Ajit Karn
When Covid brought us indoors, he introduced the country to some incredible cinema east of the Vindhyas. “Driving License,” a 2019 film by Jean Paul Lal, was one such film that received widespread acclaim throughout India.
It was a brilliant notion to recreate the event several years later. Undoubtedly, the news that Bollywood would reevaluate the film was met with a degree of scepticism.
Three years later, armed with optimism and a ticket (the advertisements notwithstanding), as you adapt to the comfort of the theatre, “Selfie” screams at you.
This is a classic example of contrast. A week ago, I advocated for avoiding comparisons between an original Telugu success and its Hindi remake. It is time to be modest. The U-turn I make is primarily circumstantial and nearly compelled by the calamitous pre-production and production phases of the remake.
When a fan moment goes awry, Lal told a simple but engaging story about an unintentional ego clash between a renowned film celebrity and his fan. Filmed in Kerala, the cinematography was a script in and of itself, and the acting was flawless.
Raj Mehta increases the scope and decreases the story’s intrinsic value. The result is a mainstream Bollywood film that, if early indications are any indication, will continue the recent trend of Akshay films performing well at the box office.
Perhaps exaggeration is inevitable in the cinematic arts. The art also lies in understanding where to draw the line and how much a tight narrative should be revisited under the pretence of going pan-Indian. On multiple fronts, the director fails.
Emraan Hashmi plays Om Prakash Agarwal, an inspector at the Bhopal RTO. He and his son Gabbu (Neev Ahuja) are avid Vijay Kumar (popular Bollywood actor) admirers (Akshay Kumar). Vijay Kumar travels to Bhopal to film a scene. Even though he enjoys driving expensive vehicles, he realises he requires a licence. He even agrees to go to the RTO and grant the overzealous inspector the privilege of a selfie. Things fall apart. Totally incorrect. In the background, another geriatric actor, Suraj Diwan (Abhimanyu Singh), longs for a film success that has eluded him.
The conflict between Vijay and Agarwal’s egos becomes exaggerated and public knowledge. Both adopt positions that are difficult to abandon, and their every move is monitored by paparazzi and the media. The public sentiment rapidly shifts from favouring the inspector to siding with the actor who engages in mind games. In 143 minutes, of which more than 20 are spent establishing that Akshay is a star, the film exaggerates where the original aimed for simplicity.
While Prithviraj and Kuruvilla Joseph constructed the crisis with measured movements and incredible acting, Akshay overacts and Emran is reduced to a small role. Consequently, the marinated script loses all of its vigour. The adaptation lacks the necessary impact that made the original a near-masterpiece, making this a very weak copy.
Akshay Kumar had an excellent opportunity to reevaluate his artistic domain and imitate Prithvi. Unfortunately, he is so full of himself, which is likely justified by the fact that he is portraying an ubiquitous celebrity. His one-liners are funny, but that’s about it.
In addition, he is showing signs of ageing, and his behaviour belies his age. There was a time when the media was filled with stories about him interfering with his co-stars’ roles. The veracity of this claim cannot be demonstrated. In this film, the absence of equilibrium between the space occupied by the two actors is the film’s primary flaw.
Did the film lose itself in its script by attempting too much when it had the tempting option of remaining faithful to the source material and deviating from it only to fit a pan-India context? Was the script (Rishhabh Sharma) overly impressive and influential?
Also, I presume that Mukesh Chhabra, who was in charge of casting, made some incorrect decisions. Even in the limited space, it seems inappropriate to begin with Disha Penty as the actress’s wife. As the inspector’s wife, Nushrat Bharucha is adequate, but the script offers her nothing. Among the other characters with screen time is Abhimanyu Singh, who attempts very hard to appear embarrassing and succeeds. What the creative team was up to with him would remain an enigma. Meghna Malik as the overzealous councilwoman is excellent, as is Mahesh Thakur as the actor’s secretary.
As indicated previously, Akshay overextends himself, thereby disturbing the required equilibrium. Prithviraj portrayed the celebrity power as an undercurrent with such dexterity. Perhaps it was a deliberate decision to contrast rather than extend the role in the adaptation because it was difficult to imitate.
Could the casting director have chosen someone like Ajay Devgn for the role? That’s a debatable point, but I can’t help but believe that one of the film’s major flaws is the manner in which the character of Vijay Kumar develops. In stark contrast is Emran Hashmi’s character. With the narrative stacked in favour of the protagonist, he is viewed as a contrived, inconsequential foil. Another debatable point is whether or not a stronger actor, such as Raj Kumar Rao, could have merged into the plot. Given the director’s right to make creative or commercial decisions, the uneven depiction of the characters is the film’s undoing.
Also read: His name is Pawan Khera. He is not a terrorist
According to this newspaper, Akshay Kumar now holds the Guinness record for the greatest number of photographs. It is possible that the triumph will conclude there. This is a boisterous and uninspired remake for those who have seen “Driving License” and the outstanding performances by Kuruvilla Joseph and Prithviraj.
The director is Raj Mehta.
Cast: Akshay Kumar, Emraan Hashmi, Abhimanyu Singh, and Nushrat Bharucha
