Thinking Activity: Analytic review of "Midnight's Children" and "The Reluctant Fundamentalist"

Analytic review of films: Midnight's Children, The Reluctant Fundamental and The Black Prince

"Midnight’s Children"

Midnight’s children is a 2012 Canadian-British film adaption of Salman Rushdie’s 1981 novel with the same name. Directed by Oscar nominated director Deepa Mehta and based on Booker Prize winning novel by Salman Rushdie,  the film has an extraordinary as well as interesting frames and features.

The movie unearth the history of Indian independence as well as of Indian partition by representing a pair of children who were born in Bombay at the stroke of midnight on 15^th August, 1947, with a birth of new country.

It was the time of highly patriotism where Jawaharlal Nehru was leading the newly born independent country into and era of hope and grand possibilities but,

Could the citizens of country live in that era of striking hope? or

Still there was a darkness in country?

Did the talk of great hope and grand possibilities would remain only as political agenda?

The first frame of the movie unfolds in pre Independence Kashmir of 1937, Saleem Sinai the narrator of the story recounted the events where Dr.Aziz was treating Naseem and fell in love with her and also revaled  about how his mother Amina’s married to to Ahmad Sinai which ultimately leaded destined him to born at midnight of partition in Bomabay. The narrator made a satire on condition of India and on a political leader in a very humorous way.

The film has richness in term of narration which questions the meta-narrative of past and also flows with magic realism as well as the use of symbolism played a vital role.The story involves a struggle of four generation from grand father of Saleem to the son of Saleem.

The characters of Saleem and Shiva were portrayed as they were that magical telepathy power through it they could able to call the children who were born same like them at the night if independence between zero hour. But the question is that,

Did magical children have a freedom to fly? or

Would they be the birds of cage?

The movie tries to answer this question throughout the movie.  Here I mention some of points from the movie which I found interesting and equally I try to answer the above mentioned question.

Marxism

The very much idea of Marxism which grew stronger during the patrician was very interestingly portrayed in the movie. Amina a women of well settle family and a Vanita who belonged to poor family gave a birth to the child at midnight in hospital. Joseph D’Costa seemed as a great supporter of Marxist theory as he believed in,

Rich becomes poor and poor becomes rich

In supporting of this idea nurse Mary Pereira switched the new born babies and played a vital role in writing the destiny of new born babies. It was revolutionary act for her but she had not any idea about it how much it should be harmful for boys and their families as well as it also brought out notion of hybridity in the life of Saleem Sinai and Shiva. The conflict between rich and poor was interesting drafted in the  movie.

Hybridity

The idea of mixture of two culture and religion was also portrayed in the movie. Saleem Sinai and Shiva were the representative of hybrid identity. Saleem Sinai who supposed to be the son of Vanita and Wee Willie Winkie but in actual he was a son of Vanita and Britisher Methwold. The other character Shiva who was the son of Muslim parents Amina and Ahmed but grown up as a Hindu by Wee Winkie as well as got the Hindu name Shiva.

Saleem Sinai and Shiva both characters presented religion hybridity.

Furthermore it also highlighted the brutal image of Indira Gandhi who did not allow poor to live peacefully even after partition also. After Independence she was passed Emergency in 1975, because of it there were prize increasing and poor people did not able to satisfy their basic needs and died because of shortage of basic needs. At the same time rich people were not affected by this emergency. During this scene camera moved on the frame which said that,

“Zero years of independence”

It revealed that we were free from British colony but still there was no hope.

The revolutionary idea of Joseph D’Cos was challenged here, it did not allow poor to be rich.The act of vasectomy was a order of prime minister to overcome poverty but rather it was seen as an inhuman act. 

Besides it, there were lots of symbol were used in the movie which left a great impact in our mind. In the movie Spittoon was used as a symbol of memory and how that memory became amnesia. It is also connected with the idea of dignity of man. In the movie all frustrated characters wanted to present their memories in form of their own story.

The symbol of Chutney used many times in the movie. May be the Chutney is a symbol of mix identities of India as well Chutney also brought  happiness in the life of Saleem Sinai. Mary who used make Chutney for him and also frequently told him I would make tasty Chutney for you. At the end of the movie, by testing the Chutney Saleem realized that it was made by Marry and he also went to the Bombay to meet her. At the end of the movie Saleem addressed Marry as her mother as well as Mary, Saleem, his son and Picture Singh were presented as they were celebrating the birthday of Saleem on independence day. As the Chutney is a outcome of mixing of many ingredients, in a same way happy ending of the movie is a outcome of mixing of different religion.

On the one side other countries were busy in development of science and technology, while the India was busy in use of magical power. 

These both elements were simultaneously presented. In the movie magical realism is shown as part of India.  India was a country of snake charmer and magician and the hight of this blind belief was that, when Indira Gandhi was presented as she was most interested in her horoscope.Parvati(known as witch)  has that magical power and also a magical box through which she saved the life of Saleem and his child by disappearing it.

In  nutshell, the movie not provides that much of entertainment but the study of film through postcolonial lens seems quite interesting. Salman Rushdie as a revolutionary critic also made a fun of Britishers, in between a movie a frame unfolded in which Saleem was studying, there was a picture of Lord Macaulay with the caption like

“This man brought civilization to savages”

Indians were considered as savages and Britishers were considered as civilized people. But,

Did really they bring civilization?

Answer is obviously no, rather bringing to the civilization in India, they left the India into ashes.

Saleem Sinai – the happy child of glorious hour was never able to live his life happily, the obstacles continuously came in his life. It was not only about Saleem none of midnight’s happy children lived happily, their all hopes were vanished in a one or another way.

“The Reluctant Fundamentalist”

The Reluctant Fundalist is a 2012 political thriller drama film based on the same named novel by Mohsin Hamid and directed by Mira Nair which casts Riz Ahmed as Changez Khan as the leading character. This schematic film interweaves two narrative in 2011 Lahore. As it used a frame narrative technique of story within story. It presents the contemporary market fundamentalism and how it works. The story of movie flows in thrilled frame narration.

In comparison to melodramatic bollywood film, this movie got a very subtle treatment. There is not that much of loudness. It’s interesting to know about how melodramatic and subtle treatment works in movie. A scene of frisking at airport can be observed in The Reluctant Fundamentalist as well as the same scene is also portrayed in the movie Newyork. But there is a huge difference between presentation of this scene. Reluctant Fundamentalist is showing this scene in quite subtle way while in the other movie we can find the use of too much loudness with too much use of emotions. The role of John Abraham is portrayed quite dramatically as it tries to evoke the blunting feelings and sense of audience.

 Do we born as human being or as Hindu and Muslim?

Why we are given the religion identity by born?

The central idea of the movie revolves around it. It is always fascinating to know about what the other country think about us or how they supposed us to be. But after getting particular identities with particular tags we do not have that much fascination about it. As in Edwar Said’s Orientalism we also referred about how the world is seen towards Islamic identity.

The movie unfolds as on one side Islamic celebration is going on and while on the other side American professor got kidnapped.

Islamic tag and suspecting identity as Terrorist

Only because of muslim identity Changez Khan is suspected and he has to undergone with strict checking as well they made him entirely naked only for checking. How far is it correct to make some one naked only because he belonges from Islamic identity. It seems quite insulting. Only because of his Islamic identity he is  suspected as terrorist.

His beloved Erica also uses him only as a tool to make her show successful.  In her show she mentioned that,

“I had a Pakistani Once”

Consciously or unconsciously she portrayed Changez Khan as Pakistani. This act gives the lens through which foreigner used to see Islamic identity. Rather to consider anyone as human being they are more interested in considering religion identity. This act of her also drives him angry and suddenly he breaks up with her.

There is also a scene come in which one person says that,

“This long beard also makes him fearful”

A very little line arises a lots of huge questions against the identity of Changez Khan. After all this happening,

Do Changez Khan able to be what he really wants to be?

The reaction of Chagez Khan is said a lot without uttering a word when he came to know about 7/11 attack.  After hearing the news of attack he is quite shocked but sooner and suddenly a smile comes out on his face which symbolizes his inner happiness also. This is only because of brutal treatment of foreigners towards him.

The Black Prince

‘The Black Prince’ is an international historical drama film directed by Kavi Raz which was published in 2017 and casts Satindar Sartaj as a protagonist Duldeep Singh. The film is based on the mighty kingdom of  Punjab, Duldeep Singh, the last Maharaja of Shikh Empire and his relation with queen Victoria. He was placed on throne at the age of five but was replaced by a British Resident.

The entire film rests on Duleep Singh’s longing and liberation.

Everyone have that great pride for their native country, for their identity and for their region language . Do there anything leave to live if one can take away all these?

The movie highlights this postcolonial idea through the protagonist character Duldeep Singh. He was born in India but was exiled from his own country and was raised in British.

That very idea of superiority and inferiority is reflected through the title of the movie.The title of movie is “The Black Prince” which itself provides a lens(idea of rascism fostered by Britishers) through which they used to see Indians as inferior because of their black skin color. In reality Duldeep was the king of Punjab but he was considered as prince by Queen Victoria.

Even his region was seized from him, in England he was baptized a Christian and lost his own identity as Shikh as well as which kept him away from his mother. Almost he lost his identity as Shikh but as soon as he turned into 20s , he was haunted by the violence of his childhood which leaded him to meet his mother at India. She reminded him about his own Shikh identity but after knowing all reality,

How far it was possible or easy for Duldeep Singh to be the king of Punjab?

There were many obstacles which came into his path. Firstly his mind was entirely colonized it was not easy for him to give fight against Britishers. But as he did it, they started intrigue against him. They never allowed him to be the king of Punjab.

How far the idea of colonization, can be done psychological damage to person is presented in the movie.

'He was neither be entirely Shikh nor Christain, neither be entirely  King nor Prince, neither be entirely  British nor Indian still his death in Paris'.

We can see Duldeep Singh who constantly seems to live with dilemma of identity. Though he was a free but not able to think independently. No doubt he started rebel against British Empire but

Do we find a consideration for his voice?

He was a king of Punjab than even on the other land he was voiceless, he was subaltern who did not allow to raise his voice against authority.