TO BE OR NOT TO BE

"To be, or not to be..." from Shakespeare’s play Hamlet is the perfect way to describe the dilemma of Vishal Bharadwaj’s recent film “Haider” – A film he claims to be adapted from Shakespeare’s , arguably the best play, “Hamlet”.  Clearly in the trilogy of Makbool, Omkara and Haider (all films adapted from Shakesphere’s play), the third installment is the weakest.

Before you read further, a couple of disclaimers. I am a big Vishal Bharadwaj fan. The 2^nd disclaimer being, I love Kashmir. I have been to Kashmir in 1990, 2008 and earlier this year April 2014. I simple love the place. Hence I had great expectation of “Haider”- A Vishal Bharadwaj film.

I would love to interpret  the film as Vishal would have expected us to believe- An Adaptation of Hamlet. While I am guilty of not reading the original play (which I am sure, I am incapable of), what I understand is that, it was a great story of “Dharamasankat”. A lot of tension, rivalry, undercurrent of passion and revenge would be expected of the story. Unfortunately the intensity expected out of  film was absent. In fact knowing Vishal’s body of work….. He can create that intensity when there would be none. While Hamlet did provide him the plot to do the same, the film was flat in terms of that anxiety, tension, etc. The performances in the film reminded me of Indian Cricket team in the late 90s. We used to have brilliant individual performances but the team would lose anyways as they combined effort did not come across. While individual performances were brilliant from all the leading actors of the movie including Shahid Kapoor, Tabu, Kay Kay, Irfan Khan, etc., the chemistry between Tabu and Kay Kay was missing. So was the chemistry missing between Shahid and Tabu. Chemistry between Tabu and the other two characters had the potential to turn this 2 hr 40 min drama into a potboiler. Imagine a sensual track between Tabu and Shahid (mother and son) to counter that between Uncle and mother. That is was a weapon Hamlet actually used in the original play. It is obvious that Vishal did not have the courage to depict that in Haider. While in Dedh Ishqiya (a film produced by Vishal), another "taboo subject" of  Lesbianism was touched upon, here he lacked the courage to test Indian sensibilities. A missed opportunity!!!

It is difficult though to take “Haider” on its face value. Hamlet was a dramatic revenge saga of Hamlet against his uncle.  Haider on the other hand seems disillusioned by the Indian establishment more than his uncle. Vishal was unable to explain the transition of a clean shaved Shahid to the typical beard look of Shahid. I could not understand what Vishal was trying to show, that, if one gets disillusioned you start looking in a typical way? Or was he trying to show that separatist look in a certain way. In either case, he could not pull it off well. Also I did not understand as to why Haider gave that Chutpaz Speech at Lal Chowk. Was he against his uncle or the Indian establishment?

This brings me to the 2^nd point. I think the movie was not so much about Hamlet than it was about Kashmir. So to view it from the perspective of an adaptation of Shakespearian drama would be unfair.  Vishal chose Barashat Peer to write the script with him. It is obvious that Mr. Peer had his own separatist propaganda and that shows in the film. Mr. Peer was hardly interested in "Adaptation of Hamlet".  The film is totally biased account of the Kashmir insurgency during 1995- 96 where the Indian army was shown as a conspiring evil force who uses torture and abduction as a weapon. It cannot be expected of Mr. Peer, that he would give Indian Army’s point of view on the issue. In fact any attempt on the same was more sarcastic than real. One more thing that baffled me was all of senior Army officers were shown as South Indians (and not Sardars!). I did not understand the subtext there.

Having said that, I also acknowledge the fact that it was the expectations from the film, that spoilt it for people like me. I went in to see an adaptation of Hamlet and I saw a separatist point of view movie instead. Political films … even the documentaries are  supposed to be biased. Otherwise they are not raunchy enough. In fact they are used as a propaganda and this film should not be seen any differently. The irony is that just before the release of the film, the same army which is accused of all the wrongs in Kashmir by the film worked selflessly to save hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris. Perhaps, as an afterthought, as a notion of acknowledgement of the blunder, Vishal did praise the role of Indian Army in the floods. The damage was already done by then though. A day shall come when he will regret “Haider”.

Another point I want to make here is that we as a country should be proud of ourselves in the way we handled the movie. It was no doubt anti Indian, anti Indian Army and yet the film was cleared by our censor board. Compare that to the actions of Pakistan. The film had hardly anything which was anti Pakistani and yet they have a ban. Clearly our democracy allows diverging, infact in this case views almost amounting to Sedition, to be tabled. So much can be said about the claim of the film "Haider" which tries to propagate a myth that India does not allow freedom of expression. 

“To be or not to be” from Hamlet perfectly describes Vishal’s state of mind in Haider. Till the end he could not decide if “Haider” was an adaptation of Hamlet in the backdrop of Kashmir or it was story of Kashmir in the backdrop of Hamlet. It was neither.........  and hence a disappointment!