Critics rating: 1.5 Stars

Cast:  Mithun Chakraborty, Ayushmann Khurrana, Pallavi Sharda.

Direction: Vibhu Virender Puri.

Produced: Vishal Gurnani, Rajesh Banga, Reliance Entertainment

Written: Vibhu Puri, Saurabh Bhave

Genre:Biographical film, Drama

Duration: 157 Mins

Rang Rasiya, a fictionalised biopic on Raja Ravi Verma, which released two months ago was a mess of glorious colours on canvas. Hawaizaada, which is another fabricated retelling of a visionary’s life, comes crashing to the ground after a weak, sputtering start.
The Bombay Presidency, 1895. Shivkar ‘Shivi’ Talpade (Ayushmann Khurrana) is a fourth-grade flunking (eight times), nautch girl chasing, alcohol-guzzling, trumpeting chap with eccentric inventor Shastryjias one of his only friends. Not the greatest origin story for a historical figure with hazy antecedents, but let us wing it (a pun was inevitable).

While Shivi spends most of his time in the first half in a desi Moulin Rouge setting where showgirl Sitara (Pallavi Sharda) enchants an entire audience, Shastryji is consulting the shastrasto make his contraption fly. It almost seems like the aged inventor should have been the focus of the film. He clearly seems to be doing all the hard work, atop an abandoned ship strewn with pigeons and cages. It is he who snaps the slacker protagonist out of his reverie and goads him into doing something productive.

Unfortunately, the limelight keeps its unwavering focus on Shivi, who sings a lot of tuneless songs, goofs off on the streets of Bombay instead of doing what the film purports him to do: invent the plane. Most of the first half has him doing tasks like stealing an Englishman’s tooth and evening out two cups of tea with coins to impress his lady love.

 

Then, the love story develops a conflict, which has the hero drinking again. A passing cop tells him it is against the law to do so. “Kya hai kanoon todnekisazaa?” asks the hero.

“6 mahine.”

“Aurdiltodneki?”

And ‘BAM’! You are back inside a tedious song sequence, with no respite in sight. Meanwhile, Shastryji is still inventing the plane. Whose story is this anyway? Eventually he is nudged out of the plot, giving Shivi the entire second half to raise money by doing odd jobs comically (thoroughly misplaced humour) so that he can build a plane.For instance, when Shivi tries to open a hair salon, he names it Hair Force Saloon. His roadside, boot-polishing venture is called Solar Tip Shoes.

Shiviis assisted by his nephew Naro (Naman Jain), who is probably the most likeable character in the story. Everything else from the courtroom drama to the ‘hows’ of getting something heavier than air to soar is a blur, unworthy of an explanation.
The sets are gorgeous and while the intention was to infuse a sense of magical realism, an earthy texture would have been more suited for the story. Hawaizaada may work beautifully in the art department as if it was Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s sensibilities on steroids, but falls short on the story-telling front.

 

There are no logical segues between scenes, one song too many and an unabashed silliness which does the film no favours. Sample a scene where an ingratiating Indian cop says to an English officer, “You are looking like Sherlock Holmes.” The famous detective had only been published in 1887. Would he really have been a pop-cultural reference in India in 1895? Also, why are most Indian men (if not all) dressed in Western attire?

Shastryji’s background is not clearly established in the film. Is he the famed Anekal Subbaraya Shastry who, according to some reports, mentored Shivkar Bapuji Talpade in building his own aircraft? If so, why has he been aged so drastically in the film when he was two years younger than his pupil? He passed away in 1940, a timeline the film takes liberty with.Also, why has due credit not being given to the Vaimanika Shastra, which is the ancient Sanskrit on aerospace technology and also our protagonist’s source of inspiration? Does fictionalising a story need such massive omissions?

Hawaizaada may be a flight of fantasy but has a rapid descent. It could have made for wonderfully manipulative, tear-jerking, inspiring cinema but is instead a cinematic outing one can steer clear of.