Per chi non ha visto il film.
Section 375 è un prodotto nel complesso ben fatto, malgrado alcuni errori nella sceneggiatura. I personaggi sono piuttosto statici ed è un peccato, perchè nella storia c'era spazio per approfondire la loro evoluzione. Le interpretazioni sono buone. Kishore Kadam irresistibile. Ho un debole per Akshaye Khanna, me lo sono goduto dal primo fotogramma all'ultimo, ma devo ammettere di averlo trovato un po' imbalsamato. I dialoghi, in larga parte ottimi, costituiscono l'ossatura della trama; trama ricca di sfumature - posto d'onore accordato al grigio -, ambigua, per certi versi scomoda.
Per chi ha visto il film.
S375 narra sostanzialmente la vendetta architettata da un personaggio di sesso femminile, e non dal solito muscoloso eroe fidanzato/marito/padre. Lo sceneggiatore sceglie la formula del legal thriller, e la violenza fisica è ridotta al minimo. S375 è davvero misogino come sostengono alcuni critici? Non del tutto, in quanto:
* è lo stesso Rohan, nella sua deposizione in aula, ad illustrarci che razza di soggetto sia. E Tarun, il suo avvocato difensore, rincara la dose ad ogni occasione;
* l'arringa finale di Hiral, pubblico ministero, è di una lucidità immacolata, meno spettacolare rispetto a quella di Tarun, ma molto più sottile e incisiva. Il verdetto si allinea e la vendetta è servita.
Semmai la presunta misoginia sta nel fatto che Anjali non è rappresentata in modo positivo come da sempre avviene per il sanguinario, spietato eroe tradizionale. Anjali la fa franca, nel rispetto della tradizione, ma non si guadagna troppa simpatia.
Fra gli errori a cui accennavo, a mio parere il principale riguarda proprio Anjali, una ragazza comune e piena di sogni che cade nella rete di un profittatore arrogante e superficiale, e che diventa vendicativa sino al punto di affrontare lo stress emotivo legato ad un processo per stupro e il rimorso di aver mandato in carcere l'uomo che ama. Perchè S375 non approfondisce il suo punto di vista e il suo dilemma morale? Inoltre le omissioni commesse da Hiral nelle indagini sono implausibili per una professionista del suo calibro anche se priva dell'esperienza di Tarun. Infine, la storia è troppo sbilanciata a favore di Tarun.
TRAMA
Anjali è la giovane assistente di una costumista cinematografica. Un giorno la ragazza si reca a casa di Rohan, un famoso regista, portando con sè i costumi da selezionare per un film. Rohan l'aggredisce, e Anjali lo denuncia per stupro.
ASSOLUTAMENTE DA NON PERDERE
* Le battute taglienti affidate al giudice Madgaonkar, e lo stile personalissimo con cui Kishore Kadam le pronuncia.
RECENSIONI
The Hindu:
'A filmmaker is at liberty to pick his subject, characters, have his worldview project on the screen or indulge in moral posturing. One cannot invalidate the possible real-life existence of a case like the one filmmaker Ajay Bahl presents in the film. But when a narrative - in its tone and decisions to reveal or hide certain “facts” - picks a side and ultimately projects a few (very) disturbingly graphic claims of self-harm to be true, there’s enough reason to hold the film liable. It’s hard to dissociate this film from the time in which it releases: a year after the #MeToo movement was at its peak in India. Today, we stand at a point where the ones accused are re-emerging into their respective professional lives, disregarding the movement through their films (hint: Super 30), or even downright ridiculing the collective resistance to sexual misconduct and patriarchal power dynamics. In this, you have Section 375, which doesn’t simply raise questions and explore the grey zones (which is undoubtedly imperative), but picks a side and ventures onto demonstrating how “law was served but justice was denied”. (...) For the most part, the film creates ambiguity, refrains from being didactic, compels you to think with facts and statistics, and resists the temptation of taking sides. Had the film remained in this space, while hinting at provocative possibilities, it could have been a riveting, and perhaps even a significant film. But the counter argument that the film provides and supports (through Khanna’s character) is not just provocative but also based solely on the account of the accused. Once the film takes a stand and you walk out of the cinema hall, and playback the narratives in your head, assuming Khanna's arguments to be true, it’s nothing short of chilling. (...) The film not only provides validation to all those dismissing sexual harassment cases as having ulterior motives but also does great disservice to women, who have only recently had the courage to risk social stigma and share their stories with the world'.
Kennith Rosario, 12.09.19
Film Companion:
'I’m not sure what it says about our creative culture that, a year after #MeToo reached Indian shores, the first commercial movie acknowledging the epidemic of high-profile predators within the film industry chooses to address the ambiguity of the claims rather than the victimhood of the cases. But Section 375 is what it is. I may not agree with the overall purpose of the film, but it does an effective job of contextualizing the collateral damage - the “MenToo” fallout - without explicitly taking sides. In one sense, Section 375 is brave, foolhardy almost - like a wish-fulfillment exercise that examines the legal consequences of a survivor actually trusting the judiciary system and risking her life/career. In another sense, the film is instantly difficult, unlikeable even, because it dares to probe - and, at times, challenge - the mood of a newly woke nation. Most importantly, despite its misguided social standing, Section 375 has a conscience. (...) Thankfully, this man (Tarun) is not portrayed as a sweaty underdog or model citizen; the gaze is still decidedly grey and feminist. The wealthy protagonist, Tarun Saluja, channels the status and conscience of the film in many ways: nobody in the court likes him, he is haughty and patronizing, he pisses everyone off at some point (including the judges), but he is the only one with a voice that can cut through the clutter. He is the only one - however privileged, and driven by publicity or money - who is willing to ask uncomfortable questions. Nothing is too sensitive for him. And he stakes his reputation on his cold devotion to logic. (...) Akshaye Khanna’s performance is important in how it suggests that the man knows his pompous personality is an extension of his role in the case. He isn’t supposed to be supported. He seems to be someone who is deliberately designing his immodest attitude to protect the film from deifying its anti-populist message. (...) His lopsided grin is important for how it places him as the man with factual ambitions, in comparison to Richa Chadha’s woman with noble intentions. You often feel that her character, Hiral Gandhi, is overcome by solidarity rather than sense. (...) His tone is interesting. His moral compass is not entirely compromised. Like the film, he knows that he is treading on dangerous territory. (...) He feels the need to remind us through grandstanding monologues that if Anjali has been wronged, her desire for revenge is correct (“my client is not a good man”) but her method is doing a disservice to the thousands of true victims. This is the film admitting that monsters exist, and maybe the law isn’t equipped to deal with them. That it still achieves a tricky balance between the demonisation of the survivor and the humanization of the perpetrator - without diluting the abuse-of-power narrative'.
Rahul Desai, 13.09.19
Cinema Hindi: *** 1/2
Punto di forza: i dialoghi.
Punto debole: il personaggio di Anjali è scritto in modo troppo superficiale, e non ha lo spazio che merita.
SCHEDA DEL FILM
Cast:
* Akshaye Khanna - Tarun, avvocato difensore di Rohan
* Richa Chadda - Hiral, pubblico ministero
* Meera Chopra - Anjali
* Rahul Bhat - Rohan
* Sandhya Mridul - Shilpa, moglie di Tarun
* Kishore Kadam - giudice Madgaonkar
* Krutika Desai - giudice Indrani
Regia: Ajay Bahl (B.A. Pass)
Soggetto, sceneggiatura e dialoghi: Manish Gupta. Ajay Bahl ha collaborato alla stesura della sceneggiatura e dei dialoghi.
Colonna sonora: Clinton Cerejo
Anno: 2019
RASSEGNA STAMPA (aggiornata al 2 gennaio 2020)
* Akshaye Khanna talks about Vinod Khanna, his return from Osho and more, Mayank Shekhar, Mid-Day, 2 gennaio 2020:
'(Audience) Loved your film Section 375. What did you think of the timing of the film's release - coming a year after the MeToo movement? How do you think it changed the narrative around the movement itself?
The timing was never the intention. Neither was it the purpose of making the film. It was just a great story. It [delved on a] topic of the time. Which it always will be, because there are always people from both sexes, who don't know how to behave appropriately. Having said that, Section 375 is a film that I am very proud to have in my filmography. Sometimes, box-office numbers of a film are not always commensurate with the quality of a product. This film I will continue to be proud of. It will age well. (...)
Having been an actor for over 20 years - with Section 375, one sensed that you were totally stepping out of the usual tropes and mannerisms that we've of course admired you onscreen for. Would you agree?
On the contrary - to be able to engage an audience purely through dialogue, without other things, itself is not easy. And it's a combination of how you are directed, and how you perform. But the direction side is more important. That's why I felt very satisfied, creatively, with the way Ajay [Bahl] directed Section 375. It's very easy for a director to impose direction on an actor, when it's really not required. And I think Ajay has a very good sense of when to direct an actor, and when to not direct. That's very important'.
CURIOSITA'
* La sezione 375 è la parte del codice penale indiano che tratta i reati di natura sessuale.
* Riferimenti a Bollywood: Madhuri Dixit.
* Film che trattano lo stesso tema: Pink.
GOSSIP & VELENI
* Meera Chopra è cugina di secondo grado di Priyanka e Parineeti Chopra.
* Proprio in questi giorni è in corso uno scontro in Twitter fra il regista e lo sceneggiatore. Bahl sostiene di aver quasi completamente riscritto la sceneggiatura di Gupta. Gupta non è d'accordo, e ha deciso di denunciare per diffamazione anche le attrici Richa Chadda e Meera Chopra. Sembra che, nella versione originaria della sceneggiatura redatta da Gupta, le motivazioni di Anjali fossero di natura economica.
