the challenges of family ideals and pressures.” These kids were also “finding themselves and being ‘other’ in a very traditional, white, heteronormative environment.” The lack of diversity didn’t bother him, he added, “because the characters and storylines were so beautifully human, perfectly imperfect and flawed.” He watched the films in high school, and while he was not yet out, he had a pretty good idea that he was gay.

“Pretty in Pink” features a character, Duckie, who was loosely based on my best friend of forty years, Matthew Freeman. We’ve been friends since I was ten, and he worked as a production assistant on the film. Like Emil, he’s out now, but wasn’t then. (It’s one of the reasons I’ve often posited, to the consternation of some fans and the delight of others, that Duckie is gay, though there’s nothing to indicate that in the script.) “The characters John created spoke to feeling invisible and an outsider,” Matt told me recently. They got at “how we felt as closeted gay kids who could only live vicariously through others’ sexual awakenings, lest we get found out with the very real threat of being ostracized or pummelled.”

John’s movies convey the anger and fear of isolation that adolescents feel, and seeing that others might feel the same way is a balm for the trauma that teen-agers experience. Whether that’s enough to make up for the impropriety of the films is hard to say—even criticizing them makes me feel like I’m divesting a generation of some of its fondest memories, or being ungrateful since they helped to establish my career. And yet embracing them entirely feels hypocritical. And yet, and yet. . . .

How are we meant to feel about art that we both love and oppose? What if we are in the unusual position of having helped create it? Erasing history is a dangerous road when it comes to art—change is essential, but so, too, is remembering the past, in all of its transgression and barbarism, so that we may properly gauge how far we have come, and also how far we still need to go.

While researching this piece, I came across an article that was published in Seventeen magazine, in 1986, for which I interviewed John. (It was the only time I did so.) He talked about the artists who inspired him when he was younger—Bob Dylan, John Lennon—and how, as soon as they “got comfortable” in their art, they moved on. I pointed out that he had already done a lot of movies about suburbia, and asked him whether he felt that he should move on as his idols had. “I think it’s wise for people to concern themselves with the things they know about,” he said. He added, “I’d feel extremely self-conscious writing about something I don’t know.”

I’m not sure that John was ever really comfortable or satisfied. He often told me that he didn’t think he was a good enough writer for prose, and although he loved to write, he notoriously hated to revise. I was set to make one more Hughes film, when I was twenty, but felt that it needed rewriting. Hughes refused, and the film was never made, though there could have been other circumstances I was not aware of.

In the interview, I asked him if he thought teen-agers were looked at differently than when he was that age. “Definitely,” he said. “My generation had to be taken seriously because we were stopping things and burning things. We were able to initiate change, because we had such vast numbers. We were part of the Baby Boom, and when we moved, everything moved with us. But now, there are fewer teens, and they aren’t taken as seriously as we were. You make a teen-age movie, and critics say, ‘How dare you?’ There’s just a general lack of respect for young people now.”

John wanted people to take teens seriously, and people did. The films are still taught in schools because good teachers want their students to know that what they feel and say is important; that if they talk, adults and peers will listen. I think that it’s ultimately the greatest value of the films, and why I hope they will endure. The conversations about them will change, and they should. It’s up to the following generations to figure out how to continue those conversations and make them their own—to keep talking, in schools, in activism and art—and trust that we care.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Tad Friend

By Louis Menand

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, hey teacher leave them kids alone.

Now streaming on:

This isn't the most fun to listen to and some viewers don't find it to much fun to watch, but the 1982 film is without question the best of all serious fiction films devoted to rock. Seeing it now in more timid times, it looks more daring than in did in 1982, when I saw it at Cannes. Alan Parker , a director who seemed to deliberately choose widely varied projects, here collaborates with Gerald Scarfe, a biting British political caricaturist, to make what is essentially an experimental indie. It combines wickedly powerful animation with a surrealistic trip through the memory and hallucinations of an overdosing rock star. It touches on sex, nuclear disarmament, the agony of warfare, childhood feelings of abandonment, the hero's deep unease about women, and the life style of a rock star at the end of his rope.

What it doesn't depict is rock performance. There are no actual concert scenes, although there are groupies and limousines and a personal manager. Or perhaps there are concert scenes, and they're disguised as an extended portrait of a modern fascist dictator whose fans morph into an adoring populace. I don't believe this dictator is intended as a parallel to any obvious model like Hitler or Stalin; he seems more a fantasy of Britain's own National Socialists led by Oswald Mosley.

"Pink Floyd: The Wall" was written almost entirely by Roger Waters, the band's intellectual, self-analytical, sometimes tortured lead singer. Its central character, named Pink, is played by Bob Geldof, of all people, who could not be less like Pink. The credits say he is being "introduced." He's onscreen more than anyone else, goes through punishing scenes, and even sings at times, although this isn't a performance film but essentially a 95-minute music video. Geldof morphs through several standard rock star looks, all familiar from other stars: The big-haired sex god, the attractive leading man, the haunted neurotic, the cadaverous drug victim. In his most agonizing scene, he shaves off all his body hair in a bloody reprise of Scorsese's famous short "The Big Shave."

There's also a scene where he trashes a hotel room; he must have carefully studied the room destruction in " Citizen Kane ." The scene involves a terrified groupie ( Jenny Wright ) who flees around the room and cowers behind furniture but inexplicably doesn't flee immediately into the corridor. More frightening is that although Pink narrowly misses her with a wine bottle and a piece of furniture, he doesn't seem really aware that she's there.

The girl is earlier portrayed as concerned about him, and rather sweet. That sets her aside from the other females in the movie. There is Pink's mother, so devastated by her husband's death in war that she becomes smothering and domineering toward her son. Then Pink's wife, alienated by his zombie-like disconnection from life, turning finally to an anti-war lecturer to cheat with a man who cares about something. These are both at least recognizable women. The most grotesque female figure in the film is created by Scarfe's animation.

This is a flower so gynecological that Georgia O'Keefe might have been appalled. The bloom seduces a male flower, ravishes him, plunders him, and ultimately devours him. Perhaps she reflects Pink's terror of castration. Scarfe distorts the flower into other shapes for disquieting transformations, as a dove becomes a screaming eagle and then a warplane, landscapes are devastated and walls and goose-stepping hammers march across the land.

As you have gathered, I'm not describing what we think of as a "musical." This is a bold, relentless visualization of Waters' despair. It incorporates a theme that resonates with British audiences, an educational system ruled by stern, kinky headmasters. The opera's most famous song becomes its best scene. As Parker visualizes "Another Brick in the Wall," students on a conveyor belt are fed into blades that extrude them as ground meat. In the process, the students lose their faces behind blank masks, which are seen again in the faces of the dictator's followers. Message: Education produces mindless creatures suitable as cannon fodder or the puppets of fascists. I gather Waters wasn't keen on attending the reunions of his old school.

There is a narrative, although "Pink Floyd: The Wall" doesn't underline it. It suggests that Pink has vivid images of his father's ordeal under fire, is raised too protectively, was incapable of a successful marriage, took no pleasure in casual sex, and finally disappeared into psychological catatonia under the influence of drugs. The opening scene returns later, suggesting all of the action in the film takes place in Pink's head in that hotel room in more or less the film's running time.

The best audience for this film would be one familiar with filmmaking techniques, alert to directorial styles, and familiar with Roger Waters and Pink Floyd. I can't imagine a "rock fan" enjoying it very much on first viewing, although I know it has developed a cult following.  It's disquieting and depressing and very good. No one much enjoyed making it. I remember Alan Parker being somewhat quizzical at the time; I learn from Wikipedia that he fought with Waters and Scarfe and considered the film "one of the most miserable experiences of my creative life." Waters' own verdict: "I found it was so unremitting in its onslaught upon the senses, that it didn't give me, anyway, as an audience, a chance to get involved with it."

So it's difficult, painful and despairing, and its three most important artists came away from it with bad feelings. Why would anybody want to see it? Perhaps because filming this material could not possibly have been a happy experience for anyone -- not if it's taken seriously. I believe Waters wrote out of the dark places in his soul, fueled by his contempt for rock stars in general, himself in particular, and their adoring audiences. He was, in short, composing not as an entertainer but as an artist. Sir Alan Parker is a cheerful man, although not without a temper, and there is no apparent thread to connect this film with his credits such as " The Commitments ," "Fame," " Bugsy Malone " or even such heavier films as " Shoot the Moon " and " Angela's Ashes ." I can't say I really know Parker, but I've spent enough time around him to sense he wasn't congenitally drawn to this material.

Those tensions and conflicts produced, I believe, the right film for this material. I don't require that its makers had a good time. I'm reminded of my favorite statement by Francois Truffaut : "I demand that a film express either the joy of making cinema or the agony of making cinema. I am not at all interested in anything in between."

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Monica Castillo

Steve! (Martin): A Documentary in Two Pieces

Brian tallerico.

Dad & Step-Dad

Carlos aguilar.

Film Credits

Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982)

Latest blog posts.

San Francisco Silent Film Festival Highlights Unearthed Treasures of Film History

Ebertfest Film Festival Over the Years

The 2024 Chicago Palestine Film Festival Highlights

Man on the Moon Is Still the Cure for the Biopic Blues

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — Movies — Movie Review

Essays on Movie Review

Once in a while, you’ll be asked to do a movie review essay. This task is a great training tool for enhancing critical thinking skills. Essays on movie review aim at presenting a film from the most important scenes, special effects, to exciting moments and may be accompanied by criticism. From an advertising perspective, such a paper is aimed at convincing readers to watch the movie in question. Your writing should let a reader draw a conclusion, i.e, whether the film is worth their time or if they should try something else. Most importantly, your opinion must be independent and accurate. But how can you create a perfect introduction if you don’t have the experience in this type of writing? Relax. A good online writer can do it for you. If you have an idea but need some guidance, simply ask for a professional outline or use evaluation essay examples for students for more insights.

Hook Examples for Movie Review Essays

"a cinematic masterpiece" hook.

"Prepare to be captivated by the sheer brilliance of this cinematic masterpiece. Explore how every frame, performance, and detail contributes to a visual and emotional spectacle."

"Beyond the Screen: Themes and Messages" Hook

"This film transcends entertainment, offering profound themes and powerful messages. Dive into the underlying ideas and social commentary that make it a thought-provoking experience."

"The Journey of Character Development" Hook

"Follow the compelling journey of characters who evolve throughout the film. Analyze their growth, conflicts, and relationships, making this movie a character-driven narrative."

"Visual Delights: Cinematography and Special Effects" Hook

"Be prepared to be visually stunned by the breathtaking cinematography and cutting-edge special effects. Explore how these elements enhance the storytelling and immerse the audience."

"Unforgettable Performances" Hook

"The cast delivers unforgettable performances that breathe life into the characters. Discuss standout acting moments, character dynamics, and the emotional impact of their roles."

"The Soundtrack: Music That Moves" Hook

"The film's soundtrack is more than just music; it's an integral part of the storytelling. Explore how the score enhances emotions, sets the tone, and complements the visuals."

"Cinematic Analysis: Directing and Editing" Hook

"Delve into the meticulous craftsmanship of the director and editor. Analyze their choices in pacing, sequencing, and storytelling techniques that make this film a cinematic triumph."

Inmate Code Movie Analysis

Transcendentalism in dead poets society, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Significance of "The Godfather" (1972)

Titanic movie review: acting and emotions, a critical look at aladdin the movie, the wizard of oz movie review, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Shrek 2: an Animated Movie Review

Sociological analysis of zootopia, a movie review of back to the future, a science fiction film by robert zemeckis, review of the movie clueless, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Description of The Movie "Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone"

"avengers: endgame": movie review, disney's beauty and the beast movie analysis, maleficent movie review: a fresh take on the sleeping beauty, analysis of the film "bad boys ii" by michael bay, greatest series of all time: "stranger things", the "inception" movie: review, a critical review of the movie finding nemo, a review of the film 'coraline', a report on the film avengers: infinity war, "tom and jerry" - one of the most famous cartoons, the personality of spongebob squarepants, film review: traffic by steven soderbergh, movie review: forrest gump, the blind side movie review and analysis, shutter island analysis: the role of symbolism, a study of the impact of caillou and spongebob on children, review of the series, gossip girl, film review: 12 monkeys, breakfast at tiffany’s: a revolutionary romantic comedy, relevant topics.

• Documentary
• Freedom Writers
• 12 Angry Men
• Hidden Figures
• Movie Summary
• Miss Representation
• Ready Player One
• Film Analysis
• The Hunger Games
• Do The Right Thing

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free