I went to Star Cineplex to watch "Meherjaan" with a lot of expectations. The filmmaker Rubaiyat Hossain, a young academic who had studied the cases of Birangonas (war heroines of 1971) for her thesis, had said the film provides a female perspective of the Liberation War. The tagline of the movie is: "A story of war and love."
"The purpose of 'Meherjaan' is to break free of the typical male narrative and open up a conversation to explore other perspectives on the Liberation War," Rubaiyat said in an interview published earlier in The Daily Star.
If you've been following reactions to the film and reviews in newspapers and online, you're well aware that "Meherjaan" has generated a firestorm of debate. While most are shocked and appalled by the film (rather the core idea of it), some have just chosen to see it as a work of fiction.
But before getting to the controversial part, let's get the basics out of the way: The film follows Meher, who falls for a soldier from the enemy side during the Liberation War. When her love is discovered, she is shamed and silenced by her family and society. Thirty-eight years after the war, she is approached by Sarah -- a 'war child', Meher's cousin Neela's daughter, who was given away for adoption. As Sarah tries to understand her origins, Meher recollects a past riddled with agony and guilt.
Perhaps the biggest objection to the film that has surfaced is the central story: a love affair between a young Bengali woman and a Pakistani soldier while the Liberation War is full-on. Many have questioned the "audacity" of the filmmaker; some sense a "hidden agenda". When "The Reader" was released (in 2008), there was no controversy. It told the story of a teenager having an affair with an older woman who worked as a guard at a Nazi concentration camp during the 2nd World War. Neither did "Monster's Ball" (2001) -- a film about an African-American woman's relationship with a racist prison warden who had executed her husband -- raise an eyebrow. I'm not mentioning these films to draw a comparison; not at all -- just analogies. The core concept is a seemingly inappropriate, politically incorrect relationship. Rubaiyat has even gone to the extent of making the character of the Pakistani soldier halaal: he is a renegade, who refuses to open fire on Bengali civilians. To his authorities there is no difference between him and a Bengali gaddar. Moreover, he saves Meher from an approaching troop of enemy soldiers and becomes her knight in shining armour in a true commercial movie style.
This film is not a documentary; neither does it claim to be a portrait of the Liberation War, it is an out and out work of fiction with references to a historic event; allegations of trying to distort history are thus undeserved.
The portrayal of Neela, Meher's cousin who had been raped by Pakistani soldiers, has been criticised as well. Is there a certain code of conduct raped/abused women should abide by? Is it wrong of Neela to be defiant and unashamed?
The storyline seemed intriguing on paper; a counter-cultural narrative if you will. But did it translate well to screen? My biggest issue with the film is its lack of cohesion. Certain scenes in a sequence seem randomly placed and a few, somewhat unnecessary.
I wasn't necessarily looking for a depiction of direct combat from this film. To me the "war" part of the tagline was represented by Neela and her reality. Meher embodied "love" or a "dream". And what a dream Rubaiyat had woven through the lens of Samiran Datta! Mustard fields have never been happier yellow; water lilies stunning enough to make Monet jealous. Who needs the Swiss Alps? But even a liberal viewer like me cringed at the idea of a young woman frolicking with her lover (regardless of which side he belongs to) in broad daylight during a war.
I didn't understand the relevance of the deranged aunt (played by the director) either. Was the sole purpose of the role just to instil the 'love with a soldier' fantasy in young Meher?
None of the characters, except for Neela (ably played by Reetu Sattar), is bold enough to engage the audience throughout the movie. There's a serious case of miscasting as well. Inclusion of amateur actors in a cast that boasts thespians like Victor Banerjee, Jaya Bachchan and Humayun Faridee is like a generous serving of biryani that has undercooked rice and beautifully done meat. Close shots of Jaya Bachchan's (as the middle-aged Meher) face, as she opens a chest to get her journal written during the war, speaks volumes without words. The high-spirited showdown between Nanajaan (Victor Banerjee) -- Meher's grandfather and the unofficial feudal lord of the village who doesn't want any bloodshed -- and the local collaborator of the Pakistani forces (Humayun Faridee) is remarkable. Pakistani actor Omar Rahim as Wasim Khan, the runaway soldier who romances Meher, looked the part but giving him dialogues was perhaps an unwise decision.
Music (directed by Neil Mukherjee) is undoubtedly the film's strong suit. Particularly, the use of "Hum Ke Thehre Ajnabi" written by Faiz Ahmed Faiz and immaculately rendered by Nayyara Noor is fitting. In defiance of official silence, Faiz -- considered the most prolific of modern Urdu poets -- protested the army action against civilians in then East Pakistan and the arrest of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Faiz wrote the poem, titled “Dhaka Say Wapsi Par” (On Return from Dhaka) in 1974 which was later translated into a ghazal. But to those unfamiliar with this reference, this would just be an Urdu song -- potentially drawing more criticism.
To sum it up, "Meherjaan" doesn't live up to its tagline. It's mostly about naive love depicted in a way that didn't speak to me, and very little war. But the film has its moments, even if they are few and far between. It is an academic's well-intentioned but (at times) misguided effort in storytelling. After all's said and done, it's the audience who'll decide whether this film is a success or failure.