Watched it at last. Only to regret.
Rang De Basanti must be the most slanted political movie ever to be made. I won’t bother about narrating the plot or dissecting the fine nuances and such other artistic rubbish. Rather, I’ll start with the reviews.
None I repeat none of the reviews in mainstream newspapers wrote anything remotely critical about the movie. So you can safely assume something is wrong with me for some questions persist:
1. Why are Hindus stereotyped as always suspecting a Muslim’s love for the motherland (Atul Kulkarni) and later realize how mistaken they were? Says a lot about the average Hindu and the average Muslim, doesn’t it? Another example is the initial tiff between Aamir and Mukesh Rishi in Sarfarosh.
2. Why is Inquilaab Zindabad used with such fervour while Vande Mataram is relegated to the background if used at all?
3. Why does Atul Kulkarni’s boss (whom he later revolts against) bear an eerie resemblance to Narendra Modi, complete with the beard etc?
4. Related to #3, why are party members of Mr. Modi-look-alike shown dressed in saffron who in a particularly gory scene thrash Atul Kulkarni? Wondering aloud if it sends an unintentional (?) message about the behaviour of “saffronites” in general.
5. In what is a truly commendable selection Mohan Agashe is cast as the Defence Minister. George Fernandes? And prithee why is the “flying coffin” bit brought in the context of George Fernandes Mohan Agashe being the Defence Minister, meaning he stamped the deal which eventually led to Madhavan’s death?
Quiz: When did India first sign the MIG contract and with which country?
These apart, there are some minor irritants that my mind refuses to come to terms with. In the pantheon of revolutionaries–Bhagat Singh et al–Savarkar is conspicuously missing.
No wonder the media remained high on the movie for an extended period. Rang De… had after all provided it with the essential weed.
Ostensibly, the film is about corruption at the very highest levels and how today’s hedonistic youth either don’t care or are clueless about the whole damn thing. A very good cause to espouse by a filmmaker indeed. Shows responsibility. Set in the backdrop of revolutionary freedom fighting, this is an innovative approach. But why single out a specific party? Start at the symptom, the root cause; in fact, the very ideology that Nehru bulldozed India into accepting, the very ideology that the media is infected with.
I’d rate the highly unrealistic but immensely entertaining Indian, Anniyan, Mudhalvan, or Tagore a zillion times over this non-starter.
Footnote: Expect Rang De… to win a few national awards. Hell, it might even be touted as this year’s entry to the Oscar.
Tags: Films, Pseudo Secularism Hall of Shame, Society & Culture
On 02.14.06 The Acorn says:
content with having sliced and diced the myriad castes and communities its Hindu population, the Congress party has turned its attention towards India’s Muslims. And lest you ask, all this is by the way of secularism, of which the Congress party isa staunch supporter. What is absolutely unforgivable is the UPA government’s decision to drag in the armed forces into this web of cynical political calculus. The armed forces are the one place where religious and communal divisions are not institutionalised. As Gen J
On 02.14.06 Praveen says:
Your reflects my thoughts about the movie. Simply put, Rang de basanti is a success because it is secular.
I would rate the movie ‘Indian’ as the best.It has atleast shown, ignorant people like me that, there exists something called as Indian Martial arts.
On 02.14.06 Jaffna says:
Interesting perspective.
I had suspected that Bollywood was down right mediocre but had not realized that it had an overtly ideological subtext as well. I have never watched a Bollywood movie. It now looks as if I have not missed anything
Best regards
On 02.14.06 Sandeep says:
Praveen,
Indeed. The director made “Aks” the last time around. We all know where it went. RDB is path breaking in many ways: it has none of the subtle “secular” undertone that characterized Mr & Mrs Iyer. RDB has indeed gone overboard.
Jaffna,
On the whole, Bollywood dumbs you down–I’m a slowly-recovering victim–but RDB as I indicated takes the cake.
On 02.14.06 Guruprasad says:
Bollywodd is going down the tubes for the last 10-15 years now. The factors contributing to it are
1) the strangle hold of the mafia in film financing which encourages mediocre actors/actresses to surface as “jaane-maane kalaakar (sic)”. Eg. Sanjay Dutt, Salman Khan et all who have no acting skills worth the name but stay in circulation due to their contacts in the mafia and due to the fact that they happen to be fathered by some yesteryear star.
2) No original ideas. Either copy from south or lift straight from some old hollywood flick without acknowledging the source and claim the plot is very novel.
3) Excessive glorification of crime/sex. Out of 10 movies produced today 8 are related to sex/crime. If this does not work resort to some cheap comedy (?) which makes you cry.
4) As opposed to this you have the movies coming from chopra’s which is the run of the mill love stories with Shah rukh khan and some bimbo sacrificing for each other. The plot of these movies are so predicatable that if you have seen one you have seen all.
5) And yet another variety is trying to shove Amithabh Bachan down your throat by either producing a movies with him as hero or give him a prominent role. God give us a break from this 60+ moron…..:)
guruprasad
On 02.15.06 Dhruv says:
You see the film industry never makes profit by presenting an honest straightforward view on things. Such a view has the danger of being mundane and unentertaining.The view needs to be a comlex ‘Jalebi’ of ideas. They need to be emotion evoking but should be thought, common-sense and truth supressing. Imagine a world where everyone had the privelege of peace of mind and freedom from confusion…Heheh nobody would appreciate most of the things that are being appriciated these days then. So to put it in a few words…this business is mostly a business that exploits the trend of foolishness. The more foolish the people the better it is…Hence propogating foolishness also a makes a fair part of the deal…Pseudo-secularism, pseudo modernism…and everything else that deviates from the traditional with a strong emotional streak but doesnt really answer any questions sensibly. Yes thats what Bollywood is mostly about. In fact Hollywood is also on the average the same thing. In fact, thats what commercial film industry is all about.
Speaking of Bollywood history, I dont think the attittude was much different in the past either. In every generation, bollywood has always fancied something that was not a part of the accepted culture of that era. Where do you think the girl-guy in love and the parents against it formula comes from? hahaha. Is that all that entertainment literature had to offer in those days? I dont think so. But thats what bollywood chose everytime in every generation.
Now that the culture has become more accepting you will see even more ‘bold’ and trashy stuff on the screen.
Pseudo-secularism and the pseudo-moderninism outlook eventually helps in maintaining these confusions in society…Such ideas are bound to pay off for Bollywood.
On 02.15.06 Scott says:
Hi Sandeep, like you’re theme ;-).
Jaffna, don’t downplay Bollywood by this film. I mean, come on. Are you suggesting as soon as you come by a crap movie, you’ll never see another film that is produced in that country? Really.
Ah. Another oddity other than the MIG. In one scene, Bhagat Singh puts a pistol to his head: an automatic Walther P38. Made in 1938.
Oh! but cinema is all about suspension of disbelief.
On 02.15.06 Praveen says:
Dhruv, “exploits the trend of foolishness/insanity” aptly describes the the whole business of movie-making in India. Its all the same, even in the regional woods like Tollywood, Kollywood and what not.
And the trend has always been like, Bollywood makes/copies bold themes from hollywood, and the regional woods humbly follow bollywood after a few years. But now things have got better, regional woods have learnt to copy directly from the original (Hollywood) and that too, within a short time.
A good example is the “Matrix: in-the-air” fights which are a must in any contemporary Indian movie.
On 02.16.06 Something like life says:
Congress has to compete with new custodian of secularism such as Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and the party. The only way to do this is to up the stakes even further, where will this lead to is obvious, tragic but obvious. At any rate Nitin andSandeephave written about it. Rediff, Indian Express and Pioneer have articles on it Categories : Secularism , India , Security , Politics
On 02.17.06 Anonymous says:
I respond to your post point-by-point:
1. Laxman Pandey (Atul Kulkarni) is not the “average” Hindu in the movie - he is a violent, extremist Hindu of the type that belong to the Shiv Sena and the Bajrang Dal. The movie shows great camaraderie between Aslam(the Muslim) and Karan, Sukhi, DJ, Sonia and the rest of the group who are all Hindus(DJ is a Sikh). These are average, middle-class, young college students having a great time together. In fact, the movie shows Aslam going against his father’s wishes to make friends irrespective of their religion. Why do you overlook this? Also in Sarfarosh, the tiff shown was a result of Inspector Salim’s disillusionment at allegations of letting a Muslim don(Sultan) go, when in fact despite Salim’s best efforts, Sultan somehow manages to escape - ACP Rathore (Aamir Khan) wants Salim to work, to Salim refuses because he is hurt by these allegations.
2. Inquilab Zindabad was the cry used by Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh and the rest of their comrades (”Long Live Revolution” and “Down With Imperialism” were some of the other slogans). How and why do you expect the film-makers to change the cry to Vande Mataram? What difference does it make anyway? Both have similar passion, and imply deep patriotism.
3. Any man with greying hair and a greying beard does not become Narendra Modi. The reference to the right wing is obvious in the movie, but have they shown anything questionable? The Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal are famous for their vandalism and opposition to whatever they consider “western” and against the culture of Bharat - who are they to be judges, one may ask?
4. The case of Laxman Pandey (Atul Kulkarni), who is just a pawn in the hands of his more greedy and selfish bosses, seems to be very real in the context of the Sena and BJP. Mind you, I am not nearly a Congress or Left supporter - in fact I totally detest them for their selective secularism - but we must accept that the BJP and its allies are not without their evils and deficiencies. Can you support the mad actions of the Sena against things like Valentine’s Day and whatever Balasaheb Thackeray decides to be too “western”? Can you defend the virulent Bajrang Dal, and say that this organization is totally clean of any wrongdoing?
5. You sound like one of the Communists whom you are always so eager to denounce - Fernandes’s name is not clean either, from the Coffin controversy after the Kargil War, why do you talk about him as if he is the most honest politician out there? The point the movie is trying to make is to show how deep corruption is in the system, which indeed is very real and very true. You have rich businessmen hand-in-glove with the Government, each merely furthering its own interest.
This is the point the movie makes, and instead of defending Fernandes and the maniacal right-wing as represented by the Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal, we should accept the fact that THEY ARE NOT WITHOUT THEIR FAULTS, AND PERHAPS OUR COUNTRY WOULD BE BETTER WITHOUT THEM.
About Savarkar’s alleged exclusion from the movie - you once again miss the point that the movie is trying to draw a parallel between the (mis)rule of the British and the (mis)rule of the corrupt and shameless politicians of our country today. It is not about excluding or including anyone, but relating a story of a group of courageous young men who rose against the Empire then, and as the young men in the movie do the same in independent India. In any case there is no way that Savarkar stands in the same league as Azad, Bhagat Singh and their comrades. Savarkar’s nationalism also had a tinge of Hindu supremacy - the truth is the only, true seculars were the Azad-Bhagat Singh group, and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose later on. Even the Mahatma was anything but secular, leave alone nationalist. The same goes for Vinayak Savarkar - if the Congress represents pseudo-secularism, so does Savarkar. One favours the Muslims, and the other favours Hindus. Neither is impartial.
RDB is one of the best movies of the last several years - the message is powerful and the movie has been so successful because it has found an audience with the youth in India - a very heartening fact , in my opinion. Before denouncing an excellent effort to make what is a landmark film, please leave behind your prejudices. You sound like Balasaheb Thackeray writing in Saamna. I appreciate your most of your (very correct and powerful) analyses, but this one seems to be way off the mark.
On 02.18.06 Scott says:
Mr. Anonymous, when you say “it has found an audience with the youth in India” I think you mean it has found an audience with the rich, empowered youth in India.”
On 02.26.06 Anuj says:
I feel that the violence shown in the movie gives youths a wrong message. It should be avoided, until it is absolutely necessary. Especially when the youths were motivated to take ‘revenge’ for their friends death, govt. violence during the vigil, and that they held the defence minister responsible for nations losses - rather than being motivated to by the cause itself. That way, even Ghodse could be justified for he held Gandhi responsible for Indias partition and its aftermath.
If the movie was based on historical facts and events, then there are serious mistakes in the plot. For instance, a prof. from IIT-Kanpur expalined that “we can say that the losses whilst regrettable do not reflect any sudden decrease in quality..”. He also points out that crash % of planes, however unfortunate, is also seen in other developed countries and has been seen in India in early 90’s. Defence miniter (George Fernandes) was also popular among army troops at the front, otherwise shown in the movie. Last year there was some news that some fact finding commission had cleared DM off any wrong-doings?
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002989.html#comment46187
On 03.02.06 prIoR1fDBC says:
joGS9MzpPS8bfj 6×3gLVhV8iTe aHIipGhtJUHyUD
On 03.02.06 Anonymous says:
Re: Scott
Well, yes - Which is what makes it even more heartening, given the propensity of the rich, empowered and even contented youth who do not spare a thought for the country - it has struck a chord with them, and I can attest to that, since I have many such associates and acquantainces, who were unmoved by movies such as The Legend of Bhagat Singh, but totally loved RDB. The rich, empowered youth are thick-skinned, and to drive home a message to them is indeed even more commendable. As for the masses of the youth in rural India - obviously, how can you expect them to see the movie, if it is not screened in their towns or villages? Besides, this class of youth has other legitimate concerns, unlike the rich and empowered, who have a relatively more secure future and hence can squander their time and money.
On 03.03.06 ratcusLKmo says:
nbOHLdT3zi dWlcInfN6WNs zwMRGkAJO5ES
On 03.05.06 anon says:
Quit being such a critic. This movie, unlike most things that Indians see on tv, atleast showcases the revolutionary spirit that lies asleep in our people. Either do something influential or stop being such a critic.
FYI: Inquilaab Zindabad was used by the revolutionaries themselves-DUH. That’s what’s in the history books. What does ‘Vande Mataram’ have to do with this movie?
On 03.05.06 OVfsune8Hj says:
0qmEb8omXM fhSeBb2xbl8Ga TGAd9wabzAcGz
On 11.20.06 anonym says:
i simply disagree with anyone who didn’t like RDB because it’s one of the best movies! Rang de Basanti is a very honest movie, it has no lies/ dramas.. it simply speaks the truth. The message is powerful and the movie has been very successful because it has found an audience with the youth in India. I really liked how this movie was directed. I like how they showed the past, and the present together so we can compare them and see for ourselves what the main problem is. The actors acted amazingly, and the concept was wonderful.