The Inevitability of Kangana Ranaut's 'Emergency'

Like flies hovering over a mithai in a sweetshop, Bollywood filmmakers keep gravitating to an old trend that never gets old: biopics. At least five such movies have hit the theatres this year, with the most awaited one, Emergency, yet to find a release date. This sub-genre has thrived for so long that even the reported pieces on it sound stale. Commenting on the trend in 2015 and 2024, The Quint and Deccan Chronicle published identical headlines (바카라�It바카라�s Raining Biopics in Bollywood바카라�). With over 40 of them releasing in the last decade바카라�many finding novel ways to be mediocre, swinging from brain-dead to propagandist바카라�this formula continues to flourish.

This surge in interest seems remarkable, as biopics didn바카라�t interest Bollywood filmmakers for decades. They had remained so indifferent to real stories that it took a foreign director바카라�and production house바카라�to make a movie on a revered Indian, Gandhi (1982). It makes sense. For an industry fixated on sweeping spectacles바카라�soaked in songs, escapism, and melodrama바카라�Bollywood revels in not depicting, but contradicting, realism.

So art-house filmmakers sought to harness the biopics바카라� potential. Shyam Benegal made Bhumika (1977), exploring the life of Marathi actor Hansa Wadkar, and later, Zubeidaa (2001). Ketan Mehta바카라�s Sardar (1993) won two National Awards. And when a commercial director, Shekhar Kapur, helmed Bandit Queen (1994), he chose stark realism바카라�theatre actors, no songs, shocking violence바카라�positioning it as a 바카라�serious movie바카라�. Some filmmakers gave a new spin to the format by making mainstream, yet 바카라�reflexive바카라�, dramas, such as Guru Dutt (Kaagaz Ke Phool) and Raj Kapoor (Mera Naam Joker).

By the early aughts, this trend had still not exploded, though in 2002, three movies on Bhagat Singh released in a span of few weeks. This sub-genre was so dormant, in fact, that a rare Aamir Khan misfire in that decade, Mangal Pandey (2005), was a biopic. But in the subsequent years, The Dirty Picture (2010), Paan Singh Tomar (2012), and Shahid (2012) foregrounded forgotten (and 바카라�infamous바카라�) individuals, telling stories of dwindling dignities, quiet fights, desperate determinations.

And then, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013) changed it all. It was a box-office smash, becoming the fifth-highest grossing film of the year. Even though it got positive reviews, it was factually dubious and tediously jingoistic, injecting drama in an already dramatic story and making a hero more heroic바카라�a trait about to become a trend.

The initial explosion of the sub-genre produced sports biopics, such as Mary Kom (2014), Azhar (2016), and MS Dhoni (2016). They didn바카라�t examine바카라�but extol바카라� the individual, celebrating the celebrities. Even a movie with a controversial protagonist, Azhar, contrived a ludicrous reason to justify his match fixing. As the biopics took different forms in the 2010s, that problem persisted and amplified. A film on Sanjay Dutt, Sanju (2018), made by his friend Rajkumar Hirani, sanitised the star바카라�s life so much that it felt like an apologia. The movies on Dhoni and Nambi Narayanan (Rocketry) unfolded like Wikipedia entries. They had narratives but no plots바카라�or bite and insight. And like many Bollywood biopics, they failed to differentiate between truths and facts.

바카라�What really matters is whether you were able to extract the rasa [the essence of the story],바카라� says Ram Madhvani, Neerja바카라�s director. 바카라�Was it actually meant to be inspiring바카라�or inspire courage? Because we바카라�re not in the business of a plot or a story. We바카라�re in the business of feelings.바카라� The Bollywood biopics바카라�especially those centred on sports stars바카라�reverse engineer that approach. They seem to start from an MBA-like bottom-line, an 바카라�inspirational바카라� story, and then spin a screenplay around it. Inspirational, then, isn바카라�t their organic outcomes but pre-ordained destinies, drowning out curiosities, complexities, and discoveries.

The 바카라�anecdotal바카라� style, says Hansal Mehta, also hurts many biopics. A typical research for such a project results in a filmmaker meeting the subject바카라�s associates who relay stories. 바카라�But instead of [writing] a screenplay or developing the character, the makers rely on anecdotes, and that anecdotal nature takes away the cinema from most biopics. People try to force-fit them바카라�the anecdotes become the subject.바카라� Or, in such movies, the vignettes of a life become life itself.

Mediocre biopics also reduce a complex life into a hard thesis. Picking out one pivotal strand in their subjects바카라� lives 바카라�the trauma of Partition (Bhaag Milkha Bhaag), a mathematician struggling to be a mother (Shakuntala Devi), a misfit repulsed by tradition (Pad Man)바카라�the directors hammer that point again and again, contriving causality and mocking realism. In Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, it바카라�s not enough that the Partition has ravaged Milkha Singh바카라�s childhood; it also must haunt him to the extent that he turns back during his 1960 Olympic sprint, making him lose the medal. (Of course, it never happened.) Bollywood filmmakers바카라� strained relationship with realism exposes a fundamental flaw in their mindsets: that, yes, real life is interesting바카라�but only till a point. Excellent biopics take dramatic liberties to scale higher truths, but simplistic ones twist facts to serve the stars and the subjects.

So they바카라�ve become formulaic and a formula. You know the beats (the background, the obstacles, the triumph); you know the tropes (a training montage, a rousing song, a convenient villain); you know the effects (patriotic, inspirational, admirable). You can switch the sub-genres and still get the same result. Bollywood directors also become 바카라�overly fascinated with their subjects바카라�, says Mehta, reducing biopics to a mutual 바카라�pat on the back바카라� exercise. In fact, just look at what passes off as 바카라�entertainment journalism바카라� in the country바카라�a senior journalist or an influencer (is there a difference anymore?) lobbing easy questions to stars, helping them promote their films or brands. Bollywood biopics do that over two hours바카라�with some songs and a love story. They바카라�ve sprung from this exact 바카라�celebritification바카라� of our culture, where we바카라�ve become too dazzled by the stars to even question them.

바카라�Many filmmakers also want their protagonists to look exactly like the real-life characters,바카라� says Mehta. 바카라�That바카라�s another place where we go wrong. We give people wild prosthetics; we make them mimic accents.바카라� Kangana Ranaut drew attention to her looks in Emergency바카라�underscoring the Oscar-winning credentials of her makeup artist, David Malinowski, and releasing multiple photos of her transformation바카라�on social media. 바카라�If you바카라�re showing Gandhi on screen,바카라� says Mehta who, adapting Ramachandra Guha바카라�s books, is making a three-part series on the freedom fighter, 바카라�then it doesn바카라�t mean his ears need to pop out. It바카라�s not about the physical Gandhi, but what he stood for.바카라�

For all their flaws, though, Bollywood filmmakers do face several obstacles while making biopics. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Samajwadi Party (SP), for instance, wanted to ban Mangal Pandey because it showed the soldier visiting a sex worker바카라�s house. Silk Smitha바카라�s brother sent a legal notice to the makers of The Dirty Picture for showing her in an 바카라�obscene바카라� light. The Indian Air Force (IAF) wrote to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) after Gunjan Saxena바카라�s release, saying the film portrayed the IAF in 바카라�undue negative light바카라�. (Taking offence in India is like falling in love바카라�it can happen anywhere, anytime.) And these are, of course, a small sample of controversies related to recent biopics.

Unlike the United States, which protects filmmakers through the First Amendment, the Indian censor board throws them to the wolves by asking them to furnish a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the biopic바카라�s subject or their kin. The CBFC chief, Pahlaj Nihalani, asked the makers of The Accidental Prime Minister (2019) to get NOCs from former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi. The directors of An Insignificant Man, who made a documentary on the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), had to procure NOCs from Narendra Modi, Arvind Kejriwal, and Sheila Dixit. For Shahid, Mehta had to take an NOC from the wife of the deceased lawyer Shahid Azmi.

But a new challenge has sprung up of late: 바카라�legal due diligence바카라�. Mehta experiences it often, and each time he discovers something new. 바카라�In Scam 1992, we had shown the logos of all the real organisations. But after the edit, the legal teams said you can바카라�t put logos. So we spent about a month and a lot of money removing them.바카라� There are other restrictions, too. 바카라�You can바카라�t name politicians바카라�even if it바카라�s researched or in the public domain바카라�because they바카라�re the first ones to cause trouble. You can바카라�t name certain business houses.바카라� The legal teams, he adds, have now become part of the writing process. 바카라�There바카라�s an entire book waiting to be written on how filmmakers circumvent these challenges.바카라� These days, even before writing the screenplay, he says, it goes to a legal team. 바카라�And then that whole document comes바카라�the risk of legal exposure바카라�and you take a look at it and say, 바카라�Okay, do I really want to make this?바카라�바카라�

The risk of lawsuits바카라�or censorship바카라�doesn바카라�t apply to all directors though. Consider another movie made on the Emergency, Indu Sarkar (2017), which, unlike The Accidental Prime Minister, didn바카라�t have to provide an NOC to the CBFC. If Bhaag Milkha Bhaag was one inflection point in the narrative of Bollywood biopics, then Indu Sarkar was another. It produced a two-pronged strategy: using a real-life story to manufacture heroes (right-wing leaders) and villains (the Congress party, activists, journalists바카라�it바카라�s a long list). Such movies didn바카라�t court controversies because the ruling party considered those heroes and villains as...heroes and villains.

A few years later, Bollywood biopics started to valourise controversial figures known for their dictatorial streaks or jaundiced views (or both): Thackeray (2019), Thalaivi (2021), Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (2024), and more. A few years ago, Mahesh Manjrekar announced a film on Nathuram Godse and, in 2018, news surfaced that that S S Rajamouli바카라�s father, K V Vijayendra Prasad바카라�who has scripted Bajrangi Bhaijaan (2015), Baahubali (2015), and RRR (2022)바카라�was writing a drama on the origins and story of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

In most filmmaking cultures, Emergency would have been an anomaly. But in the Bollywood of 2024, it looks inevitable. Its trailer indicates that Ranaut, the director, has taken the two-pronged approach a step further. The movie vilifies Indira Gandhi and admires Atal Bihari Vajpaaye (as expected), but it also targets another enemy, the Sikhs, who are depicted as violent separatists. Their complaints, though, compelled the CBFC to rescind its approval, halt the release, impose 11 cuts, and eventually grant a U/A certificate. Ranaut hasn바카라�t announced the new release date yet, but that doesn바카라�t look too far away, and if this film becomes a hit, then it바카라�d accelerate the (vicious) biopics even further. It바카라�d also complete their true journey: from telling the stories of making the nation to breaking the nation.