FACT AND FRICTION
Real history rubs uneasily against a make-believe story, but Aamir Khan almost makes it work.
AUG 14, 2005 – WE FIRST SEE AAMIR KHAN in Mangal Pandey when heâs about to be hanged â but we donât actually see him. We see his feet, shackled in chains. We see him from the side (his much-celebrated tresses hiding everything above the neck). We see him from above, from behind. Only then do we see his face â and itâs framed by the noose. This sequence initially teases us with the enigma of the man, then instantly establishes him as a legend, a martyr, a… hero.
And yet, Mangal Pandey isnât your average Hindi film hero. For one, he doesnât have a widowed mother, clad in white â heâs alone; a throwaway bit shows him making rotis all by himself â and, more interestingly, heâs coloured in shades of grey.
If Mangal intervenes on an act of sati, itâs to save not the girl, but his friend, Officer William Gordon (Toby Stephens), who rides to her rescue and gets trapped amidst angry Hindus. If Mangal pounces on a randy Brit harassing the gorgeous prostitute Heera (Rani Mukerji), it isnât knight-in-shining-armour business. (Why, this staunch Brahmin, unsure what her jaat is, flinches when she merely tries to touch him!) Heâs mad at the British for making him shoot his own people; itâs that pent-up anger heâs venting. Even when the familiar rise-against-the-Raj story is set in motion by the introduction of cartridges greased with cow and pig fat â offensive to Hindu and Muslim soldiers, because the bullets have to be bitten â Mangal is upset only because, having tasted cow fat, heâs become an untouchable, an achhoot within his community. Thatâs the root of his rage, not some overwhelming anti-British sentiment.
From that, to becoming a proponent of democracy, a patriot who proclaims, âAazadi ki jung shuru ho gayi haiâ? â thatâs one hell of a leap. Ending with archival footage of Gandhi and Nehru, the film suggests that they realised the âaazadi ka sapna jo Mangal ne dekha tha.â? Itâs his dream, weâre told â but thatâs exactly where Mangal Pandey stumbles, in showing how one manâs personal agenda grew into a nationâs political consciousness, how his dream resulted in democracy. âWhere history meets proud folklore, there legends are born,â? trumpets a title card at the beginning, and while the folklore part â the timeless friendship-love-revenge themes involving Mangal, Gordon, Heera, and Jwala (Amisha Patel) â unspools entertainingly enough, the history part comes unstuck.
Mangal Pandey is packed with painstaking research about the British Raj, and some of this is absorbingly woven into the story â when the public auction of Heera leads to the insight that the whites bought themselves exclusive whores to avoid disease, or when the native operating the pankha lusts after his memsaabâs creamy legs, hardly heeding her petulant commands to speed up the fanning. But more often, the information â sorry, The Information â is awkwardly shoehorned in. Someone exclaims how beautiful a bunch of poppies is; bang, thereâs a lecture on the opium trade of the time. Worse, Om Puriâs non-stop drone of a narration threatens to transform the film from historical fiction to The History Channel.
Yes, itâs important to anchor fiction with fact, but why are the once-great new-wave filmmakers â first Benegal with Bose; now Ketan Mehta here â proving so tedious with this, making it feel more like coursework than cinema? Thereâs a scene where angry women fling cow dung on a villain; replace the dung with chilly powder, and youâre reminded of Mehtaâs own Mirch Masala, which magnificently put together fiction and period fact. Why has he increasingly abandoned those strengths and sensibilities for those of mainstream cinema, whose heart-before-head appeal clashes directly with his head-before-heart aesthetic?
Thereâs a terrific visual of thunderclouds gathering on the horizon, presaging the stormy segments in the post-interval half â the outdoor shots are exquisite, with the light-filled, water-coloured look of impressionist paintings â but those clouds could just as well signify how Mehta has rained on AR Rahmanâs musical parade. Only Takey Takey (which says everythingâs for sale, and shows Heera being sold) and Al Maddath Maula (an equivalent of Lagaanâs O Paalanhaare, invoking a higher power at an hour of need) have some sort of context â otherwise, the songs, though terrific, land on screen with all the grace of an axe-blow to the neck, with little regard for whatâs before, whatâs after. The various versions of the rousing title number are wasted on a bunch of elephant-riding sutradhars, who appear with jack-in-the-box suddenness and disappear equally alarmingly. You could argue that song-and-dance is just our way of telling stories, but thatâs an art, and not everyoneâs an artist in that regard. If I wanted to see a group of gypsies fanning the flames of the heart â as in Rasiya here â Iâd watch Pardesi from Raja Hindustani. Why do I need Ketan Mehta for that?
Luckily, Mehtaâs talent for characterisation and conflict is intact. (Well… somewhat, if you ignore the number of Evil Brits who appear to have grown moustaches only so that they could twirl them while inflicting indignities on the natives.) The women are essentially in cameos â the mandatory love angles involving them barely seem to interest the filmmakers; they interest us even less â so the filmâs emotional appeal is mainly from the men. Stephens is wonderful as a man torn between honour and heart, and he works so well with Aamir, their friends-torn-apart-by-ideology storyline plays like Namak Haram set during the British Raj. And Aamir, expectedly, walks away with the movie.
He rousingly plays to the gallery â while spouting (80s Dharmendra-style) dialogues like, â(East India) Company ko jalaa kar raakh kar doonga,â? or while spitting on a Brit despite being battered to bloody pulp, or while rallying his reluctant, outnumbered troops with a fervour youâd associate with Henry V at Agincourt, thundering, âWaqt aa gaya hai marne ka ya mar jaane ka.â? But itâs the quieter moments that take your breath away â his disappointment on discovering that the information Heera has for him was obtained from someone she slept with, or his reaction when Heera approaches him with sindoor… The latter, frankly, is a bogus moment. (Theyâve had one song, two bits of dialogue â suddenly theyâre soul mates!) But when Aamirâs eyes well up with tears, when his mouth twists into a half-grimace-half-smile, you buy his sincerity even if you donât buy the scene. You buy into his Mangal even if you donât entirely buy into the movie.
Copyright ©2005 The New Sunday Express
pinaki de
October 17, 2007
I admire your reviews but I am shocked to see how you seperate certain cinematic moments in the film which are far from deft to say the least. Except the teaser first scene nothing seems to have fallen in place in the movie which went horribly wrong both cinematically and historically. Ketan created Barrackpore from Daniel’s paintings of Calcutta which is foolish to say the least. I heard Aamir the perfectionist spent 3 years researching Mangal Pandey, yet I am baffled why he didn’t objected to the very puerile representation of history. Even if I grant them that licence (lets put it as a fictional narrative) I cannot see merit in the way every adorable cliches are woven into the narrative. The scenes with Heera and the holi song (??) are unqualified disasters…
LikeLike
Suchi
October 17, 2007
(Apologies if this is a duplicate comment)
Terrible, terrible movie this be. You’ve been quite lenient, it seems. The last straw was Amisha Patel as Jwala. It would’ve been kinder to tell the audience to insert their fingers in their throats.
I saw this movie in a theatre in Australia and was sorely tempted to get up half-way (heh, plug here for my own short review)
LikeLike
Charles Foster Kane
October 17, 2007
This film was a stinker for me in almost every way. Like Pinaki De has said, the historical facts were all wrong. Can Ketan Mehta show me a hill in Barrackpore? Yeah, I’m from WB. It feels horrible even now to thing of this ugly film. I am not going to the analyze the always-overrated self-proclaimed perfectionist.
LikeLike
Charles Foster Kane
October 17, 2007
Sorry. A typo. It should be “think” instead of “thing” in the above comment.
LikeLike
Sagarika
October 18, 2007
I don’t mean to speak for Baradwaj, but as a someone “fortunate” enough to not have seen this movie-that-everybody-so-hates, I think it would be quite OK for me to make a few “unbiased” comments on what I came away thinking, from reading brangan’s write-up in the context of the three comments above.
1) I didn’t think for a second that brangan endorsed this movie. IMO, he clearly points out that Ketan Mehta has indeed dished out such a disjointed fare (a la “Peter Rabbit on drugs” narrative) that the audience would find it hard to excuse as creative license, his fact-quickly-turns-into-fiction charade simply because he’s turned their cinema-hall experience into a cramming session.
>>”Yes, it’s important to anchor fiction with fact, but why are the once-great new-wave filmmakers proving so tedious with this, making it feel more like coursework than cinema?”…”Om Puri’s non-stop drone of a narration threatens to transform the film from historical fiction to The History Channel.”
2) Speaking of Aamir Khan, I never thought much of him until Dil Chahtha Hai. Then came Lagaan, Rang De Basanti…And Aamir quickly became, to me, what Saif is today(as brangan aptly puts it in an earlier review): “Saif Ali Khan is in such a golden phase of his career that he could do nothing more than sit on the pot, reading the proverbial phone book, and still walk away with a movie.”
And I’m willing to ascribe that same perception to Aamir (in brangan’s mind, back when he wrote this, while also perhaps giving credit to Aamir for doing much more than “reading the proverbial phonebook”) as I read Baradwaj’s last para saluting the man’s performance ignoring all else (the story, the script, the narrative are all coming apart at the seams, we’re told by then: “If I wanted to see a group of gypsies fanning the flames of the heart – as in Rasiya here – I’d watch Pardesi from Raja Hindustani. Why do I need Ketan Mehta for that?”).
LikeLike
Charles Foster Kane
October 18, 2007
Gosh! What’s happening with me? So many typos! There should be no “the” in the sentence “I am not going to the analyze the always-overrated self-proclaimed perfectionist.” in my first comment.
Sorry. I forgot to mention that it’s a good critique. As always!
LikeLike
brangan
October 18, 2007
So there’s no one who has even the remotest of nice things to say about this film?
LikeLike
Sagarika
October 18, 2007
brangan: Allow me to recycle this bit from my comment on your “Loins of Punjab” post: “I believe even the âworstâ? of our movies (OK, except âDholâ?) deserves to be given a chance and your reviews have the uncanny ability to open our eyes to at least one redeeming quality where we originally saw none.”
Along those lines, when I get around to watching Mangal (perhaps over the holidays?), I promise to keep my eyes peeled for more (redeeming qualities, that is).
To answer your question more directly: Yes, there is one person (probably the only one, unfortunately, unless by a strange quirk of fate or fashion, more people start going the nebulous neuro-prosthetic route of “sewing” rose-tinted glasses onto their brains). But you’ll have to wait a couple months for her to have the last word on “all things nice” about Mangal.
LikeLike
oops
October 19, 2007
Yeah ! Me !!
Lol, just kidding…
Well i’ve watched the movie sometimes back and i don’t think it’s that bad. Can’t say anything about history etc… but the movie works for me a little bit more. Except for the Om Puri’s voice, the character of that english girl that disappeares for no reason in the second part of the movie, and other few problems that Brangan noticed.
But Mangal Pandey has Aamir, and for once, some very talented non-indian actors that makes the movie really interesting (thanks to Toby Stephen. One of the few western actors engaged in bollywood, with the girl in RDB and the one in SEL, that actually can act ! I don’t know where they find the others…)
Amisha Patel is bearable 🙂
I need to watch it again to say something more but for now all i can remember is, that i wasn’t disappointed the first time i saw it.
Peace !!
LikeLike
Charles Foster Kane
October 19, 2007
Yes, I do. Actually I liked a couple of tracks by A.R. Rahman. Esp. the title track.
LikeLike