Any flaws in SARKAR ?
Direction? flaws in directing any scene?
Music?
casting?
camera?
Story loopholes?
Uday
Warwick,RI
the movie was rushed in so many parts so u can say ther r many story loopholes just 2 be able 2 imitate the original "the godfather". if u want i can give u spoilers but would wait 4 ur reply 1st.
shareYaa? Please go head.......
At 1 moment Sarkar(Amitabh Bachchan) says "power is gained by joining people together, not by making them go against you", then when someone visits him(Rashid) to strike a deal with him, he himself acts in such an offensive way asking that man to become his enemy and forgetting his own basic rule.
At another moment Sarkar says "I don't interfere in other's business" yet after telling Rashid that he wont do business with him he specifically calls him and tells him that he would not even let Rashid do the business himself.(Note:in the Godfather how wonderfully Marlon Brando tells Solozzo who comes 4 a similar deal that drugs is a dirty business etc etc and he cant help him but also he wishes him the best in whatever he does, thats what should have been done here, since Sarkar is a man for the people, he should act nice even with an enemy so that he doesn't create a hostile environment around him) Now the son played by Abhishek(Shankar Naagre) and killing his own brother played by K.K(Vishnu Naagre), this was put in just to copy the Godfather II and nothing else, because it was so unconvincing the way it was handled, it took two parts for The Godfather to show Michael Corleone order the killing of his own brother, showing every inch of change in his character till the last scene of the Godfather II, whereas in Sarkar, it was rushed, out of no where you see Shankar telling his father he killed his own brother & the reaction of the father was very bad, it was not convincing at all, as if not a son but an enemy died.
The mixing of two characters in one just to imitate the Godfather, Vishnu(Sunny Corleone) becomes Fredo.
You dont get to see "Sarkar" doing what he does, only in the first few scenes but then the entire movie has nothing to show of what and how Sarkar carries on his duties.
very aptly put maqbool!
Another thing I wondered about was : How the hell did the family make their money?
Anyone having explainations please share.
I don't entirely agree with your analysis of the Rashid-Sarkar scene. Sarkar IS a man of the people, that's why he's shown to be hostile towards Rashid, who is probably planning to smuggle drugs, or weapons into the country.
In my opinion, this scene was one of the best in the movies. Sarkar's arrogant confidence in his talk with Rashid was excellent. And Rashid, even though he must have felt like killing Sarkar then and there, had to show respect (by touching his feet when he leaves) coz he knows who the boss really was.
About Vishnu's characterization, I had thought that he really had a change of heart and he wouldn't go to such limits as to actually try to kill Sarkar. The three of them would have a made an even more powerful team. But anyways, he probably got what he deserved.
The apparently rushing up of the scenes may suggest that Sarkar was not actually inspired from Godfather. The story may have some similarities but (according to the director himself) it has been inspired from somewhere closer to home.
Yea Ramu should have signed Nana Patekar to play the role of Sarkar...Although Big B was average.....Nana would have nailed that role
shareDude, I'm afraid you got it wrong.
There are a lot of contradictions in the character of sarkar. You said he is a man of the people and does not want Rashid to smuggle things in. When sarkar knows what Rashid deals with, then why give him an appointment in the first place? That does not make any sense.
Rashid didn't show respect by touching Sarkar's feet. It was an expression of "okay, you win this round.. but the fight is still on".
Sonny and Fredo are two different characters, entirely different people. Sonny is not the kind of guy who can plot and Fredo is not the kind of guy who can be extremely aggressive. One cannot create a convincing character that acts both as Sonny and Fredo. Vishnu was least convincing in the movie, although Kay Kay played it well.
I think sarkar was a big disappointment
I agree with you daanveerkaran, ramgopal verma certainly put in effort creating the setting, atmosphere and feel of the film (and was successful at them), but he failed in characterisation. All the protagonists are half-baked imitations of those in the godfather (set in a different social milieu). The most disappointing is abhishek's character. One of the most integral parts of the godfather is the character development of michael corleone; how he evolves from being an outsider, who says, "thats my family, Kay, not me", clearly not agreeing with its modus operandi, to one that becomes the very heart of it and much more. Abhishek's character however evolves little, and his angry eyes, and evil potrayal towards the end is highly incongruous with his development as a character.
For a man to be living in America, away from his family, and to come in, very much as an outsider, and eventually kill his own brother requires a significant amount of growth and development. One must make make the transition completely, shedding his previous way of life and ideas, to enter this world and become the center of it before he has the courage or the basic state of mind to be able to comit such an act and more. Michael's evolution is shown in detail, how he becomes hostile not only to his brother but to his wife, and other siblings, and significantly, by the time he gets Fredo killed, he is a vastly different man to the WW II war hero than enters the wedding at the beginning of the first movie. This is what abhishek's character lacks, that realistic and elucidating development. How does he become one that loves his family, and defends its ways (of sarkar) when questioned by Katrina Kaif's character to one that has the gall to comit such an immoral and unforgivable crime as to kill of his own. Killing your own brother requires not vengeance or mistrust, but something more, something heinously inhuman, an ability to put aside all social mores, to be completely unforgiving of even one mistake so as to be absolute, and to have the extraordinary cunning to betray your own inner humanity. This is what is not shown and personally i was very surprised at the short length of the film, and that by the end when it is Abhishek that is sipping tea listening to requests, there has barely been a focus of his character amid the wars between the Nagare family and the other clans that took up most of the plot space.
He gave the appt to Rashid so that he could tell him to his face not to mess around.
Of course Rashid didn't respect him. That's what I said, even tho he may have wanted to kill him but he had to show it at that moment. As you said, he planned on for the next round later