Strong women are not villains. Aparna of Indian Matchmaking talks unfavorable edits and the vilification of women in media.
She’s on your screens and in your memes. She’s polarized the internet and sparked debate. I’m talking about Aparna Shewakramani, the breakout star of the Netflix series Indian Matchmaking whose quippy one liners have become some of the most memeable moments of 2020. But Aparna’s contribution to pop culture and to the larger conversation has endured long after the final biodata is read. She’s become a role model for South Asian women to voice their likes and preferences in the heavily patriarchal and fraught tradition of arranged marriage. But her story also encourages us, the viewer, to examine our relationship with reality TV and its portrayal of women. And the responsibility we have as consumers to demand better from its creators.
Soundbites paint a picture
Aparna is introduced to us in the very first episode of the show, a series that tasks a flamboyant Mumbai-based matchmaker, Sima Taparia, with finding suitable matches for several individuals. When we meet Aparna, a 35-year old Houston based lawyer, she’s vocalizing her opinions about marriage. “I see some of my friends and they are with their husbands all the time and I’m like don’t you hate that person? You see them all the time,” she says to the camera. We are immediately set up to see an opinionated woman with strong views on marriage.
As the series progresses, this driven, ambitious young woman who isn’t interested in wasting her time, exasperates Sima. She goes so far as to label Aparna “negative” and “picky.” Her unwillingness to settle is portrayed as inflexible, something that would give Preeti, an Indian mom on a mission, a high blood pressure reading. But the more I’ve watched the show (yes I’ve watched it multiple times) the more I’ve found myself cheering for Aparna, who won’t let herself be painted into a corner by Sima, the show, or even the internet. I caught up with Aparna last week between her many commitments to reflect on her time on the show.
I ask her about whether she feels she received a fair edit and if the show was what she expected it to be.
“I don’t believe that you can ever get a fair portrayal on reality TV. I expected this to be a docuseries, that’s what we were all told. Smriti Mundhra, the creator of the show is an award-winning documentarian and producer of A Suitable Girl which I loved. So, when I saw that she was behind a show that was tackling such a big part of my culture, the good and the not-so-good, I thought why not participate?,” says the Houston-based lawyer.
“When I saw the show I was confused, because it was a reality show not a docuseries. The key difference being that in a reality series characters are typically sensationalized, and storylines fabricated to suit a narrative the producers want the viewer to believe. A docuseries takes people as they are – nuanced, complex with the good and the bad. That didn’t exist in this show and that was something that happened across the board with the contributors. We were archetypes and tropes, pedaled to an audience and portrayed as truth,” she tells me.
Why do women have to be likeable?
Aparna is not the only one who sees the show for what it is – a series whose primary objective is to entertain. Shortly after it aired, Indian Matchmaking inspired its fair share of internet thought-leadership. Many of these pieces tackle topics like colorism, sexism and casteism – all social ills woven into the fabric of matchmaking. But what’s more impressive was the number of women who came to Aparna’s defense and saw her as a woman with a voice, unafraid to use it. A heroine who isn’t scared to say exactly what everyone else is thinking.
In July, Oprahmag.com published an article titled, Aparna Shewakramani of Indian Matchmaking Doesn’t Want to Change for Love, examining the tension between Sima Taparia and Aparna, who is unwilling to change for a man. Several other media outlets chimed in to defend Aparna and question our collective problem with a self-assured woman who knows what she wants. Kate Kennedy of the Be There in Five podcast admits not knowing how to feel as a viewer outside of cultural context, but sensing that things were not quite what they seem.
This speaks largely to how women are owning the conversation around the tenuous subject of likeability, something we seem to expect from women in media. But when does this obsessiveness with likeability mean compromising what you want? As Olympian Simone Biles shot back to the judges on Dancing With The Stars , “Smiling doesn’t win you gold medals.”
We have seen the power of strong women, and they don’t need to be vilified anymore. Or ever again.
Why should Aparna, like many women in their thirties who know themselves, settle for less than her perfect match? Why should Rupam, a young single mother looking for love after divorce, lower her standards simply because things didn’t work out the first time? Interestingly, even when the show is trying not to sanitize problems, like the way Indian culture views divorce it falls short. Sima’s musings on the challenges of finding Rupam a husband come off as judgmental or sad instead of supportive. We are meant to feel sorry for her.
This is my central problem with the show. I am all for fun, light-hearted reality TV. But, when a show about something as delicate as matchmaking, debuts on mainstream media you hope and pray that it is nuanced. I never expected Indian Matchmaking to be a docuseries, but I didn’t expect to watch an Indian version of Love is Blind minus the open bar and bikinis either. As a millennial who skipped the matchmaking process entirely, I was curious about these young men and women that were game for “love-by-aunty.” What I got instead were caricatures. In many ways it undermines matchmaking itself, reducing its participants to tropes and the process to a parody, when it’s a serious avenue for millions to finding a life partner.
We all love a good “she-villain”
It got me wondering about the many other women that have been villainized on reality TV whose stories have gone largely untold. Olivia Caridi received the “villain” edit on Ben Higgins’ season of The Bachelor and has admitted to feeling depressed and suicidal after the show ended. In an interview with the LA Times’ Amy Kaufman for her podcast Mouthing off with Olivia Caridi, she said, “I really, truly felt bullied on the show,” discovering after taping that a producer was actually setting her up to gossip about other girls. While nothing so extreme happened on Indian Matchmaking it’s evident that there are enough producers and showrunners out there that will do anything for the right soundbite.
I ask Aparna how she handled some of the vitriol and criticism that was thrown her way.
“I’m a capable person; I can communicate with people and I was getting opportunities to speak up. It also helps that I’m in my thirties, a bit older than the average reality TV participant. I think there is an element of bullying within the editing process of the show and reality TV, but you can’t bully me. I have a strong support system, and I have never backed down from things. I think in some ways the editing team wasn’t prepared for what they got. I’ve heard reality TV producers love sweet girls that they can push around but I’m not that sweet. I’m kind and empathetic but you can’t push me around,” Aparna says.
Camera tricks and clever editing don’t tell the complete story
It’s refreshing to hear Aparna describe herself in her own words – something she evidently tried to do on the show. What we got was a heavily caricatured and edited version of her, on a show that loves archetypes. As consumers we are led to a place the showrunners want us to go and it’s something that we need to be aware of. Aparna and Nadia in the same four episodes as foils to each other is not a coincidence. Aparna and Pradhyuman’s closets shown in the same episode is not happenstance. These are deliberate choices made in the writers’ room and on the editing floor to paint a narrative and often that narrative is unkind to women. But maybe it’s time we viewers demanded better. It’s not enough to say that reality TV’s purpose is to entertain when people open their homes and hearts to the camera.
If Indian Matchmaking’s goal was to entertain, perhaps it has succeeded. But we need to ask ourselves watching a woman archetyped as “demanding,” or “picky” entertains us in the first place. It’s the same reason Breaking Bad was universally praised for being one of the greatest shows of all time, despite its poor depiction of Skyler White. It’s because we are so eager to consume media that presents strong women as villains.
But Aparna is not a villain and she will not stand for the vilification of women in media. In her own words – “We have seen the power of strong women and they don’t need to be vilified anymore. Or ever again.”
