'Penalty' On Netflix Couldn't Score A Goal.

Cast- Lukram Smil, Shashank Arora, Kay Kay Menon, Manjot Singh Director- Shubham Singh

Off with a shaky camera, blurry scenes and frequent cuts, the establishing scene isn’t strong enough to give a kickstart to the movie or the story. A boy is on a journey, from the hills of North East India to the scouring heat of Lucknow—a journey of football, a story to fulfill the dream of making-it-big.

Lukram (Lukram Smil) hailing from Manipur is the tokenistic representation of the North East, coming to a university best known for its football legacy. How can a university best-known-for-football have only one northeastern player—a place known for the sport’s enthusiasm? Early on into the film the divide between the insider and outsider is evident. On one hand, Lukram represents the institutional representation of racism, the absolute neglect faced by our northeastern brothers, on the other hand, perhaps, mistakenly, the writers of the film place the only-other-northeastern boy, Bijou as the representation of the social rejection, lost-trust, forced to the sidelines. The two characters represent the inbuilt authoritarian rejection as well as the societal. Along the supporting characters, there is a quintessential happy-go-lucky sardar, Ishwar (the never aging Manjot Singh)—friendly and always joking, he’s got his timing straight and Manjot Singh doesn’t feel outside his own self; Vikram Singh (Kay Kay Menon) is a high-spirited coach—whose introductory scene resembles the iconic ‘for India’ scene from ‘Chak de India’ but his words sting fear instead of motivation. There are a couple of seniors, mistreating the unusual looking-northeastern guy, and no one dare question them in their discriminatory act. Here, we see a glimpse of the harsh slurs directed towards the apparent outsiders. The head coach, Baljeet, certainly not a sportsman and definitely a callous addition to the crew. Where is the discipline that makes the SRMU football team the best?

The film not only brings about a tokenistic rejection but also a tokenistic appreciation. The junior coach Parth (Shashank Arora) sees a spark in Lukram which the viewers couldn’t. Did I miss a scene or few? Why is Parth training him alone in the morning? Further, why did Vikram Singh, the manager, accept Lukram’s application only to kick him out later? I say this because his racist self didn’t judge him on football skills but his facial features. Were they not visible as he entered into the ground? After the very predicted rejection and the absurd ‘insider-outsider’ speech by Vikram Singh, Lukram runs back home, only to realize his greater goal. After quiet a few long minutes, the first scene makes sense. On his return, he is introduced to the ‘team of misfits’, including beggars, drunks, orphans and other people sidelined by the society… wait, did the writers just equate North East Indians with a few disabled or rejects? On one hand it is nice to see the movie taking an initiative to get this Street Army together but equating societal differences with cultural differences makes the script narrow minded. The Street Army plays, earns respect and is up against the best teams in the Inter State Tournament. The points are proved, quiet steadily Lukram makes his comeback into the SRMU team and here comes the end of the movie with the ‘apparent’ join-the-dots monologue of Vikram Singh. The ending monologue of Vikram Singh—the hidden sorrow has come afloat. He means to say that he wanted to break the ‘eastern monopoly’ to bring about his own state’s players. He treats Lukram the same as his coaches did 30 years back. Perhaps, the filmmakers mean to say that racists breed racists, that revenge is the key to justice, that rejecting fellow countrymen gave Vikram Singh the closure he wanted or perhaps that Vikram Singh has always been the racist he is today, for he couldn’t take in the rejection (from the outsiders) then and consequences are evident. Perhaps Vikram Singh’s motto is life was ‘inko inki jagah dikhani hi padegi’?

Though with the initial scenes, I expected a journey much beyond the university team but the film begun and ended there only. There are a few noteworthy moments, like Lukram’s attempt at learning hindi, and further the romantic endeavor of the film is short and unnecessary, and feels to be artificially inserted into the story line. It also moreover exemplifies the racism or the ‘outsider’ treatment, the urge to fit in by learning to speak hindi or perhaps the societal acceptance only through the common tongue. The protests that exemplify over the scenes, but is not given much heed to. Eventually it dies and the no one notices. The reason why he lets Lukram into the team last minute is because he doesn’t want to breed another Vikram Singh. Does he realize his mistake? Do the filmmakers want to place him not as an evident racist but a victim of injustice?

A question that strikes me and remains unanswered is that why is the movie UP vs North East or the mainland India vs north east India? And yet it backs Vikram Singh’s racist-discriminatory judgments by playing the ‘victim card’—a tit for tat. Wish the film’s major goal was to play for India, along with highlighting the discriminatory treatment of the north east Indians.

The craft of the film is naïve. Every action felt to be staged, every word rehearsed. The tertiary crew felt halfheartedly into the film. The much emphasized ‘18 times champions’ skill set is invisible onscreen. The techniques are of an immature player. The renowned SRMU has not built a stadium to glorify its legacy, absurd. The camera work is not refined but shaky and blurry. There are instances where I feel, more things must be happening beyond the frame of the camera. The primary motion of the camera is pan, and the pan elongates to a circular motion. A lot of circular motion to emphasis on the character in focus—and also losses the technicality of that very camera motion. There are n number of cuts, overlapping shots and repetition of similar shot.

The film does not offer anything not heard or seen before; it is a halfhearted attempt to represent the injustice faced. The story line is predictable, presents the narrow minded, conventional representation of the discriminated Indians. The film is a tokenistic representation of their hardships, discrimination and the ‘outsider treatment’. The filmmakers did not have in the mind to normalize the absurd treatment of fellow Indians but to put it in your face the misrepresentations or misinterpretations through a weak script.

Images from Google