It doesn’t take much to tick off Twitterverse. So when Ashutosh Gowarikar decided to show us his version of what 2016 BC looked like with the trailer of his much-awaited historical epic Mohenjo Daro, many on social media refused to even go past the title before taking offense for historical misrepresentation. The title, meaning ‘Mound of the Dead’ in Sindhi, was given to the excavation site only in 1920. Replete with anachronisms such as a decked up Pooja Hegde in straightened hair and plush make up (not to mention, the Mogambo 2.0 act by Kabir Bedi), the movie’s historical inconsistencies are indeed hard to miss, say some. And social media, as is its wont, took instant responsibility for keeping history’s purity.
While Ashutosh isn’t the first to take liberties with history for the sake of fiction (and neither is this a first for the director himself, whose previous works include Jodha Akbar and Lagaan), Bollywood has time and again gotten itself into trouble for crossing the fine line when it comes showing the past.
On the one hand, there is wide consensus that the role of fiction itself in history cannot be dismissed. Even emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who continues to fill pages of history textbooks had once exclaimed, “What is history, but a fable agreed upon,” albeit with the proviso that it indeed has to be first ‘agreed upon’. But on the other hand, what also cannot be dismissed is that the popular media, especially films, even though they come with the disclaimer of being works of ‘fiction’, have often dictated popular perception of what history is. As film historian SMM Ausaja points out: “Films have this trait of eventually becoming a reference point. Even today, when people talk about Emperor Akbar, they think of Prithviraj Kapoor.” It begs the question, ‘Does a disclaimer absolve filmmakers of any and all responsibility?’ and if not then where should one draw the line?
“It’s dangerous territory and should be treated with the care necessary,” contends historian and professor of history, Ishita Chakroborty. Ishita adds that a disclaimer doesn’t hold much weight when the intent is to pass fiction off as fact. “Surely it affects popular perception, especially in a country like ours where most people do not read books. Their exposure to history primarily comes from mediums such as films,” she adds.
On the other hand, while it is in the power of a filmmaker to put his imagination to full use when making a work of fiction, the responsibility that comes with tagging a film as ‘historical fiction’ is more of a moral and ethical one, argues Ausaja. “When one makes a historical drama there is tremendous amount of responsibility that comes with it as the film tends to remain in the audiences’ psyche. The sanctity of the era and the person involved (if a biopic) should remain intact and no compromise should be made on that count,” he adds. While the sanctity of history itself as an exact science has been questioned throughout its existence, Ishita draws a line and says that there is a clear difference between academic disagreements and misrepresentation. “History itself is also about storytelling. There’s much imagination that’s put to use when trying to fill in blank pages. But the danger comes in when movies play with eras (such as the Indus Valley Civilisation), which are not exactly clear in history itself and are contentious.”
However, what Ashutosh’s detractors seem to be missing, says filmmaker Ketan Mehta, who has directed historical films before such as Rangrasiya and Mangal Pandey, is that a film is a vehicle for ‘ideas’ and not just ‘facts’. “Storytelling is a creative enterprise at its core. Appropriation of historical facts has been happening for the longest time. Kalidasa appropriated parts of Mahabharata and so have a lot of others in history. What we should not forget is that historical fiction is a booming genre in India and we need more of works on such subjects. Nobody has seen what actually happened 4,000 years ago, so it is for the storyteller to interpret his version.
But although the moral and ethical aspects of portraying history are of importance, what inconsistency also affects is the film’s credibility, says acclaimed scriptwriter Anjum Rajabali.
Anjum, on his part, says that it not only plays with history but also goes against the principles of the art of storytelling. Taking a dig at the film’s trailer, Anjum says, “The film has to look authentic and credible at least in its visuals. In the 50s and 60s, people did not mind all the finery associated with Mahabharata. Today, given the resources we have, they have to be careful. Their dramaturgy should work, the weapons, the costumes won’t matter much. If the art of storytelling is appealing to the audience they will not get the time to go into the nitty-gritty. Nobody was looking at the tacky costumes in Mahabharata because the storytelling worked.”
And the case isn’t much different when it comes to the film’s chances of succeeding, says Bollywood film critic and trade analyst, Omar Qureshi. In fact, he contends that films that are authentic have a track record of performing well at the box office too. “Ashutosh here is straddling between realism and fiction because he is talking about something that happened 4,000 years ago. There are two things that can happen with the film —it will either draw people to theaters or drive them away. The audience is smart and they know their history.”
Putting the onus on the filmmaker, Anjum adds, “When you take a leaf out of reality, I think you owe it to yourself and the audience to depict it in the most honest way. Considering the fact that we live in a country with illiteracy rates too high, a film becomes a chronicler of that time/era. I’m not saying it’s an easy task to depict history but it definitely is a possible task.”
