The Rising - Aufstand der Helden

What is the definition of a good movie? Has there been any movie ever made that satisfies everyone's definition of a good movie? Perhaps not.

My definition of a good movie is something that commands my attention from start to end and that helps me exercise my intellect. A good movie makes me feel good when I talk about it.

A good movie can belong to any genre and can definitely have its own style (sometimes completely original). The Rising did not have a focus on the character development of all of its lead roles, like a typical movie, but that seems to be intentional. It was a little frustrating to see some movie experts dwelling on that issue.

The rising is about the character transformation of an idealistic but confused man called Mangal Pandey. It shows how he realized the true meaning of freedom and how it was passed on to an oppressed nation. The minute details of his personal life did not need any depiction in the movie. That could stir up even more controversy especially for some people in our subcontinent who need so little to feel offended and create chaos. The movie also shows the genuine remorse of a great soul like Captain Gordon who constantly tried to bring balance between rule and fairness. Hundred years old history became alive in the remarkable performances of the crew and the cast in this movie.

The movie is a masterpiece in almost all aspects. I sincerely have not seen many Indian movies of this standard. The only criticism I would have is the placement of the holy festival which could have been discarded in favor of showing more development of mutiny preparation, politics of the Indian kings and above all some more drama. The last 15-20 minutes seemed to have hasted a bit. The dance sequence of the two gypsy girls also felt a bit out of place.

Overall, I must say that I felt deeply satisfied after watching this movie.

I watched this movie on the first day of its worldwide release. The theaters were full and understandably so. There has been much publicity done for the movie besides scheduling a worldwide simultaneous release and bringing back a "new look" Aamir Khan after a long sabbatical. And the 18 months Aamir spent growing his hair , has come to full fruition with an acting performance like the one in this movie.

The sedition of 1857 which signaled the inception of the Indian Independence process and the eventual exaltation of Mangal Pandey is a much sought after theme in mainstream Indian cinema. There have been a couple of very good adaptations of this theme in the past. What distincts this one from the rest is probably the inspiring presence of Aamir Khan. Aamir Khan's acting is stupendous. Classically portraying the unnerving bravado known to have been a distinct possession of Mangal Pandey in Indian history books, Aamir Khan sports long hair and a lengthy moustache , while he abuts cannons, crafts uprisings and inspires the audiences. Although adhering a lot to the quotes of history, Ketan Mehta has exercised some freedom. In fact, Aamir Khan himself was found quoting something to this effect in an interview to a certain magazine.

The movies shortcomings come from a vain effort to include the quintessence of Bollywood cinema in this movie - song , dance and color. Also , there is the superfluous sleaze. Ketan Mehta seems to have had a itching inclination towards resorting to song and dance at the turn of every climax. This movie could have been a masterpiece if only they would have lost the couple of female "leads" to oblivion and lessened some of the "color".

I am amazed at the negative comments about this film, especially from India. I'll address those criticisms later after providing a summary of the film.

Set in 1857, the film tells the story of Mangal Pandey, a sepoy (private) in the 34th Native Infantry regiment of the Bengal Army (the army of the Presidency of Bengal, governed by the British East India Company and recruited largely from upper caste UP and Bihar stock). Mangal is depicted as an ordinary soldier who is offended by the introduction of the new Enfield rifle cartridges which were greased with pig and cow fat (the former anathema to Muslims and the latter sacred to Hindus). The movie shows him changing from a loyal Company sepoy who saved a British officer's life, to one who ends up questioning the logic of British rule. Other themes include his friendship with the same British officer, the officer's rescue and subsequent romantic relationship with a sati - a widow expected to burn herself on her husband's funeral pyre,and a prostitute who exclusively services the English brothels but falls for Pandey. The movie brings opium cultivation, corruption within the Company, the growing distance between English and Indians, as well as backward, traditional Indian attitudes into sharp focus.

All in all, the film is highly entertaining, a good story - well told, with powerful performances by the main characters. Aamir Khan is in his element, living the character of Pandey and conveying a fantastic portrayal of the soldier who realizes, bit by bit, that his loyalty to a foreign army makes him as "untouchable" as the low-caste man or prostitutes he scorns. Toby Stephens performance as the outsider in British India (Scottish, poor schooling, too fraternal with the natives) was brilliant and his chemistry with Khan was the high mark of the film's dramatic impact. The music by AR Rahman is louder than usual and some of the beats are frankly out of sync with the times ( the lesbianish gypsy dance number was a bit much!!).

The strength of the film was in conveying a sense of the time period - costumes,hair-styles, sets, manners ( the English officer's "Koi Hai"), were exactly what one could expect. The historical background was fairly accurate (sati was outlawed, opium cultivation was forced, the Company was beset by corruption, the English did have European only brothels) though the exact interpretation of events may have not been supported by history.

Which brings me to the criticism of the film. these seem to be of two variants - one, the film was not entertaining enough, and two, the anguished howl of the historians who decry its historical illegitimacy in the hope that no one may turn nationalist by seeing this film.

I will dismiss the first criticism, since that may be a matter of taste - certainly, desi (Indian) audiences raised on simpler story lines and poorer production values (see Asoka and n number of Indian period dramas) may find The Rising a bit heavy to digest.

Historically, the film may be inaccurate in the sense that Mangal Pandey may not have been the nationalist as portrayed, the relationships with the English officer and the prostitute are probably fictitious. But are they impossible? NO. The film has a paragraph disclaimer about inaccuracy at the beginning but this does not satisfy the history lobby. Why is it not possible that the official version about Pandey - that he was under the influence of bhang ( a hallucinogen) when he shot and killed an officer and then tried to shoot himself - is dressed up to cover the Company's stupidity in introducing the greased cartridges? Its not as if such "doctoring" of history has not taken place - witness the designations of "Mutiny" on the British side and "First War of Indian Independence" on the Indian side - when it was something in between? Secondly, why is The Rising being targeted when virtually every Indian film plays merry with historical events and characters? Akbar and Salim did not go to war over a dancing girl (Mughal-e-Azam), Shah Jahan was not the devoted son depictd in Taj Mahal but an ambitious usurper, one hopes that Ashoka was not the ghastly caricature depicted in Shahrukh Khan's film, and certainly India was not administered by ARMY officers as shown in Lagaan b ut by a civil ICS administration.

Similarly, Hollywood glosses over the fact that getting the German Enigma machines in WW2 was a purely British affair (U-571 shows us otherwise), and of course America won the war (no mention of UK/Common wealth forces, or more importantly - Soviet forces).

What I am saying is that films always distort history a bit - and so long as they are not conveying a completely different story - that should not matter. A purist on the matter of history myself, I am surprised by the vehemence of the historical community's attack on the film. My guess is that they do not want a false sense of nationalism to emerge on the basis of the Mangal Pandey story. They are a hundred and fifty years late in stopping the myth from taking hold.

In the end The Rising is a great film, a great story, well shot, with a few excusable omissions.

This epic tale of the first Indian uprising (mid 19th century) has so much going for it, it's hard to know where to begin. Firstly, it documents a period of history that tends to be airbrushed under the carpet in British history lessons. Germany and Japan are still constantly reminded of the atrocities their countries committed, but we have to go back a bit earlier to look at the British East India Company - the most successful business enterprise in history, controlling one fifth of humanity, and having its own army. The value of being reminded brings a certain sense of humility. It maybe even helps to explain some of the feelings one can sense just walking about Delhi today as a white person.

It's also a rare treat to have an epic of this scale, told from an Indian point of view, in English (or mostly in English). It successfully merges factual history with cultural norms, mythology, song and dance, grand battle scenes, touching romance and heroism.

The British East India Company was subject to the uprising or 'mutiny' largely because of a failure to understand and respect local customs (from a purely military point of view, George Bush should consider bringing more or better historians to the White House). Having been subjected to abominations and still helping the Company fight wars, Indians rallied over a deeply held religious insult and attacked the British rulers.

It is a great credit to the filmmakers that the British have not been demonised. There is no dwelling on the greatest excesses and neither are the Indians portrayed as flawless. For instance, we see a British soldier preventing a local (forced) sacrifice of a young wife at the burning of the corpse of her 60yr old husband, and the excesses of the British depicted are those common in most armies where power has led to degeneracy. We see not only the forced cultivation of poppies, but shady dealings with the resultant drugs and the Indians always coming out the losers. We see houses of prostitution set up to 'keep the troops healthy'; Indian soldiers treated as second class citizens with brutal punishments for minor slips handed out by self-important British officers.

But whenever it gets too grim to watch, it springs the Bollywood trick of bursting into song and dance. The only other genre that routinely manages such a happy switch is grand opera. The slave courtesans sing joyously with double edged lyrics about being a slave to love. The spectacle of glorious colour and wonderful dancing spectacle entrances us.

Many great conquerors have been also ruthless and uncaring to those they abused. The British East India Company was perhaps no different, and at worst should perhaps be judged more by the morality of the time than present day international law. But that way of thinking is a get-out. Invading another country is almost always for selfish reasons, glossed over in one way or another according to the double-talk of the day. History usually sides with the victors.

The Rising will not get the marketing it deserves in the UK: many will avoid it because of the Indian songs. But it is a film well worth catching.

My main quibble is that India is constantly portrayed in movies (including this one) as incredibly clean. I have never found this so, except in 5 star hotels enclaves. There is a great water shortage and most streets are pretty unhygeinic by Western standards. If Calcutta was the paradise of colour and good health depicted in The Rising, then it's gone backwards, whatever the improvements in basic freedoms and human rights. But realism it not Indian cinema's forte.

Mangal Pandey – The Rising is a film that has enormous expectations (probably no other film in recent times has been awaited to this extent). And the main reason for this hype and huge expectations is Aamir Khan – the superstar makes a comeback to the silver screen after 4 long years

Mangal Pandey is a story set in the year 1857 when India was in the grasp of the East India Company. Mangal Pandey (Aamir Khan) is an ordinary sepoy (soldier) who serves the Company's 34th regiment. We see the story through the eyes of Mangal and his superior officer William Gordon (Toby Stephens), who share a deep friendship. The Company introduces a new rifle called the Enfield that requires the sepoys to bite into grease that supposedly contains cow and pig-fat, and that is where all the trouble starts. It becomes a religious issue as cow is sacred to Hindus and pig is taboo for Muslims. This incident transforms Mangal from an ordinary soldier serving the British to a rebel who sacrifices his life and in turn, provides that spark to begin India's independence movement. So the story of Mangal Pandey is not about the actual Uprising, but the hero whose sacrifice sparked this whole movement. The film depicts the situation prevalent in Barrackpore in 1857. Scriptwriter Farukh Dhondy has taken cinematic liberties and he blends fact and fiction. Rather than giving the audience a history lesson as documented by the British, writer Farukh Dhondy and director Ketan Mehta introduce fictional characters and fill the narrative with folklore.

To both Mehta and Dhondy's credit, all this is shown without sounding like a boring documentary or a history lesson. However, the script has its pitfalls and could have been a lot better. The biggest problem of the film is that it does not have a smooth flow. This is partly due to Dhondy's script, partly due to Mehta's direction and mainly due to Sreekar Prasad's inconsistent editing. Many scenes seem like they were cut and pasted haphazardly. Many characters are introduced and then later they are nowhere in the narrative. Songs (except Mangal Mangal, Main Vari Vari and Takey Takey, to an extent) are forced into the narrative and appear at wrong points. Most characters seem under-developed; even Mangal Pandey's character could have been developed much better.

Why, then, did I like the film, inspite of so many flaws? That is because the film has something magical to it that it endeared to me despite all its obvious flaws. At the end, I left the theatre satisfied. The film is technically, a world-class product and epic in scale. Scenes like the war in Afghanistan, the torch scene with the sepoys and Mangal surrounded by a massive army are shot so exquisitely that they give you the goosebumps. Himman Dhamija's dazzling camera-work and Nitin Desai's impeccable art direction take you back in time and convince that you are in 1857. On the whole, the film manages to stay rooted in that period and achieves that late-19th century feel very well. The visual effects of the film are a treat despite minor hiccups. Costumes by Lovleen Bains are good overall, but some costumes like those of Tatya Tope and Rani of Jhansi shown at the end seem straight out of a fancy-dress competition. Action sequences by Abbas Ali Moghul are aptly designed. The sound effects are superb…..the sound department has done an outstanding job. A.R Rahman's music is disappointing except for the rousing title track Mangal Mangal and the 'mujra' Main Vari Vari; Rasiya is also good to hear, but it has no use in the movie. But the background score also done by Rahman is impressive. The dialogues of the film range from a few mediocre lines to excellent ones. Generally, the dialogue is good…..sample this "Hum apne hi desh mein acchut hain (We are untouchables in our own country)", says Mangal to Gordon.

Now to the performances…..a superhuman effort was expected of Aamir Khan and the superstar-actor does not fail to deliver. Though he's let down by the script….as I said before, Mangal Pandey needed to be fleshed out better, Aamir gives his soul to his character. Be it the drunken scene with Toby Stephens where they play a prank on a British officer; or the rage he displays when he's beating up a senior officer; or the calm intensity in his eyes when he walking up to face his death……Aamir shows his tremendous range as an actor. But still, his brilliant performance does not seem as glorious as it should, because his character is somewhat diminished by the script. Toby Stephens is the biggest surprise……he matches Aamir step-for-step as the kind and sensible Gordon. He's worked hard on his character as well as his Hindi and he's also helped by the fact that Gordon is the best-written character of the film. Rani Mukherjee as the nautch-girl Heera is in top form in the 'mujra' Main Vari Vari and she shines even in her short, underdeveloped role. Amisha Patel does not have anything to do at all. The supporting actors are almost like cameos. However, Mona Ambegaonkar as the nurse and Mukesh Tiwari as Bakht Khan leave an impact.

To be frank, the film is inconsistent all along the way…..but despite all its obvious flaws, it is still brilliant, magical cinema. There is too much of candy-floss in Hindi cinema at the moment, and we need more films like Mangal Pandey, Swades and Sarkar which are easy targets for criticism……but these films show you what cinema is all about. Ketan Mehta's epic is a tad disappointing, no doubt and it could have been a lot better……but this is one film that should not be missed. Check it out at least once…..as for me, I'm already thinking of watching it a second time because I'm sure I've missed out on quite a lot of finer points in the movie……….Mangal Mangal Ho !