It might not be a technically well crafted movie. The
dialogues tend to be a little on the literary style as if Chekhovian characters
indulging in soliloquies or characters from Mahesh Elkunchwar plays brooding loudly. It could be 'not the most beautiful movie in a
lyrical sense' on the subject. It does not make you overtly sentimental, and it is
not an outright masala film, too. It could possibly have critics and
intellectuals point to many flaws in the plot and the narration. But Mulk is
different, and that is so beautiful about Mulk.
The theme is “They” and “Us”. It is a universal theme with cosmetic changes to the narrative here-and-there. Once defined, “They” becomes the
natural object of all the problems, and issues that plague the society as a
microcosm, and Nation as an entity, the root cause that always has a
denigrating hand in every evil and ill. This is the primary theme of the film
on both sides of the religious divide.
The film peels of facets after facet of the issue without indulging or
over-indulging too much. Who or what should decide the religion of the children
from inter-religious marriages? The protagonist (played by Taapasee) asks “why
not children decide about their religion?”
The film wades through different strands, and leaves the audience to catch them, chew on them, and fall out over either side of the line. There is no “standing on the line”. The question does not limit only to religious choices, which can be taken later on in life. It also touches upon the state policies, and I remember one activists living in Kanker (originally from a mainstream-non-tribal family from Assam) and married to a tribal girl from Bastar: “Our children are not recognised as scheduled tribe. It is the father’s caste that the state takes into cognizance (for the children)!”
In Mulk, the courtroom is a medium to dwell on another aspect-advocacy
versus lawyer. It is not a courtroom drama where brainy points are scored by
adroit lawyers. No, it is not a minefield of data or scurrying to get the vital
leads. It is the emotional pitch of “Us” echoed by the prosecution lawyer (I
should use advocate here), and responded in equal measures by adept defence
advocate, peeling off the “They” and the plight of proving “their” patriotism
time and again. When Logic and rationale no longer holds fort (as in the
courtroom of Mulk) you have to let go off the garb of a lawyer, and be an
advocate; but that requires belief in the cause. That belief, as portrayed by
Taapasi, is at the personal belief level (“let children decide about their
religion”, or her Hindu way of celebrating the birth anniversary of her Muslim
father-in-law or still later taking a Prasad/offerings from the temple before
going to court etc), and the bonding she has developed with this Muslim family
due to her marriage. It is not merely defending the family she is married
into-no it is the larger understanding of the issue of “They” versus “us”.
The film does not linger on the aspects that are peeled off one after
another. Two and half hours are not
enough to deconstruct and construct brick-by-brick. The first reaction to the
film is, it is not a bad movie but not a great movie either. Perhaps that is not
the sole objective of the movie makers. It is not crafted, perhaps, so as to
become a blockbuster. All the actors play their heart out, and most notable
performances, are of Manoj Pahwa, and Taapasi Pannu. But the film has no male
hero or lead, and that is a welcome change: At last!
Mulk also highlights the constant change the common folks can go
through. Be it Choubey who rushes in during the 92 riots to protect Murad Ali’s
family, is influenced by his son and the incessant reeling of Goebbelian
propaganda on the TV to turn an accuser, and in the last frame, when he wants
to hug his old friend freed of the same accusations; or Murad Ali himself, who
turns away from Choubey in the boiling heat of argumentative emotions, towards
Aarti (and the camera does not linger or capture Choubey’s disappointments). In
a sense it highlights the truth that there is nothing “carved out in stone” for
the common people: Life choices descend down through a constant called emotion!
Comparisons are bound to happen. Writing in "The Hindu", Namrata Joshi says:
“However, at an aesthetic level, Mulk may feel like a Garam Hava or a Nassem played to the gallery. The essential gravitas of its predecessors gets a solid dose of drama and old world dialoguebaazi in Mulk, which may seem simplistic, clichéd and broad but is fiery and rousing. Instead of talking to the converted, director Anubhav Sinha manages to use the conventions and tools of mainstream cinema to go beyond the liberal echo chambers and try and reach out to the masses. That, in fact, could well prove to be Mulk’s biggest strength.”
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/mulk-review-anguish-of-the-patriarch/article24579378.ece
I agree. Mulk might not be technically accomplished movie. It is not a
mainstream courtroom drama; it is a critique on the illusionary line of divide
that has many manifestations. But it is not a documentary or pretends to be an
art film either made for the connoisseurs or the intellectual elite. It is made
for masses, and behind the central theme of “They” and “Us” is the strand
of emotional connect that in the times of artificial intelligence, data mining,
and analytics, we tend to forget. In that sense Mulk is different.
