REVIEW: MANIKARNIKA: The Queen of Jhansi
Cast: Kangana Ranaut, Atul Kulkarni, Danny Dengzongpa, Richard KeepDirector: Radha Krishna Jagarlamudi, Kangana Ranaut
Stars: 3/5 ***
Manikarnika had the potential to rouse and capture the dream of empowerment - feminine and nationalist - but only manages to live the glory of its protagonist to a mediocre extent. For a narrative, it wastes time with unnecessary plots not focusing enough on the key emotions of the heroine, who is glorified slowly but never with an ounce of emotional connect. The movie manages to capture the audience only after the second half commences and forgets to humanise the great heroine it talks of.
The STORYLINE develops with the birth of a girl child, who through privilege survives and becomes a strong headed woman with an extreme sense of nationalism and righteousness. There is little attention paid to the development of the girlchild herself, but more on the kind of person she automatically becomes - a warrior, with a strong love for books and dignity. A Disney's-Brave-inspired scene showing Manikarnika's (Ranaut) compassion, while not exactly hunting a tiger to save a village soon turns into the ensuing result of her betrothal to a self-indulgent king (Jisshu Sengupta).
A series of unnecessary dance sequences and romanticisation of the love between the king and the new queen lead us to the birth of their first born. Unfortunately, the jealous brother (Mohammad Zeeshan Ayub Khan) poisons the child and lays his claim to the throne - only to be banished from the kingdom. Consequently, the royal couple adopts a child, who is renamed after their own dead son and has no other relevance in the events which follow. Sparsed in between are scenes of resilience shown by the heroine - propagated against the white colonisers, only at all attempting to evoke feelings of patriotism. There are scenes showing the struggles of the heroine to be a righteous and independent woman - particularly in defiance of her mother-in-law, however these scenes neither land with the emotional weight they were meant to or could have been removed altogether. The sense of neither-here-nor-there is at large throughout the movie.
Finally, the sick king dies and commands his wife to break the chains of his kingdom and free it from the colonial rulers - perhaps the strongest dialogue with the most amount of emotion. Defiant once again of her mother-in-law, the widow assumes the role of Maharani, only ever to be threatened by every method of internal and imperial conflict. The politics become apparent when the widowed queen is forced to leave her palace and displays a peaceful march against the colonisers who are thumped at the public support she receives.
And this brings us to 1857 when the first wave of freedom fighters launch an attack against the British, an ambush and a call for fight brings the Queen to the face of the war, which is truly the turning point of the movie. The leadership qualities of the great woman are finally displayed in methods of actual sensibility.
With several intensely choreographed fight sequences, we find the power of the freedom fighter who now is a national hero. Only now does the movie have the audience rooting for the protagonist despite knowing her story in all forms of media.
The PERFORMANCES are fine-tuned but lack the sense of emotional vulnerability. The shortcomings of the scripting are evident despite a consistent effort to cover a story way too vast and grand for the small ensemble.
Manikarnika/Lakshmibai portrayed by Kangana Ranaut has beautiful moments of natural acting but is often unrelatable. Her portrayal of Rani Lakshmibai has an engraved sense of stubbornness and pride, which move the audience toward the direction of emotion, but never land because of the poorly written dialogue and the poor way in which Kangana usually delivers them. Her ability as a fighter and an action goddess is breathtaking, so much so, that you wish the entire movie was only an action movie and not a historical biopic, trying to justify the character. Despite that, the best moment of Ranaut's acting ability comes when she loses her first born and takes the audience to the edge of their seats - waiting for her to deliver the painful scream which she holds until she can't anymore. Ranaut's is the performance that truly holds the film together despite its shallow pace in several scenes. She isn't afraid to look ugly.
Richard Keep as the crazed British antagonist is extreme, almost to a point of blurring the lines between hateful revenge and sexualisation, which is an interesting area to take the character. Despite the smaller part, Keep is perhaps the best actor of the ensemble relying on subtlety rather than confused direction.
Danny Dengzongpa's portrayal of Ghulam Ghaus Khan has hints of Katappa from Bahubali (2015-2017).
Mohammed Ayyub Khan as Sadashiv is a well-formed character without any progression or redemption. This perhaps is the biggest drawback of the movie, the lack of redemption of every character apart from Ranaut's and what Keep manages to do.
The remaining performances were forgettable or too small.
The DIALOGUE left the movie unrelatable and often archaic in a way that it became uninteresting. The punchlines were missing as much as the emotion and the emotional connect.
The MUSIC of the movie did not add in any way to the story, only took away from the sentiment. Patriotic movies usually have a much better soundtrack (example Lagaan, Border and even Bahubali). The music was forgettable and lacked sincerity.
The COSTUMES by Neeta Lulla were aesthetically pleasing, accurate and the palettes used genuinely added to the sense of grandiose and beauty. Particularly the beautiful blending of the costume colours with cinematography.
The movie could have done away with the dance sequences altogether and still have had a mammoth of a tale to tell.
On the whole, the movie had a strong desire to be a feminist and patriotic Bahubali. While it served the patriotic sentiment, it failed miserably on being a feminist movie. Characters might have been feminists but the radical dream that the Queen of Jhansi envisioned was left abandoned and unjustified in trying to make things work perhaps because of the controversy and the confused direction. With the same people working better with each other and stronger direction to work towards, perhaps the movie would have reached it's potential and not felt like jabs at several things, pleasing nobody.
The best part of the movie is in its cinematography and the glorification of Rani Lakshmibai.
A series of unnecessary dance sequences and romanticisation of the love between the king and the new queen lead us to the birth of their first born. Unfortunately, the jealous brother (Mohammad Zeeshan Ayub Khan) poisons the child and lays his claim to the throne - only to be banished from the kingdom. Consequently, the royal couple adopts a child, who is renamed after their own dead son and has no other relevance in the events which follow. Sparsed in between are scenes of resilience shown by the heroine - propagated against the white colonisers, only at all attempting to evoke feelings of patriotism. There are scenes showing the struggles of the heroine to be a righteous and independent woman - particularly in defiance of her mother-in-law, however these scenes neither land with the emotional weight they were meant to or could have been removed altogether. The sense of neither-here-nor-there is at large throughout the movie.
And this brings us to 1857 when the first wave of freedom fighters launch an attack against the British, an ambush and a call for fight brings the Queen to the face of the war, which is truly the turning point of the movie. The leadership qualities of the great woman are finally displayed in methods of actual sensibility.
With several intensely choreographed fight sequences, we find the power of the freedom fighter who now is a national hero. Only now does the movie have the audience rooting for the protagonist despite knowing her story in all forms of media.
The PERFORMANCES are fine-tuned but lack the sense of emotional vulnerability. The shortcomings of the scripting are evident despite a consistent effort to cover a story way too vast and grand for the small ensemble.
Danny Dengzongpa's portrayal of Ghulam Ghaus Khan has hints of Katappa from Bahubali (2015-2017).
Mohammed Ayyub Khan as Sadashiv is a well-formed character without any progression or redemption. This perhaps is the biggest drawback of the movie, the lack of redemption of every character apart from Ranaut's and what Keep manages to do.
The remaining performances were forgettable or too small.
The DIALOGUE left the movie unrelatable and often archaic in a way that it became uninteresting. The punchlines were missing as much as the emotion and the emotional connect.
The MUSIC of the movie did not add in any way to the story, only took away from the sentiment. Patriotic movies usually have a much better soundtrack (example Lagaan, Border and even Bahubali). The music was forgettable and lacked sincerity.
The COSTUMES by Neeta Lulla were aesthetically pleasing, accurate and the palettes used genuinely added to the sense of grandiose and beauty. Particularly the beautiful blending of the costume colours with cinematography.
The movie could have done away with the dance sequences altogether and still have had a mammoth of a tale to tell.
***
On the whole, the movie had a strong desire to be a feminist and patriotic Bahubali. While it served the patriotic sentiment, it failed miserably on being a feminist movie. Characters might have been feminists but the radical dream that the Queen of Jhansi envisioned was left abandoned and unjustified in trying to make things work perhaps because of the controversy and the confused direction. With the same people working better with each other and stronger direction to work towards, perhaps the movie would have reached it's potential and not felt like jabs at several things, pleasing nobody.
The best part of the movie is in its cinematography and the glorification of Rani Lakshmibai.
Comments
Post a Comment