Last Defenders of Monogamy: How to ruin a guilty-pleasure

A boss who is so full of himself that he believes an emotional outburst might solve any situation falls for a girl who contemplates cheating on her fiance out of boredom - an unlikely romance that might be hot gossip in real life. But, once this story is transferred to the screens of Chorki, does it hold the same weight? 
 
This is the premise for The Chorki original film, 'Last Defenders of Monogamy,' directed by Mostofa Sarwar Farooki. Shafkat, played by Chanchal Chowdhury, a married man with two children, suddenly finds himself entangled with an office employee, Lamia, who is played by Xefer Rahman. 
 
Without a trace of doubt, both of these characters are problematic, equally unlikeable, and are in no way redeemable - then why would you watch it? Because it's hard to look away from the flames of a scandal. 
 
One of the highlights of the movie was that it was Xefer's debut film and the start of her acting career. Albeit a bit daunting, what better way for the famous singer to step into acting than to star opposite one of the top actors in the industry.

Xefer adopts a subdued acting style, neither overly dramatic nor underwhelming, staying within her character's limitations. In her role, Xefer is mainly seen managing a laptop, commuting via metro rail, and occasionally engaging in flirtatious interactions with Shafkat. 

However, the film could have improved by more clearly differentiating her character from Lamia, who is also a professional singer. A more distinct separation would have helped audiences disassociate from Xefer and fully engage with Lamia as a character. 

The narrative would have also benefitted with more focus on Lamia, providing deeper insights into her life beyond her singing career and her fiancé. This would offer context for her motivations and decisions. 

Moreover, Lamia's straightforward and blunt personality clashes with her involvement with Shafkat, who is needy and communicates in poetic overtones, suggesting secrecy in their relationship. This dynamic seems illogical given Lamia's preference for direct and clear expressions of interest over subtle indications of affection.

A big part of Shafkat's character is how he tries to rationalise his infidelity to himself and those around him. To capture this, Chanchal seamlessly flips from flirtatious to having a mental breakdown right in front of Lamia. Chanchal is able to switch between these faces in a snap, which both adds a comedic layer to the movie and shows how calculative Shafkat is. 
 
On top of having contrasting personalities, both characters are from different generations. While it is difficult to say these characters are proper reflections of their generations, they do portray different ideologies. Shafkat is a believer of traditional values while Lamia represents an assertive and independent attitude. Ironically, both characters are crafted to present the worst of each value. 

The pros of Xefer's mellow acting is seeing it in contrast with the emotional and conflicted Shafkat. Dramatic, manipulative, and yet, loving— Shafkat is a little unhinged, and Chanchal perfectly captures his personality.

However, ironically, the consensus on Chanchal's performance is the same as Xefer's. The actor did as best as his role allowed him to. Chanchal's performances are never short of iconic. However, there was such little thought behind the plot and dialogues that the role pulled him down as an actor. Not even Chanchal's magic could save this movie. 

  
With a scandalous plot, a cast worthy of creating buzz, and a clear vision, it all sounds like the recipe for the perfect guilty-pleasure. However, the movie really lacked in its execution. The transition from scene to scene, at times, is so abrupt that it breaks the viewer's immersion. You will find yourself going back and hitting fast-forward to make sense of what is happening. 
 
The perfect example is the very moment Shafkat makes his first move on Lamia. In one moment Shafkat is on a call with his wife, and in the next moment, he invites Lamia into his room to check on work, then ends up embracing her. There is nothing prior to this scene that hints at a buildup of Shafkat's attraction towards Lamia, nor do they have much chemistry either. 

On top of this, there were a couple of unnecessary scenes mixed in, that contributed to breaking the flow and adding to the viewer's confusion. Instances such as a man eavesdropping on Lamia's call and finding out about her affair with Shafkat do not end up having any consequence, thus making it an unnecessary addition. 

The movie also felt incomplete, and it was not just because of its patchy flow. The film struggled with how to censor intimate scenes, resorting to pausing at still frames and 'symbolic' hugs. While intimate scenes are not meant for the screen in the local scene, there are better ways to go around censorship than the confusing way it was done in the film. 

The most meaningful part is probably the exact moment when Shafkat's children realise they have to pick a side, after realising the rift between their parents might be beyond repair. During these emotional scenes, such as when Rai confronts her father about his parents' separation, the movie steps away from background music and utilises the natural, ambient noise. This creative decision added to the raw energy of the scene. 
 
All in all, watching this movie felt like listening to an inside joke as an outsider. The humour was there, but the pack in the punchline got lost somewhere in its poor execution.