In Thugs of Hindostan, Khudabaksh Azaad, a revolutionary pirate played by Amitabh Bachchan, draws the ire of the evil British despots who have taken over India in 1795.

In another world on the other side of the cinema screen, the audience — and especially the film’s critics — are also showing ire. Perhaps more than the British villains in the movie.

To most people blessed with common sense, Thugs is an atrocious, cliché-driven mess. Far more than anything, Aamir Khan (the lead actor) is being blamed for his bad career choice. The question, though, is this: is Thugs really that bad?

Not at all. But Thugs isn’t good either. It’s just that its mediocrity and safe screenplay choices (and an utter lack of character depth) makes it seem more appalling than it actually is. Like any recent Fast and Furious movie.

Thugs of Hindostan tries to shoehorn the swashbuckling pirate genre of Hollywood into a Bollywood mould with underwhelming results

Of the many hitches, the first eyesore is the movie’s unoriginal premise. Khudabaksh is the former general of a kingdom overthrown by a wicked British East India Company officer. In the nick of time, Khudabaksh is able to save the young princess Zafira (Fatima Sana Shaikh) who he trains to be a female revolutionary leader. Years later, armed with bows, arrows, Olympic-level gymnastic abilities and a fixed growling expression, Khudabaksh (along with Zafira) has gathered a motley crew of pirates who loot and plunder the East India Company’s ships.

Firangi Mallah (Aamir Khan), a smart-talking conman with heavily mascara-ed eyes and a quirky costume, makes a deal with the East India Company to deliver Khudabaksh to them in return for permanent citizenship in Great Britain for himself. He infiltrates the group, grows a conscience and turns the tables on the overlords.

Oh, and somewhere in the middle and in the end of the movie, Katrina Kaif, playing a high-class tawaaif (courtesan) named Suraiyya, performs feats of amazing high-intensity cardio disguised as a dance form.

The premise is ho-hum, but workable.

More than Khan, or the bland, unengaging characters and plot, Thugs’ main fault lies with technique and not aesthetic choices. Acharya, who previously directed Tashan and Dhoom 3 (the latter would give you an idea of where he stands creatively), slips up in timing his direction.

On face-value, the story feels like a typical swashbuckler starring Errol Flynn (a golden-age Hollywood actor known for his high adventure romances). For the longest time after Flynn, the swashbuckling genre had been gathering dust until 1995’s Cutthroat Island starring Geena Davis (directed by then-husband Renny Harlin), reintroduced the concept of a lovable ruffian conman pirate similar to what Khan’s character is in Thugs.

Cutthroat was a financial disaster, and it took another eight years until Pirates of the Caribbean brought high seas piracy in vogue again thanks to its quirky, supernatural take.

Thugs tries to combine all of the above into a Bollywood mould with the looks of a Hollywood spectacle. Director Vijay Krishna Acharya (also the credited screenwriter) nailed the latter by compromising his story and principal characters. Khudabaksh, Firangi and Zafira are lifeless pegs whose only necessity is to get the plot rolling. Unlike Flynn’s, or even Geena Davis’ movies, we fail to connect with any of the characters because they lack appeal and intelligence.

Khan, the headlining actor, does his best at downplaying the eccentric nature of Firangi, partly because he is aware that he can turn into a swaggering disaster like Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow (from the latter Pirates of the Caribbean movies) at any moment.

But more than Khan, or the bland, unengaging characters and plot, Thugs’ main fault lies with technique and not aesthetic choices.

Acharya, who previously directed Tashan and Dhoom 3 (the latter would give you an idea of where he stands creatively), slips up in timing his direction. To clarify: a director’s job isn’t simply to shout “Action”. He has to fine-tune creative and technical decisions on set that lead to a particular storytelling style. The most important of these constituents are the movement of the actors (called blocking in film lingo), the timing of the cut in the edit, the choice of frame size and composition, the rhythm, pace and tone of the scene. Combined together, the subconscious impact of these slip-ups is devastating to the senses (Acharya’s Dhoom 3 had the same problems with technique).

Rudimentary, formulaic filmmaking isn’t all that new to the audience; in fact, there is a formula film born every minute and shown every weekend in cinemas. Thugs just happens to be one of them. A basic Hollywood-ish spectacle, brought down by lack of good judgement on paper, on set and in edit.

Published in Dawn, ICON, November 18th, 2018

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.