Shoot on Sight is ‘a work of fiction inspired by true events’. So I will refrain from any fact finding. The real problem that this film faces is ‘internal’ – it sets out to sympathetically portray the predicament of common or liberal muslims in UK, but ends up showing that there is actually some justification behind the discrimination they are facing. Director Jagmohan Mundhra’s fascination for ‘true events’ – especially the scandalous ones – was earlier seen in his apparently well-meaning but half-baked films, such as Bawander and Provoked. He has not been a great director but even the mediocre ones have their bright moments. Sadly, ‘Shoot on Sight’ is not one such.
The film is inspired by the controversial shooting of Charles de Menezes at a London tube station. No evidence was found to suggest that de Menezes was a terrorist for which he was killed. Charles de Menezes was a Brazilian national living in Britain and was not a Muslim. However, Mundhra uses the incident to present a case for the British Muslims who face racial discrimination and pay for the crimes of their misguided ‘brothers’ (The film’s tagline says, ‘Is it a crime to be a Muslim?’).
Mundhra starts with the shootout of a Muslim man Baqir at the station. The investigation is handed over to a Muslim officer Tariq Ali (Naseeruddin Shah) who is well assimilated in British life. He has a Caucasian wife, a son who loves football and a daughter who does late-nights and even drugs like other English teenagers. However, Ali is taken off the case as soon as he is seen within two yards of a conservative Muslim cleric (Om Puri). The film now takes a U-turn of sorts when Marber, the officer who shot Baqir reframes the million dollar question for Tariq Ali. He says, “The question is not whether all Muslims are terrorists, but whether all terrorists are Muslims.” Surprisingly, Ali doesn’t have an answer to this. The investigation that can clear Baqir of terrorism has little meat; there is all but a slipshod interview with Baqir’s family who naturally believe that he was innocent. By the time Ali finds one little proof of the police’s mistake the focus of the film has already shifted to a terrorist in Ali’s own backyard…
Mundhra’s canvass is so small the entire story plays out amongst a dozen odd characters.But the real problem is that a film that had set out to unmask the prejudice against Muslims ends up justifying the system that kills an innocent man and remains unapologetic about it. Baqir incident becomes only incidental to Tariq’s story – before he can prove that Baqir was not a terrorist he will have to accept that his own nephew who has come down from Pakishan is one. And for help and guidance, he is made to go to Marber, the same officer who had killed Baqir. Tariq even admits that the officer Marber was right and was the one who knew the truth (the truth being that all terrorists are Muslims!). Tariq is even made to realize that there are sufficient reasons to justify racism!
If it is not a crime to be a Muslim, why is it that in the film you have only two liberal Muslims as against the crowd of fundamentalists? Also the way the liberal face of Islam is shown is problematic – Tariq is offered the case with the reason that he is the mascot for multiculturalism, he doesn’t take offense and instead negotiates his promotion. Yunus, the shop-owner wants the terrorists out not because they ought not to hurt the country they are living in, but because it hurts his business. Also, the officer who shoots an innocent man and scoffs at his Muslim superior is the one who knows the ‘truth’. The Scotland Yard officers who are trying to label Baqir a terrorist are not racists, but simple humans trying to save their asses. Such plots seem deliberate on the part of the director, for Tariq could have gone to some other officer for help or wake up to find a terrorist in his own nephew. Equally deliberate is the terrorist being shot down by Tariq and not Marber and so is not providing defense to Marber’s ill-placed reasoning that all terrorists are Muslims.
Naseeruddin Shah has ably played his part as Tariq Ali. Om Puri as the Muslim cleric Junaid could have been sharper. Others actors like Gulshan Grover, Ralph Inesan, Laila Rouass, Greta Sccachi give an average performance. What was Brian Cox thinking in accepting this role? There wasn’t much for him here. I suggest if you see the film, try avoiding the Hindi (dubbed) version. It is bad enough seeing the Caucasians speaking Discovery style Hindi, it is sickening hearing them speak English with an Indian accent.
- Padmaja Thakore
The film is inspired by the controversial shooting of Charles de Menezes at a London tube station. No evidence was found to suggest that de Menezes was a terrorist for which he was killed. Charles de Menezes was a Brazilian national living in Britain and was not a Muslim. However, Mundhra uses the incident to present a case for the British Muslims who face racial discrimination and pay for the crimes of their misguided ‘brothers’ (The film’s tagline says, ‘Is it a crime to be a Muslim?’).
Mundhra starts with the shootout of a Muslim man Baqir at the station. The investigation is handed over to a Muslim officer Tariq Ali (Naseeruddin Shah) who is well assimilated in British life. He has a Caucasian wife, a son who loves football and a daughter who does late-nights and even drugs like other English teenagers. However, Ali is taken off the case as soon as he is seen within two yards of a conservative Muslim cleric (Om Puri). The film now takes a U-turn of sorts when Marber, the officer who shot Baqir reframes the million dollar question for Tariq Ali. He says, “The question is not whether all Muslims are terrorists, but whether all terrorists are Muslims.” Surprisingly, Ali doesn’t have an answer to this. The investigation that can clear Baqir of terrorism has little meat; there is all but a slipshod interview with Baqir’s family who naturally believe that he was innocent. By the time Ali finds one little proof of the police’s mistake the focus of the film has already shifted to a terrorist in Ali’s own backyard…
Mundhra’s canvass is so small the entire story plays out amongst a dozen odd characters.But the real problem is that a film that had set out to unmask the prejudice against Muslims ends up justifying the system that kills an innocent man and remains unapologetic about it. Baqir incident becomes only incidental to Tariq’s story – before he can prove that Baqir was not a terrorist he will have to accept that his own nephew who has come down from Pakishan is one. And for help and guidance, he is made to go to Marber, the same officer who had killed Baqir. Tariq even admits that the officer Marber was right and was the one who knew the truth (the truth being that all terrorists are Muslims!). Tariq is even made to realize that there are sufficient reasons to justify racism!
If it is not a crime to be a Muslim, why is it that in the film you have only two liberal Muslims as against the crowd of fundamentalists? Also the way the liberal face of Islam is shown is problematic – Tariq is offered the case with the reason that he is the mascot for multiculturalism, he doesn’t take offense and instead negotiates his promotion. Yunus, the shop-owner wants the terrorists out not because they ought not to hurt the country they are living in, but because it hurts his business. Also, the officer who shoots an innocent man and scoffs at his Muslim superior is the one who knows the ‘truth’. The Scotland Yard officers who are trying to label Baqir a terrorist are not racists, but simple humans trying to save their asses. Such plots seem deliberate on the part of the director, for Tariq could have gone to some other officer for help or wake up to find a terrorist in his own nephew. Equally deliberate is the terrorist being shot down by Tariq and not Marber and so is not providing defense to Marber’s ill-placed reasoning that all terrorists are Muslims.
Naseeruddin Shah has ably played his part as Tariq Ali. Om Puri as the Muslim cleric Junaid could have been sharper. Others actors like Gulshan Grover, Ralph Inesan, Laila Rouass, Greta Sccachi give an average performance. What was Brian Cox thinking in accepting this role? There wasn’t much for him here. I suggest if you see the film, try avoiding the Hindi (dubbed) version. It is bad enough seeing the Caucasians speaking Discovery style Hindi, it is sickening hearing them speak English with an Indian accent.
- Padmaja Thakore
No comments:
Post a Comment