JOIN USOPINION | Disliking 'Accidental PM' is not political
'The Accidental Prime Minister' released on Jan. 11, and since then, film buffs have been divided into two camps. A division based on political ideologies was expected, but what everyone seems to ignore are the two groups that actually either liked or disliked the film.
The film, based on Sanjaya Baru's book of the same name, is unabashedly critical of a certain political party and the rivals are hailing it as the truth and an 'inside story'. Anyone writing/talking/thinking that the film is not a good one is being labelled as 'of course! a supporter of the criticised party or so-and-so'.
And in that bid, what is being ignored is that the film can be disliked for simply being a bad piece of cinema.
For instance, so many of us were pumped to discover that Anupam Kher would play Dr Manmohan Singh. The idea of the polished actor playing a politician on screen was thrilling for movie buffs. Mahatma Gandhi has been played several times, but it was a first for Dr Singh. And Kher completely let us down! It looked like he was trying, but it was less believable and more caricaturish.
And then it hits you - 'The Accidental Prime Minister' was made just for the sake of being made. It's just to remind audiences of the politics of 2004 and the years after that. The focus was so much on a scathing political attack that the makers ignored the nuances of a watchable film.
The film begins with a promise that it will throw light on some secrets and incidents of which we are unaware, but then, it proceeds to become the 'propaganda piece' everyone was talking about. In most parts, the film becomes boring with predictable instances of backstabbing, blame-gaming and misunderstandings.
The actors look almost like the politicians that they play. But they've tried so hard to give them a certain shade of character that it looks nothing close to natural. Remember the movies of yesteryear in which the villain had an evil laugh to show that he is evil? Well, expect that to happen here because the makers forgot how to do objective political commentary. Props like comical background music for certain characters is just in-your-face propaganda. Maybe they could have let the character play his/her part and allow the audience to decide if it was funny or evil. That could have allowed it to be a respectable piece of cinema.
The fault may lie in the fact that the filmmakers tried to make a 'brave' film. But is it brave if it is showing only one side of a coin along with juvenile hate?
The makers should have taken a leaf out of 'Rajneeti', a 2010 political thriller that allowed the audience to understand even the antagonist's motives. At some point, a few people even sympathised with Veerendra Pratap, who was played by Manoj Bajpai in 'Rajneeti'.
It is truly unfortunate what politics has done to the sensibilities of moviegoers and artists! The lines are now blurred and we are no longer aware of where to tone down political leaning and nurture the art form.