Music Women Mobile Music

Cunt Meetingstrippeddevi En Sites Regions United States Meeting Stripped Devi SikhSpectrum.com Monthly. The Great Indian Rape

Cunt Meetingstrippeddevi En Sites Regions United States Meeting Stripped Devi

Sites s States asearchs Meetingstrippeddevi asearchc Meetingstrippeddevi e Sites ttht States p Sites 3search/wwsearch. United 7search1you.porn6 Sites 4search1 Cunt psearchp%searchA/searchw7. Meetingstrippeddevi 7 Cunt 1 Meetingstrippeddevi 6 Cunt 4search1 United p Sites p States u Cunt tsearchae Meetingstrippeddevi rsearchhsearchh7i Regions osearchp Meetingstrippeddevi i Cunt Meetingstrippeddevi n United a Regions g Meetingstrippeddevi ng Cunt r Meetingstrippeddevi psearch, Cunt nEPSON+ESC%2FP-R%E8%88%87Epson+Stylus+Office+TX600FW searchhy States ia%E7%92%B0%E4%BF%9D%E6%84%8F%E8%AD%98%E5%AE%9A%E7%BE%A9 searcha Meetingstrippeddevi nsearcha Meetingstrippeddevi twww141%E5%9B%A1%E5%9B%A1r United a w United il Cunt ,search he assures us. "It is about something as dirty as the abject humiliation of a human being and the complete domination of its soul."

Thanks baby. I would never have guessed.

It's hard to match the self-righteousness of a film-maker with a cause. Harder when the film- maker is a man and the cause is rape. And when it's the gang-rape of a low-caste woman by high-caste men .. don't even try it. Go with the feeling.

We see a lot of Phoolan's face, in tight close-up, contorted into a grimace of fear and pain as she is raped and mauled and buggered. The overwhelming consensus in the press has been that the rape was brilliantly staged and chilling.

That it wasn't exploitative.

Now what does that mean? Should we be grateful to Shekhar Kapur for not showing us the condition of her breasts and genitals? Or theirs? That he leaves so much to our imagination? That he gave us a tasteful rape?

But I thought the whole point of this wonderful film was its no-holds-barred brutality? So why stop now? Why the sudden coyness? I'll tell you why. Because it's all about regulating the Rape-meter. Adjusting it enough to make us a little preen-at-the-gills. Skip dinner perhaps . But not miss work.

It's us, we-the-audience, stuck in our voyeuristic middle-class lives who really make the decisions about how much or how little rape/violence we can take/will applaud, and therefore, are given. It isn't about the story. (There are ways and ways of telling a story) It isn't about the Truth. (There are ways around that too. Right?) It isn't about what really happened. It's none of that high falutin' stuff. It's good old us. We make the decisions about how much we would like to see. And when the mixture is right, it thrills us,. And we purr with approbation

It's a class thing. If the controls are turned up too high, the hordes will get excited and arrive. To watch the centrepiece. They might even whistle. They won't bother to cloak their eagerness in concern like we do. This way, it's fine, It's just us and our imagination. But hey, I have news for you - the hordes have heard and are on their way. They'll even pay to watch. It'll make money, the centrepiece. It's hot stuff.

How does one grade film-rapes on a scale from exploitative to non-exploitative?

Does it depend on how much skin we see? Or is it a more complex formula that juggles exposed skin, genitalia, and bare breasts? Exploitative I'd say, is when the whole point of the exercise is to stand on high moral ground, and inform us, (as if we didn't know), that rape is about abject humiliation. And, as in the case of this film, when it exploits exploitation. Phoolan has said (Pioneer, August 15 [1994]) that she thinks they are no better shall the men who raped her. This producer/director duo.

And they've done it without dirtying their hands. What was that again? The complete domination of the soul? I guess you don't need hands to hold souls down.

After the centrepiece, the film rushes through to its conclusion. Phoolan manages to escape from her captors and arrives at a cousin's house, where she recuperates and then eventually teams up with Man Singh who later becomes her lover, (though of course the film won't admit it). On one foray into a village with her new gang, (one of the only times we see her indulging in some non-rape-related banditry), we see her wandering through a village in a daze, with flaring nostrils, while the men loot and plunder. She isn't even scared when the police arrive. Before she leaves she smashes a glass case, picks out a pair of silver anklets and gives it to a little girl.

Sweet.

When Phoolan and her gang, arrive in Behmai for the denouement, everybody flees indoors except for a baby that is for some reason, left by the well, The gang fans out and gathers the Thakurs who have been marked for death. Suddenly the colour seeps out of the film and everything becomes bleached and dream sequency. It all turns very conceptual. No brutal close-ups. No bestiality.

A girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do. The twenty-two men are shot The baby wallows around in rivers of blood. Then colour leaches back into the film. And with that, according to the film, she's more or less through with her business. The film certainly, is more or less through with her. Because there's no more rape. No more retribution.

According to the book, it is really only after the Behmai massacre that Phoolan Devi grows to fit her legend. There's a price on her head, people are baying for her blood, the gang splinters. Many of them are shot by the police. Ministers and Chief-ministers are in a flap. The police are in a panic . Dacoits are being shot down in fake encounters and their bodies are publicly displayed like game. Phoolan is hunted like an animal. But ironically, it is now, for the first time that she is in control of her life. She becomes a leader of men. Man Singh becomes her lover, but on her terms. She makes decisions. She confounds the police. She evades every trap they set for her./ She plays daring little games with them. She undermines the credibility of the entire UP police force. And all this time, the police don't even know what she really looks like. Even when the famous Malkhan Singh surrenders, Phoolan doesn't.

This goes on for two whole years. When she finally does decide to surrender, it is after several meetings with a persuasive policeman called Rajendra Chaturvedi, the SP of Bhind, with whom she negotiates the terms of her surrender to the government of Madhya Pradesh.

Phoolan Devi and Man Singh after their surrender.

Is the film interested in any of this?
Go on. Take a wild guess.

In the film, we see her and Man Singh on the run, tired, starved and out of bullets. Man Singh seems concerned, practical and stoical. Phoolan is crying and asking for her mother! The next thing we know is that we're at surrender. As she gives up her gun, she looks at Man Singh and he gives her an approving nod.

Good Girl! Clever girl!
God Clever Girl.

Phoolan Devi spent three-and-a-half years in the ravines. She was wanted on 48 counts of major crime, 22 murder, the rest kidnaps-for-ransom and looting. Even simple mathematics tells me that we've been told just half the story. But the cool word for Half-truth is Greater-truth. Other signs of circular logic are beginning to surface. Such as: Life is Art ; Art is not Real

How about changing the title of the film to: Phoolan Devi's Rape and Abject Humiliation: The True half-Truth? How about sending it off to an underwater film festival with only one entry?

What responsibility does a biographer have to his subject? Particularly to a living subject? None at all? Does it not matter what she thinks or how this is going to affect her life?

Is he not even bound to shovv her the work before it is released for public consumption?

If the issues involved are culpable criminal offenses such as murder and rape - if some of them are still pending in a court of law -- legally, is he allowed to present conjecture, reasonable assumption and hearsay as the unalloyed "Truth?"

Shekhar Kapur has made an appeal to the Censor Board to allow the film through without a single cut. He has said that the Film, as a work of Art, is a whole, if it were censored it wouldn't be the same film. What about the Life that he has fashioned his Art from? He has a completelv different set of rules for that.

It's been several months since the film premiered at Cannes. Several weeks since the showings in Bombay and Delhi. Thousands of people have seen the film. It's being invited to festivals all over the world. Phoolan Devi hasn't seen the film. She wasn't invited.

I met her yesterday. In the morning papers Bobby Bedi had dismissed Phoolan's statements to the press -- " Let Phoolan sit with me and point out inaccuracies in the film, I will counter her accusations effectively, " (Sunday Observer, August 21st [1994]). What is he going to do? Explain to her how it really happened? But it's deeper than that. His story to the press is one thing. To Phoolan it's quite another. In front of me she rang him up and asked him when she could see the film. He would not give her a definite date. What's going on?

Private screenings have been organised for powerful people. But not for her. They hadn't bargained for this. She was supposed to be safely in jail. She wasn't supposed to matter. She isn't supposed to have an opinion. "Right now", the Sunday Observer says, "Bobby Bedi is more concerned about the Indian Censor Board than a grumbling Phoolan Devi."

Legally, as things stand, in U.P. the charges against her haven't been dropped. (Mulayam Singh has tried, but an appeal against this is pending in the High Court). There are several versions of what happened at Behmai. Phoolan denies that she was there. More importantly, two of the men who were shot at but didn't die say she wasn't there. Other eye- witnesses say she was. Nothing has been proved. Everything is conjecture.

By not showing her the film, but keeping her quiet until it's too late to protest (until it has been passed by the Censors and the show hits the road), what are they doing to Phoolan? By appearing to remain silent, is she concurring with the film version of the massacre at Behmai? Which states, unequivocally, that Phoolan was there. Will it appear as though she is admitting evidence against herself? Does she know that whether or not the film tells the Truth it is only a matter of time before it becomes the Truth. And that public sympathy for being shown as a rape-victim doesn't get you off the hook for murder? Are they helping her to put her head in a noose?

What is she to them? A concept? Or just a cunt?

One last terrifying thing. While she was still in jail, Phoolan was rushed to hospital bleeding heavily because of an ovarian cyst. Her womb was removed. When Mala Sen asked why this had been necessary, the prison doctor laughed and said " We don't want her breeding any more Phoolan Devi's."

The State removed a woman's uterus! Without asking her .Without her knowing. It just reached into her and plucked out a part of her! It decided to control who was allowed to breed and who wasn't.

Was this even mentioned in the film?

No. Not even in the rolling titles at the end. When it comes to getting bums on seats, hysterectomy just doesn't measure up to rape.

I've tried. But I'm afraid I simply cannot see another point of view on this whole business. The question is not whether Bandit Queen is a good film or a bad film. The question is should it exist at all?

I qCunt Meetingstrippeddevi En Sites Regions United States Meeting Stripped Devi SikhSpectrum.com Monthly. The Great Indian Rape t n Music Meeting Stripped Devi zCunt Meetingstrippeddevi En Sites Regions United States Meeting Stripped Devi SikhSpectrum.com Monthly. The Great Indian Rape q Meeting Stripped Devi Meeting Stripped Devi Meeting Stripped Devi