Mujib - Naissance d'une nation

Here's a review focusing on some of the criticisms surrounding Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's rule, though it's important to note that historical figures are complex and not easily defined by a single narrative.

"Mujib: The Making of a Nation" is a film that seeks to lionize Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, portraying him as an unquestionable hero of the Bangladeshi independence movement. While his leadership was undeniably important to the formation of Bangladesh, the film whitewashes many of the controversies and complexities surrounding his rule.

Rahman's economic policies, particularly his nationalization drives, are often cited as a major factor in Bangladesh's subsequent economic decline. Critics argue that these policies stifled private enterprise and led to widespread inefficiency and corruption. The film either ignores these criticisms outright or attempts to justify them within a broader narrative of nation-building.

Furthermore, the film downplays the growing authoritarianism of Rahman's regime in the years following independence. While it acknowledges some political unrest, it fails to delve into the increasing suppression of dissent and the erosion of democratic institutions. The assassination of opposition leaders and the suspension of elections are merely footnotes in the film's grand historical epic.

Finally, the film's portrayal of India's role in the Bangladesh Liberation War is problematic. While India's support was undoubtedly crucial, the film seems to minimize the strategic interests that motivated their intervention. This one-sided perspective ignores the complexities of the India-Bangladesh relationship and the potential long-term consequences of Indian influence in the region.

In conclusion, "Mujib: The Making of a Nation" is a deeply flawed attempt to craft a definitive biography of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. By ignoring or downplaying the controversies and complexities of his rule, the film ultimately undermines its own credibility. A more honest and nuanced portrayal of this historical figure is desperately needed.

The screenplay and story is too much based on myth. Such a historic move need to be more matured. Cinema needs a kind of drama than fact. But this one is made during the reign of a an autocrat to deify his legacy and failed as a artwork like e.g. Gandhi move.

Such other movies in the world which include biography of a leader are usually made by post era and artist who needs to depict the person. Here its made to deify the person and create a logic of an the autocrat name his daughter when she was in power. Thus the validity of the historical events become weaker and unpopular. There are many people who would like the movie made in a neutral time.

In the realm of storytelling and performance, the art of acting is often regarded as a powerful medium through which narratives come to life, leaving a lasting imprint on the minds of those who witness it. However, the subjective nature of this craft means that experiences can vary widely, and sometimes, one may find themselves disappointed in the portrayal of characters and the unfolding of historical narratives. It's in the delicate dance between expectation and execution that the nuances of disappointment emerge.

To say that acting is "very bad" is a sweeping statement that warrants a closer examination. Acting, as an expressive form, is an intricate interplay of emotion, body language, and dialogue. When an audience perceives it as "very bad," it raises questions about the alignment between the actor's interpretation and the viewer's expectations. Perhaps the nuances intended by the performer got lost in translation, or the portrayal failed to resonate with the viewer's emotional spectrum.

The historical context in which a narrative unfolds adds another layer of complexity. History is a vast and multifaceted tapestry, with each thread contributing to the overall narrative. When historical events are portrayed on stage or screen, there's an implicit responsibility to balance entertainment with accuracy. The term "history elucidated" suggests a desire for clarity and authenticity in the portrayal of events. Disappointment may arise when the artistic liberties taken overshadow the historical truths, leaving the audience feeling detached from the reality they expected to witness.

The phrase "overall experience is very bad" implies a holistic dissatisfaction that extends beyond the realm of acting and history. It delves into the broader aspects of production, including direction, cinematography, and perhaps even the script itself. An unsatisfactory experience could stem from a lack of cohesion in these elements or a mismatch between the director's vision and the audience's reception.

However, it's crucial to acknowledge the subjective nature of artistic endeavors. What one person perceives as a flaw, another might interpret as a bold artistic choice. The beauty of storytelling lies in its ability to provoke varied emotions and perspectives. While one viewer may find the acting lacking, another might appreciate the vulnerability or uniqueness brought to the characters.

In navigating the landscape of disappointment in acting and historical elucidation, it becomes an opportunity for constructive critique and dialogue. Rather than dismissing the experience outright, engaging in discussions about the choices made in the production could offer valuable insights. It might unveil the intentions of the creators, providing a more nuanced understanding of their artistic decisions.

In conclusion, the intersection of acting and historical representation is a delicate dance that requires a delicate balance between artistic interpretation and audience expectation. While disappointment is a valid emotional response, it also opens the door to explore the intricacies of storytelling, inviting conversations about the choices made in the pursuit of bringing narratives to life on stage or screen.

Last night, I had the opportunity to watch the film "Mujib: The Making of a Nation" at Modhumita Cinema hall, a place I hadn't visited in nearly 25 years. My expectations were high because the movie had been in the making for almost two years, with a budget of 83 crore, and it was directed by the legendary 88-year-old filmmaker Shyam Benegal, who had previously directed the biopic "Netaji Shuvas Chandra Basu: The Forgotten Hero," which I had also seen. However, it's important to note that biopics, by their nature, often struggle to achieve 100 percent accuracy, and this challenge is even more pronounced in the case of iconic or conventional figures. That's why having a disclaimer at the beginning of such movies can help viewers better understand what they are about to watch.

As a movie enthusiast, I must recommend the film "Gandhi" if you haven't already seen it. In my opinion, it's one of the best biopics about a political figure, highly praised for its historical accuracy. It allows the audience to connect with the protagonist in a truly believable way. Another noteworthy biopic, directed by the famous Steven Spielberg, is "Lincoln." Unfortunately, "Mujib" falls short of these standards due to average acting, inconsistencies, and a lack of connection with the audience. Portraying a character as monumental as Mujib, who had numerous highs and lows in his life, is an incredibly difficult task. I also felt that the film focused more on Mujib's family life as a regular person than his political career, and other prominent characters didn't get enough screen time to truly shine.

Nonetheless, I did appreciate the first and last songs in the movie, and the color grading was well done.

As a nation of movie lovers, I hope that "Mujib" marks a promising beginning for the biopic genre, with the prospect of even better movies to come in the future. 👍

Mujib: The Making of a Nation (2023) embarks on the ambitious journey of chronicling the life and legacy of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a pivotal figure in Bangladesh's history. This informative biopic endeavours to encapsulate pivotal moments and the ethos of Rahman's era. Despite the stature of the director helming this project, the film needed to work on meeting expectations in terms of overall execution.

The performances, for the most part, came across as unconvincing, failing to breathe life into the historical characters they portray. Moreover, the screenplay's approach, which unabashedly seeks to glorify Bangladesh's Father of the Nation, needed more nuance and subtlety,Mujib: The Making of a Nation" (2023) embarks on the ambitious journey of chronicling the life and legacy of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a pivotal figure in Bangladesh's history. This informative biopic endeavours to encapsulate pivotal moments and the ethos of Rahman's era. Despite the stature of the director helming this project, the film needs to work on meeting expectations in terms of overall execution.

The performances, for the most part, come across as unconvincing, failing to breathe life into the historical characters they portray. Moreover, the screenplay's approach, which unabashedly seeks to glorify Bangladesh's Father of the Nation, needed more nuance and subtlety, especially ahead of the country's general elections which was held on 7 January 2024 after the release of the movie.

Nevertheless, the film deserves recognition for its attempt to illuminate the life of a revered political figure in Bangladesh. The Indo-Bangladesh collaboration that brought this film to fruition is commendable, symbolising a significant soft-power strategy on New Delhi's part.

This partnership highlights the cultural and historical bonds shared by the two nations and sets a precedent for future collaborative projects. While 'Mujib: The Making of a Nation' might falter in its cinematic delivery, its effort to document and share an important chapter of South Asian history is undeniably praiseworthy.