For the first article of this calendar year, there could be no better "in", than the review of two movies we watched recently. One, in the last month of the last year, and one in the first month of this year. Both movies are about the security forces, and both are based largely in Pakistan. Yet, there could not have two more divergent messages. Of course, I am writing about the greatest hit of the last year - Dhurandhar, and the almost flop of this year, Ikkis.
Ikkis, of course, shows the story of PVC 2nd Lt Arun Khetarpal. Saying that he is a legend does not even begin to cover it. The GC who missed the IMA Sword of Honour due to a minor indiscretion (as per the movie narrative), ended up having an entire auditorium in IMA named after him. Drill sergeants have motivated countless cadets over the years by taking his name. The trouble with the movie is, that his story is largely shown through reminiscence - firstly, that of a grieving father (nothing amiss there), and, secondly, what has been deemed much problematic by much of the social media, that of an awestruck enemy!
The story of the martyr's father, a retired Brigadier in his own right, visiting his native place in Pakistan and getting hosted by a retired Brigadier on that side, is a real incident which was reported widely in the news at that time. That the host was hiding a secret - that he had fatally wounded his guest's son in war 3 decades earlier, and that its revelation led to a reconciliation between two professional soldiers, was truly a story worth being told cinematically. However, the movie overdoes the bonhomie part - showcasing needless jhappis and friends turned foes owing to those jhappis - stuff that was never a part of the news articles and which was surely an embellishment. Then, poor Dharmendra, as Brig Khetarpal, mouths lines like "Kaun Dushman?" (who is the enemy?), which is cringe worthy. Then, again, the extreme benevolence of the Pakistani Major, as he is portrayed cradling the wounded body of the protagonist out of his tank and laying him to rest, is obviously false, and is negated directly by the original news article, where he admits reaching the spot next day, after the cease fire took effect, and learning about the identity of his barely adult nemesis. The SM critics are right about this narrative agenda, making the enemy side's positive exceptional behavior seem too positive.
However, what they are wrong about, is the criticism of bonding between soldiers from enemy camps. While there may be an ambiguity to the moral position of it, the existence of such fraternization cannot be denied. Especially in times much after the war. Good movie examples are available - Louis Zamperini from "Unbroken", a US serviceman who, as a PoW, was tortured beyond human tolerance by the Japanese forces, famously met one of his tormentors, Watanabe, years later, and forgave him. Then there is the touching scene in "The Last Rifleman", where a nonagenarian rifleman from Royal Ulster Rifles is forced to hitch a ride with a bus full of German ex soldiers, including Waffen SS! While there was not an express forgiving, a reluctant recognition of "just doing one's job" was definitely provided. There are numerous documentaries about soldiers from the opposite sides of the same theatre of war having a reunion decades later. Moreover, there are examples of such civility between enemies even in the heat of the war. Recently, the story of Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler, where the latter, a fighter pilot for the Luftwaffe, let the former, a bomber pilot for USAAF, go back home after his plane was hit badly enough to not be able to bomb his country. They met eventually, and became good friends. Then there is the famous Christmas truce of the First World War, where both sides of the trenches decided not to kill each other over Christmas; and what started as a novelty over Christmas stretched long enough for the generals to gaslight their own troops to seed doubts about the "enemy" intentions and start fighting again!
We must realize that members of contemporary armed forces belong to the most unique category of persons. They know they have volunteered for a job that may require them to lay their life on the line; (when their similarly qualified friends might take on very 'safe' careers without any negative consequences) - it takes a very noble mind indeed to take that decision, and it does occasionally lead to such minds realizing that the enemy soldier facing them may be in a very similar state of mind. Hence, in a state of peace, such minds may reach out to each other. We must not forget that the incident shown in the movie happened more than 30 years after the 1971 war. Maybe the timing of the movie itself was wrong, coming in midst of hostilities, barely half a year after an actual live war.
The cast does full justice to the role. Agastya Nanda really looks like the green 2LT, who is put through the works by the experienced Risaldar played by Sikandar Kher. CO is played ably by Rahul Dev, and Vivan Shah plays the young Captain; who will remind all hostellers of that amiable senior they loved. The music is good. Sitaare by Arijit is my favourite. Overall it is a nice watch, if the viewer can separate the facts from the agenda.
The other hit, Dhurandhar, is a mass pleaser. Only the squemish or the "liberals" are scandalized by it. Personally, the movie itself was found quite engaging. Actually, it is a gangster movie, quite a good one at that, but set in Lyari, Karachi. It starts with a Corleone v Tattallia style showdown, where Rehman Baloch takes down his illegitimate father's gang to rule the local mob. It is set in historic settings with some truth to it. But then, to justify us watching a Karachi gangwar, the protagonist was shown as an Indian deep agent. Then, a covering story of the Indian handler (mirrored very unsubtly on a real life super-cop) gives the movie all its parts that can be said to be set in India. But this part of the movie seemed the most ham-handed.
It is nobody's case that movies should not espouse politics. However, it should be subtle and nudging, not in your face or didactic. Not that all the politics in the movie works that way. The politics of the movie can be divided into two facets of the same coin - first, it is to instill hatred for the enemy. This part is very well done. Arjun Rampal, as an ISI handler for the 26/11 attack, appears really menacing. Even the affable Akshay Khanna, when he cheers the said attacks with religious slogans as Rehman Baloch, incites deep hatred. However, it is the other facet, "love thy leaders", that was laid very thickly, almost breaking the fourth wall in the process. However odd that part was, it did give legitimacy to our watching this essentially Pakistani gangwar, and root for "our" player within it.
Cinematically, it was a full entertainer. Despite a three hour length, it never felt slow. The BGM, derived from old qawwalis (Ishq Jala kar), as well from 80s party songs (Piya Tu Ab To Aa Jaa, Rambha Ho) is engaging all along. Even the item number, Shararat has an authentic feel to it. Blood and gore are of course there, as are scenes of extended fights. The last fight scene is needlessly stretched (the malady that ailed Animal) - it is not really convincing to see gunslingers fighting bare handed for half an hour. Except for those exceptions (and one anticlimactic part in the end), it is an absolute banger. All characters are realistic, and there are no supermen. The protagonist takes a harsh beating in the beginning, and works his way up the crime gang, doing menial work before getting at the bigger jobs, the dreaded mob lord is quite vulnerable and dependent on his henchmen. The ringside view of the terrorist conspiracies is really blood chilling. The acting by everyone (except Sanjay Dutt, who just seems to be Munna Bhai in mustache) is superb, like method acting. Especially commendable is Rakesh Bedi, in the role of a seasoned (Pakistani) politician.
There is an unexpected anticlimactic cop out at the end, when the Indian deep agent is said to be a prisoner. Why should a prisoner have that high loyalty for the nation, and why make up a fictional prisoner when the story of the actual brave heart army officer, all bearded up deep into enemy territory, is floating all around Facebook! Only the makers would know that.
On the social media, there is a clear cleavage between the likers (or haters) of these movies. I am one of the few who liked both of them! Flaws there are in both of them, but they both are the best to come out in Hindi Cinema in a long time - and any cinephile (the popular kind, not the "artistic" kind), must watch them.
No comments:
Post a Comment