History mauled to pieces


Let me start off by saying that I have studied History, in particular, the Mangal Pandey episode in our quest for independence. Having seen The Rising, I must say that I am incredibly disappointed at how historically inaccurate the movie is. Here is what actually happened:
As we see in the movie, the sepoys were rather concerned about the reports that they had heard about the Enfield cartridges being greased with Pig and Cow fats. This concern preyed on the minds of the sepoys (N.B: There was no planning of a rebellion and so forth). One day, Pandey, a Bhang (Opium) addict had his usual share of Bhang, maybe even more. One of the effects of Bhang is to intensify emotions. The discontent regarding the cartridges blew up in Pandey's mind and he marched off with his musket and shot a British officer dead. Later on, even Pandey admitted in his testimony that he was under the effect of Bhang. Thus, even had Pandey been thinking straight, admitting to taking Bhang makes it look like he was trying to wriggle out of the tight spot he was in...not quite martyr-like behaviour as portrayed in the movie. The Company decided to make an example of Pandey and hung him. That was the proverbial 'last straw on the Camel's back'. A revolt spontaneously sprung up in Barrackpore with Behrampur and Meerut following suit, as the news of Pandey's hanging and its subsequent events, spread. The rest, as they say, is history. The Nana Saheb and Jhansi ki Rani arms of the revolt were, in all likelihood, planned. However, the sepoy uprisings began spontaneously and then caught on.
Thus, we can see that the movie has painted a very different picture of the events that took place during that historic period. I agree that one has to use one's creative license and play around with some events to make them 'screen-worthy'. However, for a movie that is quite obviously based on a historic foundation, The Rising has mauled history to disgusting proportions. Maybe the public cannot handle the truth: That their hero was probably not such a big hero after all. Nearly all the events related to Pandey's defiant nature, as shown in the film, are completely fictitious. Of couse, the film makers have left themselves an escape hatch with the small note at the beginning. However, stating that 'some' of the depicted events may be fictitious is stretching credibility. Stating that some of the events depicted are factual would be closer to the mark. A very disappointing film which perpetrates a ton of lies.

reply

I have to agree that the Rising was disappointing. Even I could have done a better job than Ketan Mehta.

The scene where Mangal calls for a democratic country also seems kind of forced. First of all Mangal Pandey didn't knew much about types of Governments systems. Second, Mangal fought back because his way of life was being threatened.

The Legend of Bhagat Singh is 10 times better than The Rising.


"War is delightful to those who have not experienced it"

reply

I agree with you on one matter... stick to one authority. Either portray Mangal Pandey as a hero of the masses... or portray him as the accidental hero. Obviously the director and producers did not have the guts to show him in poor light... it would be Salman Rusdie 2.

Nor could he stick to the popular Mangal Pandey story. He stuck to part of it but added a whole host of things like : captain gordon, the prostitute, amisha patel, dance and song , blewg... blewg.

A script has no weight when it does not research the subject or when it does not use a proven/popular authority; rather driven by commercial pressure. Its like everyone has his own sweet story on Mangal Pandey, and unfortunately Ketan Mehta's is just too ridiculous.

Legend of Bhagat Singh.... soooo much better.

reply

NO Tipu Sultan The Tiger of Mysore

reply

a script has no weight when it's worried more about accurancy than telling a story.

reply

Agreed! A movie has to be entertaining, not showing every single event authentically. Thats what books are for.

reply

Which history have you read and where? Even we have studied history and unlike you have tried to explore the versions that are suppressed by most historians because at times the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

In ordinary circumstance we wouldn't have replied to this thread but enough nonsense has been said about how the film has distorted history. Please get this into your heads its a film...nowhere does it claim to be an accurate historical account...and No One can claim with certainty that their version of history is true...what happened in 1857 is dead and buried with all those concerned. But you are free to accept the official British version but just like you we'd like to say we totally disagree with it...so there now who will arbitrate?

So if you have studied history learn to accept viewpoints that don't necessary match yours...because history can never be just one version or one perspective. Visit the areas where the legend of Masngal Pandey, Tatia Tope and Nana Sahib lives...is it all mythical...can the belief of so many people be merely dismissed as lies...and who gives us the right to decide that.

Maybe you guys can not handle the fact that there are human traits like bravery and courage...and fighting under the influence of drugs doesn't make them any less...neither is it a new practice... even the so called dashing and brave US marines take certain "stimulants" as do other soldiers at war...man you can't stay awake for 24 hours without popping an aspirin how do you expect people to stay alert without some kind of help?

So all we'd like to say is respect history and respect other people's viewpoints.

As for the film. It’s only a film meant to entertain the masses. If you don’t like it don’t watch it. But don’t mix the issues. And get an education.

reply

While I agree that history can have versions and that we can stick to what we know... why can't we stick to just history. What I hate about the movie is effort has not been put to make the song-dance fit the movie but hastily thrown in for the sake of entertainment... makes it look like a typical song-dance movie. If you understand what I mean, look at Legend of Bhagat Singh.

Secondly, the director uses a flimsy background like the love affairs rather than the very most important thing that was happening at that time... freedom struggle. The movie could have made much more impact had it relied on the continuing freedom struggle and the politics, the oppression, the violence and struggle.

Thirdly, we may just have to disagree on this... just stick to the facts. This is not an alternate version of the history.

reply

[deleted]

You do need to get a life Hemantanant. Clearly, you are one of the typical media 'bakras' of today, people on whom channels like the Fox News channel play. My point was not that the film claims to have any historical obligation. My point was that it has to have an obligation to history because people will always subconciously watch it in a historical context. I do recognize traits such as bravery in human beings and I never denied that Mangal Pandey possesed these traits. However, to attribute political astuteness, strategic planning and every other asset under the sun to a man who was quite obviously just a sepoy, seems like nonsensical manipulativeness. The problem with people like you is that you cannot handle the truth. People refuse to let their heroes and the ideals that they have believed in, be lowered from the elevated level of sanctity that history has placed them upon. It is for reasons like this that many people cannot accept that Ganhiji had his faults too. True, he was an incredible human being and a great man. But he was just that: A man, not a God. Do some thinking and you will realize that accepting a character's faults only make his/her attributes all the more remarkable. I feel ashamed that as a college student, I have to explain such a profound, but nonethless obvious line of reasoning to you. Of course, you can still choose to live in your ignorance. However, there are people in the world who do want people to know the truth. Mangal Pandey, I repeat, very clearly identifies itself with a historical character. As a result of this, the filmmakers have no choice but to accept their obligation to the truth. In a country where the freedom struggle is such a passionate issue (rightly so), one cannot afford to trivialize matters for the sake of 'entertainment'. I am a big movie buff and am all for entertainment. However, the two are not neccessarily incompatible.
Regarding your mud-slinging: Please do not embarrass yourself any more. Despite your obvious ignorance, I would hate to see you make even more of a fool of yourself. I would have replied earlier, but I do not check these boards too often: I cannot afford to spend too much time reasoning with obvious nut-jobs such as yourself.

reply

To quote Dan Brown: Open your eyes foolish mortals. Aah, the artificially constructewd bliss of ignorance. I have had my say...I wish you all well and pray that reason returns to her throne (albeit the obvious revolution that usurped her in the first place). In addition, I thank all the muses that the world's film going population does not consist solely of people such as those that I have encountered on these message boards. Now if you will all excuse me, I have to go worship at the altar of St. Mangal. Ciao.

reply

Then that's the peoples problem if they can't go look something up for themselves instead of just accepting what they hear or see.

reply

I completely disagree with you and completely agree with Heamantanant. And if you think i disregard history, you are completely wrong, coz i am a history lover and have read a lot.
So before you start ranting from your history text-books.....consider these points....The source of history....The brit govt (read the east india company govt) was unbelievably courrpt at that particular time in history....so one cannot trust their version of the story, obviously try to trivialize the whole issue and bury it so that future generations cannot get inspired by the person or the incident. The British have trivialised many big revolts around the world in this fashion for obvious reasons.....As for the Indian sources, they were largely based on word of mouth, because Indians hardly ever 'recorded' history systematically.
But I have good reason to go with what folklore says (than the British 'edited', 'distorted' version as a simple matter of common sense- such hysteria wouldn't have spread to the whole of India had the Mangal Pandey incident been merely a drunken shooting spree.
It was a time in history where shootings and hangings were common place, why did the Mangal Pandey incident stand out , going on to act as a trigger to an uprising of such monstrous propotions. And mind it, in that era there was almost no media to sensationalize the matter. Common Sense says 'it was just another stray incident' to do with 'just another ordinary man'.
Therefore HISTORY RULES....SO DOES THE MOVIE. (brilliant movie....treat for history buffs...gives a great picture or idea of the socio-politcal conditions of the dark era.) ....NEIL

reply

I completely agree with hemantanant. noompa007, I must say that you seem supremely confident of your version. Were you around at the time? What are you...a banyan tree?

Please respect other people's views or prove them to be false using solid evidence.

reply

history is always one sided .........made up by those in power for their own use .having said that ........
though i was a total failure in social studies even so i vaguely remember reading that mangal pandey is first "officially recorded" freedom fighter.
and as for you ..u look more like General Dyer in disguise .

reply

I am not so sure that people want a lesson in history when they buy tickets for a movie. Mangal Pandey may have been a bhang addict who shot a british soldier when he was intoxicated but, count the number of people who would want to go to a movie theater to see that. If it's history one is interested in, one should stick to textbooks. I don't remeber any of the cast or crew promoting The Rising as a three hour long history lesson.

reply

I agree with u sim321af, history is made up by those in power, and all the history that was written about mangal pandey might have been in a british perspective where they did not want to make themselves look bad, since most of the mangal pandey accounts we have are british, it does not mean they are facts.

reply

Again, history is in the eye of the perceiver. Yes, granted that not everything is accurate, but it's a movie and that "escape hatch" that you pointed out (the disclaimer in the beginning) helps to promote the point of the movie.

Besides, it clearly has a nationalistic tone. Sure the view of the movie is stretched, but your view seems to be one end of the extremes (the other end being that Mangal Pandey was the sole starter of the "sepoy revolution."

reply

I liked the movie. It was good.

reply

All critics are entitled to an opinion. Mine.
It was a great movie. Very entertaining and well presented.
Everything else, including history, can take a hike.

Ciao!

reply

First, let me say that as a Canadian of British decent I have a very different emotional response to this film than most people posting on this forum. My family came to Canada as United Empire Loyalists, that means that when the American Colonies rebelled they remained loyal and fought for the crown. Politics aside, it seems to be a trend in both Indian and American cinema these days to make historical films that are very anti British with complete disregard to historical accuracy. What ever political views they hold, film makers should do their best to make historical film as acurate as possible. If a movie changes history to make a political statement, or to advance its storyline it dishonours those people who partook in the events it portrays. Also, the people who see the film and who do not have a deep understanding of historical events will assume that the altered, or false history shown in the film is what actually happened. I can only hope that the next time a film is made about the Sepoy Mutiny it gives proper respect to the brave men who fought on both sides by being historically acurate.

reply

Interesting - by this logic, all World War 2 movies should show how brave and honourable the Nazi and Japanese soldiers were "give proper respect". The East India company was an organized criminal enterprise, indulging in international drug running, murder and forced labour, so such sensitivity is unwarranted.

reply