Thackeray Movie Review

Bollywood

Thackeray Film Review: Nawazuddin Siddiqui's film is not a whitewash, it is an admission. 1 star

Thackeray Film Review: This is either an unintelligible or distinctly self-conscious film, it is not a work of propaganda as much as it is a work of pride, a celebration of the legacy of violence. Rating: 1/5

By Raja Sen | Hindustan Times, Mumbai

Updated on January 26, 2019, 07:38 PM IST

Thackeray

Director - Abhijeet Panse

Cast - Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Amrita Rao

Rating - 1/5

 Some films make it clear where they stand. In the case of Thackeray, the editor of the party's periodical am Saamana, produced by Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut and written and directed by MNS leader Abhijeet Panse - there is no doubt about its loyalty. I joined Prime for the film Back-Pedal Extremism to justify the works of the late Balasaheb Thackeray. I hoped that the politicians would be shown as a hot and misunderstood figure and a film that essentially transformed them into a hero. This is not that movie.

Thackeray recalled the shockingly polarizing leader's most controversial aspects of the legend. The film is like a super-villain origin story. We are shown a character who is older than a proud, a man who indulges in hate-speech, compares himself to Adolf Hitler, and orders for the abolition of mosques and the killing of communists. It is not a whitewash, it is a confession.

 It is also a film made with polish - the high-contrast black and white cinematography created by Sudeep Chatterjee is quite shocking - reminiscent of Ram Gopal Varma's old, fine work. Accusing the rise of a mere cartoonist for one of the country's most powerful political figures, Thackeray even feels like a prequel to Verma's government, a film that paid a dull tribute to the politician. However, Sircar presented the leader as a person of nobility, while Thackeray presented him as a tyrant. See how much power he earns? The way he threatens politicians, or turns places of worship into rubble? See the way he dug the cricket pitch? He is our tiger.

That's why the film's producers cast Nawazuddin Siddiqui in the lead role, a man best known for playing gangster and psychopath. Siddiqui revels in the character's growing villainy, playing him with a bad guy's infamous smuggling from a 90s movie. Sure, he wears thick black glasses and sometimes works correctly, but despite the large (and frankly fake) nose, he lacks the politician's towering individuality and never excels with Thackeray's distinctive vocals. Do not attempt to speak with. He sounds like the Nawaz we know, like Ganesh Gaitonde or Faisal or Raman Raghav, is increasingly drunk on power and eager to kill it to get more.

The politics of casting Siddiqui is messed up in this part. To see this Muslim actor crow about Hindu supremacy or to shout at him to celebrate the destruction of a mosque is to listen to him giving full hate speech without any room given for suspicion. The film begins with the courtroom WhatsApp as Thackeray, encapsulating his saffron shawl and several garlands, trying to reverse his behavior, but as the film unfolds, the character proudly Owns all its extremism. He virtually talks about himself as Adolf Hitler's second arrival, presumably at first, but later, declaring himself a Hitler for Maharashtra, which will soon be one for the nation.

As a film, the acting is decent, the lookalikes are mostly good (the man playing the role of Thackeray's father, Keshav, is perfectly cast) and it looks crisp and well-constructed, making up most of the film. Cleverly shot in black and white to portray the other. Time. Despite the slow production and mastering, the film feels long-term, mainly because it refuses to believe that its protagonist has a flaw.

Thackeray is not as proud as the publicity work.

Thackeray is not as proud as the publicity work.

Still, Thackeray is capable and solidly together, which is why - unlike the easily dismissed The Accidental Prime Minister - people can take this film and its rhetoric to heart. This is the most pressing concern. (Another reason for fear is the fact that the film ends with 'to keep the words going', so we're all for more of Balasaheb's story, and I think the filmmaker has already Looking for Michael Jackson in Thackeray II.)

The film is either oblivious or clearly self-conscious, not a work of propaganda as much as it is a work of pride, violence