Phule movie review: Pratik Gandhi starrer is a dull biopic

Phule
U: Biography, drama
Dir: Ananth Mahadevan
Cast: Pratik Gandhi, Patralekhaa
Rating: 2/5

The film Phule, as in the biopic of social activist Mahatma Jyotirao Phule (1827-1890), is naturally set between mid to late 19th Century, when India was under British rule.

Therefore, an upper-caste character in the film points to their common oppression, under the colonial empire. 

To which Phule, fighting for caste rights, rightly points out—that particular slavery is only 100 years old, while the lower castes have suffered for ages. 

The exact words, “for 3,000 years”, I realise, has been knocked from that sentence, as per Censor Board’s suggestions. 

Likewise, you notice the near, if not absolute absence of the word caste/“jaati” itself from this film—replaced by the supposedly more palatable four-tiered varna system, instead. 

As Phule’s wife Savitribai puts it in this film—henceforth, the Shudras shall be referred to as Dalits. 

While some of these insertions/deletions, supposedly under the pressure of sundry brahmin groups, might baffle any lay viewer, even vaguely attuned to India’s caste issues—the fact is, if it wasn’t for the Censor Board, you may not have heard of the low-budget, art-house type film, Phule. 

For whatever that’s worth. And the story is worth a lot. 

Simply consider that only 177 years ago, the act of ultimate rebellion, performed by Phule—walking alone, battling raids, altogether banished from his village—was admitting little girls into an underground school he set up, so children could get basic education!

It was the first such revolt in Maharashtra. Which is such an irony given, as a line here puts it best, “Saraswati is the goddess of learning, after all.”

Sadly, we don’t savour films for the stories. We watch them for the storytelling. 

And that’s where this uniformly dull, dry biopic suffers—sorely lacking in any kinda absorbing energy/drama—with a trustable narrator, pretty much linearly taking us on a guided tour of events, in the life of Mahatma Phule, in master/wide shots. 

Offering us, therefore, no further/deeper insights than a Wikipedia page, that I’ve just read, to feel equally enlightened!

Hence, as you read, or you hear (in the film), Phule was influenced by the French Revolution, Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, and the abolition of slavery in the US, under Abraham Lincoln, while the upper-castes feared even his shadow polluting their path. 

That he was once thrown out of a brahmin wedding. He home-schooled his wife, Savitribai, also in English, which he learnt, attending a missionary school, where he also befriended one, Usman Sheikh, and his sister Fatima, who provided him shelter, when he was ostracised. 

What do you see? First off, the lead actors Pratik Gandhi as Mahatma Phule, and Patralekhaa as Savitribai, of course. Both fine, understated actors, no doubt. But sometimes so understated that they feel laidback; subsequently, their audiences as well. 

Pratik has popularly performed Mahatma Gandhi in the Gujarati play Mohan Na Masalo, apart from currently shooting for Hansal Mehta’s India Before Gandhi as an OTT series.

What did I wish to see? Anything that truly helps me gauge what makes mortals like Phule ‘mahatma’ in their own lifetime—going so severely against the grain, given the society of their times, that was so unwilling to see their point of view, let alone engage with it.

What was that impetus that stood them apart; making the charismatic Phule one of BR Ambedkar’s spiritual mentors later? 

These require dramatic debates, internal and external monologues, scenes that illuminate a human onscreen.

Consequently, shedding light on someone, who never stopped from seeking help from the British government and Christian missionaries, since he saw a larger picture for the lower-caste, and the women.

Both of whom, in a system totally rigged against them, were being denied basic rights, including education. 

It’s a dramatic life, like Gandhi’s, as full of perceivable contradictions too. 

This is the character who says, in the film, “It’s easy to make emotional Indians fight over caste and religion even in the future.” And that you must keep the revolution alive. Also, a man who sits down to chat with his own would-be assassins. 

Why does a film about him feel so weak/flat, besides lazy filmmaking, perhaps? 

My sense is the writer, director (Ananth Mahadevan, Muazzam Beg) aren’t sure to what extent that can delve into subjects when, progressively, along with religion and politics, even caste is appearing a no-go zone in the movie-mainstream. 

What with the anger of the privileged that could evidently strike upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger. And what’s caste, if not religion and politics too!

You thank the filmmakers, still; make do with what you got; and move on then. 

I know it doesn’t sound encouraging for a film audience, but treat this as entry-level education on Phule, rather than entertainment or deep engagement, if you like. You’ll be much better off, that way. 

*YUCK  **WHATEVER  ***GOOD  ****SUPER  *****AWESOME