India doesn't make many films which talk about someone gay: but this is certainly not the film that comes out on top among them. That credit, out of the films that I've watched, goes to "My Brother Nikhil", itself a middling film. However, Bajpai, the hero of the film, insists, that you people are stuck on labels: so let's not treat the film as gay-themed. The problem is that India makes many fine films otherwise: and then this film suffers a lot by comparison. So, let's leave comparison aside and take the film in itself ...
This film suffers from what I name as the "Parzania" syndrome, named after a much more terrible film, which was ostensibly about a socio- historical issue but which still got nice word of mouth from critics: just because they didn't want to say anything bad about a film that was seen as progressive. Similarly, "Aligarh", though not terrible, is a very middling film, especially considering that its director, Hansal Mehta, makes much finer films than this one. But because it is about a topic not many are comfortable with, it still wins plaudits: but art should not be about propaganda, it should be about art. And as a work of art, this film fails miserably.
Why does it fail? While Bajpai gives a sufficiently good performance (can he even act badly ever?), the otherwise reliable and Mehta's favorite Rajkummar Rao is a complete misfit for the role and his mind doesn't seem to be in the film. To make things worse, the constant close-ups, especially of Bajpai's character, doesn't let the story grip the viewer: the film editing is also quite childish, with cameras panning suddenly to show the "Marathi department" written in Urdu script, or to show some Muslim caps bobbing up and down a bit ... Also, the city of Aligarh itself is not at all seeping into the film: why to call the city that then? And that the story is happening in a conservative city like Aligarh is important to make the viewer feel! Yes, you didn't or couldn't shoot in Aligarh, but if you did shoot in Bareilly, why am I not feeling Uttar Pradesh, at least? Where is the famous railway gate of Aligarh, people waiting there ... and even if things are better working now there, you could still add some. Be still, remember David Lean. Focusing unnecessarily on Bajpai's face while he listens to old Hindi songs doesn't give that stillness; it only makes you pretend to be artsy so those critics who don't feel films will applaud you. But what is the point of making films if you cannot make your viewer feel your story? The point of telling a story is its listener, its audience, not the critic.
I had expected much more from a Manoj Bajpai film directed by Hansal Mehta. But, instead, all I got was pretensions: including two gay men kissing each other. What's the point of those repeated flashbacks? If you don't have enough plot, just set the atmosphere: that in itself is a rewarding experience that cinema can give.
This film suffers from what I name as the "Parzania" syndrome, named after a much more terrible film, which was ostensibly about a socio- historical issue but which still got nice word of mouth from critics: just because they didn't want to say anything bad about a film that was seen as progressive. Similarly, "Aligarh", though not terrible, is a very middling film, especially considering that its director, Hansal Mehta, makes much finer films than this one. But because it is about a topic not many are comfortable with, it still wins plaudits: but art should not be about propaganda, it should be about art. And as a work of art, this film fails miserably.
Why does it fail? While Bajpai gives a sufficiently good performance (can he even act badly ever?), the otherwise reliable and Mehta's favorite Rajkummar Rao is a complete misfit for the role and his mind doesn't seem to be in the film. To make things worse, the constant close-ups, especially of Bajpai's character, doesn't let the story grip the viewer: the film editing is also quite childish, with cameras panning suddenly to show the "Marathi department" written in Urdu script, or to show some Muslim caps bobbing up and down a bit ... Also, the city of Aligarh itself is not at all seeping into the film: why to call the city that then? And that the story is happening in a conservative city like Aligarh is important to make the viewer feel! Yes, you didn't or couldn't shoot in Aligarh, but if you did shoot in Bareilly, why am I not feeling Uttar Pradesh, at least? Where is the famous railway gate of Aligarh, people waiting there ... and even if things are better working now there, you could still add some. Be still, remember David Lean. Focusing unnecessarily on Bajpai's face while he listens to old Hindi songs doesn't give that stillness; it only makes you pretend to be artsy so those critics who don't feel films will applaud you. But what is the point of making films if you cannot make your viewer feel your story? The point of telling a story is its listener, its audience, not the critic.
I had expected much more from a Manoj Bajpai film directed by Hansal Mehta. But, instead, all I got was pretensions: including two gay men kissing each other. What's the point of those repeated flashbacks? If you don't have enough plot, just set the atmosphere: that in itself is a rewarding experience that cinema can give.