Emergency Movie Review: Kangana Ranaut’s Ambitious, But Uneven Take on Indira Gandhi’s Legacy


Kangana Ranaut’s Emergency: A Biopic That Misses the Mark

Kangana Ranaut’s Emergency is a film brimming with ambition, but it ultimately falls short of delivering a nuanced and balanced portrayal of one of India’s most controversial periods — the Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from 1975 to 1977. While the film attempts to explore the psyche of the “Iron Lady” and the turbulent years that marked her leadership, it struggles to do justice to the complexity of the era. Instead, it turns into an uneven mix of selective history and modern political overtones, often resembling a political pamphlet more than a compelling biographical drama.

When Emergency was first announced, many speculated that it could be a vehicle to criticize the Congress party and, more specifically, the legacy of Indira Gandhi. The timing of the film, coinciding with an election year, added fuel to these speculations. Was it a subtle attempt to target the current political landscape by revisiting one of the most divisive episodes in Indian history? The film’s final outcome suggests that Kangana, the director and co-writer, managed to infuse a personal vision into the narrative. Yet, at times, that vision veers dangerously close to political commentary that shapes historical events to suit contemporary narratives.

The Plot: A Biopic or a Political Statement?

Emergency takes us through the turbulent period of Indira Gandhi’s leadership, focusing on the 21 months of emergency rule that were marked by widespread censorship, mass arrests, and political upheaval. However, the film’s treatment of the period comes across as more of a checklist of significant events than a nuanced exploration of its consequences. While the film attempts to humanize Indira Gandhi by diving into her psyche, it often reduces her actions to mere political maneuvering without diving into the intricacies of the decisions that led to the Emergency.

The writers, Kangana and Ritesh Shah, struggle to strike a balance between portraying Indira as a complex, multifaceted leader and the film’s apparent need to serve a political narrative. As a result, the storyline feels at times lopsided, with the portrayal of key figures, including Gandhi’s own father Jawaharlal Nehru, distorting their historical roles to fit the filmmakers’ vision. For instance, Nehru is presented as insecure and disconnected from his daughter, a portrayal that seems to invent personal rifts between the two rather than reflect the complex political dynamics at play.

Similarly, the film takes liberties with historical accuracy by creating fictionalized conflicts between Gandhi and her colleagues, including Jagjivan Ram (played by the late Satish Kaushik). Kaushik’s performance, though impactful, is undermined by the film’s tendency to reduce characters to one-dimensional figures. The film also misrepresents the role of certain political figures, while attempting to paint a rosier picture of her opponents.

The Characterization of Indira Gandhi: Kangana’s Strengths and Weaknesses

Kangana Ranaut, who takes on the titular role of Indira Gandhi, is one of the film’s strongest assets. As an actress, she succeeds in capturing the intensity and vulnerability of the former Prime Minister. Her portrayal is particularly striking in moments where Gandhi is confronted with the consequences of her decisions. Kangana’s body language and facial expressions convey a sense of guilt and paranoia that must have accompanied Gandhi’s leadership during such a tumultuous period.

However, as a director, Kangana’s execution falters. At times, her portrayal of Gandhi seems superficial, almost imitative, rather than insightful. The film often relies on recreating archival footage and iconic moments from history rather than offering a fresh perspective or a deeper understanding of the person behind the politics. The inconsistencies in the characterization become apparent when Indira Gandhi is shown as insecure or indecisive, particularly in the portrayal of her role during the Bangladesh War, where she is portrayed as unsure of herself, a portrayal that feels contrary to the image of the strong-willed leader most associate with the Emergency.

The film’s historical inaccuracies become even more evident when it attempts to depict the strained relationship between Gandhi and her son, Sanjay Gandhi (played by Vishak Nair). Sanjay is reduced to a mere villain, blamed for many of the more controversial decisions, including his role in the forced sterilization program. While the film does acknowledge his influence, it shifts much of the blame to him, absolving Indira Gandhi of her own responsibility.

A Missed Opportunity for Political Depth

While the film aims to highlight the rise of crony capitalism and corruption during the Emergency period, it only touches the surface of these significant issues. Important events like the Green Revolution, the nationalization of banks, and the abolition of privy purses, which were key aspects of Indira Gandhi’s political legacy, are barely mentioned. The film offers only a cursory glance at these moments, missing an opportunity to delve deeper into the policies that defined her tenure as Prime Minister.

Moreover, the simplistic approach to portraying the political landscape of the time weakens the film’s impact. By framing Indira as a motherly figure whose son led the misguided youth movement, the film simplifies the larger political context of the Emergency. This reductionist approach fails to acknowledge the broader social and economic factors that contributed to the unrest, and it sidelines the pivotal events and figures that shaped the course of Indian politics.

The Soundtrack and Visual Appeal

One of the few redeeming qualities of Emergency is its musical score, which is quite effective in evoking the era. The compositions add a lyrical touch to the film, though at times they are used more for emotional manipulation than for enhancing the storytelling. The visual treatment, guided by cinematographer Tetsuo Nagata, is dark and tense, matching the mood of the narrative, but the film’s pacing, especially in the more action-driven moments, feels forced.

The film also relies on sensationalism to maintain the audience’s attention, particularly through the use of fireworks and dramatic music in scenes depicting key political confrontations. These moments, while visually impressive, detract from the more serious and complex aspects of the period, making it hard for the audience to fully engage with the historical depth of the subject matter.

Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity for a Thought-Provoking Biopic

Kangana Ranaut’s Emergency has the potential to be a thought-provoking and insightful look at one of the most controversial chapters in Indian democracy. However, it ultimately falls short due to its selective portrayal of history, its reliance on political commentary, and its inability to capture the full complexity of Indira Gandhi’s leadership. While Kangana’s performance as Gandhi is commendable, the film’s muddled narrative and historical liberties leave much to be desired.

Emergency is not the definitive biographical drama one might have hoped for, but it is a reflection of the current political climate’s attempt to cherry-pick history to fit a modern narrative. For those looking for an honest, unflinching portrayal of Indira Gandhi, this film may not satisfy, but for those interested in a political take on the past, it might offer a glimpse into how history is often rewritten to suit contemporary agendas.


More Related