Dhurandhar, the movie, has surprised everyone. It has not only become the most successful movie of all time but also the most talked about and controversial. Everyone has an opinion on it in today’s polarised world. If a section of the left liberals finds the film to be propaganda, then people from the other ideological platform call it nationalistic and bold. If, for one, Dhurandhar is full of gory violence and unwatchable, then the other enjoys Pakistan being taught a lesson in its own game.
I have always believed that a film is a film and should be viewed from a purely artistic prism, not a political one. Instead of viewing it from an ideological perspective, a film should be seen from the broader spectrum of the craft of filmmaking and creativity. Therefore, after the release of the film, I was rather puzzled by the entire debate and decided to watch the movie myself.
Viewing the film beyond ideology
I had stopped going to theatres to see a film since the COVID days. However, the cacophony surrounding the movie compelled me to visit one. Frankly speaking, I liked the movie. I could neither discover propaganda in it nor find a film that served right-wing ideology. Yes, it is a little bit more violent, but for someone like me who has been watching world cinema, especially Tarantino’s movies like Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs, Inglourious Basterds or Django Unchained, it is neither surprising nor shocking.
Excessive violence is the norm today; the depiction depends on the director’s creative impulse. Tarantino has the genius of making violent scenes look musical and poetic, which do not shake you.
Craft over controversy
Many Indian filmmakers are inspired by him and try to copy his craft. Among them, Anurag Kashyap has been successful to an extent. Aditya Dhar, the director of Dhurandhar, is another who has done justice. Violence in Dhurandhar is gory, but the depiction is not repulsive; it comes across as the result of a lot of creative input. It is more situational and smoothens the plot, avoiding overburdening.
The use of music, especially old songs, is exceptional and enhances the impact of film viewing. The film is long, but the editing is so tight that it does not drag. The beauty of the film is that it neither caricatures Muslims nor Pakistanis; it tries to be true to the real characters and original situations.
Cinema as a mirror of changing India
But the bigger story is that the film represents fast-changing India. India has changed a lot in the past few years, particularly North India. It lives on the high adrenaline of so-called masculine nationalism. In a highly polarised atmosphere, where emotionalism is the buzzword and revenge from the past is a badge of one’s own patriotism, Dhurandhar caters to this new audience. And I find nothing wrong with it.
My left-liberal friends might not agree with me, but every ideology and era creates its own cinema and literature. The problem should not be about the kind of cinema, but rather the craft of cinema. If craft is compromised to create propaganda for the ruling elite, and in the name of creativity shallow, superficial and third-rate content is generated, then it is not cinema or literature; it becomes a political party’s pamphlet.
In recent years, many films have been made along these lines. A few attracted crowds at the box office, but most of them bombed and disappeared without any trace. Dhurandhar is an exception. It remains true to the craft. That is why it is liked and is a roaring success. It creates an imaginary which does not look artificial or superimposed.
Evolution of Indian cinema
We have to understand that we are living in a different era. Over the years, the country has evolved, and so has its cinema. It has progressed through many stages, starting from the ‘Era of Nehruvian Innocence’ immediately after Independence, to the ‘Age of Masculinity’ of the present day. Raj Kapoor and Dilip Kumar were the epitomes of that Nehruvian innocence.
Although Guru Dutt’s Pyasa takes that innocence to nihilism, it was Amitabh Bachchan who depicted the anger of the 1970s and 1980s. This was the time when society started getting restless and disillusioned with its ruling elites and needed a ‘hero’ who could manifest their suppressed anguish and anger. Amitabh did that with aplomb. Zanjeer, Deewar, Trishul and Inqilab were such movies. In Inqilab, the hero is so upset with the political class that he shoots the whole cabinet in the end. It was an ‘Era of Despair’.
With the opening of the economy in the 1990s, a new consumerist middle class emerged. This was an ‘Era of Hope’, which gave birth to Shah Rukh Khan, who pretended to be rooted in tradition. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is a classic example of that cinema.
But incessant terrorist attacks on India and the slowing down of the economy demanded a new reaction from the common man, which propelled a new polity and new cinema. Of course, society was also changing due to the new ideological thrust since 2014. ‘Ghar mein ghus ke marenge’ is the slogan of this ‘new’ India. Therefore, if cinema is trying to mirror that image, filmmakers cannot be faulted.
Aditya Dhar should be commended for not being driven by the ideological impulse to be heard and viewed; he relied on his cinematic instinct. He used his craft to convey a certain message, and he is successful. Dhurandhar is an example of the simple fact that if a film is well made, it is liked by the audience, and it does not matter whether it is made by the right wing or the left.
The writer is co-founder, SatyaHindi.com, and author of Hindu Rashtra. He tweets at @ashutosh83B.
