Mujib: The Making of Nation

"Mujib" has transitioned into a feature film instead of a documentary. Two aspects left a strong impression on me: 1. Arifin Shubo.

2. Cinematography.

Arifin's performance in this movie was commendable; he bet his good life on it. Witnessing this, Shuvo reminded me of an incident involving India's Aamir Khan. As Aamir Khan delves deep into a film, he begins to think about it even more than the director. Similarly, Shuvo perhaps had the grandest dream for this film, and why not? He constitutes 90% of the entire movie, and the film revolves around him.

Shuvo contributed to this movie for a mere token fee of 1 taka. It's evident that he held 'Mujib' close to his heart throughout the film. This performance stands as the pinnacle of Shuvo's career. In my opinion, this movie is worth watching solely for his remarkable performance.

The cinematography's specialty lies in the fact that most shots are single takes or long takes. I have some knowledge about film production, and I've noticed that Shyam Benegal often captures scenes in a single take, akin to a stage play. Even when a shot requires a change of angle or cuts within the same scene, he starts from the beginning, maintaining his unique style. However, a simple solution would have been to use multiple cameras.

Some of the shots truly surprised me; the camera movements and framing were exceptionally well done. Considering the director is 86 years old, expectations weren't high, but he honestly did not disappoint. He adapted the film to suit modern times.

I encourage every Bengali to watch this film!

© Simit Ray Antar.

A particularly concerning aspect of "Mujib: The Making of a Nation" is the perception that it serves as a vehicle for political propaganda. The film's release coincides with a period of intense political scrutiny, with allegations of authoritarianism against the ruling government. Consequently, it's difficult not to view the film as a calculated attempt to reshape public opinion and to bolster the regime's legitimacy by presenting a more favorable depiction of a historically complex figure.

The film appears to selectively omit, embellish, and manipulate well-documented historical events to fit a particular narrative. This skewed depiction diminishes the historical accuracy that any film purporting to be a historical account should uphold.

Furthermore, the film's portrayal of events is biased. It focuses heavily on elements that align with a specific political narrative, while sidelining any aspects that might cast a less flattering light on the central character. This selective storytelling not only distorts historical reality but also deprives the audience of a more comprehensive understanding of the historical context.

In conclusion, "Mujib: The Making of a Nation" serves as a stark reminder of the need for a critical and independent media to evaluate the actions of those in power. It emphasizes the importance of approaching such films with a discerning eye, skepticism, and an understanding of their potential for political manipulation. It underscores the responsibility of filmmakers to uphold historical integrity when dealing with subjects of historical significance. While art has the power to shape collective memory, it should do so with the utmost respect for the truth and a commitment to responsible storytelling.

Last night, I had the opportunity to watch the film "Mujib: The Making of a Nation" at Modhumita Cinema hall, a place I hadn't visited in nearly 25 years. My expectations were high because the movie had been in the making for almost two years, with a budget of 83 crore, and it was directed by the legendary 88-year-old filmmaker Shyam Benegal, who had previously directed the biopic "Netaji Shuvas Chandra Basu: The Forgotten Hero," which I had also seen. However, it's important to note that biopics, by their nature, often struggle to achieve 100 percent accuracy, and this challenge is even more pronounced in the case of iconic or conventional figures. That's why having a disclaimer at the beginning of such movies can help viewers better understand what they are about to watch.

As a movie enthusiast, I must recommend the film "Gandhi" if you haven't already seen it. In my opinion, it's one of the best biopics about a political figure, highly praised for its historical accuracy. It allows the audience to connect with the protagonist in a truly believable way. Another noteworthy biopic, directed by the famous Steven Spielberg, is "Lincoln." Unfortunately, "Mujib" falls short of these standards due to average acting, inconsistencies, and a lack of connection with the audience. Portraying a character as monumental as Mujib, who had numerous highs and lows in his life, is an incredibly difficult task. I also felt that the film focused more on Mujib's family life as a regular person than his political career, and other prominent characters didn't get enough screen time to truly shine.

Nonetheless, I did appreciate the first and last songs in the movie, and the color grading was well done.

As a nation of movie lovers, I hope that "Mujib" marks a promising beginning for the biopic genre, with the prospect of even better movies to come in the future. 👍

I recently watched "Mujib: The Making of Nation," and I can't help but express my disappointment with what I witnessed. This film, which claims to tell the story of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's journey in shaping the nation of Bangladesh, falls short on several fronts and ultimately comes across as an over-glorified portrayal that fails to do justice to the historical narrative it aims to depict.

Over-Glorification: The film falls into the trap of over-glorifying its central character, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. While he was undoubtedly an influential figure in the history of Bangladesh, this movie practically deifies him, neglecting the complexities and controversies of his life and leadership. It paints an overly simplistic picture, making it difficult to engage with the character on a meaningful level.

Historical Inaccuracy: "Mujib: The Making of Nation" presents a highly sanitized and one-sided version of the events leading to the formation of Bangladesh. The historical inaccuracies and omissions in the narrative are glaring. It fails to acknowledge the contributions of other key figures and groups in the struggle for independence, thus distorting the complex reality of the era.

Lack of Depth: The film's shallow character development leaves much to be desired. It reduces the supporting characters to mere props, failing to explore their roles and motivations in any meaningful way. The lack of depth in their portrayals weakens the overall storytelling.

Absence of Nuance: What is most concerning is the absence of any nuanced discussion on the challenges and complexities that Bangladesh faced during its formation. The political, social, and economic issues that plagued the nation are brushed over, leaving the audience with an incomplete and unrealistic picture.

Missed Opportunities: Given the rich historical context and the potential for a profound exploration of the nation's birth, "Mujib: The Making of Nation" missed the opportunity to offer a more balanced and thought-provoking narrative. Instead, it opts for a simplistic and one-sided approach that does a disservice to the history it aims to portray.

Finally, "Mujib: The Making of Nation" is a disappointing attempt at capturing the complex and tumultuous history of Bangladesh's formation. While the film may appeal to those looking for a hagiographic account of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, it ultimately fails as a comprehensive and unbiased historical narrative, doing a disservice to the rich and intricate history of the nation.

In the realm of storytelling and performance, the art of acting is often regarded as a powerful medium through which narratives come to life, leaving a lasting imprint on the minds of those who witness it. However, the subjective nature of this craft means that experiences can vary widely, and sometimes, one may find themselves disappointed in the portrayal of characters and the unfolding of historical narratives. It's in the delicate dance between expectation and execution that the nuances of disappointment emerge.

To say that acting is "very bad" is a sweeping statement that warrants a closer examination. Acting, as an expressive form, is an intricate interplay of emotion, body language, and dialogue. When an audience perceives it as "very bad," it raises questions about the alignment between the actor's interpretation and the viewer's expectations. Perhaps the nuances intended by the performer got lost in translation, or the portrayal failed to resonate with the viewer's emotional spectrum.

The historical context in which a narrative unfolds adds another layer of complexity. History is a vast and multifaceted tapestry, with each thread contributing to the overall narrative. When historical events are portrayed on stage or screen, there's an implicit responsibility to balance entertainment with accuracy. The term "history elucidated" suggests a desire for clarity and authenticity in the portrayal of events. Disappointment may arise when the artistic liberties taken overshadow the historical truths, leaving the audience feeling detached from the reality they expected to witness.

The phrase "overall experience is very bad" implies a holistic dissatisfaction that extends beyond the realm of acting and history. It delves into the broader aspects of production, including direction, cinematography, and perhaps even the script itself. An unsatisfactory experience could stem from a lack of cohesion in these elements or a mismatch between the director's vision and the audience's reception.

However, it's crucial to acknowledge the subjective nature of artistic endeavors. What one person perceives as a flaw, another might interpret as a bold artistic choice. The beauty of storytelling lies in its ability to provoke varied emotions and perspectives. While one viewer may find the acting lacking, another might appreciate the vulnerability or uniqueness brought to the characters.

In navigating the landscape of disappointment in acting and historical elucidation, it becomes an opportunity for constructive critique and dialogue. Rather than dismissing the experience outright, engaging in discussions about the choices made in the production could offer valuable insights. It might unveil the intentions of the creators, providing a more nuanced understanding of their artistic decisions.

In conclusion, the intersection of acting and historical representation is a delicate dance that requires a delicate balance between artistic interpretation and audience expectation. While disappointment is a valid emotional response, it also opens the door to explore the intricacies of storytelling, inviting conversations about the choices made in the pursuit of bringing narratives to life on stage or screen.