Tanda Putera - a fictionalised review

Tanda Putera is a film that is hot on the lips of so many Malaysians. And so, as someone who writes for the Malaysian public, I feel obliged to write a review of it.

A film is a film, whether it is a non-fiction documentary, docudrama or even narrative fiction. And each genre has it's methods and style.

A documentary, being non-fiction, would have to keep to the spirit of truth and honesty. It has to strive to be an exact representation of what really happened.

For a fiction film, as the word fiction would describe it, is something that is created and made up. Hence, truth and reality does not have be a tenet in a fiction film.

For a film like Tanda Putera, the lines are blurry. It is supposed to be based on a true story. But as the director Shuhaimi Baba stated, there were parts that were dramatised and fictionalised.

Fair enough. A film director working on a fictionalised story based on something that really happened reserves the right of creative licensing.

It is, after all, a subjective interpretation by the film director. And when it is a subjective interpretation, then there is no wrong in the film being biased or opinionated.

This happens a lot and is accepted by most audiences. Take for example films like Adman Salleh's Paloh, Aziz M. Osman's Leftenan Adnan, Liew Seng Tat's Flower or even Oliver Stone's JFK.

So, what's the big deal, right? Well, the big deal happens when a society is not mature enough to see how art (no matter how bad or good it is) is just art.

And, if anything, art is something that is suppose to engage an audience, spur them to think and then create an opportunity for them to start a dialogue or discourse.

Of course, it is also okay for the many people to have their opinions. Hey, if the film director can have creative license, then the audience should have creative criticism too, right?

And, boy oh boy, do the people have so much criticism, from the negative right to the positive. Some of the criticism has been so intense that you would think the film was about their lives (hmm?).

The film has only been in the cinema for a week and the box office collection has apparently been quite dismal, according to FINAS. That means not many people have actually seen the film.

Does that mean that a lot of the people talking about the film really haven't seen the film at all and are just blabbering on about something based on nothing?

First of all, this is a film that is irresponsible, bias, racist, factually inaccurate, seditious, disrespectful, poorly written, badly directed, horribly acted out and extremely propaganda-ish.

Secondly, this is a film that is patriotic, factually accurate, portrays what really happened, is a true representation of history, and should be introduced in to our school curriculum.