The online feud between veteran actor Anupam Kher and filmmaker Hansal Mehta over The Accidental Prime Minister took an intriguing turn, offering a glimpse into the complexities of creative collaboration and the professional tensions that arise when personal perspectives on a film evolve over time. What started as a disagreement over a critical tweet by journalist Vir Sanghvi blossomed into a back-and-forth exchange that exposed the delicate nature of artistic ownership and professional relationships in the film industry.
Vir Sanghvi's tweet, which sparked the controversy, criticized The Accidental Prime Minister for its portrayal of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Sanghvi argued that the film misrepresented Singh’s tenure and, in doing so, tarnished the reputation of a respected figure in Indian politics. He described the film as "one of the worst Hindi movies ever made" and an example of how the media was used to undermine Singh's name. Sanghvi's comments resonated with many who were critical of the film's tone and the way it addressed the political landscape, especially given the sensitive subject matter.
Hansal Mehta, a respected filmmaker known for his thought-provoking films like Shahid and Aligarh, expressed his agreement with Sanghvi’s critique, which led to Kher’s sharp response. Kher, who had played Dr. Manmohan Singh in the film, took issue not only with Sanghvi’s criticism but also with Mehta’s endorsement of the opinion, given that Mehta had played a significant role in the film as the creative director. Kher was vocal about his belief that Mehta should own up to his involvement in the film rather than publicly distancing himself from it, especially considering that he had actively contributed to the film's creative process.
In his response, Kher posted on Twitter, addressing Mehta directly, calling him a "hypocrite" for supporting Sanghvi's view despite his own contributions to the film. Kher was blunt in his criticism, accusing Mehta of trying to gain favor with certain sections of the public while not owning up to his work on The Accidental Prime Minister. Kher pointed out that Mehta had been present throughout the shooting, offering creative inputs, and presumably receiving compensation for his role in the project. He questioned Mehta's sudden shift in stance, suggesting that the director was now attempting to appeal to those critical of the film, at the expense of his own integrity.
Kher further stated that while he did not agree with Sanghvi’s assessment of the film, he believed that all artists, including Mehta, should stand by their work, whether it was universally praised or not. "We are all capable of doing bad or indifferent work. But we should OWN it," Kher emphasized in his tweet, imploring Mehta to be more responsible and transparent. Kher's frustration was palpable as he criticized Mehta’s actions as "double standards," implying that Mehta was behaving as if the film were a mistake he had no part in creating.
Hansal Mehta, however, took a more composed approach in his response. While he acknowledged Kher’s criticism, he remained firm in his position, offering a measured defense of his own stance. Mehta explained that he had "done his job as professionally as he was allowed to," but also admitted that he could now recognize the film as an "error of judgment." He expressed regret over his involvement but insisted that acknowledging his past work did not mean he had to continue defending the film. “I own my mistakes,” Mehta wrote, before elaborating that his decision to support Sanghvi’s critique of the film was based on his evolving understanding of the film’s impact, which he was entitled to have as time passed.
Mehta took a diplomatic approach by calling for reconciliation, apologizing if his actions had unintentionally hurt Kher, and extending a peace offering for a future conversation. "I will not give space to trolls to distort this further and have a field day at our expense," Mehta wrote, signaling that he was more interested in diffusing the situation than escalating it. His message included well-wishes for Kher and a nod to the holiday season, underlining his desire to keep the personal exchange respectful, despite the online tension.
This exchange between Kher and Mehta is more than just an argument over a single film; it delves into the broader dynamics of the film industry and the complexities of creative collaborations. The Accidental Prime Minister, which depicted the political and personal challenges faced by Dr. Manmohan Singh during his tenure as India’s Prime Minister, was a film that courted controversy from the outset. Its depiction of political figures, particularly members of the Gandhi family, sparked intense debate, with supporters of the film defending it as a truthful representation of events, while critics dismissed it as biased political propaganda.
The film’s portrayal of Dr. Singh, a man who was often seen as the face of India’s economic reforms but whose leadership was questioned by many, is central to the story. Anupam Kher’s portrayal of the former Prime Minister was met with a mix of praise and criticism. For Kher, the role was a significant challenge, as he took on the task of embodying a figure who had been at the center of Indian politics for over a decade. His performance received recognition from some quarters for its authenticity, though others felt that the film’s tone was too one-sided in its portrayal of the political environment.
The film’s legacy has remained a topic of discussion, with many viewing it as a controversial yet necessary part of the ongoing conversation about media, politics, and public perception in India. For Kher and Mehta, the disagreement over The Accidental Prime Minister underscores the personal and professional challenges that arise when a piece of creative work becomes the focal point of political discourse. It also highlights the complexity of owning one’s artistic decisions, particularly when those decisions intersect with broader cultural and political narratives.
Ultimately, the feud between Kher and Mehta speaks to a larger issue that often arises in the world of filmmaking: the balance between creative expression and personal responsibility. As both professionals continue to work in the industry, their exchange will likely be remembered as a pivotal moment in understanding how filmmakers and actors navigate the complicated terrain of public perception, artistic integrity, and political commentary. Whether or not the two will reconcile remains to be seen, but for now, their words have added fuel to the ongoing conversation about the boundaries of creativity in politically charged cinema.
