2022: The Year When Indian Cinema Looked Away 

In the fraught times that the Indian republic is passing through, it is a year when Indian cinema turned away from storytelling that defends and celebrates justice, equality, freedom and kindness.

As I sit down surrounded by the winter chill for my annual letter to The Wire about my favourite Indian films of the year, what strikes me most is how little did cinema – still surely the most popular and influential of the arts in India – reflect on the tumult that sweeps the country.

When we will look back on cinema in 2022 years later, it is this silence of cinema when its voice was most needed that we will remember. If this silence is born from fear, or indifference, or complicity in the command projects of hate and unfreedoms, it is hard to say.

The year that we leave behind was one that was deeply troubled for the Indian people. It was marked by feverish stirrings of the already overheated politics of hate, in which noxious hate speech and the outrage of “bulldozer justice” were its paramount markers. 2022 also witnessed mutely the further crushing of our freedoms, with some of the country’s most idealistic hearts and minds continuing to be locked behind prison walls with no hope of even a trial commencing; the further erosion of independent media and intimidation of the few that still struggle to survive; and the targeting with charges of grave crimes of citizen dissenters, journalists of integrity and opposition politicians. 

But all of these were mostly absent from the big screen. 

The one fracture which a few films did focus on was of spectacularly vulgar, ever-widening inequality. Unimaginable levels of wealth accumulation of a tiny number combine with the desperate impoverishment and want of millions. For this reason, on the top of my list of worthy films of the past year is the barely noticed and massively underrated debut film of M. Gani, Matto ki Saikil

Matto is a Dalit middle-aged casual construction worker (played with masterly empathy and authenticity by Prakash Jha). His lone significant property is a ramshackle, 20-years old bicycle that improbably carries him to the construction site in the city in which he sometimes finds work at dirt wages.

The only time the state intervenes in his life is when officials driving into the village at dawn in white cars chase him with a stick for defecating in open fields. For the rest, he cannot depend on official support when his wife falls ill; or to help educate his two daughters; or to secure his rights to decent work, fair wages and social security; or even when he is attacked and robbed.

Abjuring both sentimentality and melodrama, the deliberately low-key narrative builds a devastating and deeply affecting commentary on the dead-end hopelessness of poverty of millions of casual workers in the country, and the profoundly culpable failure of the state to help build a better life for millions of its distraughtly poor people.  

It is this same authenticity of location and actors that works for an otherwise sometimes uneven film, Nagraj Manjule’s Jhund.

Jhund literally means the “mob”. Located in a Nagpur slum, the film is inspired by the true story of Vijay Barse, a retired sports teacher, who adopted a ragtag bunch of slum youth and wielded them into an energetic football team. The film tracks how just gathering each evening for practice for this team sport helps the young people – the ones who are dismissed by their more privileged neighbours as a “mob” – struggle to steer their lives away from crime, drugs and violent rage. 

In this way, the film offers hope in a manner that Matto ki Saikil never could. Jhund works most because Manjule sources real faces, many from slums, and they emerge as cheeky, plucky, ravaged but never pitiable or crushed. In a sequence that I found most affecting in the film, the young people talk about their lives to their teacher and other team members. When a teenager (whose spiked hair is dyed golden) reflects almost in wonder, “No one has ever been interested in my life”, I confess to have teared up. This film does not rise to the heights of Manjule’s earlier Fandry, but it still qualifies for this list because Manjule is genuinely interested in the lives of those people who for most of us don’t matter. 

And then we have Pa Ranjith’s vibrant, visually and thematically explosive Natchathiram Nagargiradhu.

For this, Pa Ranjith adopts his own idiom of storytelling, a heady amalgam of theatre, documentary, dance and song. At one level, it is a rumination on “honour killings”, the peculiarly South Asian social monstrosity of parents who brutally take the lives of their own children when they contravene the boundaries of caste and religion in choosing their life partners.

But at another level it is both an exploration as well as a celebration of transgressive love itself: of love that defies the frontiers established by dominant cultural mores, the borderlines of caste, faith, class, age and sexuality. 

The one mainstream Hindi film in my list is Harshavardhan Kulkarni’s Badhai Do, which manages to be funny, sad and tender at the same time.

In a small town in Uttarakhand, a gay police officer and a lesbian physical education teacher decide to marry to escape the pressures of their respective families to submit to a conventional arranged marriage. The film manages to portray both prejudice and resistance without judgment or stereotyping, and with unusual compassion.

I found particularly affecting the closing passages of the film, in which the police officer -played with rare empathy and insight by our finest young actor Rajkumar Rao – first comes out to his family, and then to his colleagues in the police force. He is policing with other policepersons a pride parade that is marching, dancing through the streets of the town. The police officer hesitates, then wears the mask that is the marker of the proudly gay, even as his colleagues watch bemusedly. It is an act of courage, resistance and honesty that lifts the film.

The two other films that make it into my inventory of the best films of 2022 are interestingly films about the love for cinema.

In one of these, Aparajito (The Unvanquished) Anik Datta is brave enough to recreate the making of a much-loved masterpiece by the greatest master of Indian cinema Satyajit Ray. Pather Panchali, is, even today an essential part of almost every major list of the greatest films ever made. Datta recalls the many obstacles that the handsome talented book illustrator and advertiser overcame to make this, his first film. Called upon to illustrate the cover of a children’s version of the classic novel, he decides to make a film based on the novel.

The film describes – with barely disguised names – how Ray gathers together a set of amateur actors and technicians for the film, including a young Ravi Shankar for the music, finds the village location, sketches each frame of the film, and musters the resources to complete the film at a fraction of what any mainstream film would have cost. Ray’s wife pawns her jewellery, and the Chief Minister takes money from the budget of the Public Works Department to partially fund the film, because its title is ‘the song of the road!’

Ray’s wife speaks later aptly of the universe conspiring to make sure the film was made (and with it, history). Anik Datta’s film is meticulously researched, respectful but not hagiographic. The period of the 1950s is authentically recreated, as is Ray’s astonishing range of talents. It helps that Jeetu Kamal bears a stunning resemblance to Ray.

Aparjito is sure-footed and compelling, and for someone like me who rates Pather Panchali right on top among his favourite films, it is a radiant tribute. 

Bringing up the rear of my list of the best Indian films of 2022 is India’s official entry to the Oscars, the small but enchanting Gujarati film Chhello Show (‘last film show’).

Building on childhood memories of the director Pan Nalin, it narrates the captivating story of a young boy in a remote village in Saurashtra discovering the magic and enchantment of the moving image called cinema. His father, a tea-seller on a wayside train station, often chases his son with a stick when he plays truant from his village school which bores him. The boy steals money from his father’s earnings to run away from school to secretly watch films. A friendship with the projector man helps him learn about the mysterious play of light that makes cinema possible. With his friends and some stolen film reels he establishes a makeshift projection room inside an abandoned ruin in the village.

As the film progresses, the boy’s heart breaks as he witnesses the end of one more chapter in the history of cinema: the transition from celluloid to digital film, and the demolition of the low-cost single-plex cinema hall. The boy’s parents finally accept his ambition to become a film-maker and they pool their savings to send him to the big city to study, the first step in his chosen journey. This small film is an enchanting ode to not just cinema, but to childhood and to chasing one’s dreams.    

Films that did not make it

And here are four films that could have made it to my list, but fell behind due to some outsize flaws. Three films that missed my list are all exquisitely filmed, each frame like a painting with their chosen colour palettes.

Two of these are Anvita Dutt’s Qala and Sachin Kundalkar’s Cobalt Blue. But even as you find yourself mesmerised by the staggering visual beauty of the films, you find it hard to empathise with the characters – a successful singer in the 1930s who pines for her mother’s encouragement in Qala, and two siblings, a young man and woman, who fall in love with the same mysterious paying guest in Cobalt Blue. The performances soar, with Tripti Dimri and Neeley Mehendale standing out respectively in the two films. But both films have a coldness in their core. Behind the flawless visuals and colours, and the masterfully constructed atmosphere of time and place, you are left longing to know the characters better, and to care for them more.

On the other hand, Sanjay Leela Bansali’s visually alluring Gangubai Kathiawadi has significant emotional heft, and is the finest in Bansali’s extravagant and indulgent filmography. The film’s strengths are in its depiction of Ganga, the young woman forced into prostitution in a Bombay brothel in Kamathipura, feistily fighting back to emerge as a powerful brothel owner and a mafia queen, and in Alia Bhatt’s commanding portrayal. However, Bansali airbrushes entirely the grime and indignity of forced brothel-based sex-work, and also the brutally violent moral inversions of the mafia. 

Let me end with Ali Abbas Zafar’s Jogi.  

The first half of the film recreates powerfully the terrifying days of the 1984 Sikh massacre after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination in Trilokpuri in East Delhi. It hinges on the mission of two friends – a Hindu police officer and a Muslim truck owner – to rescue their Sikh friend, his family and their neighbours. In a moment of haunting sadness, the Sikh man weeps as he cuts his hair to disguise himself as his Hindu friend watches.

But all of this build-up is frittered away when the animosity of the policeperson who hunts them down is explained away trivially as revenge over a soured love affair. The profound ethical and political failure of those days, that would haunt the nation for decades – and even more relevant to the times that we are passing through – is erased and the considerable moral promise of the film squandered. 

In normal times, 2022 would have rated as a passable year for Indian cinema. But in the fraught times that the Indian republic is passing through, it is a year when Indian cinema turned away from storytelling that defends and celebrates justice, equality, freedom and kindness. It is a year when India’s most popular and powerful art form chose once again to betray its soul. 

‘OTT Platforms at Times Show Pornographic Content, Need Screening’: Supreme Court

The apex court was hearing the appeal of Amazon Prime Video’s India head Aparna Purohit against the Allahabad high court order rejecting her anticipatory bail in connection with FIRs lodged over ‘Tandav.’

New Delhi: Some over-the-top (OTT) platforms at times show pornographic content and there should be a mechanism to screen such programmes, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, March 4, and asked the Centre to place its guidelines on regulating social media.

The apex court also fixed on Friday the hearing on the appeal of Amazon Prime Video’s India head Aparna Purohit against the Allahabad high court order rejecting her anticipatory bail in connection with FIRs lodged over web series Tandav.

“We are of the view that some screening of OTT content should take place. A balance has to be struck as some OTT platforms are also showing pornographic materials on their platforms,” a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R.S. Reddy said.

During the brief hearing conducted through video conferencing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Purohit, said the FIRs against her are “shocking” as she is an employee of Amazon and neither a producer nor an actor but still she has been made an accused in around 10 cases relating to the web series across the country.

Also read: Amazon Prime Video Apologises Once Again for ‘Tandav’

“These are all publicity seekers who have been filing cases all over India. Look at the FIR, look at what is happening. If you want to watch this web series, you have to pay to see this,” the senior lawyer said.

Several FIRs have been lodged in states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar and Delhi.

The bench said that though traditional film viewing has become “obsolete,” those films are under a censor board.

“Our query is whether some screening is necessary or not, because you watch anything in your home like a cinema hall,” the bench observed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, “They are showing filthy things with abuses too”.

Mehta said he would be placing on records the Information Technology (Guidelines for intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Also read | Explainer: How the New IT Rules Take Away Our Digital Rights

Rohatgi on the other hand said the case against Purohit cannot be based on the regulation which is yet to come in force.

Tandav, a nine-episode political thriller starring Bollywood actors Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia and Mohammad Zeeshan Ayyub, started streaming recently.

Purohit has been accused of inappropriate depiction of Uttar Pradesh police personnel, Hindu deities and an adverse portrayal of a character playing the prime minister in the web series.

Earlier, the apex court, on January 27, had declined to grant interim protection from any coercive action to Ali Abbas Zafar, Director of the web series, Purohit, producer Himanshu Mehra, the show’s writer Gaurav Solanki and actor Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub.

It had said that they may seek bail from courts concerned in the FIRs lodged in connection with the web series.

Now, Purohit has appealed to the top court against the Allahabad high court’s February 25 order declining anticipatory bail to her.

The high court had observed, “Western filmmakers have refrained from ridiculing Lord Jesus or the Prophet but Hindi filmmakers have done this repeatedly and are still doing this most unabashedly with Hindu gods and goddesses.”

Amazon Prime Video Apologises Once Again for ‘Tandav’

This is the platform’s third apology for the show.

New Delhi: Streaming platform Amazon Prime Video, on Tuesday, once again apologised for its show Tandav and said it has already removed scenes found objectionable by viewers. This is the platform’s third apology for the show.

The cast and the crew of the Ali Abbas Zafar-directed series have apologised twice before.

The political saga, starring Saif Ali Khan and Mohammad Zeeshan Ayyub, attracted a volley of outrage from a section of viewers for a scene depicting a college theatre programme with a mention of religious figures, leading to allegations that the show hurt religious sentiments.

Multiple FIRs were filed against the showrunners. One of the charges was that the show had encouraged “an adverse portrayal of a character playing the prime minister”.

Some portions of the series were cut following outrage as it released.

On February 25, rejecting the anticipatory bail plea filed by the head of Amazon Prime Video’s India Originals Aparna Purohit, the Allahabad high court had observed that “names and icons of faith of the majority community have been used to earn money”.

“Amazon Prime Video again deeply regrets that viewers considered certain scenes to be objectionable in the recently launched fictional series ‘Tandav’. This was never our intention, and the scenes that were objected to were removed or edited when they were brought to our attention,” Amazon Prime said in a statement.

“We respect our viewers’ diverse beliefs and apologise unconditionally to anyone who felt hurt by these scenes. Our teams follow company content evaluation processes, which we acknowledge need to be constantly updated to better serve our audiences,” the company added.

The streamer said it will continue to develop entertaining content with partners while “complying with the laws of India and respecting the diversity of culture and beliefs of our audiences”.

Although legal cases against Netflix and Amazon Prime Video shows for offending beliefs are not uncommon in India, it is rare for a US tech giant to publicly apologise, Reuters has noted in its report.

(With PTI inputs)

‘Tandav’: Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Aparna Purohit, Raps ‘Irresponsible’ Actions

The court observed that Hindi filmmakers have used the “names and icons of faith of the majority community” to earn money.

New Delhi: Rejecting the anticipatory bail plea filed by the head of Amazon Prime Video’s India Originals Aparna Purohit, the Allahabad high court on Thursday observed that “names and icons of faith of the majority community have been used to earn money”.

Purohit has been booked for various offences, after a complaint against her was registered for “inappropriate depiction of Uttar Pradesh police personnel, Hindu deities and an adverse portrayal of a character playing the prime minister” in Amazon Prime’s web series Tandav. Complaints have been filed at various locations and the court was hearing the matter regarding an FIR registered in Noida.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sidharth noted, “Western filmmakers have refrained from ridiculing Lord Jesus or the Prophet but Hindi filmmakers have done this repeatedly and are still doing this most unabashedly with Hindu gods and goddesses.”

Also Read: Life of Brian at 40: An Assertion of Individual Freedom That Still Resonates

The court listed some movies “which have used the name of Hindu gods and goddesses and shown them in disrespectful manner”, such as Ram Teri Ganga Maili, Satyam Shivam Sundram, PK and Oh My God.

“Not only this, efforts have been made to subvert the image of historical and mythological personalities as in Padmavati. The names and icons of faith of the majority community have been used to earn money (Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ram Leela),” the court said.

“This tendency on the part of the Hindi film industry is growing and if not curbed in time, it may have disastrous consequences for the Indian social, religious and communal order,” Justice Sidharth observed.

According to LiveLaw, the order also referred to the arrest of comedian Munawar Faruqui.

“Things are worsening as is evident from the fact that an obscure stand-up comedian, Munawar Faruqui, from Gujarat made comments on Hindu God and Godesses in a new year show at Indore and gained undue publicity on being arrested in a case. This shows that from films this trend has passed to comedy shows,” he said.

The Indore police have admitted that Faruqui did not make any comments on Hindu deities, but justified his arrest on the basis that he was “going to” make jokes that would have hurt religious sentiments.

The court added that “such people make the revered figures of the religion of majority community source of earning money in most brazen manner taking benefit of the liberal and tolerant tradition of country.”

Purohit’s plea was that the web series was a work of fiction and there was no intention to outrage the religious feeling of any community.

The court observed, “The fact remains that the applicant had not been vigilant and has acted irresponsibly making her open to criminal prosecution in permitting streaming of a movie which is against the fundamental rights of the majority of citizens of this country.”

“Therefore, her fundamental right of life and liberty cannot be protected by grant of anticipatory bail to her in the exercise of discretionary powers of this Court,” the court further said.

The judge said that Purohit was granted interim protection in another case registered in Lucknow “but she was not cooperating with the investigation”.

According to the Indian Express, the court said that while making a fictional show, it is the duty “of every citizen to respect the feelings of the people of other faith.”

“The irresponsible conduct against the inherent mandate of the Constitution of India by anyone affecting the fundamental rights of the large number of citizens cannot be acquiesced to only because of the tendering of unconditional apology after committing the alleged act of crime and indiscretion,” the order says.

A mere disclaimer that the show is fictional “cannot be considered to be a ground for absolving the applicant of permitting the streaming of an objectionable movie online”.

The court also criticised the show’s title, saying using the word ‘Tandav’ as the name “can be offensive to the majority of the people of this country since this word is associated with a particular act assigned to Lord Shiva who is considered to be creator, conservator and destroyer of the mankind all together.”

Saif Ali Khan in Tandav. Photo: Amazon Prime

The counsel appearing on behalf of Uttar Pradesh opposed the application, saying that a total of 10 FIRs and four criminal complaints have been filed relating to the disputed web series across the country.

The government submitted that this shows that “merely one person is not affected by the conduct of the applicant and other co-accused persons, rather a number of persons across the country have felt that the web series is offensive and hence, they have lodged FIRs and complaints”.

Cases have also been registered against Tandav‘s director Ali Abbas Zafar, producer Himanshu Krishna Mehra, writer Gaurav Solanki and others. In late January, the Supreme Court declined to grant interim protection to the accused.

SC Declines Interim Protection From Arrest To Makers and Actors of ‘Tandav’

The court sought the responses of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar and Delhi on the pleas.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday declined to grant interim protection from arrest to Ali Abbas Zafar, director of the web series Tandav, and others seeking quashing of FIRs against them for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of Hindus and issued notices to Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and other states on their pleas.

A bench comprising justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah was hearing as many as three separate petitions filed by Zafar, Amazon Prime India head Aparna Purohit, producer Himanshu Mehra, the show’s writer Gaurav Solanki and actor Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub.

Besides seeking quashing of the FIRs, the pleas sought clubbing of the FIRs.

The nine-episode political thriller is facing a host of cases, accusing it of hurting religious sentiments, “inappropriate” depiction of the UP Police and adverse portrayal of a character who is the prime minister. While three cases have been filed in Uttar Pradesh, another was filed in Maharashtra.

The show was forced to drop the scenes which have allegedly hurt religious sentiments, but continues to be probed.

According to news agency PTI, the bench sought the responses of state governments in UP, MP, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar and Delhi on the pleas.

Tandav stars Bollywood A-listers Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia and Mohd Zeeshan Ayyub.

‘Tandav’ Makers to Drop ‘Controversial’ Scenes, Thank I&B Ministry for ‘Guidance’

The decision has been arrived at after the representatives of the show and Amazon Prime platform met officials from the Union ministry of information and broadcasting following complaints received from different parts of the country.

New Delhi: The makers of Amazon Prime Show Tandav have decided to drop scenes from the political drama that have allegedly hurt religious sentiments and resulted in numerous first information reports (FIRs) from different parts of the country.

This decision has been arrived at after the representatives of the show and Amazon Prime platform met the Union ministry of information and broadcasting on Tuesday for a second meeting to discuss complaints that the ministry claimed to have received on the show. They thanked the ministry for its “guidance” on the portions of the show that need to be dropped. The first meeting was held on Monday.

The show’s director, Ali Abbas Zafar, who was present for both meetings, tweeted on Tuesday stating they will make appropriate changes in line with concerns raised.

“The cast & crew of Tandav have made the decision to implement the changes to the web series to address the concerns raised towards the same. We thank the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for the guidance & support in the matter. We once again apologise if the series has unintentionally hurt anybody’s sentiments,” he wrote on Twitter.

Also read: FIR Against Makers of Amazon Series ‘Tandav’ for Hurting Religious Sentiments

He reiterated that they “have the utmost respect for the sentiments of the people of India, and they did not intend to hurt or offend sentiments of any individual, caste, community, race, religion or religious beliefs, or insult or outrage any institution, political party or person, living or dead.”

Earlier Zafar and show’s producer Himanshu Mehra had said on Monday that they had been closely monitoring viewer reactions to their web series and were aware of a large number of grievances and petitions on various portions of the show. Mehra had said it is only a “work of fiction” and that they “unconditionally apologise if it has unintentionally hurt anybody’s sentiments”.

On Tuesday, there were several calls from BJP leaders demanding action against Tandav, including from the home minister of Haryana, Anil Vij, who called for the show to be removed from digital platforms. He also urged the Centre to ensure that every web series would go through a censorship process before they hit the screens.

Similarly, Madhya Pradesh home minister, Narottam Mishra, said he will file a case against Tandav. “I condemn the way Zeeshan Ayyub, Saif Ali Khan and Ali Abbas Zafar reacted to our religion and hurt sentiments,” he told PTI.

A third FIR was filed in Uttar Pradesh against the web series, including charges under SC/ST Act and the Information Technology Act, against Zafar, Mehra, Saif Ali Khan, Kapadia, actor Sunil Grover, writer Gaurav Solanki and Amazon Prime’s India head Aparna Purohit.

According to a report in Indian Express, Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad chief Mahant Narendra Giri alleged that “disrespect” caused to Hindu sentiments by the makers of Tandav was “intentional”.

“Only if all the Muslim directors and heroes give a written affidavit to the official of their concerned area saying they will not repeat this mistake, and that they will never show anything objectional about sanatan deities, only then this can be made right,” he was quoted as saying by the Indian Express report.

Tandav, a nine-episode political thriller, began streaming online last week, and stars Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia and Mohd Zeeshan Ayyub, among others. Ever since its release, it has received backlash from different parts of the country, especially from the Hindu fundamentalist organisations and BJP leaders.

UP: Another FIR Against Makers and Artists of Web Series ‘Tandav’

The complainant in the fresh case alleges inappropriate depiction of the UP Police, Hindu deities and adverse portrayal of a character playing the prime minister in the political drama.

Noida: An FIR has been lodged against makers and artists of Amazon Prime’s web series Tandav in Uttar Pradesh’s Greater Noida, police said on Tuesday.

This is at least the third FIR to be filed in Uttar Pradesh against the makers of the web series.

The complainant in the fresh case, lodged around 10 pm on Monday, alleges inappropriate depiction of UP Police personnel, Hindu deities, and adverse portrayal of a character playing the prime minister in the political drama, according to the FIR.

In the latest FIR at Rabupura in Greater Noida, the accused have been booked, among others, under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, according to the FIR accessed by PTI.

The FIR names as accused the series’ director Ali Abbas Zafar, Amazon Prime’s India head Aparna Purohit, producer Himanshu Kishan Mehra, writer Gaurav Solanki and actors Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia and Sunil Grover.

Greater Noida deputy commissioner of police Rajesh Kumar Singh said, “A local resident has made a complaint at the Rabupura police station in Greater Noida over depiction of Dalit insult, casteism and content inflammatory to religious sentiments in the web series Tandav besides showing people on high-positions engaging in inappropriate talks.”

An FIR has been lodged against the director of the web series, Amazon Prime’s India head, the actors and writer. Since the SC/ST Act has also been invoked in the FIR, a gazetted officer will probe the case, Singh added.

Also Read: FIR Against Amazon Prime’s ‘Mirzapur’ for Depicting UP District in ‘Bad Light’

The FIR has been lodged under Indian Penal Code sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 505(1)-1B (making any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public), 505(2) (statements conducing to public mischief).

Charges under the Information Technology Act have also been invoked in the case, according to the FIR.

The cast and crew of Tandav, faced with FIRs in Uttar Pradesh and social media clamour by a section demanding the series’ ban, had on Monday issued an unconditional apology if their fictional show had unintentionally hurt sentiments.

On Monday, an FIR was lodged at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow against Amazon’s India head of original content, Aparna Purohit, series director Ali Abbas, producer Himanshu Krishna Mehra, writer Gaurav Solanki, and an unknown person on Sunday night.

Another FIR was lodged in Shahjahanpur against Abbas and actors Saif Ali Khan and Zeeshan Ayyub on a complaint by BJP MLA Vikram Veer Singh from Katra constituency at Katra police station.

Tandav Has Lofty Ambitions but Remains Trite and Lacklustre

The show nods at contemporary events and politics, but is marred by poor acting.

The nine-part Amazon Prime series Tandav, created and directed by Ali Abbas Zafar, opens to a quote by a Polish philosopher – “In politics, being deceived is no excuse” – as a mawkish romantic song, reminiscent of ’90s Bollywood, plays in the background. This postmodernist flourish, a blend of ‘high’ and ‘low’ art, is a smart bit of foreshadowing, as the show is pulled by two different forces.

One is centred on the campus politics of Vivekananda University (or VNU, obviously modelled after you know what). The other is set in Raisina Hills, depicting the internal power struggles in India’s ruling party, Jan Lok Dal (JLD), that has governed the country for three consecutive terms. The college and the country, the Left and Right, the two-faced nature of power: duality is embedded in the very essence of Tandav.

The series opens to a day before the election result. Most believe that the JLD will win by a landslide margin, and the party’s ruthless patriarch, Devaki Nandan (Tigmanshu Dhulia), will become the prime minister for the fourth time. But his son, Samar Pratap Singh (Saif Ali Khan), is as hungry for power. You know this can’t end well. I thought Samar would stage a coup, but he poisons his father instead.

One of the first striking things about the show is its charged tone. Frames freeze, the background score booms, the dialogues jump and bite. It is fun experiencing a cinematic universe that revels in melodramatic pleasures. But this heaviness soon starts to burden Tandav.

To begin with, it is marked by uneven acting; crucial conversations, such as the one between Samar and Devaki right before his death, lack natural rhythm; characters burst into abrasive lines devoid of immediate context. You want to shake this series by its shoulders and say, “It’s all right, take a deep breath, relax.”

The background score, for instance, is so overwhelming that it starts crushing the scenes; it is no longer music, it has become noise. Even during unpleasant exchanges where uncomfortable silences can reveal character – Samar talking to his dead father or humiliating a veteran JLD leader, Gopal Das (Kumud Mishra), among many others – the score is in a state of constant agitation. It feels as if the series doesn’t trust its audience; many times, it doesn’t trust itself.

Tandav is often crosscut between two stories – one in VNU, the other Raisina Hills — but their energies don’t complement each other. There’s no dearth of contrasting material: dissenting students, murderous politicians, fierce idealists, dead souls, endearing friendships, rival families. Yet, despite all the efforts, these stories don’t add up to outsize their parts. Even the overall series struggles to pick momentum; it occasionally springs out of the rut, when a kinetic A.R. Rahman number – ‘Dhakka Laga Bukka’ from Yuva (2005) – ripples during college election campaigns. But even this burst of energy is borrowed and, in the subsequent episodes, loses its charm; the song plays every time the college is in a political frenzy, resembling a tired trick.

The show gathers steam when it plays to the genre gallery. Anuradha Kishore (Dimple Kapadia), a senior party member, blackmails Samar to make her the prime minister because she knows his sordid secret. Samar’s loyal henchman, Gurpal (Sunil Grover), relishes his devilish job: sniffing leads, intimidating suspects, murdering obstacles. Characters pause and deliver burning rejoinders.

Tandav is densely plotted with enough twists and turns. When Anuradha becomes the prime minister, Samar’s counterattack elicits intrigue. He wants to enlist a VNU student, Shiva Shekhar (Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub), to exact revenge. But Shiva is an idealist and a “leftie”: Will he turn Right to do the wrong thing? Shiva’s close friend Sana Mir (Kritika Kamra), in urgent need of cash, gets swayed to create a rift in his gang.

But even then, the show tests the limit of a trusting audience. There are many plot points that don’t make sense. Anuradha blackmails Samar, but she doesn’t have proof; he never asks for any, a flimsy twist that drives the entire series. Sana’s financial crisis is tied to a contrived backstory. Samar, the second most powerful man in the country, hopes that a college student – of all the people – can help resolve his crisis.

Samar’s college friend, quite conveniently, turns out to be a VNU professor (Dino Morea) who is having an affair with Sana. The owner of a famous news channel (Hiten Tejwani) is helping Samar suppress the cause of his father’s death. Samar and his cohorts show a preternatural interest in college students, as if Raisina Hills is a local university. I can go on and on. The show wants to raise stakes, by upending ordinary situations, but it frequently fails to conceive credible transitions. Some subplots – such as Samar encouraging Shiva and Sana, betraying Shiva – raise intrigue and expectations, but they eventually fizzle out.

It doesn’t end there. The most disappointing bit about Tandav is that, for a political piece, it is hardly interested in politics. The show spends a lot of time with the JLD leaders, but we don’t get a sense of their worldview (apart from the customary exposition that they lean towards Right). The party leaders resemble preteens fighting for their turns at video game parlours; even their viciousness is flat, where ideology plays no role. The CJLD, the party’s youth wing in VNU, is equally opaque. Even Shiva is a stale figure; whenever he’s berating the government, he spouts generic socialist spiels centered on the farmers’ plight. If the political is personal, then Tandav doesn’t establish that crucial through-line.

Saif Ali Khan in Tandav. Photo: Amazon Prime

The show could have been somewhat compelling if it featured some outstanding performances. But no such luck here. Besides Grover, who plays a clichéd role with biting gusto, no one else is memorable. Saif, Gauahar, and Kapadia stick to their characters’ loglines; there’s nothing magnetic to their personas. Ditto the ever-reliable Mishra and Ayyub who are just about competent. Morea, Kamra, and Paresh Pahuja (playing Anuradha’s directionless coked-up son) are particularly forgettable, relying on stock mannerisms and stilted speech.

Worse, the makers are convinced that they’ve created something ‘deep’. Episode after episode, they keep ticking boxes acknowledging the current political climate; many references drop without context – a trite effort that doesn’t illuminate the characters, or present a considered view of events, as much as project the show as ‘aware’ and ‘progressive’. Since VNU students form a pivotal plot point, we get the dialogue, “universities are breeding terrorists”. A cop insinuates that it is easy to lock up a young Muslim. Characters hurl casteist slurs at a minister who is Dalit. Gopal Das, during an important meeting, makes Anuradha’s secretary (Gauahar Khan) and another female leader (Shonali Nagrani) uncomfortable by sexist comments.

Good filmmakers are good ventriloquists: they don’t let you see the artist’s hands. But Tandav waves, and waves some more, compelling you to turn away. The real duality is the show’s very nature: it is torn between being delightfully pulpy and politically profound. It ends up being neither.

‘Tiger Zinda Hai’ Will Make You Laugh at the Wrong Time for the Wrong Reason

Big-budget mainstream entertainers don’t usually rely on smart writing, but key plot turns in Tiger Zinda Hai, in place to magnify Salman Khan’s stardom, make no sense at all.

Big-budget mainstream entertainers don’t usually rely on smart writing, but key plot turns in Tiger Zinda Hai, in place to magnify Salman Khan’s stardom, make no sense at all.

A still from Tiger Zinda Hai. Credit: YouTube

Tiger (Salman Khan) can do almost everything. He can intimidate and overpower wolves. He can shoot bullets, fire bazookas, ride a horse, drive a hummer, run fast, evade danger. But his resume lacks one quality: He doesn’t know how to defuse a bomb. In Tiger Zinda Hai’s climax, an Indian nurse, Poorna (Anupriya Goenka), needs help, but Tiger, for a change, can’t be the hero. Poorna, one among the 25 Indian nurses held captive by ISC (a militant group modeled on ISIS), has a bomb strapped to her. Tiger turns to Namit (Angad Bedi), his team member, an expert in defusing bomb, who says, “This is not possible, sir.”

Like most men, Tiger doesn’t take no for an answer. He’s livid, scolding Namit to try harder. Namit does his best; he still says it’s impossible. Tiger, looking more ominous than the bomb, the very embodiment of ‘Impossible says I’m possible’, finally tells Namit, “Dekh in nurses ko! [look at these nurses]”, as if their distressed faces have codes of deactivating the bomb. Namit looks at them. Then Tiger says, “Ho jaana chahiye [should be fine]” to another team member and leaves. Tiger, as always, was right. Namit somehow finds a way to kill the bomb. Tiger’s resume has a new skill: motivational speaker.

This scene perfectly encapsulates Tiger Zinda Hai, which makes you laugh at the wrong time for the wrong reason. Khan is known for starring in action dramas where he vanquishes his enemies alone. But here the scale is ginormous: Khan’s Tiger is up against an ISIS-like group, feared by the armies and intelligence services of the world. But with some help from half-a-dozen cohorts, Tiger annihilates them. Earth is done. You wonder what’s next: aliens?

Tiger Zinda Hai’s prequel, the 2012 actioner Ek Tha Tiger, was a middling fare made notable because it showed Khan’s willingness to play a character. Since then he has appeared in a few films that have tested his acting capabilities, such as Bajrangi Bhaijan, Sultan, Tubelight, and, irrespective of their end results, at least tried telling a story. Zafar’s last film, Sultan, an uneven drama with flashes of promise, seemed to interrogate the star’s persona. So Tiger Zinda Hai had a shred of promise. But here, Zafar is caught between the essence of Khan’s stardom – a macho figure landing fists, raining bullets – and a real-life story that resists that simplification. Zafar tries. There’s some attempt at understanding the setting. We’re shown the terror in its terrains before the hero is introduced. Tiger and Zoya (Katrina Kaif), his wife, an ex-ISI agent helping him in the mission, have to earn their victories: they strategise, implement their plans, face hurdles. The film’s villain, Abu Usman (Sajjad Delfrooz), ISC’s leader, is given a backstory detailing his motivations.

But these choices can only make Tiger Zinda Hai a good film. The problem is that it wants to be a good Salman Khan film. Zafar wants to inject drama in an already dramatic story. So the film first has a dash – and later, a splash – of jingoism. Tiger tells his son, Junior, to speak in Hindi when they’re together. It’s a crucial line because Junior’s mother is Pakistani. “When you’re with me, you’re Indian,” says Tiger. In a subsequent scene, he’s putting Junior to sleep by reading a story of Bhagat Singh, ending with “Inquilab Zindabad”. That is soon followed by Zoya telling Tiger, “You love your country more than me. That’s what I respect about you.” Later, we find out that Tiger’s team member, Azaan (Paresh Ahuja), is secretly carrying a tricolor, wanting to unfurl at the hospital after rescuing the hostages. These scenes play out like inconsequential asides, planted to garner whistles and applaud.

Many Hindi films, especially those centred on Indian civilians in danger, take the easy route of jingoism to elicit an emotional reaction from the audience, often at the cost of deriding a different country. (Pakistan is a frequent target.) Tiger Zinda Hai is smart to refrain from suggesting that India (or its security agency) is better than Pakistan, but its core beliefs – that “there’s only one religion: humanity” and that the two countries should be on friendly terms – are repeated throughout the film without context, materialising through simplistic and sentimental gaze.

Zafar continues holding the audiences, explaining simple plot details. Midway through the film, a kid is tied to a time bomb, which is about to detonate in seconds. Yet, a character tells Tiger (or perhaps the audiences) that, “This bomb will explode in 45 seconds.” Thank you. When Abu captures Tiger and Zoya, saying he’ll kill them with a noxious gas, the scene next cuts to a few cylinders that read, “Highly Toxic Chemical Gas”. Again, very helpful. In another vital scene, the characters discuss that they’ve only two days left to save the hostages before the CIA strikes. But this has to be drilled in our minds, so the text over the next scene reads, “Two days to airstrike”. These examples aren’t outliers. Tiger Zinda Hai, in many instances, unfolds less like a film, more like an instruction manual.

Then there’s Tiger, the centrepiece in different settings. He’s a thinker but also a bare-chested bullet machine. He’s sensitive but also badass. Zafar doesn’t want to portray Tiger; he wants to showcase Khan. Many Bollywood directors have pursued this tired ambition before, but Zafar’s desires find home through baffling means: glaring plot holes. Big-budget mainstream entertainers don’t usually rely on smart writing, but the two key plot turns in Tiger Zinda Hai, in place to magnify Khan’s stardom, make no sense at all. One of the two in fact, completely changes the climax, contradicting the film’s internal consistency. This isn’t just lazy writing but a dishonest approach to filmmaking, which chooses a star over storytelling.

Not that the star is any better. About to turn 52 in five days, Khan must find new ways to battle time. His only significant quality – his screen presence – is fast deserting him. It’s most evident in this melodramatic action thriller, his staple diet for years, where he fails to hold your attention, serving stock expressions and mannerisms. Till last year, his fans didn’t care; in fact, they did not want him to act. But now he’s stopped performing too, and they’ve started getting restless. Earlier this year, they snubbed Tubelight, and their reactions this morning, in an Andheri multiplex, were considerably subdued. This year has been a particularly unfortunate year for Hindi cinema, and Tiger Zinda Hai fittingly concludes it. But the Hindi film audiences, largely indifferent to the flaws of their stars, have begun pushing back. Besides Tubelight, they also dismissed Jab Harry Met Sejal. The next few days will give them another chance: to prick the mediocrity of a Bollywood star, to deflate his ego, to shake his throne.