I am truly conflicted about URI the movie on a couple of accounts. On the one hand, it is a very good film that has a lot going for it. On the other hand, the corruption of the medium of movies to portray the not-so subtle propaganda about the current government, as also the blurred line between fact and fiction in a film that is supposed to be 'based on true events', is something I am struggling to come to terms with. So lets separate the two and deal with them separately. There are a few plot spoilers below, so you want to stop reading here, if you care for the element of surprise in a film.
As a film, Uri is truly a good watch. Based broadly on a one line factual premise of a retaliatory surgical strike conducted by India across the POC in September 2016, the movie is built around a fictional protagonist (Vicky Kaushal) and his journey as leader of the squad that accomplishes the mission. There are several things going for the movie : Vicky Kaushal is just a treat to watch: he brings emotional depth, passion, and strength in equal measure and makes you care for him and root for him. The portrayal of the matter of fact patriotism in Armed Forces families : where every male in the family - the father, the son, the son-in law- all choose to serve the nation, irrespective of the deeply difficult way of life and the obvious risks involved is something that moved me personally. These are people who breathe India in their every breath and do not expect accolades for it. And each of us civilians needs to recognise and be infinitely grateful for this.The army scenes are authentic looking and that adds significantly to the credibility of the film. Finally, the absence of a romantic track between Vicky and either of the two women - who are also shown to be competent professionals is honestly refreshing. The downsides of the film are the predictable screenplay : you know - based on the flow of the story - who is going to die, and who is going to emerge victorious. And while the personal angle to why Vicky chooses to participate in the surgical strike adds drama and emotion to the film, it also -in my mind - reduces the 'purity of intent' for the protagonist - he is not there to just protect his country, but also to avenge the death of a loved one. Overall, as a film, this one is a few notches below Raazi and deserves a 3.5/5.
Now onto the complicated questions surrounding the film- these are important to address as the other film running in theatres right now is "The Accidental PM' - which - without watching, one can assume is a propaganda film against the opposition. Also I have heard of a film on Modi being greenlighted recently. Those films are obvious in their propaganda so, one ends up deciding upfront whether to consume those films or not. In Uri - the propaganda is more subtle, but it is there. The PM is shown as having a key role in ensuring Vicky doesnt leave the army, and the message throughout is not only that Modi is a competent leader but that this is a 'New India' : more 'assertive', more 'masculine' if you may. It is important to remember that so many military operations remain permanently covert - and rightly so - and hence, to say that India is more 'assertive' now, because publicity is being thrown on one military event now, is a false comparison. Then there is the whole idea that this 'New India' where this assertive masculinity is the norm, is actually a good thing. The entire Hindutva philosophy gains its strength from this, and I know several people whose primary motive to support the ruling party emerges from this deep, visceral sense of 'We are an aggresive assertive people and finally, there is a party that channels that.' Let me clarify, this masculine paradigm is absolutely in tune with the context of the specific situation shown in the movie, but tying a rightful military retaliation to a subtext of a 'New India' is propaganda. Period. Having said that, the claps the movie recieved in the hall indicates that -those of us who think that a military movie should not be a propaganda vehicle for the government in a election year are a minority.
Finally the bit of parsing fact from fiction in a movie that is supposedly based on a true story. From whatever research I could find - this movie is essentially a mostly fictional account of a 4 line news article. Yes the writer researched the Surgical strike, but due to obvious reasons of military confidentiality, has fictionalised much of it. The primary characters are all entirely fictional, their motivations are fictional, the build up is fictional, how the operation was conducted is mostly fictional, and ofcourse the role of politicians is fictional too. Now this wouldnt be a problem if this was presented to us a fictional story (say like the Hritik film Lakshya was - which used the background of Kargill to tell a fictional tale) , but it does become problematic if it is sold to us as 'based on a true story'.
If you consider all the above, the movie then gets a 2.5/5 - one star taken away for the misleading intent.
#UriReview #FilmReviews
As a film, Uri is truly a good watch. Based broadly on a one line factual premise of a retaliatory surgical strike conducted by India across the POC in September 2016, the movie is built around a fictional protagonist (Vicky Kaushal) and his journey as leader of the squad that accomplishes the mission. There are several things going for the movie : Vicky Kaushal is just a treat to watch: he brings emotional depth, passion, and strength in equal measure and makes you care for him and root for him. The portrayal of the matter of fact patriotism in Armed Forces families : where every male in the family - the father, the son, the son-in law- all choose to serve the nation, irrespective of the deeply difficult way of life and the obvious risks involved is something that moved me personally. These are people who breathe India in their every breath and do not expect accolades for it. And each of us civilians needs to recognise and be infinitely grateful for this.The army scenes are authentic looking and that adds significantly to the credibility of the film. Finally, the absence of a romantic track between Vicky and either of the two women - who are also shown to be competent professionals is honestly refreshing. The downsides of the film are the predictable screenplay : you know - based on the flow of the story - who is going to die, and who is going to emerge victorious. And while the personal angle to why Vicky chooses to participate in the surgical strike adds drama and emotion to the film, it also -in my mind - reduces the 'purity of intent' for the protagonist - he is not there to just protect his country, but also to avenge the death of a loved one. Overall, as a film, this one is a few notches below Raazi and deserves a 3.5/5.
Now onto the complicated questions surrounding the film- these are important to address as the other film running in theatres right now is "The Accidental PM' - which - without watching, one can assume is a propaganda film against the opposition. Also I have heard of a film on Modi being greenlighted recently. Those films are obvious in their propaganda so, one ends up deciding upfront whether to consume those films or not. In Uri - the propaganda is more subtle, but it is there. The PM is shown as having a key role in ensuring Vicky doesnt leave the army, and the message throughout is not only that Modi is a competent leader but that this is a 'New India' : more 'assertive', more 'masculine' if you may. It is important to remember that so many military operations remain permanently covert - and rightly so - and hence, to say that India is more 'assertive' now, because publicity is being thrown on one military event now, is a false comparison. Then there is the whole idea that this 'New India' where this assertive masculinity is the norm, is actually a good thing. The entire Hindutva philosophy gains its strength from this, and I know several people whose primary motive to support the ruling party emerges from this deep, visceral sense of 'We are an aggresive assertive people and finally, there is a party that channels that.' Let me clarify, this masculine paradigm is absolutely in tune with the context of the specific situation shown in the movie, but tying a rightful military retaliation to a subtext of a 'New India' is propaganda. Period. Having said that, the claps the movie recieved in the hall indicates that -those of us who think that a military movie should not be a propaganda vehicle for the government in a election year are a minority.
Finally the bit of parsing fact from fiction in a movie that is supposedly based on a true story. From whatever research I could find - this movie is essentially a mostly fictional account of a 4 line news article. Yes the writer researched the Surgical strike, but due to obvious reasons of military confidentiality, has fictionalised much of it. The primary characters are all entirely fictional, their motivations are fictional, the build up is fictional, how the operation was conducted is mostly fictional, and ofcourse the role of politicians is fictional too. Now this wouldnt be a problem if this was presented to us a fictional story (say like the Hritik film Lakshya was - which used the background of Kargill to tell a fictional tale) , but it does become problematic if it is sold to us as 'based on a true story'.
If you consider all the above, the movie then gets a 2.5/5 - one star taken away for the misleading intent.
#UriReview #FilmReviews
No comments:
Post a Comment