|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Prakash Jha’s Raajneeti
stirs the hornet’s nest by borrowing heavily from the Indian
political scenario, M. L. Dhawan checks out how the lives of
political leaders and incidents of national importance have inspired
many a filmmaker
Politicians and political dramas never fail to entice audience as well as filmmakers. A peep into the lives of political leaders and incidents of national importance has been the theme for many a filmmaker. Leading political stalwarts and the prevailing political issues have often prompted filmmakers to return to the subject time and again, the refrain being, ‘There is so much left unsaid.’ Prior to its release, Prakash Jha’s Raajneeti provoked much debate for heavily borrowing from the life of the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. As the ruling party was not pleased with the original form of the script, therefore, in addition to the Censor Board and the Appellate Tribunal, a pre-censor viewing was undertaken by three representatives of the ruling party. After representatives of the ruling party suggested some deletions, the film was cleared with U/A certification. The problem arose because the life of the heroine of the film Indu Pratap (Katrina Kaif) has a striking resemblance to the life of Sonia Gandhi. Indu Pratap becomes a widow at the prime of her life when her husband Prithvi Pratap (Arjun Rampal) is brutally assassinated during elections. Little did she know that her personal happiness was dependent on the changing electoral fortunes of her love, and that even a slight shift in the faultiness of political equation would cause a devastating upheaval in her personal life. Despite her personal tragedy, this spirited diva challenges every contender and overturns the political future of the nation. She takes control of the situationand despite her abhorrence for politics, when sucked into it due to circumstances, she becomes the master of political warfare. Through the film, the director portrays the ugly underside of politics. However this is not for the first time that political policing has been undertaken when the interest of the ruling party elite is at stake. Gulzar’s Aandhi was banned for 20 weeks after its release during Emergency in 1975 on the ground that its protagonist Aarti Devi (Suchitra Sen) bore a striking resemblance to the then Prime Minister — Indira Gandhi. The trouble started because the Opposition Party singled out a scene from the film that suggested that Aarti Devi occasionally smoked and drank liquor. The Opposition used that scene to hit at the Prime Minister personally. Gulzar had to shoot some scenes to satisfy the whims of the powers that be. However, Aandhi was a path-breaking film that made a statement for the liberation of women. Aarti Devi plunged into the hurly-burly of politics and despite her vulnerability, she progresses on her own terms, facing personal challenges and electoral rivalries with confidence that spring from a clarity of vision. Another epoch-making film was Anil Kapoor’s Gandhi — My Father, which poignantly conveyed the longing of a hapless father and the frustrations of a son. Mahatma Gandhi (Darshan Jariwala) sacrifices the future of his son Harilal (Akshay Khanna) for the sake of nation. Harilal, who is a model father, son and husband, fails to understand why Gandhi has to place the nation before his own family. Gandhi, on the other hand, prays for an understanding from his son as to why he cannot relinquish his duty towards the country. Gulzar’s Hu Tu Tu presented a conflict of ideologies between Panna Barve (Tabu) and her politician motherand chief minister Malti Barve (Suhasini Mulay) on the one hand and Aditya Patel (Suneil Shetty) and his corrupt businessman father P. N. Patel (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) on the other hand. Through the story of Aditya (Suneil Shetty) and Panna (Tabu), Hu Tu Tu captured the frustration of today’s youth with the rulers of the nation. Two of the principal characters, Malti Barve and her duplicitous mentor, Samantrao Gadre, embody the decline of Indian politicians in the midst of spiralling dishonesty, eroding values and increasing cynicism. This disillusionment is reflected in the anger that simmers in the hearts of Panna and Aditya, the rebellious and righteous son of an avaricious building contractor. When the youth loses faith in the system, it takes up arms and turns into ticking human bombs. Rahul Dholakia’s Parzania was a hard-hitting, realistic effort that brought back the agony of the communal riots that shook Gujarat. The pangs of sorrow that continue to haunt a Parsi family, whose son went missing during these riots and remains untraced, had been brought to celluloid sans frills. The film brought forth the insensitive face of police and callous administration. The film dealt with the emotions of people in the aftermath of the riots and explored the fears and anxiety in human relationship during trying times. The film dealt with everything that lingers on after the obvious violence ends — fear, anger, humiliation and hopelessness. The ruling party in Gujarat was so antagonised at the depiction of reality in the film that it did not allow the screening of the film in that state.
|
|||
|
|
|||
