The Wife Between Us/The Last Mrs. Parrish

Image courtesy: Goodreads

After the success of Gone Girl and The Girl on the Train, there has been a glut of these psychological suspense-thriller books. The Wife Between Us and The Last Mrs. Parrish are both part of this brigade - bestsellers with 'shocking twists' and 'dark secrets' - frankly, the only shocking thing for me was how alike these books are!!

'Assume nothing' - warns the tag line!! The book starts with Nellie, counting down the days to her wedding with the suave Richard. And then we meet Vanessa, presumably Richard's ex-wife - reeling after the breakup of her marriage, drowning her sorrows with alcohol, struggling to find her feet and in her free time, stalking Richard's new fiancee. A standard love triangle - well, assume nothing!! Nellie is a pre-school teacher, but it is soon hinted that she is fleeing from a deep, dark secret in her past. Her chance meeting with Richard takes her from her free-spirited life with her best friend, Samantha, to the isolation of a suburban mansion. On a parallel time track, we see the slow unravelling of Vanessa's marriage - her almost desperate longing for a child, her paranoia and her slow descent into insanity. Still not assuming anything, liking the suspense - when unexpectedly, the author has the big reveal - smack-dab in the middle of the book! And then Emma comes into the picture. So who's the wife? And the ex-wife? There are still a few twists and turns to come, but these come across as contrived and the plot really goes downhill - I really wish the author had held onto the Nellie/Vanessa suspense a little longer. 

Image courtesy: Goodreads

And then we come to The Last Mrs. Parrish. Amber Patterson and Daphne Parrish bond over a common tragedy - both have sisters that suffered from and succumbed to cystic fibrosis. The two women are like chalk and cheese - Daphne is at the center of a glittering, social circle in the exclusive Bishops Town, Connecticut. She and her husband, Jackson, are the perfect couple, and their life is a fairytale come to life. Amber, on the other hand, is a nobody - with dark secrets in her past, and nefarious intentions for the future. Skilfully playing upon Daphne's feelings for her deceased sister, Amber worms her way into the heart of the Parrish family - first family dinners, then birthday parties and vacations, and finally a job as Jackson's assistant. But Amber is no ordinary social climber - she has her eye on the big prize, the title of Mrs. Parrish - and she sets out to undermine Daphne at every turn. Will Daphne keep turning a blind eye to Amber's schemes? Or will she fight for her picture-perfect life? Or is there more to the story than meets the eye?

The similarities are hard to ignore - both the books explore dark corners of relationships, the ugly truths behind beautiful facades, the broken realities of seemingly perfect marriages. Prince Charming husbands who turn into monsters behind closed doors. Wives who are prisoners in their marriages, and who turn to guile to escape their gaoler husbands. Glittering public lives, devastating skeletons in the closet. Yes, the similarities are impossible to ignore. One more thing in common? Both these books did not appeal to me in the least bit. I am a huge fan of thrillers - but there is no redemption in either of these books. Even the wronged wives - I understand that they were desperate to get away - but their methods? At the end of the day, I'm old school - even through shades of grey, good must always triumph over evil. And that is where these books fall short. This genre is definitely not my favorite at the moment! I wish I could end with my usual 'Happy Reading' - but I have to be honest, 'happy' is not where these books will take you!

Padmavat (2018)

Sanjay Leela Bhansali's latest masterpiece has finally hit the theatres - albeit with a small change in the title. 'Padmavat' - as the film is now called, is unambiguously a work of fiction based on the poem written by Malik Muhammad Jayasi, instead of 'Padmavati', a biopic of Rani Padmini of Chittor. The disclaimer at the start of the film goes to great lengths to stress that this is indeed a work of fiction, that's followed by a second disclaimer that the film does not intend to offend or insult, and then there's a third one regarding the authenticity - by the time they got to the 'No animals were hurt...' disclaimer, I was half asleep. And this was before the opening credits. 

I have to admit I was curious - after all that controversy, who wouldn't be? The legend of Rani Padmini lives on - the queen of Chittor who committed Jauhar to escape the enemy. Tales of her beauty brought Alauddin Khilji to Mewar, and in his wake followed devastation. A Sultan who laid waste to Chittor to possess a legendary beauty. A queen who in a final act of defiance, chose death over dishonor. The script pretty much writes itself, doesn't it? But how much of this is legend, and how much real history?? Allaudin Khilji, of course, was a powerful ruler from the Khilji Dynasty that ruled the Delhi Sultanate in the early 14th century. The siege of Chittor and Mewar's eventual defeat is also history. But Rani Padmini remains more elusive - there are several versions of her story, none completely accepted by historians. So does the film really distort historical fact, or is it mere cinematic liberty??

No doubt, the film is lavishly presented. The sets are breathtakingly beautiful - be it the intriguing Buddhist caves of Singhal, the Chittor palace or Khilji's court - the attention to detail is hard to miss. Deepika looks ethereal - at first, in a simple hunter's costume and later resplendent as the Rajput queen - historically accurate or not, her costumes and jewelry are out of the world!! Why just Deepika, every character in the film is gorgeously garbed!! It truly is a feast for the eyes - every scene is lovingly crafted, and the grandeur and the glamour are almost worth the price of the ticket. Almost. It's a bit ironical - fire seems to be the central theme of the film, right from the embers on the opening credits building up to the Jauhar at the climax - but the story never really catches fire, the characters are so very dull and really, there's no other way to put this - the film is one big yawn-fest. 

Ranveer Singh tries valiantly to bring his almost maniacal energy to Alauddin Khilji - his kohl-lined eyes, scarred face and unruly curls create a picture of menace - but I would have liked to see a coldly calculating portrayal rather the half-crazed Khilji that Ranveer presents. In his desire to possess everything nayaab in the world he comes across as a petulant, entitled child rather than a wily, ambitious ruler. To firmly establish him as the bad guy, with no respect for women, we have scenes of extreme debauchery that quite literally, had me cringing. It just seemed so unnecessary. And then confusingly, this immoral profligate develops a softer side - lamenting the lack of love in his fate!

As the foil to Ranveer's blacker-than-black Khilji is the righteous Raja Ratan Singh. Shahid Kapur, quite frankly, seems like a lost boy who wandered on to the sets by accident. He is simply not regal enough to pull this off, and he is not helped by the never-ending dialogues of guroor and usool!! And while principles are well and good, a king simply does not have the luxury to cling to these principles while his kingdom is on the verge of defeat. Forget Deepika's exposed midriff, this is what the Karni Sena should have protested against - the spineless portrayal of the elite Rajputs - Ratan Singh's trust in principles is simple-minded, and downright disastrous when faced with a feckless enemy. 

'Padmavat', Padmavati' - either way, the film completely revolves around the character of Rani Padmini - and a lot of times, she seems to be a better ruler than her husband! Deepika shows flashes of fire, and is regal as Rani Padmini - but for the most part, she has reverted to her 'Mastani' mode - wide, unblinking eyes, long lines of dialogues rattled off with pauses in the oddest places, her voice flat, unemotional. And she has zero chemistry with Shahid - the whole grand passion angle is never convincing. The unibrow - I really didn't get that at all - what was that supposed to signify? 

Then there's the elaborate Jauhar - I get that in the 13th and 14th centuries, Jauhar and Sati were an integral part of the lives of Hindu kings. It is a barbaric notion today, a wife self-immolating on a husband's funeral pyre, or all the royal ladies jumping into a blazing fire to save their virtue. Both of these were much-abused - compromising the basic right of a woman to live, and equating a woman's 'worth' to her virtue. While these practices are now illegal, millions of women still struggle for these basic rights - and I wish that Bhansali had chosen to tone down the Jauhar scenes, rather than make it a glorious spectacle. Like the rest of the film, the thousands of women dressed in red racing to 'draw the veil of fire' led by a luminescent Deepika is an arresting visual - and the subtext is clear. These women will remain 'pure' and 'unsullied' by this highest act of dharma - death before dishonor, remember? It is extremely disturbing, especially when the camera lingers on a pregnant woman and a couple of young girls. The lack of sensitivity is jarring, especially from a so-called 'sensitive' director.

Left to its own devices, 'Padmavat' probably would have sunk under the weight of its pretensions. Again the irony - banning the film, protests and the controversy will be the fuel which will drive this mediocre film to record-breaking earnings. If I was more cynical, I would even think that all this outrage was simply an elaborate publicity stunt - to paraphrase Khilji, there is but one principle in war and love - victory at the Box Office!!