Mulk - It is Different

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.