Spoilers ahead…
Nitesh Tiwari’s based-on-real-events drama, Dangal, is exactly what the trailer promised. It was a simple trailer. This is a simple film. Often, a simplistic film. One wrestling match, in a flashback, is all we’re given as evidence of Mahavir Singh Phogat’s (Aamir Khan) burning passion for the sport. He hopes for a male child that will fulfil his dream of winning a gold medal for the nation, but he ends up with four girls. As is customary in villages (this one is Balali, Haryana), they are taught to be girls, to cook, to clean – until, one day, Mahavir realises that Geeta (Zaira Wasim) and Babita (Suhani Bhatnagar) have beaten up a local boy who called them names. One look at the boy, one demonstration by the girls about how they beat up the boy – that’s all we get as the reason for Mahavir’s decision to train these girls as wrestlers.
Geeta and Babita resent this training, resent their father – until, one day, they attend a wedding and the young bride says that their father at least wants to make something of them, unlike hers, who just wants to marry her off. One heartfelt speech – that’s enough to change the girls’ minds. They fall fully in line with their father’s vision. One instance of Geeta triumphing over her cousin Omkar (who, as a grown-up, is played by Aparshakti Khurrana) – and the next day, Mahavir hauls her off to Rohtak, to compete against boys in a local championship. Much later, Mahavir and Geeta have a falling out – he used to train her; now, she’s at the National Sports Academy, being trained in a very different style by a hotshot coach (Girish Kulkarni, as a cartoonishly one-note “villain”). Mahavir’s wife Daya (Sakshi Tanwar, deploying an impressive array of meaningful glances that make dialogue practically unnecessary) pleads with him to call Geeta. The words are barely out of her mouth and the phone rings. It’s Geeta. One call. Father and daughter are back together.
The events in Dangal exist on the surface. Geeta forsakes her father’s advice and she loses. She listens to him, she wins. The narrative is content being a series of broad bullet points rather than a textured essay. Things happen. We’re just meant to accept them, without too much why-ing and how-come-ing. My favourite scene came when Mahavir and Geeta wrestle. Ostensibly, she’s fighting him, he’s fighting her. But it’s much more. He’s fighting against his loss of control over her, her affiliation to a new coach, his gold-for-India dream that’s slipping away. She’s fighting against a lifetime of repression, a childhood she wasn’t allowed to have, a man who foisted his dreams on her. The wrestling moves feel amazingly authentic – I’ve never really watched the sport, but this film made me a fan; so excitingly are the bouts choreographed – but the psychological undertones are really why the scene crackles. No other episode comes close.
I think this is intentional. Mahavir Singh Phogat is such a complex character (and to think he’s not from fiction!) that his life may have needed to be “mainstreamed” – perhaps even excessively so – in order to make a movie with wide appeal. As opposed to Qissa, the art-house release that was about a similar father (Irrfan Khan), who decided to treat his daughter like a son. Mahavir appears equally bonkers. Like Qissa’s protagonist, he doesn’t blame his wife for delivering girls, but he is unable to shake off his monomania and he puts the girls through hell. He may not be literally imagining they are boys, like Irrfan did, but he makes them chop off their tresses and when they say they cannot run in salwar kameez-es, he makes them wear boy clothes.
Boxing and wrestling films (also see this year’s Saala Khadoos/ Irudhi Suttru) have always zoomed in on The Gruff Coach, but the trainees are usually adults and they seem to have made the choice to stick with the gruffness, to stick it out. We’re talking about children here. Aamir is essentially playing an anti-hero, a madman. When his daughters are about to be expelled from the training academy, he admits, “Inki bas ek hi galati hai ki inka baap baawla hai.” It’s strange that a man who recognises the unfairness of not being granted leave to train his daughter (the manager says he’d have sanctioned leave had it been the daughter’s wedding) is unable to see that he’s doing what other men around him are doing – he’s “marrying his daughter off,” at a very young age, to a sport. Aamir brings out these contradictions beautifully – this is one of his finest performances. He does not hold back. He does not play to the audience – he barely cracks a smile. He does not try to make himself likeable one bit.
The film does this instead. It finds endlessly inventive ways to “cutify” the character, the proceedings. It gives Mahavir this amusing quirk of doing things that we learn about only at the last minute – things that involve gol gappa-s and soft-porn theatres. The irresistible songs – written by Amitabh Bhattacharya, tuned by Pritam – make you laugh out loud. Take Hanikarak bapu. What would have been a generic training-montage number in another sports film is transformed into a character-delineating litany of complaints. (Toffee churan khel khilone / Kulche naan paratha / Keh gaye hain tata / Jab se bapu tune daanta.) Scene after scene is ripe with folksy flavour, like when commentary from an Olympics match on TV is used to commentate on an impromptu bout of wrestling in a small office, or when the entire village gathers, with breathless anticipation, to find out if Mahavir’s latest is a girl or boy.
The far-out eccentricity of the central character – and the way the screenplay handles this – makes us forgive a lot of the film’s more obvious touches. Like a redundant voiceover (even if the lines are steeped in colour). Like the commentator, who, during a crucial match, declares that even destiny doesn’t want Geeta to win. (Is there any doubt she will, especially after a wittle girl from her village comes bearing prasad?) But I wish some of the ickier aspects of the real-life story had been explored. For instance, wrestling isn’t just a sport. It’s a contact sport, with hands and legs flying everywhere. What are the repercussions, in an ultra-conservative milieu, when a girl locks herself in these positions with a boy? Even if this boy is a cousin.
Dangal is the rare Hindi film where the ups and downs of relationship drama play out not between lovers but sisters and brothers, fathers and daughters. (Sanya Malhotra plays the grown-up Babita, and like the rest of the cast, she is pitch perfect.) Even the sole “love song” (Gilehriyan) centres on Geeta (Fatima Sana Shaikh), after she escapes her father’s clutches. At the sporting academy, she no longer has to follow his rules. She learns what it is to grow her hair and paint her nails and crush on Shah Rukh Khan in DDLJ. The soft tune plays like a romantic number – she’s falling in love with what it’s like to be a girly girl.
Finally, the inevitable Sultan comparison – after all, it isn’t every year that you get two superstars in nearly three-hour son-of-the-soil dramas with women wrestlers. Both films feature characters painted in grey shades, characters who give up wrestling, characters who are seen in various degrees of fitness. (Aamir’s paunch is a sight to behold.) But there’s an essential difference. Sultan is the more internal film, about conquering one’s own demons. Dangal depicts an external struggle. Will Mahavir’s dream come true? There’s no suspense there, of course, and you wish a film with this predictable an arc had been shorter. But it’s a great story. It needed to be told. And it needed to be told this way, this very Indian way, with the most resonant use of a nationalistic song (the anthem) since the echo of Saare jahaan se achcha over the meeting of the brothers in Deewar. Mahavir’s dream wasn’t just about winning the gold. It was about winning the gold for a nation that doesn’t invest enough in its non-cricketing sporting stars, doesn’t reward them enough. Even without a Supreme Court injunction, you feel like saluting.
KEY:
- dangal = wrestling; struggle
- Qissa = see here
- Saala Khadoos/ Irudhi Suttru = see here
- “Inki bas ek hi galati hai ki inka baap baawla hai = Their only fault is that their father is a madman.
- gol gappa-s = see here
- prasad = see here
- Sultan = see here
Copyright ©2016 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Siddharth
December 22, 2016
Coffee varradhukullayaa? :-O
LikeLiked by 3 people
MANK
December 22, 2016
Brangan, that was fast work. I believe there were press screenings in Chennai yesterday. You must have watched it there. The joke going around is that the Chennai press screening is specifically conducted for you 😃 It seems that Aamir is super confident about the movie and expect good reviews.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
December 22, 2016
MANK: Where did you hear this… ‘joke’? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kay
December 22, 2016
“He does not hold back. He does not play to the audience – he barely cracks a smile. He does not try to make himself likeable one bit.”
This is the reason an Aamir film is so watchable, unlike some other actor that kind of face the screen and they have that certain look that says “I am a star”.
LikeLike
Kay
December 22, 2016
Mank: This film already released in US and Canada on Wednesday Dec 21st. I checked my local theatre to check if is playing here. A lot of Hollywood films have also released early here. I guess this is to even out as a few more will release at weekend for Christmas holidays.
LikeLike
MANK
December 22, 2016
Brangan, hi hi, lets just say that the ‘Joke’ is being passed around the web by some of us Brangan aficionados 🙂
Kay, i am aware of that. but i dont think Brangan is holidaying outside the country as he usually does around this time of the year, because if he was he wouldnt have posted his review just posted the regular ‘i might be on holiday but you are not, so feel free to fight unto death over the film in the comments section until i swoop in with my review’ 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
sravishanker1401gmailcom
December 22, 2016
“Even without a Supreme Court injunction, you feel like saluting.”
That last line is a hit out of the park. Super writing this !
LikeLike
venkatesh
December 22, 2016
I like the fact that Hindi Superstars are willing to go the “Grey” route , this just doesn’t seem to happen in the Southern languages and thats a shame.
(No, Thalai is not playing Grey roles)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apu
December 23, 2016
(I have not watched the movie, so apologies for trying to explain one of your observations – the “only one” instance that changes everything)
” One look at the boy, one demonstration by the girls about how they beat up the boy – that’s all we get as the reason for Mahavir’s decision to train these girls as wrestlers.”
“One instance of Geeta triumphing over her cousin Omkar…..”
I believe Mahavir was raring to train his children for wrestling and was only holding back because they were girls and in his mind – girls and wrestling did not fit together. So, he was almost waiting for that “one instance” which would push him to realize his dream. Ditto for the decision about competing with boys – this was a man who would do anything to push for his dream, and he gets that.
“One call. Father and daughter are back together.”
– Sometimes, it just takes one call. :). Personally, I have never had to make more than one call to parents for reconciliation.
I was wondering how or if this movie will highlight the girls losing their chance to be “girls” and glad to hear that it did. In a wave of mis-defined-feminism, it is easy to lose track of the costs involved.
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
December 23, 2016
Apu: I have said this many times before, but it can’t be said enough, so let me say it again.
Many things are possible in life, which unfolds over days, months, years. What’s important is whether the same event comes off as plausible in the three hours on screen. In other words, do I buy it?
One such event (like the ones I talk about in the first para) may be a one-off. A series of them suggests a deliberate writing decision. Which is what I am saying.
These were not exactly deal-breakers for me, but I did wish for some complexity and texture in the way all this unfolded.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apu
December 23, 2016
“What’s inportant is whether the same event comes off as plausible in the three hours on screen. In other words, do I buy it?”
Brangan: I should have included that question in the end…obviously I posted in a hurry :). Agreed.
LikeLike
Rishikesh
December 23, 2016
Don’t you feel in such a film that celebrates woman empowerment it was sad to see a scene in which Geeta aplogises to Phogat, Aamir might be one of the most committed stars in the country, but does he have the tendency to play things too mainstream. for a brief while we see the grey shades of Phogat, but ultimately in perfect mainstream movie fashion, he and his methods are proven right. And you missed the scene with the chicken vendor, it was a silly one, aamir promsies his children will be famous day and he readily gives them chicken at a discounted rate also felt the dialogue jars at places, particularly when the characters start using english words
LikeLike
brangan
December 23, 2016
Rishikesh: Don’t you feel in such a film that celebrates woman empowerment it was sad to see a scene in which Geeta aplogises to Phogat
Two things here. One, this is based on real-life events and characters, so maybe this apology really happened.
And two. How is this “a film that celebrates woman empowerment”? Just because it shows female wrestlers winning golds? How are these women “empowered” by realising their father’s dream, submitting to his vision, living his life (at the cost of theirs)?
Had they thrown off his shackles and gone on to do their own thing, then THAT might be seen as empowering themselves. This film is more about — rather, specifically about — how a despotic man realised his dream. Mahavir is not a likeable character at all, even if the result of his decisions — a gold for India — stirs the heart.
I saw this as entirely a male-gaze movie. It is Mahavir’s movie. The girls’ successes are actually HIS successes. That’s why we don’t see very much of these girls apart from how HE sees them.
You may have quibbles about this screenwriting choice, but it is what the movie is.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Krishnan Viswanathan
December 23, 2016
As usual great review and comments. I agree with Rangan’s point about it being about the realization of Mahavir’s dreams (wrapped in a nationalist framework). My question is whether its realistic to expect a person like Mahavir, with his background, to get very enlightened about women and tell his daughters to follow their dreams. As is, he has stretched beyond the boundaries of what his society tells he must do. So right or wrong, the malecentric POV works in this movie (given its based on real people, the film makers are constrained further from taking artistic license).
LikeLiked by 1 person
billa
December 23, 2016
Thanks, BR for saying this isn’t women empowerment by any means. I really fear parents around India might take a cue from this film and follow through imposing their dreams on their children. People don’t realize how troubling living under the weight of a parent’s expectation will be, be it a boy or a girl. Just as depressed I was observing this trend of appreciating Mahavir’s ambition, you calling him despotic made me happy (vaazhtha vayadhillai, vanangukiren). Atleast someone else views him for what he is, a tyrant.
So, what if the girls had kept refusing training? He would have slapped them into submission?
LikeLike
MANK
December 23, 2016
Aamir might be one of the most committed stars in the country, but does he have the tendency to play things too mainstream. for a brief while we see the grey shades of Phogat, but ultimately in perfect mainstream movie fashion, he and his methods are proven right.
I think there is a glaring misunderstanding among the moviegoing public that Aamir is some kind of an off beat or artistically bent actor \ filmmaker. the fact is that his movies as an actor has always been mainstream and populist in nature. they got be. he is a star and he has never made any bones about his commercial ambitions. but what he has always done is to create works of ambition and conviction within that format. through his dedication he has built a unique brand for himself that is hitherto not known in this country. which is that the audience trust him more then they love him. there is a an aura of prestige associated with his films. something like the oscar bait films in hollywood, which are films made about supposedly serious issues, but just barely scratches the surface. he chooses a rather subversive subject for the mainstream and subvert his image just enough but not too much to spoil the fun of the audience. he in turn uses this prestige to turn them in to box office gold. audience expect him to deliver a quality entertaining product and he seldom disappoints them. couple this with his genius marketing skills, and that has made him this unstoppable marketing force at the box office for more than a decade now.
even if you take a film like Lagaan, which is the film that created this new age Aamir and took him to next level from the other stars of his time, its very much an unabashed popular entertainer in its purest form. his character was as heroic as any masala hero beating up 15 guys at one go. its just that his methods are different , but he creates the same impact as any other hero… which is the reason why audience was willing to accept him as a mass masala hero in Ghajini, even though he never played a character like that before. he has always been a hero in their eyes. whether its 3 idiots or PK, he always play superman in the garb of an everyman. Dangal is no different. he is the (super) hero of the film. make no mistake about it. this is not some powerful feminist story, but the story of a patriarchal egoist who becomes a feminist by default.
yes as a producer he had shown remarkable courage in producing films like dhobi ghat, peepli live, delhi belly etc, which can be considered a little off beat and off the mainstream and its made for a niche market. but even there, the films were still designed in a way that the treatment of the subject matter is kept as light and easygoing for the audience as possible
LikeLiked by 9 people
sanjana
December 23, 2016
The real Mahavir may not be as strict. In the film, it must have come out like that because they cant show all the years in real time. Films sometimes exaggerate by default.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sami Qahar
December 24, 2016
The film has its moments. Aamir’s reaction to hearing his daughter cry over the phone was one of them. And the fact that he didn’t hug them ever, except the last scene. He was a man of few emotional expressions.
Still a lot of things were overt simplistic. Younger sister’s journey wss left untouched despite a great start of national and international championship comparison. I don’t think it will be remembered as a great a couple of years down the line.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rishikesh
December 24, 2016
@brangan I remember you being harsh on tiwari ji’s wife’s film , since u felt dat mother forced her interests on her child instead of letting her choose her own destiny, that of being a BAAI..come on man..and here phogat is forcing them to become wrestlers..compete with boys..and you still don’t feel compelled to write anything about it or see that as a problem in THIS film..hmm..and another thing as u mentioned is if it was phogat’s story, what we get about phogat’s dreams isn’t merely enough..we don’t necessarily know about depth of his desires..so how do u expect us to cheer for daughters..i feel some portion was edited out cos of similiarities with sultan
@MANK thanks for the elaborate the write up. aamir is only star who has successfully managed to tread that path I feel..SRK tried it with FAN but failed..though i felt it was a respectable movie…salman has that burden of pandering to fan base..but my issue is with the movie itself, there is nothing wrong in being mainstream..PK too was fully commercial..but it worked more for me than dangal..going mainstream is not an excuse for lack of novelty..the manner in which geeta’s gold gloryin CWG is tracked is painfully formulaic..so sultanised to say the least..it wants to be authentic as well as be a rousing sports drama that draws in crowd ..and that confusion creates problems in Dangal
LikeLike
csimumbai
December 24, 2016
After watching Dangal, I couldn’t help but situate it in the arc of Aamir Khan’s work this century. One of the tropes that Aamir Khan has deployed successfully is the logic of competition and the catharsis of emerging victorious in a competition against steep odds. In this sense, Aamir’s movies gel very well with the dominant set of ideas of our times – one has to submit to the logic of the competition and find ways of besting it. His genius lies in depicting the different sets of people who submit to this logic and emerge triumphant – peasants playing cricket in Lagaan, a dyslexic upper middle class boy in TZP, a poor man from the hills in 3 Idiots, and now women from a peasant community in Haryana. These films rely on a set of principles – I will call them myths – about the veracity of competition and the cultivation of merit or excellence that enables one to best the competition.
In real life, the peasants, the dyslexic child, the poor man from the hills, women, particularly from poorer communities, know that things are heavily weighed against them and they have no way of participating in or besting various competitions. But in filmic life, Aamir brings them within this logic and the resolution of tensions in the films assures us that competition works. Dangal is slightly different from the earlier film in that the characters in the film are not entirely fictional but based on real life. He can now provide sociological proof that the logic of competition works.
LikeLiked by 9 people
brangan
December 24, 2016
Rishikesh: You seem to think I’m saying this is some kind of unimpeachable masterwork. Not at all. I was just referring to your particular point on “female empowerment,” which I don’t think this film is about at all.
Two, there is an enormous difference between Dangal and Nil Battey Sannata. Yes, the broad point about a parent forcing his/her wishes on a kid may be similar — but Dangal is far more honest about portraying the father for what he is. In NBS, the mother came off as a sympathetic figure. Here, the daughters come off as sympathetic. There’s not one scene in NBS that rivals the horrific hair-shearing scene here. Plus, this is far more rooted.
In other words, NBS wanted us to go rah-rah for a mother who prevented her daughter from becoming a baai like herself. Dangal makes us go rah-rah for a sporting victory, while presenting the people as fairly flawed. Hence my last line… you feel like saluting the achievement, the gold — not the man.
As for you still don’t feel compelled to write anything about it or see that as a problem in THIS film..… I thought that’s what paras 4 and 5 did.
csimumbai: What a fantastic comment. Takes me all the way back to JJWS. Thanks.
LikeLike
Abhirup
December 24, 2016
ThIs is in reference to the comparison between ‘Dangal’ and ‘nil battey sannata’. Apart from the significant differences Mr. Rangan has already mentioned, I would like to add one more, taking a cue from his review of the latter movie. In ‘Dangal’, Mahavir Singh Phogat sees the potential in his daughters to become good grapplers, and feels that this potential ought to be tapped into. Before the girls beat up the neighbourhood boys who had been calling them names, Mahavir was least interested in training them, but having seen the manner in which his daughters have bested the boys, he feels that he ought to try and find out if these girls can become champion wrestlers; as he says to his wife, “Give me only one year. If this doesn’t work out within that period, I shall lock my dreams away.”
In other words, Mahavir has a reason to do what he does, a reason provided by the daughters themselves. Like R. Madhavan in ‘saala khadoos’, who sees the young woman’s dexterous punches and realizes she may become a very good boxer if trained, Mahavir too feels, on the basis of his daughters’ fighting abilities, that they may make good wrestlers and they should not fritter away the chance to do so.
In nbs, I don’t remember the daughter having any special aptitude for mathematics that the mother might have felt she should encourage. Chanda, the mother, instead simply keeps insisting that to become a ‘bai’ is disgraceful, and her daughter absolutely must not think of becoming so. This is what makes her enrolling at her daughter’s school and all the efforts to improve her maths scores less acceptable. The daughter doesn’t like maths, and she has no innate ability to excel at maths, unlike Geeta and Babita’s pehelwani skills in ‘Dangal’. Therefore, I find the mother’s action less valid than Mahavir’s in this movie.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bharathi Shevgoor
December 24, 2016
@brangan: Yes, that hair-shearing scene WAS horrific, right? We forget the angst caused by it very soon, though.
What I appreciated very much was the humour. In fact the first half rides on the typical Haryanvi style whacky narration by the nephew. It lightened the experience of movie watching for me, because I had expected a ‘heavy’ movie, full of drama. I was truly grateful for the joyfulness.
The father-daughter wrestling bout was the most touching for me as well. You’ve expressed it very beautifully in your write-up. ” Ostensibly, she’s fighting him, he’s fighting her. But it’s much more. He’s fighting against his loss of control over her, her affiliation to a new coach, his gold-for-India dream that’s slipping away. She’s fighting against a lifetime of repression, a childhood she wasn’t allowed to have, a man who foisted his dreams on her…. the psychological undertones are really why the scene crackles. No other episode comes close.”
Extremely perceptive, that analysis.
@MANK: Your analysis of that complete package called Aamir Khan is spot on. Enjoyed the detailed write-up.
LikeLike
preeth
December 24, 2016
Thanks for a wonderful write up. You writing made me feel goosebumps…..
LikeLike
Sharan
December 24, 2016
When are we here in tamil going to make movies like dangal, bajarangi bhaijaan? I think we are good at making small movies like visaranai, kaaka muttai etc. but when it comes to good, focused, story driven commercial movies, i see no talent among current set of directors. We seem to have no stars to do them too. Kamal is ageing, Vikram is obsessed with prosthetics, Ajith and Vijay waste their star power by working with likes of siruthai siva and atlee.
LikeLike
Aditya Pant
December 24, 2016
Glad that you called out the performances by Sakshi Tanwar and Sanya Malhotra. It would have been a much lesser film without their strong support.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
December 24, 2016
For what it’s worth, the real life Babita has gone on record to state that her father was very much a tyrant, and that they had had many fights about being allowed to live their own lives. Both sisters talked about being slapped, and beaten, if they didn’t practice, and of dissolving in tears at various times. To that extent, Aamir’s portrayal is true to facts.
What I do like about Aamir, is his courage to take on subjects that aren’t quite ‘mainstream hero’ and make it work in the mainstream format. I may or may not like all of his films in their entirety, but I’ve always admired the conviction behind the film. There’s not a single film of Aamir’s, post his Tum Mere Ho phase that I have hated. I will confess that today, Aamir is one star whose films I await with much anticipation (irrespective of the director), for the simple reason that I know I will see something decent on screen. There’s an attention to detail that is not always there in others’ films.
Otherwise, my movie-watching is restricted to a few directors whose work I like, and the odd film whose trailer or pre-release talk pique my interest.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MANK
December 24, 2016
But it’s a great story. It needed to be told. And it needed to be told this way, this very Indian way, with the most resonant use of a nationalistic song (the anthem) since the echo of Saare jahaan se achcha over the meeting of the brothers in Deewar.
Brangan, .yes its a great story.but the original story had so much potential that this could have been a masterpiece or an all time classic . but that potential is not unfortunately realised . it just remains a good rather than a great film. everything is done by the book , by the numbers , just like Aamir’s previous efforts of this nature , it becomes fairly predictable pretty soon and it lessens the overall impact for me. i myself am not that much aware of this game, all i know is that the opponent has to be thrown flat on his back, now in the scene where Aamir is explaining the different point system, he talks about the most difficult move that is going to fetch them 5 points – the rainbow arch as he calls it, the demonstration of which the nephew refuse to partake in, that moment you are sure that this is going to be the ‘money’ shot in the climax, she is gonna need 5 points in limited amount of time for the final victory and she will achieve it at the stroke of the bell.and voila! that’s exactly how it happens.its a testament to the brilliance of the wrestling choreography that its still gripping when it happens. likewise you can predict every emotional beat, every high every low. it becomes too generic , not just for a sports film, but for an aamir khan film. i am afraid that Aamir , who has tried to break every existing industry formula and has been greatly successful at that even while staying firmly in the mainstream himself is falling in to a formula of his own
don’t get me wrong .I liked it. it is a good film .solid craftsmanship all around. no surprise in that as we have come to expect – and Aamir has never failed to deliver – in star-Auteur phase starting with Lagaan. he once again has delivered a quality product which is entertaining that also bring forth some important issues. great performance all around. i liked or rather connected much better with the child actors playing Geetha and Babita more than the older ones.Aamir himself gives a fine performances getting all the bases of the character right. the film packs a real emotional wallop especially toward the end as you noted in your review
But how i wish that the makers had taken the Phogats story as a starting point and made a full blooded indian masala movie out of it rather than just a simplistic and realistic biopic. i salivate at the prospect of what a J.P.Dutta or Rajkumar Santhoshi – both of whom have an equal taste for the masala epic and the feel for the hinterlands – could have done with this subject.
not just this story, but the implied bigger story of female empowerment in the country through the birth and growth of a new – post liberalisation – india in ‘,90’s and 00’s, the time period of this story. this film had the potential to be a kind of mother (father) India for today’s times. think about it , starting from mother india in 57,and through the golden period of masala in the 70’s through dewaar,Amar akbar anthony or suhaag, where the prototype is of a mother and her 2(or more) sons of different character and temperament who battle each other and the world for their mother. here we could have subverted image with father at the helm and the 2 daughters and through them a vision of today’s india where women have broken in to all the major field that were the bastion of males but also overturned our notions of a traditional masala movie.i wish somebody would still make that movie
Not only would that have allowed for a fuller and a more richer movie experience but it would help to bind a lot of loopholes that is existing in the current film. like that NSA coach for instance. i dont know how true or false that character is. i would e scared as hell if these are the coaches that are training our athletes. he seems to be more in line with the cartoonish antagonists existing in Aamir’s world. like the british officer in Lagaan, the defence minister in RDB, the kid’s dad in TZP, Chatur in 3 Idiots, the godman in PK and so on.what kind of coach would change an athletes natural mode of play that has taken her all the way to be the national champion . how could an athlete cope with these kind of rapid changes from offence to defence, and back to offence would her skills be completely destroyed by these form of changes. again Aamir seems to be following the same training & every routine for the girls that would be followed for boys. is that plausible. doesnt girls and boys have different physical structure, different needs, strengths and vulnerabilities. so many of these questions pop up all throughout the film. i dont know whether these are valid questions as i dont know much about this game. questions one would have taken for granted in masala film, because there its more about myths and archetypes rather than real life problems or characters.but in this kind of film, where it is designed as an authentic true to life biopic , these questions do rankle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An Jo
December 24, 2016
I wouldn’t want to write much about the ‘trajectory’ of the movie since that is something to be experienced and enjoyed. Everybody knows the ‘wikipedia’ story of the Phogat sisters by now, especially after Aamir’s own Satyamev Jayate episode. The main strength of the movie is how it inter-laces folksy humor –[Amar Chitra Katha, Tinkle, and especially Suppandi and Shikhari Shambhu are the ones that I reminisced about when watching the movie]— with story-line progression. This is a remarkable achievement for the writers. Here’s the difference: In all movies that depict the hinter-land, there’s always a ‘glorification’, a ‘pride’ that one doesn’t speak or understand English. And who laughs at such scenes: The English-speaking or English-butchering lucky elite like me. When Dhanush equates FORGET ME with I LOVE YOU TOO in RAANJHANA or when Salman says he can be a soo-soo guy to woo Anushka in SULTAN, it is clearly addressed to make US [the de-monetization unaffected folks] condescendingly laugh. In such films, the attempt is to make the so-called elite laugh at the ‘attempts’ of the hinter-land to ‘equal’ us [which to me as a privileged-person thanks to that phenomenon called accidents of birth is offensive and insulting]. But in DANGAL, these are the lyrics when Geeta fights ‘men’:
निक्कर और त-शर्ट पहन के आया साइक्लोन
(हन जी)
रे निक्कर और त-शर्ट पहन के आया साइक्लोन
लगा के फोन बता दे सबको
बचके रहियो बघड़ बिल्ली से
चंडीगार्ह से या देल्ही से
तनने चारो खाने चित्त कर देगी
तेरे पुर्ज़े फिट कर देगी
डाट कर देगी तेरे दाँव से बढ़ के
पेंच पलट कर देगी
चित्त कर देगी, चित्त कर देगी
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rishikesh
December 25, 2016
@brangan I didn’t hate Dangal either..it’s a pretty good movie..alright..but i loved nil battey much more..Dangal goes for those broad emotions..it is a movie that ends with a protagonist winning gold medal for the country, it has wrestling scenes occupying most part, it has songs, it has money and beyond all that it has a star aamir khan, but even without all these the drama in NBS plays out much better..when the girl apologises to her mother..we genuinely feel for mother also when we see the kid take studies lightly, battle with her and later break her heart.and the swara- ratna pathak relation is nicely depicted eschewing the cliches .in Dangal emotions feel manipulative..everywhere there is a lecture..the pep talk before the final match is a lecture..one to the authorities by aamir when the kids are reprimanded for breaching rules is a lecture..and at the start as well, aamir directly looks at the TV and says…my children will get gold if it wasn’t for facilities..so much for subtlety..it is a film in which the protagonist in spite of being an egoist (he wants geeta to follow his own methods to win) is hailed all perfect..when geeta apologises..and the national coach is a moron..
LikeLike
Rishikesh
December 25, 2016
@abhirup She is not compelling her to be a mathematician..she only wants her daughter to get through the maths paper..the girl life is purposeless..she doesn’t have any particular aim in her life and most of all she doesn’t realise the power of education..she wants to be bai or settle for less because of her ignorance..but her mother’s efforts makes her re-think and takes that misunderstanding from her mind..then she relies on her abilities and cracks civil service..and you don’ need to be a math genius to do that..
LikeLike
theartofexpressions
December 25, 2016
So anu, you didnt hate mela, D3.. are u amir fan.. i really hated mela and D3.
LikeLike
theartofexpressions
December 25, 2016
And with the exception of Dangal, his character is mostly mainstream hero..
even mahavir is mainstream hero for aam janta.. they never questions his feminism or anything..
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
December 25, 2016
SPOILERS
I thought ‘Dangal’ had a good solid first half, with most of it going downhill post-interval. My thoughts in a large part echo much of what’s already been said. With the one-note national level coach villain, the manufactured conflict between Mahavir and the coach was a bit of a waste of a second half, culminating in the silly attempted sabotage near the end. If they had to manufacture a conflict as a supposedly necessary vehicle for drama, it would have been much better if the coach had conceded some his mistakes and collaborated with the dad or something, wth both parties having some wisdom to impart or something; best of both worlds kind of thing. I’m not aware of there having been a problem coach in reality?
Daddy in this movie, likable or not, was always right…which was kind of grating. It’s not like the Geeta wasn’t amenable to persuasion or was a disrespectful kid, yet he never even tried to apply tact and persuade her of the superiority of his technique over her new coaches. He had to forcefully and crushingly ram his dogmatism down her throat every time. The matches were, as Brangan said, very impressively choreographed, but the insertion of Mahavir into every aspect of Geeta’s victory got kind of obtrusive and slightly tedious. Even when papa physically cannot be there his wise words (ostensibly reminding her to do her own thing and rely on herself) spur Geeta on to victory. I was also going to coming to comment on the utility of sports people just always training. Surely small but genuine breaks allow them to return to the arena with renewed vigor? It appears that these girls never had a real break throughout childhood and adolescence. Mahavir pohgat had nothing to learn: Geeta’s victory was a vindication of his tough methods, mercilessness on occasion, and inexorable nature. I was also about to say that this film, in some ways, just seemed like a vanity vehicle for Aamir, however, Anu’s comment compels one to see it in a somewhat different light. if the real Mahaveer was a tyrant as well, perhaps Aamir was, much of the time, just doing justice to the man Pohgat was. As far as wrestling was concerned Mahavir’s tough handed approach paid. If he had been easier as a father, perhaps the girls would not have achieved as much as they did? Was it worth it? Who knows? Geeta and Babita are the only ones who can attempt to answer that. If they would otherwise have been married off at 14, the opportunity cost of becoming wrestlers certainly doesn’t appear to have been much. Perhaps Mahavir was the best thing to happen in his daughter’s lives..
I thought ‘Sultan’ was a decent film, rather than a good film, but i preferred the vanquishing of internal demons, to the the discrediting of concocted strawman coaches. To be honest though, even in Sultan the ‘pride before the fall’ theme was kind of tiredly done. But I expected to like this film a lot more than I liked Sultan, which was not how it turned out . I liked ‘Dangal’ only a little more than ‘Sultan’ ; more realism, better fight scenes, a strong and thoroughly engaging first half, crackling songs esp ‘hanikarak bapu’, and good performances. Even when u know she’ll win at the end, they managed to make some of some matches nail-biting which was pretty impressive. The things I liked about the film are very similar to the things Brangan liked about it. Where I would differ slightly with Brangan is with regards to how all this worked in a very conservative milieu and the film’s engagement with it. I thought the film really did try to engage with this fairly thoroughly; it showed, quite convincingly, all the initial controversy generated by the girls adopting the sport and there own resistance to it, and then the reaction to their taking on boys in the mud pit, the opposition to their participation, and perceptions changing (including their own) with their successes.
LikeLike
theartofexpressions
December 25, 2016
http://unboxedwriters.com/dangal-celebrating-an-india-we-have-forgotten/#.WF9HSNXuGaO
The review which echoes the same thoughts as csimumbai..
LikeLike
IMF
December 25, 2016
I haven’t admittedly all the comments. But my thoughts:
A. The film does gloss over Mahavir’s dictatorial behaviour. Post the horrific hair cutting scene, I was really hoping for a good scene where the Girls would at least question his abusive behavior while not being proven ‘wrong’ (at least this is how it’s portrayed). He was right in forcing them to be pehelwans. He was right in cutting their hair. When Geeta gets more free and does things like she wanted, she gets fucked over. When she chops her hair and goes in full submission mode, she’s on track to winning the international medal. There was only the hair cutting scene which was raw and highlighted his abusive behaviour in a serious way. But even that is kind of “justified” when Gita goes back to cutting her hair. At least that’s how it plays out in the film.
B. Cardboard characters. I mean Jesus Christ, would it really hurt to not have the “evil” coach (Irudhi Suttru had a more detailed ‘villian’) and the finalist who’s a total asshole openly in front of press (I mean who says shit like that)? You might call this deliberate, but it was really annoying, mostly.
I don’t think this is the best they can do for a’ mainstream’ film at all. There was a lot of potential to add good texture and not being so annoyingly one dimensional. They left a lot of themes unexplored, a lot of characters didn’t have much of an arc. And it was mostly frustrating to see how a film with some quality moments, and terrific performances end up being so unsatisfying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sunanda Kesavadas
December 25, 2016
“It’s a contact sport, with hands and legs flying everywhere. What are the repercussions, in an ultra-conservative milieu, when a girl locks herself in these positions with a boy?”
If the film’s makers had aimed to make a film that examines psychological and sociological impact of wrestling, then Dangal would have been a different film. It is a straight forward narrative which is quite in keeping with the kind of man Mahavir Phogat seems to be – straight forward. People like that do exist in this world, people who don’t philosophize about every single thing in the world, people who aim for something and just keep heading toward it.
If sports persons or even all those IIT toppers started to examine motives and repercussions of their every move and every action, we would not have any heroes in life. Military training, sports training, or any training for that matter is about single-minded focus on the outcome.
As to children being subjected to a “haanikarak” coach: All the world-class sports persons – whom we see on television and applaud from our sofas – have had such coaching. Sports is a career that starts in childhood and ends in the mid-thirties – the human body is designed to decline from this point onward. You can’t build a tennis player body eating burgers and ice cream and lazing around in bed. Or a wrestler’s body for that matter.
As for discussions about foisting dreams on children: Doesn’t this happen to everyone from doctors, engineers, scientists, businessmen, artists? Haven’t you come across people learning Bharathanatyam because their parents wished that for them? Or maybe they got that engineering degree because “Mere papa ka sapna tha?” It irks us to watch this aspect in Dangal because it is too close to our lives. The film makers’ decision to not examine it explicitly is correct – the audience will do the examination by itself.
Is Dangal about female empowerment: Not really. Empowerment involves choice. We are not an empowered society in general – whether it is women or men. Men are as bound by age-old perceptions of ‘mardaangi’ as women are bound by views on femininity. That Phogat felt compelled to take forward his legacy one way or another is in itself testimony to the pressures of society on men.
Dangal is brilliant because it doesn’t explicitly examine any of this. Those who want to examine are free to do so in their own heads (or social media) and develop a dialog. Those who don’t want to, can simply enjoy a film that celebrates a sport. Either way, the film stays in your mind.
On a lighter note: I don’t think any of the boys training with the girls would have let their hands wander – not with Phogat himself keeping a hawk eye on the proceedings. Why risk the wrath of a champion wrestler?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Anu Warrier
December 25, 2016
@the art of: I didn’t say ‘after Tum Mere Ho as in the chronological year. I said, ‘after his Tum Mere Ho phase’ which includes all those ghastly films including Love Love Love, Mann, Mela, Awwal Number, and even hits such as Dil.
@Silver: from what I hear from the various newspaper interviews of the real-life Phogat daughters, their father was a definitive tyrant; he only saw the end-goal. He seems to have put them through hell to achieve his vision. But also, according to them, while they hated it while going through the grind, in hindsight, they think he’s right. So the paternalism, the patriarchy, the girls’ attitudes are all as real as the film showed. They have stated on record that they did not have a childhood, or even a girlhood. One of them narrated how they wept when he had their hair chopped off.
It might seem stereotypical to us, even caricaturish, but I think we look at it through the lens of privilege. Mahavir Phogat is no feminist. He saw in his daughters a way of achieving his ambition, so he turned them into the sons he never had. I think the feminism came later, because he didn’t pay heed to the patriarchal norms in the way he let them flourish in a sport that was considered unfeminine.
While the other coach that Geeta had also seems like a one-note villain, let’s face it: many of our coaches are petty tyrants themselves. Once again, the problem is that we, as objective outsiders, think why would a coach change something that is working, and working so well. And then, if you pause and take one step back, you remember the horror stories that come out from athletes at coaching camps. Each time, I think, stereotype!, I think of the people I know who seem to be real-life caricatures rather than actual people.
I can’t think of this as a ‘vanity vehicle’ for Aamir. Simply because which mainstream hero, still playing ‘hero’ roles, would be willing to play his age and father to four children, with greying hair and pot belly? Whatever else it may be, ‘vanity’ is not part of this film.
LikeLiked by 5 people
abhishek narayan
December 25, 2016
When Geeta loses her fight, she’s unable to sleep that night, perhaps angry at herself, she goes to Mahavir and asks when is the next bout. This gave an impression that she now wanted it as much and it became HER choice too. Wrestling was not forced on them, at least thats what i could gather.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMF
December 25, 2016
@Anu, my problem is that it’s definitely not portrayed in a detached, grey shaded way. The film does rationalise abuse. It rationalised every single abusive thing he does. Even the hair cutting is justified. In the end Geeta even goes all “I feel better after dad abusing me”. Which was extremely annoying.
It’s not the fact that Mahavir had internalised sexism, but how he’s portrayed in film that bothers me.
LikeLike
MANK
December 25, 2016
Aamir can be accused of a lot of things , but not vanity, he might be a little self righteous, may be a lot fastidious, but never vain.he is perhaps the most self aware and even keeled actor in the country today. even off screen he leads a very simple life as opposed to several other stars
And Just like Aamir’s double whammy of lagaan and Dil chahta hai went a long way in liberating stars of the time from trademark hair styles and costumes, i hope Aamir’s attempt at looking loose and flabby would rub off on other stars too . i am sick to death of actors flaunting their 6 pack abs in the face and strutting around as if posing for a vogue shoot in the name of acting, i am not saying that everyone should be flabby now, but hope they start looking like the characters they are playing, or at least not turn their beefcake in to a separate item on the movie menu.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
December 25, 2016
http://www.ndtv.com/pune-news/woman-techie-stabbed-multiple-times-chased-by-attacker-on-pune-road-1641565?pfrom=home-lateststories
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
December 25, 2016
Anu & Mank: The word ‘vain’ does not have to exclusively pertain to appearance or flaunting one’s physical attractiveness. One can be vain or conceited about doing an ‘off-beat’ role. Any actor or actress can be, and it doesn’t always have to be a bad thing. Sometimes one can take legitimate pride in treading a path less conventionally taken, especially if the end result is worthwhile. If you look at my comment in the context it was made, it alluded to a perception that this was an ego project because the character Aamir was playing was always right. He had to concede nothing, retract nothing and he was ultimately vindicated in everything he did. Whether it was the tough training he put the girls through, chopping off their hair, impressing his will upon them in everything, or his triumph over the other coach. Anu’s earlier comment stated that this is how it was in reality as well, and I went onto say, in my same comment, that perhaps Aamir was staying faithful to the real Mahavir Poghat after all, and that ultimately what he did may have been best for the girls given the alternatives open to them.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
December 25, 2016
IMF: The problem is that the real Mahavir Phogat did rationalise his abuse. His daughters did justify his treatment of them. You may not like the shades in the film, but that was the Phogat daughters’ reality. Phogat (the man) still rationalises that if he hadn’t treated them the way he did, they would never have achieved the heights they did. He sacrificed their childhood at the altar of his ambition, and neither he nor his daughters think of it.
If you want to look at another such story, think of the Williams sisters and their dad. The problem with reading or watching stories such as these is that we see it through a prism of human rights or women’s rights or…. The fact remains that the story of any accomplishment is a story of sacrifice, of blood, sweat and tears. You can look at it as abuse, or you can look at it as a single-focused determination to achieve against all odds. In the Phogats’ case, he was also battling an entrenched misogyny to get his daughters a place in the sun. It is our sad reality that women have to work harder and fight harder to achieve the same things that men do.
So, yes, the film rationalises the abuse because it was rationalised in real life. If you’re looking at a biopic, you don’t want the director to take a stand against the misogyny. You want him to present the man, warts and all. I think he did that quite well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
abhishek narayan
December 26, 2016
I feel Aamir doesnt get praised enough even after all that he’s achieved within the mainstream space, even if you disagree with his idea of filmmaking, it is fine. But i feel that its very important to pause for a moment and take a look at the man’s work in the past 20 years the choices that he’s made, not just the risks he’s taken but also turning them into a success, has swum against the tide every single time. If we are looking at the present scenario of indian cinema where filmmakers are not hesitant in picking diverse subjects and making them part of the mainstream then much of the credit goes to him. he has pushed the boundaries of mainstream like no one ever has and this he’s done being the superstar that he is ,which makes it all the more fascinating. we can always criticize one’s work whenever we feel to but i just think that we need to be a little bit more appreciative of what he has tried to achieve with every new film he has done coz no other star is using his star power consistently to do what he’s done or still doing. we are really fortunate to have him, stars will come and go but there will never be another Aamir Khan. Indian cinema owes a lot to him. (i know there are some people who dont want to appreciate what he’s done, even when they seem to have liked his work they still dont want to acknowledge it for reasons best known to them.) i know my post has nothing to do with the film or the review (which BTW is the most balanced review i came across, no surprise there) and is sounding very fanboy-y which maybe it is but just felt like saying this. Anyway, thanks Rangan pleasure to read you as always.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMF
December 26, 2016
“IMF: The problem is that the real Mahavir Phogat did rationalise his abuse. His daughters did justify his treatment of them. You may not like the shades in the film, but that was the Phogat daughters’ reality. Phogat (the man) still rationalises that if he hadn’t treated them the way he did, they would never have achieved the heights they did. He sacrificed their childhood at the altar of his ambition, and neither he nor his daughters think of it.
[…]
So, yes, the film rationalises the abuse because it was rationalised in real life.”
Sorry Anu, gotta disagree here. Just because the lead character rationalises abuse, doesn’t mean the movie has to root for them. Just like if you’re making a biopic on one of the Nazis, you don’t have rationalise their beliefs (just made this analogy to show why I disagree with the reasoning BTW).
And Mahavir did a lot of good things (probably not for the right reasons, but still) like standing up for his daughters in a deeply misogynistic, conservative society. I totally get the women having to work (unfairly) extra hard to make it in a patriarchal society.
But my point is, the film glorifies him – every bit. It’s not portrayed in a detached manner (it’s not as if the film is a very true-to-the-facts biopic, it’s highly dramatized, masala-fied version of the story BTW) – which is what they should have done, while keeping it close to actual Mahavir Singh. Everything he does is right. Even the one to forcibly cut the hair is justified till the end, implicitly. And this plays right into the perception of people that this is just “tough love” and somehow is necessary for success. Most people I’ve talked wouldn’t even recognize that it was abuse. They would throw counter-points from the film which rationalizes abuse. This was my concern and that’s precisely what’s happening too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nishanth Krishnan
December 26, 2016
Everyone says the movie reeks of abuse, blah blah
While Mahavir Phogat tried his best, the girls eventually started wrestling after the conversation with their school friend who was getting married off. So it won’t be right to say that they were completely forced into it. Secondly, Geeta does rebel later leading to the now famous father-daughter fight scene.
More importantly, while Mahavir Phogat wasn’t a visionary fighting a backward system, his personal quest for an Indian gold medal in his family lead to a revolution of sorts in Haryana were girls were presented with an alternative life-option vis-a-vis child marriage and I think the movie is fairly neutral when it expresses this point of view
LikeLiked by 2 people
An Jo
December 26, 2016
@ Sundanda:
“It’s a contact sport, with hands and legs flying everywhere. What are the repercussions, in an ultra-conservative milieu, when a girl locks herself in these positions with a boy?”
Great explanation you have there. As you said, if DANGAL were to divert itself into examination of such issues, it would have to be dealt quite differently than what’s on display here. But to add to that, in a very subtle way, it is addressed in this film. If you remember her first fight at the Rohtak akhada, there are sexual-discussions going on where one guy wonders what would happen if her T-shirt or NIKKAR were to be torn or come off; and both men leer at the thought. However, what happens next, I felt, was a great cinematic tool. The makers cleverly weave a song about a girl wearing nikkars and t-shirts being a cyclone that could tighten even the men’s screws!! Translating into crude language, if you are coming here to watch a DANGAL and get a hard-on, move on!!
@IMF:
Fine observations and I appreciate your thoughts on the grey area between abuse and achieving glory in life. I can think of it in another way:
• Firstly, we forget that what is being displayed on the screen is the thought-process of Phogat, who is still a guy believing in the patriarchal mind-set that only men are biologically built or capable of partaking and winning sports which require physical stamina. From that, he graduates to thinking maybe his daughters might be able to live his dreams. Now I agree that the ‘germ’ of the idea to make his daughters compete at the international level could be considered a collateral benefit of his own selfishness in lacking an international medal. He was desperately looking for someone to fulfil his dreams, and unexpectedly, he found it in his girls – he found potential in them. In a Haryanvi Khap-infested society, it would be too much of us city-bred folks to expect him to think about emancipation as the ultimate achievement rather than a gold-medal for the country – come what may. [And which is why, that scene before the finals between Aamir and Geeta regarding the strategy to beat Watson, comes off as forced; and far more natural in SRK’s CDI.]
• Coming to the scene that depicted hair-shearing, yes, it was cruel and was depicted quite intelligently through the eyes of Phogat, and NOT through his daughters’. We are seeing what Phogat is seeing, but we are experiencing the pain of what the daughters are going through, at that age, when they don’t know what they could be or what sort of champions they could be at a later stage. I would differ with you also in the fact that you feel that everything Phogat did was ‘justified’ by the film. I looked at the scene where she consequently cuts off her hair [Priyanka Gandhi should be proud] as not a ‘justification’ of Phogat’s methods but an act of ‘adjustment.’ After 3 consecutive failures, when one has tried ‘other’ techniques, as a human, one feels more strongly the need for something that ‘worked’ before. I felt as a first step towards that, she just cut off her hair as though she wanted to ‘stop’ herself from enjoying those ‘changes’ that might or might not have been the reasons for her failure: In a sense, she is trying to reset the clock. So maybe its right, maybe it’s wrong. It’s a very internal human emotion in the sense that one is ‘trying’ out things that worked before. I don’t like taking examples from personal life, but the way I related to it is how I, as a middle-aged man, who had the luxury of being caught between using MS WORD for the first time and also who had to send ‘letters’ seeking employment, now see the benefits that I have because I am used to writing in both formats! I start typing something in MS WORD, and things just don’t pan out; but when I start writing on a piece of paper my thoughts, I feel I am in command!! Out here in the US, even 1st and 2nd grade kids are used to submitting their assignments on iPads: Cursive writing hardly carries any meaning in the US [http://ijr.com/2016/01/523612-cursive-comeback-washington/]. But in India, we had a course in cursive writing in our primary grades and that’s where we learnt to write properly! Out here, I have seen Americans handling and holding ball-point or any other type of pens as though they were trying to wrestle Mount Everest!! So am I regressing just because I use a note-pad and pen? Or am I just going back to something that has helped me before?
• Also, regarding the justification, when Aamir begs in front of the NSA committee, he admits that he is the one who is wrong and clearly mentions that at an age when the girls had to play about with dolls, he forced them to sweat it out in the mud. He knows that, and he admits to it.
LikeLike
IMF
December 26, 2016
“While Mahavir Phogat tried his best, the girls eventually started wrestling after the conversation with their school friend who was getting married off. So it won’t be right to say that they were completely forced into it.”
Um, the ‘realization’ they had is irrelevant – and is kind of resorting to retrospective determinism. Abuse is abuse, even if they chose it later freely by themselves. This doesn’t mean “they weren’t entirely forced into it” – they clearly were. Movie just used the device of child marriage to take narrative forward, as that’s shown to be their “moment of realization”. Regardless of whether this actually happened or not, doesn’t do away the fact that he did force them to do something they loathed against their will.
“Secondly, Geeta does rebel later leading to the now famous father-daughter fight scene.”
Where again, the movie clearly takes Mahavir’s side – as Geeta is made to look like the “bad girl”. Babita tells her how what she’d done isn’t right and how he failed merely because of his age, not because of technical flaws. The whole rebellious phase, Geeta is shown to be “wrong”, and later she goes back into full submission mode.
“I think the movie is fairly neutral when it expresses this point of view”
Disagree. IMO, the movie goes out of the way to justify everything Mahavir does.
In fact, I just noticed that that in the actual fight, Geeta still had her hair
PS: I don’t know to what degree it is dramatized again, and my problem is primarily about HOW things are shown on screen, not WHAT is shown. This could have been such a terrific movie.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anu Warrier
December 26, 2016
IMF, I’m not arguing it is right. Far from it. I have a visceral reaaction to violence (not just physical) anyway, so it’s not as if I’m justifying paternal force. But like BR, says, the film is seen through the prism of Phogat’s gaze. I don’t think I saw ‘hero’ there. Perhaps we all bring our own lenses to our viewing experiences. I didn’t see a hero. I saw a flawed man, whose tunnel vision only saw the gold at the end of the rainbow. He doesn’t see his daughter’s tears, or their lost childhood, or the actual girls themselves. What he sees are instruments that will help him achieve his ambition.
I agree that the film is dramatized. What I’m saying is that the Phogat daughters have validated their father’s methods. Consistently. Have they bought into that vision? Perhaps. Are they unhappy now? They don’t seem to be. They have consistently said that despite what they endured, despite a lost girlhood, their father was right in pushing them the way he did.
I might think otherwise. I might think that how the film showed the story is troubling, but if they showed it the way I would want it portrayed, then it wouldn’t be Dangal; it would be a different film altogether.
I appreciate your reading of it and what you would have liked to have seen. I view it differently. We could both be either right, or wrong, or somewhere in between. 🙂
LikeLike
IMF
December 26, 2016
@An Jo
Thanks for the response, always happy to have a good, healthy discussion 🙂 Interesting observations.
• Firstly, we forget that what is being displayed on the screen is the thought-process of Phogat, who is still a guy believing in the patriarchal mind-set that only men are biologically built or capable of partaking and winning sports which require physical stamina.
This is why I emphasized again on the part that the movie didn’t portray this with any degree of objectivity. I have no problems with a more honest portrayal of Phogat, where he is portrayed as a highly-flawed person who has internalized patriarchal mindset, and more focus was required on the Girls, rather than Phogat himself. But this isn’t how the film portrays him, hence the abuse part is glossed over and left a bad taste in my mouth.
Coming to the scene that depicted hair-shearing, yes, it was cruel and was depicted quite intelligently through the eyes of Phogat, and NOT through his daughters’. We are seeing what Phogat is seeing, but we are experiencing the pain of what the daughters are going through, at that age, when they don’t know what they could be or what sort of champions they could be at a later stage.
I don’t think it’s intelligent at all (I don’t see what the meaningful distinction here between “seeing through Phogat’s eyes” and rationalizing abuse, when it comes to what we see on screen, but anyway), and it’s important to highlight abuse as abuse – so if it’s just them showing it through Phogat’s perspective, perhaps it would have been way better had they just shown it through the girl’s eyes instead. So the torment they go through is effectively conveyed and highlighted. Most of the hardships they go through is generally trivially portrayed through humorous scenes/songs.
I would differ with you also in the fact that you feel that everything Phogat did was ‘justified’ by the film. I looked at the scene where she consequently cuts off her hair [Priyanka Gandhi should be proud] as not a ‘justification’ of Phogat’s methods but an act of ‘adjustment.’ After 3 consecutive failures, when one has tried ‘other’ techniques, as a human, one feels more strongly the need for something that ‘worked’ before. I felt as a first step towards that, she just cut off her hair as though she wanted to ‘stop’ herself from enjoying those ‘changes’ that might or might not have been the reasons for her failure: In a sense, she is trying to reset the clock. So maybe its right, maybe it’s wrong. It’s a very internal human emotion in the sense that one is ‘trying’ out things that worked before.
I think the problem here is viewing each scenes in isolation and giving it some alternative interpretation than seeing the whole thing holistically. Multiple characters and situations just existed to prop up Mahavir and/or vindicate him of his actions – from the child bride to the one dimensional, cardboard-coach.
And importantly, this didn’t actually happen in real life, so I consider this dramatization as an indicator of clear and full submission to father (and implicitly, rationalizing the abuse).
Also, regarding the justification, when Aamir begs in front of the NSA committee, he admits that he is the one who is wrong and clearly mentions that at an age when the girls had to play about with dolls, he forced them to sweat it out in the mud. He knows that, and he admits to it.
This is merely presented as a preface to the scene where he pleads with NSA committee to persuade them for letting his daughters stay – which ironically, again, contributes in whitewashing the abusive behavior as he comes out “cleaner”. He knew this was “wrong” all along, but he did it and it’s okay since it’s done in the name of some “greater good”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
pankaj1905
December 27, 2016
Such a great discussion, loved reading all the comments.
My favorite bit was when Sakshi Tanwar slaps the cousin to show her anger at her husband. Also, not sure if it meant something but I found it interesting that in one of the songs, the cousin guy pretended to be a woman and Geeta pretended to be a man with a fake moustache. Later, the cousin is even forced to do cooking—chulha;
LikeLike
Radhika
December 27, 2016
He does not play to the audience – he barely cracks a smile. He does not try to make himself likeable one bit.
I thought he did play to the gallery, actually. Not in the classic way (as you see it, by cracking a smile) but with the use of Omkar to make foolish cracks so that his Tau could use his gravitas to give him [i]that[/i] look – all around me the audience tittered everytime that happened.
And what’s with the portrayal of Omkar – his younger self is shown to have so much more spirit, and even the narrator’s voice (supposedly his), is full of observation and insights, but the adult Omkar is shown to be an obsequeious chamcha. The casting of the young kids was terrific. I was relieved to see that the grown up girls didn’t have a different colour of eye (like in Jodha Akbar) – though Geeta seemed to have developed a dimple that was missing in her youth.
LikeLike
Urvashi
December 27, 2016
Even without a Supreme Court injunction, you feel like saluting.
Oh, gah, bah.
So, did the Supreme Court say that we should leap to attention even when the athem is part of the narrative? I am very confused by this. I was earlier a prompt stander-up for the anthem – I would warble away happily with the song, and I loved the Bharatbala productions. Now the flag is shown with an anaemic animation and the same song is repeated everywhere. Did the Honorouble Justice, in his patriotic wisdom demand that we should have only a homogenous depiction and rendition?
The earlier High Court decision said : “We are satisfied that in view of the instructions issued by the Government of India that the national anthem which is exhibited in the course of exhibition of newsreel or documentary or in a film, the audience is not expected to stand as the same interrupts the exhibition of the film and would create disorder and confusion, rather than add to the dignity of the national anthem,”
The recent verdict by Justice Mishra said : There shall not be dramatization of the National Anthem and it should not be included as a part of any variety show. It is because when the National Anthem is sung or played it is imperative on the part of every one present to show due respect and honour. To think of a dramatized exhibition of the National Anthem is absolutely inconceivable.
So here’s my question : I got up for the NA before the movie. When it played at the end, the whole audience leapt to its feet but I stayed down. (I have to admit I was wondering if I would get lynched by the jingoistic crowd but no one said anything).
— Am I legally obligated to get up if it is played as part of the narrative?
— Can the movie makers be put to jail for having dramatized the anthem?
— What did happen at the end? I could not see the screen because I was doing a sit-down protest
LikeLike
Urvashi
December 27, 2016
No idea why my post above came so weirdly formatted. Only the first line is a quote from your article. Could you pl fix it, BR? Thanks
LikeLike
kamleshkuduva
December 27, 2016
Neat movie.. my only confusion was towards the end when it played national anthem after Geeta’s win ..if i had to stand up or not ???
😛
LikeLike
Nishanth Krishnan
December 27, 2016
//Um, the ‘realization’ they had is irrelevant – and is kind of resorting to retrospective determinism. Abuse is abuse, even if they chose it later freely by themselves. This doesn’t mean “they weren’t entirely forced into it” – they clearly were. Movie just used the device of child marriage to take narrative forward, as that’s shown to be their “moment of realization”. Regardless of whether this actually happened or not, doesn’t do away the fact that he did force them to do something they loathed against their will.//
The sisters weren’t growing up in a city. I believe in a village in Haryana, being brought up to be married off is the real abuse and Mahavir went against it. I don’t know if that is abuse.
//Where again, the movie clearly takes Mahavir’s side – as Geeta is made to look like the “bad girl”. Babita tells her how what she’d done isn’t right and how he failed merely because of his age, not because of technical flaws. The whole rebellious phase, Geeta is shown to be “wrong”, and later she goes back into full submission mode.//
Till that point, Geeta doesn’t start losing in the international matches so the movie doesnt say that Geeta was wrong at that very point. At that point, the scene is still neutral. She doesnt go into full submission mode ever. She just goes back to a style of learning and winning that she had eventually started enjoying
//In fact, I just noticed that that in the actual fight, Geeta still had her hair//
Great Catch IMF… I guess the director wanted to use the hair as a symbol of Geeta’s acceptance of Mahavir’s wrestling methods – i don’t think extrapolating this to submission is also ok
LikeLike
Anjali Venugopalan
December 27, 2016
I don’t agree with your point that it’s entirely a male-gaze movie. You know the logic of how you should not judge the past by the standards of the present? I think it applies here.
Mahavir wanted to foist his dreams for gold on his sons earlier, and then he decided that daughters would do just as well. The thing is, in that social milieu, that was perhaps the only way for them to break out and not follow the path of ‘get-married-at-16’. Coming from the background that he did, what other things could Mahavir have done for his daughters? Perhaps he could’ve educated them more. I don’t really know. But he knew he had the resources and the expertise (and maybe the genes too) to make sure his daughters would excel in one thing, and that was wrestling. And he did fight society so that society would treat his daughters as well as they would’ve treated his sons.
Geeta dedicates her win to her father, but the sweat and blood she put in was her own. When she cuts off her hair, I think not only was she acknowledging her father’s methods, but she was also returning to that maniacal focus that champions have to have to be able to win. Like Arjuna’s story in the Mahabharata – “I see only the eye of the bird”.
In a perfect society, women would be treated with respect for being housewives or cricketers or doctors. But right now, there is the assumption that what men do is more difficult/important than what men do. So the obvious path to break that assumption comes by men doing what women are supposed to do and women doing what men are supposed to do. That’s your obvious path to rebel. It is a compromise in some ways, of course. But the world is a difficult place, and sometimes you have to make do with what you have.
I agree that parents foisting their dreams upon their children isn’t entirely right. But sometimes, the kids end up adopting the dreams as their own dreams. I think that’s what happened here. The kids saw that they were getting respect and had a chance to make something of themselves through sport, and so they continued with it, even though initially they were forced.
LikeLiked by 5 people
brangan
December 27, 2016
Really enjoying the comments here.
I agree it’s not easy to denounce Mahavir in the film, which is why I did not use the word “tyrant”. Rather, he came across like an obsessive, monomaniacal madman, like the Irrfan character in Qissa. It’s amazing how similar the two fathers are (Irrfan and Aamir).
Within a mainstream movie, they made the choice to not get terribly complex with the motivations or the narrative (i.e. save for that Geeta-Mahavir showdown, this is not a psychologically complex film, and that’s the way they chose to go) — and yet, the Mahavir character comes off as warts-and-all enough to make us feel troubled about him. At least, he made me conflicted.
You don’t usually get this in mainstream cinema.
LikeLike
MANK
December 27, 2016
the Mahavir character comes off as warts-and-all enough to make us feel troubled about him. At least, he made me conflicted.You don’t usually get this in mainstream cinema.
Brangan, well one of the reasons why the character turned out to be so rich is because of the milieu, the background,the atmosphere of the village and hinterlands and the class of the characters. because if he was a city bred rich guy of today’s time , then this obsessive, monomania could be more easily denounced. not that we cannot have complex characters with similar behavior pattern in a city , but it has to be a more complex movie than this. but the fact that he was involved in empowering his girls (perhaps accidentally) in the midst of opposition from the khaps etc makes it hard for one to dismiss him as a tyrant, even if he was acting from a sense of patriarchy or egotism. the issues that can be easily identified as black or white in a more urban (or literate) setting acquires more grayer tones in a rural setting.
On a related note i would like to point out a real problem that has been haunting hindi cinema for a long time . ever since the 90’s, after the emergence of the new Yashraj\KJo brand NRI cinema , our mainstream films are only about rich people , rich classes and confined to a specified urban geography. the westward (both box office wise and setting wise) expansion of indian cinema coinciding with SRK’s rise to stardom was made at a huge cost in which an entire section of the society were ignored or cut out from both, in the telling of the film and viewing of the film. not just the section of society, but an indian way of storytelling – which can be broadly classified as masala cinema -completely disappeared from the screen. it was in this kind of cinema ( i dont want to use the word genre as i think its more than that) that some of our greatest movies were made whether its the pathbreaking Salim javed movie of the 70’s or the brilliant JP Dutta or Rahul Rawail films of the 80’s or the more light hearted non serious works of manmohan desai or Prakash mehra was created. those movies represented india as a melting pot of different characters, religions, classes and occupations . this got destroyed with the emergence of NRI cinema where India seems to belong to only one class of people. of course there was glorification, simplifications or stereotyping and the masala itself was devalued a lot in the 80’s by those terrible Mithun or Jeetendra movies. but when its done right – as in a sholay, where almost every class or creed of characters get a voice in the narrative, almost every emotion is portrayed to certain degree, it becomes an extremely rich experience. its just such a shame that we failed to preserve that way of filmmaking with very rare exceptions
Another issue is about the portrayal of loss. ever since HAHK, people have been shying away from portraying grief ,loss or any such prickly emotions in cinema. every attempt is made to keep the audience happy at all times . even if its there is a tragedy , its made sure that it can be easily glossed over . as it is the case in HAHK, its the minor bhabhi character who dies which does not hinder in anyway the final union of salman and madhuri. or its the family reunion scene in K3G which is laughable at the most ,(Compare this with how visceral is Amitabh’s life long anguish and pain at the loss of his parents in Zanjeer or the evading of duty in Kala Pathar ) the same goes for characterization too, anything remotely resembling dark or grey is kept at bay.
I do believe that Aamir is a fan of masala cinema and is inspired by a great deal by that kind of story telling. you could see that in a lot of films that he had backed , from Lagaan, Ghajini, D3 and now Dangal – its kind of a half way street between the old fashioned masala and the new age multiplex movie. hopefully with the massive success of this film , main stream filmmakers would be inspired to take up a lot more diverse subjects
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
December 27, 2016
MANK: Neerja, Ae Dil Hai Mukshil, Wazir, Udta Punjab, Kapoor & Sons, Te3N, Kahaani 2 — and I am just talking about 2016. Whether you liked these films or not, they dealt with varying degrees (and varying kinds of) loss. If you take romantic dramas, the mainstream ones like the Aashiqui remake, there’s loss there too. Not to forget the more adult films like Badlapur, or NH10, or Masaan.
It’s just that the average urban rom-com — that one particular genre — tries to smooth away these pricklier aspects of life, but then that is true of rom-coms everywhere.
I think the real issue that a film like Dangal or Sultan or Bajrangi Bhaijaan brings into focus is that there simply aren’t that many “pan-Indian” films being made anymore, one that the proverbial 6-60 age group can watch, with solid “Indian” emotional beats, with solid “Indian” style of storytelling and filmmaking. (And remember, just like in Tamil cinema, city audiences will watch rural films, but rural audiences will not come in droves to watch ultra-urban films, even if, like Piku, they have many “Indian” beats.)
So this has nothing to do with rural or urban IMO. Deewar, Trishul and Kabhi Kabhie are very urban films, and yet they are very “Indian” films.
It’s just urban India has changed a lot today, and so have urban filmmakers. Urban India is a more nuclear society today, less of a melting pot, and we don’t have the Rahim chachas or Ramu kakas around anymore, we don’t even have parents around anymore, or neighbours, etc. So the secondary characters that could provide additional emotion have all gone away in urban cinema — so if the central characters (who are now the only available ones) don’t give us much, there is no fall back for the film, there’s no one else.
The target audience of these urban films is also very different. Earlier, all Indian films used to target all audiences. Today, it’s possible to make specific films for specific audiences, and most of our filmmakers today opt to make more niche that general-interest films. I do think it’s still possible to make a very urban-set film that speaks to multiplex as well as single screen audiences — A centres as well as B/C centres — but we don’t have (apart from Aamir) anyone who seems interested enough to do that. Only Aamir makes urban-set (Dhoom 3, Ghajini) as well as rural-set (PK, Dangal) films that speak to all of India.
PS: That said, I thought this film’s Muslim character (the chicken seller) was very oddly inserted into the screenplay, almost as if to say “let’s just have a Muslim character around.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
MANK
December 27, 2016
Brangan, but my point is that our mainstream hindi cinema was reduced to just the average urban romcoms for a long period of time. it was that or the dark niche movies from RGV factory and its ilk, which is the exact opposite of what the other stood for. there was never an amalgamation as it was in the case of the earlier phase. yes i agree with you about a lot of films that you listed there about portraying loss but we both know its a fairly recent phenomenon and they do fall in to the rather niche market
but a lot of what i wanted to say(and couldnt convey properly in my comment) is there in your comment. especially about the pan indian deal, not many actors and filmmakers bothering to try something like that etc.which was the gist of what i was trying to convey in relation to masala cinema
PS: That said, I thought this film’s Muslim character (the chicken seller) was very oddly inserted into the screenplay, almost as if to say “let’s just have a Muslim character around.”
Oh that i agree. nor did i like the idea of the muslim kid bringing the ‘prasad’. that looked very forced and unnecessary in that scene..
LikeLike
Radhika
December 27, 2016
A vanity project owes its existence only to the giant sized ego of its creator (as opposed to being in response to a market demand) – by that logic, no Dangal is not Aamir’s vanity project. But it is a showcase of his talents and was very likely chosen for that reason. I don’t agree that just because Aamir almost revels in looking flagrantly corpulent, that is proof that he is not vain. I would think that Aamir probably prides his ability to take on diverse roles and to morph himself physically to get not only “under the skin” of the character, but to literally give his skin a new look. His is very likely more vain about his ability to be a shape shifter than he is about his looks. Having said that, I see nothing wrong in his having taken a role because it offers him a giant sandbox where he can have a blast stretching his talents.
I do think the movie is about Mahavir, far more than it is about Geeta. Look at the end – quite apart from the fact that they’ve played a bit with reality (the real life coach is understandably upset at his depiction, though they probably used a fake name to get some legal insurance) – the entire device of that petty villainy in the end succeeded in splitting the focus away from Geeta’s fight to Mahavir’s plight. Even as we watched that match it was with a little voice at the back of the head saying, oh no, he’s missing witnessing all this – this brilliantly kept the spotlight on Mahavir more than it did on Geeta – and perhaps, that’s rightly so – after all, per the movie, even as she who won, she was just a vehicle for his victory.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Radhika
December 27, 2016
For instance, wrestling isn’t just a sport. It’s a contact sport, with hands and legs flying everywhere. What are the repercussions, in an ultra-conservative milieu, when a girl locks herself in these positions with a boy? Even if this boy is a cousin.
I agree – this would have been an almost obvious aspect to explore – in a different movie, perhaps. As would have been the fact that girls have other issues that come in the way of freedom in competing – athletes have spoken of how difficult it is to play wimbledon in brilliant whites or for hours at a stretch, when managing a period. In Dangal, their being female only seems to be a problem societaly, not biologically. But again, that would have been another, grittier movie – not this slightly santized arc of triumphant rise of the underdog.
For that matter – clearly there were other girls who wrestled – enough to stage a Subjunior, Junior and Womens’ wrestling tournament. Are we to assume that all over India there are women with Phogat-like paters who are making them wrestle with men? Till Geeta hits the nationals it looks like she will have to lobby even for a women’s competition but that is not the case.
he is unable to shake off his monomania and he puts the girls through hell.
I think that Apne with the Deols was a better examination of monomania and the toll it takes on a family. The Phogats take his nuttiness with far greater equanimity. Apne was a tad overdramatic but was a better exploration of the angst caused by an obsessed parent
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
December 28, 2016
Anali, brilliant comment.
LikeLike
Marees
December 28, 2016
Anu, your comparison to Richard Williams reminded me that, he deliberately chose to move into a low income neighbourhood so that his daughters could be toughened up (& one of his daughters died in a gun shooting)
Unless it is a documentary, I would be wary of showing this as is on the screen, because it might come of as glorifying dictatorial behaviour & glossing over its effects on others.
I have not watched Dangal yet, as of now I have a positive impression of the movie, because women succeeding in men’s world (wrestling is a metaphor for life here?) is a rare event & a story that deserves to be told.
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
December 28, 2016
Anjali: Good comment and yes housewives obviously also deserve respect; they are performing a valuable and important service. The issue here is with premature marriage and child birth; and quite possibly a marriage which would not have the full and genuine consent of Geeta and Babita. Not to suggest that arranged marriages are by default non-consensual or that the partners in these arrangements are not happy, but just as there is nothing to suggest that Mahavir would force his daughters into an unwanted marriage, there is also nothing to suggest he would desist from doing so if he felt it to be for the greater good, and if wrestling had not entered into the scene.
“Mahavir wanted to foist his dreams for gold on his sons earlier, and then he decided that daughters would do just as well. The thing is, in that social milieu, that was perhaps the only way for them to break out and not follow the path of ‘get-married-at-16’. Coming from the background that he did, what other things could Mahavir have done for his daughters? Perhaps he could’ve educated them more. I don’t really know. But he knew he had the resources and the expertise (and maybe the genes too) to make sure his daughters would excel in one thing, and that was wrestling”.
I think that may be ascribing an overly benign motive to Mahavir, which the film itself does not necessarily substantiate. Foisting wrestling on them was primarily about his personal glory. Before it occurred to him that ‘my daughters can take my legacy forward and I don’t need a son for this’, they were regular girls in that milieu. There is nothing really to suggest that pre-wrestling he sought to make them exceptional for girls in their socio-economic situation; there was no added emphasis on them studying hard or achieving in any other area. He envisaged a regular life for them, and not excellence or potential independence; I’m not saying he didn’t care about his kids but the wrestling was first and foremost about him. It is also true to say that his aims were later adopted by his girls as their own.
Radhika: I think sometimes actors can and do consider the film they are playing a role in, to be bigger than them as individuals or stars or actors. Their commitment to a particular vision or to conveying a concept idea; or the complex interplay of human motives and emotions can go beyond showcasing one character in a great light. Aamir does have vision, but that balance most of the time is lost. ‘Rang De Basanti’ is probably the exception to this in Aamir’s oeuvre. It’s a movie that I have very mixed feelings about but it was there that Aamir ensured (quite generously) that all the other guys got equal screen time and importance as him. I think the perceived need for Mahavir to be validated and ultimately proved right in everything, by the makers of this film, undermined ‘Dangal’ as a movie. This was most patently manifested in the 2nd half which was largely premised on the tussle between Mahavir and the strawman coach, but I don’t think making everything about Mahavir and ascribing every aspect of Geeta’s victory to him was a strength of the film, it compromised the idea that he had empowered his girls. He could basically try and bully her into adopting his technique: there was no need to persuade her or even simply just explain exactly why he was convinced his technique was better. Yeah, he was her father and had been her sole wrestling mentor and coach his entire life and he was understandably unhappy and insecure about the potential usurpation of his position, but the way he went about it was wrong. Vindicating this to make him ultimately shine was, in my opinion, wrong. Mahavir was certainly an exceptional man, and I don’t think it would be fair to call him a ‘bad man’, but he had very real flaws and these did not have to be validated in the end. ‘Dangal’ would have been a better film if it had been truly more impartial about its subject, and not been a thinly veiled hagiography.
Brangan: The ‘Qissa’ comparison never occurred to me in watching ‘Dangal’. That was one very good movie, but Mahavir and character Irfan Khan played were just too different. Mahavir had flaws but he was not without ethics and he may have been obsessive on one point but he was sane, the other guy was a serious psychopath, he was messed up in a really big way, and was prepared to rape and kill to realise his delusions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMF
December 28, 2016
//The sisters weren’t growing up in a city. I believe in a village in Haryana, being brought up to be married off is the real abuse and Mahavir went against it. I don’t know if that is abuse.//
Mahavir didn’t go against child marriage in any deliberate sense. He was just realising his dreams through his kids, that’s about it. The other devices are used by the film to show that what Mahavir wasn’t “that bad a person”
Also, just because a worse scenario exists, doesn’t mean this situation is okay, this abuse is also “real”. You shouldn’t be thankful to anyone merely because they didn’t force marriage on you as a child – and I perfectly understand the sociocultural context of the film here.
//Till that point, Geeta doesn’t start losing in the international matches so the movie doesnt say that Geeta was wrong at that very point. At that point, the scene is still neutral. She doesnt go into full submission mode ever. She just goes back to a style of learning and winning that she had eventually started enjoying//
Till which point? I think her first international match was post the fight, IIRC. But correct me if I’m wrong, of course.
//Great Catch IMF… I guess the director wanted to use the hair as a symbol of Geeta’s acceptance of Mahavir’s wrestling methods – i don’t think extrapolating this to submission is also ok//
I’m reading it with the larger context of how things are portrayed in movie, and not in isolation, and just to contest the whole “it’s facts viewed through Mahavir’s perspective”. Hence me highlighting that they’ve gone out of the way and added things to hero-ify Mahavir instead of giving at least a textured, morally complex character. Which is why this leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMF
December 28, 2016
I should really get a life and stop commenting at this point, but (hopefully) one final point:
@Anjali,
//I don’t agree with your point that it’s entirely a male-gaze movie. You know the logic of how you should not judge the past by the standards of the present? I think it applies here.
Mahavir wanted to foist his dreams for gold on his sons earlier, and then he decided that daughters would do just as well. The thing is, in that social milieu, that was perhaps the only way for them to break out and not follow the path of ‘get-married-at-16’. //
This is problematic for two reasons. Nobody should judge past (we’re talking about 1990’s not 1890’s, but anyway, society has evolved in a more accelerated manner in the last decade or so I feel) not by the standards of the present, of course. But when you’re making a biopic of a very morally complex story, you have to make sure that you have your perspective right, your movie has the moral compass right. You could literally make a biopic about a Nazi, stay true to the facts, and yet make a fantastic film.
This is a “male gaze” film because that’s how the film is structured, how it’s dramatized. They could have made a feminist film with the same set of facts. They could have at least made a film that was more nuanced and textured, and whitewash abusive behavior.
Coming from the background that he did, what other things could Mahavir have done for his daughters? Perhaps he could’ve educated them more. I don’t really know. But he knew he had the resources and the expertise (and maybe the genes too) to make sure his daughters would excel in one thing, and that was wrestling. And he did fight society so that society would treat his daughters as well as they would’ve treated his sons.
I know that options are limited for girls in an extremely conservative society. But I would say that if he could have stood for them in an extremely patriarchal society in a male dominated sport (albeit for the wrong reasons), then he could have helped them choose any career path. And he forced them (which is not morally justifiable, regardless) to do things against their will JUST to make his dream come true, the film spells it out in no unclear terms – and he didn’t do this for any pragmatic reasons. He could have introduced them to wrestling and perhaps they would have chosen to become wrestlers regardless.
(I know reality is far messier, but since we’re talking about Mahavir’s behaviour, just pointing this out re: ‘what Mahavir could have done’, since we’re on that topic)
Geeta dedicates her win to her father, but the sweat and blood she put in was her own. When she cuts off her hair, I think not only was she acknowledging her father’s methods, but she was also returning to that maniacal focus that champions have to have to be able to win. Like Arjuna’s story in the Mahabharata – “I see only the eye of the bird”.
Just putting the hair cutting scene in context, it felt like complete submission, coming from her “rebellious phase”. Let me emphasize that real Geeta Phogat did NOT cut her hair, I had posted the video to back this up. So I don’t buy the correlation between hair cutting/maniacal focus.
In a perfect society, women would be treated with respect for being housewives or cricketers or doctors. But right now, there is the assumption that what men do is more difficult/important than what men do. So the obvious path to break that assumption comes by men doing what women are supposed to do and women doing what men are supposed to do. That’s your obvious path to rebel. It is a compromise in some ways, of course. But the world is a difficult place, and sometimes you have to make do with what you have.
While I really cheer and appreciate breaking of gender norms wherever I see it, I think every woman has her own form of rebellion and one isn’t lesser than the other. And rebellion comes within. This film is about none of that, although the girls do break a lot of gender binaries, which was amazing to watch. It could have been entirely about that, though. Which is why I’m disappointed.
I agree that parents foisting their dreams upon their children isn’t entirely right. But sometimes, the kids end up adopting the dreams as their own dreams. I think that’s what happened here. The kids saw that they were getting respect and had a chance to make something of themselves through sport, and so they continued with it, even though initially they were forced.
But here’s the thing, you can’t justify the means by the outcome. Which is why forcing something like this on anyone isn’t morally justifiable, especially on kids. I’m sure, even out of this context, where parents forced kids into something they didn’t like, turned out to be “successful” and just fine. And probably a fair percentage of them also turned out to like these paths, which were forced on them. But this doesn’t remotely make the act of forcing in itself justifiable. Imagine the good majority of kids who still hate the things that were forced upon them – all of it can be extremely traumatizing and scarring to them. Which is what happens in our society. A LOT. Although the film portrayed a lot of abusive behavior in a funny manner (through songs and other humorous situations, which is yet another issue I have) – things like that can be very scarring and damaging.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
December 28, 2016
IMF: All things considered, this is such a fascinating film when you consider Aamir’s oeuvre? In TZP, his character stood against paternal imposition and here he is doing that very thing.
I am surprised I am in the minority here in my viewing of Aamir’s methods as dictator-y. Most on my FB timeline or the people I talk to are taking the “no pain, no gain” stand. Modi does seem to have changed India 🙂
Please do not stop commenting, if you feel like it. You make some great points.
PS: Speaking of TZP, I read my review and found this line that reminded me of this film’s cartoonish coach:
“The layered textures of the first half gradually give way to an uncomfortably black-and-white universe: the rest of the world in black versus Aamir in white. Every one of the teachers at boarding school is an offensive cartoon painted in the broadest of strokes, and cruel too – like the instructor who raps Ishaan on the knuckles with a wooden ruler. ”
LikeLiked by 2 people
IMF
December 28, 2016
So to summarize, my points are merely this, for tl;dr folks:
The success in the end does not justify any abusive behavior. Not to mention this would be a mix of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and retrospective fallacy, to assume that the behavior directly led to the consequence.
The makes it unabashedly clear regarding Mahavir’s motives, which is purely to “win an international medal for his country” – whether or not that turned out to be “good” for the girls is not relevant while we are discussing the actions of Mahavir himself (also refer point #1)
The film did not stay entirely true to the real story – it took the real story and heavily dramatized it. But unfortunately, the dramatization was for all the wrong reasons. It’s not as relatively benign as male-savior role in Chak De! for making a “masala” movie, it’s way more morally complex a situation for that.
How this plays out in our social context – where public in general is seriously desensitized towards child abuse, where it’s generally deemed okay for parents to force their vision on their kids, because parents know better and it’s all for their own “greater good”. Or even worse, how some of them even want to realize their dream through their kids. And how the abusive behavior that’s casually depicted in the film can be very traumatic.
(Okay ironically this turned out to be a long ass comment, but what the hell, I just wanna bow out from the discussion with that comment, thanks everyone for responding!)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
December 28, 2016
IMF, you raise good points. But somehow, watching the film, none of that bothered me. I bought completely into the story, and the way it was told. From the latest interview by Geeta Phogat, who’s preparing for her next international competition:
“We had a very hard training during our childhood and I don’t want to live it again. There were so many times when I felt like running away from the akhara. But now that we are bearing the fruits of all the hard work, we understand its value,” recollected Geeta..‘
That last sentence, I think, encapsulates all that the film showed and the reason the girls went back to their father’s tried and tested methods.
And if this was abuse, you will have to watch Bhudia Singh, born to run, the boy who was forced to give up the one thing he loved because human rights activists got into the picture and his coach was penalised. It’s a very interesting film, and an utterly heartbreaking one. For so many reasons.
LikeLike
Radhika
December 28, 2016
@BR : I am surprised I am in the minority here in my viewing of Aamir’s methods as dictator-y. Most on my FB timeline or the people I talk to are taking the “no pain, no gain” stand. Modi does seem to have changed India🙂
Hah, yes, I agree with you – that’s my take too.
I have met some people who, in their fields, had a Mahavir as a parent. One had a mother who was unable to pursue her own musical career, so forced her daughter to do nothing other than singing classical, right through her childhood – no friends, no fun. She says it was terrible as a kid – for more than a decade she woke up at 4, sang, went to school, came back, sang. Now at 40+ she sees this as having been worth it because she is now an expert singer. I asked a young friend, barely 20, what she thought of this response – and I got a trenchant answer – “of course she has to validate what her parent did – to do otherwise would be to accept that her entire childhood was flushed down the toilet”. So I get Geeta’s post-facto praise of her father – today, with the resounding celebration of her success, that whole past would have become blurred pain – pretty much like prasava-vairagya is needed to persuade women to have more children. None of that negates the fact that the success was driven by a parent who wanted his kids to attain a success that he couldn’t
LikeLiked by 3 people
Radhika
December 28, 2016
Making the rounds, so may be familiar PJ:
Aamir Khan school of Child psychology and Career planning
3 Idiots – Let your child become what HE or SHE wants to become
Dangal – Make your child what YOU want him or her to become
Taare Zameen Par – It’s OK if your child does not want to become anything. Just don’t interfere.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Radhika
December 28, 2016
: I am surprised I am in the minority here in my viewing of Aamir’s methods as dictator-y. Most on my FB timeline or the people I talk to are taking the “no pain, no gain” stand. Modi does seem to have changed India🙂
BR – you do have something there. They say that nations go through phases of wanting Daddy-leaders versus Mommy-leaders. I am sure Dangal’s Daddy and the soaring patriotism in the end are both a product of, and will feed into, the current mood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
December 28, 2016
This is funny 😀
http://www.opindia.com/2016/12/5-reasons-why-we-liberals-must-boycott-dangal/
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMF
December 28, 2016
Okay I know I’m supposed to stop but had to:
@Radhika:
I have met some people who, in their fields, had a Mahavir as a parent. One had a mother who was unable to pursue her own musical career, so forced her daughter to do nothing other than singing classical, right through her childhood – no friends, no fun. She says it was terrible as a kid – for more than a decade she woke up at 4, sang, went to school, came back, sang. Now at 40+ she sees this as having been worth it because she is now an expert singer. I asked a young friend, barely 20, what she thought of this response – and I got a trenchant answer – “of course she has to validate what her parent did – to do otherwise would be to accept that her entire childhood was flushed down the toilet”. So I get Geeta’s post-facto praise of her father – today, with the resounding celebration of her success, that whole past would have become blurred pain – pretty much like prasava-vairagya is needed to persuade women to have more children. None of that negates the fact that the success was driven by a parent who wanted his kids to attain a success that he couldn’t
Right on. I felt the same, but was slightly apprehensive of expressing this view. My close friend who was abused throughout childhood (i.e. beaten black and blue) although admits that it was terrible (and still goes through the traumatic effects of the abuse), rationalizes the abuse and still is in “good terms” with her parents. And she’s not the only one either. It’s generally a coping mechanism for abuse victims to do this. I don’t wanna speak for Geeta of course, I don’t know her well enough to make any sort of comments. But post-facto praising amounts to next to nothing in my view.
@Anu:
I guess since you’ve read my points about why I felt the film’s portrayal was problematic and still disagree, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that, I suppose 🙂
That last sentence, I think, encapsulates all that the film showed and the reason the girls went back to their father’s tried and tested methods.
What Radhika said, and I’ve added my thoughts too to that.
And if this was abuse, you will have to watch Bhudia Singh, born to run, the boy who was forced to give up the one thing he loved because human rights activists got into the picture and his coach was penalised. It’s a very interesting film, and an utterly heartbreaking one. For so many reasons.
It certainly was, there are no two ways about it. Especially something like the hair cutting scene makes it very black and white to me. And I’ve wanted to watch the film, and I shall do (thanks for reminding!), but recall reading BR’s review praising the characterization of Manoj, which was amply grey shaded and textured. Shall watch and comment more on this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Siddarth Senthilkumaran
December 28, 2016
This point has been made but I think it’s worth reiterating that this film is almost entirely Mahavir’s. The story we saw on screen was his failure to make it big as a wrestler himself and then a sort of redemption. The arcs – with the wife, nephew (omkar), chicken vendor, and the daughters of course are all relative to the major underlying arc of Mahavir. Even when geeta is at the NSA and we see her relish a life that was alien to her until that point, I was a little jittery and hoping that she didn’t realize life’s greater so to say pleasures, such as golgappas or ddlj (not a big fan of the movie but besides the point). I think that is a deliberate, conscious filmmaking attempt to show how Mahavir would have felt about it. Of course the girls are shown to have been tortured – the hair chopping scene – and we sympathize. Mahavir is shown as a tyrant and we feel bad for the girls, but only momentarily and know it’s for the greater good.
Now I am of the opinion that none of this speaks towards our moral standing on the issues presented. From human social contracts – relating child athletes and parents’ control over their young lives – to an entrenched patriarchy/misogyny in rural/all of India, there are several moral issues that need to be debated. And I might not agree with all of them. I’m especially torn with the lengths that parents can go to hone prodigal talents and I’m interested to know where the law stands on this. Also, after Geeta grows out of her problematic childhood and has agency when she’s at the NSA and she makes independent decisions to live life in a little carefree manner, are we supposed to sympathize or criticize her commitment to the sport. Because now she could potentially choose to live the way she wanted to but would that come in odds with her wrestling career. Are those distractions costly generally in the case of any athlete. And with any sports movie we are repeatedly told by, presumably, a gruff coach that the athelete must not take their eyes of the ball. Or is the fact that the coach is also the parent here heavily influencing our judgement regarding the girls’ agency in the movie. Say, would we react differently if Mahavir wasn’t the father but just a coach who spotted prodigal talents and took the girls to international glory. There are so many questions and all of these are also in the context of small town India with entrenched patriarchy and poor athletic facilities, making the case far far more complex to be viewed under the lens of a singular ideology.
As a film though I saw it as a story of Mahavir’s reluctance to stop nothing short of glory, and sympathize or not, I was able to understand his hunger. Now I can pin many things against him, but I’m not sure if I can level the same accusations against the movie. Because again, the voice is Mahavir’s and the filmmaker is under no mandate to equally present all sides of the story. Everything we see – from the abuse to the ultimate victory – is through the lens of Mahavir. It gets so obvious when the girls gradually realize that perhaps their dream is their father’s dream as well, and the tone – which is smooth and free-flowing when the vision of Mahavir is in sync with the vision of Geeta, and gains friction when their visions are dissonant. None of this can justify or is meant to rationalize Mahavir’s actions but actions they are and portrayed as such. I’m also aware that this argument could be a slippery slope to justify the presence of any and all films with highly dangerous and harmful ideas but every film must be viewed in the context of what it set out to achieve in the first place, no?
And regarding the praise that needs to be directed at aamir. He is a commercial star and this is a commercial movie and there is no debate about that. And it’s generally understood in a commercial movie with a star as big as aamir that his voice is the film’s voice. Therefore when his, and subsequently the film’s voice is of such a controversial man who employed tyrannical methods to train his daughters, aamir deserves the praise. As BR said, this story needed to have been told.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
December 28, 2016
BR: I must say the ‘satirical piece’ was in poor taste. ‘Secularism’ is all about providing equal treatment to all religions with in the state. I don’t think secularists (or rather ‘sickulars’) demand Hindus to name their children after Muslim rulers. And, I don’t think they insist upon what/what-not to eat, or prove one’s patriotism publicly. Interestingly, it’s the other side of the spectrum which does all these.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMF
December 28, 2016
@Honest Raj: Secularism is separation of state and religion, but I agree otherwise. Although I do realise it’s more of a ‘respect all religions equally’ sort of thing here (but it shouldn’t be).
That “satire” is only funny if you read it as a far right winger’s desperate rambling with their strawman premises.
LikeLike
Radhika
December 28, 2016
@IMF – agree with almost everything you’ve said upthrad.
My other problem with this “no gain,no pain” and “Father knows best” approach is that, as in all success stories, there is a survivor bias. Of course, Geeta, having won medals, having had a movie made of her, having had Aamir Khan as her screen father, will look on her shitty childhood as having been worth it. But let’s say that Mahavir’s attempts and drive had been exactly the same but his daughter didn’t end up with a gold medal, she ended up with some lousy life because her bones were broken (or worse, in one of those wrestling matches with leering men) – would she have felt the same. To be okay with the process because the outcome was so remarkable is to ignore all the other cases of hidden failures whose lives were blighted by some domineering parent.
That scene with the unhappy bride pissed me off because it was such a strawman argument – marrying her off at 14 was criminal, sure – but to assume her father wasn’t thinking of her is stupid – one could well argue that by adhering to the customs of the society, her father was thinking of her and trying to fit her into an appropriate family. And from that they conclude that Mahavir was thinking of his kids, when he so clearly wasn’t. It’s a bit like the 3 Idiots “logic” which said that if you didn’t like your parents pushing you, you should commit suicide, and then they’ll regret it. Hello – is there no other option? can’t you tell your parents to $#)(#$ off? I regret that modern films have too many scenes of appeasing parents – whether it is DDLJ’s ghastly manipulation of the bride’s parents, 3 Idiots threatening to commit suicide at the drop of a hat, or Dangal’s weepy acceptance that Daddy knows best. I yearn for a Dev Anand who told his and his girlfriend’s parents to go take a flying leap if they didn’t approve. Surely the millennial generation has more gumption than all these compliant kids being portrayed on screen?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Anu Warrier
December 28, 2016
IMF, I am not even disagreeing with you. 🙂 It was nice to have a discussion to thrash out these nuances. Radhika raised some good points as well.
I will only say that I saw this film through Phogat’s lens. Not the girls’. While I’m not rationalising abuse, parental or otherwise, the fact remains that all successful athletes/srtists have given up their childhood to achieve that success, or even just to be good. A few, like Mozart perhaps, have prodiguous talent. Even he, who learnt the piano at age 3, must have had to practice long hours. Where sport is concerned, it is a physical demand as well. How do you get to be good? So good that you can represent your country? To excel at something requires hours of dedicated practice. It requires blood, sweat and tears. Without that discipline, we can forget world-class athletes, artistes, anyone.
I asked a young friend, barely 20, what she thought of this response – and I got a trenchant answer – “of course she has to validate what her parent did – to do otherwise would be to accept that her entire childhood was flushed down the toilet”.
I disagree that she validated what her parents did only because to do otherwise would mean she didn’t have a childhood. That may be what your 20-something friend feels. Your other friend may regret a lost childhood, but still appreciate the rigour that made her hone her talent. I think it’s rather patronising of the 20-something to think she knows all the answers. (Caveat: all 20-somethings know all the answers. I certainly did. 🙂 ) More seriously, I don’t think we can answer for someone else’s reality.
IMF, if you haven’t already watched Budhia Singh, do watch. An achingly bitter-sweet story with a tragic ending. They banned the boy from running, rightly so, perhaps. But Biranchi was later murdered, and the latest news is that the real Budhia has run away from the sports academy because they weren’t letting him run. No one knows where he is. In an interview before this occurred, he spoke passionately about missing Biranchi, who he said, loved him like a father, and treated him with kindness, and coached him to run. Is Budhia too validating abuse because to do otherwise would invalidate his childhood?
I think these issues are more complicated than a knee-jerk response to either demonise parents or beatify them.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Anu Warrier
December 29, 2016
To be okay with the process because the outcome was so remarkable is to ignore all the other cases of hidden failures whose lives were blighted by some domineering parent.
Radhika, that would have been a completely different film, no? In this particular case, the outcome was relatively successful. If we proceed with that argument, we should not have a single underdog film because for every one underdog who came out of the blue and conquered their summit, there are thousands who die failures. Dangal is the story of one man, his daughters and their path to winning their father’s dream, their dream as well.
It isn’t because they made a film out of her life that Gita feels so; to say so is a negation of everything that she has sweated blood to achieve. If she didn’t want to wrestle at some point in her life, she could have stopped. She could also have got married off, and ‘settled down’. That she didn’t, that she continues to wrestle argues that somewhere that dream is hers as well.
In the film, in that first loss as a child, you see Gita’s determination to win. Why should she, after many international losses, not want to return to the surefire training that made her a winner?
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
December 29, 2016
The film should have either portrayed Mahavir with ample grey shades and texture, not trivializing or justifying abuse but highlighting it. Or the film could entirely focus on the girls and not on Mahavir, making it entirely about them. If they wanted to portray the dad-daughters dynamic of a morally complex story, they ought to treat it with more sensitivity that it deserves
IMF, then it would not be an Aamir Khan film :). it would be an indie film by the likes of Anurag kashyap starring Manoj Bajpayee or someone like that. As i said before Aamir is never going to disappoint the audience with that level of subversion.
Now having watched the film for a second time, i loved it much more and i have fully come to terms with what the film really is. Aamir’s vision for this film is clear . he wants this to be a entertaining masala film at heart. His chief attraction is to the mythical nature of the story . the kind of story that he has been doing in a fictional format perhaps from the beginning of his career and something that he has perfected as a template since Lagaan. As somebody commented before, he must have been overjoyed to see sociological proof of his fictional experiments. he also see the prestige and stature in associating with the real life characters and milieu
And as in a masala film, the central protagonist cannot be ‘Immoral’, they are more archetype of gods and like Rama or Krishna , they may lie or kill, but its always for the protection of Dharma, for a greater common good. the same with the masala hero, he may commit immoral acts , like Amitabh in Dewaar or Trisul (kill,lie, cheat) but overall he is not an immoral character. the same goes for Mahavir – even that name is pure masala – Phogat. he is the hero of the story, it is told from his perspective.
so this is a masala film that plays out on a more authentic and more human level. or rather this is the typical Aamir Khan film. it should not be taken anymore seriously than that. i think the real characters and and the real sporting events invoked in the film have lead to a misunderstanding about it being a serious authentic biopic
And this clarity of vision has made Aamir Khan the ‘aamir khan’ of today. In other words , he is the more high brow Manmohan desai- Amitabh Bachchan combo (social mass masala of the 70s and 80s) or the Raj kapoor (Actor director combo of the uplifting romantic social dramas of 50’s) for the more literate, sophisticated and a more fractured india of today’s times. and as the success of the film proves – 100 crores in 3 days , 150 crs in 5 days and on track to be the biggest blockbuster the country has ever seen, i am sure he he is going to continue on this path
LikeLiked by 2 people
Radhika
December 29, 2016
@ Anu – Radhika, that would have been a completely different film, no?
Of course, I agree with that. But then most insightful (to me, at least) reviews and criticisms visualize the film/book/whatever being reviewed though a lens of “what if this had looked at that”, not just an appreciation of what is given. I liked Dangal, found it a ripping good watch, highly entertaining, very well crafted – but that doesn’t stop me from wondering what that “other movie” would be like – if it had been grittier, less manipulative (this one had shades of the old Karan Johar to me, almost self consciously pressing all the buttons of pathos/humour/etc – and v successfully at that). I think that movie could have been great. This movie is good.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
December 29, 2016
IMF: Ha ha, I must be a sarcasm-illiterate. 🙂 Good one, BR!
LikeLike
Radhika
December 29, 2016
Anu, to clarify :
I did not mean that we should have movie after movie on failures – for sure that would be a depressing repast to feast on. I meant that people who see Dangal as inspiring and take the “no pain, no gain” view – parents, especially – would do good to not assume that there is a linearity between pain and gain. Very often – probably 9/10 times – the pain is there without gain. So it would behoove parents to accept that when they are pushing their kids to insane lengths, that there may not be that treasure at the end of the very dark tunnel that they’ve send their kids through. If there is no treasure, is the pain worth it?
Post 3 Idiots there was this big soul searching – should kids be put through the gruelling IIT admission factory in Kota? Post Dangal, there could be parents who say, see I know best, that IIT is to the family what Geeta’s gold medal was in Dangal – making the pain worth it. To me it seems that AK took a step back from empowerment in this movie, by reverting to “Parent knows best” – something that both 3 Idiots and TZP protested against.
Re your other thought – it can be unfair to assume that kids of 20 are being patronizing, no? i agree with her actually – that there is a tendency to rationalize our pasts because to accept the decisions of the past as being crappy can make for a very uncomfortable present. It’s a self-protective instinct and I think it’s fine to have that. Good outcomes do not necessarily imply that the decisions leading there were good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Radhika
December 29, 2016
@MANK
That’s a great thought – AM as a mythmaker, very interesting, though the word “subversion” makes me pause, hmm.
This bit, I am not so sure. Mahabharata (Ramayana too) is full of characters with shades of grey – on both sides of the Kurukshetra. Even the “heroes” who are supposed on side of Dharma, are shown to have indulged in acts of debatable morality. So surely a mythical movie can be made even with the God-like-protagonist having a little of the dark side – like asking a wife to step into fire, or match-fixing by asking one player to wear a garland so the opponent can be killed…?
Heh – that’s quite an insight!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Radhika
December 29, 2016
@Anu
I believe when there is such a domineering father who has pushed a child to such lengths, it is very difficult to unpick motivations even of an adult, let alone the child she was at the first loss.
One could argue that her friend, the one who got married at 14, could have well chosen to become a wrestler – and the fact that she went ahead and got married and (very likely) produced a basket of babies – is proof that she (the friend) wanted that life of domesticity foisted on her by her parents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
December 29, 2016
MANK / Radhika: I would call Aamir’s brand of cinema a multiplex-y riff on the masala movie — a more textured variation.
Creed, for instance, is a great “single-screen” masala movie — the arcs of this kind of narrative are conventional, and the characters are conventions (i.e. archetypal) too. The secret sauce that the director and screenwriter and actors bring is what elevates this kind of masala movie — as opposed to something fundamentally path-breaking.
A Dangal, on the other hand, seems to follow the rules of the masala movie. You have:
1) the hero with a quest (like Amitabh in Trishul, as you mentioned)
2) the villain who will do anything to bring the hero down (the cartoonish coach)
3) the long-suffering wife/mother
4) the scenario of separation/reunion, even if it’s not a “physical” separation like in the Desai films (Geeta/Mahavir)
5) the scenario of losing one’s way from “the path of the right” and finding one’s way back (in the case of Geeta)
6) the comic sidekick always getting slapped (the cousin)
But amidst these broad arcs and archetypes and tropes, you don’t have the dialogue-baazi, the songs are more “natural,” the making more “realistic” and muted.
Aamir’s films “look” classy and realistic and hence appeal to the mutliplex crowds and critics who prefer understated cinema, and yet, the “beats” are very desi, and hence they appeal to the junta too. I mean, consider Hanikarak Bapu. What is it but a variation of ‘Na main bhagwan hoon’ from Mother India, where the “bad son’s” character is “cutified” through a song where his “bad deeds” (stealing, gambling, smoking pot) come off as relatively “harmless”?
Aamir, thus, covers all bases.
LikeLiked by 2 people
IMF
December 29, 2016
Interesting responses, I’ll respond one by one (hope I’m not flooding your comments section, BR)
IMF, then it would not be an Aamir Khan film🙂. it would be an indie film by the likes of Anurag kashyap starring Manoj Bajpayee or someone like that. As i said before Aamir is never going to disappoint the audience with that level of subversion.
Now having watched the film for a second time, i loved it much more and i have fully come to terms with what the film really is. Aamir’s vision for this film is clear . he wants this to be a entertaining masala film at heart. His chief attraction is to the mythical nature of the story . the kind of story that he has been doing in a fictional format perhaps from the beginning of his career and something that he has perfected as a template since Lagaan. As somebody commented before, he must have been overjoyed to see sociological proof of his fictional experiments. he also see the prestige and stature in associating with the real life characters and milieu.
Well, this loud-masala template would work with movies or subjects which can afford to be loud and hero centric. Even Chak De (although the movie had decent nuance otherwise, despite relying on a lot of tropes) plays the male-savior trope which was similar but was mostly fine. But morally complex stories like this need to be told with ample sensitivity, so as not to reinforce problematic beliefs that people widely hold. This is not as straightforward as Lagaan, TZP, PK or 3 Idiots where Aamir can preach and get away with the simplistic characterization, being the “hero”.
And on a related note, when it comes to the sociological impact, you have no idea how many people even are highly reluctant to acknowledge that Mahavir’s character is not heroic, and the behavior shown in the movie was abusive, and not something you can justify like that. Because, you know, he was right all along, so none of that matters. I just can’t ignore all this because it’s a template Aamir Khan film and he has to somehow work within the same confines.
And I’m not demanding Anurag Kashyap/Manoj Bajpayee level of complex characterization (although he could have, as he has star value and the film would have never ended up as another Budhia Singh), of course. I still think it could have been done way better than what it turned out to be.
LikeLike
IMF
December 29, 2016
@Anu
Glad to know that we are (somewhat) on the same page with respect to some aspects, at least 🙂
I will only say that I saw this film through Phogat’s lens. Not the girls’. While I’m not rationalising abuse, parental or otherwise, the fact remains that all successful athletes/srtists have given up their childhood to achieve that success, or even just to be good. A few, like Mozart perhaps, have prodigious talent. Even he, who learnt the piano at age 3, must have had to practice long hours. Where sport is concerned, it is a physical demand as well. How do you get to be good? So good that you can represent your country? To excel at something requires hours of dedicated practice. It requires blood, sweat and tears. Without that discipline, we can forget world-class athletes, artistes, anyone.
Well, if we are talking of the athletes and others professing prodigious talent, the point is, if they’re enthusiastic about it, and wanted to do it so much, then it’s NOT being forced to give up childhood. Then practicing for hours is not tortuous, it’s something that they want. Something they enjoy. Nobody is undermining the necessity of hard work and effort, let me highlight this again. But if my father decides to make an engineer in IIT, uses abusive methods to enforce
And the film isn’t from anyone’s perspective per se IMO, as it’s not true-to-facts biopic. But I would say that the film heavily sides with Phogat, and goes the extra mile with dramatization where adding things that didn’t happen in real life to place him in center stage, Geeta cutting her hair, shown to be a complete failure while actually she did win gold before she went into full submission mode.
if you haven’t already watched Budhia Singh, do watch. An achingly bitter-sweet story with a tragic ending. They banned the boy from running, rightly so, perhaps. But Biranchi was later murdered, and the latest news is that the real Budhia has run away from the sports academy because they weren’t letting him run. No one knows where he is. In an interview before this occurred, he spoke passionately about missing Biranchi, who he said, loved him like a father, and treated him with kindness, and coached him to run. Is Budhia too validating abuse because to do otherwise would invalidate his childhood?
I’m reading plenty of conflicting reports on Budhia online, and I don’t know if Biranchi’s murder was in any way related to this. But I shall watch the movie.
And by the way, since we’re talking about ethics – what happened to them sadly reflects a broken system. Just like if you get a child out of child labor but the system doesn’t provide him/her with an alternative and don’t let them starve, then even that is horrific. So in larger context, all these things are of course very complex – how it pans out in reality, but I’m sure we don’t have to see things contextually to say that child labor in itself is unethical and not justifiable, period.
I think these issues are more complicated than a knee-jerk response to either demonise parents or beatify them.
Of course, I never claimed otherwise and I never intended to demonize anyone. Not saying that you’re accusing me of doing this, but in case there was any ambiguity, just making clear of course. It’s been a long discussion, so some points/nuances might be lost in between, so just reiterating.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
December 29, 2016
Radhika, I said that judgement of your singer-friend by your 20-something friend is patronising. And that 20-somethings are famous for knowing all the answers. (I should know. I was once that 20-something myself.) That was not to say that all 20-somethings are patronisin all the time. Sometime back, one (20-something) poster wrote about the ‘arrogance of his generation’. That’s what I’m talking about.
Two, if I were your singer-friend, I wouldn’t appreciate having the perception of my reality, dismissed as ‘Oh, she had to say that!’ would make me see red. 🙂
One could argue that her friend, the one who got married at 14, could have well chosen to become a wrestler – and the fact that she went ahead and got married and (very likely) produced a basket of babies – is proof that she (the friend) wanted that life of domesticity foisted on her by her parents.
There’s a difference, no? One is a child of 14. She could hardly have stopped her marriage. She could (and would) have been forcibly married off. On the other hand, Gita, especially once she grew up, could scarcely have been forced to wrestle. She could have chosen to give it all up and get married and settle down. So when she says, ‘It was worth it.’ I will believe her that for her, personally, it was worth it.
that there is a tendency to rationalize our pasts because to accept the decisions of the past as being crappy can make for a very uncomfortable present.
Not necessarily. It can also mean a self-awareness that hadn’t it been for the rigour and discipline, one would not have achieved one’s potential. When I insisted my son practice his piano (one that he wanted to learn), it is because he needs to know the value of commitment, discipline and hard work. He was never going to be a concert pianist. So when he decided that football was more important, we stopped the lessons. But if he were concert-pianist level, and that was what he chose to be, that would have meant hours and hours (and hours!) of practice. In Dangal, after her first loss, Geeta asks her father, ‘when is the next fight?’ She’s the one who wants to train harder so she can win.
When I say, ‘I wish my father had insisted I go into engineering’ instead of letting me do what I said I wanted to do, I’m only half-joking. When I talk about the insistence on good grades, and how that helped me, I’m not ‘rationalising my past’ because otherwise my present would be uncomfortable. And to say I am, would be condescending.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
December 29, 2016
Good outcomes do not necessarily imply that the decisions leading there were good.
I agree with this, and I also agree with your broader points. But to me, ‘what if’ analysis only makes for a good academic exercise. Because ‘what if this movie had addressed that’ would have made this movie not exist. Could they have done this, that and the other? Of course. But that wouldn’t have been this Dangal. As MANK said, that would have been the gritty, seamy, underside of this film, and would probably have made the festival circuit and been seen by a handful of people, if that. 🙂 [How many people commenting here have watched Budhia Singh? ]
As of today, wrestling as a sport has got a fillip that it didn’t have before. And there’s more talk about NOT getting girls married off at 14. For now, I’ll take that. As for the rest, I haven’t seen this as anything more than an extremely well-crafted masala film, and I enjoy a good story told well. I don’t know why we are looking for life lessons here, or holding Aamir to some impossibly high standard – he’s very clear that he does the fims that appeal to him, that resonate with him. He’s making no claim for being the next messiah – that’s a tag that the media has hung on him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
December 29, 2016
you have no idea how many people even are highly reluctant to acknowledge that Mahavir’s character is not heroic, and the behavior shown in the movie was abusive, and not something you can justify like that.
IMF, just saw this, (and if you’re flooding BR’s comments, I’m helping to do my bit. 🙂 )
Let me make it very, very clear: I did not see Phogat as heroic, nor do I think he was not abusive. I shuddered at the hair cutting scene.
I’m only saying that the ‘parent knows best’ line that you and Radhika see, is not something I did. To me, when Gita cuts her hair again, it is not because she’s going to submissive mode. She’s punishing herself while resolving to get back into the discipline of training. It’s a self-flagellation mode which I understand because I have done something similar in my girlhood. Not because I was validating someone else’s vision for me, but because by then, I was old enough to see where my choices had made my life miserable. And by god! I was going to pull my socks up from thence on.
if they’re enthusiastic about it, and wanted to do it so much, then it’s NOT being forced to give up childhood.
Which child, three or four or five is going to want to practice for hours? Mozart was 3 when he began learning the piano, not much older when his prodigious talent became visible to his father. Who do you think made him practice for hours and hours and hours? What childhood did he have? What childhood did the Williams’ sisters have? With the latter, from what I’ve read, their childhood was pretty abusive. Ask them today if it was worth it. I don’t think their answer to that would either negate that abuse or rationalise their past because they prefer to forget it.
To me, Dangal was a good masala film that showed me a flawed protagonist, and two girls who lived his dream for them, until it became theirs as well. I’m well aware that this is not exactly the Phogat’s life. I was not expecting a biopic.
The lessons I took away from the film are different from those that you did. And that’s fine. I’ll add this: that we are looking at this film through the lens of privilege and sociological impact. For many, they will see that a daughter doesn’t have to be married off at 14; or that it’s okay to have ambition and to work towards it. Perhaps it will lift them out of their poverty. And that’s an equally valid lesson to learn.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
December 29, 2016
And the film isn’t from anyone’s perspective per se IMO, as it’s not true-to-facts biopic.
It is definitely not a biopic and it does not claim to be one. So I think that’s where the disconnect is. Secondly, the film is definitely through the perspective of the character of Mahavir Phogat. {To be more specific, I am not talking about the real-life Phogat here.]
LikeLike
saravana
December 30, 2016
the movie in some parts is narrated from the pov of a comedian which brings laugh but it would be nice it was narrated by mahavir phogat or the daughters to throw light on what was their thoughts. @br do you know any other movie or scenes with such narration. In my knowledge this is the only movie to use such a narration so kudos to the director for this as this brings in good comedy.
further nice comments from radhika and imf..movie does leave questions about what is true women empowerment and how much should parents restrict and free their children in their childhood.
LikeLike
Bee
December 30, 2016
As a kid(male) I was made to play tennis everyday from 5-8 every morning and 4-6 every evening. I said yes to tennis coaching reluctantly and started hating them three months into it. I toured in and around my state to play at various tournaments. Inspite of not doing well, showing any potential to be a good tennis player my dad believed that I could make a good tennis player. I couldn’t. My training regime was taxing and joyless for my standards. I tried watching Federer on YouTube, trying to copy his grip, serve and backhand swings. I began giving false accounts to him on how my forehands are improving. Everytime, I tried to approach my dad to say that I didn’t want to play tennis, I couldn’t. Because of these reasons
1) Fearing that I’ll disappoint him.
2) Thinking that everything will end at some point naturally, when dad realizes that I’m upto no good in tennis.
3) Fearing this question ‘why didn’t you say no earlier’?
I was very much disturbed mentally, as I had to endure humiliating defeats to my juniors on court in front of my dad. When I had a flu once, dad asked the doctor, if I had any vitamin deficiency as I was ‘underperforming’ in tennis. I decided to tell him, I couldn’t play tennis anymore. He said that I don’t have the mental strength, and was accusing me of giving up easily. He wasn’t giving up yet. The cycle of frustration continued for 4 years.
I ended up being a epic failure in tennis and finally gave it up when I was in 11th standard to focus on studies. I also ended up suffering from other pshycological issues.
My dad is not even half as terrifying or demanding as Mahavir is shown to be in this film, waiting to strike on the girls with a cane as they exercise or stop. It is very chilling for me to imagine how different things could have turned out if Geeta’s wasn’t as good as she is in wrestling. Judging by any standards, Mahavir was subjecting his girls to borderline abusive methods that could have easily led to long term psychological issues. It was really fortunate of Geeta and Babita to have been mentally stronger and to not have wilted under the relentless pressure exterted by their father. What he did isn’t justifyiable even considering the end results.
Anyone else felt Geeta never seems to be convinced of her desire to pursue wrestling in the film? . After losing the first bout with the boy she goes to papa and says “sorry” as she fears having disappointed her father. At every point in the film she is searching for external reasons to keep continuing her journey because, she herself is not interested in it. She has no courage to end her wrestling career, because she is pretty good at it.
Apart from a single scene when she is crying after losing a string of international matches, we get no scenes that showcase Geeta’s desire to wrestle.
I would have loved a scene or two in the end after the match, as she goes to the locker room and cries having fulfilled the burden of expectations placed on her, that finally seems to have ended with an international medal.
LikeLiked by 7 people
csimumbai
December 30, 2016
Great comments and conversations, as usual. The film, and many comments, raises two important questions. Who does a wrestler wrestle for? And why does s/he wrestle? According to the film, she wrestled for the patriarch, herself, and the nation. The last bit (the nation) is important for the film because it addresses the why question? Why does one wrestle? One wrestles for recognition, which only comes with victory. There is no recognition like national recognition and there is no victory like an international victory. The real Mahavir and Geeta Phogat’s reasons for wrestling may or may not be different.
The second and to my mind related question that emerges from the conversation is – why does Aamir Khan make films? Who does he make it for? IMO, Aamir also makes films for recognition – from the market, from his audience, and his peers. National and international recognition are important for him too – therefore he is not averse to national or international awards. Since Aamir is involved in the various processes of filmmaking he imbues his film with his own politics. His politics – based on his work in Satyamev Jayate – seems to be reformist i.e. one can bring about changes, incrementally, through reforms of various social and cultural institutions (patriarchy, caste). Not that Aamir, the filmmaker, has not experimented with films that advocated radical positions – Mangal Pandey and Ghulam (imo one of his finest films) immediately come to mind. Even Lagaan enthused many because a peasant was at the forefront of political change. But his political position, at the moment at least, seems to be reformist and therefore quintessentially liberal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
December 30, 2016
Bee: Thank you for sharing that.
saravana: Well, 3 Idiots was narrated by the Madhavan character. This is another Aamir “trope,” if you will — to have a (relatively) minor character take you through the movie.
LikeLike
saravana
December 30, 2016
@brangan…yep this technique works wonders in 3diots too..feels strange to hear the story from a minor character.It help us understand what a common man would have done and said in a situation to contrast with main character.
LikeLike
Bee
December 30, 2016
Anu:’the fact remains that all successful athletes/artists have given up their childhood to achieve that success, or even just to be good’.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t just true. I can give you plenty of examples. The thinking that artists/athletes need to lose their childhood to succeed is very very false.
Atheletes need dedication, strength, and desire to put themselves over the line. But, they should also enjoy/love the sport enough to put themselves through the process.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Anu Warrier
December 30, 2016
’the fact remains that all successful athletes/artists have given up their childhood to achieve that success, or even just to be good’.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t just true.
Bee, I didn’t say they should lose their childhood. I said, they do lose what we would call a ‘normal’ childhood. There’s a difference.
And in case anyone is in doubt, I’m not defending Mahavir Phogat’s vision; I’m defending the film for being true to the story it was telling.
LikeLike
Madan
December 30, 2016
“Atheletes need dedication, strength, and desire to put themselves over the line. But, they should also enjoy/love the sport enough to put themselves through the process.” – I agree with this as an ideal. But Andre Agassi did say it took him a very long time to start liking tennis. He was another who was sort of used by his father as a vehicle. Mirjana Lucic pretty much fled from her father and moved to USA to get out of the trap. It is or at least was frighteningly common in tennis. What’s the word we use for high achievers? Single minded. Maybe there is a problem with this single mindedness itself because it doesn’t allow for their holistic development (when they’ve had to take it up as children and keep up practice all the way into adulthood). This is a larger question that society needs to resolve. Is it worth turning sport (or pop music for that matter) into a gladiatorial spectacle and isn’t it time we reckoned the psychological toll it extracts from the individuals themselves?
I cannot ever bring myself to condone somebody using a cane to beat up his own daughters, even if that somebody is from a semi urban/rural background. Without getting into too many personal details, I have seen first hand what kind of scars such an upbringing can leave on the victim and it’s questionable whether it’s really worth any amount of glory. But I cannot deny that this Svengali father model has been responsible for many successful sportspersons. Remember Yuvraj Singh too did not want to play cricket and was more interested in skating but his father used him to realise his unfulfilled aspirations. And Yuvraj won a World Cup for India. So as unhealthy as this model seems to be, it also produces its successes. I am a recreational hack and I wouldn’t want to face somebody who is forcing himself to play his best tennis to keep angry papa at bay. He would whack me off the court!
LikeLike
Bee
December 31, 2016
Madan: 😀 I didn’t know what svengali was till I googled it. I’m not convinced if this model is really needed to produce competent athletes, and even if they do produce someone like Agassi, is it worth it? . For every Agassi, there is a complementary Sampras who is a natural, equally competent champion.
Maybe it was Agassi’s upbringing that gave him the strong and rebellious personality in his early years, and helped him Wimbledon despite not having a great serve. I honestly don’t know anything anymore and I’m confused.
And my dad never threatened me physically. He genuinely believed I was capable of great tennis, and tried his best to make me play well. Which was another problem to me. He was not demon enough for me to protest to my fullest capability that, every time I thought of protesting/putting an end to tennis, I restrained myself. And I had a normal childhood life apart from tennis, my relationship with Dad was never in crisis, I love him anyways and he loves me too. It was just that tennis wasn’t my cup of tea, and that I couldn’t refuse it until a certain point in my life. I could say my dad was the best parent I could have wished for. He just saw something in me which wasn’t true that led me to being depressed for some period of time. He ceased urging me to play tennis the moment he realized that it wasn’t helping me, albeit very later. I recovered. he was a millionfold better than whatever Mahavir is shown to be in this film. And that makes me firmly believe it must be very very depressing to live under someone like Mahavir, who turns from a doting father one day to a physically-exacting taskmaster the next day.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Madan
December 31, 2016
Bee: I am not saying Svengali is the only model that works. But it is a model that has been followed by parents of many successful sportspersons and therefore held attractive even in the first world. I mean, why are we talking about rural Haryana here, it has happened even in USA and was the reason why age restrictions were introduced in the WTA to stop pushy parents from forcing teens into the pro circuit. My point is we as the vicarious audience have a role to play here too. We disdain tournaments that aren’t slams, we disdain players outside the top 10. Since you learnt tennis for a long time, I am sure you will agree with me that even a player ranked 300th or so in the ATP can play an amazing game. Heck, players outside the pro circuit and making a living as coaches can burn. So this celebrity culture in tennis and other sports only creates extreme inequality (which is very apt in a world that has high inequality). There was a time when sportspersons in general did not make a ton of money so the gap between the top dog and the rest wasn’t so huge. We need to get rid of the hype culture that infests our arts and sports. It’s not about winning or losing, from a spectator’s point of view. It is about appreciating sport and the skill involved therein. If we don’t want Svengali dads in sports, we may need to, ironically, make it a less attractive career option, less about endorsements and more about local level interest in tournaments held in the vicinity. Of course, as the Phogat case seems to suggest, there may be brutal sport-parents even so but that’s human nature and beyond a point, nothing much can be done about it. Even if the child was able to complain to the police and the police in turn took cognisance of it (very long shot in India), the trauma already suffered would remain.
LikeLiked by 3 people
harish ram
January 2, 2017
I am surprised not much is discussed about the glaring similarity between the climax of Irudhi Suttru and Dangal. It would be interesting to know (assuming Dangal climax is not entirely fictional) how Sudha (Dir of IS) conceived it. From the secret weapon for winning the opponent (similar to The Karate Kid) to how the coach is pushed out of the scene, the template is common. Is there some other reference to this approach?
I was also surprised with the creative decision of Nitesh to treat the coach as villain, especially when this is based on true story. Is it an outcome of now established ‘An Aamir Khan Masala Classic’ – available in 6 packs or single pouch.
PS: i feel i prefer Irudhi Suttru over Dangal because of how the supporting characters were treated in it. Baring the wife (more because of her acting skills), no one seem to have a voice in the film.
LikeLike
tonks
January 2, 2017
Wonderful discussion. There are so many thoughts expressed here that never occurred to me while watching the movie, like the glorification of the dictatorial father. It takes a lot of self awareness to know what one wants when young and guts (and a hardening of the heart) to tell one’s parents that you do not want to live their dreams. On the other hand, no small child would be voluntarily willing to endure hours of tedious practise, be it music or sports and without a little enforcement of discipline, we would never have achievers in any field. The reason why I did not feel offended by the movie while watching is probably because after the initial reluctance and shame, the girls are shown to enjoy the status and privilege their talent and achievement brings them.
Great comments, IMF, it is good to hear your voice in this forum after a long time (if I’m not mistaken, it was last heard in the discussion about sexism in Paapanaasam)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rohit Sathish Nair
January 4, 2017
Was thoroughly entertained by this pretty-well-crafted film, while at the same time laughing at the cliches shown (dumb family member used as comic relief, the ‘Daddy’s always right!’ dictum, even that villain) and playing ‘spot-the-earlier-sports-film’ (Saala Khadoos with a ‘Naya Daur’esque twist, Sultan, atleast some of those kungfu/karate films, even Malayalam’s 1983 by a long shot)
That said, I couldn’t stop thinking while watching, how different, how unique this film would have been if it was done in a ‘Raging Bull’-ish fashion. From Mahavir’s POV, or from that of the sisters’, you could get two very different takes on what it means to hold on to a sport, or what a sport can mean to a person, each of them done in a manner way better than in most of our sports films. In short, examine wrestling from a new viewpoint, the way Scorsese saw boxing.
Even the ‘which-is-the-lesser-evil?’ – getting married off young, or being forced to be a wrestler, would have been dealt with better, or at least left entirely to the audience to decide.
Two scenes in the otherwise well-made first half – the one where Mahavir is told to stop wrestling, and the one where he massages his daughters’ feet while they’re asleep – I felt were tossed off carelessly. The first one, which really gives him that chip on his shoulder, shouldn’t have been written so indifferently, and the second scene seems to be the only scene where the father and the coach in him are at odds. These might have been fleshed out better with the ‘thought-precedes-action’ approach.
I know it is like asking for the moon, but it was frustrating, this mishmash.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sravishanker1401gmailcom
January 12, 2017
Rohit : Your post is almost a review !
Nice way you’ve laid out where the movie falls short.
Verdict after reading your “review” – this is first rate Masala…….period
The use of the Chariots of Fire gimmick at the end was brilliant when Aamir is consumed by suspense and anxiety and gets to know the result only when he hears the Indian national anthem being played.
LikeLike
Vimal Pant
January 13, 2017
In reality, Geeta’s Commonwealth final was a 2 round simple match and not that dramatic and hard fought as shown in the movie. Also she had won an international medal before Commonwealth. Mahavir was never locked in any room. Geeta’s mother rather than father was peeved when she was born. The film cleverly manipulates such instances but the presentation makes all that look real. That narrative style makes the film the winner it turns out to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
May 23, 2017
Dangal’s Taiwan and China performance is phenomenal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jyoti S Kumar
May 23, 2017
About Dangal in China
Media and online commentary has said “Dangal,” which is based on a true story, impressed audiences with its message of giving girls opportunities in a male-centric society, and has prompted discussions over how strict parents should or should not be when raising their children.
Not surprising in a society where a family’s honor is dependent on the children’s accomplishments. The word Tiger mon was not coined for nothing, also I’m sure Mahavir would have easily fallen into that category (the hair cutting scene and the ruckus after the mehendi function comes to mind).
LikeLike
praneshp
May 23, 2017
Just to add to the China comments, my wife’s Chinese colleagues were all gushing about it, apparently.
LikeLike
GODZ
July 13, 2017
I don’t watch cricket (including Men’s) a lot..But this is one True great achievement.
http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/mithali-raj-is-the-highest-run-scorer-in-womens-one-day-internationals/article19264213.ece
Imagine If Virat Achieved the same..never mind. She is a great inspiration for anyone(including men) who would like to beat the odds and achieve Greatness. Truly Legendary…..
LikeLiked by 1 person