Much has been said about Haider, Vishal Bhardawaj (VB)'s adaptation of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Let me start off by saying that as far as the story and it's adaptation is concerned it is a really good one. The acting is terrific, the choice of characters playing "the ghost of hamlet"and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ( the 2 Salmans), Gertrude and Claudius are all superlative. Moreover, VB has very cleverly woven in some key parts from the play into the movie, one of which is the song sung by the grave diggers.
Having said that, let me preface my next comments by adding the disclaimer that I am a Kashmiri Pandit. While this does not mean that I don't like any films based on the situation in Kashmir, I definitely did not like this one largely because of the one-sided portrayal of what happened in the 1990's in this film. Many of you will argue that portrayal of what happened in Kashmir was not the maker's intent, to which I will urge you to read my remarks below.
In my opinion, this movie should not have been made with Kashmir as the backdrop. Nothing in the story required a set up that Kashmir would uniquely provide, rather setting it in Kashmir took away from the movie's main theme - Hamlet. Hamlet was set in a time when Denmark and Norway were at war. Nearly all of Shakespeare's plays are set at a time when kings ruled and neighboring armies attacked - case in point Macbeth ( set by VB in Mumbai) and Othello ( set by VB in UP Badlands) as well as Hamlet. Why Hamlet was the only one chosen to be set on a stage where there is a current day war like situation does not make sense to me. Coming back to Haider, while India and Pakistan have been at war several times, none of those times were picked for making the movie. Instead, VB chose the time period post 1995 to make his film. Hamlet's father in the play is KILLED by his younger brother. While it is unclear for sometime as to who has killed the king ( even to young Hamlet himself- leading to his doubts and the re-enactment of the king's death to verify Claudius'guilt), the fact that he is dead is certain. Hence, why unnecessarily induce the story line of people disappearing in Kashmir and the existence of "half widows and orphans"in the film? Now again you might say that the maker of the film can take poetic liberties and if he wants to bring in the disappearance angle he is entitled to do so. This is where I begin to feel let down and hurt as a KP. Nothing is shown in the film prior to 1995, where nearly 200,000 Kashmiri Pandits were displaced from their homes and thousands more killed. The film shows instances of real footage where Kashmiri Muslims are protesting on the roads and leading demonstrations against human rights violations but nothing is shown about the misery, fear and inhumanity suffered by the Kashmiri Pandits. Hardly any mention is made of the mass exodus which resulted in the early 90's. Why show the suffering of one community and not of the other? Again, I will be told that the movie is not to show what happened in Kashmir and again I will say there is no reason the maker should have picked Kashmir if he did not intend to do justice to the ENTIRE picture.
Second, I think the maker got a little unlucky with the release timing of the movie. The Army has just come through as heroes for the people of Kashmir in the recent floods. In my view, the Army just did its duty in Kashmir by rescuing citizens of India ( whether they feel like Indian citizens or not is a separate issue) and this same Army was doing its duty in 1995 as well when it was arresting, questioning, interrogating and possibly even torturing who they believed to be a threat to India. History is rife with instances of Army deployments and the ensuing human rights violations. It is the ugly and undesirable by product of maintaining peace through the use of such extreme measures.
I came out of the theater, feeling like I had watched a great example of excellent film making with wonderful music, beautiful cinematography and craftily super imposed situations and characters but still something inside me felt hurt and unhappy, like I had been party to a badly explained he said she said fight. If anyone is still in the mood to see a movie based on what happened in Kashmir, I would suggest watching I am. One of the 4 movies is based on the friendship between Manisha Koirala ( a Kashmiri Muslim still living in Kashmir) and Juhi Chawla ( a KP, having migrated to Delhi). I liked it for its sensitive portrayal and thoughtful layering of relationships during a very dark time in Indian history. If you want to see Shakespeare's plays being adapted - watching Maqbool or Omkara or any of the Romeo- Juliet sob stories should do the trick... Haider unfortunately does not get my vote......
Having said that, let me preface my next comments by adding the disclaimer that I am a Kashmiri Pandit. While this does not mean that I don't like any films based on the situation in Kashmir, I definitely did not like this one largely because of the one-sided portrayal of what happened in the 1990's in this film. Many of you will argue that portrayal of what happened in Kashmir was not the maker's intent, to which I will urge you to read my remarks below.
In my opinion, this movie should not have been made with Kashmir as the backdrop. Nothing in the story required a set up that Kashmir would uniquely provide, rather setting it in Kashmir took away from the movie's main theme - Hamlet. Hamlet was set in a time when Denmark and Norway were at war. Nearly all of Shakespeare's plays are set at a time when kings ruled and neighboring armies attacked - case in point Macbeth ( set by VB in Mumbai) and Othello ( set by VB in UP Badlands) as well as Hamlet. Why Hamlet was the only one chosen to be set on a stage where there is a current day war like situation does not make sense to me. Coming back to Haider, while India and Pakistan have been at war several times, none of those times were picked for making the movie. Instead, VB chose the time period post 1995 to make his film. Hamlet's father in the play is KILLED by his younger brother. While it is unclear for sometime as to who has killed the king ( even to young Hamlet himself- leading to his doubts and the re-enactment of the king's death to verify Claudius'guilt), the fact that he is dead is certain. Hence, why unnecessarily induce the story line of people disappearing in Kashmir and the existence of "half widows and orphans"in the film? Now again you might say that the maker of the film can take poetic liberties and if he wants to bring in the disappearance angle he is entitled to do so. This is where I begin to feel let down and hurt as a KP. Nothing is shown in the film prior to 1995, where nearly 200,000 Kashmiri Pandits were displaced from their homes and thousands more killed. The film shows instances of real footage where Kashmiri Muslims are protesting on the roads and leading demonstrations against human rights violations but nothing is shown about the misery, fear and inhumanity suffered by the Kashmiri Pandits. Hardly any mention is made of the mass exodus which resulted in the early 90's. Why show the suffering of one community and not of the other? Again, I will be told that the movie is not to show what happened in Kashmir and again I will say there is no reason the maker should have picked Kashmir if he did not intend to do justice to the ENTIRE picture.
Second, I think the maker got a little unlucky with the release timing of the movie. The Army has just come through as heroes for the people of Kashmir in the recent floods. In my view, the Army just did its duty in Kashmir by rescuing citizens of India ( whether they feel like Indian citizens or not is a separate issue) and this same Army was doing its duty in 1995 as well when it was arresting, questioning, interrogating and possibly even torturing who they believed to be a threat to India. History is rife with instances of Army deployments and the ensuing human rights violations. It is the ugly and undesirable by product of maintaining peace through the use of such extreme measures.
I came out of the theater, feeling like I had watched a great example of excellent film making with wonderful music, beautiful cinematography and craftily super imposed situations and characters but still something inside me felt hurt and unhappy, like I had been party to a badly explained he said she said fight. If anyone is still in the mood to see a movie based on what happened in Kashmir, I would suggest watching I am. One of the 4 movies is based on the friendship between Manisha Koirala ( a Kashmiri Muslim still living in Kashmir) and Juhi Chawla ( a KP, having migrated to Delhi). I liked it for its sensitive portrayal and thoughtful layering of relationships during a very dark time in Indian history. If you want to see Shakespeare's plays being adapted - watching Maqbool or Omkara or any of the Romeo- Juliet sob stories should do the trick... Haider unfortunately does not get my vote......
2 comments:
very balanced and well reasoned review, i feel. I'm positive this one would have passed muster on fb too
http://www.indiafacts.co.in/haider-wrapping-national-insults-celluloid/#.VE_NkFc-1dj
Post a Comment