Warning : This is an emotion filled rant filled with mild spoilers.
I will be the first to admit that when I first saw the trailer of Rustom on the big screen, I was hooked like a dim-witted fish on a fishing hook. The ingredients were all there for an arresting thriller that also provided some food for thought. Firstly, the story is inspired by the real life case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra that made national headlines all the way back in 1959. It was a case of passion, loyalty and possibly cold-blooded revenge which greatly challenged the judicial system that prevailed at that time. Secondly, the name of Neeraj Pandey, which brings to mind solid works of cinema like BABY, Special 26 and A Wednesday, was attached to this film. So how did the final product turn out to be so insipid, dull, amateurish and ideologically flawed?
We know what happened in real life – Nanavati, who was a decorated naval commander, returned home from one of his assignments and found about his wife’s ongoing affair with one of his friends – Prem Ahuja. This led to him confronting Prem at his residence about his intention to marry his wife, Cynthia. When Prem said no,3 shots were fired leading to his death. This was a seemingly open and shut case and Nanavati even turned himself in to the police. But, what followed was a much talked about trial where cold hard facts got clouded by media propaganda, communal support and also public perceptions of right and wrong leading to a historic jury verdict of not guilty. This case caused the abolishment of the jury system in India and remains a perfect example of how, even before the age of public television, internet and social networking, the media and the common man could influence law and public opinion.
In Rustom, Nanavati becomes Rustom Pavri (played by Akshay Kumar) , Sylvia becomes Cynthia (Ileana D’Cruz) and Prem becomes Vikram Makhija (Arjan Bajwa). Also in the play is Vikram’s sister – Priti Makhija (Esha Gupta) who wants to get justice for her brother’s death. Rustom takes the basic premise of the case and adds a healthy dose of Bollywood masala which is frankly unneeded as the real life story is interesting in itself. These liberal bollywoodish twists just dilute the impact of the film.
The actual story is awash with people occupying a decidedly gray moral ground. The patriot who has to leave his wife for long periods to serve his country – surely he deserves better than to come home to a cheating wife? Does that justify the killing of the guy who stole the officer’s wife? A seemingly devoted wife who loves her husband but gets lonely during his long leaves of absence. Does that justify her seeking some one else’s company? And a sister who just wants a fair trial and justice to be served. But is she herself biased in her outlook?
Alas, Rustom throws all of this down the window. The film paints that kind of a story where the white is pure white and black is pitch black. Rustom is depicted as a holier than thou character, who being the naval commander that serves his nation with loyalty and pride, has to be the morally good guy and the guy who steals the wife has to be a sleazy, morally corrupt playboy. The sister of this playboy obviously then has to be a ciggarette puffing, inappropriate dress wearing evil vamp. This kind of childish backing of right vs wrong and lazy stereotypical characterization drains all the complexity from the story. Even the wife falls into the trap of the affair because she is a pawn in some hair brained revenge tactic being planned by Vikram against Rustom. Of course, because a women cannot think or act for herself, right? Sigh. Also,this revenge tactic is a part of a conspiracy theory that the makers have tacked onto the film to justify Rustom’s murder of Vikram as necessary for the good of the country and thus he deserved to walk. Such a message, that a murderer can be acquitted because he is a patriot is frightening, especially in today’s time when nationalistic jingoism is at an all time high.
The film also reduces very important role of the media, which in real life was front footed by the weekly tabloid Blitz – that was run by a Parsi who openly supported Nanavati (Rustom in the movie) as a fellow Parsi, to more of a fodder for comic relief. Kumud Mishra plays the owner of the tabloid as a bumbling, clumsy, stereotypical Parsi which is again an example of the film dumbing down its characters and pandering to the masses. The communal friction between the Parsi and Sindhi community (as Vikram Makhija belonged to an influential Sindhi family) is also just mentioned briefly and then forgotten about entirely as the totally unneeded twists and conspiracies take over the entire plot.
Ill placed messages and moral whitewashing aside, basically everything here is half-baked and amateurish. The dialogues are cheesy at a Sooraj barjatya and Ekta Kapoor level which often leads to serious scenes coming off as unintentionally hilarious. This is especially true in the courtroom scenes, where the film just seems to be making blatant fun of the legal system. Everything happens in a state of heightened melodrama. The actors don’t speak – they deliver dialogues, the background score screeches and roars at even mundane scenes and basically instructs you when to feel sad or happy. It’s all really an assault to the senses. The set design and costumes are just trying way too hard and screaming for attention. ‘See the cars, the transistors, the art deco buildings, the glued on hairpieces, the layers and layers of makeup’. It’s okay, we get the movie is set in the 1950s. This basically makes you appreciate at the level of attention and detail in Bombay Velvet, a criminally under appreciated movie, in recreating Bombay of the 50s. The chroma effect which makes every scene looked soaked in sepia is also highly distracting. The acting is also cringe worthy with Akshay Kumar basically sleep-walking through the movie, Ileana D’Cruz just sobbing continuously and Esha Gupta and Arjan Bajwa hamming it up like they ate a whole pig. Even dependable actors like Pavan Malhotra, Kumud Mishra and Sachin Khedekar are either criminally wasted and they seem to be not even trying.
This film didn’t just disappoint me and make me regret wasting my time and energy. It angered me as a discerning and intelligent member of the society at the sheer banality and stupidity of it all.
Side Note – It’s 2016 – high time that film makers understand that drumming up unearned nationalistic fervor is a very lazy way to make the audience invested in a film.
That Curious Mind 