'Deconstruction'

As a Post- structuralist critic,

As a part of our study we learn Deconstruction I read the movie as as post-structuralist critic. This blog task is a part of our co-curricular activities of our department which is given on this blog

• Jacques Derrida says about Deconstruction that it cannot be defined “what Deconstruction is not? Everything of course what is Deconstruction? Nothing of course”.

                                                                   By- Jacques Derrida

This term it is very difficult to understand because it has no proper crystal clear definition. In general, Deconstruction means a close and critical reading of a written text to uncover the ways of thinking that constrains our impression or conceptualization of the world.

First of all Deconstruction is not a destructive activity, but it is an inquiry into the foundations of everything. Deconstructionist critics goes deep into the foundation of text and then they try to subvert, undermine it. Derrida says that every text contains element which can Deconstruction itself. Derrida says that same text cannot be read in the same way. He also talks about free play of meaning that any word can be used for word. It is we who have given the meaning of everything.

Deconstruction is two sides of a coin it is negative term as well as positive term. Derrida says that “there is nothing outside the text”, text itself gives ideas for Deconstruction.

The movie “3 Idiot” presents very intensive view towards the question of Poverty and Gender. Raju Rastogi belongs to a destroyed lover middle class. The picturization of his family is a very insensitive movie changes to black and white whenever there is a scene of his family. His paralyzed father, his poverty shattered mother, his sister- every member is a being joked about. As if poverty is not at all an issue! But this is the biggest problem of society. In this movie it is also shown that poor people are dirty people as well. Raju’s mother uses the same roller (belan) to roll the chapattis which she uses to scratch the itch of Raju’s father and then serve same chapattis to Raju’s friends. The way film picturizes the poor family one can easily be prejudiced. At one more place in the film a student who has exceptional cramming abilities, has to read speech in Hindi for some ceremony in institute. He prepares it in Roman script as he does not know Hindi. Our Rancho replaces the words “chamatkar” (miracle) with “balatkar” (rape) and then “dhan” (money) with “istan” (breast of women). After this the speech becomes funny. Although this done to make fun of “mugging up” trend in engineering college, but this “absurd humour” experiment shows insensitivity. Then in the whole movie words “Balatkar” and “istan” are used to signify various things in the movie, which shows the lack of sensitivity towards women. But the Indian viewers have not that ability to grasp the form of humor. Indian cinema has not developed that ability of Indian viewers. But this is not the main issue. The main thing is that this film on the whole does a reformative criticism of the education system and that too without any operative part. It in no way attaches itself to the 85% population of this country. The reformative criticism is just what Kapil Sibbal has been speaking of. It’s work (not aim) is to strengthen the hegemony of this system culturally and ideologically in mind of those youth who consider changing the structure of this society.