Eklavya (2007)

एकलव्य

Murderous monarchs, shady princes, royals of questionable parentage, duty-bound guards hell-bent on revenge - Eklavya's first act is Shakespearean in tone.  Unfortunately, despite a few very well-crafted elements, the payoff is superficial and unsatisfying. 

King Rana (Boman Irani) is a figurehead monarch in modern-day Rajasthan; occupying a resplendent fortified palace, he has wealth and land but no real power.  In the film's opening scene, he is comforting his ill wife (Sharmila Tagore); when she calls out for his royal guard Eklavya, though, Rana strangles her in a jealous rage.  Learning of the queen's death, her prodigal son Harsh (Saif Ali Khan) returns from London, and receives a letter his mother had left for him before she dies, telling him that his father is not King Rana, but Eklavya (Amitabh Bachchan).   Meanwhile Rana plots to have Eklavya killed, with the help of Rana's bitter, envious brother Jyoti (Jackie Shroff) and Jyoti's spoiled, ambitious son Uday (Jimmy Shergill).  From there the story winds grimly through a series of double-crosses and vengeful confrontations. 

There is potential in this set-up.  Eklavya, named for a character in the Mahabharata who cut off his own thumb when his guru demanded it, is so blinded by duty and loyalty that he cannot perceive that his King has betrayed him.  There is potential, too, to illuminate the privileged yet bleak world of the impotent figurehead monarch, distinguished by nothing but noble birth and centuries of tradition, his opulent palace really little more than a house of cards.  And there is potential for the prodigal prince Harsh, educated in the modern world, away from the ancient ritual trappings of kinghood, to effect some kind of change in the palace, or to offer a psychological study as he struggles against the new knowledge of his parentage, or of his mother's murder.  But none of this potential pans out.  As my friend Darshana put it so succinctly, "The grid is laid out, but nobody really walks on it."

The film has its strengths.  It is mind-bogglingly gorgeous, in both interior and exterior shots; the intricacies of the palace and the red-yellow glow of the Rajasthani desert present a visual feast.  There are also some fascinating shots with lingering focus on tiny details - a tear dripping off of a character's face; a scarf billowing in the wind.  One conceptual detail that is handled quite nicely is the disconnect between the royal sanctum and the modern world.  Outside the palace, we have a few hints of modernity - a helicopter, an SUV, a screening of a modern movie.  Inside, though, the royal world is completely cut off from the technological evidence of the progress of time.  There is not so much as a television set; all of the palace's residents wear traditional clothes.  Even the royal automobiles are of ambiguous vintage.  The excellent effect of this is to convey two things: first, the ancientness of the venerable royal traditions, and second, the isolation and disconnect of the royal family from the rest of the world.  They are above society and apart from it, completely, not even beholden to the march of its time.

Also, Eklavya demonstrates that Bollywood studios can use modern filmmaking technology - synch sound, quality film, up-to-date special effects - without turning out films that are imitation-Hollywood.  Eklavya, despite its brevity - it clocks in at 100 minutes - and almost complete absence of songs, is still a very Indian movie.  Its use of melodramatic devices - heightened rather than understated acting,  a swelling, occasionally bombastic background score - enhanced and magnified emotions in a fashion that is distinctly Bollywood.  Eklavya is at times quite suspenseful, and even that suspense is slower and grander than the same story would have been in a Hollywood film. 

Still, despite these strengths (along with an outstanding performance by the astonishingly talented and rangy Boman Irani), Eklavya ultimately amounts to little more than a violent revenge fantasy capped by a facile and inappropriate concluding scene.  Eklavya dives in to an ugly and fascinating world - men scheming at one another, men challenging one another, men yelling at one another, men insulting one another, men praising one another, men killing one another - but comes up with little of substance to say about what really drives men to do these things.

Comments

[Vaibhav]

Checkout Eklavya videos on www.desilassi.com in the trailers section. Enjoy

(DesiLassi is the best legal Bollywood videos site on the internet)

[Daddy's Girl]

Oh well... I really liked 'Eklavya' anyway! I thought it was great. And I thought I could really see what had driven these men to do these things... but maybe I was just looking on the surface.

[carla]

Daddy's Girl, don't sell yourself short - it sounds like you saw something I didn't see. I liked the film well enough while it was happening (except the ending), but when I tried to reflect upon it afterward I found little to chew on. I just felt it had the potential to do so much more and failed to meet the promise. Maybe that's an unfair standard!

[Amit]

I waited to read your review till after I'd written mine :)

I think I agree with you somewhat that the movie was a bit unsatisfying and could have done more. The background music was not as loud in this movie and was more subtle when compared to regular Bollywood movies. Or maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.

I found the motives of men convincing enough, some more than others. Though it's not shown how Saif Ali Khan found out about the plot to kill Eklavya. Lucky guess?

When India gained independence and all the small kingdoms were joined together, while the royalty lost their right to rule the land and people, they were still revered by the public and held in high esteem, and also got a very generous stipend from the Indian government.

I have to wonder how the experience would have been if the ending had been different, specially the part with Sanjay Dutt and the suicide note. That was ridiculous, to say the least.

I wish he'd make another bold movie like "Parinda". I still have to catch his earlier movies like "Khamosh" (with Shabana Azmi) (hint, hint) and "Saza-y-Maut" - both of them critically acclaimed. He is definitely a talented director.

~Amit

[Sanni]

Damn you, you're seeing more Saif films than I am nowadays. What happened! Well, enjoy him. I mean, it. I'm sitting on my hands for this one, waiting for DVD release. Unless I cave in and get my hands on a pirate. But we'll see.

[carla]

Amit: Your review was very good. I am starting to think that my dissatisfaction with the ending is spreading and causing a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the film, because it did have a lot going for it. I think I found Harsh the most confusing though - he's been living abroad, away from the royal rigamarole, and yet he slips so easily back into that medieval world. On the one hand he has no issues about marrying the driver's daughter, and on the other he's perfectly content to plan a revenge killing on the man he's always thought was his father.

Sanni: One of the friends I saw *Eklavya* with (not Amit up there, the other friend who came with us) said afterwards, "Who's that guy who played Harsh? He's hunky." From which I took that there is lots for a Saif fan to love in *Eklavya*. :-)

[Daddy's Girl]

Hmmm... this is really interesting! About Harsh, I have to disagree - I don't think there's that much of a conflict - or, there is a conflict but it's not that hard for me to accept. In my experience, living abroad (even for a long time) and experiencing the Western form of civilisation doesn't really change who you are at the core. There are so many 'Western-educated elites' in my country who think nothing of doing blood rituals to make money, or killing political rivals to get into power, or refusing to let their children marry from another ethnic group. Harsh grew up right in the middle of all that 'medieval' tradition and the royal power to 'do and undo' and I would think that would be his strongest influence. For me he didn't have to 'slip back into it' - it was a part of him, a part he may have detested, but a part of him nonetheless. His experience abroad may have made him slightly more open-minded and slightly less class-conscious, but I don't know if I would've accepted that it would divorce him completely from the milieu he was born into (that only happens... in the movies! LOL). I also think the fact that he had never loved his father and always loved Eklavya, and his knowledge that his father also killed his beloved mother, would be enough to tip him over the edge and tempt him to abandon his 'Western-ness' and do wrong in the way of his ancestors. About the girl he married, he may have loved her, but I think he would've hesitated over (and questioned) marrying someone of her class for a looong time (and maybe never done it) if it had not been for the motivating guilt he felt over killing her father. I think the director tried to show us some of that confusion and hesitation in his scenes with her - especially the scene where he's watching her and his sister on the roof.
And call me easy (I am) - but I liked the 'pat-ness' of the ending - incredible or not. It's like the end of 'The Shawshank Redemption' - sure it completely panders to the audience, but I had grown to care so much for the characters (Eklavya in particular) in the little time I had known them, that I just wanted them to find some happiness after all the suffering. I know I was being totally patronised but I totally loved it!

Oh, and yes - this is definitely a little something to make you love Saif. I envied Vidya for a minute there...

[carla]

Daddy's Girl: Thanks for your thoughts on Harsh. You've given me something to think about if I ever find myself watching this one again.

Just to be completely clear: it wasn't what happened at the end that bothered me; it was the way it was presented. It should not have been handled as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink joke. Everyone having a good laugh at the end was completely inappropriate to the solemnity of what had happened and especially what had been done. We all know the royal family is above the law - but the fact that they seem to think that's funny undoes any sympathy that the previous two hours might have built up for them.

[Daddy's Girl]

I'm glad you made that clear, Carla - and it's definitely given me food for thought. Although I can see the 'symmetry' they were trying to create with the whole suicide note thing (especially in light of the whole revenge theme and the 'eye-for-an-eye' way in which the theme is typically deployed in Indian film - which I think was more what the scene was about, rather than an awareness and enjoyment of their unfettered power); I definitely agree for the sake of being didactic and portraying the characters as decent people, it would definitely have been more appropriate to treat the scene with the seriousness and sense of contemplation it deserved, instead of trying to score cheap comedic happy points.

[Beth]

I haven't seen Saif do a bad job yet. He just gets better and better.

[Meera]

I liked Ekalvya very much. For once it was a different kind of movie from the usual bollywood stuff. I do agree that VC seems to have been in a hurry to get the movie going - it jumps in places with very little character building. Yet I would rate it as one of the good hindi movies.

I agree with Beth about Saif becoming better and better.

Years ago ie in the 1990s when he was doing silly roles in films like Mein Khiladi Tu Anadi etc, I told my siblings that he is a talented guy who will be very famous one day for his acting. My twin and older siblings laughed at me at that time!

Now I can't resist looking at them with a "I told u so" look when they praise his movies and acting.

John Abraham is another actor to look out for. He still needs to polish up his acting in some departments. Yet I am impressed with his acting in all the films i have seen so far - Virudh, Taxi No 9211, Babul, SEQ and Water. Plus he is also a good looking guy!