Spoilers ahead…
What happens when you move from Arshad Warsi to Akshay Kumar? You get the scene where the lawyer nicknamed Jolly (he’s not the same character though; Warsi’s Jolly was Jagdish Tyagi, Akshay’s version is Jagdishwar Mishra) is on a boat on the Ganges. He jumps into the water. This decision isn’t about Jolly feeling like a swim, or Jolly wanting to wash away his sins. It’s about Akshay needing to promote his brands. As he takes his shirt off, the camera moves closer to his chest, so we see the Dollar Bigboss sign on his premium innerwear. When you get a star, you also get the products he endorses.
Subhash Kapoor’s sequel, Jolly LLB 2, follows pretty much the same arc. This Jolly, too, is a small-time laywer, an essentially good-hearted man. But he isn’t averse to bending the rules when faced with the prospect of a fat sum of cash. Or even a thin sum. The film opens with Jolly helping students cheat in an English exam, as parents mill about outside the classroom, sipping tea and munching on roasted corn. Kapoor has a wonderful eye for the “masala touch.” This is the kind of broad comedy scene our more Westernised filmmakers cannot pull off, but amidst the broadness, there’s finesse in the staging, the setting. The crowds don’t look like extras hired for a day. They look real. There’s another fantastic masala moment later on, in a court, when the defence lawyer and the judge face-off in a dharna. The payoff – the judge’s reason for participating in this drama – is brilliant. This folksiness, if you will, is a flavour throughout the film.
If you have to replace Warsi with a star, Akshay is probably the best bet. His wattage isn’t as bright as that of, say, the Khans. He’s good with drama, and he’s learnt to be funny without appearing forced – but he doesn’t overpower a role, because his star signature isn’t that distinctive. He blends into the folksiness. When you see Aamir Khan on a scooter in a village in Dangal, one part of you says, “Oh look, it’s Aamir Khan on a scooter.” That doesn’t happen with Akshay. He just looks like a man from these parts, with paan-stained teeth and the dream of opening his own practice.
As in the earlier film, Jolly realises his mistake and begins to fight for justice, but the sequel digs deeper. The earlier film was reminiscent of the Salman Khan case (rich, drunk man mows down pavement dwellers), and it was simply about haves and have-nots. The minor-scale ambition suited Warsi, who is best known for his small-time cads – those lovable rogues he played in Ishqiya and the Munnabhai movies. Akshay, on the other hand, has, over time, become the pole on which the national flag flutters. Jolly LLB 2, thus, is about something we see in the scene where Jolly meets Hina (Sayani Gupta, very moving in a brief role). She’s waiting to meet his bigboss. At the end of the conversation, she says adaab. He says Ram Ram. Jolly LLB 2 is about Hindus and Muslims. It may be no accident the film is set in Lucknow, a renowned centre of Muslim culture in a state that’s also home to Kashi.
I cannot recall another recent Hindi film that’s such a dense (and sly) interweaving of Hindu-Muslim characters and cultures. And stereotypes. An elderly Muslim – Jolly’s employer, Rizvi saab – is a lover of paan. We think he’s one of those debauched remnants of the Nawabi era, and he has nothing but contempt for Jolly – but later, he supports Jolly in his fight. Here’s another stereotype: a Kashmiri named Iqbal Qadri is a jehadi. But the film says Hindus aren’t blameless either. A Hindu cop (Kumud Mishra) – with the resplendently Hindu name of Suryaveer – guns down, in a fake encounter, an innocent named Iqbal Qasim (Manav Kaul).
Then there’s the lawyer Pramod Mathur (a terrific Annu Kapoor, in the Boman Irani role of Goliath to Jolly’s David), to whom truth and justice matter less than money. Annu Kapoor gets to chew on marvellous masala lines. “Pepsi aur Pramod apne formula bataate nahin.” Even better: “Yeh Lucknow hai. Yahan chikan khaya bhi jaata hai, pehnaaya bhi jaata hai.” But he also becomes a stand-in for fear-mongering when he declares, “We are in a state of war.” In this film’s loaded milieu, that’s a very loaded statement. Why, Jolly himself is no saint! There’s the sense with this Jolly (which wasn’t there with the Warsi character) of not just of growing a conscience but atoning for a sin – the repercussions of Jolly’s casual greed are much greater.
Jolly LLB 2 sets up a Hindu-versus-Muslim case – Suryaveer is accused of killing Iqbal Qasim – and yet, it tells us that religions aren’t good or evil, only the practitioners, the people, are. There are good Hindus like Jolly’s principled father. There are good Muslims too. The Kashmiri jehadi is balanced out by conscientious Kashmiri cops named Fahim Butt and Gul Mohammad. If a Hindu family has suffered loss, a Muslim family has too. The camera keeps reminding us that the courtroom is filled with Hindus and Muslims.
But Kapoor is no didact. He finds innovative and entertaining ways to underline the versus: a local cricket match plays out between two women’s teams named Ghunghat XI and Burqa XI. One of Kapoor’s cheekiest touches is to have the jehadi disguised as a Brahmin priest, whose name made me laugh out loud: Ram Krishna Saraswat. There cannot be a godlier name than that.
And look at how Jolly’s Hindu household is portrayed. I wish his wife Pushpa (Huma Qureshi) had been fleshed out better, but this is one of the more interesting marriages, showcasing a number of versus. There’s the public face of this Brahmin family versus what they do at home. During a key courtroom scene, Jolly whips out his sacred thread – it attests to his upbringing as a Brahmin. But at home, he loops the thread around his ear while he downs his “Angrezi sharaab.” He pours a peg for Pushpa too, though she prefers to drink straight from the bottle. Then there’s the Indian versus the Western. Pushpa wants (and gets) Gucci designer wear, but when her father-in-law enters the room, she grabs a dupatta and covers her head. There’s also male versus female role-playing. Jolly makes rotis for his wife, takes their son (a wonderfully chubby, happy-looking child) to the bathroom, while Pushpa gets the film’s sole action scene, where she beats up (with her handbag) someone with a gun. Suddenly, you realise Pushpa’s isn’t that anaemic a character. In her own small way, she’s fighting the cause of how our heroines are represented, what they can do on screen.
In comparison, the writing around the case is weak. It’s filled with perfunctory investigation, and tired movie staples like the false witness and the last-minute reveal. Also, the Jolly from the scene where he was helping students cheat in their exam seemed more street-smart, more prone to unconventional methods. As the case drags on, his methods are disappointingly ordinary (and random). But I didn’t mind, as there’s so much going on around the case, and with so much flavour – a wedding night with handcuffs (but not in the way you think), or a judge who makes his entry dancing to a Shandaar song.
This judge, Sundarlal Tripathi, is played by a magnificent Saurabh Shukla. Kapoor lavishes his best touches on this character. Tripathi does stretches in court. He speaks into a mobile phone in front of a sign that says you cannot use your mobile phone in court. He waters the little plant beside his gavel even as he ticks off Jolly. And then we see that the Shandaar song was not just throwaway comedy, something to make us laugh at just that moment. Tripathi is an Alia Bhatt fan. He’s seen Student of the Year 11 times. The walls of his chamber have her pictures. And there’s more. The Shandaar song is what he’ll be dancing to at his daughter’s wedding. What appeared a casual sight gag becomes a gift that keeps on colouring the character.
But this judge isn’t just a joker. As with everything else in Jolly LLB 2, there’s another side, a serious side. His speech at the end brought forth a tear. It’s a reminder that messages in movies can be moving if the screenplay builds up to them, instead of just thrusting them down the throat as a finger-wagging lecture. And what to make of the fact that this judge seems to recall Jolly from the earlier film, even though this Jolly is an entirely different character? I think he’s just doing what we do. We see this as a sequel even though we know it’s not quite one. It’s a good idea: a legal-drama franchise, powered by Saurabh Shukla’s exasperated sighs.
KEY:
- Jolly LLB = see here
- dharna = a sit-down protest
- Dangal = see here
- paan = betel leaves prepared and used as a stimulant (I got this from… The Oxford Dictionary!!)
- Ishqiya = see here
- Munnabhai movies = see here
- adaab = a Muslim salutation
- Ram Ram = a Hindu salutation
- jehadi = an Islamic militant
- “Pepsi aur Pramod apne formula bataate nahin.” = Neither Pepsi nor Pramod will reveal their secret formula.
- “Yeh Lucknow hai. Yahan chikan khaya bhi jaata hai, pehnaaya bhi jaata hai.” = This is Lucknow. We eat chicken. We also wear chikan.
- “Angrezi sharaab” = Imported liquor
- roti = see here
- Shandaar = see here
- Student of the Year = see here
Copyright ©2017 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Silverambrosia
February 12, 2017
I really wanted to catch ‘Jolly LLB 2’ this weekend but wasn’t able to. The trailer looks good, and the first Jolly LLB film was a lot of fun.For those who have an attachment or association with Lucknow, there’s an added appeal. From your review it seems that the choice of city was quite deliberate. There have actually been quite a number of films (good and not so good) centering on the city. Most recently, there was ‘Daawat-e-Ishq’ which did really badly at the box office, but was actually a very enjoyable movie. It was a light hearted romantic comedy which amply displayed the architectural and culinary highpoints of the city. I think it failed because it had a lame trailer. ‘Jolly LLB 2’, though of a somewhat different genre, also seems to look on Lucknow with an affectionate if more probing gaze, and as stated, appears to focus on the small-townsy aspect of the city and it’s inter-religious dynamics. Hope ‘Jolly LLB 2’ is at least as good as its trailer suggests it will be. Can’t wait to see it.
LikeLike
vishal yogin
February 12, 2017
Sorry, this comment has no relation to this post, but I thought you were at Berlindale 🙂
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 12, 2017
Ohhh… I’m hoping this will release here. We are going to be snowed in, so no chance of catching it this weekend, but…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rohit Sathish Nair
February 12, 2017
Anu Warrier: Evide?
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
February 13, 2017
Sorry, off-topic
Where do I get to download Ritwik Ghatak’s films?
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 13, 2017
This movie’s trailer no 1 is the good one.It was out a few months ago.
LikeLike
Aran
February 13, 2017
You seem to have enjoyed Saurabh Shukla’s speech at the end but I thought the timing was completely off. It was as if the movie reached a crescendo in Jolly’s monologue – there is a natural coming together of all loose ends there. And then Saurabh Shukla starts off on an ‘our courts are great’ tangent that I didn’t see coming. That felt tagged on quite badly. (But I agree Saurabh Shukla was absolutely magnificent with what he did with the role. And the man can dance! That dance rehearsal in a silk kurta was priceless. 😀 )
Another place where I felt the timing was off was when Jolly goes to Hina’s father… and that whole encounter, plus the scene that comes after it. That was way too conveniently brushed off to move the story forward.
I wish they had kept Arshad Warsi. I understand the commercial reasons, but I still missed him from the earlier movie. Akshay’s presence didn’t feel as organic to me here, and maybe the miscalculations that I felt with the way things progressed were because of the way the bigger presence of Akshay needed to move through the movie.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 13, 2017
@Rohit, US. New England.
LikeLike
Rahul
February 14, 2017
Rohit, I got the DVDs of Megha Dhake Tara and SubarnaRekha from Toronto Public Library . Im sure they are available on Amazon etc, or torrents , if you want to download.
LikeLike
Shantesh Row
February 16, 2017
A legal-drama franchise powered by Saurabh Shukla’s exasperated sighs? Bloody why not? After all didnt Vince Gilligan see merit in taking Bob Odenkirk’s Saul character out of Breaking Bad and spin him off in Better Call Saul? I’d love to see a series on Sundarlal Tripathi on TV!
LikeLike
MANK
February 16, 2017
Akshay’s dialogue delivery is terrible. his comic timing is good enough , but his transitions to drama just doesnt work convincingly because of this flaw.its embarrassing to see him struggle with the most simple words while Annu Kapoor and Saurabh shukla knock off the most complex dialogues with such ease.Akshay’s commitment to this sort of medium budget slightly off beat cinema – kind of like a poor man’s Aamir -is genuine and commendable , but i dont think he is fully accomplished for the task at hand most of the times
And i dont think Aamir would have been such a misfit. he is most ‘invisible’ of stars and his superstardom is not that much in the face as salman or SRK. say in dangal, i never thought it was Aamir riding a scooter in a haryana village. he looked very convincing in character
LikeLiked by 4 people
brangan
February 16, 2017
MANK: And i dont think Aamir would have been such a misfit.
But who saod Aamir would have been a misfit? Aamir is a far better actor than Akshay. Even if aamir doesn’t have much range, he has something far more important: the ability to make you smile when he smiles, make you cry when he weeps. Akshay does not have a fraction of that emotional connect.
What I am saying is something else. There’s an ‘aura’ around Aamir that’s not there around Akshay. The aura is made of stardom and persona, and at least for me, it takes some time to look past it and settle into the character he is playing. I don’t face that with Akshay.
LikeLike
sanjana
February 16, 2017
Aamir does not have much range? Really?
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
February 16, 2017
Brangan,i think i have an idea about what you are saying here and perhaps its a lot more subjective, this ‘Aura’,
so how about Rang de basanti – where he was just one among a bunch of guys or say Talaash – where he played a very ordinary cop and i think is one of his best performances, do you face the problem there in connecting with the character?
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
February 16, 2017
Rahul: No one’s seeding, man! Will check on Amazon. Got the Criterion Collection Edition of ‘Titash Ekti Nadir Naam’ through YouTube.
MANK, Rangan sir:
I too didn’t feel it odd seeing Aamir Khan on a scooter; maybe more so because I’ve only seen the ‘strictly star-auteur’ phase of Aamir.
I too stayed away from this film because of Akshay. I’ve only watched the trailers of both films, and on the basis of that, I felt bad when Warsi was replaced by Akshay, whose words didn’t sound so much that of a do-gooder lawyer as that of the star-patriot he is (Not a bad thing to be one), that too with that very dull voice of his. That’s where Rangan sir’s observation matters
IMO, Ajay Devgn has a weaker ‘star signature’ than Akshay and he looks earthy enough, yet he would have looked even more stupid here.
Maybe a Sanjay Dutt 5-10 years back would have been the best fit for this role.
LikeLike
brangan
February 16, 2017
sanjana: “Limited range” was probably the wrong phrase to use. I mean in the sense that I see him more as a star-actor than a “pure actor” who can “disappear” into any part. One isn’t better than the other, though — just two types of actors we see on screen.
LikeLike
MANK
February 16, 2017
I think Ranveer would have been perfect for this character albeit a little young, he is really good at playing these small town guys. He could have pulled of those dialogues with ease as well. Ajay has that earthy non starry aura, but he is also not that good with lengthy dialogues. He is better at being strong and silent
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
February 16, 2017
Nawazuddin would have done really well too, but that would have been too cliché
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
February 17, 2017
True. Rancho and PK aren’t very different performances, and both aren’t way far from Ram Shankar Nikumbh. He does have a few stock-ish expressions and also that slightly matter-of-fact way of delivering important dialogues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aran
February 17, 2017
MANK, Ranveer, when he started out maybe. But now? After he has been Bhansalified and Yashrajized to the hilt, not so much. He’s too much of a star now too. And I was so excited about him when he started out too….
LikeLike
MANK
February 19, 2017
Aran, oh befikre was a disaster, but I liked him in bajirao , yes it was an operatic bhansali performance and I guess we could expect something similar in padmavati. But I haven’t Given up on him as far as these ordinary normal characters are concerned. He is a theatrically trained actor and I am sure he can adapt himself when the opportunity comes. My only gripe with these actors are that they are following the Aamir model of doing one film a year or two years. Ranveer is at a stage and age where he should be doing lot of films and taking on diverse characters rather than locking himself in to a single project for a long period of time
LikeLike
Madan Mohan
February 19, 2017
I haven’t watched the previous instalment of this series. I had watched Manithan without realising it was an adaptation of Jolly LLB. I want to see it now because I do like Arshad Warsi as an actor. I hadn’t read your review properly before watching this. Now that I have, I was nodding all the way when you mentioned the masala element in the film. It was done nicely, very evident in the ‘high octane’ scenes like Sayani Gupta’s tirade (she was brilliant!) after she finds out she’s been duped by Jolly or Saurabh Shukla’s summing up which brought Shankar’s films to mind. But the film also has a sly quality and a delightful sense of humour which is probably what makes the attempt to take masala deep into the 21st century workable. I really appreciated the grimy scenes all around and especially a courtroom that evoked Piramal Chambers rather than Scindia House. Nice to see people other than the 1% represented in Bollywood for a change. But…
“Nawazuddin would have done really well too, but that would have been too cliché” – Yes, he would have done a better job and I am not sure why he would be cliche. Maybe Irfan too. Akshay Kumar has a flat, monotonic delivery which I don’t really like. But this is probably what makes him a more unobtrusive presence than somebody like Aamir. And his name in the credits puts bums on the seats at the end of the day. It’s important for films like Jolly LLB 2 to do well in the BO too. Besides, as long as Saurabh Shukla doesn’t step down as judge, it doesn’t matter so much who plays Jolly. Akshay’s flatness was more than compensated by the solid supporting cast, including Anu Kapoor who delivered some very masala-esque lines with flourish.
LikeLike
Anuj
February 19, 2017
wow!! is this a review or is it the entire script of a film? No point writing “spoilers ahead” Mr. BRangan because you have pretty much revealed the entire story & screenplay (even a few dialogues) in this monologue of an article which you and your cronies would like to call a “review by a legendary film critic”. Even Subhash Kapoor might not have thought of the nit picking nuances you have gone on and on about in this “essay”. Reminds me of a dialogue from the movie “ye Nirupa Roy ki acting mat karo”, just that your never ending and mostly ridiculous essays are as melodramatic a read as watching Nirupa Roy act on screen.
LikeLike
edwardssammy
February 20, 2017
@Anuj, well, why are you here then?
LikeLike
Anuj
February 21, 2017
“@Anuj, well, why are you here then?” ~ the same reason y you’re here. Don’t think my presence or absence should be of any concern to you.
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 22, 2017
After a week of waiting eagerly, was finally able to see the movie yesterday. I thought it was good and worth the wait, though the film’s depiction of Lucknow was very unflattering. Rizvi is a rank snob and a mean-assed employer (even though he’s not a dishonest person and later supports Jolly) while Mathur, the man who expounds on Lucknow’s ways, the importance of civilty, and what goes and doesn’t go, has to be the most manipulative and unscrupulous lawyer in town. Anyways, I suppose this was a given since it’s a film primarily about India’s dysfunctional legal system, and will be populated with characters who do unsavoury things. Perhaps it was unreasonable for me to go in expecting anything else. Some of the folksiness was a bit artificial in my opinion though; e.g. kohl eyed muslim men wherever you go.
The first Jolly LLB movie also adopted a much lighter tone even though it was also grappling with serious issues. Saurabh Shukla was good here as well, but I thought he was even better in the first movie, and was given much funnier lines vis a vis Arshad Warsi’s bumbling Jolly. The first film was also more focused on issues of procedure, and on how basic evidentiary requirements meant to ensure fairness, are exploited in the crudest ways possible. There was some of that here as well, but this film was more about the broader overarching issues. The two moments which got me teary where when a distraught Hina upbraids Jolly about how he betrayed her, and when Jolly’s father tells him he doesn’t want to ever see him again. He did something pretty bad, but stuff like that can still be hard to watch. I get how Akshay Kumar can seem slightly flat sometimes, but I thought that the performances were quite good all round in this film, and am also looking forward to the next installment of this legal-drama franchise.
LikeLike
Madan Mohan
February 22, 2017
“Rizvi is a rank snob and a mean-assed employer (even though he’s not a dishonest person and later supports Jolly)” – Well, lawyers can be pretty snobby. Not all, but very many of them. Maybe the only profession where they get away with talking down to clients. Met one who on a road trip from Bangalore to Mysore talked to the driver in Tamil but insisted on replying to me to English. Very particular about distance and all that, you see.
“while Mathur, the man who expounds on Lucknow’s ways, the importance of civilty, and what goes and doesn’t go, has to be the most manipulative and unscrupulous lawyer in town.” – That’s kind of the irony of the character, emphasising ‘tareeka’ over integrity. The film wasn’t particularly true in depicting the courtroom but these parts did ring true, to me.
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 23, 2017
Madan Mohan: ‘…maybe the only profession where they get away with talking down to clients’.
Perhaps… I don’t know, I haven’t had direct engagement with the law or lawyers in India. I do, however think doctors there (at least in Lucknow) are mostly a terse lot, for whom, among other things, the concept of patient confidentiality doesn’t even exist (other people present or walking in an out of the room as the consultation is going on).. Again, I suppose it’s fair enough to show all this (Rizvi a snob, Mathur a crook), in a movie criticising the legal system. Perhaps I’m just getting a bit defensive about a city I’ve become fond of. I would prolly stick to what I was saying regarding some of the ‘folksiness’.
Re the courtroom scene, yeah this film didn’t seem so much about legality or legal procedure (the first one was more so) and that seemed quite deliberate, with the courtroom more as the arena in which the big issues can be canvassed and threshed out. Many legal dramas take that template and that’s fine, in terms of it helping achieve the core objectives of the director.
LikeLike
Madan
February 23, 2017
” I do, however think doctors there (at least in Lucknow) are mostly a terse lot, for whom, among other things, the concept of patient confidentiality doesn’t even exist” – Very common scene in ‘dispensaries’ or ‘clinics’ as opposed to hospitals. And even in smaller hospitals, maybe. You are right that the concept of patient confidentiality doesn’t exist because there are too many patients for too few doctors so squeezing them all in a couple of hours is the main priority. I am of course extrapolating my lived experience in Mumbai (never been to Lucknow) but I have no reason to believe Lucknow would prioritise a concept like privacy more than Mumbai and I have personally seen how doctors who were highly in demand would let the next patient in even as they were wrapping up one consultation. Oh, sometimes govt officers in excise/customs have let me walk into their cabin and wait just as they are disposing somebody else’s case. Nobody cares because everyone has better things to do than to eavesdrop on a perfect stranger’s conversation. There’s the chance that somebody might, but we still seem to trust each other not to do so for some reason!
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 24, 2017
Patient confidentiality is regarded as a very serious thing elsewhere, whether or not one suspects others of eavesdropping. You’re right in that it may be difficult to ensure in India, mainly because of population constrains. In terms of ‘talking down to patients/clients’ that’s something extremely common amongst doctors in India and certainly isn’t exclusive to the legal profession.
LikeLike
Madan
February 25, 2017
“In terms of ‘talking down to patients/clients’ that’s something extremely common amongst doctors in India and certainly isn’t exclusive to the legal profession.” – Oh, I didn’t really mean it that literally. I am sure there are people in all sorts of professions who get away with talking down to their clients because of the power they wield. But that’s where I personally draw (a perhaps biased) distinction between doctors and lawyers. At least doctors are indeed overworked in India and perform a more important, potentially life saving function so I can give them a bit of a pass if they are brusque. With lawyers, it derives entirely from the sense of power they revel in. They know that clients will flock to a reputed law firm so they think they can have the cake and eat it too, i.e, command an expensive retainer and also condescend to the very people who have hired them. And they are right, they do.
LikeLike
Madan
February 25, 2017
Just a thought…are there some similarities between Sarfarosh and Jolly LLB 2? I thought the former was more taut and also kind of dead serious in tone. But that apart, (a) you have nationalism introduced through an indirect route, by evoking the universally (in India!) acceptable enemy of Pak-sponsored terrorism. In Sarfarosh, it’s a ghazal singer who’s really a spy and in Jolly LLB 2, there’s an actual militant. (b) you have an institution shown to be working superbly in spite of the severe constraints it’s placed under. In Sarfarosh, it was the police and in Jolly, it is the courts. (c) the upright Muslim fills in for the magic Negro slot (not derogatory, it is a characterisation used w.r.t Hollywood), to sort of balance the anti-Pak sentiment. You have Salim doing this job in Sarfarosh and in Jolly it is Fahim Butt.
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 26, 2017
It’s possible to draw those comparisons between Sarfarosh and Jolly LLB 2. I’m not sure that the terrorist in Jolly LLB 2 even had a Pakistan affiliation (can’t recall if he did?). With reference to the ‘good Indian Muslim’ being presented to counter-balance the ‘evil Pakistani’, whether or not we regard the former as a ‘stock character’ or not, depends on how they are presented and fleshed out. Generally this character will not be the lead, and will not recieve a large amount of screen time. Can’t remember Sarfarosh well; I think the ‘Salim’ in it was an angsty sort of guy, and legitimately resented having his loyalties called into question? I don’t think Jolly LLB really placed much emphasis on the Pakistan angle if it was there; it was more fundamentally about the kind of person you are and whether you have a destructive/ constructive contribution to make to society. The summation was we don’t want either this Iqbal Qadri guy, and we don’t want this Suryaveer cop either. Even with reference to Iqbal Qadri, the film did not strike me as some kind of hyper-Nationalist propaganda exercise. It implicitly directed to viewer to the conditions in Kashmir, where Indian State instruments are complicit in many human rights abuses while also roundly and unequivocally condemning Iqbal Qadri actions.
LikeLike
Madan
February 26, 2017
“I’m not sure that the terrorist in Jolly LLB 2 even had a Pakistan affiliation” Maybe or maybe not but the implication when viewed from a nationalist perspective (being that it stars Akki baba) is that Islamic terrorists are necessarily working for Pakistan’s cause because azad Kashmir is anyway a Pakistani agenda. Not that I agree but it is not too much to draw that inference. And again, the Kashmiri cop’s loyalty is not directly assaulted but because he is from Kashmir, his role is implicitly viewed with suspicion (esp in 2017 when sympathy for Kashmiris is sadly much lower than it was in 1999) and the film subverts stereotype by making him as practically the only good guy through and through in the police force as shown in the film (it takes Mr.Paul a bit longer to come around).
“Even with reference to Iqbal Qadri, the film did not strike me as some kind of hyper-Nationalist propaganda exercise. ” – No, it was not, agreed. But neither was Sarfarosh. There was no direct sabre rattling against Pak, not that I can recall, and the focus was more on the specific case of the evil ghazal singer. Mature treatment of a subject that is otherwise charged with rhetoric. Likewise, Jolly as such focuses only on the terrorist in particular and not Pakistani terrorism per se, but the context by itself is loaded.
” It implicitly directed to viewer to the conditions in Kashmir, where Indian State instruments are complicit in many human rights abuses” – I do not recall this, but maybe you remember the film better than I did.
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 26, 2017
I don’t know if the Pakistan inference can be so easily made out, and even if it is made out (this being questionable) this is not where Jolly LLB 2’s emphasis lies. I think it is fair to say that the film did direct the viewer to human rights abuses in Kashmir (It was largely implicit but it was pretty clear). The was coverage of mass protests in Kashmir (and those weren’t azaadi protests, they were protests with people holding placards saying things like ‘justice’), there are references by the film characters to Kashmir being run like a police state, with pretty much anyone vulnerable to incarceration or extra-judicial action(with or without cause). Most of the Kashmiri cops in the movie are presented as corrupt, but the film does not characterise them as such because of engagement in pro-pakistani, or even pro-azaadi activities( they are not shown to be a part of such activities), but rather because of their complicity in a fake encounter, and its subsequent cover-up. These things, collectively, are definitely suggestive of the film espousing the view that the Indian State has certainly not been blameless with regards to its handling of the Kashmir problem. This view need not contradict a strong stance on actions such as those taken by Iqbal Qadri.
LikeLike
Madan
February 26, 2017
“I don’t know if the Pakistan inference can be so easily made out” – Well, from an Indian, as opposed to an international point of view, a terrorist from Kashmir equals Pakistani funding. It doesn’t matter if this perception is necessarily accurate and how many people try to tell the Indian govt that it is not, it exists among a very large section of the population. The film is not oblivious to this perception; had this not been the case, they would have gone to great lengths to show how Qadri has no connection to Pakistan. They don’t, they let people come to their conclusions and they can probably guess the most likely inference they will make.
“there are references by the film characters to Kashmir being run like a police state, with pretty much anyone vulnerable to incarceration or extra-judicial action” – Yes, but only in the context of covering up for a fake encounter where the police is in fact fully aware that Qadri is alive because they have themselves let him go. As in, the film isn’t particularly interested in the issue of human rights abuses in Kashmir but generally characterises govt as well as police as highly corrupt. Yes, a general conclusion could be drawn that the film does not let the Indian state go scot free with regard to the Kashmir problem but this would be easier to arrive at if the film did discuss Kashmir. It doesn’t. It is only interested in police corruption and terrorism. With regard to the comparison with Sarfarosh, that film was much more straight up but then it was also made in ‘simpler’ times when less doubt about the role of the Indian govt had been entertained at least at a mainstream level. You didn’t have internet news and most of the TV channels and newspapers were with the govt on the Kashmir issue. Jolly LLB 2 is a product of its time and bound to be grey even if it’s also masala. But there are just some tropes in this film that reminded me of Sarfarosh, especially the good Muslim character.
LikeLike
Akanksha
February 26, 2017
My very first Rangan Baradwaj review and i think Bollywood, for me, will never be the same again. I am a homesick student living abroad who has been trying to seek some comfort and solace in Bollywood..which I would get maybe once in 4-6 months when a movie would strike a chord. JLLB2 was not one that particularly disappointed or impressed but I found what I had been looking for in this review. Some reminder of my culture, my people, our issues etc etc..on a whim I googled Kashi and found a very good read about the Sapta Puri..and my Sunday feels much more like home. Thank you sir and I look forward to reading many more of your reviews.
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 27, 2017
‘…Yes, but only in the context of covering up for a fake encounter where the police is in fact fully aware that Qadri is alive because they have themselves let him go.’
I don’t agree that the issues are so clearly demarcated in the film, and I think there is more than enough in Jolly LLB 2 to suggest that the film’s interest is not confined to terrorism and police corruption in Kashmir. Terrorism & Police corruption are the film’s principal concerns and not its only concerns.
LikeLike
Rishikesh
April 30, 2017
@BR When you are analysing true acting prowess of akshay kumar, I feel you have to exclude loads of crappy comedies that he was forced to so..but even then, it is current form that matters..Akshay in his recent films..Baby, Airlift, Jolly LLB 2 was better than anything Khans have done lately ..the thing that I feel about Aamir is that he is committed but not naturally gifted..the reason you sense some effort even in some of his most raved about performances..but Akshay seems to be completely at home in hands of right directors..He does emotional scenes better than both Salman and Shahrukh, I don’t think there should be any doubt about it anyone’s mind now.
LikeLike
Madan
September 20, 2017
Watched this again today and barring the noisy BGM it has aged well in all aspects. My reading of the politics of the film was a little different this time. There are gentle nods to secularism (as when Jolly says swapping names between Hina and Pramod’s father wouldn’t make any difference when their circumstances are similar) as well as an emphasis on upholding institutions and in that sense, it has a bit of the flavour of 90s Hollywood (movies like Time to Kill or Civil Action came to mind).
LikeLike