Spoilers ahead…
There’s a shot in Tony D’Souza’s Azhar guaranteed to give gooseflesh to viewers of a certain age. The film doesn’t use last names, so we’re watching “Javed” bat. He whacks a ball to the boundary and smirks that “Javed” smirk. He hoists the next ball for what looks like another encounter with the rope, when a hand shoots up and wraps its fingers around it. It’s Azhar, of course. It was always a joy to see a batsman from the other team trudge back to the pavilion, but the pleasure was multiplied a million-fold when the batsman was “Javed.” I think I am not alone in saying that cricket doesn’t hold that kind of fascination anymore. It isn’t just that we got older. It isn’t just the numerous ads – at the bottom of the screen, or waiting in the wings to take over at the first sign of a break. It isn’t even the newfangled formats. It’s the innocence that was lost after Mohammad Azharuddin was accused of… Let’s hear it from Azhar himself, who says, “Mujhpe ilzaam hai ki maine apne mulk ko bech diya.” Things were never the same again, not for him, and not for Indian cricket.
Any film tackling the story of the cricketer – even one as timid as this one, which opens with a disclaimer as long as the Constitution of India – must field two questions. Did he do it? If so, why? (And if not, why was he framed?) But Azhar isn’t interested in getting into Azhar’s head. It just wants to get into his good books. It shows us only facts that are already public knowledge. He married one woman, fell in love with another, he was accused of match-fixing. And there’s a phenomenal invention at the end that is both insulting and infuriating. Azhar tells us that Azhar did take a gym bag stuffed with cash from a smarmy bookie (Rajesh Sharma, in great form), but only so that no other player would be tempted to take it. I didn’t mind so much the reinvention of a mild-mannered cricketer as a masala-film hero. The writer, after all, is Rajat Aroraa, who really knows how to punch up a situation with whistle-worthy oratory. (When a disgraced Azhar is reminded that he’s still rich, he replies, “Jinke paas dost kam hote, woh ameer nahin hote.”) What got me was the cheating. We’re led to think Azhar is being tempted, that this wasn’t a sport being played at Eden Gardens so much as the Garden of Eden, and then we’re told that we’re fools for even doubting him, that it wasn’t an apple but a cork ball that he hoisted for a six towards delirious crowds waving the tricolour. I’ve seen propaganda movies with more shades of grey.
Azhar tries to do too much. A part of the film wants to be a transcript of the court case that dragged on well into the Dhoni era. In true masala-film fashion, this isn’t Azhar versus the rest of India, but David versus Goliath. Azhar is the underdog, so he gets the underdog lawyer, a bumbling man we know only as Reddy (Kunaal Roy Kapur, using his natural klutziness well). And on the opposite team, we have Lara Dutta, click-clacking in high heels, dressed in expensive suits, an eyebrow perpetually raised as though she were auditioning for the lead role in The Dowager Countess of Downton Abbey: The Early Years. Another part of the film wants to chronicle Azhar’s loves, Naureen (Prachi Desai) and Sangeeta (Nargis Fakhri). (The film is careful not to label Sangeeta a home-wrecker. Or maybe it does, but at least she kept saying no until she said yes.) The Azhar-Naureen scenes have an old-fashioned sweetness to them, and there’s a good moment where he tries to come clean to her about Sangeeta. She knows, but she doesn’t want to hear it from him, and she keeps making excuses that she’s busy. But the Azhar-Sangeeta scenes are dreadful. We experience a mix of “What did Azhar see in Sangeeta?” and “Whatever did Imtiaz Ali see in Nargis Fakhri?”
So we get the disgraced hero, the torn lover – what we don’t get is the cricketer. A few quick shots on the field aren’t enough (and it doesn’t help that none of the actors resemble the players). There’s a brief moment in which Azhar speaks to Naureen about a “naya ladka” named Sachin, but his insecurity is dismissed in a single line. There’s a scene where Azhar is offered the captaincy, but the transformation of this diffident man into a canny captain is abrupt. Azhar is the kind of film where the momentousness of events is conveyed not through the writing or the filmmaking but through the loud and incessant background score, which positions everything as the equivalent of three centuries in the first three tests. The man, apparently, couldn’t use the toilet without being labelled either Man of the Match or adulterer or traitor.
Emraan Hashmi struggles to get into Azhar’s skin. Part of this is surely due to the film’s inadequacies, but there are points we get the sense Hashmi seems to have stopped trying altogether. We see what he’s capable of in the scene where Sangeeta reminds Azhar, after shooting a commercial, that he’s married. The scene is set in a luridly lit back alley – the lighting hints at the thoughts inside his head. We sense the shadow of moral conflict. Almost everywhere else, Hashmi looks like he’s in a hurry to say his lines and get back home. I was shocked seeing his smug grin when his lawyer wins a point in court. I wanted to tell him this isn’t a tennis match.
KEY:
- Azhar= see here
- “Mujhpe ilzaam hai ki maine apne mulk ko bech diya.” = I’ve been accused of betraying my country.
- “Jinke paas dost kam hote, woh ameer nahin hote.” = You’re not rich if you don’t have friends.
- “naya ladka” = new boy
Copyright ©2016 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
sanjana
May 14, 2016
Azhar film could not have been done in any other way for obvious reasons.
But public sab janti hai. So no expectations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srikanth
May 14, 2016
BR, I’d like to bring back the discussion that I started with you on this blog a long while back – regarding fact versus fiction in cinema. How long a leash do we give filmmakers when they take up true stories as subjects? This movie strikes me as a case in point.
From your review I gather that you’re not too thrilled about Azhar being portrayed as an innocent victim of the fixing scandal. I don’t blame you – neither would I. But the question is, had the film been told its story more convincingly, in a manner that would have made you forget about what really happened and just focus on what’s happening on screen, would you have bought it?
I’m not sure if I would be able to view the film that objectively, especially when the reality has been staring at me in the face for the past fifteen years.
This seems like a very interesting debate we can have on this forum once in a while – considering that films about MS Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar are also lurking around the corner.
LikeLike
sanjana
May 14, 2016
Dhoni and Sachin dont have dark pasts. They are almost lily white.
For me Azhar is much more interesting as one who threw it all by indulging in monumental indiscretions, yet survived. Survived all the storms like a test captain.
LikeLike
Sami Saayer
May 14, 2016
Can anyone explain why reddy had to be a comic character? He wasn’t even funny.
LikeLike
Madan
May 15, 2016
Srikanth, good post. I think it’s unrealistic to expect that audience would be able to completely separate the film from the real person. The truth is it depends very much on how close we are to the source. In a case like Hurricane, a viewer in India is very much distanced from the actual events. This also applies to historical figures where arguably some amount of fabrication even becomes necessary just for the sake of providing a narrative. I remember there was a DD show on Mahadji Shinde called The Great Maratha and at that time my Chitthi’s big fat history textbook had a solitary line about him (now there’s a fairly detailed article on wiki) and that was also the first and last time I saw any mention of him in history textbook as somebody who studied in SSC in Maharashtra.
In Azhar’s case, it would be difficult for many to accept the glorification of somebody who they hold responsible for tainting their favourite sport. My own views are ambivalent for reasons I will not discuss but suffice it to say he’s a lesser criminal than Bhai and Munnabhai whom people seem to have so easily forgiven (unless of course he too has run down homeless kids and/or killed endangered animals and/or sheltered lethal weapons for terrorists). Nevertheless I can relate because in 2000 I was also very angry with Azhar. I am discouraged by reviews but because they say it’s a badly made film. If it was supposed to be a well made lie, I might have still been up for it for entertainment’s sake. But it is interesting that much of not only BR’s review but many other reviews focus on the truth distortion aspect and less on the art aspect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srikanth
May 15, 2016
Madan, thanks for the response. This is why this is such an interesting debate. We probably are much more affected by this film’s manipulative nature as opposed to say, Midnight Express, Hurricane or American Gangster because it hits closer to home. The reality is much more evident to us, maybe because Azharuddin is more familiar to us than Darren Hayes or Frank Lucas.
But the question is, should that change anything? We feel insulted because this film tries to paint a saintly picture of a star who was most certainly guilty of single handedly tainting the reputation of an entire sport, but we don’t feel the same way about another film that shows a drug peddling student trying to make his way out of a Turkish prison, during the course of which it stamps an indelible impression of the country on its viewers.
Even assuming that Midnight Express is an infinitely better film than Azhar (which going by BR’s review it definitely is) does it grant it the licence to manipulate actual events and get away with it?
The essence of the argument seems to be that a brilliant film can get away with anything – but I’m not so sure anymore. Every time a film like this comes along, I’m forced to re evaluate my stand on this matter.
LikeLike
brangan
May 15, 2016
Srikanth: It’s not about how long a leash we give them. There is going to be some amount of fictionalistion in every bio. For instance, maybe three friends helped the hero. But because of running-time considerations, the three may be conflated to one person. It is understood that the “based on” aspect is key here, so no one expects the truth.
What matters is whether the film works as a film.
Which is why, after the first two paras discussing Azhar as an icon and how the film whitewashes his story, I talk about the structural and performance aspects — none of which really work. Had they worked, I might have still had the same first para, but para three onwards, I’d have been more positive about the film.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
May 15, 2016
http://www.thequint.com/entertainment/2016/05/15/howzat-five-false-facts-shown-in-the-movie-azhar
LikeLike
Madan
May 15, 2016
@ Srikanth :”does it grant it the licence to manipulate actual events and get away with it?” – In general, yes, because it’s a film and given appropriate disclaimers they can say mostly anything they want in a film. But if your question is whether people who react unfavourably to say Saving Mr Banks are pedantic negative nancies, no, they aren’t and they are right to object to the manipulation of facts irrespective of whether somebody else is blase about it. Somebody who is blase about it is right in their own way too. The real events are an integral part of the film like say the background score; some people have no objection to terrible background music and for some people it’s a deal breaker. Likewise with the question of how the filmmaker handled the truth.
LikeLike
Madan
May 15, 2016
@ Srikanth: “The essence of the argument seems to be that a brilliant film can get away with anything” – If David Irving sponsored a brilliant film making out Hitler to be a noble lion (which is in fact what he believes Hitler to be), what do you think would be the response be? 🙂 On the other hand, you have the reality TV shows masquerading as news on the American news networks which present a version of the truth and pass it off as the only version. So first the question of what itself is the truth can be incredibly complicated. And second, any work of art that takes up a controversial public figure and challenges the consensus view of events in the life of that figure is probably NOT going to get away with it.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
May 15, 2016
Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Sanjay Dutt (as ‘young’ and ‘old’ Azhar, resp) would’ve been much better choices.
Wish Sangeeta Bijlani was portrayed by herself!
LikeLiked by 1 person
raghavendrao
May 16, 2016
From Eden Gardens to ‘temptation at the Garden of Eden’- nice connection!
Always a pleasure to see such involved writing from you BR 🙂 Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
May 19, 2016
BR, could you please review Buddha in a traffic jam ? Looks like there’s enough meat in there for a classic review. And you may get a lot of new commenters as well.
LikeLike
Kamal
May 23, 2016
Are you not reviewing Buddha In A Traffic Jam? Whattay bummer!
LikeLiked by 1 person
sridharraman
May 24, 2016
Speaking of “whitewash”, I remember being highly shocked when the last scene of Guru began with AB Jr’s character comparing himself to Mahatma Gandhi. One of the most idiotic scenes I have ever seen in a serious Indian movie. Preposterous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
u
June 3, 2016
You know you might have won your national award a long time back, but I am genuinely proud to come back and see you became the writer I KNEW you were capable of being. But weren’t. yet. 😀
LikeLike