 |
|
The film 'Kesari 2' arrives more than a century after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, a horrific event etched deeply into the Indian psyche. The unprovoked firing upon unarmed civilians, including women and children, on the orders of General Reginald Dyer, remains a stark reminder of British brutality and the deep-seated wounds of colonialism. The film, a sequel of sorts to the 2019 'Kesari' (though with no direct thematic connection), once again places the struggle against the British Empire at its core, aiming to evoke a sense of patriotic pride. Unlike its predecessor, 'Kesari 2' shifts its focus from battlefield bravery to legal battles and the complexities of challenging imperial power through the established systems of the colonizers. The movie centers around the character of Sir C Sankaran Nair, portrayed by Akshay Kumar, a recently knighted barrister who initially intends to defend O'Dwyer but undergoes a transformation driven by the overwhelming evidence of the massacre and a burgeoning conscience. This internal conflict and subsequent fight for justice form the narrative backbone of the film. The story is based on the book ‘The Case That Shook The Empire’ by Raghu Palat and Pushpa Palat, which adds a layer of historical grounding to the narrative, although the film itself takes creative liberties, as highlighted by its opening disclaimer stating that it is a work of pure fiction inspired by true events. While the film unfolds predictably, adhering to familiar tropes of patriotic dramas, it does raise important questions about representation and the portrayal of historical figures. The reviewer criticizes the casting of Akshay Kumar, a non-Keralite, in the role of a prominent Keralite barrister, suggesting that a Keralite actor could have brought more authenticity to the role. This point underscores the ongoing debate about the importance of casting actors who can authentically represent the cultural background and nuances of the characters they portray, particularly in films dealing with sensitive historical events. The supporting cast includes Regina Cassandra as Nair's wife, who makes a notable impression despite her limited screen time, and Ananya Panday as a local female lawyer, Dilreet Gill, whose performance is considered less convincing due to dialogue and body language that feel out of sync with the historical setting. The portrayal of the British characters, led by Simon Paisley Day, leans heavily into stereotypical depictions of colonial oppressors, with exaggerated grimaces and a blatant display of disdain for the ‘Indian slaves’. This reinforces the narrative of British villainy but potentially lacks the nuance that could make the characters more compelling and thought-provoking. Akshay Kumar’s portrayal of Nair is described as an extension of his recent roles, suggesting a lack of distinct character development. However, the reviewer highlights the dynamic between Akshay Kumar and R Madhavan, who plays Neville McKiney, a formidable half-Indian, half-British adversary of Nair. Their courtroom clashes are filled with impassioned dialogues, adding a layer of dramatic tension to the film. The film's attempt to connect with the current socio-political climate is evident in its inclusion of populist lines and the use of strong language by Akshay Kumar’s character, which elicited cheers from the audience. Despite aligning with the “Make India Great Again” sentiment, the film also includes subtle subversive ideas, such as a reference to a joint Hindu-Muslim celebration that occurred before the massacre, suggesting that such unity was a threat to the British divide-and-rule policy. The film also touches upon the importance of ‘freedom of speech’, a concept that resonates with contemporary concerns about censorship and the suppression of dissent. Ultimately, 'Kesari 2' is portrayed as a film that reflects the present times, using a historical tragedy as a canvas to paint a picture of patriotic fervor and explore relevant social and political themes. However, its adherence to formulaic storytelling and reliance on stereotypes may limit its impact and depth.
The historical context of 'Kesari 2' is crucial to understanding its narrative and themes. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was a pivotal moment in the Indian independence movement, galvanizing public opinion against British rule and fueling the demand for self-governance. The Rowlatt Act, which sparked the protests that led to the massacre, granted the British government sweeping powers to suppress dissent and imprison political activists without trial. This act was seen as a direct assault on civil liberties and further alienated the Indian population. Sir C Sankaran Nair, the central figure of 'Kesari 2', was a real historical figure who played a significant role in the Indian nationalist movement. He served as a judge in the Madras High Court and was a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council. His decision to resign from the Council in protest against the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was a courageous act that demonstrated his commitment to justice and the Indian cause. Nair's subsequent legal battle against Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab at the time of the massacre, was a landmark case that exposed the brutality of British rule and helped to shape public opinion in both India and Britain. The film's portrayal of Nair as a defender of justice aligns with his historical image, although the extent to which the film accurately depicts his personal transformation and legal strategies is open to interpretation. The film's exploration of the complexities of challenging imperial power through legal means is particularly relevant in the context of the Indian independence movement. Indian nationalists often used the legal system to challenge British policies and expose injustices, even though the system itself was often biased in favor of the colonial rulers. The film's depiction of courtroom drama and legal arguments reflects this aspect of the struggle for independence. The inclusion of characters like Dilreet Gill, the local female lawyer, also highlights the role of women in the Indian nationalist movement. Women played a significant role in protests, social reforms, and political activism, and their contributions are often overlooked in mainstream historical narratives. The film's attempt to incorporate diverse perspectives and voices within the narrative is commendable, although the effectiveness of these portrayals may vary. The film's engagement with contemporary issues such as freedom of speech and Hindu-Muslim unity adds another layer of complexity to its analysis. The reference to a joint Hindu-Muslim celebration before the massacre serves as a reminder of the shared history and cultural heritage of these communities, which has been threatened by divisive politics in recent years. The film's implicit critique of censorship and the suppression of dissent also resonates with current concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the importance of protecting freedom of expression.
However, the film's alignment with the 'Make India Great Again' sentiment raises questions about its historical accuracy and potential for nationalist bias. While it is important to acknowledge the achievements and contributions of the Indian nation, it is also crucial to critically examine the complexities of its history and avoid glorifying the past or overlooking injustices. The film's portrayal of British characters as stereotypical villains may reinforce negative stereotypes and prevent a more nuanced understanding of the historical context. It is important to remember that not all British officials were inherently cruel or oppressive, and that there were diverse perspectives and motivations within the colonial administration. The film's emphasis on patriotic fervor may also overshadow other important aspects of the Indian independence movement, such as the role of social reformers, labor activists, and peasant movements. The struggle for independence was not solely a political struggle; it was also a social and economic struggle for justice and equality. The film's reliance on formulaic storytelling and predictable tropes may also limit its ability to engage with these complexities and offer a fresh perspective on the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and its aftermath. While the film's intentions may be noble, its execution may fall short of its potential. The film's opening disclaimer stating that it is a work of pure fiction inspired by true events highlights the tension between historical accuracy and artistic license. While filmmakers have the right to take creative liberties, it is important to be mindful of the potential impact of these liberties on the audience's understanding of history. The film's entertainment value and emotional impact should not come at the expense of historical accuracy or responsible storytelling. Ultimately, 'Kesari 2' is a film that invites both praise and criticism. Its attempt to shed light on a tragic chapter of Indian history and explore relevant social and political themes is commendable, but its execution may be flawed. The film's success will depend on its ability to resonate with audiences and spark meaningful conversations about the past, present, and future of India. The film should be viewed as one interpretation of historical events, and not as a definitive account. Further research and critical engagement are encouraged to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and its lasting impact on Indian society. The movie prompts conversations around the responsibility of cinema in portraying historical events, especially those that carry significant emotional and political weight. How can filmmakers balance the need for entertainment with the imperative of historical accuracy? How can they avoid perpetuating stereotypes or reinforcing nationalist biases? These are important questions that deserve further consideration.
Analyzing 'Kesari 2' through a postcolonial lens reveals further insights into its themes and representations. Postcolonial theory examines the legacy of colonialism and its impact on the cultures, societies, and identities of formerly colonized nations. In the context of 'Kesari 2', a postcolonial analysis would focus on the film's portrayal of British imperialism, its representation of Indian identity, and its engagement with the complexities of power dynamics between the colonizer and the colonized. The film's depiction of British characters as inherently cruel and oppressive can be seen as a reflection of the historical trauma inflicted by colonialism. However, it is important to avoid essentializing the British as a monolithic entity and to recognize the diverse range of perspectives and motivations within the colonial administration. The film's portrayal of Indian characters as victims of colonial oppression can also be problematized through a postcolonial lens. While it is important to acknowledge the suffering and injustice experienced by Indians under British rule, it is also crucial to recognize their agency and resistance. The film's focus on patriotic fervor may overshadow the diverse forms of resistance employed by Indians, including nonviolent protests, social reforms, and cultural movements. The character of Sir C Sankaran Nair can be seen as a complex figure who embodies the contradictions of postcolonial identity. As a member of the Indian elite who collaborated with the British government, he also played a role in challenging colonial power and advocating for Indian rights. His transformation from a defender of the Empire to a champion of justice reflects the internal conflicts and shifting allegiances that characterized the postcolonial experience. The film's engagement with contemporary issues such as freedom of speech and Hindu-Muslim unity can also be analyzed through a postcolonial lens. The legacy of colonialism continues to shape these issues in India today, as the country grapples with the challenges of globalization, social inequality, and cultural identity. The film's attempt to address these issues is commendable, but its success will depend on its ability to avoid simplistic narratives and engage with the complexities of postcolonial realities. Ultimately, 'Kesari 2' is a film that invites multiple interpretations and perspectives. A postcolonial analysis can provide valuable insights into its themes and representations, but it is important to consider the film in its historical and cultural context and to be mindful of the potential for bias and misrepresentation. The film should be seen as a starting point for further dialogue and reflection on the legacy of colonialism and its ongoing impact on Indian society.
The film’s reception and critical analysis highlight the challenges of creating historical dramas that are both entertaining and historically accurate. Viewers seeking a straightforward patriotic narrative may find the film satisfying, while those seeking a more nuanced and complex portrayal of history may be disappointed. The casting choices, particularly the selection of Akshay Kumar as a Keralite figure, have sparked debate about representation and authenticity in historical films. This raises broader questions about the responsibility of filmmakers to accurately portray historical figures and events, and the potential impact of casting decisions on the audience’s perception of history. The film’s engagement with contemporary issues, such as freedom of speech and Hindu-Muslim unity, has also generated discussion about the relevance of historical narratives to contemporary society. Some critics argue that the film’s attempt to connect with current political debates is a form of historical revisionism, while others see it as a way of making history more relevant and engaging for contemporary audiences. The success of 'Kesari 2' will ultimately depend on its ability to resonate with audiences on an emotional and intellectual level. The film’s visual spectacle, dramatic performances, and patriotic themes may appeal to a wide audience, but its historical accuracy and nuanced portrayal of complex issues will be subject to greater scrutiny. The film serves as a reminder of the ongoing debate about the role of cinema in shaping our understanding of history and the importance of critical engagement with historical narratives. Whether it fully succeeds in its aims is debatable, but 'Kesari 2' certainly provides ample material for discussion and analysis. It is a film of its time, reflective of the anxieties and aspirations of contemporary India, and its legacy will depend on its ability to spark meaningful conversations about the past, present, and future.