October 8, 2008

A Wednesday

Warning: If you haven't seen the movie, this post could spoil some fun if & when you see it.

Finally, I managed to see the movie. Again, saw this movie after hearing a lot of rave reviews. To write my review in a single line, if the movie was supposed to be a suspense thriller, then it is a good one. But if it was to be a solution to terrorism, then the movie is very weak. I saw the movie presuming the latter and I guess that is also what the movie is supposed to be. Needless to say, I am disappointed.

This movie is akin to Rang De Basanti (RDB). Both movies evoked good response from the audience. We like to see things that are unrealistic and impractical...the dreamy kinds. Suraj Barjatiya and Karan Johar realized this a lot earlier.

I have been failing consistently in the examinations. I am fed up and impatient now. I cannot study and work hard to clear. So I cheat in the exams to clear. This is the essence of the suggested solution in the movie for terrorism. I wish it was as easy. The movie is pale when it comes to providing any effective solution to what is indeed a pressing issue. Great performances by all involved, good dialogues, well writen script and few suspense twists make a good thriller as I said earlier, but that is the only thing this movie is about.

Why is this movie as unreal as RDB? It tries to show that 'the common man' can, if need be, also plant bombs and demand things to be done. The bombs are placed at a police station and an airspace runway! How realistic!! Terrorists do not and cannot plant bombs at such places. They place it among crowds and mobs. It is far more easier than what 'the common man' has managed to do in the movie. I hate hyperboles and impractical plots in a movie, I am sorry.

Coming to another absurd point. Even if I were to assume 'the common man' can plant bombs the way it has been shown, does he have the conviction and the 'selflessness' to do it? Terrorists are passionate about what they do. They can lay their lives for an issue that is stupid and absurd. They do not worry about families and friends when they go to plant bombs. They definitely fear death much lesser than 'the common man'. 'The common man' has to take care of a lot of things. He is far more 'selfish'. He has to get married, have kids, live a good life. 'The common man' cannot stake everything to do what the film shows. If he does, he is not a common man. The way I have defined 'selflessness' and 'selfish' here is not the common dictionary meaning. It is slightly twisted.

Why was 'the common man' shown to be getting a lot of support and appreciation in the movie? The cop suddenly is not sure of the sketch, the hacker thinks 'the common man' is the best, there is no case against him and the police commissioner walks off after seeing him pretending nothing has happened. Why? Did he not kill 3 people? Did he not play a lot of pranks with the cops? Did he not threaten and force the cops to do a lot of things including killing the 4th terrorist? Why was he not punished for all this? No, I am not talking for the terrorists. The movie talks for the terrorists, not me. And if the film was intended to get us into how terrorists think and act, then the end should also be logical. He cannot be left free.

If we believe that the 'cause' of 'the common man' in the movie to do all what he did was 'genuine' and hence he must be spared, the same 'logic' applies to terrorists. They too believe what they are doing is 'right'. The movie, unfortuntely, gives away the message that the ends justify the means. If that is so, this movie is pro-terrorism and not anti-terrorism. Because they also kill innocent people to be heard, to send a message, to achieve some ends. They do not bother about the means, and that is the reason why terrorism is different from Satyagraha that Mahatma Gandhi practised.

Terorrists were compared to cockroaches in the movie. Cockroaches aren't human and by definition cannot be as complex as the terrorists. Terrorists are a disease. Cockroaches are just a nuisance. You cannot kill a disease very easily unless if you take care of the causes of the disease. Killing makes things worse. If an eye were to be taken for an eye, the world would soon turn blind. I believe in this quote.

Because we cannot think of a solution to tackle this problem effectively does not mean we start to reciprocate the same way they do. Then it would be similar to cheating in the examination.

After having written all this, I must admit that there is a huge criticism that can be levied against me. That I have not lost a loved one in the blasts and hence I am talking like this. True. I cannot say anything for this criticism. Perhaps just that, 'the common man' in the movie is also not shown as a victim per se.

A Wednesday is a weak response to the entire issue of terrorism. It is at best a movie that makes us feel good that something is being done in it. I strongly believe the methods used in the movie are totally pro-terrorism. It gives them enough reasons to justify what they do.


hariharan said...

very well written sir.Some points tht u mentioned are too good among all points put forth like selflessness of terrorist for a cause, eye for an eye, etc.
I have not seen the movie.
The way I look at some things which are idealistic or impractical r till we know wht is ideal how can we improve?

U No Hoo said...

Thanks Hari. Agree to your point about improvement, but the movie is not close to it.

On second thoughts, I guess this post would be a spoilsport for you. Sorry about that.. :)

Arunkiyer said...

I think the film is not trying to give a solution to the problem of terrorism...The movie is trying to project the common mans feeling about terrorism...

U No Hoo said...

True. That is why I said it is another K-Jo kind of flick which breeds on impracticalities.