Some of the details in the movie are funny, but I always felt an intuitive unpleasantness in watching the movie. In retrospect, there are probably two aspects.
First, there is dissonance in the overall framework.
The movie wants to compare the failure of the father and his roommates in the sports meeting and the process of counterattack to compare the experience of his son's failure in the college entrance examination, so as to clarify a truth about success and failure, that is, the result is not important, what is important is hard work, not lose to yourself. But are the two really comparable? The criteria for judging success are different, and the consequences of failure are also different. The logic behind success and failure is still different. Father’s failure is only a competition between adolescent boys, while children’s failure is related to the distribution of social resources, social status and class mobility. And social concepts and other macro-level links, the two are not in the same heavyweight, similar, only the abstract "success" and "failure". Therefore, I don't think the father's story can dilute the pain of the son. Such a light replacement is logically unreasonable and emotionally unacceptable.
In addition, the characters in the film are all people with wealth and status. Using their stories to make sense, presumably the real losers will not buy it.
Second, back to the area I've been focusing on, which is gender relations in the film.
Looking at the love story of my parents in their school days, I don't think their divorce is at all surprising. The man is fascinated by the woman, there is no doubt about it, but the way he treats her is more like dealing with an item. When making a bet, he can use his relationship with the woman to bet, and he can even come up with his girlfriend. Sexually suggestive phone calls to weaken the other person's "energy" - if you love a "person" and you can't do such a thing, you will consider her feelings and cherish the relationship with her. This is one of them.
Second, the women in the film succeed or fail depending on their relationships with men. When Building 10 appeared as an independent women's group, no one cared about their success or failure. In many sports competitions, only female athletes appeared in the 42kg weightlifting. That is to say, from a sports point of view, they are the The true losers of the school, but when considering the definition of failure, they were banished "generously" by the logic of "good boys don't fight girls". And when a woman is absorbed into the male group as a partner of a man, the success or failure of the man becomes her success or failure, just like the father in the film says to the mother "We are all losers", but there is nothing about her in the film. The failure story, that is, she was marked as an outsider in Building 10, and her success or failure depended on Building 4, to which her boyfriend belonged. These two situations point to the point that women are not subjects, and her successes and failures are of no value to be discussed.
All in all, the above two unpleasant things tell us that the film is from the perspective of the Indian middle and upper class (male), just look at the jokes in it, and don't take it seriously.
View more about Chhichhore reviews
