'OMG 2' Review: Pankaj, Akshay Film Well-Intentioned, But With Little Nuance

Rating: 3/5 Quints

OMG 1 was a biting satire that aimed to criticise the ways charlatans exploit the common man under the guise of religion. One man's fight in court against an 'act of God' and God themself further called out the commercialisation of religion. 

Today, the world is different. I entered the theatre to watch OMG 2 with some skepticism. But the film didn't disappoint in the way I expected it to. This time around, the film takes a step into newer, if parallel, territory. 

Why don't all schools across India teach proper sex education? This is the question the devout Shiva bhakt Kanti Sharan Mudgal asks the Court in his latest case. 

This is prompted by his son's rustication from school after he commits, what is deemed by those around him to be, a "vulgar act". 

A society raised on skewed ideas of sex and pleasure pushes men to have unrealistic expectations from their own bodies as well. Within that context, Kanti's son is bullied in school for 'not being big enough'.

With inadequate sex education and only non-scientific sources at his disposal, he lands up in the hospital; he is embarrassed and can't look anyone in the eye. 

Kanti believes that his court cast against the school and fake doctors and peddlers will help his son regain his confidence. In this attempt, the film takes a dive into the dangers of considering the subject of sex a taboo. 

For a premise and for the first half of a film, this is promising. But the film soon devolved into convoluted arguments. In a film about sex education, nobody at any point discusses the fact that the young boy was recorded in a washroom without his consent. 

The exploration of consent, a cornerstone of comprehensive sex education, could've been a lot more complex in the film. 

It's worthy of praise that the film doesn't shy away from speaking bluntly about sex – words like yoni, ling, and vagina are spoken out loud. This in itself is quite a lot of progress for the big screen. 

It also helps that Kanti's character is played by a wonderful Pankaj Tripathi. He fits his character to a T; the 'shuddh' Hindi expected from the character is melodic in Tripathi's hands.  

Every time Kanti hits a roadblock or his faith in his own argument falters, there's Shiva's messenger at his side, guiding him. This messenger is played by Akshay Kumar who is back in his full comic form. 

Kumar has a knack for mixing comic body language with the charisma of a celebrity and that's exactly what he does here. 

A cow, meant to symbolise Nandi, often follows this progressive Shiv doot and it's an endearing touch. 

The film does effectively address the topic of sexual assault. If parents practiced open communication within their own homes, children would have a safe space. If sex education and consent were taught in schools, we'd have better conversations about sexual misconduct and abuse.  

Arguably, sex education is not the solution to patriarchy and misogyny (considering both play a huge role in the prevalence of sexual crimes) but the film doesn't present this argument. 

But it's still refreshing to see a film talk about sexual abuse through the lens of misogyny instead of victim blaming and whataboutery. 

Kanti uses religious texts to prove that the concept of Kama has existed for centuries. So why then do we suddenly view sexual desire as an unspeakable evil? 

It's an interesting arc to take but the film leaves nuance at the altar. 

In court, Kanti faces Kamini Maheshwari (Yami Gautam), a female lawyer who has a personal stake in the matter. She is seemingly a force in the courtroom but never once actually properly questions anyone but anything. 

The film's understanding of sex itself is also reductionist. The idea that sex exists so the "world can carry on" and women can have kids is repeated way too frequently. 

In a film that started off to combat the taboo around masturbation, one would assume they would place pleasure over procreation in the study of sex. 

This, I guess, is the danger of placing your arguments in favour of sex education purely in a pre-colonial context. 

To add to that, the pacing seems inconsistent in places. Some of the 'gotcha' moments seem preachy. The writing focus so much on making one point after the other that we never actually get to see why the young boy's family (other than Kanti himself) had their change of heart. 

Conversely, OMG 2 does well to argue that the act of sex and sexual desire is not a "foreign concept". It doesn't argue that India needs to catch up on sex education because the West is doing it; it posits that the notion of kama is not strange to the country at all. 

All we need is a safer space for people to explore their sexualities without the danger of shame and violence. 

Reviewing this film is confusing mostly because its intentions are so firmly in the right place. Further, the film is funny. The writers have found the right places to elicit laughs and it always works. 

There is humour in the way the courtroom drama plays out, especially in the way Gautam and the judge (Pavan Malhotra) interact with Tripathi's Kanti. 

Both actors play their roles well. And so does an impeccable Geeta Sharma as Kanti Sharan's wife who bursts into tears often and yet manages to hold her own during a court questioning. Her laughter is almost infectious. 

OMG 2 ends up being a well-intentioned film that could've used more research.