Bol Bachchan – a true review

a few not too unreasonable spoilers here..

The great Manmohan Desai in his late period made films that unlike his earlier efforts were less coherent, integrated scripts and much more a series of gags revolving around a loosely focused narrative point. As opposed to a linear plotline with its picaresque detours there was increasingly a privileging of the latter with the framing narrative then something the director had to dutifully return to from time to time without ever being completely committed to it. A parallel movement is also discernible within the work of his important contemporary, Prakash Mehra. What unites the two of course is the towering figure of Amitabh Bachchan, the ‘one-man industry’ of the age, perhaps the only one who has ever been so anywhere. The decision to translate the ‘Vijay’ signature into a one-man stand up act under the ‘Anthony’ star has led through many mutations and dilutions, North and South, to the present day masala resurgence of Bollywood which is essentially the contemporary Southern ‘comedy-actioner’ in Hindi. Most of the works are actual remakes but then there are some that without being so still share the basic aesthetic and political choices of the same. If this entire history now converges on a film called Bol Bachchan one should perhaps not be too surprised.

Even if Bol Bachchan ostensibly borrows the essential plot device of Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s extraordinary classic it is tonally and in terms of its larger filmic choices worlds removed from the exquisite refinement and sparkling intelligence of that older work. This itself cannot perhaps constitute an objection to a film whose ‘designs’ are so manifestly other to those of its source. For Shetty’s work is an affectionate mock homage to a whole treasure trove of masala tropes and these references especially come alive in the film’s dialog. At the same time the director pays very direct tribute to Mukherjee’s original in a variety of ways and these constitute some of his most vital moments. As does his constant interplay between the play and cinema. The whole ‘play within a play’ structure is for instance a rather inspired one throughout the narrative. Early on in the film the ragtap theatrical outfit which apparently takes all its cues from cinema is seen performing the original Golmaal. In the film’s parodic revelation moment this entire Hamlet trope comes more explicitly to the fore, necessarily by way of its most significant Bombay cinema manifestation. The latter especially involves a hilarious turning of the tables on social, class and gender lines. The reincarnation allusion seems only fitting in a film where Amitabh Bachchan is the presiding spirit. Contrary to what his always welcome presence indicates in the title track this film is very much about the ghosts of his history. Additionally Shetty laces the Golmaal framing device with a larger context of his own. In this reverse migration from the urban capital to the rural heartland a potent religious site becomes the ‘obstacle’ that truly sets things in motion.

Nonetheless the film is ultimately less than the sum of all these suggestive elements. Sprinkled as these are throughout the work they are never integrated into an authentic narrative that would do them justice. It is here that both the strengths and the weaknesses of ‘Desai-lite’ and the even ‘lighter’ resurrections of the same in contemporary Indian cinema become rather clear. Rohit Shetty’s essential devotion is to the gag. The whole film forms a collection of these and it is Shetty’s strength to keep churning them out situationally and even otherwise to always retain the film’s entertainment quotient and episodic drive. The looser narrative is in fairness always in focus. But the ‘deviations’ inform the film as decisively as in a Desai work like Coolie, a Mehra work like Namak Halal and more to the point a number of contemporary efforts emanating from the South. All of these works range from the supremely entertaining (the Amitabh Bachchan films) to the modestly engaging. But on some of these occasions one regrets the greater possibilities that were compromised to achieve instant, easier pleasures. Specially so when both could have been managed with a few of these scripts. Rohit Shetty’s film falls within this last category. It is not to confuse this director with the extraordinary Raju Hirani to suggest that in Bol Bachchan Shetty could nonetheless have forged a similar compromise even by sticking to his stylistic commitments. What the film achieves as entertainment is not inconsiderable but what it forgoes is vastly greater. This is not to rewrite his film but to highlight what he himself has put in it and yet not fully developed. Admittedly comedy cannot be completely burdened with the weight of ‘profundity’ or it loses the very fluid qualities that sustain it. But in some cases it is possible to fuse these two levels and achieve a formidable film, perhaps one for the ages. Rohit Shetty in easily his most ambitious film so far has chosen to evade this encounter. This is a pity. A very entertaining film at every turn but why was just this enough for the director given his own terms?

Rewind to Desai. Of course both Amar Akbar Anthony and Coolie are comparably episodic narratives. However the difference is that the world of the former is essentially picaresque or respects such a logic while that of the latter oscillates between high drama, even of the epic kind and large stretches involving gags. When the otherwise self-standing comedic sequence is kept too unmoored from its controlling narrative it can start subtracting from the latter. Because for large portions the audience has been away from the ‘thing itself’. Desai nonetheless switches gears at just the right moment in Coolie to recover some dramatic urgency but the result is still a somewhat uneven one unlike his preceding works (Suhaag or Naseeb would be other examples) where all the elements operate on the same plane and the controlling ‘time’ of the film is always minimally consistent. But Desai always had the trump card of Amitabh Bachchan who could in effect iron out these problems or even more crucially form a kind of connective tissue between the two. Where the film was in danger of risking its more serious project at the service of gags Bachchan’s interventions always embedded even these in political contexts or to be more mundane provided ‘substance’ to the proceedings. This was one advantage of his being such a “parallel text”. Conversely the absence of his signature has resulted in a kind of empty cinema in the work of his latter day followers. One gets the elements of the tradition, the gesturality but it all happens mechanically because the entire film operates at a surface level of ‘effects’ with few authentic ‘consequences’ if any.

It cannot be said that Rohit Shetty suffers from this particular problem in Bol Bachchan. His film assuredly maintains a tonal singularity. It is also not quite superficial in the sense of simply repeating gestures without organizing them into deeper ethical or political choices. Nonetheless the director betrays a similar symptom because the suggestions he raises throughout his work are not fleshed out enough. For example the temple emerges at the beginning of the film in a critical way but beyond this religion as a subject ceases to be important for anyone at any point. It is a total non-issue! The theater metaphors are important at the beginning and the end but are otherwise simply excuses for further situational comedy. As stated earlier at a purely mechanical level there are a number of hilarious moments in the films, some even inspired ones. Even when the plot gets clunky at times or indulges too much in an ill-defined sub-plot or when the film ends rather too abruptly these missteps are hardly fatal at that more basic level. Shetty though misses the Shakespearean and Desai (at his best) hint – when situational comedy is always involved in an economy with the film’s larger themes and concerns it becomes that much more effective. It leaves a greater residue because it is also doing double duty by commenting on those ‘deeper’ narrative strains.

For all this Shetty does have his own rescue here. His film never completely reaches that impasse that it (on my terms) always risks. Because in a move parallel to that of Desai’s Shetty too is trafficking in the same potent signature. By placing Abhishek at the heart of his film or by reopening this ‘Bachchan’ site even if with half-baked commitment the director too manages to substantially bridge this divide. It is hardly to confuse Abhishek’s fine and often extraordinary talents with his father’s titanic gifts to suggest that on this particular score the son can nonetheless operate with comparable impact as the heir to his father’s great signature. For even when Shetty does not go all the way in developing something he has introduced earlier Abhishek’s presence lends greater gravitas to the proceedings than would have been the case with any other actor. He becomes the carrier of the Bachchan resonance in the precise sense of all the politics and emancipatory moves associated with this signature. This itself is hardly new. Many of Abhishek’s directors have been aware of just this facet but it is noteworthy that even someone like Rohit Shetty who has never been concerned with any such ‘profounder’ contexts in the past chooses to inaugurate these in just this work. And of course it all begins with the suggestive decision of establishing a twin religious identity for the actor. The Bachchan history informs all of this and Abhishek once again is here as before an authentic bearer of this long dormant (on screen) legacy.

In a sense the overwhelmingly positive responses to his performance here are right for the wrong reasons and something similar could be said about Ajay Devgan’s own intervention in the film. Abhishek is certainly ‘fine’ in this part, he carries the film in very many ways but as performance this is not extraordinary by any means. As Abbas Abhishek attempts something new (for him) and comes through remarkably but otherwise though perfectly alright in the other portions he is hardly path-breaking as many of the responses would have one believe. One should be even more candid. The actor has done such good work in the past, most recently (and impressively) in Dum Maaro Dum, that a lot of this would seem par for the course for him. Even if he has not attempted something quite as over the top as this before. Once more this is not to find fault in his performance anywhere, it is simply to place some of those other efforts including a much maligned effort like Delhi 6 on a higher pedestal. Perhaps this is the wrong way to frame things when the films and the parts are so distinct. But it is certainly fair to argue against the terms of the dominant debate in these matters which as always misses the mark. Abhishek carries the film but he does not need to be a supreme actor to do so with this film. At least not with his resources as an actor and star.

On a similar note a lot of the coverage has been unfair to Ajay Devgan. This is a truly endearing outing on his part. The problem here is not that he does not seem as central as Abhishek in a literal sense and so forth. The real issue is that his character though constantly affectionate and engaging his performance is ultimately a one note performance. In this sense he fits in well into the world of this film where most of the actors do well in the very same way and share the very same kind of chemistry. Abhishek means something ‘more’ for the reasons just illustrated, Devgan cannot give rise to such signification because he does not carry the same symbolic weight but he also does not quite have the nuance as an actor to make his character more than the obvious. He is keyed a certain way, he plays that note very well but he is this throughout the film. And so even though he is very effective he is only so ‘within’ this world as opposed to Abhishek who can transcend it to some degree. In this precise sense Rohit Shetty too pulls off a Desai-like trick much as Abhishek can ‘reinvest’ the film and of course his character(s) with the advantages of his signature.

Finally, and perhaps repetitively, it would be hard to dislike Bol Bachchan even if one did not succumb entirely to it but from my perspective it is that greater film that might have been, the loss of which must be rued. The argument against Shetty here is that he himself did not fashion ‘just entertainment’. He merely let his lesser instincts win over him eventually even if he advanced in a better direction compared to many previous efforts. The film is a winner in very many ways including for its central star but it forgets to collect its own greater rewards..