#8: equal parts fluffy and goofy

I sunno-ed the Indian Archies, and now I am sunna-oing.

I am not surprised that Zoya Akhtar decided to make The Archies for several reasons. Nostalgia, after all, is IN; it has been for a while. We have been seeing it reemerge everywhere on Instagram for many years: immersed in fashion shoots that implicitly claim cultural authenticity, seen in mindless South Asian "archival" pictorial accounts, and implied in the constant glorification and romanticisation of a past many of us urban folks never lived.

Nostalgia also played a role in the success of the Barbie marketing campaign. If Greta Gerwig can do it, so can Zoya, right? This now seems to be a rite of passage for women directors who aspire to make mainstream franchise films. The next step in their ambition to be recognised for making films that are commercially successful. Whether making The Archies was a bizarre choice for Zoya or not, it was undeniably ambitious, but wholly predictable. Whether it worked or not is, of course, another story.

I will not deny that I had elevated expectations for The Archies due to my admiration for Zoya's previous work. Despite the film being promoted as a soft launch for nepo kids (a criticism Zoya has dismissed multiple times before the film's release), I still held some hope because of its visual design. Also, I am relieved that a light-hearted film like this one got released around the same time as that godawful Animal as a palate cleanser. Regrettably, the persistent voice in my head, predicting that the film would prioritise style over substance, proved to be correct.

The problem with The Archies lies in its targeting of a generation unfamiliar with the comics, evident in the tireless virtue signalling throughout the film. This rendition introduces Dilton Doiley to us as a gay character – great, but what’s the point if his queerness is only briefly brought up for the sake of political posturing? There was an entire song dedicated to modern-day social media moral grandstanding titled Everything is Politics (yep, it is as corny as it sounds). I don’t want to see a film set in the 60s to be this on the nose politically – capitalism pe critique? Check. Climate change ka ehsaas? Check. Yawn.

Had the film been made two decades ago, it might have resonated more with the South Asian urban upper classes (I mean it’s clearly a burger’s wet dream), as political awareness was less widespread at that time.

In the context of the ongoing nepotism debate (possibly the loudest aspect of this film, and understandably so), the film emerges at a time when the discussion has already reached saturation. Nepotism has evolved, with the current generation of nepo-kids undergoing plastic surgery before their launch and gaining pre-existing fame due to intense scrutiny on social media. These launches mean everything to them, often showcased by their parents online or in shows like Fabulous Lives of Bollywood Wives (What on earth is Shanaya Kapoor's scene – so many of these aspiring film stars are famous merely for being famous). It's not surprising that audiences have grown weary of the artificial efforts put into promoting and launching them.

In terms of their actual acting prowess, all three of them seem green as hell and need polish. We get some acting from Suhana, but she, along with Khushi, looks visibly uncomfortable while dancing (who the hell decided to give them roller skates??). Vedang Raina as Reggie outshines Agastya in every single way. Khushi’s acting was just lazy. I was pulling my hair throughout the annoying, twee Colbie Caillat-ish songs and cursive scribbles that signalled Betty’s thought process. Songs in English are fine, but below average ones aren’t. Instead, Khushi se thori acting hi kara lete. I was cheering for the side characters, who were far better and much more comfortable in their roles, than these three. For instance, Dot exhibited actual facial expressions, instead appearing as a sock puppet, while dancing alongside Suhana and Khushi. Here, I'll give Agastya some credit by acknowledging that he excelled as a dancer more than as an actor (again, not better than Vedang though — Reggie was the actual hero of the film). 

I still don’t think ‘The Archies’ is bad. It is genial at best; tepid at worst (which sucks considering how glossy it is). The colonial hangover evident throughout the film was most visible in the dialogue which, along with the jokes, often fell flat and felt sloppy (kitna va va voom kaho ke bhais). But it does succeed somewhat at being immersive. The worldbuilding was there because of the beautiful set design and choreography, as many problems as I may have with their nuances. The film pays homage to small-town films such as Jo Jeeta Woh Sikandar and Mein Hoon Na; also musicals like Grease and, of course, the infamous Wes Anderson aesthetic. Nevertheless, in the realm of musicals, the songs, with the exception of Sunoh (which is now firmly stuck in my head), were rather forgettable.

Watch Archies for its gloss. The film’s politics is all over the place. It is light entertainment at its best; too much design at its worst.

Notes:

• Why is the film set in North India when it's entirely shot in Ooty, because of which there's obviously no snow in Indian Riverdale?

• I appreciate that the film attempts to provide a backstory and acknowledges Riverdale's colonial past, even if it feels somewhat gratuitous. However, the film borrowed too heavily from British/American pop culture to successfully create a world of its own. 

• I was also personally excited to see an actor I often see in Pakistani dramas: Aly Khan. A pitch-perfect performance as Mr. Lodge!

• Anglo-Indians may be important to the setting of the film, but some of the (really unfunny) humour comes at their expense. The constant correction of Mr. Andrew’s Hindi pissed me off to no end.

  -