Bonding with Munnabhai

There are more similarities between these characters than would be obvious at first glance

Wonder what has happened to our good old Munnabhai in the age of Bond? Suddenly, all debate on whether Gandhigiri is here to stay seems to have ceased. Instead, every cup of coffee is laced with a discussion of how Daniel Craig managed to dethrone Pierce Brosnan from his coveted throne of Bond, James Bond.

Needless to say, Craig seems to have hit the right spot with the multiplex-visiting chatterati. The new understated, slick image of Bond has made Ian Fleming8217;s hero more real or rather more 21st-century. A generation that is no longer dazzled by the mere presence of sophisticated gadgets is awed by the subtle, yet significant, tech-touch of the film.

But whatever has happened to our Munnabhai and the big question of whether Gandhism 8212; oops, Gandhigiri 8212; would live? Has the generation, which was in absolute love with the new-age burly-looking goonda-turned-Gandhi, sold itself to the new made-to-order James Bond? If one month we were driven by our love for Gandhgiri, the next month we seem to be wooed by the colour of blood. So are we still the 8216;directionless generation8217;? Or is it that Bond and Munnabhai are two sides of the same coin and feed our overriding need for heroes and fairy tales?

While the first alternative may raise numerous voices of dissent, including that of this writer8217;s, the second needs some examination before being accepted. Can they be compared and should they be compared? Is Munnabhai anything like Secret Agent 007 because if one talks of non-violence and jadu ki jhappi in his films, the other cannot be dissociated from violence?

Remember, Bond is 8216;licensed to kill8217;.

Then where does the talk of them being similar arise? There are spaces and there are patterns that seem to bind the two. If Bond8217;s violence is for a larger cause, Munnabhai8217;s non-violence is also directed at fighting a 8216;social enemy8217;. Moreover, it is not quite Gandhigiri through and through. The film8217;s appeal lies as much in his little acts of violence holding an errant son upside down from roof of a multi-storey building, for one. So is it rather the 8216;good at heart bad man8217; who has captured the fancy of the audience in an age where the line between good and bad has blurred?

Then again, take the women in the two films. If in Casino Royale, the intelligent, religious and European Eva Green brings out the soft side of the cold-hearted Bond, Vidya Balan as a radio jockey does something similar to Munna. If Munna hits and hurts, it is to meet this girl and, finally, if he takes to Gandhigiri, it is also because of her.

Well, two perfect formulae to churn out pop flicks that would win hearts. At the end of it all, we affirm our faith in a 8216;true hero8217; who can do it all and an ending where we go back satisfied that love does make the world go round.