Don’t read further if you are scared of the story being revealed to you. And if you dont remember who Dev, Rhea, Rishi, Maya and Arjun are, then here are pictures:
It got me thinking about the one big question about marriage: What is it that ensures the sustainable of a marriage ?
That love is essential is something I will presume. As an outsider, I would also add tolerance and flexibility though the meaning of these words is a whole new subject to be discussed, I believe.
The storywriter seemed to maintain a sense of justice by making the adulterous folks live in misery for three years. That was probably their punishment (?) Would Rhea and Rishi have tolerated/forgiven Dev and Maya if they had gotten married right away after their marriages split? I suspect the audience would have judged them as extremely selfish and the story would not have sold so much if the story was so. As for the actual act of sex between Dev and Maya, it got me thinking that their infidelity towards existing relationship did not develop in a day, nor did their love become so strong instantaneously. In that case, at what point would their respective spouses term them as “unforgivable“?
Blood relationships stay. The storywriter made it a point that Kamaljeet (Dev’s mother) had to ask for Rhea’s permission to stay in her home.
Here are some thought experiments. What difference do you think would the following changes in the storyline make?
* If Rhea and Arjun depended on Dev for their financial support ?
* If Maya had a child of her own ?
* If Maya had a family to which she was strongly connected. Protective brothers ?
* Rhea’s protective family members ?
Interesting questions, right ? I wonder if the storywriter made these decisions only to make the story more palatable and to not make it end like a Thomas Hardy ending.
Note: Through out this post, I mention the storywriter as the one who decides what needs to be done. I do so only to put an end to glorifying Karan Johar as the God of this movie. I doubt if he is the guru on relationships of all kind as he is sometimes portrayed in reviews and interviews.