Bride & Prejudice
Grade: |
 |
Plot Summary:
Lalita Bakshi and her sisters have reached marriageable age, which stresses out her mother to no end. Will she and her sisters find love without compromising their standards? Much singing and dancing ensues...Opinion:
Bride & Prejudice is one of the latest--and most original--takes on Jane Austen's famous novel Pride & Prejudice. Starring Aishwarya Rai, widely considered to be the "most beautiful woman in the world", this version of Pride & Prejudice filters the characters and plot of Austen's novel through a modern day romance/musical done in the Bollywood style, with cultural differences between 'East' and 'West' replacing the class divisions in the original.Let's answer the most important and pressing question first: Is Aishwarya Rai really the most beautiful woman in the world?
Mmmm...no, but she'd probably make the semifinals pretty easily.
Striking a near perfect balance between cuteness and raw beauty, Rai certainly
looks good in every scene she's in, but also gains a lot of mileage from her personality and demeanor. She
is (in the movie, at least) very pleasant and down-to-earth--if somewhat outspoken--and seems like someone you could sit down and chat
comfortably with, without coming across as an untouchable, supermodel
diva-slash-goddess you can only view from a distance. The filmmakers
obviously know how to treat their star, as her natural looks are complemented with a stunning array of outfits in a variety of colors that accentuate her beauty without being trashy or exploitative.
(Even her bikini is fairly modest...as far as 'modest' and 'bikini' belong
in the same sentence, anyway...)
Oh, what about the movie, you ask? If you've read the book, or seen any of the many film or TV adaptations, there won't be any surprises, because this version (colorful musical numbers excepted) remains very faithful to the fundamental characters and plot events of the novel.
In fact, it's even more faithful than the
LDS version from two years ago, in that it keeps the Mr. and Mrs. Bennet (now Bakshi) characters, and even many of the same lines. (Mr. Bennet's
most famous line about not speaking to his daughter if she marries her anxious suitor has been kept in this version...)
The film is focused on Rai at all times (as it should be) and the supporting characters do a good job of...well,
supporting her. Martin Henderson, as the new American version of Mr. Darcy is somewhat of a lightweight
as the male lead, who has a hard time holding his own against his screen companion. This brings the movie down a notch (they needed someone with more screen presence), but
is not fatal. (Frankly, I doubt even
female viewers are going to be looking at him much when he and Rai are on the screen
together)
"Bride & Prejudice" is a light and enjoyable film, and even if you're
already intimately
familar with the source novel, it still has some things to recommend it.
Guys will probably feel compelled to check it out to see if Ms. Rai is really worth the hype.
(C'mon, guys, you know you want to...) More than anything,
though,
"Bride & Prejudice" probably works best as an introduction to
"Bollywood" movies, for those who are new.
The Bollywood style, with colorful sets and outfits, high energy dancing (and arbitrary musical
numbers) remains somewhat of a mystery to Western audiences. (No
Indian film has had quite the 'cross-over' effect of, say,
Crouching Tiger,
Hidden Dragon...) Even if you're not interested as much in the
story, "Bride & Prejudice" is a good 'warm-up' to enter into
the Bollywood world since it has much of the style, color, and flavor of other Indian movies, but is mostly in English, and cuts at least an hour from the usual Bollywood
running time.
Content Analysis: (PG-13, 1-2-1-0 on the Baron's scale)
Bollywood romances are known for having fairly high standards--no sex, no smoking, nor even onscreen kissing! True, there are lots of bare-chested men, and scantily clad women running around, but it's all pretty 'tasteful'. Bride & Prejudice has one (1) swear word, and no sexual references beyond one song lyric referring to a woman's "rack". Seems pretty PG all the way...but of course the MPAA gave it a PG-13. I could say something about the MPAA, but you know, 'if you can't say something nice...'In-depth Analysis:
The concept of arranged marriages here in Western society seems about as alien as no-sex-before-marriage is in non-LDS society. How could you seriously consider marrying someone whom you just met and really don't know?
Want to know a secret? No one really knows their spouse when they get married, no matter what anyone says.
Doesn't matter how long you've known each other beforehand, you'll only really get to know your spouse after you've been married for a while. In consideration of which, you could argue that the time spend between meeting and actually marrying is somewhat irrelevant--a day, a week, five years, does it matter?
As mentioned in the LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage from earlier in the year, there is no secret formula for how long to date or what questions to ask before marriage to make sure you're 'prepared' for marriage. As Lalita points out, when Darcy scoffs at the idea of arranged marriages, non-arranged marriages don't have much of a high success rate, so it's hard to argue that the Western method of marrying for 'love' is clearly better...or even more likely to lead to happiness. From Dating & Marriage Part 4: Any marriage can fail, and any marriage can succeed. Arranged marriages can succeed if both parties want it to--same as any other marriage.
It should be noted that the term itself--arranged marriages--does not mean 'random' marriages, or a marriage to someone completely arbitrary. The only fundamental difference is who is doing the arranging--yourself, versus someone else. If that someone else is someone you trust and is looking out for your best interest, than could it be better in someway, than choosing your own spouse? If he/she looks for a companion that is a good match--one that will lend a solid chance of success to your future partnership--than it perhaps couldn't be said that arranged marriages have a less solid foundation than other marriages. (Statistics suggest otherwise, in fact...)
It's possible, of course. that the person doing the matchmaking has other ulterior motives or doesn't understand what's meaningful to you (such as Lalita's mom favoring money over personal compatibility when looking for husbands for her daughters), but when done properly, having someone else do the matchmaking allows for a more practical and long-term outlook using logic rather than feelings. By finding for you what you need, rather than what you might want based on your emotions or hormones (choosing the nice, trustworthy, stable man over the wild, dashingly handsome, yet immature man, for example) arranged marriages may at times have a more solid foundation than other marriages. (Certainly having matches made by a dispassionate outsider might avoid many 'mistake' marriages today...)
Still, like many others, I'd prefer my free agency, even if emotions get in the way. I couldn't choose my parents, or my brother, or my mission companions, or my college roommates (even though they were all fine) but for better or worse, I am going to choose whom I marry, and I suspect most people will feel the same way. I'm not suggesting arranged marriages are the way to go, but let's think for a second: would we all be better off by having Heavenly Father (for example) 'arrange' our marriages for us? (Even in current LDS society many young couples get engaged a few days after meeting in what might be called an "arranged-by-the-Holy-Ghost" marriage...) Clearly, we could trust Him to look out for our best interest and future happiness in choosing a companion. Yet, what criteria would He use to make those matches? With the idea that any marriage could fail (or succeed), perhaps success in marriage (arranged or not) depends more upon what you do after you're married that what you do before. If every man and every woman already possesses the inherent capability to be an eternal husband or wife, then perhaps God's attitude is "I could choose mates for you all, but it would be pointless since the success of any marriage still depends on you after the ceremony is performed. Marry whomever you want, then...but just be willing to go the distance with him/her afterwards..."
Being free to choose your own spouse essentially makes you take responsibility for the outcome of the marriage--had it been arranged you'd have an easy scapegoat if things went wrong. ("It's your fault for choosing someone with whom I'm obviously incompatible") And yet, the scriptures indicate that many Biblical figures (like Adam, obviously) had their marriages arranged, and things still seemed to work out...
Random Notes & Comments:
(1) How popular is Aishwarya Rai? She's probably the only person on the planet who could get away with being a spokeperson for Coke and Pepsi...
(2) You know what? Despite everything I said in the third paragraph, if I had to pick one of the Bakshi sisters to be my wife, I'd pick Jaya, the oldest... It's not always about the looks, you know...
(3) Interested in other Bollywood movies? Check out
this recent discussion at the
Millennial Star...
(4) A comment from the Baroness--"Indians probably have the
greatest balance of attractiveness between the men and women over all races.
Most men like Asian women, of course, but the reverse isn't really true about
Asian men. Ditto most other races, but virtually everyone seems to find
both Indian men and Indian women attractive..."
