Fights of fancy

Certain themes, characters or events on the screen have evoked many a protest,
writes Surendra Miglani

Protests and logic do not always go together, particularly with regard to Hindi movies. It is not rare to see political parties, religious organisations, historians and even ordinary cinegoers registering their opposition to the depiction of certain themes, characters or events on the screen. Recently, veteran actor and filmmaker Manoj Kumar took exception to a scene in Shah Rukh Khan’s Om Shanti Om saying that it lowered his reputation in public.

On the eve of the TV premiere of the film, a Mumbai court, on a plea made by Manoj Kumar, ordered the deletion of the scene before its screening on TV. Nothing wrong in that. But the point is that the scene was (and still is) very much a part of the movie screened in cinema halls as also of its CD/DVD version. Does Manoj Kumar’s action make any sense? What made him believe that a scene lowered his reputation if it was shown on a TV channel but not if it was shown in cinema halls or included in CDs/DVDs?

Worse, on the eve of the television premiere of Om Shanti Om, Manoj Kumar, while speaking to a TV channel, lambasted Shah Rukh Khan for "raping his soul" and made certain remarks about the latter’s family which were, by any standards, more derogatory than even the controversial scene in Om Shant Om. So how can Manoj claim to be different from the young actor?

When Ashutosh Gowarikar’s Jodhaa Akbar was released this year, some historians came out with claims that the depiction of Jodhaa as Akbar’s wife was a gross distortion of history as she was actually his daughter-in-law. They also claimed that even the woman’s name was not Jodhaa. Come to think of it, K. Asif, too, had depicted Jodhaa as Akbar’s wife in his Mughal-e-Azam (1960) and given her the same name. Where had all the historians gone at that time?

Then, take the case of Deepa Mehta’s Fire, which evoked countrywide protests by certain Hindu organisations when it was released in the 1990s. The objection was over the portrayal of lesbianism in the movie. But surprisingly, when the makers released the CDs/DVDs of the film earlier this year, there was not even a murmur of protest. This silence made a reputed film fortnightly comment: "One cannot help but wonder whether the entire hullaballoo wasn’t motivated by concerns other than the content of the film itself".

Take the case of Ramesh Sippy, who moved court last year shortly before the release of the remake of his classic Sholay by Ram Gopal Varma, which was titled Ram Gopal Varma Ke Sholay. Among other things, he took exception to the fact that Varma not only copied the story of his film but also its title without taking his permission. On the orders of the court, Varma changed the title of his movie to Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag. What Sippy obviously forgot was that he too had lifted the title of his movie from a film made by B. R. Chopra in 1953 where it was spelt as Shole

Even the story of Sippy’s film was not original. Sholay was a remake of Raj Khosla’s Mera Gaon Mera Desh (1971) and Narinder Bedi’s Khotay Sikkay (1974). Interestingly, even Khosla and Bedi had lifted the story from a foreign movie The Seven Samurai. Sippy did not take the remake rights from any of the three movies. So was it not a case of pot calling the kettle black?

About four years ago, several Sikh organisations forced the makers of Jo Bole So Nihal to withdraw the movie from theatres, alleging that it hurt their religious sentiments. However, the same movie was brought out in CD/DVD and also shown on TV without any cuts only a few months after its withdrawal from theatres and nobody seemed to mind it.

In 1994, N.R. Pachisia made Khuddar which had a song Sexy sexy sexy mujhe log bolen`85 which became quite popular even before its release. When it came before the censors for certification, they objected to the word "sexy" in the song and forced the makers to change it to "baby". So the number became Baby baby baby mujhe log bolen`85 Well, when the movie hit the screen, its posters depicted Karishma Kapoor (on whom the controversial song was picturised) with the words SEXY SEXY written very boldly alongside. If the word "sexy" was objectionable in the song, how could it be right on the posters?

One of the worst case of such contradictions was seen in case of tele-serial Tamas. A Hindu organisation launched a nationwide agitation when the four-part serial was televised in the early 1990s, saying that it distorted history. A few years later, when its political wing was sharing power with Om Prakash Chautala’s party in Haryana, a district office of the Haryana Public Relations Department was showing the same serial in rural areas. Such shows are organised to publicise government policies and programmes.

To achieve this purpose, documentaries of sarkari films are shown along with popular films and serials. The District Public Relations Officer concerned, then, revealed to this writer that they got the movies from their head office and were rotated in various districts.

HOME