Reponse to Haider

            Inspired by Basharat Peer’s memoir, the film Haider ambitiously tackles the conflict in Kashmir. Framed through the narrative of Hamlet, it is director Vishal Bhardwaj’s third movie that draws on the work of Shakespeare. Its plot driven by the violent divisive struggle in Kashmir and is placed on the backdrop of revenge and betrayal that characterizes Hamlet. The movie has been primarily critically acclaimed, but award-winning Indian film critic Baradwaj Rangan denounced how it adapted Hamlet. I wanted to counter his criticism and argue that Haider was more powerful as an adaptation than it would have been as a stand-alone.

            Often, upon with repeated viewing of a film, one gains more from all the nuances and messages, since after the first time, one is no longer preoccupied with plot details. Therefore, viewers familiar with Hamlet would be able to spend more of Haider thinking critically about the political situation, instead of trying to decide if they think Khurram is guilty. Additionally, if we look at the play, we see it already contains many of the core themes and questions that apply to Kashmir as well. For example, in the play, Shakespeare notably highlights the diseased state of the country and includes many references to illness and rotting; we see language like “the hectic in my blood” and “this canker of our nature.” In the end, it is darkly humorous that what weakens and finally breaks down the kingdom is not the external forces of Fortinbras. Instead, the true enemy was the internal fighting, their own diseased state.

Similarly, in Kashmir, we see the Indian subcontinent tearing itself apart, and the movie didn’t even need an analogue to Fortinbras. If a viewer of the film had read Hamlet, even though the movie didn’t explicitly rehash everything from the play, one could still make the connection that India’s biggest problem is currently itself. We can also look at the dissatisfaction in revenge that was showcased by the relationship between Hamlet and Laertes in the play. Upon dying, Laertes asked for forgiveness, and the pair reconciled. Though the plot fell differently in the film, a viewer can still associate the regret caused by cyclical revenge with Hamlet, and by extension, the situation in Kashmir.  The impetus for much of the violence between India and Pakistan is encounters with personal tragedy (as shown in Earth), so this message is particularly apt for the situation. Also to note, though much of the audience is Indian and may not necessarily have read the original play, Haider had an international reach to countries where people would be more familiar with the original play.

Rangan attacks the exclusion of soliloquys and famous quotes from Haider and how the “To be or not to be” speech became a short conversation.  He cites examples of other adaptation and how they include Hamlet’s most famous soliloquy; however, it feels like an unfair comparison. Besides Schwarzenegger’s parody, the other films were admittedly named ‘Hamlet’, and all but one of them were just the play performed for the big screen, rather than an actual adaptation of the script. Additionally, Haider had a sort of urgency due to the political message it wanted to send, in a way that the other films didn’t. Though the film was set in the past, the conflict over Kashmir is still going full force, and Haider was able to portray this. Inherently, in speaking to the audience, a soliloquy often breaks the fourth wall, reminding the viewer of the inherent fakeness of drama and theater. By portraying the soliloquys as conversations, this wall wasn’t breached, allowing the viewer to become more immersed in the story itself and more engaged with the portrayal of the Kashmir conflict. Due to the sensitive and urgent nature of the situation in the region, allowing the audience to become absorbed in the movie would bolster awareness.  Plus, Hamlet is so much more than the individual words that make it up, and the essence of the play is not lost.

Additionally, Rangan has some individual gripes with the film as a whole, complaining both when he thought characters were written a certain way to match up with Hamlet and when he thought they the characters didn’t match up closely enough. Since neither scenario seems to suit him, it seems he would not be okay with any loose adaptation at all. Rangan attacked too that Hilaal seemed to know that Khurram had seduced his wife. However, Khurram had a long history of flirting with Ghazala, and Hilaal knew his wife was the only one privy to the secret besides the militants themselves. Therefore, it would not be surprising if he suspected some sort of relationship. His criticism seems nitpicky, and given the controversy surrounding the film, it begs the question of whether Haider struck a particular nerve with Rangan.

As outlined above, I felt that Hamlet transferred well to the narrative in Kashmir, and the Bhardwaj’s message was enhanced by the decision to make Haider an adaptation. Though the film at placed deviated from the original form of Hamlet, I believe the changes came with the territory of the adaptation and didn’t detract from the film’s quality.