The Rising Of
The Rising
By Rajiv Rawat
21 August, 2005
Countercurrents.org
A
strange North American silence seems to have descended over the Bollywood
film, The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey, a historical epic depicting
the Indian sepoy uprising against their British masters in 1857. The
year's most anticipated Indian film, with an unprecedented number of
UK and North American screenings in mainstream movie theatres seems
to have been completely bypassed by North American film critics.
In the week following
its August 12 opening, none of the major newspapers nor the alternative
weeklies in the US and Canada had reviewed the film. The fact that the
film could only be screened in specialty theatres in most urban areas
didn't help, but other films in this category seemed to have been diligently
reviewed. Indeed, one of the few articles to appear was an AP story
that related the experiences of white tourists enlisted to play extras
in the film! However, the movie itself was not reviewed. Only Variety
entertainment magazine seems to have picked up the movie, giving it
a glowing thumbs up.
While this is somewhat
indicative of how the Northern American media is gravely disconnected
from the cultural milieu of most ethnic minorities, it is also disturbing
because the Rising has a powerful anti-imperialism message resonant
of the current American hubris in Iraq and the brutality and bloodshed
it has entailed. The movie's depictions of what the British call the
mutiny and what Indians call their first war of independence, also retains
strong social commentary that shapes the awakening of the main character
and leads him from servitude to outright rebellion against his former
masters. The nature of the racist and capitalist oppression of Company
Raj (India was then ruled by the East India Company) is also explored
evocatively, as are the ambiguities of culture and religion in the fight
for freedom.
In the UK, some
British historians have pilloried the film for depicting the British
East India Company in such a bad light. Even the Conservative Party
and right-leaning newspapers have stepped into the fray, demanding an
explanation over why the UK Film Council helped fund the film. Beyond
the imperial apologia, their indignation may stem from the fact the
victors are no longer solely writing the history books, and that subaltern
views are finally getting the chance to be so vividly expressed in the
mainstream. The indignation may also stem from the fact that the film
offers a powerful rebuke to recent attempts by hawkish neo-conservative
scholars and politicians to rehabilitate imperialism, a trend that has
reached the highest levels with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs
recent objectionable statements at Oxford extolling its virtues. The
hue and cry over historical inaccuracies was also contested by Toby
Stephens, the English lead in the film who expressed a "shameful
ignorance" about the East India Company's record in India, a record
that is at best glossed over, and at worst, whitewashed in British history.
Indeed the issue
of historical licence has been trumped up to discredit a profound examination
of the nature of corporate colonial rule. On one hand, the residents
of Pandey's hometown of Ballia have objected to the depiction of Pandey's
love for a dancing girl in a knee-jerk socially conservative fashion.
They are also upset that the hometown wasn't mentioned in the film,
although other towns have laid claim to being the birthplace of Mangal
Pandey as well. Unfortunately, this minor offence misses the point illustrated
by the relationship where the prostitution of the body is compared to
the prostitution of the soul as in the case of the sepoys. For historians,
the alleged historical distortions are also somewhat of a red herring.
One has only to survey the great majority of historical epics to realize
that cinema has long been tinkering with facts to suit the exigencies
of producing compelling plots. With the short time allotted to a film,
it only makes sense to weave important events together or even create
composite characters and plot devices to address the larger points that
the director wishes to make about his or her primary themes. Moreover
in the case of Mangal Pandey, it is made clear from the outset that
the film is a ballad and not the definitive story, in keeping with the
Indian oral tradition.
What may further
divide the critics and fuel a media campaign against the film is its
uncompromising political message. The themes of Hindu-Muslim unity as
well as strong social commentary on untouchability and prostitution
will probably grate on chauvinists' nerves. Aamir Khan who plays Mangal
Pandey and is also one of the most respected and popular actors working
in India, has made the film's anti-imperialist message abundantly clear.
In recent interviews, he drew a direct link between the behaviour of
the East India Company and the United States which is acting like a
colonizer in Iraq, Afghanistan, and before in Vietnam (interesting aside,
the East India Company's red and white striped ensign is the direct
inspiration for the stars and stripes). The film's economic critique
is also strong, with a notable opium subplot proving very useful in
illustrating the company's corrupt practices in the name of the "Free
Market." The associated firing on villagers who violated the Company's
monopoly over opium production was reminiscent of infamous massacres
like Bloody Sunday in Ireland, Fallujah, or even Sharpeville in South
Africa that touched off waves of rebellion. Mangal Pandey's Scottish
officer friend also explains how the Company can be described as Ravan,
Indian mythology's most notorious villain, except that instead of ten
heads, the Company has a thousand all stuck together by greed. This
is capped off by a song (and dance) about commodification, entitled
"Takey, Takey" where everything including human beings and
love itself could be bought and sold.
Fortunately, the
film itself is technically and aesthetically brilliant, a point that
can hardly be disputed by even the most hardened critics bent on savaging
the film. Moreover, some of the jarring aspects stem from the layering
of a historical epic on a Bollywood frame that is not usually given
to contemplating serious political matters. However, even this risky
blending of genres was attempted to ensure the film reached a wider
audience in both the Subcontinent as well as internationally. At the
very least, the film succeeds on the back of its outstanding leads,
Aamir Khan and Toby Stephens. While on these grounds alone it's a great
movie, important messages about oppression and freedom, collaboration
and resistance are what make it an instant classic, and thus a dangerous
film to the powers that be.