The first time I watched this movie I asked myself why we address Mr. Gandhi as a Mahatma ? I could’ve given ten reasons to support the ’why’ but after having seen this movie all the reasons seem like excuses. Of course the movie I’m talking ’bout is Legend of Bhagat Singh n its about ’Bhagat Singh’ for sure but it also has Mr. Gandhi in a special appearance. And for once I think his ideology is not an excuse enough to justify the part he plays in the movie.
Today I watched LBS for the second time and again felt emotionally choked. Only this time that I’ve found a way to relieve it. By now most of u have had already seen the movie (if not then dont be a fool for this review, watch it first) so y write a review? A Review? I’m not even sure whether its gonna be a movie review or a review of historical moments or any review at all? All I feel compelled to write my thoughts, may be to find out whether I reach any consensus with others or am I a standalone.
Legend of Bhagat Singh, movie couldn’t have been titled more appropriately. For many people like me ’Bhagat Singh’ was a freedom fighter, was hanged to death and is now remembered as ’Shaheed’. Sure one can add his escapades read in school. But how many knew he was willing to be hanged, that he was willing to die just to motivate others ? That he wasn’t only a revolutionary but also a Visionary who could sense the issues that plague India now. That he wanted to address all these issues along with freedom long before they proved to be disastrous for the country in the name of partition n still continuing communal hatred. That’s just few of the many things movie tells about I never knew. Besides being a brilliant portrayal of the lives n times of Bhagat Singh n his contemporaries, the movie also stands a podium to raise question much hushed cuz its considered blasphemous to ask. Of Gandhi having to do something with the deaths of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru. Or better put- Gandhi being answerable for the deaths. Movie abandonedly accuses Gandhi of not doing enough to save three precious lives when he well could’ve. When three of ’em were sentenced to death by British in connection with the killing of Scott, it was undisputedly believed by people that only man who could stop the British from doing so was Mr. Gandhi. Cuz Gandhi was in command of the moment for Lord Irvin was hell bent to get him sign a treaty which we know as Gandhi-Irvin Pact (another thing that makes little sense to me). General expectation was that Gandhi mustn’t sign in unless the three of ’em r exempted from death penalty. Gandhi didnt rise to the occasion and as shown he apparently did nothing to help the cause. Three of ’em were eventually hanged. As it is put in the movie... ’’history will always ask u (Gandhi) y didnt u save ’em?’’
Mr. Gandhi is not portrayed as a villain in film, he certainly is not. Bhagat Singh and his comrades wished to die a death for their country and followed it to the place deliberately but still Gandhi can’t escape the fact that when everyone wanted to save them, perhaps he didn’t want so. Sure he had his ideology of non-violence that he followed religiously and there’s no reason y he should be expected to support or save ’em when infact he was always against ’em. But, as ’Bapu’, as Father of the nation, was it wrong to expect him for a fatherly gesture? Wouldn’t it had been truly like a Mahatma to look beyond himself and his ideology for a moment as a fellow countryman only to try save the lives of three men who were no less patriotic than him ? To give them support when they needed it most. Wasn’t it time to come out as ONE ? By just letting the Britons slaughter ’em wasn’t he supporting violence ? Wasn’t he favoring Britons instead of his own people ? Wasn’t he being egoistic, being too selfish for his ideology that didn’t seem to serve any purpose at that moment? To me, he wasn’t being a Mahatma enough.
Some question the authenticity of the narrative but I want to believe a film-maker of RajKumar Santoshi’s calibre who has researched so much on the subject is NOT fictionalizing the history to portray a freedom fighter as an Angry Young Man who takes on the inhumane system all on his own, a la Amitabh Bachchan of seventies just to evoke the same sentiments that cheered so many of his films to super success.
As a Movie, LBS is very well made and though its in a commercial format (which is not a bad thing, just one song I think they could’ve easily done without is Heroin chasing Hero sort of ’’lage khand se bhi mithi...’’), at times its been made more obvious than required (to make it lucid for masses) but nowhere does it look frivolous. In technical aspects, particularly cinematography, it is brilliant. Filters r used or may be color correction is done aftershoot to give the film a yellowish colortone which suggests of a period in history. Music is A.R.Rehman (great) and wasn’t it a challenge he lived upto to compose ’’mera rang de basanti chola’’ when the one from Manoj Kumar’s ’Shaheed’ is still much heard and loved. BG score sets the tempo of the film n of course its amazing. As of actors, I never liked Ajay Devgan so much before, infact I never liked him at all. I found his voice husky n expressions pesky. But after LBS n then Company, I’ve happily done away with my anti-Ajay opinion. He alongwith Sushant Singh as Sukhdev has given incredible performance to match the credible performances of everyone else.
Period films are difficult to make, for they need to be entertaining to be watchable to pull audience in theatres (at least in India) without losing ground on realism. LBS is an answer to it. Its a pity that it flopped n its incomprehensible for me how a movie like this can ? Perhaps the slue of Bhagat Singh movies was a reason or may be people r no longer interested in Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh - the man whose dream of India we r still far from realizing. As the movie sums up - ’ we’ve betrayed their sacrifice.’ I hold it true and somewhere I’m ashamed for that.