After the movie I went home with a friend, and as we walked into the compound’s main gate, two old men were seated on the bench. The first one is Mr. Bhatia, Mr. Bhatia who is easily in his mid-70s, with whom we always exchange greetings whenever we meet at some point.
- “You have come from where?’’ asked Mr. Bhatia.
- “I went to see a film on Swantantrya Veer Savarkar,” I replied uncertain if he knew it by its full name. “It’s a good film anyway,” I said.
- “It must obviously be good then.” said Mr. Bhatia while nodding in reverence.“Bade hi balidani aadmi the vo to.”
- “He was someone who made great sacrifices for the country.”
- On hearing this, I felt so nice. I just felt you can’t hold back a good thing. Post-independence Congress almost turned Vinayak Savarkar into an arch-villain and latter as someone who seeks forgiveness from Britishers these days.
- But yet an ordinary man sees his value. He acknowledges this and many other things too about him .His legacy lives on.
About the movie
Initially when few people came into the hall i was worried because this is the kind of movie that should be watched by as many people as possible, but on leaving there was like 50-60 people around which to me was quite much considering what we normally see these days in halls. This being Wednesday 3 PM show time.
The movie deals with Vinayak Savarkar or more commonly known as Veer Savarkar before there was a campaign of vilifying him perpetuated. One problem with the initial part of the film is that unless you have read something about him before, it can be hard to understand what is taking place.
I had read Vikram Sampath’s book on Savarkar so I knew what was being shown on the screen. My family had not read it. I had to explain to them. I believe even the people in the theater were confused.
At crucial points, they have inserted extended on-screen text blurbs to provide contextual information for events happening within the frame. Blank screen as backdrop could have allowed for some more breathing space for these text references rather than superimposing them over fast cut images. Larger sections of text that are separated from the surrounding visual flow by a stationary context can be more easily read by viewers who wish to consult this additional information prior returning to watching the film.
For one not to wonder while watching a movie. The quickly cut scenes showed Vinayak’s childhood during which time plaguing diseases was a commonplace occurrence in South Asia. British colonial authorities would resort to such brutal containment measures more often than not when faced with an ailment outbreak like this one. They would forcibly take away the sick person and he or she would disappear into thin air only never be seen again in their lifetime as well as endure lonely death without any human dignity surrounded by their loved ones.
It did not end at that then whole buildings including everything inside them would be burned down completely just like part of scorched earth decontamination strategy . This brutal approach left many families rendered homeless, impoverished and broken by the same state machinery meant to assist them. This forced many families to hide their ill relatives within their homes, where they would eventually die in secret. That is why in the movie, he strictly tells them not to come near him and not tell anybody that he has contracted it.
Without this background knowledge though, one cannot make meaning of the events unfolding. That’s why for the famous Chapekar brothers, the first assassination or assassination attempt happens against a British officer who was practicing barbaric ways during the plague outbreak.
To begin with, for Savarkar who was still a young revolutionary at that time, what the Chapekars did clearly constitutes an act of radicalization through violence. They were killing colonialists responsible for cruel acts even if they are no immediate threat. It’s important to note that these seeds of thought sowed further developed into Vinayak Savarkar’s revolutionary thinking.
This catalytic moment could have been more explicitly described as it sets up what will be a resistance narrative throughout. The act of violence is just random.
Then came years when he started two secret organizations Mitra Mela and Abhinav Bharat mostly made up of teenagers to fight against British (Secretly) which seems rushed. These scenes needed some more elaboration. There is no buildup. It is like briefly glancing through very significant part of the story.
The film makers had over three decades of revolutionary life to squeeze into one film but neglecting early years results in bad narrative transitions which are crucial for such an ambitious biographical project. Thus creating emotional connection with audiences by way of trying out something new may need such kind of transitioning. These transitions could have been done through simple conversations too.
Luckily enough though in 30 minutes’ time only, this film starts moving swiftly and then on becomes rather captivating especially when Savarkar gets arrested by the Englishmen and goes to Kalapani in Andaman Islands.
It graphically demonstrates how he suffered from various kinds of physical and psychological pains for more than ten years. I cannot remember any movie whereby the main character has been closed up in a room and been puking, diarrheaing without water to wash.
According to Sampath’s book, it would reach a point where there would be no space to lie and sleep because the entire room could smell with fecal waste products.
His role as Savarkar is played well by Randeep Hooda who dives into playing this part without looking back. This shows in his determination especially when he takes off his weight so that he may have a realistic look like someone who has lived in Kalapani.
He is an excellent actor. I knew him only through one Hollywood film before this: Extraction, which had an important role similar to Chris Hemsworth’s.
It was Randeep Hooda’s debut directing feature Swantatrya Veer Savarkar which turned out quite well. Though initially struggling with storytelling and related issues, slowly but surely Hooda finds his rhythm and shoulders the weight of the movie confidently. However, despite its shaky beginning, the film grows up to be one fine production.
The first 20-30 minutes can put your patience on trial but it all pays off as you see how much progress he made as a director during those times. If we were not told that this movie was directed by an actor instead of seasoned director at its end even you may find it hard to believe. Hooda came in after another director had done the job. Maybe, the director directed the first part of this film.
Sometimes Gandhi’s scheming antics as a comedian interfere with the main theme of the film. He did not have to be proved as an excessively cunning person. It would have been better if his ideological confusions were shown just like those of other characters in the movie.
Vikram Sampath’s book does not exaggerate Savarkar’s influence on him to make him appear more highly important than even a giant to building up a whole freedom movement. However, Hooda fails and falls for temptation by depicting Savarkar as mastermind behind all liberation struggle and goes far to suggest his role in such political icons like Bhagat Sing and Subhas Chandra Bose.
Finally, he (or whoever wrote this script) tries to provide another perspective on India’s independence that it was not gained through nonviolence but rather by entering into an implied threat of military revolt against British colonial rule. The film implies that British left India suddenly because they feared a possible mutiny within India’s Armed forces including Army, Navy and Air Force A 20th-century version of 1857 uprising which would bring even more damage this time round.
This slightly provocative counter-thesis about British exit mechanics may annoy leftist historians. Whether one agrees or disagrees about these aspects of freedom struggle, there is no doubt that they are seriously rethinking how people think about Indian independence.
Moreover, since he tells the story, hence he can justify what happens .According to Romila Thapar “eminent” historian history is always interpretation. Different men see different things when looking at a picture.
Nehru only appears briefly lighting Lady Mountbatten’s cigarette in an almost comic smallish stance.
For More Movies Visit Putlocker.