Taare Zameen Par

Aaamir Khan does not read reviews of his films. He is always right. Whatever he says is the ultimate gyan. He has very strong opinions though. He expresses them with measured vehemence. He recently criticized the treatment of a deaf, blind, and mute child in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Black. That upset Big B. Now, he says he did not mean to hurt anyone. He is right yet again. He cannot go wrong. He is always right, always.

His film Taare Zameen Par reflects this serious handicap of the man, a borderline case of megalomania. The two super intelligent and heroic characters in the film are Ramshankar Nikumbh and Ishaan Awasthi, all others are uni-dimensional caricatures - insensitive tyrants, and unsmiling villains.

The film pontificates unabashedly and is self-contradictory. It denounces the rat race to become super-achievers while eulogizing them in the same breath. If you don’t get as famous as Albert Einstein, or Vincent Van Gogh, or an Abhishek Bachhan, you are a nobody. You have to beat the competition to be on top, to win the admiration of people around you, and to have a grand climax to your story. What about perpetual non-achievers like housewives, schoolteachers, bhajiwalas, farmers, laborers, office clerks, and all others who survive on the margins? Who cares for these cogs in the wheel anyway?

The subject has been as insensitively and crudely exploited as in Black to narrate a celluloid tale employing the usual screenwriting tricks. The child is projected as a source of great amusement through the first half of the film. The second half belongs to Aamir, the pontificator, the ultra-sensitive genius, the reformer, and the crusader out to reprimand and browbeat insensitive, uncaring, and villainous parents and teachers by rubbing their nose into the dust and humiliating them.

Now, the child becomes a mute witness to his teacher’s brilliance. Since Aamir does not even watch films made by others, he won’t probably know the kind of finesse and impact outstanding films of this genre can have. He said he had watched Majid Majidi films. Alas, he picked up nothing from them in terms of characterizations, performances, and their classic simplicity. His self-obsession seems to be the cause and I fear that the euphoric reviews by ponga-pundits of the industry will add further fuel to this destructive fire.

The film’s characterizations are blunt and boorish. Ishaan’s parents and teachers are projected as abnormally strung-up and stressed people, almost inhuman. They do not even have normal conversations among themselves in warm homely settings. They don’t ever smile, even on their child’s pranks. Ishaan’s father is a brute, ever ready to slap and scold his son. Of course, there can be families that are as bad as that. So, you used the worst possible example to make Ishaan a piteous character, exactly what Bhansali did to Rani’s character in Black. No. That is not correct. So, what is correct or is it some kind of a directorial masterstroke? We won’t know actually since Aamir neither reads reviews nor responds to them. He communicates only when he has to promote his films or when he enters the blogosphere of his fawning fans.




The climax of the film is typically structured and designed to bring tears to your eyes though I found UTV’s ‘Goal’ more effective on this count. The ‘harassed, harried, and tormented’ underdog wins the race. It is a common narrative ploy, as common as all those cliffhanger climaxes in the films of yore, and zoom zap zoom effects in our daily soap operas. It is akin to blatant manipulation of a sensitive subject to entertain and to reduce the chances of a commercial failure. It is like making an AIDS film to titillate. What is going on? Why do you want to turn filmmaking into a no-risk enterprise? Better sell paav bhaji at Churchgate. And if a super successful Aamir Khan cannot take this small risk, who will?

His lack of confidence in the subject of the film is also evident from the fact that he skips important details like building up a heart-warming bonding between a teacher and a taught, and the magical process of learning. He is in a great hurry to reach the dramatic and predictable climax. He fears he may lose his audience otherwise. He also wastes a lot of footage in the first half of the film in useless song sequences and disjointed and seemingly funny snippets from the life of a dyslexic. One would like to have a look at the original script of Amol Gupte to learn how was it developed in the last four years. Amol should post it on the net.

And there is this peculiar sequence where the child gets up in the dark (very early morning), combs his hair, ties his shoelaces, hangs his jhola around the neck, and walks  out, uninterrupted by the boarding school’s night watchman, to a scenic spot to study, absorb, and get inspired by the nocturnal behavior of sea creatures. A few hours later, he returns to paint a ‘fishes in the pond’ masterpiece.  What a miracle, the boy can see in the dark now. Who gave Aamir the idea? Maqbool Fida Huseein?

In the whole film, there is just one redeeming moment that comes across as a genuine cinematic experience, when Aamir discovers the real problem of the boy while looking at his exercise books. It is an important revelation.

Dirsheel’s performance has come for praise from everyone. Children are always adorable, and sweet. They are natural born actors. They turn out great performances if handled well. The director and the writer, in their enthusiasm and anxiety to entertain the audience with songs and funny gags, use the child as a convenient prop that makes funny faces, scowls, performs break dances, gets angry, cries in a funny way, constantly quarrels, and mocks his teachers. It is a jerky and inconsistent portrayal, far from being spontaneous. It is a limited and lacklustre directorial vision of Dirsheel’s character.

Aamir too has performed badly. There is a scene where he lampoons one of the obdurate teachers as Hitler. He himself comes out to be a highly opinionated guy, and a hardheaded activist. He makes a fetish of an ultra-liberal teacher. His clown act is pure fakery. Where is genuine bonhomie, warmth, and openness? Let me repeat what I mentioned earlier. He has played his true self, a cut and dried ‘Mr. Right’, a ‘know-all’, a ‘control freak’, a man who has no vulnerabilities, and has all the right answers. And this is what proves to be the biggest drawback of this film. 

Aamir should be watching more films, and visiting film festivals as a cinema enthusiast. He should watch some of the Chinese films I watched in Goa -‘The Exam’ and may be ‘Cherries’ to know ‘Oont kahan khada hai’. An exercise like this will open his eyes and broaden his vision as a filmmaker and an actor. It may also help him get rid of his self-damaging attitudes and inclinations by making him vulnerable to varied experiences of life.

Koopmanduk (kuein ka medhak) bane rehana hai to yeh alag baat hai. Shahrukh Khan to yeh film dekh ke Aamir ki peeth thokenge hi. Yeh to industry ka aam chalan hai. Yahan kab kisne kisi ko imaandaar salah di hai? Sab peeche se peeth thonkatein rhetein hain aur aage gaddha khodatein rehetein hain, is intezaar mein ki kab aap us mein giro aur woh hansein. 

 rks