A new Friday and another film playing with politics... but the thing has become so obvious that it is not surprising anymore. But 'Swatantryaveer Savarkar' surprises in this matter that the film is looser than what was expected from a 'powerful actor' Randeep Hooda as a director without any reason. 

However, there is no doubt that actor Randeep Hooda once again leaves his mark. Especially in the first half of the film. But after the second half of 'Savarkar' starts, it gets so involved in focusing on unnecessary things that you feel the runtime of the film, every minute of the 3 hours, passing very slowly.

What has 'Savarkar' brought to the screen?
'Swatantryaveer Savarkar' starts showing the life of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from the very beginning. In the first half, the film focuses on the revolutionary, who remained a thorn in the eyes of the British government from India to London. 

Randeep Hooda in 'Savarkar' (Credits: Social Media)

Leaving his wife and child in her lap, going abroad and keeping their concerns aside, and continuously launching a campaign of armed revolution against the British rule, there is an angle in the story of 'Savarkar' that is explored properly in the film. Had he gone, he could have been very emotional. But the film does not allow any kind of humanity to be seen from the lead character of Savarkar. 

The journey of a boy becoming a hero from a student seems to be missing in the screenplay. 'Savarkar' avoids showing the humanity of the lead character so much that even the death of Savarkar's child is allowed to happen hurriedly. In this emotional situation, the contrast of passion for the country only increases the stature of the hero of the film. 

The way Savarkar, who is facing the punishment of Kalapani, has been shown, the viewer instead of feeling sympathy with the hero of the film, feels anger towards the English officers and the Indian warden of the jail. And yes, in the language of filmmaking, sympathy for the hero and anger for the villain are two different things. In most of the stories, the only way for the villain is to get the audience angry. But in biopic genre films, making the hero feel sympathy is a very important part. 

Randeep Hooda in 'Savarkar' (Credits: Social Media)

The meeting of Savarkar and Mahatma Gandhi in London is also seen in the film. But in this scene, the film shows the conversation between the two in such a way that you start seeing negative shades in Gandhi's character. Even in the subsequent 4-5 scenes, wherever Gandhi's character is seen in the frame, it has been used only to increase the weight of Savarkar's words. 

But if you relate from this angle too, then the story of 'Savarkar' takes a turn towards the end. Here the character of Nathuram Godse is also seen, who seems to be angry with Gandhi at the level of his ideas. But Savarkar seems to be trying to stop him. There is also a deliberate hint towards the end that Savarkar questions the intentions of the then Congress Party after Gandhi's assassination. Ultimately, by the end of the film, Savarkar's character is reduced to just a frustrated man.  

The steering of the biopic is in the hands of politics.
This film, which set out to tell the story of an 'unsung' freedom hero in today's times, instead of telling an unknown story, starts focusing on portraying its hero Vinayak Damodar Savarkar as more 'heroic' than the others. Is. 

Rajesh Kheda in 'Savarkar' (Credit: Social Media)

In the film, Savarkar is seen giving the idea of ​​forming Azad Hind Fauj to Subhash Chandra Bose, teaching and embracing Bhagat Singh. His thoughts seem to ignite the flame of revolution in the characters of many historical martyrs including Khudiram Bose. These are all the things that were accused of being factually wrong even after the trailer of 'Savarkar' came out. And even today there is a lot of debate going on about all these things. 

While looking at biopic films, a fair allowance should be given to them because they try to show events and persons from the perspective of their protagonist. In such films, there is always a chance that as per the perspective of the protagonist, someone is recorded as a hero with solid facts in history comes and you start considering him as negative in the film. But with things clearly recorded in history, this liberty is less to show people who have achieved the status of heroes as villains. As soon as this happens, questions directly arise about the intentions of the filmmaker. 'Savarkar' proves to be a weak film in this matter. 


Randeep Hooda in the role of Vinayak 
Damodar Savarkar is the backbone of the film. His strong acting many times saves the scenes of the film which are actually dull. But the problem of story-telling weakens the strength of his character. As tremendous as Hooda's transformation is, if the direction had been as strong, Randeep's own character would have become iconic. 

The character of Vinayak's brother Ganesh Savarkar, who is really little known in the story, succeeds in garnering your sympathy in the film. Amit Sial has played this character very convincingly. Ankita Lokhande's efforts are visible, but there is nothing special to do with her character. The character of Mahatma Gandhi played by Rajesh Kheda is probably the weakest character of the 'Father of the Nation' of India. 


Overall, 'Savarkar', which sets out to tell the story of a hero who is being 'lost' in history, lags behind in presenting him on screen with full justice. As much as this 3-hour-long film seems boring due to the extremely slow pace of the second half, it is not in line with today's trend of 'political films'. However, if you have an iron heart and have set aside the politics of the films just to see the events of that period on the big screen, then perhaps the film can console you to some extent. But 'to some extent' is the keyword here!