The Archies: Why this nepo-kid fest will disappoint vintage Archie Comics lovers

Zoya Akhtar's The Archies will fail to connect with those who have grown up with Archies comics and really everyone in general.

Growing up, for privileged kids of certain vintages (from the 80s and 90s), Archie Comics was our window into semi-urban Americana. The idyllic town of Riverdale was a raceless utopia where the biggest issues were Reggie’s pranks, Archie’s Hobbesian choice between Betty or Veronica (in days when polyamory was frowned upon more), or the fiscal size of Jughead’s pocket money that could never keep up with the size of his stomach. It was a coming-of-age tale where no one ever came of age.

Suhana Khan and Agastya Nanda in The Archies.

For me, Archie Comics was synonymous with end-of-term celebrations. Whenever I returned home from boarding school, the first thing I’d do was go to have lunch at Kwality in Park Street in Kolkata. But, before the lunch trip, Baba would buy me a couple of Archie comics from the book stalls outside, which I’d read while eating a lunch that would usually end with a chocolate sundae, which while not up to my imaginary standards set by Pop Tates, was quite up to the mark.

In fact, Archie Comics would also be a bribery ticket whenever I went back to school as well, perhaps a symbol of the guilt of having shipped off one’s progeny to boarding school.

Maybe, that’s why The Archies on Netflix feels like such a disappointment because it could never live up to the memories many of us had created in our heads.

I was still optimistic because it was a Zoya Akhtar film, and she seldom goes wrong. And before I begin my critique, let me be clear, I’ve no issues with nepotism in any industry that’s run by private finances. Audiences are perfectly entitled to make their own choices. RRR, the most successful Indian cinema globally, is a product of the so-called nepotistic Telugu film industry, where almost everyone is related to someone famous.

As I’ve argued before, in a piece on HT: “…folks who tend to whine about nepotism would like to believe that they were found floating in a river like Karna or Moses. That they grew up in ancient Sparta, where they had to survive in the wild like Leonidas. That they are creatures who have “merit” running through their veins and everything they have achieved in life is by dint of their “hard work”.”

Of course, it's a little sad that the progenies of Shah Rukh Khan, Amitabh Bachchan, and Sridevi, don’t even get a proper launch pad.

Back in the good ol’ days kids from film dynasties used to get their own movie by Karan Johar or big studios, but now they are being launched en masse on a Netflix movie for an audience that definitely wouldn’t pay to watch it in theatres.

Economists often talk about K-shaped growth, where the rich get richer and the poor poorer, but launching three star kids of such vintages on OTT perhaps show that even the well-off don't have luxury to blow money on a vanity project. Perhaps this was what nepotism's former bête noire Anurag Kashyap was talking about when he said people didn't have money to watch movies because they are being forced to pay GST on paneer.

Irrespective of the circumstances of the births of those involved in a film, it should be judged simply on merit. And merit is conspicuous by its absence in this particular film. As far as thespian skills are concerned, the best “nepo kid” on display is Jamie Alter, the son of beloved actor Tom Alter. For the rest of them, we hope they take a leaf out of Abhishek Bachchan’s career who had a bad debut but became a decent thespian with time.

I’ve not seen such stilted delivery since Tushar Kapoor (who found his mettle by not having any dialogues). It almost feels like the budget earmarked for film school was spent on marketing and PR.

The Archies introduces seven young actors.

There’s also something inherently wrong when a movie can’t appeal to an audience that grew up with Archie Comics.

And to boot, anyone with a modicum of common sense will find it hilarious that a Netflix show launching super-privileged industry scions comes with such a strong anti-capitalist message that it feels like an extension of the Aarey protest.

Also, what will cause some consternation for fans of the comics is the fact that they get the basic ethos of each character wrong. Archie is supposed to be a bumbling boy next door. Reggie Mantle is supposed to be a lot meaner and sarcastic. Also missing is Jughead’s nonchalance and Veronica’s arrogance. Moose, who is supposed to be a handsome-albeit-slow jock, comes across as a dunce. Midge’s personality doesn’t come through at all, and the only one who’s close to her comic book counterpart is Betty Cooper.

But perhaps, the real reason this author – or many of his vintage – didn’t enjoy this particular movie was because it didn’t match up to the Archies we had in our head.

In one of the pivotal moments in Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Harry Potter, when stuck in limbo between life and death, asks a spectre-like Dumbledore whether what was happening was real or if it was happening in his head. To this, the sagacious Dumbledore replies: “Of course, it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

The Archies on Netflix were just so different from the Archies that we had in our heads that it became very hard for fans like me to reconcile what we saw on screen with what we had grown up with. Because at the end of the day, what’s inside our heads is much more real than what we see. Just ask any political analyst who covers elections.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author’s own.