Moneycontrol PRO
HomeNewsTrendsEntertainmentKhalnayak or Munnabhai? Fact vs fiction in Rajkumar Hirani's 'Sanju'

Khalnayak or Munnabhai? Fact vs fiction in Rajkumar Hirani's 'Sanju'

The film demands deliberation and discourse, particularly on issues that had indicted actor Sanjay Dutt for terrorism

July 10, 2018 / 21:33 IST
Sanju

Sanju

Someone once told me, "You are the protagonist of your own story", and that has been the case with Rajkumar Hirani’s recent film Sanju, co-written by Abhijat Joshi.

Hirani’s reluctance to come out of a narrative where he masks a complex issue with humour, much like his previous films (Lage Raho Munna Bhai and PK) has left the audience baffled and with a multitude of unanswered questions – especially, if he was a terrorist or not.

While the film is being criticised for not delving into the many aspects that shaped the real Sanjay Dutt – his numerous sexual escapades with women, in particular actors from the film industry; his first marriage and children; and the role of his sister Priya Dutt in getting him out of prison – it is also important to understand that 162 minutes is not sufficient to possibly show all the significant threads that weave into a rather complex and multilayered web that was Sanjay Dutt’s life. And that is the problem with the film. It is oversimplified and unnecessarily melodramatic.

While Hirani has attempted to cursorily touch on the milestones in Dutt’s life, he hasn’t been able to do justice to them. The first half of the film establishes the character of Sanjay Dutt, a brat who is so burdened by his parents’ legacy that he escapes into the haven of drugs. His parents – Sunil Dutt and Nargis – were both exceptional public figures with an illustrious career in the Indian film industry. Again, Dutt Sr. humiliating him on the sets of a film and his mother passing away due to illness is absolutely no justification for him to get into drugs, but that was Sanjay Dutt’s rationale. Also, it was the accessibility of these drugs to a poor little rich boy who was probably delusional and wanted to remain distant from reality.

Dutt’s relationship with his father has been a parallel plot in the film and not only did it evolve during the run of the film, it also underwent a metamorphosis. Meanwhile, his affection towards his mother is briefly dealt with.

Now comes in the grave crime – the possession of the AK-56 rifle and his alleged links in 1993 Bombay blasts case. One needs to put a couple of things into perspective before jumping the gun and calling him a ‘terrorist’. Back in the day, the Bollywood biggies’ inconspicuous links with the underworld were more commonplace than they were condoned. Among these producers were Samir Hingora and Hanif Kadawala of Magnum Videos, who had signed up Sanjay Dutt for their film Sanam. This was around the time Dutt was introduced to and, later probably drawn, towards the underworld, maybe under the pressure of social obligation.

However, to say that Sanjay Dutt didn’t know exactly what he was getting into when he procured the rifle from “someone called Salem” and later destroyed it, would be naive. Sunil Dutt, a Congress MP, was indeed facing threats in the aftermath of the riots that shook Bombay in the January of 1993 after the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. But, to seek asylum in the underworld and illegally take weapons from them was –let’s just say – not the brightest idea.

He might have been unaware of the plot of the 1993 blasts, that killed 257 people and injured over 700, but he could not possibly ignore the fact that he shared a camaraderie with the conspirators of the blasts – Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon – even if reluctantly.

In April 1993, Sanjay Dutt was arrested under TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act) and Arms Act. However, in November 2006, the TADA acquitted him of charges under TADA and held him guilty for illegal possession of AK-56 rifle. He was convicted under the Arms Act for six years, which was later reduced to five years by the Supreme Court. Dutt was released on parole and furlough on multiple occasions.

So, Sanjay Dutt paid for what he did. Now whether he was responsible for  his bad decisions or was a victim of circumstance depends on the narrator of the story. And considering, in this case, it is close friend Raju Hirani, I wasn’t expecting anything different. Sanjay Dutt is the protagonist of this story and the film is a projection of his perpective, something that Hirani establishes in the very beginning of the film.

And no, it would be unfair to call it a hagiography, because in no way has Dutt been shown as a saint, but it would be unfair to call it a biopic all the same.

As far as media bashing in the film is concerned, it was undesirable to taint the entire industry throughout the film. To rob journalists of their credibility by a much idiotic song at the end of the film was irresponsible on Hirani’s part. A few journalists might have sensationalised Dutt’s arrest by twisting facts to suit a narrative that could give them a headline, but isn’t this exactly what Hirani is also doing in the film?

Ironically, Hirani is selectively dramatising ‘facts’ that elicit empathy and sympathy from the audience for a wild child who took more than a few wrong calls, in an attempt to portray Dutt as a “nice guy”.  Before blaming the media for all that went wrong in Dutt’s life, Hirani must realise that there is no smoke without fire.

Moving to the aesthetics of the film, the sound design is rather sloppy and needlessly melodramatic, rendering intense multi-layered emotions to be soap-opera-like-tear-jerkers. Ranbir Kapoor has blended into the character of Sanjay Dutt seamlessly – following his idiolect and gait with uncanny precision. Vicky Kaushal, who played the character of Kamlesh, Dutt’s pillar of support, has outperformed himself in the film, and is the only one who possesses the capability to steal Ranbir Kapoor’s thunder in the film. Paresh Rawal has made a brave and commendable attempt to recreate Sunil Dutt, although Dutt Saab’s persona and nobility can hardly be encapsulated into a character. Meanwhile, Anushka Sharma was a bit of a disappointment as the character of a blue-eyed, British expat Winnie Diaz who was Hirani’s attempt at recreating his character, the one who puts everything on the record.

Notwithstanding the criticism, the film is a must watch and will definitely stir your brain while you get an insight into the tumultuous and turbulent life of Bollywood’s beloved Munna Bhai.

Aakriti Handa
first published: Jul 10, 2018 08:17 pm

Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!

Subscribe to Tech Newsletters

  • On Saturdays

    Find the best of Al News in one place, specially curated for you every weekend.

  • Daily-Weekdays

    Stay on top of the latest tech trends and biggest startup news.

Advisory Alert: It has come to our attention that certain individuals are representing themselves as affiliates of Moneycontrol and soliciting funds on the false promise of assured returns on their investments. We wish to reiterate that Moneycontrol does not solicit funds from investors and neither does it promise any assured returns. In case you are approached by anyone making such claims, please write to us at grievanceofficer@nw18.com or call on 02268882347