The nation is prominently featured in biopics, particularly those centred on sports stars. Another important theme is family. They explicitly propose cultural citizenship based on aspirational models and attitudes.
Follow Us
In the last year or so, there has been a revival of biographical films in India. Biopics about athletes have included Kapil Dev in 83 (2022), Pravin Tambe in Kaun Pravin Tambe ( 2022) Mithali Raj in Shabhash Muthu (2022). Before the pandemic, we had films made on Milkha Singh in Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013), M. S. Dhoni in M. S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (2015) and Mohammad Azharuddin in Azhar (2016). The nation is prominently featured in biopics, particularly those centred on sports stars. Another important theme is family. They explicitly propose cultural citizenship based on aspirational models and attitudes. They also represent a complex, layered aesthetic that blends artifice and artefact. This article specifically looks at film 83 in these two contexts. The article also looks at certain myths that the film presents as truth.
The generic plot of “national identity” has been seen as driving “life picturing”. This is especially true in India’s sports biopics, in which the lives of its sporting heroes—Tendulkar, Dhoni, and Azhar—are cast as national lives, their work (and play) as embodying the nation’s interests. The biopics concentrate on the impact created when the on-screen cricketer scores or is out: the nation mourns or rejoices accordingly. In 83 this is exactly what happens when the team is playing the final against the West Indies at Lords. In 83, there is no one central figure, yes Kapil Dev is the captain, but the team embodies the “nation”.
Read more: All you need to know about the ICC Under-19 Women’s T20 World Cup
There is a scene in the film when a Muslim family wants to watch the game even though a riot is simultaneously taking place outside their home. India is playing England in the semi-final of the world cup, and suddenly there is peace among communities and even the police are seen celebrating the win with the local people. Watching a movie in a theatre and participating in the protagonists’ trials, tribulations, and triumphs is a symbol of democracy’s constituency.
When an Indian batter bats, the people in the stadium, at home, and on the streets watching TV through shop windows represent the diverse demos of India’s democracy, brought together, as the biopics highlight, by the talent of one team. In fact, one scene in the film even shows the Prime Minister of the country instructing that the World Cup match of India must be seen in every household of Nawabpur. Not only this the film even shows how tensions on the India-Pakistan border ease out when India is playing.
While the biopic emphasises the individual’s life as a national symbol in most cases, it also retains a traditional Bollywood film trope: the family. The family lives of Dhoni, Azhar, and Kapil are central to the plot throughout the films. The protagonist’s family’s support, as well as the family’s stresses and sacrifices, are emphasised differently in each of the texts.
83 opening scene starts with Ranveer Singh ( Kapil Dev) talking to his mother (Neena Gupta) who says “cup jit ke aana” ( Return with the trophy). We don’t see much of Kapil’s mother after this particular scene. But throughout the film, in various instances, the family of one or the other player is brought in. The most significant is the arrival of Dev’s wife (played by Deepika Padukone) before a crucial do-or-die game. Mohinder Amarnath’s father (played by himself) is shown in various instances in the movie where he always seems to act like that strict father who wants his ‘son’ to do well.
To top it all in one scene, Balwinder Sandhu’s ( played by Ammy Virk) marriage is called off and the captain is seen consoling him and reminding him about his duty as an Indian cricketer. In addition, the biopic makes an intriguing dramatic shift. The emphasis on the sporting hero’s immediate family members, who are alternately worried, anxious, and thrilled, ideologically positions the family as the holding place for the hero’s aspirations, success, and even failures. The case in point is the final between India and the West Indies when Dev’s wife and Madan Lal’s wife ( Played by Wamiqa Gabbi) leave the stadium after they feel India might lose the match. The scene shifts to them again as they try to get back into the stadium when India starts making a comeback into the game.
Throughout the biopic, the camera pans across the stadium crowd and the country, capturing the fear, anxiety, and excitement on the faces of large crowds of people. The set of mechanics who make excuses to go out and watch India play is a classic representation of that. They ride in their car to reach the stadium and try to find out any space they can find to watch the game. The film, therefore subliminally signals the nation as family, united in grief (when India faces certain elimination) or triumph (when India wins the World Cup) by depicting the same emotions across the faces of millions of strangers, who are as effectively connected to the sporting hero.
The film presents a rumour as gospel truth. The team manager PR Man Singh who acts as a kind of guardian of the team throughout the movie is at the centre of this incident. The movie shows PR Man Singh sending a letter to journalist David Frith and prompting him to literally eat his words after India’s victory in the world cup.
Although Frith literally ate his words after India won the world cup, it wasn’t because of a letter sent by team India’s manager it was due to a letter sent by Pan Singh Panwar, an Indian cricket fan who used to live in the United States. Frith had serious doubts about India’s chances in the WC and he had expressed his thoughts very bluntly back in the day. He wrote, “If their pride is not important enough to spur them to wholehearted effort this time, they might as well give way to other would-be participants in 1987.”
Pan Singh Panwar, an ardent fan of the Indian cricket team, did not like the sound of the piece and sent his letter to the UK. Panwar in his letter wrote, “Mr Frith does not seem to take into consideration that this one-day cricket, an English invention, took time to take root in India. I saw this year’s semi-final against England and what a demolishing England got from India, the same team he wants to withdraw from the tourney. I will give him a sporting chance to eat his words now that the team he wrote off has won the World Cup.”
Wisden published a picture of Frith eating his words in their magazine shortly thereafter. Now, one of the many reasons this incident is associated with PR Man Singh is that he himself on various occasions has claimed to have sent the letter. One such instance was during this episode of 22 Yarns with Gaurav Kapur in February 2021 (around 46-47th minute). In the film, PR Man Singh again talks about the incident and claims that he was the one who sent the letter.
In 2013 reputed cricket website ESPN Cricinfo carried an article by professor Samir Chopra and they too like many others in the past attributed the letter to the Indian team manager. Pan Singh Panwar wrote to the author of the article and asked him to apologise for his lack of research. In his letter, Panwar wrote:
“Dear Samir,
I am really shocked that you, who claims to be a Professor at a leading college, would publish something without first doing a little research on the matter. I refer to your article stating that someone called PR Man Singh wrote that letter to David Frith asking him to eat his words. What rot. That letter was written by me. In my office in New York, once I composed it, all my colleagues liked it. I sent it off by post, there was no email those days. I also sent him the cutting from my edition of the Wisden. Once it was published we all had a big party. Where the heck do you get off giving credit to someone else? Are you not as a Professor, expected to research your articles to ascertain the truth, before going half-assed about it.“
(The full letter can be read here)
Cricinfo soon corrected the article. Now one reason I see why this particular incident was attributed to team India’s manager in the film even though there is enough evidence to suggest otherwise is to take the trope of ‘family’, as discussed earlier, a notch higher.
Credits for the piece: This is not a work of my own completely. I have referred to ‘Biopics: The Year in India Pramod K. Nayar Biography, Volume 40, Number 4, Fall 2017, pp. 604-610 (Article)’ for the crux of my piece. The credit also goes to a Cricinfo as I could retrieve the letter from there. I’d also like to credit 22 Yarns with Gaurav Kapoor without which I could not have made my point.
