Siraj Syed reviews Haraamkhor: Harmful to the core
Haraamkhor: A derisive term, having its roots in Persian (Farsi) and widely used in present-day Urdu and Hindi. Haraamkhor literally means one who feeds on ill-begotten food, haraam meaning immoral, or not kosher, the antonym of halaal, right and approved. Khor refers to eater, or consumer, from the Persian verb khordan, to eat. Some prefer to spell the word beginning with a qh, to distinguish from the kh sound, which is less guttural and not found in Hindi. It is an uncommon title, often translated as bastard, and one thing is for sure—it is not a word that anybody would like to utter in a civil conversation.
In the film, the title is meant to symbolise the main male character, a school teacher who targets and seduces teenage girls, in a rural rudimentary school. Among serious pointers that this is a well-intentioned dramatisation of real situations in India’s semi-urbanised villages, the film goes on to make a royal mess of highlighting a rampant social evil: male keepers and protectors intruding upon and preying on the vulnerable females of the species. That it uses two highly talented actors to dramatise its narrative is both commendable and lamentable. Commendable because they save the film from sinking deep into an abyss; lamentable because they are themselves thrown into this abyss, and have to use all their swimming skills to remain afloat.
Ten weeks ago, I was regretting having missed this film at the Mumbai Film Festival and a week ago, I was glad that the festival spin-off, a Film Club of which I am a member, was holding a screening, at the PVR Icon cinema in suburban Andheri, on 10th January, ahead of its release. The scheduled 9.30 pm screening began over 30 minutes late, and after it ended, at about 11.30 pm, I just did not have the wherewithal to stay back for the Q and A, which was to follow. Perhaps I saved Shlok Sharma (writer-director) some blushes. The film was banned by the Central Board of Film Certification, India’s ‘Censor’ Board, since the plot revolved around an illicit relationship between a school teacher and his teenage student.
Two weeks ago, the Appellate Tribunal passed a judgement on Haraamkhor by not only clearing the film for release, but also by giving it a U/A (children allowed in cinema-halls, if accompanied by an adult) certificate. In their words, the film was "furthering a social message and warning the girls to be aware of their rights.” In April last year, an FIR (police complaint, called First Information Report) was registered against director Shlok Sharma, on a plaint filed by Bal-Bharati, Maharashtra State’s school text-book bureau, objecting to striking similarities between its logo and promotion scenes from Haraamkhor. See for yourself
The film was shot in just 16 days, in a small village in Gujarat. It had its first two screenings at the 15th annual New York Indian Film Festival (NYIFF), and the Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles (IFFLA). Nawazuddin Siddiqui received the Best Actor award at NYIFF.
Shlok Sharma (actor, assistant director-turned-director) enters the big, bad world of feature films, with Haraamkhor. Make that small bad world. He better get a decent production going, if he needs to salvage some respect. Credentials include the three-minute Hidden Cricket (2013), shot in just three days in Sion, Antop Hill (Mumbai) and Pune, and the 19-minute Sujata (2013), which is a part of Anurag Kashyap’s five-film package, SHORTS. According to info at hand, Haraamkhor has made to a theatrical release two-and-a-half years after completion. Why am I not surprised?
Subject taboo? You must be kidding. Suggested sex and genitalia fixation? Tell me another! Disappointing performances? On the contrary! Stilted dialogue? Partly! Jerky camera? Often. And the camera is not the only entity that is jerky! Disjointed, confused narrative? Most certainly! Continuity that is conspicuous by its absence? You said it. Shots that are four frames long alternating with shots that linger endlessly? I told you! A serious attempt to condone and even accept a teacher seducing his students on a regular, continuous basis? Yes, and never mind the captions declaring the ‘nobility of cause’ and the Indian Penal Code sections that prescribe serious punishment for sex with minors.
Nawazuddin Siddiqui (Gangs of Wasseypur, Bajrangi Bhaijaan, The Lunch-Box) as Shyam/Kallu, the Teacher makes an inexplicably valiant attempt to get under the skin of the character, and, by all indications, even improvises several lines of dialogue. All he needed was to say, “I’m leaving,” and then exeunt, along with the others. Shweta Tripathi as Sandhya (Sujata, Masaan, Love Shots) manages to look much younger than her age, but the abs are distinctly visible. She is never overawed in the presence of Nawaz. Sadly, he’s hurtling towards the nadir of great actors less than a decade before nearing the zenith, and she would do well to take a right turn pretty soon, lest he get left behind.
Trimala Adhikari as Sunita is predictive yet appealing. Mohammed Samad, as Mintu, and Irfan Khan (Jr.), as his inseparable buddy, Kamal, are initiated into vulgarity and voyeurism at an early age. Sandhya’s father is played by someone who reminds us so much of Bharat Kapoor of yore. And his mistress/second wife, despite a portly presence, could be a Gujarati actress who makes a very complex role kind of an everyday effort. If her dialogue delivery can improve, she’ll go quite far. No details of the other members of the cast could be obtained.
Shlok Sharma has said that the title was registered even before shooting and that it was never going to be changed. Unfortunate. We could begin there. Does that mean that in its present state the film will not win awards in India, or more awards abroad? Rating? Shows how much some good performances can airlift a deflated balloon.
Rating: * ½