Sarkaar is a thought and principle is simple ?When the system fails, Sarkaar rules?.
Perhaps the movie lets us assume that the system has already been crippled, Let?s take it then, if something goes wrong we go to some Sarkaar in our cities, is that what the movie meant for me to understand.
How do we assume power?
A questions is a derivative of the fact that we have made an attempt towards being powerful, in doing so we have done few things that are practically against outlaws, so that?s the thought that Amitabh tries to convey to Rashid in a scene ?Mere saare kaamo ko kanooni nahi kaha ja Sakta?, So another derivative of the fact remains that to be powerful we need to get outlawed.
See, there isn?t a problem in wielding power and what Sarkaar shows is a less sinister version of what actually happens and to be very honest the underlying thought that the director Ram Gopal Varma wanted to convey is pretty much an understatement.
The FACT:: In India seldom the power is used for help.
The Fiction:: This Sarkaar works only when the System fails.
So in the first place if the system has already been presumed to be Failed, then why doesn?t Sarkaar wield his power for clearing the holes in the system, See there comes the point I made above, its wielding power.. I am sorry to say it is this what makes every other assumption like Abhishek convincing Katrina about his father rather pale, A movie has to mix the thoughts and the script via a screenplay, if I say that Script and Screenplay of the movie were pretty apt, the Thought simply wasn?t.
Because?
We are made to presume many things, Time and again we are told and talked about Sarkaar?s business or Dhandha, what was it, what was that so much illegal but still legible to grant Sarkaar the dos and the opponents the donts. Any answers.
If Sarkaar can give a hand of solace to the girl in the first place, then why cannot Sarkaar act firm on his raging son Vishnu played aptly by KK, See this is contradictory also, Sarkaar reacts fiercely on the dinner table on his son, it gives us a view that the Father is absolutely resilient to his son?s wrong doings, but when the same son kills someone innocent, the Father reacts pretty much in an imploded way, Why?
As pointed out in the review by Pras (cticize), the opponents were killed that easily in the 2nd half is itself proves the fact that the director took the commercial instincts and made the protagonists to go on a rampage, seems like a typical revenge movie.
If killing the enemy was so easy then why the first half was weaved so long, where they scheme plans to outdo the Sarkaar and more or less it is shown working, It means the 1st Half was the effort to convince me with the thoughts but the 2nd half was a revenge movie.
The movie as a whole in technicalities is well made as we expect from RGV but the movie has fallen flat in terms of convincing people about Sarkaar, Why is it that when in his other movies like Satya and Company the Police i.e. law has been shown a force to reckon with but in here the Law keepers are succinctly shown the door, they aren?t needed anymore, the country needs Sarkaar not Police. Plus every effort is made that there is no law the way people can be eradicated with style and background music at ease.
Performances are stellar from the Bachchan duos but both have been given a subtle and quiet mannerisms to act with hence I would say the one who makes the noise i.e. KK takes the honors. Rest of the cast is there to support. The Direction on a Technical perspective is good as usual but as I told it fails to combine the thought, the script via the screenplay.
On the whole Sarkaar disappoints me and I cannot get convinced with so called SOCH provided by the movie, you might not agree but I wont recommend it simply.
Thank you for reading, you can comment.