BOLLYWOOD: What Ails Today's Period Films?

The Indian film industry is going through an interesting phase of sequels and remakes. Period films are also in. But tackling the historical genre is easier said than done and often, attention to detail is lacking.

The crux of any period film is extensive research. But that's been neglected in Bollywood for the last 30 years. Forget Hollywood, where it's not uncommon to have historians acting as consultants on the sets. Many of today's Bollywood films don't even match up to films made by Indian directors decades ago. When Satyajit Ray was making Shatranj Ke Khiladi, he shopped, ate and lived in Lucknow for months while researching the film. And it showed in every frame. K Asif took 10 years to make Mughal-E-Azam.

It's a far cry from then to last year's Umrao Jaan, which was woefully lacking in authenticity. Shot against the backdrop of Rajasthan's hilly terrain, replete with lakes and boulders, director JP Dutta's Umrao misses a date with Lucknow's topography, which has no hills or lakes. Anther glaring inconsistency with history was showing Umrao aka Aishwarya Rai taking a dip in a pool, in fact there never was a pool in Umrao's time.

JP Dutta however contends that he didn't shoot in Lucknow because of the dismal condition of heritage buildings there. Other reasons for films set in UP giving the state a go by could be the law and order situation there and government apathy. That's one reason why film Omkara wasn't shot there.

But none of this had stopped Muzaffar Ali, who hails from the royal lineage of Kotwara, when he made Umrao Jaan with Rekha. Ali did extensive research, sourced authentic nawabi jewellery-mostly from his personal collection-clothes of his ancestors, and most of the props from his home.

Even Ketan Mehta who spent years researching for Mangal Pandey, took cinematic liberties. The film's climax is far-fetched. The way Mangal is hanged is weird. In reality, it wasn't that dramatic.

Even Asoka, wasn't authentic. It was largely shot on outside locales, mostly on rocks and green pastures. Hardly any sets or costumes were used.

Ditto for Devdas, the film was too opulent as compared to original. The director even changed the story, there never was a meeting between Chandrmukhi and Paro in the original. Even the coloured glasses, buildings and dresses were larger that-life.

Some films however do make an attempt at being authentic. Parineeta was one. The story which is set in Kolkata of the 1920s, is juxtaposed in the 1960s to suit current sensibilities.

Similar care has been taken in The Legend of Bhagat Singh, where the writer, Anjum Rajab Ali took months to research the subject.

However period films lack in research mostly to suit the look of the film. In Devdas, the director made the film look opulent as he knew it would rake in the moolah.

Popular Hindi Cinema anyway doesn't draw from reality. Entertainment is what drives it. Where Karan Johar and Yash Chopra can pass off Switzerland and New York as Mumbai or even Himachal Pradesh. Where buildings in Bhansali's Devdas don't look like a part of Kolkata.

I don't think these filmmakers really care? They don't have the time or inclination to go into details. All they look out for is a big star and making quick money.