Mangal Pandey: The Rising

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.

I went to see this movie with a friend of mine from India. I was going because of her, expecting to be bored to death. I was wrong! The Rising is one of these movies that are larger, bigger than life. The amazing powerful music sets the tone to a legend of a great folk hero for Indians. The acting, in most cases, was haunting. The cinematography was breathtaking and the songs, and I am not a big fan of people singing and dancing in movies, were magical and helped move the story along. Of course, it was a big history lesson form me (though the producers warn you that some of this is fictionalized), but I have a better understanding of the Indian culture now. I finally get to see Toby Stephens\playing a role that doesn't involve him being mean, a villain or plain evil.

Ketan Mehta perhaps wanted to make a lavish 'Braveheart' with 'The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey'. Well, the end result is far from it. The depiction of the rebellion and the pursuit for revolution was very bleak. I can understand that Mehta wanted to make a lavish epic-type movie about an Indian hero but there is just too much exaggeration for the story to resonate. So much is spoon-fed to the viewer while it fails at telling a proper story. There are so many sequences that are unintentionally funny. Forget historical accuracy, even the characters (with the exception of a few) felt one-dimensional. Even the title character was poorly developed.

The mutiny preparation was rushed. While each and every one of the songs are beautiful, the holy song could have been left out as it doesn't add to the story and only slackens the pace. Even the romance between Jwala and William looked forced (this track shouldn't have been included at all).

Mehta does introduce some interesting issues that have not been depicted on screen earlier. Such as the Indian nanny breastfeeding the British baby while she struggles to feed her own child. His cinematographer does a superb job in capturing the picture with his camera. The art direction is eye candy.

A.R. Rahman's score deserves special mention. It is of an eclectic mix with a variety of songs, all of which have been beautifully visualized. I especially liked how 'Rasiya' and 'Vari Vari' were executed. Rani Mukherjee dances wonderfully. Many have made unfair comparisons to that of Madhuri Dixit's 'mujra' in 'Devdas'. Madhuri's character was a trained dancer while Rani's Heera had just been sold to the brothel and her primary task was to seduce. Back to Rahman's music, his background score is highly effective. It remains consistent and always contributes well to the scene (sometimes it's the only thing that works in a scene).

Aamir Khan makes a comeback after four years. However, this is far from his best work. He looks uninterested and wooden in most places and is easily overshadowed by Toby Stephens. He does seem to enjoy playing with his fake moustache. Stephens has the best character and he does full justice to it with a remarkable performance. Rani Mukherjee acts with full guns blazing. Whether her character is relevant or not to the movie, the actress is sensual, spontaneous and natural on screen and that's always great to watch. Amisha Patel has a few fits of hyperventilation (even though her character wasn't supposed to be someone sick with asthma).

'The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey' is a lackluster film. It has very little to offer whether in the form of entertainment, enlightenment or engagement.

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.