rang de basanti counterview

We hope you’ve read our review and have watched the film. We’re sure you enjoyed the experience, given the lack of any kind of quality cinema produced by Bollywood in recent times (>1 year). But please spare a moment for this analysis of Rang De Basanti, which is already being hailed as the year’s best film. Spoilers herein.

1. The idea the film is promoting (whether intentionally or unintentionally is questionable) is highly questionable. There is no respect for characters only because they’ve confessed to their ludicrous violent acts. This is not the time and era of martyrdom of the terrorist kind. On the surface, what’s the difference between DJ’s inquilab and Osama’s jihad? What would’ve been far more effective would be the humiliation of the Defence Minister and DJ and co. dying in the process of redeeming themselves (from Sue’s perspective?). The message going out to the youth of the country (and this film is clearly trying to deliver a message to the youth of the country) will be completely misinterpreted as a call to take up arms against the oppressor. Since when did the Indian government become an oppressor? They maybe inactive, corrupt, and weak-willed, but there is hardly a parallel to the British government pre-1947. It broke my heart to see a news clip in the film post the radio broadcast where a college student says “You’ve set an example. Now our guns will do the talking!” [sic]. Wrong message. This film is just about as jingoistic as Gadar or any of those absolutely rubbish anti-Pak films. Instead, we could’ve used a more optimistic end like that of Yuva (where misguided youth do right) or even Swades (where good is all that matters). I understand that this would go against the theme of Bhagat Singh and the stylistic choice of drawing parallels but context matters. Omprakash missed the whole point of the lessons to be learnt!

2. The 180-minute film has no story! Nothing really moves in the first half. Omprakash only establishes characters and their line of thinking. Ideally, the interval point should’ve been Madhvan’s death, but we’re left hanging loose. There is endless repetition of idea. We’ve got the point that today’s youth is pessimistic about the Indian state and future, but to go on and on about it over with similar dialogue defeats the form that is film. In the second half, when some form of narrative thrust does take over, the screenplay goes awry and becomes unrealistic.

3. Especially the second half… Completely unrealistic in every way (if it’s real, there is no movement, when there is movement, it’s not real.) From little things to major issues.
   
   a. When DJ and Sue return from the hospital with packed food, they straightway sit to eat. Go wash the blood away, please! Next thing you know, he’s sleeping on her drenched in blood.
   
   b. Since when did assassinations of senior political leaders become so easy? A potential high-point of the film, it fell flat as the characters tried to replicate their inspiration.
   
   c. Nobody kills their own father. Too Bollywood, and counters the established collective mindset in the first half.

4. Where does Sue disappear in the second half? What happens to her? She is the voice of reason. She needed to stop the assassination or least have a huge break-up with DJ after he did what he did. She is clearly against the idea of violence as a means to an end (as everyone should be) and she should’ve expressly made the point. DJ should’ve been killed moments after realizing that he was wrong.

5. Two songs in one location? Can’t remember the last film that did that. No doubt the location was spectacular, but you simply do not shoot two songs in the same location, especially when there is absolutely no good reason for it. Omprakash was better off saving it for his next film, but RDB is so long and fragmented, it feels like two films anyway. And really, you cannot pass off India Habitat Center as a university even if it might look like one. If the public at large knows a location well enough, it’s best treated in a way that’s contextual.

6. Another good idea gone wrong are the historical scenes/Sue’s film footage. It is plainly obvious that the sepia-toned chunks represent what happened in actual history, not Sue’s documentary shot on her Sony PD-170. But a couple of scenes (where Kunal Kapoor and Atul Kulkarni have a moment after watching the rushes and where Sue announces that her shoot is done) completely mislead the generic none-too-wise Indian audience. Most people think that the out-of-funds Sue pulled off a coup with the elaborate heists on trains, chases on horses, and bombs in parliaments. Omprakash has muddled the line between the real history and her own shoot (not to mention a completely out of place sequence with the defence minister in Jalianwala Bagh) and has confused the audience thoroughly. It would be so much simpler if the film never did get made, and the history was as she saw it in her mind’s eye as she read her grandfather’s diary.

7. And lastly, the film is poorly edited. Editing is also a form of story-telling, not to be confused with visual razzmatazz. RDB’s editing is repetitive (little bits like the audition sequence and bigger issues like the constant repitition of the Indian youth's state of mind) and tell-all. It fails to make the film crisp and presentable.

Rang De Basanti remains a good film for jingoists and people who watch movies as an excuse to eat popcorn.