Historical Movies Are Just Bollywood’s Surgical Strike On Truth And Facts
Filming the biography of an individual, lifeless or alive, or for that matter a hoary occasion—factual or apocryphal—is like strolling on a double-edged sword, particularly in a rustic the place sentiments get harm even by the theatre of the absurd. Swords come out of their sheaths not solely over the portrayal of characters but in addition one thing as innocuous as a film title. As a rule, filmmakers must pay the worth for his or her ‘audacity to distort info’ on industrial excuses.
But, the intrepid Bollywood brigade doesn’t appear to draw back from making biopics, what with its privilege of cinematic liberty to cross off info as fiction and vice-versa, with out being questioned. In reality, the Lords of Lokhandwala have a tendency to make use of this very freedom to mood any script with the sugar or the spice of their option to whet the curiosity of a gullible viewers. Little shock then, there may be seldom an sincere cinematic adaptation of the life and instances of an individual or a landmark occasion recorded on the footnotes of historical past. Clearly, the info haven’t been sacrosanct in a Bollywood biopic the place the principle protagonist is usually depicted as infallible along with his darkish aspect airbrushed with impunity. Not like the heroes of Shakespearean tragedies, such characters don’t possess any hamartia that might trigger their downfall.
This can be acceptable for a run-of-the-mill masala movie, however in a biopic purported to be based mostly on true occasions, it appears well-nigh unpardonable. However then, Bollywood has had its personal guidelines and laws over time. It’s most likely the one trade within the 70mm universe the place posters declare a movie to be “impressed by true occasions”, but in addition function a disclaimer alongside that every one characters and occasions depicted in it are fictional and any resemblance to any residing or lifeless particular person is merely coincidental! Evidently, it’s by no means averse to luring the viewers to the ticket counters by flashing the biopic card however wastes no time to enunciate that every little thing proven onscreen is imaginary, if any unwarranted controversy arises out of its misadventure.
It’s unusual that the majority biopics transform controversial for one purpose or the opposite, no matter all of the tips and subterfuges adopted by the wily film retailers, be it a historic love story comparable to Bajirao-Mastani (2015) or a up to date odyssey of Gunjan Saxena (2020), the primary lady fighter pilot of the Indian Air Drive (IAF). Typically, it additionally appears apparent that the filmmakers themselves intentionally gasoline controversies as an efficient ploy to lure audiences. Often, such controversies assist a weak movie on the field workplace however don’t essentially present an elixir to a badly made biopic. That’s what occurred to the just lately launched Akshay Kumar’s much-awaited movie, Prithviraj (the title was modified final minute to Samrat Prithviraj). Initially billed as a biopic of Prithviraj Chouhan, the gallant Hindu emperor of the twelfth century, it was declared tax-free by many BJP-ruled states. Nonetheless the largesse couldn’t put it aside from being an all-time catastrophe. Aside from its poor screenplay, route and publicity technique, the movie provoked historical past buffs sufficient to brush apart its claims of being a well-researched biopic. Previously too, such allegations have been leveled in opposition to high-profile movies like Padmaavat (2018), Sanju (2018) and Gangubai Kathiawadi (2022). It was, nonetheless, Vivek Agnihotri’s blockbuster The Kashmir Recordsdata (2022), based mostly on the 1990 exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley, that brought on the most important storm in latest instances amid the raging facts-versus-fiction debate.
There isn’t a denying that a number of movies and internet sequence have turned a blind eye to info regardless of their promotion as being impressed by true occasions. For instance, an internet sequence, Maharani, was extensively publicised as Rabri Devi’s biopic on the previous Bihar chief minister performed by Huma Qureshi. But, the sequence of occasions within the sequence was distorted sufficient to make it seem fictional. In such sequence or motion pictures, the traces between actual and reel get so blurred that one begins to wonder if it’s a case of the artwork imitating life or the opposite manner spherical. It was a textbook instance of Bollywood’s ingenuity to blatantly steal episodes from actual life, tweak them within the title of cinematic licence, and current them with an unapologetic disclaimer that it’s purely a piece of fiction.
There isn’t a denying that a number of movies and internet sequence have turned a blind eye to info regardless of being promoted as impressed by true occasions.
Similar case with many Bollywood struggle motion pictures as properly. Barring Chetan Anand’s Haqeeqat (1964), it has by no means shed its obsession with masala and melodrama to make movies comparable to J.P. Dutta’s Border (1997) on the Battle of Longewala within the 1971 struggle; Aditya Dhar’s Uri: The Surgical Strike (2018), about India’s 2016 surgical strike on terror camps in Pakistan; Shershaah (2021), a biopic of the Kargil struggle hero Vikram Batra; or Bhuj: The Satisfaction of India (2021) on the heroics of an IAF pilot, Squadron chief Vijay Karnik, within the 1971 Indo-Pak struggle.
The principle drawback with Bollywood’s struggle motion pictures is that its screenwriters take far too many liberties for the onscreen adaptation of actual occasions, with a watch on industrial prospects. That’s the reason the IAF objected to some scenes within the Jahnvi Kapoor-starrer Gunjan Saxena. Such cases haven’t dissuaded Bollywood as but. As of now, a number of struggle biopics are being made, together with one starring Vicky Kaushal on Discipline Marshal Sam Manekshaw, the hero of the Bangladesh struggle.
The moot level, nonetheless, stays as as to if historic info may be ruthlessly tweaked within the title of cinematic freedom for a movie shouted about from the rooftops for being a biopic? The jury continues to be out however some filmmakers see no hurt in doing so. Based on them, the textbooks taught at a faculty or college can’t be actually tailored right into a function movie, and modifications must be made within the script attributable to industrial or inventive compulsions. For instance, would Yash Raj Movies’ Samrat Prithviraj have gotten extra viewers had it depicted the killing of the ‘final Hindu emperor’ by the hands of a international invader comparable to Muhammad Ghori, in contrast to the diametrically reverse manner proven within the film?
They’ve some extent. The grammar of function movies is vastly totally different from that of documentaries. In fact, any filmmaker can’t be divested of his elementary cinematic freedom. However have they got the fitting to current falsehoods beneath the guise of fact? Simply as each cigarette packet has a statutory warning, ought to the censor board guarantee a disclaimer that the scenes proven on display screen in a movie presupposed to be a biopic are something however a real mirror of historical past?
(This appeared within the print version as “Packaging of Fiction as Details”)
(The author is a Nationwide award winner for Greatest Critic on cinema)
