Swatantra Veer Savarkar, a film based on the life of the Indian revolutionary Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, has been released in theaters. The film, which has a budget of 20 crores, is struggling to recover its costs. In this article, I will analyze the reasons for the film's failure and discuss whether Randeep Hooda was able to portray Savarkar's character accurately.
Analysis of Swatantra Veer Savarkar
I have read about 6 books written on Savarkar and almost all the books written by him, such as 1857 ka Swatantra Samar, Hindu Padpaadshahi, Hindutva, Kala Paani, etc. From my analysis, I can clearly say that it is not possible to show the entire life of Savarkar in a 3-hour film. It is just not possible. Just like you cannot finish Ramayana or Mahabharata in 3 hours, you will miss many important chapters and present an overall wrong interpretation to the public.
It would have been better if the film had been made into a 10-episode web series or a 3-part film, covering the revolutionary chapter (1883-1910), the Kala Paani chapter (1910-1921), and the Hindutva chapter (1921-1966). Even then, if you have made it a 3-hour movie, let's try to understand where it went wrong, and that will be clear when we try to understand Randeep Hooda sir's movie from the perspective of a new viewer who knows nothing about Savarkar. Will this film inspire him?
Critique
The film begins with the plague of 1897. There is a terrible atmosphere in the country. In the name of controlling the plague, the British are committing atrocities. In response, the Chapekar brothers kill WC Rand and Ayeris. All three are hanged together.
The first thing is that the three were not hanged together but separately and there was a considerable time gap between their hangings. But let's say you showed it anyway, then the message of the Chapekar brothers was not clear. They were not shown planning or even their anger. Just the plague came and they killed.
Second, you missed the most important chapter of Madanlal Dhingra's life, which should not have been done. Curzon Wyllie, the Englishman he killed in London, was a friend of his family. Also, he was trying to get Madanlal Dhingra's friendship and leak India House news. Because of this, Curzon Wyllie was killed, but there was no detail about it in this movie even though there was space to do so.
The part where Baba Rao Savarkar, Veer Savarkar's elder brother, reaches Kala Paani was well done, I liked it. But Anant Kanhere, who took revenge for it, was not even mentioned. It means the film kept moving fast forward. Now I knew what happened next so I could connect but it must have been very difficult for someone who didn't know.
And the biggest misconception about Savarkar is that he wrote mercy petitions to the British. There is a lack of detail about the reason, the circumstances, and his plan. Only the narration of his mercy petitions is going on and something else is happening on the screen.
The narration was not needed here but throughout the film. If a voice had taken us along from beginning to end, like the Mahabharata BR Chopra's, "Main Samay Hun"
Conclusion
Overall, I think no viewer should go to see this film for entertainment purposes. Go thinking that a film has been made on a great revolutionary and social reformer of the country and we must watch it and learn something from his life for the next generation.
Rest as a Savarkar lover, I would only say that you all must watch the film because this film was made by Randeep Hooda sir with great effort and with a clear purpose. It has been made with a sense of patriotism. He is not a director, but he has made a lot of effort to give the film the right direction.
Comentarios