Editorial: Burden of biopics

Biopics, or films inspired by the lives of movers and shakers, go-getters, and at times, men and women of dubious character, have been a part of cinema for eons together. The discourse around political biopics was thrown into sharp relief earlier this month when a film called Thalaivii was released. Pitched as a recreation of vignettes from the lives of former Chief Ministers J Jayalalithaa and MG Ramachandran, the film barely managed to make a ripple at the box office. 

Critics blamed the debacle on poorly-written character arcs, the tendency to whitewash the goodness of the protagonists and fictionalise large segments of Jayalalithaa’s life. But more than anything, the reason that political biopics tank without a trace is because of the numerous instances of legal and procedural wrangling that most such films are bound to endure, thanks to a whole gamut of stakeholders who claim ownership on such works of inspired fiction. In the case of Thalaivii, one may recall that the film had run into legal hurdles early on. At the outset, the producers managed to bag the approval of Jayalalithaa’s nephew Deepak Jayakumar, who sought that the filmmakers offer an honest portrayal of Jaya’s life. Subsequently, the late CM’s niece Deepa Jayakumar declared war on the team, stating that as a legal heir, she was entitled to a say in the making of the film. Demanding an advance reading of the script before the movie hit the cinemas, Deepa also managed to get the Madras High Court’s permission to initiate legal action against the filmmakers. 

In hindsight, it seems like a miracle that the movie got made at all. But, it might be naive to assume that Thalaivii’s troubles are isolated instances. Twenty four years ago, celebrated filmmaker Mani Ratnam embarked upon what would be termed as one of his most ambitious projects to date - Iruvar. The film was based on the lives of M Karunanidhi, MGR and Jayalalithaa. Just a few days prior to the release of the film, members of the Censor Board denied the film a certificate on account of the depiction of the personal lives of some politicians. Following the deletion of a few sequences, the film was granted a UA certificate. But the troubles of the film did not end there. Two days before the film was set to hit the theatres, the president of Dravidar Kazhagam, K Veeramani threatened the filmmakers with legal action as he believed the film contained objectionable footage that tarnished the image of the Dravidian movement founded by Periyar. 

Interestingly, two decades later, a film on Periyar, was released in TN and it was partly funded by the state government headed by Kalaignar. Once again, the film failed to make any significant dents in the box office. Long story short, political biopics seldom manage to ring in the moolah at the box office. Burdened by severe restrictions on creative freedom, and dealing with an external milieu while walking on eggshells, the filmmakers rarely manage to bring their A-game to the sets. Having said that, biopics focused on the lives of non-political achievers somehow strike a chord with audiences and critics too. Films like Soorarai Pottru, based on the life of Capt Gopinath and Mahanati (Nadigaiyar Thilagam, in Tamil), based on actress Savitri’s life, have managed to capture the imagination of cinema buffs. 

As far as India’s cinema culture is concerned, the dearth of even remotely authentic political biopics is an opportunity lost. As a place marker of the times that we are living in, cinema is an invaluable tool. And badgering creators to deify politicians both living and dead is the proverbial equivalent of manufacturing history. Instead, allowing filmmakers to depict public figures in all honesty, would only humanise them - warts and all. And that’s a much richer legacy to leave behind than packaged personae favoured by the political lot.