The cinematographic technique is perfect but ‘many’ creative developments…

If Anubhav Sinha is the director of a film, then the film is expected to create a different narrative. You must have seen the last three movies of his before this one. Sinha also has recognition. The commercial success and critical acclaim of the last three films such as Article 15, Mulk, Thappad made Sinha stand out. Such stature always forces to maintain the image. There is a type of hangover, you have to drink again to get rid of it. In the last three movies, Sinha did an incredible cinematic blunder by choosing a completely different subject. How many would have been different then! Sinha has been seen under this pressure in ‘Anek’.

Many of Anubhav Sinha is a good movie, but there is also a hidden agenda behind it.

I would like to call this movie a subtle type of anti-India movie. After all, this Kashmiri became Abrar Bhatt Manoj Pahwa… who is in a high position in the Ministry of Defence, how and why does he say that ‘if there is peace, it will be everywhere or nowhere!’ What does the director mean by this dialogue! People who described some parts of the movies as the culmination of creativity laughed at this dialogue as ‘Where’s North? Telangana is North India for Tamil Nadu’ from Ayushmann Khurrana’s character.

Will Sinha explain why Western countries are Western…and what is Eastern? Why is the North Pole called the North Pole and why is there zero miles only at Raj Ghat in Delhi? After all, why is there a zero mile? Will Anubhav Sinha be able to find Anubhav Sinha in all of his body? He has two hands on his body, of course I would call one a right hand and the other a left hand.

Why do you call the hair on the lips a mustache and the hair just below the lips in your neighborhood a beard? Why say? The same will happen with the feet as well. Why doesn’t he call hands legs and thighs head! It may be that the whole game is not about naming, but about point of view, of reference. Of course, the Northeast question is difficult. But who made it difficult?

Another question that Sinha raises and that intellectuals are asking is ‘Can you identify all the northeastern states on the map if the names are removed?’ yes why not Questions should be asked of the right person. How many people in the country will remember Jana Gana Mana, how many people feel comfortable saying Bharat Mata ki Jai, how many people are not weak with Vande Mataram.

Then there is a heroine character. She has to win the gold medal for India. But he has reservations about inappropriate comments being made about himself. Anyone would. I have no objection to being called Bihari abusive. In Bombay, UP people are called Bhaiya. He will also oppose that. There are thousands of jokes about Sikhs, Sikhs will object to that and they should. There are gender, caste and community differences in this country.

But, in the movie, the same angry heroine in the same country gets a chance to represent the country in boxing. Is she or isn’t she, or did she go play for some other country? This country has many borders. Our country was told only after independence that it would be divided into fifty parts. We are a strange nation…

But we are still one. There is also a tease in the movie, in the lines of Sharjil Imam, at the chicken neck near Siliguri. The dialogist must have considered himself a gunner. But what would have happened if Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) had not been separated in Partition? The film is undoubtedly good in cinematographic parameters. There are many layers to the characters. There are emotional scenes.

There are local political fights. There is no doubt a good use of the background score, popular songs. The story has been strengthened through cinematography. The visual tone of the film is amazing. But at the same time, many scenes are unnecessarily long and boring. Ayushmann has very long knowledge sharing dialogues with Chakraborty from his mouth. The movie sometimes has long, boring scenes that illuminate.

Climax’s thought-provoking dialogue is: “No one needs this piece, otherwise such a small problem would not have been solved over the years.” This Hindi movie also raises the issue of Hindi imperialism. Where can the poor Hindi, who has been stifled everywhere, spread imperialism, brother? Poor Hindu…

In which a strong intellectual force that does not speak Hindi wants to insert Urdu and Persian, while some try to make it easier by forcibly using English words. This language is really repressed. Where will the imperialist chisel come from? Ayushmann’s facial expressions in the performance, body language is even better than good.

But the bigger question is the narrative that stands out from this film. After all, the Northeast did not find peace. But what did quiet Bihar get? Is it only a few states that bear the responsibility of being called India? Anubhav Sinha has compromised on his speed to make the film realistic. The climax of it is also complex and complicated, the director’s vision here is ambiguous.

Although ‘Manek’ is technically better, this film subtly justifies separatism in the name of telling the story of disadvantaged states. And so I felt that the director was cleverly imposing his ideology. Cognition is not pleasant in creative work.

read this too –

Laal Singh Chaddha I wish I had come 14 years earlier, Aamir Khan had not imagined this era!

Not only Salman-Shahrukh, Yash Raj should also carry Aamir, whatever happens with Bollywood now!

It is necessary for the public interest to see Nusrat’s ‘published in the public interest’ film!

Also Read:  Aranyak Hindi Review: Raveena Tandon's Web Series Is Full Of Mystery And Adventure

Related Articles

Back to top button