Talk:Rani Mukerji

Mrs. Chatterjee vs Norway

Considering that the film did well and even got her a recent award (of no respected credit or credibility, to be honest), I've been trying to balance the negative review on the page but all the reviews I've found are really very negative: NDTV, Film Companion, First Post, HT, The Hindu, Rediff, The Guardian, ToI, The Indian Express. There isn't a single review which is firmly positive or doesn't accuse her of going overboard. It's almost unpleasant to read them and I don't get why they're all so harsh on her performance, which IMO is nothing great but nowhere as bad as they say.

The problem is with how it all appears on the page, and I can't think of a good way to sum it up on the article as it looks peculiar to mention a negative review, then mention the film's good box-office performance and top it all with the award she got for it (that too, a critics' award ironically). There's some sort of a logical gap that could confuse uninvolved readers.

The solution I propose in order to bridge this gap could be saying that critics agreed that she was let down by the script and was criticised for overacting, but some critics agreed her performance grew better in the second half. I'm basing this on the following:

• Times of India: "The actress who has the potential to be effortless on camera, goes theatrical and excessive. Her high-decibel fight for justice clutters the first half with more noise, less grief. However, she gets the tone of her character right in the second half when the silence leaves you more room to think and feel. Rani becomes Sagarika Chakraborty gradually and is effective once she lets her eyes speak volumes."
• The Hindu: "Rani’s performance looks jarring in the beginning as she tries a little too hard to execute the stereotype of a Bengali housewife in an alien milieu... A tremendous actor , Rani has not been able to tone down the melodramatic instincts of her pre-OTT performances. However, as the narrative progresses, she gets the pulse of Debika right and she starts speaking to us."
• Saibal Chatterjee says, "Rani Mukerji, a performer of proven ability, is let down by the writing. She struggles to hit the right notes. She shifts back and forth between the rattled and the raucous. As a result, the essence of the character never quite comes through." But then he adds, "When the 135-minute drama, about an hour and half in, settles into a somewhat more controlled rhythm, Mukerji gets into her stride."

What do you think, @User:Krimuk2.0? Maybe you know of other reviews which I haven't seen? Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, there it is, from the film's article page: a positive review by India Today (which in itself is tremendously exaggerated if compared to the others). We could say the following then: "The film was poorly received by critics, who found Mukerji overly melodramatic, although some reviewers noted her growing impetus in latter portions." Then we keep the existing review on the page and add the one by India Today? (something like, "Zinia Bandyopadhyay of India Today, however, considered it as one of her best performances"). I'm not sure how fair or right it would be that one review against the sea of criticism, but it might be the only way to contextualise the prose. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it's a sea of negative reviews, so I don't think we should make it seem otherwise. The current version seems most objectively appropriate to me -- negative review, followed by sleeper hit success and her award win. I don't really think we need to contextualise it any more than that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: I see, and I appreciate your quest for fairness. Even without adding that single positive review, I would still add a sort of summary before the review on how the film was received, as well as the general reception to Mukerji's performance, to make it flow better (something like what I offer above ala "The film was poorly received by critics, who found Mukerji overly melodramatic, although some reviewers noted her growing impetus in latter portions."). Good talking to you, as always. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please go ahead and summarise it that way. I always trust your judgement. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hello sir @User:Krimuk2.0, my regards. I went through the section of bibliography and found that all of them have significant mentioned about Mukerji's career and life, but none of them have been used as source in the article. If you permit,can I add those sources in the article, or if you like it you can add them yourself. Please reply whatever you feel suitable.

Hey Angie (talk) 03:53 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You can go ahead and make the changes first. I'll give it a copy-edit after that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It's an awful list - only now do I gather it was copied right off from Kajol's page (and I knew from the start it read familiar as I added most of them to the Kajol page in the first place). Most of them do not mention Mukerji (and I looked for Mukerji, Mukherji, Mukherjee, Rani). There are tons of books about Rani's work, why just copy it from another page. The last newly added ones are good though. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Damn, thanks for pointing that out, Shahid. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)