It doesn’t try too hard to portray the fallen hero as a victim. In the end, if you come out of the theater feeling that the film was 'not too bad' it is quite likely that it is because we like the cricketer, we like cricket. This interest, this engagement which was so willingly given without any doing from the filmmaker, is not used to its fullest. So, despite lapses in the narrative, despite dialogue writing that makes almost every character into a preacher with an 'inspirational quote of the day', despite unanswered questions, we stay interested. Our involvement is taken for granted and actually we give in willingly too. Even if this were a 100% fictional character, we would need these details to get involved in the story. There is a passing reference to his rich taste but barely any incident that lets that come through. After a brief mention of his glorious debut, there is no mention of his efficiency as India's best captain, whose record was broken only 15-17 years later. For example, to start his story Azhar spends a lot of time on the player's childhood with zero mention of his rise from the streets of a regular household in Hyderabad. In fact, the only actor then who manages to convince is Nargis Fakhri who has to play an actress who cannot act well.Īs a story then, Azhar doesn't pace itself too well. Lara Dutta, as the lawyer too is too superficially written a character considering she has a big enough part. But there is a huge distraction in Kunal Roy Kapoor's act, more specifically his uneven and where-are-you-from accent. Prachi Desai is appropriately demure as the first Mrs Azharuddin and does most with the little space she has. But, the mannerism, the body language, his diction, something had to be in sync, right? Even if you put a 70+ Amitabh Bachchan and tell me to believe he is Mohammad Azharuddin from the 90s, I will give you a benefit of doubt. And it's not like the actor has to bear physical resemblance to the player. So we get newspaper articles strung together with a not so convincing actor playing the cricketer. It would have had to dig deeper and be much smarter.īut hey, this is not a biopic. The film could also offer some explanation for taking cheap shots at other cricketers. The film would also have needed to be smarter about showing why it took 8 years for the goofy lawyer (Kunal Roy Kapoor) to smarten up. Because that would then require it to give some context to the Hansie Cronje allegation, the South African cricketer who was part of another scandal himself. It is a good thing then, that a voiceover reads out a long disclaimer absolving the film from the responsibility of being a biopic. Milliblog - "Bol do na zara wins in Azhar." Azhar seems to be the only controversial one, one that feels more like a story, rather than an account or a documentary. It certainly is likely to be the most interesting story because the one on Sachin Tendulkar will most likely be all adulatory and rightly so and the one on Mahendra Singh Dhoni is seemingly about his rags-to-riches story. Interestingly, I didn't expect this of the Cricket Biopic trio to come first. But, yes, it will bring two of my favorites together – cricket and movies. I am not too sure I want to see too much of his personal life. Watching with that in mind, Azhar brings a certain amount of excited anticipation. However, knowing what we know about his ban from the game, we take it with a pinch of salt and think of it as his perspective.
Considering the man himself is involved in some of the film's promotion, it is highly unlikely that we will see both sides of the story. For generation next of the game's fans it is like finding out that all those matches we lost, were because Dhoni or Kohli got a huge payoff for losing them.
If you belong to my age group and were a cricket fan, you will remember the heartache that came with allegation of match-fixing against Mohammad Azharuddin and Ajay Jadeja - arguably, the most loved cricketers of that time.
0 kommentar(er)
