samthomus
Joined Jul 2017
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews5
samthomus's rating
It truly baffles me how filmmakers, under the guise of entertainment and lighthearted romantic comedy, manage to insert blatantly anti-Brahmin narratives.
Until recently, I believed this was something confined to certain Marxist-Communist, anti-Hindu forces in India. But now, it's deeply painful to witness that Nepal-a country that was a Hindu nation barely two decades ago-is also gradually adopting the same ideological path. The Cultural Marxist tendency to depict Brahmin communities and Brahmin characters in negative light has found its way into Nepali cinema as well.
In this particular film, all Brahmin characters are portrayed in exactly the same way: arrogant, morally flawed, conspiratorial, or outright caricatured. For example: 1. The bride's father, Tara's father - egotistical, short-tempered, argumentative old man - clearly a negative character.
2. The bride's mother - traditional, opposed to love marriage - again painted as conservative and negative.
3. The man pretending to be the police inspector's father - a fraud who takes loans but doesn't repay them - a negative role.
4. The police inspector himself (who is also a Brahmin) - a crook, a bigamist, anti-love, and someone who casually makes random people his "father" - perhaps the most negatively drawn character.
5. Even the only supposedly "good" Brahmin character-Tara, the bride herself-is shown vomiting during a dinner with friends upon seeing buffalo meat, simply because she has never encountered it before. Even this natural reaction is used to mock her or make her appear socially inept.
So yes, every single Brahmin character in this film is depicted negatively in one way or another.
Now, contrast this with the portrayal of the non-Brahmin characters (in this case, Tamang characters - and let me clarify, I hold no personal grudge against the Tamang community; the concern here is with portrayal, not ethnicity).
All the Tamang characters are shown as good-hearted, fun-loving, and noble. Even the two comical characters who initially refuse to give up their land for road construction eventually help the couple. Apart from them, all other Tamang characters are wholly positive:
A) The Tamang parents (Mahila and his wife) - cheerful, warm, loving.
B) Tamang friends - loyal, genuine supporters of love and friendship.
C) Phurba (the male lead and a Tamang man) - the film positions him as the sympathetic hero.
Despite Phurba's clearly problematic behavior, the film expects the audience to forgive everything simply because "he is in love." For instance: C.1) He knowingly encourages a young Brahmin boy to eat buffalo meat, fully aware that the boy's family would be strongly opposed. The child's curiosity is not a valid excuse-he's not even a teenager.
C.2) He assaults a man in uniform.
C.3) He convinces a Brahmin girl to betray the trust and love her parents nurtured for over 20 years.
C.4) He openly defames his future father-in-law but never once shows the courage to formally ask for the girl's hand in marriage. He does everything else-except this one honest act.
Yet, the film portrays him in a positive, even heroic light.
The message is unmistakably clear: non-Brahmin (especially Tamang) characters are good, selfless, and lovable, while Brahmin characters are rigid, manipulative, and oppressive-all wrapped up in the name of entertainment.
Let's examine one more point. These Cultural Marxists, who often claim to believe in gender equality, never seem to reverse the roles: Why is it that in almost all such films, the girl is Brahmin and the boy is non-Brahmin? Why is the reverse so rare?
If this were just coincidence, one could let it slide. But here, not only does a Tamang boy elope with a Brahmin girl, this act is celebrated. The two comedic side characters even boast, saying something like:
"Our Tamang boy just flew off with the Brahmin girl!"
This doesn't just reflect anti-Brahmin bias-it shows pride in subverting Brahmin identity.
It's extremely disheartening to witness this in a Nepali film. From Indian cinema, perhaps we've come to expect such things. But not from Nepal.
Yet, this Cultural Marxist influence has penetrated Nepali filmmaking to the extent that Brahmins are almost always cast in a negative light.
Even the wedding ceremonies in the film are treated with bias.
The Tamang wedding is shown as colorful, joyful, and warm. In contrast, the Brahmin wedding is depicted as dull, forceful, and lacking any joy-as if it's merely a ritualistic burden.
The message from the filmmakers is loud and clear:
"Brahmins are bad. Brahmin daughters should marry outside their community. Brahmin traditions are boring, oppressive, and joyless. Brahmins are bigots, liars, or crooks."
This is not just poor storytelling. It is a deliberate ideological narrative rooted in anti-Brahmin bias and Cultural Marxism, carefully disguised as entertainment.
Until recently, I believed this was something confined to certain Marxist-Communist, anti-Hindu forces in India. But now, it's deeply painful to witness that Nepal-a country that was a Hindu nation barely two decades ago-is also gradually adopting the same ideological path. The Cultural Marxist tendency to depict Brahmin communities and Brahmin characters in negative light has found its way into Nepali cinema as well.
In this particular film, all Brahmin characters are portrayed in exactly the same way: arrogant, morally flawed, conspiratorial, or outright caricatured. For example: 1. The bride's father, Tara's father - egotistical, short-tempered, argumentative old man - clearly a negative character.
2. The bride's mother - traditional, opposed to love marriage - again painted as conservative and negative.
3. The man pretending to be the police inspector's father - a fraud who takes loans but doesn't repay them - a negative role.
4. The police inspector himself (who is also a Brahmin) - a crook, a bigamist, anti-love, and someone who casually makes random people his "father" - perhaps the most negatively drawn character.
5. Even the only supposedly "good" Brahmin character-Tara, the bride herself-is shown vomiting during a dinner with friends upon seeing buffalo meat, simply because she has never encountered it before. Even this natural reaction is used to mock her or make her appear socially inept.
So yes, every single Brahmin character in this film is depicted negatively in one way or another.
Now, contrast this with the portrayal of the non-Brahmin characters (in this case, Tamang characters - and let me clarify, I hold no personal grudge against the Tamang community; the concern here is with portrayal, not ethnicity).
All the Tamang characters are shown as good-hearted, fun-loving, and noble. Even the two comical characters who initially refuse to give up their land for road construction eventually help the couple. Apart from them, all other Tamang characters are wholly positive:
A) The Tamang parents (Mahila and his wife) - cheerful, warm, loving.
B) Tamang friends - loyal, genuine supporters of love and friendship.
C) Phurba (the male lead and a Tamang man) - the film positions him as the sympathetic hero.
Despite Phurba's clearly problematic behavior, the film expects the audience to forgive everything simply because "he is in love." For instance: C.1) He knowingly encourages a young Brahmin boy to eat buffalo meat, fully aware that the boy's family would be strongly opposed. The child's curiosity is not a valid excuse-he's not even a teenager.
C.2) He assaults a man in uniform.
C.3) He convinces a Brahmin girl to betray the trust and love her parents nurtured for over 20 years.
C.4) He openly defames his future father-in-law but never once shows the courage to formally ask for the girl's hand in marriage. He does everything else-except this one honest act.
Yet, the film portrays him in a positive, even heroic light.
The message is unmistakably clear: non-Brahmin (especially Tamang) characters are good, selfless, and lovable, while Brahmin characters are rigid, manipulative, and oppressive-all wrapped up in the name of entertainment.
Let's examine one more point. These Cultural Marxists, who often claim to believe in gender equality, never seem to reverse the roles: Why is it that in almost all such films, the girl is Brahmin and the boy is non-Brahmin? Why is the reverse so rare?
If this were just coincidence, one could let it slide. But here, not only does a Tamang boy elope with a Brahmin girl, this act is celebrated. The two comedic side characters even boast, saying something like:
"Our Tamang boy just flew off with the Brahmin girl!"
This doesn't just reflect anti-Brahmin bias-it shows pride in subverting Brahmin identity.
It's extremely disheartening to witness this in a Nepali film. From Indian cinema, perhaps we've come to expect such things. But not from Nepal.
Yet, this Cultural Marxist influence has penetrated Nepali filmmaking to the extent that Brahmins are almost always cast in a negative light.
Even the wedding ceremonies in the film are treated with bias.
The Tamang wedding is shown as colorful, joyful, and warm. In contrast, the Brahmin wedding is depicted as dull, forceful, and lacking any joy-as if it's merely a ritualistic burden.
The message from the filmmakers is loud and clear:
"Brahmins are bad. Brahmin daughters should marry outside their community. Brahmin traditions are boring, oppressive, and joyless. Brahmins are bigots, liars, or crooks."
This is not just poor storytelling. It is a deliberate ideological narrative rooted in anti-Brahmin bias and Cultural Marxism, carefully disguised as entertainment.
Maiti Ghar is a Nepali language film, whose production, development, and technical work took place in India. And, the effect of "socialism", which had marred the Indian cinema in 1950s & 60s, shows pretty obviously. The typical left!st narrative of Oppressor-Oppressed; the attack on family institution, the glorification of "breaking free" from the family, are all too obvious in the film.
If the movie had been made in Nepal completely, with ZERO influence from socialist artists from India, then definitely, the film's plot-line would not have had these overtly "liberal" themes.
The plot is simple - A woman (perpetually oppressed, as per left!st narrative) lives in the faraway Himalayas of the Hindu Rashtra Nepal in 1960s. She leads a happy life with a loving husband, a small school-going kid (son), and her in-laws. Everything is fine, until the husband dies in a tragic road accident.
As is expected, the mother-in-law blames the heroine for her bad 'stars' that caused her son's untimely demise. Of course, this is not rational and would have subsided with time. For, the mother-in-law would have grown old and died. But, no, the heroine does not have patience. She -- very selfishly -- runs away from home, leaving her small kid at home. Typical "oppressed woman" socialist left!st narrative. Instead of showing patience, she chooses to "break free" - the favourite solution of lefti!ts.
Now, our so-called "oppressed" heroine who finds it like hell at her home hearing her mother-in-law's occasional curse-words, finds what the real "hell" is. After running away from home, she takes shelter at a courtesan's den. There, she finds what the real "hell" is. That's why it is said that if you do not make small compromises with family, you then end up making big ones with strangers.
Eventually, the heroine does make some of those big compromises, and in the end, there happens a killing in which she is involved. She is sentenced to a long time in jail and dies there (the story is actually told in flashback by her during her jail time).
The build-up at several points in the film is not convincing; neither is the plot-line. This writer has had a firsthand experience with a woman who was from Nepal and became a widow in 1950s. But, she lived a long and healthy life with her family, as a matriarch of the family, no less, and died at the ripe age of 98. So, the film trying to convince us that "the Himalayan villages hound all the young widows" is not entirely accurate. Even if you go as per religious texts, the Arthashastra in great detail mentions remarriage of young widows, by their in-laws no less.
So, while sporadic cases of oppression of young widows may have happened, it was NOT a norm.
On top of that, a nation as seeped in Hinduism as the former Hindu Rashtra Nepal, would make it unlikely for a married woman to become as selfish as the protagonist of "Maiti Ghar", who does not lose one moment in running away from home, leaving her school-going kid alone at home.
And, because of what?
Because of some verbal harsh treatment from her mother-in-law! Do one's own parents not give verbal harsh treatment? Does one always run away from home? No, right.
The film is a misrepresentation of the larger Hindu society of Nepal, who would be far more tolerant of family elders' harsh treatment, not rushing into knee-jerk decisions like running away from home.
Mala Sinha is more or less convincing in her acting, except that her Nepali pronunciation at a few times is shows Hindi influence, perhaps due to her work in Bollywood cinema (remember that she was a big name in Bombay even in 1950s (e.g. Pyasaa (1957)); and "Maiti Ghar" is from late 60s).
Music is definitely worth humming. An eclectic combination of classical-based Lata Mangeshkar songs, to folk-music based family gathering songs.
Cinematography is excellent. The magnificently eye-soothing Annapoorna from Pokhra hills is a treat to watch, even in Black & White.
Overall, an above average film, but with a caveat that its plot-line has lessons against "rash decisions taken on account of differences within family". The plot-line teaches that if one does not make small adjustments with family members, one ends up making big (rather unpleasant) compromises with strangers.
If the movie had been made in Nepal completely, with ZERO influence from socialist artists from India, then definitely, the film's plot-line would not have had these overtly "liberal" themes.
The plot is simple - A woman (perpetually oppressed, as per left!st narrative) lives in the faraway Himalayas of the Hindu Rashtra Nepal in 1960s. She leads a happy life with a loving husband, a small school-going kid (son), and her in-laws. Everything is fine, until the husband dies in a tragic road accident.
As is expected, the mother-in-law blames the heroine for her bad 'stars' that caused her son's untimely demise. Of course, this is not rational and would have subsided with time. For, the mother-in-law would have grown old and died. But, no, the heroine does not have patience. She -- very selfishly -- runs away from home, leaving her small kid at home. Typical "oppressed woman" socialist left!st narrative. Instead of showing patience, she chooses to "break free" - the favourite solution of lefti!ts.
Now, our so-called "oppressed" heroine who finds it like hell at her home hearing her mother-in-law's occasional curse-words, finds what the real "hell" is. After running away from home, she takes shelter at a courtesan's den. There, she finds what the real "hell" is. That's why it is said that if you do not make small compromises with family, you then end up making big ones with strangers.
Eventually, the heroine does make some of those big compromises, and in the end, there happens a killing in which she is involved. She is sentenced to a long time in jail and dies there (the story is actually told in flashback by her during her jail time).
The build-up at several points in the film is not convincing; neither is the plot-line. This writer has had a firsthand experience with a woman who was from Nepal and became a widow in 1950s. But, she lived a long and healthy life with her family, as a matriarch of the family, no less, and died at the ripe age of 98. So, the film trying to convince us that "the Himalayan villages hound all the young widows" is not entirely accurate. Even if you go as per religious texts, the Arthashastra in great detail mentions remarriage of young widows, by their in-laws no less.
So, while sporadic cases of oppression of young widows may have happened, it was NOT a norm.
On top of that, a nation as seeped in Hinduism as the former Hindu Rashtra Nepal, would make it unlikely for a married woman to become as selfish as the protagonist of "Maiti Ghar", who does not lose one moment in running away from home, leaving her school-going kid alone at home.
And, because of what?
Because of some verbal harsh treatment from her mother-in-law! Do one's own parents not give verbal harsh treatment? Does one always run away from home? No, right.
The film is a misrepresentation of the larger Hindu society of Nepal, who would be far more tolerant of family elders' harsh treatment, not rushing into knee-jerk decisions like running away from home.
Mala Sinha is more or less convincing in her acting, except that her Nepali pronunciation at a few times is shows Hindi influence, perhaps due to her work in Bollywood cinema (remember that she was a big name in Bombay even in 1950s (e.g. Pyasaa (1957)); and "Maiti Ghar" is from late 60s).
Music is definitely worth humming. An eclectic combination of classical-based Lata Mangeshkar songs, to folk-music based family gathering songs.
Cinematography is excellent. The magnificently eye-soothing Annapoorna from Pokhra hills is a treat to watch, even in Black & White.
Overall, an above average film, but with a caveat that its plot-line has lessons against "rash decisions taken on account of differences within family". The plot-line teaches that if one does not make small adjustments with family members, one ends up making big (rather unpleasant) compromises with strangers.
