The main plot-mover in Avinash Das’s excellent new film Anaarkali of Aarah is an incident that begins as a show of buffoonery but grows into something dark and nasty, even as we go from chuckling to shifting uneasily in our seats. Anaarkali (Swara Bhaskar), the star of a small-town troupe, is singing and dancing for her admiring audience when Dharmender (Sanjay Mishra), a very drunk and very smitten vice-chancellor, clambers onto the stage. At first he behaves like any number of over-enthusiastic men at this sort of show, briefly making a spectacle of themselves before staggering back into the audience. But he doesn’t back off: he goes from begging for Anaarkali’s personal attentions – in the manner of a pitiful, Devdas-like swain – to pawing and assaulting her.
Much of the scene’s effectiveness comes from how it toys with our perceptions: this flailing middle-aged man, barely in control of his movements, doesn’t fit our general ideas of what a menacing sexual predator might look like (Mishra, wonderful actor though he is, has a screen personality that seems better suited to playing savants or eccentric sidekicks); and Anaarkali, who has just performed a raunchy song in a garish costume, all gyrations and winks at her mostly male fans, doesn’t - initially at least - look like an imperiled woman.
Yet that is the very point, and it’s what makes the scene so discomfiting. In the space of a few seconds, the power equations shift: we see that Anaarkali, so assured when she is performing of her own will, embracing both her art and her sexuality, has suddenly had that control wrested from her (Bhaskar shifts gears from fiery self-possession to vulnerability with consummate ease); and that Dharmender, a man with political connections in Aarah, is a very real threat to her autonomy and livelihood.
It is one of many fine moments in a story about social hegemonies and the many subtle and not-so-subtle ways in which sexual oppression plays out. After last year’s Pink, which affirmed the “No means No” mantra in the context of a young urban woman being sexually harassed – with the film underlining that it doesn’t matter how she dresses or how hard she parties – Anaarkali of Aarah tackles the theme in a different setting. But in the process, we are reminded that ideas about “loose” or “available” women transcend the rural-urban and class divides. In the south Delhi of Pink, these perceptions might be directed at an office-going girl who lives away from her parents in a PG accommodation and goes out with boys late at night; in the Aarah of Das’s film, it might be a woman in a “not very respectable” profession that invites the male gaze and seems to hold out a promise of more than just looking.
And in both these stories, the woman says: yes, I’ll do this and this and this if I choose to, but that doesn’t mean you can assume I’ll do this as well.
Pink was a good film, but I thought Anarkali of Aarah was sharper and more focused overall, largely because it keeps its lens fixed throughout on a compelling woman protagonist. Bhaskar’s performance and Anaarkali’s centrality to the narrative (the film’s men, though well written and acted, orbit around her) make this a more overtly “lady-oriented” film (as censor-board chief Pahlaj Nihalani would reproachfully say) than Pink, with its grandstanding male lawyers and male judge, was. The first scene – a tragedy from Anaarkali’s childhood – prepares us to meet someone whose life will be tinged with melancholia, but this doesn’t happen. Instead of being crippled or dispirited by the past, she derives strength from memories of her mother – a woman who probably had less agency and fewer choices than Anaarkali does, but who managed to retain her dignity and self-worth even in a tough situation.
After a very taut first half – including a tense, masterfully staged scene where Anaarkali, accompanied by her partner Rangeela (Pankaj Tripathi), goes to meet Dharmender – the film slackens a little. To a degree, this has to do with the protagonist’s shift to a new setting and the need to lie low for a bit. (I was reminded of the post-interval change in tone of Nagraj Manjule’s Sairat, which has a comparable narrative arc.) But the pace picks up again as the story moves back to Aarah (you have to go home to stare down old demons) and towards a stirring climactic scene where what might seem on the surface to be “just” a lowbrow dance performance becomes an exhilarating reclamation of sexuality and choice.*** And the buildup to this Big Moment is paved with some lovely scenes in a minor key, such as a brief meeting between Anaarkali and Rangeela at the courthouse when the affection between them is palpable despite everything that has happened.
It could be pointed out that like the young women in Pink, Anaarkali too eventually needs a man to help her pull off a final coup (which has the feel of a deus ex machina). But the assistance in this case feels more incidental; one gets a stronger sense that events have flown from the force of her own personality, her upbringing, her unwillingness to keel over in a situation where many of us would think that was the safest, most practical option.
I don’t know how much this film has been directly influenced by real-life events, but it seems particularly topical in the current climate. An early scene is reminiscent – in its depiction of how “fun and games” can cross a line and become lethal – of the recent shooting of a dancer at a wedding party near Bathinda. (And again, lest you think that this sort of thing happens only in “backward” places, remember Jessica Lal.) But on a broader note, there is also the ongoing farce of the “anti-Romeo” squads in Uttar Pradesh which infantilize young women who have boyfriends, telling them they need to be careful “for their own good”, even if that means staying shut up at home until their parents find a socially approved groom. This suppressing of female sexuality (or requiring that no such thing should exist) goes hand in hand with the assumption that women who don’t fit the good-girl mould are fair game and shouldn’t complain about harassment. Against this background, how satisfying it is to see a scene - even if it feels a bit like wish-fulfillment - where a woman looks a powerful man in the eye and tell him that whether he thinks of her as a randi or something “a little less than” a randi (a reference to an earlier dialogue) or as a housewife, he mustn’t touch her without permission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** The climactic scene can also be viewed as a comment on the subject-gaze relationship. Earlier in the film, Dharmender crudely broke the Fourth Wall by encroaching on Anaarkali’s performance; now, as he sits next to his wife and daughter, she pays him back in the same coin, stepping off the stage, dancing around him and fracturing his personal, domestic space
Much of the scene’s effectiveness comes from how it toys with our perceptions: this flailing middle-aged man, barely in control of his movements, doesn’t fit our general ideas of what a menacing sexual predator might look like (Mishra, wonderful actor though he is, has a screen personality that seems better suited to playing savants or eccentric sidekicks); and Anaarkali, who has just performed a raunchy song in a garish costume, all gyrations and winks at her mostly male fans, doesn’t - initially at least - look like an imperiled woman.
Yet that is the very point, and it’s what makes the scene so discomfiting. In the space of a few seconds, the power equations shift: we see that Anaarkali, so assured when she is performing of her own will, embracing both her art and her sexuality, has suddenly had that control wrested from her (Bhaskar shifts gears from fiery self-possession to vulnerability with consummate ease); and that Dharmender, a man with political connections in Aarah, is a very real threat to her autonomy and livelihood.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOpfYraRelcHdc9a6INejYwte_ss0fJTPKv-nJyl7WhyphenhyphenLG9_m6Df48MuyoRNfd9-UqFg-kmh9G3jUtZUISqT7ipGmPRyyFGeU2PU0BE9yAqGHxWawMJSJ9KyS0jFUeY_lIG4ob/s320/anarkali+dharmender.jpeg)
And in both these stories, the woman says: yes, I’ll do this and this and this if I choose to, but that doesn’t mean you can assume I’ll do this as well.
Pink was a good film, but I thought Anarkali of Aarah was sharper and more focused overall, largely because it keeps its lens fixed throughout on a compelling woman protagonist. Bhaskar’s performance and Anaarkali’s centrality to the narrative (the film’s men, though well written and acted, orbit around her) make this a more overtly “lady-oriented” film (as censor-board chief Pahlaj Nihalani would reproachfully say) than Pink, with its grandstanding male lawyers and male judge, was. The first scene – a tragedy from Anaarkali’s childhood – prepares us to meet someone whose life will be tinged with melancholia, but this doesn’t happen. Instead of being crippled or dispirited by the past, she derives strength from memories of her mother – a woman who probably had less agency and fewer choices than Anaarkali does, but who managed to retain her dignity and self-worth even in a tough situation.
After a very taut first half – including a tense, masterfully staged scene where Anaarkali, accompanied by her partner Rangeela (Pankaj Tripathi), goes to meet Dharmender – the film slackens a little. To a degree, this has to do with the protagonist’s shift to a new setting and the need to lie low for a bit. (I was reminded of the post-interval change in tone of Nagraj Manjule’s Sairat, which has a comparable narrative arc.) But the pace picks up again as the story moves back to Aarah (you have to go home to stare down old demons) and towards a stirring climactic scene where what might seem on the surface to be “just” a lowbrow dance performance becomes an exhilarating reclamation of sexuality and choice.*** And the buildup to this Big Moment is paved with some lovely scenes in a minor key, such as a brief meeting between Anaarkali and Rangeela at the courthouse when the affection between them is palpable despite everything that has happened.
It could be pointed out that like the young women in Pink, Anaarkali too eventually needs a man to help her pull off a final coup (which has the feel of a deus ex machina). But the assistance in this case feels more incidental; one gets a stronger sense that events have flown from the force of her own personality, her upbringing, her unwillingness to keel over in a situation where many of us would think that was the safest, most practical option.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHNP2blvUEdv8hNJXqvfT-m3yqlYA3QN6atZWNRbpGjN-RjV_jakm9QA2QtwEUb9ykT1XSLxzdsUpxyXJidf98GKAohYhx4v4gOeXNZnLlQIItryvlllGjde_UDTdtBqk3VZvn/s320/anarkali+still.jpeg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** The climactic scene can also be viewed as a comment on the subject-gaze relationship. Earlier in the film, Dharmender crudely broke the Fourth Wall by encroaching on Anaarkali’s performance; now, as he sits next to his wife and daughter, she pays him back in the same coin, stepping off the stage, dancing around him and fracturing his personal, domestic space
Wisdom from Camille Paglia - lesbian intellectual, one of the foremost art critics and historians, and yes.. a feminist -
ReplyDelete"Men, in particular, were never noble savages--they're natural savages. "Hunt, pursuit, and capture are biologically programmed into male sexuality,""Generation after generation, men must be educated, refined, and ethically persuaded away from their tendency toward anarchy and brutishness. Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman's protection against rape." Men's natural biological instincts--not society--tell men to ravish women.
Prudence is better than idealism. Prudence is a political and personal virtue suited for real humans who inhabit a world filled with danger, risk, irrationality, prejudice, conflict and instability. Other words for prudence are realism, common sense and street smarts. "
"What does prudence say about rape? "Sex, like the city streets, would be risk-free only in a totalitarian society." Given certain intractable facts about men and sex, there is an inevitable trade off between safety and freedom. There is no way women will be able to "take back the night" completely. Individual prudence and responsibility will have to take up the slack. "A girl who goes upstairs alone with a brother at a fraternity party is an idiot," "Feminists call this 'blaming the victim.' I call it common sense."
More here - http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/2/9/the-odd-couple-pbwbhen-camille-paglia/
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePaglia's opinions are entirely antithetical to feminism, regardless of whatever she calls herself
DeleteDisagree. Very sweeping statement, anyway. Some of her opinions might be problematic, and some of them might be antithetical to some strains of feminist thought, but on the whole I'm glad that a few people of her stature have dared to move away from the Left-lib tendency to look at issues of morality only through the lens that is most comforting to them.
And btw, if "men's natural biological instincts are hardly an intractable fact", then "the many criticisms of evolutionary biology based theories/explanations..." are hardly intractable facts either. Much more likely that the "truth", whatever that is, lies someplace in between. But as Pinker and others have pointed out, too much of liberal discourse in recent decades has swung too far in one direction, behaving almost as if there is no such thing as human nature, that everything is conditioning.
I view Paglia as a moderate conservative in her stances. Not as a feminist. But Paglia understands that declaring herself a conservative will hurt her in the academia (which has its own caste system with conservatives being the untouchables). Hence she claims to be a "feminist with a difference" :)
Delete"Would you still argue that women's biological destiny is to marry, bear children and take care of the house?"
I don't understand this line. First of all people do multiple things. Marrying and having kids doesn't mean your destiny has nothing else in store for you. Sure, women did specialize a lot more in the domestic economy traditionally. But the reasons for that are economic. NOt cultural. In societies with extremely high infant mortality, a woman often had to get pregnant 10 times to bear 2 healthy babies. I speak from the knowledge of my own family history. My great grandmother had 16 kids of which only 4 survived past the age of 2. My Grandfather was the 16th of them all! I am here, talking today, because my great grandmother didn't stop at 15. The 16th kid turned out to be the most successful kid and retired as the chairman of a major public sector undertaking, having been born into the family of a below-poverty-line priest.
You may be horrified at this. But this was "ghar ghar ki kahani" in those days. Am sure most of the people on this thread wouldn't be here if their great-great grandmothers had stopped at 2-3 pregnancies!
Now how do you expect such women to participate in the economy outdoors - an agrarian economy where knowledge barely counted and brawn counted for a lot? Is this the fault of "patriarchy" ? Or some religion? No. This was life.
As our ability to control our environment has changed, so have cultural norms. Period.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteShrikanth: oh yes, I have read that before, and agree with a lot of it (while also - sort of- understanding why Paglia raises the hackles of so many feminists and liberals). Not sure what it has to do with this particular post though.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I mentioned Paglia in a related context in this post
(And there's also this post by "a retired call-girl")
ReplyDeleteI think it is relevant. Touches on many of the things you touch upon. Be it available women, "suppression" of female sexuality, "prudence" vs "freedom" among other things.
ReplyDeleteI think, time and again, we come back to the same point - do we try to manufacture / change human nature? Or do we work with the reality as it exists, and make compromises and make incremental changes.
The key line there in what I quoted is - "Society is NOT woman's enemy. Society is woman's protection against rape".
Society and its reet-rivaj exist to make things easier for women. Be it Monogamy, marriage, alimony, stigma against bastards, stigma against deserting husbands (remember Deewar's "Mera baap chor hai" line?).
The liberal reaction to all this is - "oh...how cruel and restricting society is". But no...society is providing insurance for women and protecting them against brutish men. That's what societies have been doing for 10000 years.
So is freedom a bad thing? No. Freedom is nice. But with freedom comes pain. Responsibilities. Danger. And one has to take them in one's stride.
Does that mean one condones crimes against women? No. Advising people to keep their doors locked at night doesn't mean one condones burglars!
Is there room for change at all? Yes, but incremental change. Slow change. Piecemeal change. For the western skirt length to reduce from ankle length to its current norm of 1-2 inches above the knee, it took some 80 years (1890 to 1970). It wasn't a sudden change of fashion? And was it without a cost? No. Surely there are more crimes / rapes in western cities today than in 1890s NY (Even stats bear this out). But is that a bad thing? No. SOmetimes it is worth seeking out more danger in pursuit of freedom.
It is up to every individual to strike the right tradeoff.
"do we try to manufacture / change human nature? Or do we work with the reality as it exists, and make compromises and make incremental changes."
DeleteI guess since we tried and managed to change human nature when it came to wearing clothes, building houses and staying in them and cooking meat a little more thoroughly before consuming, to name a few - it is not too much to ask to try and change "human nature" to be more respectful towards the question of consent, ownership etc.
"Advising people to keep their doors locked at night doesn't mean one condones burglars!"
- Yes, but it does acknowledge, among other things, that maybe (1) law and order situation is not good enough to stop/deter those burglars (2) there exist a need for someone to become a burglar in order to meet their needs, i.e. there are people below poverty line .
"Society and its reet-rivaj exist to make things easier for women. Be it Monogamy, marriage, alimony, stigma against bastards, stigma against deserting husbands"
- Umm, if that is the case, then why is this "stigma" strictly for women? Is it not holding the woman responsible for things that it deems as "wrong"? If a woman has a child out of wedlock due to rape, the child is labeled a "bastard" because it has no "father" - now, the child is also stigmatized, but nothing for the "father".
Sorry, I do not agree with "society is providing insurance for women and protecting them against brutish men" - Rather, going by your logic, society is recognizing that men are brutish, and instead of saying that "that behavior is unacceptable", it is conveying that "women, you know men are men and so on, so it is up to you to be prudent because we will hold you responsible if men do anything against you".
Maybe I am not that deep. Maybe I have too much skin in the matter to simply look at these objectively. And maybe this is a wrong thread to argue in. Sorry.
"I guess since we tried and managed to change human nature when it came to wearing clothes, building houses and staying in them and cooking meat a little more thoroughly before consuming, to name a few - it is not too much to ask to try and change "human nature" to be more respectful towards the question of consent, ownership etc. "
DeleteThose are not changes to human nature. Those are attempts to alter one's physical environment, not change one's nature.
"Yes, but it does acknowledge, among other things, that maybe (1) law and order situation is not good enough to stop/deter those burglars (2) there exist a need for someone to become a burglar in order to meet their needs, i.e. there are people below poverty line"
Again a very facile liberal line. Where you seem to suggest that law and order is this magic wand that solves everything. If it does, why do we have murders at all! Human civilization cannot stop murders. Murders and rapes are not going away. They will be around even in the year 2500.
And no. Burglars dont burgle because they are "below the poverty line". Again this is a liberal take on matters where you don't want to call out evil, but blame "society" instead. I say - stop blaming society! Some people are good. Some are evil. Sure there are shades of grey. But some are evil. I repeat - some are evil. Evil is real. Evil exists. Evil resides in each one of us. Most of us suppress it to the extent we can (thanks to social conditioning, religion, among other things). Some can't. And they deserve punishment.
"If a woman has a child out of wedlock due to rape, the child is labeled a "bastard" because it has no "father" - now, the child is also stigmatized, but nothing for the "father"."
Fathers are. The stigma is very real in small towns and in more traditional societies. The places where stigma doesnt exist are your developed urbanized societies like Western Europe and US. No wonder you see the maximum amount of husband desertions in these "liberal" lands.
Watch Deewar and see how AB's dad is stigmatized for his desertion!
In societies where there is no stigma you see more fatherless kids (not less). And these women do have a very hard time. The absence of stigma is responsible for the plight of these women.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOkay, my last comment here for now, really have to go. I have had some major disagreements/arguments with Shrikanth here over the years, but I'm fairly certain he isn't saying "all of this is ENTIRELY down to men's biology, and society CANNOT help" - thought part of what he said was that society has helped, even if it seems very incremental to our impatient liberal eyes.
DeleteI'm sure this will be followed by three thesis-length Shrikanth comments, so off now...
I agree with what Shrikanth said. People may find his comments objectionable because they are very objective. He's saying 'evil' is as human as 'non-evil'. Those who commit heinous crimes belong to our own spices. Very often there's no reason for the crime, apart from that the criminal did it for the heck of it. Knowing this, society reaches an implicit kind of agreement or rules. Marriage is a part of it. I'd add one thing to what Shrikanth said. Society is giving a male some protection that his wife/woman/women will not be snatched away by more powerful (physically, financially, socially). Unfortunately, it's a man's world, still. I don't think society sat together and decided to give women protection against rape. The male society gave protection to males that their wives will be protected.
DeleteThanks Jai for chipping in.
DeleteSociety has helped. And should help. But society is not responsible for "crimes". Crimes happen despite society not because of it.
I am very hopeful. But I am also a realist. I see the glass as half-full. Had been on a trip to small town Tamil Nadu in December (towns like Kanchi, Kumbakonam, Srirangam). I was surprised at the number of young girls driving scooters, wearing salwar kameez, sometimes even jeans, running shops among other things. I saw as many females on the road as males!
Now these are highly orthodox temple towns bound by tradition. Yet the change is massive. It really is. It is to be seen to be believed.
Sure. I can complain. I can say - Oh, why don't I find more swanky bars in Kumbakonam? Why are women underrepresented in Kanchipuram liquor joints? Oh. Why is it hard to find local women bathing in swimsuits at the Nagapattinam beach?
I say that these are not reasonable questions.
By the way, while we are at it, Kanchipuram probably has lower rates of violence against women than London or New York City or Delhi. Maybe the social norms help reduce violence? It is anathema to ask that question, I know. Partly because the answer is uncomfortable for many.
"I don't know a single woman of any age who has not had similar experiences"
DeleteActually it's interesting. I recently asked my mother, who is in her mid 60s now, whether she ever faced eve-teasing or any kind of harassment however mild, in Bombay when she was growing up in that city in the 60s-70s as a young lady. Her answer was a categorical no. By the way she was a working woman, not unattractive by any means, back in the day.
That made me wonder - why do we hear different stories these days? Could it be because the loosening of social norms has meant a deterioration in male behavior? Has the reduction in the hold of religion and custom caused a worsening of behavioral norms? Has the loss of inhibitions, encouraged by liberal movements, made man revert to his "natural" self and turn less civilized?
Possible "conservative" explanations for deterioration in male behavior.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSrikanth: This would probably be my last comment, and thanks for replying.
DeleteI would admit that I never studied anything other than engineering and management, so maybe I do not understand this difference between changing physical environment and changing ones nature. All these seem too theoretical, being mentioned by someone who probably has the privilege of never having to face them himself. To someone who has and still is having to face constraints all the time, being told that it is "all for your good", this touches a lot of raw nerves.
Like Apoorva, even I have not met a single woman who have not faced sexual harassment or have not been told, by their parents or well-wishers, to exercise "prudence" in order to "escape" sexual harassment. So, when people like you say that society exists to protect women, it sound absolutely ridiculous. Among other things, it also almost means that women are these poor, weak humans who needs to be protected, like babies, or people of fragile health.
"The places where stigma doesn't exist are your developed urbanized societies like Western Europe and US. No wonder you see the maximum amount of husband desertions in these "liberal" lands. "
Quick reminder: we are not talking about "husbands" deserting their wives, the discussion was about physical relationships outside marriage and rapes. And in both cases, the women in India bear the stigma rather than the men, if the men are identified at all.
Yes, maybe AB's dad in Deewar was stigmatized, but nowhere else have I seen the man being blamed for what he did to a women. Deewar was probably wishful movie making.
"In societies where there is no stigma you see more fatherless kids (not less). And these women do have a very hard time. The absence of stigma is responsible for the plight of these women."
- And what does that prove - the presence of more fatherless kids as compared to less? Nothing really. Why should that be a concern for any of the parties involved if these kids can grow up without being blamed or stigmatized? I think women have a hard time bringing up a child alone in any case, the stigma is just the cherry on top of the pie (pardon me for being simplistic, because you just don't seem to get it). Women can do without it. Being more or less in number does not make it any easier to bear stigma.
And to your question: "why do we hear different stories these days?"
- Maybe (again, this is very obvious), just maybe because women were not so outspoken about it before? Or, maybe, due to social conditioning, it does not seem like harassment when people are condescending towards your gender? Or maybe, there were less women outside their homes?
Lastly, this is totally off topic, but had to point out:
"Burglars dont burgle because they are "below the poverty line". Again this is a liberal take on matters "
- I do not know if that is "liberal" as I do not understand these labels. I am not naive, so when I made that comment about poor people being burglars, I said "among other things", which translates to "one of the reasons". Which also means, I understand that there are other reasons for burgling. Just explaining.
Jai: I agree he did not say "all of this is ENTIRELY down to men's biology, and society CANNOT help" in his first comment. But the word "prudence" sparked this all.
This piece reminded me of Teesri Kasam and Waheeda Rehman's character and performance in the film.
ReplyDeleteAnon: oh yes! I need to watch that film again, it's been so long
ReplyDeleteAnon: there’s a Teesri Kasam connection mentioned in this piece too
DeleteInteresting post.
ReplyDeleteseems like an interesting movie. Will watch it. The people in singing and dancing trade in small towns are seldom shown in movies, apart from in item songs (like in Shool and Omkara). When I watched Namkeen many years ago, it made lasting impression on my mind. The idea of a woman, who is much like protagonist of this movie, but is old now with three unmarried daughters and a dumped husband who comes knocking on their door in night totally drunk. Damn scary.
And of course, Waheeda Rehman, who played the old mother in Namkeen, had two of her finest parts in Teesri Kasam (mentioned earlier in this thread) and Guide - two films in which a woman uses dance as self-expression
DeleteHave to watch Teesri Kasam. Heard so much about it
DeletePost-interval, it did remind of Sairat to me as well. And I think Hiraman character should have been introduced in Delhi itself... like how Sairat's lovers meet that saviour women in Karnataka. His early introduction scene in Araah seemed very out of place.
ReplyDeleteAnup: I'm not so sure myself. I get your point - it would also make the early bits of the film seem a little less cluttered - but I liked that introduction scene very much.
DeleteGreat write up and references - reminds me too of the movie "The Accused" - but probably it would remind me of any movie that underlines the importance of consent.
ReplyDeleteAparna: yes, I thought of The Accused too. There was quite a conversation around that film when it released, touching on consent, provocation and other subjects that have been discussed a lot in India in the context of films like Pink
Delete