Director Reema Kagti and screenwriter Rajesh Devraj took some liberties with Gold, their fictionalized account of India’s 1948 Olympic field hockey victory, changing the names of players and minor details while keeping the core of the story intact. Yet the story’s predetermined ending seems to have stumped the filmmakers, as almost every attempt to create tension in Gold feels forced and inorganic.
The events of Gold are told from the perspective of Tapan Das (Akshay Kumar), an assistant manager on the British Indian field hockey team that won gold at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. As the world’s most formidable hockey team for many years running, frustration builds among the team at being forced to share their glory with their British oppressors. But with the independence movement growing in strength, Tapan and the team’s captain, Shankar (Kunal Kapoor), hope to one day win the gold for India alone.
World War II cancels the Olympics in 1940 and again in 1944. This is addressed in a song montage that shows Tapan spiraling into despair and alcoholism, but it warranted further exploration. What was it like for those athletes who spent their prime competitive years on the sidelines, particularly those in countries far removed from the theater of war? We learn from Tapan that Shankar became a coach and that another player, Imtiaz Ali Shah (Vineet Kumar Singh), became a freedom fighter, but not how they felt about being unable to compete.
Gold’s greatest fault is that it is too focused on Akshay Kumar’s character. His emotional journey is the only one shown in any real depth, and events are shown exclusively from his perspective. It’s a stark contrast to 2007’s Chak De! India — another patriotic field hockey movie — which managed to establish about a dozen other memorable characters, in addition to a manager played by a superstar actor (in that case, Shah Rukh Khan).
When the war ends and a new Olympic games is announced for 1948 in England, Tapan rushes to assemble a team. With independence from Britain right around the corner, it’s the perfect opportunity to beat the Brits on their home soil. The sports commissioner Mr. Wadia gives his consent, with the provision that Tapan share managerial duties with Mr. Mehta (Atul Kale).
With the former superstar Shankar comfortably retired, Tapan enlists Imtiaz to serve as captain, bringing veteran leadership to a squad of young players with no international experience. Two hopeful new stars include a Punjabi policeman named Himmat (Sunny Kaushal) and Raghubhir Pratap Singh (Amit Sadh), a prince from a noble family.
Yet the plans Tapan and Imtiaz make in anticipation of independence are destroyed by the surprise implementation of Partition. Violence forces Imtiaz and several other Muslim players to flee with their families to the newly formed Pakistan, and the team’s British-Indian players head to Australia. Gold‘s best sequence is the heart-wrenching moment when Imtiaz decides to leave the nation whose independence he fought for, saying: “My country is different now.” His character’s particular struggles warrant a standalone movie.
Sadly, Gold heads downhill from here. The newly assembled team’s training is plagued by problems that promise to generate dramatic tension. Only that tension never really manifests — since the problems are all solved as quickly as they start. Mehta undermines Tapan, but Wadia immediately endorses Tapan’s approach. The team won’t work together, but then they learn to do so in a matter of minutes.
It’s a shame that Kagti and Devraj abandon politics at this point, since it could have been a good source of intra-team conflict, especially since the characters aren’t strictly based on any of the real-life team members. How do working class team members feel about playing with a prince, who seems unaffected by the fallout from Partition? Is Himmat worried about the violence in Punjab while he’s in training? How do any of the other dozen or so unnamed players feel about… well, anything? Instead, the climactic tension is created by one character needlessly withholding information from others — a silly shortcut, given all the potential sources of conflict available.
The acting is uniformly decent, with Singh giving the film’s standout performance. Shah and Kaushal are good as well. Kumar is fine, but the film’s uneven mix of drama and comedy keeps this from being one of his more memorable roles. Mouni Roy — who plays Tapan’s wife, Monobina — likewise suffers for having to perform comedy scenes that aren’t especially funny. Roy is seventeen years younger than Kumar, which makes one wonder why her young, attractive character would marry a much older, intermittently-employed drunk — a question that could have been avoided by casting an actress closer in age to Kumar.
Many of Gold‘s shortcomings could be forgiven if its hockey scenes were exciting, but they aren’t (the few that exist anyway). The Olympic scenes are also hampered by distracting CGI crowds in the background. Contrast that with the thrilling, beautifully-shot hockey scenes in Chak De! India, and Gold is strictly average.
- Gold at Wikipedia
- Gold at IMDb
- My review of Chak De! India
Thank you again, for the clarity of your report. Once again you saved me time and money from going to see this film this weekend with others who were interested in it.
In an unrelated note, the Kapoors have also decided not to expend their time and money to rebuild RK Studios according to a couple of well-known English language dailies published in India. I’m not sue if this was useful information for your web-site and I apologize if I’ve wasted your time with this piece of trivia.
My life is trivia, LOL! Thanks for letting me know, and for the kind words about the review!
In my enthusiastic rush to send my previous message, I accidently typed “sue” instead of “sure.” Sorry for that. For the next useful review you publish, I’ll try to be more careful, if my inclination to respond occurs.
Considering the time I’ve spent perusing your writing, this is more likely than not. For this potential malfeasance, I apoligize in advance.
Also, your dated, yet favorable, review for ‘Dil Chahta Hai’ was particularly well-received on this end.
Pingback: Bollywood Box Office: August 24-26, 2018 | Access Bollywood
Pingback: Opening August 31: Yamla Pagla Deewana Phir Se | Access Bollywood
Pingback: Bollywood Box Office: August 31-September 2, 2018 | Access Bollywood
Pingback: Opening September 7: Paltan and Laila Majnu | Access Bollywood
Pingback: Bollywood Box Office: September 7-9, 2018 | Access Bollywood
Pingback: Opening September 14: Manmarziyaan and Mitron | Access Bollywood
Pingback: Bollywood Box Office: September 17, 2018 | Access Bollywood
Pingback: Bollywood Box Office: September 21-23, 2018 | Access Bollywood
Pingback: Streaming Video News: October 30, 2018 | Access Bollywood
Pingback: 2018 Access Bollywood Wrap-Up | Access Bollywood
I haven’t seen the movie. I was checking reviews to make up my mind whether it’s worth watching. But I noticed this line in your review:
“What was it like for those athletes who spent their prime competitive years on the sidelines, particularly those in countries far removed from the theater of war?”
If you mean India, it wasn’t “far removed from the theater of war.” India was under British rule at the time, but it raised the largest volunteer army in history (2.5 million soldiers) to fight for the Allies. About 3 million Indians died in the war, including about 90,000 soldiers.
Indians fought in the European theater in France and Belgium, they were the 3rd largest contingent (after the UK and US) in driving the Nazis out of Italy. Indians fought in North African theater, against Rommel’s Afrika Corps. And most of all Indians fought the Japanese in southeast Asia. It was Indian soldiers in Burma who finally fought the Japanese to a standstill and stopped their advance. Indian soldiers were also responsible for liberating Singapore and Hong Kong.
Indians won dozens of medals during WWII, including the several who won the Victoria Cross and DSO. Nor was the civilian population uninvolved. India contributed huge amounts of raw materials and finished goods to the war effort.
“I haven’t seen the movie.” — This should have stopped you from commenting. My statement is correct both factually and within the film’s context.
“Theater of war” refers to the land on which battle is fought, and since India is nowhere near Europe — the only theater Gold addresses since it’s the only one that affects the film’s characters — my statement is accurate. In fact, the prime war years are summed up in a single song montage in which Akshay Kumar’s character reads about the war in the newspaper. Gold is a movie about cricket, not about the whole of India’s involvement in WWII.
Next time, please watch the movie first before assuming that I am wrong.