Know
About Us
Feedback
and Comments
Get
in touch
Subscribe
to JameJamshed
Advertise
Home
 |
"History is bunk" …….. it was once said. And the chorus went round the world. Nowhere is it more true than in cinema, especially the Indian species. With a wide target audience, it has to service many demands and even commands. So, many a time it has ended up, neither here nor there. Historical drama or enjoyable fiction? It has faced this conflict from the earliest silent film right down to "JODHAA AKBAR". After deciding to use actual names from history it has to remain loyal to the characters and events. But they may not be well documented or floating around like legends that we wish to believe. Otherwise, they could be tasteless, lean and not adaptable for the media. Thus, many successful makers of historical films have taken the middle path of using the base of history and garnishing it with drama or even purely, imaginary stuffings. Over a period of time, people have come to believe it as a part of our heritage. The most alluring examples are the love tale about Anarkali or the battle conquests of Sikander.
There was Sohrab Modi under the lion's banner of Minerva and then K. Asif with his own track of visual splendour, oral literary wealth, awesome aura and long years of production. Both gave cinematic landmarks not supported by facts. Earlier there were Chandulal Shah, Ardeshir Irani, Ezra Mir and of course V. Shantaram, who all had a fondness for ancient themes, partly true partly fictional. Modi's "Pukar" was based on the rule of Jehangir as a staunch devotee of justice. Clashing with him was a loyal Rajput warrior and thereby came the Hindu - Muslim harmony angle. Many small tales arising from the bell-toll,were climaxed with the emperor's own beloved wife Noorjehan accused of killing a common man and his offer to die in return. Such events would have never happened or put on record, but created high drama on the screen. Unthinkable crowds flocked to see and "hear" the film for several house-full weeks at Minerva theatre in Bombay as all over. People did not bother so much about unsupported facts or anachronisms, as in period backgrounds of monuments. What mattered was the historical awe. Modi quickly followed it up with "Sikander", himself once again playing a patriotic Hindu king in opposition to Prithviraj enacting the mighty Greek god Alexander.
This too was a roaring hit, despite the addition of female characters for romance or the sister act of "raakhi", which Mehboob Khan also exploited in his lukewarm "Humayun". But after "Prithvi Vallabh" from a novel on the Gujarat King Munj, Modi met his Waterloo with the lavish Technicolor "Jhansi Ki Rani" on warrior queen Laxmibai. May be it was more close to dry facts or Mehtab's casting proved wrong but the film sank like the Titanic. A saving grace followed with national award winner "Mirza Ghalib" and his wonderful poetry popularized thru hit songs. But here too Modi faced protests about history and had to put a disclaimer that it was not wholly true to Ghalib's life. The same had been done with Ranjit's "Tansen", with Saigal himself on screen to give an intro at the start. The apology pertained to the love affairs. History on screen not taken seriously by mass and class? Well, they soon forgot Jehangir and accepted his other self Salim, with a great obsession for Anarkali, as opposed by Akbar. Also overlooked was the same lover later getting infatuated by the innocent Noorjehan, who turned out to be a crafty queen. So the romanticised Anar-ki-kali remained the toast of some silent films and many talkies, in different languages too. Playing her in different versions was the forgotten star Ruby Mayers or Sulochana with Parsi hero D. Billimoria. She had to give way to Bina Rai in Filmistan's superhit "Anarkali" where ironically Ruby was now given the mantle of Akbar's wife Jodhabai.
Anarkali was sort of eternalised in film chronicles by K. Asif with "Mughal-e-Azam" and the trio Madhubala, Dilip and Prithviraj. Once again, there was not keen regard for Mughal era facts but its awe-inspiring ethos and other seductive elements like songs have kept it as an all-time hit, sure to pull out 'house-full' boards whenever released even now. And the grand hit clearly mentions Jodhabai as Akabar's wife in the opening titles and many references in dialogues. Why then are Ashutosh Gowarikar and Ronnie Screwvala being pulled up by wide spread protests against "Jodha Akbar"? May be again less factual matter was being over-taken by much fictional. But that has been a part of film lore for decades. And Jodha has remained a vital link in all Akbar films. Is it because they were always shown as an elderly couple, differently parenting the pet son Salim? Durga Khote and Prithviraj have strongly entrenched the images of Jodha and Akbar in collective public psyche.
But the new film in 2008 brings a real edge to the marital alliance between the Hindu Rajput princess and the Muslim Mughal emperor. There is young ardour, youthful physical magnetism, wooing and winning and love making, though without the ugly modern sight of the bed-room. But it has struck a discordant note somewhere, apart from the foam of fight motivated by vested interest or political mischief. Why all the threating and banning? CLEARLY, THE PROTESTS HAVE EMERGED FROM THE FEAR THAT THE CHARMING PAIR WOULD PROMOTE HINDU - MUSLIM LOVE AFFAIRS AND MARRIAGES IN THE PRESENT GENERATION. In fact, the film of Ashutosh and UTV tells us more about Akbar than any previous film. Through all the Anarkali sagas, he was a one dimensional character, a disguised villain making the path of true love run very rough. But here he is humane, firm but gentle, catholic in views, opposed to antique laws and truely secular……. a king who went on to form an integrated religion "Din-e-Elahi ", though himself being not able to read or write. The scenes of promoting veg. food from Mughal kitchens, calligraphing the name Akbar, abolishing of the pilgrim tax or the rising sun turning everything golden are indeed memorable. At some stage in cinema, history has to be turned contemporary and currently applicable, even if at some cost of factual deviation or indispensable formulas (like hand - to - hand fights). Otherwise, films will be for ever left with legendary romances or totally unbelievable accounts of how Taj Mahal was built or about queens like Razia Sultan falling for their manly slaves or the semi-erotic sagas of Ashoka, Amrapali and others. History on celluloid is being given the bye by modern audience and gen-next. The martyr tales of Bhagatsingh, Mangal Pandey, the freedom - mutinies of 1857 and other periods have not received any heartening response. The bifurcated genres of histo-devotionals developed by some veterans as in "Sant Takaram", "Meera", "Dnayneshwar", "Narsi Bhagat" as well as tales of brave warrior kings like Shivaji or Kattaboman have also been given up. All this compells a sad prediction that the historical film is breathing its last on Indian screen, unless there is a fresh revival inspired by the marvellous English films armed with superb special effects, like "Troy", "Alexander" , "300" etc. or those from European countries which win acclaim and Oscars. |
