After been through a comparatively busy week, I had a chance to strike off a to-do item on my list as watched ‘Sarkar Raj’ this weekend. Having heard so much and been through so many reviews I had a mixed feeling and wasn’t too excited either. But as it turned out subsequently, that rather than carrying an expected “Ok one time watch” kind of feeling, I was buried under an awe and admiration for the makers and the actors alike! Well, much water has already passed under the bridge since its release and writing anything here is almost a belated ranting but considering what I have been reading since quite some time, I have developed some unsolved uncomfortability and I’ll prefer to lay it out before vaporization. Don’t worry I’ll take care that I don’t regurgitate the story all over again -
1. What makes a good or a bad movie? Particularly when passing through the minds of our official/self-proclaimed critics? What’s their thought process? The gumption with which they dissect a movie (and everybody associated with it) Left-Right and Center and rate it a classical ‘legend’ or just a run of a mill Hindi ‘Filum‘ I wonder whether they use some points matrix? Surely, not! In fact nobody use I guess, but that shouldn’t reflect a poor understanding of cinema and seemingly mood-based analysis. So when a movie likeTashan can get a 2.5 and 3 star Rediff ratings with a title ‘A stylish Spectacular’ for example, by what standards Sarkar Raj could only muster a frivolous ‘2′ star rating and a meaningless title ‘Sarkaricature Raj’ ? Film at fault? I don’t believe so!!
2. What defines the pace of a movie? Is slowness an attribute of a bad movie and always worth questioning? Again, I fail to agree! If so what is our take on all time best movies like Godfather and Shawshank Redemption or for that matter or No Country for Old Men (a more contemporary example)? It’s not the pace of movie which makes it good or bad but how it’s been laid for the characters to evolve across the whole story. So wherein Godfather takes it time to build the character of Michael while he escapes and looms lonely across the continent, Sarkar Raj was more than able to achieve its purpose while laying out the foundation and subsequently placing each character in its place around a remarkable plot. Well, it’s not at all a comparison but an example (more on this later).
3. What attributes to a great/dumb/solid script or a story? Something which incites emotions – excitement, fury, rage, bursts of laugh, feel good feeling or just ridicule? Or it is the one which is able or not able to connect with its vision? Not every film is a recipe of emotions, but still it can quite effectively tell what it set out to tell. Saying that, I feel Sarkar Raj quite effectively does both. Whereas it produces some of the most intense emotional and inter-personal trials within and outside the powerful Nagre family, it also expands in vision than its predecessor encompassing a vicious and filthy ‘all level’ ubiquitous politics which can emerge from the remotest parts of India.
4. What makes an actor? What is acting in general? Is it the art of ‘portraying’ the protagonist or ‘living’ the same in those two and half hours? Or is it just the way an actor ‘plays’ it? Or is it just a pre-conceived notion about the actor even before the first scene on screen? hmm… So when I can say that Mr. Bachchan may have faltered on many occasions while ‘playing’ the protagonist, I would have to say he has ’lived’ the one in this. He smiled on his son’s laurels, cried on losing him and punched as avenger being ‘Subash Nagre‘ all through. Bachchan Jr. didn’t disappoint either.
5. Director and Directorship? Is it the perfection with which the scope, vision and impact of the script is endured and laid out within those 2-3 hours or is it again pre-conceived ideas of the style or mistakes of a particular person? The clichés or the repulsive close-ups which may seem to some in Sarkar Raj is an impactful art which only some has mastered in Bollywood. Ramuji, might be deft only with certain themes (fear or power struggle) and might err and burn hands while trying to play with fire (Sholay) or may take an inspiration from Godfather and deliver a Indian counterpart (which to me to Ramu’s credit, has its own individuality and is very different than original) still we can’t and shouldn’t take away the credit for which he is worthy for. He does what he does quite remarkably!
However we see it, still the fact is our public reviewers and critics influence our decisions and as such I would than anybody else like them to be more consistent and unbiased in their analysis. Unlike a common cinemagoer who may love or hate particular celluloid release for their obvious reasons, they own a moral and social responsibility firstly to understand and secondly to opine on what is presented, for what it is in those three hours disconnected from everything else!
Regards,
GA.
