3 movie review by baradwaj rangan

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

• About Rotten Tomatoes®
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Prime Video
• Most Popular Streaming Movies
• Certified Fresh Movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• 78% Blink Twice Link to Blink Twice
• 96% Strange Darling Link to Strange Darling
• 86% Between the Temples Link to Between the Temples

New TV Tonight

• 93% Chimp Crazy: Season 1
• 100% Pachinko: Season 2
• -- That '90s Show: Season 3
• -- OceanXplorers: Season 1
• -- Classified: Season 1
• -- Reasonable Doubt: Season 2
• -- The Anonymous: Season 1
• -- Face to Face With Scott Peterson: Season 1
• -- Wyatt Earp and the Cowboy War: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 92% Bad Monkey: Season 1
• 100% Dark Winds: Season 2
• 78% Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• 96% Industry: Season 3
• 55% The Umbrella Academy: Season 4
• 86% Average Joe: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• 100% Pachinko: Season 2 Link to Pachinko: Season 2
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

The Crow Movies, Ranked by Tomatometer

The Crow Movies In Order

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

Poll: Vote for Your Most Anticipated TV or Streaming Show of September

Poll: Vote for Your Most Anticipated Movie of September

• Trending on RT
• Verified Hot Movies
• Renewed and Cancelled TV
• Emmy Nominees
• Popular Movies

Baradwaj Rangan

Movies reviews only.

• Entertainment
• Life & Style

To enjoy additional benefits

CONNECT WITH US

I: A terrific performance let down by an uninspired, exhausting movie

A story this pulpy should have been way more exciting..

Updated - January 15, 2015 09:08 am IST

Published - January 14, 2015 05:53 pm IST

A still from the movie I.

Is there another filmmaker as fascinated by the double role as Shankar? (Even the frivolous Jeans is riveted by the sight of twins.) Where others employ this trope as merely a means to magnify the hero — see two stars for the price of one! — or maybe to flesh out the separated-at-birth scenario so popular in the masala format, Shankar uses the device to split open the protagonist’s psyche.

In films like Mudhalvan and Gentleman — where it’s not two roles so much as two faces of the character (journalist/chief minister, mild-mannered entrepreneur by day/vigilante by night) — the second ‘character’ is made to do things the first one cannot, and in Sivaji , the bald-headed persona was essentially the hero assuming another ‘face’ in order to continue where he left off.

This split was carried out to the extreme in Anniyan and Enthiran , where the other roles weren’t just assumed by the protagonist but birthed by him. In the former, which gave the leading man three roles to play, the driving force was schizophrenia, and in the latter, the Evil Twin was ‘invented’ by the Good Twin as a reflection of himself, in his own form. For all its problems, Enthiran marked a departure point in Shankar’s career because, for the first time, the second role wasn’t that of a vigilante or a do-gooder out to clean up society, but a confused, gone-berserk manifestation of the protagonist’s ID. All of which is another way of saying that I had quite a few expectations of I , which arrives four years after Enthiran , after teasing us with trailers featuring a regular-looking Vikram and a hunchbacked avatar.

But I is just more of the same – it’s the old vigilante scenario, except that the villains don’t represent a microcosm of society. This time, it’s purely personal. The evildoers in I mess up the hero’s life and he embarks on revenge. After a point, the film begins to remind us of Aboorva Sagotharargal , where a noxious substance results in the hero’s ‘deformity’, and when he discovers how he came to be this way, he doles out punishment in a variety of inventive ways. (Even the parrot from that film finds an equivalent: a faithful dog.) For a while, I is innocuous fun. We meet Lingesan (Vikram), a gym rat who’s in love with a model (Diya, played by Amy Jackson) he keeps seeing in magazines and on TV and on billboards. As his best friend Velu, Santhanam contributes a few laughs and keeps things light, and Vikram, too, does no heavy lifting outside the gym. He is relaxed, charming, and he draws us to this nobody who wants to be a somebody. In an amusing scene, he participates in a body-building championship and dances to ‘ Azeem-o-shaan shahenshah ’, his ‘choreography’ made up entirely of poses that show off his muscles. There’s more showing off, courtesy the technical departments, in the ‘ Mersalaayiten ’ music video — the song’s pep is complemented by a series of well-imagined, well-staged visual effects.

But once Lingesan meets Diya and gets a makeover, the film turns tedious. Since Anniyan , Shankar has run out of ideas for storylines for the ‘normal guy’ character — we need to wait for the second half in order to get to the real story, with the ‘other guy’ character, and so we bide time with lavishly shot (but very generic-looking) song sequences (music by A. R. Rahman) and a patience-sapping love angle. Shankar’s never been the most sensitive of filmmakers, and there’s never much use in expecting these ‘mass films’ to depict politically correct attitudes (Diya’s suitors reject her because she may not be a virgin) – still, the track with a transgender makeup artist (Ojas M. Rajani) made me squirm. Things become slightly better once the focus shifts to the hunchback, but even these portions come with a strong sense of déjà vu . There’s no urgency, no tension, not one surprising moment in the narrative — even the mastermind-villain’s identity is evident from the minute we set eyes on him.

There’s a hint of subtext in the beauty-and-the-beast premise. I is set largely in the world of advertising, where looks matter, and the biggest suffering one can endure, according to the film, is the loss of these looks. But it’s understandable that these themes aren’t elaborated — no film made on this kind of budget, with gargantuan images from P. C. Sreeram, can afford to traffic in that kind of nuance. What’s surprising though is that even the entertainment aspects are glossed over. There’s a great masala moment that involves undone shoelaces, but elsewhere — in the fights, in the revenge scenarios — there’s a distinct lack of freshness. A story this pulpy should have been way more exciting.

And moving, too. In over three exhausting hours, we get just one human-sized moment, when Lingesan collapses in the gym due to over-exertion and we sense his desperation to win the championship. Everywhere else, I leaves us with the impression of watching a giant machine grinding away. In films like Mudhalvan , Shankar made us feel for his characters. Here, there’s nothing to make us care — nothing, except Vikram’s performance as the hunchback. Despite the pustules on his face, the swollen lower lip, the horrifying emaciation — the makeup and the physical transformation are both top-notch — he does his darnedest to make us care for the character, using his voice, his eyes. But beyond a point he has nothing to do, nothing to play — he’s all dressed up and he has nowhere to go.

A version of this review can be read at >http://baradwajrangan.wordpress.com

Related Topics

Tamil cinema

Top News Today

• Access 10 free stories every month
• Save stories to read later
• Access to comment on every story
• Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
• Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products

Terms & conditions   |   Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.

Animal Movie Review: Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Animal makes a caveman-psychopath its hero and becomes a (mostly) thrilling ode to our inner, animalistic nature

• 02 Dec 2023
• Release Date: 01 Dec 2023

Animal Movie Cast & Crew

Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Animal plays like Subhash Ghai’s version of The Godfather – and I mean this in a mostly good way. (I’ll add that to see the film this way, you have to be – like me – a lover of pulp and excess.) In the trashy Mario Puzo novel and the classy Coppola adaptation that followed, a son becomes a criminal because of an attack on his father. But what if there was a twist! What if the son already had psychopathic, criminal tendencies! What if he was already a… khalnayak ! What if at least some of these criminal tendencies stemmed from the father being distant, which caused an almost pathological longing for daddy-love, which then manifested itself as territorial behaviour! What if the son is essentially telling the world, “If I cannot have a piece of my father, then neither can anyone else, not even the ones who want to kill him”!

I use the word “territorial” deliberately. Ranbir Kapoor – who, as Vijay, gives everything he’s got – is the animal of the title, and he sees his father as his… “territory”. A superbly in-form (and in tune with the overheated material) Anil Kapoor plays the father, Balbir Singh. But apart from a few overheated lines, he is reduced to the weakened Don Corleone from The Godfather: a series of pained, pathetic looks at what his son has become. Sandeep recreates many moments from The Godfather , like a car explosion, or the killing of a brother-in-law, or the long opening set piece set during a (birthday) celebration, or the search for the people who attacked the father. And to this, he adds a gleeful pulp sensibility we never saw in Arjun Reddy . The sensational pre-interval fight combines men in “animal” masks, a Kabir doha , and a cheeky made-in-India reference, thanks to an automatic firing machine that acts like the biggest phallus in this movie that’s essentially about overheated men waving their dicks around.

At times, Animal plays like a dark comedy. Think of the cheerfully vulgar joke about an “animal” in the opening scene, which involves another phallic object: a sword! The anecdote tells us that we are what we are, and our toxic animal nature cannot be civilised or tamed by love or any other such bullshit. There are several laugh-out-loud moments, like the echo of a joke involving pubic hair, or the overhead shot of two fighting men that resembles two children fighting in school,  or the reveal of the Bobby Deol character occurring as Vijay is finally using sign language after saying he does not want to use sign language. (There is a connection.) If you have “good taste”, do not go near this movie ! You may feel like the critic Rex Reed did after watching Brian de Palma’s Scarface : he called it a pointless bloodbath that aimed only to disgust, sicken, and horrify the audience with a rampage of violence, bloodshed, and carnage.

It is true that some of this criticism can be applied to Sandeep’s movie. The rampage of violence does get exhausting after a point. After you’ve been through the pre-interval bloodbath, more blood is hardly going to have the same impact. And the second half does lose steam, because it turns into a more conventional “revenge story”, and the psychological aspects get lost amidst all the bloodletting. But where the writer-director scores is in throwing in so many unconventional things into the mix that you can’t tear your eyes away from the screen. There are any number of ways a mole can enter an organisation, but you will never guess the way this scenario occurs in Animal . This requires some truly outrageous imagination that truly thinks larger than life. This quality is the film’s beating heart. That body double – what an idea! After a point, the Mahabharata peeks in, with a war between blood relations. There is even a grand yagna!

The women – Rashmika Mandanna as Vijay’s wife, Tripti Dimri as a lover – don”t get much to do. In Arjun Reddy , we followed the protagonist’s point of view throughout. So when the woman left his life, we never saw her until he met her again. (There were no cutaway scenes showing what was happening to her in parallel.) But that is not the case here. Animal is not written from that kind of subjective viewpoint. So we want more from Rashmika’s character than just slapping her husband around, which appears like Sandeep answering his Arjun Reddy critics. She does get a solid scene woven around her husband’s infidelity, but it goes on too long and it does not have the desired impact. 

But think about the reference to her child-bearing hips. On the surface, it sounds crass, but that is an evolutionary way of choosing a woman for marriage in the “animal” kingdom. The meaning of the title never leaves the film. It is there in the lines, the behaviours… and even in a brand of underwear. (I told you this was a dark comedy.) The film breaks every storytelling rule. We learn of a killing, and then we learn of the reason behind the killing. This is not intended to create suspense (which is the usual reason), but to create shock, to keep us off-balance. The startling cuts (Sandeep is also the editor) also help. Even rhythm-wise, we are kept off-balance. You could ask if the film really needed so much. What, for instance, if they had edited out the scene with the priest saying Vijay’s days are numbered? But again, you go back to the first scene (in black-and-white) and see that Vijay lives to be 60. Everything is interconnected. There is a clean vision.

If there is a Hindu yagna, there is a Christian priest, we get Sikh relatives, and we also get a Muslim wedding. When the hero is almost down and out in a fight, he recalls his father’s words and that brings him back to life. This is a grand, all-inclusive masala world, but in a post-millennial way. Like in Khalnayak , the man with “villain” qualities is the “hero”, but unlike those earlier movies, the moral lines are blurred. Vijay is so lost in the wars in own head – as his wife tells him – that he doesn’t seem to have an end goal in mind. “Getting his father’s approval” may have been the original end goal, but after a while, he behaves like a pure animal, doing exactly what he wants to do, with none of the boundaries of “civilisation”. When his sister is teased, he lets loose a machine gun in school. He tells his wife he will never cheat on her, and then he does. Not even the sight of a pregnant woman whose water has just broken can soften him, any more than a lion is going to pity an infant gazelle. Prey is prey.

Like Arjun Reddy , Animal appears like a no-holds-barred, uncensored wallow inside the director’s head. Sandeep definitely seems to be putting bits of himself out there. If Arjun Reddy had a derogatory attitude towards a “fat girl”, Vijay’s father here yells that Vijay is “putting on weight like a pig”. Sandeep puts out his id. He puts out moments that other directors may be too embarrassed to show that they even think of, even for fictional purposes – like one where Vijay walks naked, or when he tells his wife not to remarry after his death, or when he tortures her by tugging and releasing her bra strap. The act leaves red marks on her back the way Vijay’s schoolteacher’s caning left a red mark on his palm. I can’t say I liked Animal in its entirety, but amidst so many filmmakers whose work seems either derivative or boring or award-seeking or critical-approval-seeking, this rawness is exhilarating. I think those of us who like these movies may do so because – at least for three hours – they bring out the animal in us that we keep caged at all other times.

Kaathal – The Core Movie Review

• 23 Nov 2023

Sapta Saagaradaache Ello – Side B Movie Review

• 17 Nov 2023
• About The Author
• More From Author

Baradwaj Rangan

National Award-winning film critic Baradwaj Rangan, former deputy editor of The Hindu and senior editor of Film Companion, has carved a niche for himself over the years as a powerful voice in cinema, especially the Tamil film industry, with his reviews of films. While he was pursuing his chemical engineering degree, he was fascinated with the writing and analysis of world cinema by American critics. Baradwaj completed his Master’s degree in Advertising and Public Relations through scholarship. His first review was for the Hindi film Dum, published on January 30, 2003, in the Madras Plus supplement of The Economic Times. He then started critiquing Tamil films in 2014 and did a review on the film Subramaniapuram, while also debuting as a writer in the unreleased rom-com Kadhal 2 Kalyanam. Furthermore, Baradwaj has authored two books - Conversations with Mani Ratnam, 2012, and A Journey Through Indian Cinema, 2014. In 2017, he joined Film Companion South and continued to show his prowess in critiquing for the next five years garnering a wide viewership and a fan following of his own before announcing to be a part of Galatta Media in March 2022.

Tiger 3 Movie Review

• 12 Nov 2023

Japan Movie Review

• 10 Nov 2023

Jigarthanda DoubleX Movie Review

You may also like.

12th Fail Movie Review

• 27 Oct 2023

Dhak Dhak Movie Review

• 13 Oct 2023

Khufiya Movie Review

• 05 Oct 2023

Jaane Jaan Movie Review

• 21 Sep 2023

Related News

Rashmika Mandanna allegedly cheated of Rs 80 lakh by her long-time manager, the actress takes immediate action

• 19 Jun 2023

Ranbir Kapoor's action-packed ANIMAL pre-teaser: From the director of Arjun Reddy,...

• 11 Jun 2023

BLOCKBUSTER COMBO: After Pushpa, Allu Arjun's next big film - hit director on board! Fans...

• 03 Mar 2023

Vijay Deverakonda's Liger world television premiere date - here's the big announcement!

• 06 Jan 2023

'Thalapathy' Vijay's Varisu producers get a show cause notice from Animal Welfare...

• 24 Nov 2022

• Power List 2024
• Cannes 2024
• In-Depth Stories
• Web Stories
• Oscars 2024
• FC Wrap 2023
• Film Festivals
• FC Adda 2023
• Companion Zone
• Best Indian Films Forever List
• FC Front Row
• FC Disruptors
• Mental Health & Wellness

Awe Movie Review

Director: Prasanth Varma

Cast: Regina Cassandra, Kajal Aggarwal, Murli Sharma

Language: Telugu

Late in Prasanth Varma's Awe, a barista named Meera (Regina Cassandra) finds a Rubik's Cube in the basement of a restaurant. She tosses it into a dark corner – but a few seconds later, it's tossed back at her, mysteriously (and fully) solved. That's the movie in a nutshell. Awe is the Rubik's Cube – it's made up of six stories bordering on (and locking into) one another. And Varma is Meera, tossing his movie-puzzle to the audience in the darkened theatre, hoping we can crack it. (Don't worry if you can't. The last few minutes do it for you.) The first story (after a bit of a prologue, featuring Kajal Aggarwal) looks like a romcom: a girl has dinner with her parents so she can tell them about her lover. The tale comes with a twist.

The second story is another genre: call it existential Disney. It involves a man who applies for the job of a chef, and his co-star is a… fish . The cook's name is Nala. The other characters come with equally mythical names: Krishna, Radha, Meera, Raghuram, Vaidehi, Shiva, Parvathi, Kali, Moksha. Varma doesn't shy away from grand conceits, and his grandest conceit – hat tip, the Bhagavad Gita – is in the lines of the song that plays over the opening credits: "The entire universe is hidden in me." It's a clue. Through the first half, the stories seem disconnected and we wonder what's going on. Does the segment with the watchman who's working on a time machine hold the answer? Now, we're in the realm of sci-fi. Is Awe a compilation of alternative narratives in the space-time continuum?

In recent years, a number of non-mainstream Telugu films have been welcomed with awesome praise, and sometimes, those of us who are "outsiders" end up puzzled. Take Pelli Choopulu. It's a perfectly sweet film, but the reviews made me expect something explosive and form-shattering, and all I saw was a really well-made, well-acted romcom. But to insiders, those steeped in mainstream Telugu cinema, these films perhaps become more than films: they're signs of promise, harbingers of change. But even with this caveat in mind, Awe is genuinely subversive. (It would be equally radical in Tamil cinema, though maybe not in Bollywood.) I laughed at the name of the dish the chef is asked to prepare: bourride. It's a Mediterranean fish stew. It's also the director telling us he's not apologetic about not catering to the "masses." Varma's biggest achievement is that he doesn't water down his ideas.

The other stories are a crime thriller spiced with horror, and a surreal fantasy with Murli Sharma playing an egoistic magician (this is the weakest episode). As it turns out, not only are the plots interconnected, the conceits are too. Parents play an important part in both the Shiva-Parvathi and Radha-Krishna episodes, and both stories toy around with notions of gender and sexuality. The scenes are interconnected too. A character says, "All my doors are shut" – the next scene, another character (in another story) knocks on a door. A man orders coffee and asks for sugar – the barista's phone rings right then, and the name that appears is of her boyfriend, "Sugar". This is the screenwriting equivalent of setting out to acquire six-pack abs. The sweat drips off every page.

Awe is something you appreciate more as you reflect on it, after we see how it all comes together in the end. Its afterlife in discussion boards and comments sections is assured.

Not everything works. I'm not sure a medical condition is showcased correctly, and a lot of the scenes appear overcooked. While it's heartening to see the nature vs. nurture debate on homosexuality on film, it's tacked on – a bit of a "message" in a film that's not really a message movie. The director's philosophies (say, the redemption angle, or the chanting of Asatoma sadgamaya …) are evident, yet elusive – you wish, at times, he'd made one film about one of these issues rather than one about six (or more). Or maybe he wanted to get people talking about why an eyeball was found in the tin of coffee beans, or why a lizard turns into a crocodile, or why we needed an eco-lecture out of nowhere (just wait till you see who delivers this lecture), or why the character played by Nithya Menen was behaving so aggressively when a more non-confrontational approach would have been more reasonable. Awe is something you appreciate more as you reflect on it, after we see how it all comes together in the end. Its afterlife in discussion boards and comments sections is assured.

I wish the final portions were less rushed. I wanted to savour the clue-cracking some more. I also wish the styling had been more subdued. The colours pop in your face, and every episode looks unreal. Even if that was the point, the detailing surely needn't have been so fussy. A nose ring is shaped like an Om. A little girl has blue streaks in her hair. The costumes, the production design, the music – all suffer from a serious case of too-much-itis. But that's vastly preferable to too-little-itis. I'd rather watch an ambitious filmmaker put his flaws-and-all vision up on screen than someone playing safe and hiding behind a big star. Awe certainly leaves you thinking – about the film itself, and about what an exciting time it is in Telugu cinema, with so many rebels plotting these little coups against one of the country's most deeply entrenched cinematic empires.

Related Stories

Get the Reddit app

Welcome to world of Bollywood Gossip This is a Community to discuss Bollywood Stars, Rumors, Chinese whispers and everything else related to Bollywood celebs and movies. This Sub is not a Fanclub. It is not for people who want to hear only good things about their favourite BW stars. Beware, no one is spared on this Sub

Baradwaj Rangan leaves Film Companion

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

“Padmaavat”… Lots to like for Bhansali fans, but predictable, and the passions are disappointingly muted

Posted on January 25, 2018

Spoilers ahead…

S anjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmaavat , based on Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s poem, gets going after a depressing series of disclaimers, including one that says this film is not intended to encourage the practice of sati . Given the opening stretch (and our general culture of outrage), I wondered if there shouldn’t be another one. “Not all Muslims dream of toppling kingdoms, and not all of them are compulsive womanisers.” We are in Afghanistan. Raza Murad (an actor who really gets the Bhansali mood, tone and pitch) plays a king who dreams of becoming the Sultan of Delhi, and we meet his nephew, Alauddin Khilji (Ranveer Singh), who asks to marry his daughter, Mehrunnisa (Aditi Rao Hydari). On the eve of the wedding, Mehrunnisa hears that Alauddin was fooling around with another woman, and we get the first Bhansali-ism. “Sensing his lust to own everything,” a voiceover says, “fear struck Mehrunnisa on earth and the moon in the sky.”

Along with the people whose names we see in the credits, Bhansali’s films are populated with an uncredited supporting cast, often drawn from Nature, and functioning as commentary (or commentators), the way they did in our myths. The moon, for one. The sun. Rain. Fire. Night. Clouds. And wind — which gets conflated with Alauddin in a superbly imagined war sequence. It’s not about great action choreography (though the film has that too, especially in a mano-a-mano swordfight near the end). This is about the conceit . Alauddin’s army clashes with the enemy, and instead of the usual spectacle of battling men and falling horses, we see the cloud of dust that rises from the desert sand. Alauddin charges in and comes out with the enemy king’s head on his spear. Later, when he devises a devious plot to capture Ratan Singh (Shahid Kapoor), the ruler of Mewar, there’s another sandstorm. And why not? The man, as played by Ranveer, is a force of nature.

A gentler side of nature leads us to Padmavati (Deepika Padukone, whose stills could be used by Merriam-Webster to define “genetic jackpot”). She is in a forest, aiming an arrow at a deer. The lush, sylvan images hark back to Stree , V Shantaram’s take on the legend of Shakuntala and Dushyant. In these scenes, Padmavati wears bark-coloured clothes, earrings made of flowers. When asked her name, she refers, again, to nature: “ Yahaan ka patta patta hamara naam jaanta hai. Pooch lena .” The question comes from Ratan Singh, who’s been pierced by the arrow meant for the deer, just above the heart. A typically Bhansali-esque, S&M-flavoured scene follows. Padmavati tries to pull the arrow out. Ratan Singh clasps his hands around hers and pulls some more. The arrow slips out and he collapses in her arms. She tends to him in a Bhansali-esque cave, flanked on either side by a Bhansali-esque waterfall and a Bhansali-esque statue of the Buddha. An increasingly smitten Ratan Singh tosses Padmavati a Bhansali-esque bit of alliteration: “ Pehle teer se ghayal kar diya, ab tevar se .” She returns the favour with more Bhansali-esque S&M: when he says his wound has healed and he should leave, she slashes at it with a knife. Now he needs to rest some more.

All of which is to say that people who don’t care for this filmmaker should stay far, far away — but even for fans, Padmaavat is an underwhelming oddity. The flourishes we expect from Bhansali are all there: anklets whose sounds are heard over the sounds of war, the glassy eyes with unshed tears, the long lines rattled off breathlessly, the symbolism, the scene with the chandelier, the lines that speak of “ guroor ”… But unlike Bajirao Mastani , where the narrative and the characters were strong enough to support these touches (Kashibai was fire, Mastani was water, and so on), Padmaavat is so generic that these touches seem to be all that there is. Consider this: There are sparks over opening credits. A cannonball is dipped in oil and lit up before it is launched. Dancers carry flames on pots placed on their heads. A villainous priest even swallows fire, while swearing an oath. All this is a lead-up to the final scene, of course, where Padmavati commits sati/jauhar by jumping into the flames with all the women of the city — but Bhansali forgets to ignite the story, the characters, the relationships.

Bhansali’s best films are driven by ache and longing, by an unrequited love on the part of one of the protagonists. Our emotions are with them, because we are conditioned to root for the protagonist. In Padmaavat , for the first time in the Bhansali oeuvre, the longing belongs to the antagonist . Alauddin hears of Padmavati’s legendary beauty, and he covets her. There are no complications. It’s as archetypal as the Ramayana . The villain wants the hero’s wife. (The fire-swallowing priest acts as the Surpanakha figure, filling the villain with lust for the heroine.)  The thin storyline is probably great for an opera, where narrative, however predictable, is simply a structure on which to mount a series of spectacular arias (and Bhansali did take a stab at Albert Roussel’s opera, Padmavati , in 2008, in Paris) — but a nearly three-hour film on this scale needs constant drama . It isn’t a good sign when there’s more of that off-screen.

The characters are either inconsistent or downright dull, like Ratan Singh. The impossibly virtuous Rama is always a difficult character to put up on screen, and poor Shahid comes off like the fourteenth century’s most earnest boy scout. The actor looks lost (as does Aditi Rao Hydari) in the gargantuan world Bhansali creates around him — even his headdresses seem too large for his face. Alauddin tears roti s into pieces and bites into meat like a carnivore. Ratan Singh, in contrast, sits in front of a plate where everything is contained in little katori s, and with two bowls of fruit decorating the ends of the table. I laughed. As did Alauddin, when Ratan Singh keeps harping on rules and principles and honour and Rajput valour. But is that enough? Where’s the military strategy, the desire to protect his kingdom at any cost? Or was Ratan Singh really like this, in which case why would anyone be interested in a movie built around him?

Bhansali, of course, would argue that his film is really about Padmavati and Alauddin — and they do have fascinating moments. Padmavati, at times, comes across like a Smita Patil character — and not just because Bhansali pays homage to the ending of Mirch Masala ( which, come to think of it, was a very similar story). She is introduced as a strong woman, a hunter, and she strikes a fine blow for feminism when Ratan Singh’s first wife says her beauty is the cause for all the misfortune that’s befallen them. “And not the sick eyes of the beholder?” Padmavati fires back. It’s an argument that continues in the present day: to cover up fearing assault or flaunt your style with confidence. Padmavati even saves Ratan Singh, though not with the martial flamboyance of Mastani. And yet, we get the scene where she asks permission from Ratan Singh for jauhar : “ Aap ke ijaazat ke bina hum mar bhi nahin sakte. ” Is this line meant as a rebuke from a woman-warrior chafing under patriarchy, or is this just a docile wife who does everything her husband wants her to? Deepika’s performance gives us no clues, because the character seems clueless.

Alauddin, too, is a man of baffling inconsistencies. He gets a wonderful early scene where he cruelly taunts Mehrunnisa with the weight of his crown, and there’s a very funny stretch where he enters Ratan Singh’s palace and keeps swapping their dinner plates. Around this point, Bhansali seems to have sensed that Alauddin is a gallery-pleasing but totally empty character, so he tries to squeeze in emotional dimensions where none exist. In a dreadfully misconceived scene, Alauddin begins to mourn, “ Hamari hatheli mein mohabbat ki lakeer nahin hai .” When did he turn into such a softie?

Ranveer’s performance is the most exciting of the lot — but only at the most superficial level. And as good as he is in Bhansali’s hands, maybe it’s time they took a break from each other. While it’s certainly true that there’s no other actor today who can portray the Bhansali Hero, Ranveer’s performance is too heavily reminiscent of his earlier work with this director — never more so than in the Khalibali song sequence, which is too heavily reminiscent of Malhari , from Bajirao Mastani . It isn’t the same, of course. The latter was shot in browns and yellows, befitting the celebrations around a good man, while the palette in Khalibali — and in general, in Alauddin’s vicinity — is a sooty grey, hinting at his evilness. Colours are half the screenplay in a Bhansali movie, and yet, there is a diminishment here, owing to the 3D glasses. It’s like watching a one-armed man conduct a symphony.

Even so, Padmaavat gives enough cause to mount a defence of Bhansali’s methods. (It’s the material that fails him here.) Many people I know say his films feel the same, but look beyond the opulent production design and you’ll see how his sets reflect his setting. Ratan Singh’s palace is constructed with the steps and tanks we see in Rajasthani architecture, which is very different from Mastani’s palace (Shaniwar Wada) in Bajirao Mastani. No other Indian filmmaker treats his work like handicraft, in such a bespoke sense of the word. You could turn off the sound and just keep watching.

But then, you’d miss the music. Bhansali is, once again, the composer, and yes, there is an aesthetic to his songs that isn’t very diverse. But it’s still a beautiful soundtrack. One of the best numbers, Nainonwale , is absent from the screen, but the melancholic Ek dil is used beautifully. Bhansali’s favourite raag , Yaman (think Jhonka hawa ka , or Hamesha tumko chaaha , or Yun shabnami ), is played on the flute, outside the prison cell where Ratan Singh is in chains, and you think this will segue into the song, over a series of shots that show husband and wife pining. But the song comes much later, while Padmavati prepares Ratan Singh for the final battle — and the emotion of the song, now, colours their impending separation. Even the Holi number is stripped of exuberance, filled with the plaintiveness of a Manganiar/Langha rendition. Bhansali drenches the frames in shringar ras , with Ratan Singh and Padmavati applying colour on each other, an act that manages to be simultaneously ceremonial and erotic.

Arijit Singh is astounding in Bint-e-dil , and the Middle Eastern-sounding number is shot on Malik Kafur. (Jim Sarbh locates just the right touch of camp as Alauddin’s slave and lover; the latter’s bisexuality is suggested in a hilariously sly scene, where his hair is being braided by Mehrunnisa on one side and Malik Kafur on the other). This is probably the first instance of a royal’s same-sex love since Razia Sultan , and this relationship is the film’s most interesting. Malik Kafur gets the best introduction scene, hinting at his androgyny — he’s presented like a slave girl, in a veil, and the next minute, he turns into a cold-blooded killer. He’s the film’s only truly Bhansali-esque character, filled with unrequited love, his smile fading every time his master speaks of Padmavati. Bhansali should have made that movie, and the Karni Sena wouldn’t have bothered at all.

Copyright ©2018 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.

Share this:

• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Sutharsan Ravi

January 25, 2018

Holy god! My dear god! Nainowale Ne is not used in the film? What the heck? I am so deflated now. I am yet to watch the film, but that line deflated me. Onto the reviews, it looks like the ravers of the film are mostly those who find it hard to look past the opulence of the visuals and the grandeur. People like BRangan, Anupama Chopra, Raja Sen having negative things to say about the film tells me that its another Baahubali where the grandeur will divert the eyes and mind away from the soul….

Fantastic, as always. You write about SLB’s movies like no one else can, BR. I wait for the movie to release only to read your piece on it.

And the last line, haha. But on a serious note, I really wish he would make a movie like that. I watched Carol recently and despite the very generic plotline, it was such an experience.

Like Liked by 1 person

Vivek narain

And who says there is a soul! There are only subtleties of grandeur or grandstanding.

Akash Balakrishnan

Disappointing to hear the characterization is so subpar because the source material is seems perfectly suited for adaptation into a war epic.

It sounds like Bhansali could use a creative break from his current collaborators. (Though I confess, I never understood why he insists on repeating Deepika Padukone. She’s consistently the weakest link; lacking the dialogue delivery, theatrics, and artistry to fit into his crafted universes.)

No matter how non judgmental one might be, it is hard not to scoff at Bhansali’s steadily increasing rate of eccentricity. Coming to the Ramayana reference, and the last line, I wonder who is playing the real Mandodari here.

The impossibly virtuous Rama is always a difficult character to put up on screen.

Agreed, unless the film is based on Uttarakanda. There, Rama’s character almost turns into self destructive, with the crown imposing a lethal lock on his emotions and finally making rock bottom his resting couch.

kaizokukeshav

I didn’t see the movie but can connect with the lack of emotional connect in the movie. This has been the complaint from many reviewers. If the director glorifies the villain and portrays Ratan Singh as a feeble role in comparision, how can audience connect to Padmavati’s jauhar if they sympathize with Khilji.

Many reviews say Sati is not something this society will connect to. I think if the emotion is right, any society will connect to anything irrespective of the era.

In baahubali characters gave life to the Empire itself. Bhalladeva is so full of cruelty and crookedness that his kingdom is full of sorrow. Don’t know if that was the case with Khilji.

njaykrishnan

The joy of reading a Rangan-esque long review after long 🙂

Am watching this over the weekend so thank you for this thoughtful, substantive review. Reflecting on it will comfort me as some onscreen Bhansali-esque flourish or the other leads me to question my committment to freedom of art. 🙂

And you speak of “Nainowale ne” in the same breath (okay, post) as the sublime “O nirdai pritam”? It’s oddly reassuring to know that the dawn on yet another year hasn’t improved your deplorable taste in music. 😀

Like Liked by 2 people

I love the last sentence. The best !

January 26, 2018

No other Indian filmmaker treats his work like handicraft, in such a bespoke sense of the word. You could turn off the sound and just keep watching.

Well said! I literally did that while watching the trailer.

Yet another wonderfully written review But Mr Rangan, I wanted to bring to your notice that there might be a bug affecting your blog.

Sometimes it automatically reloads and send me to a random website that will. have the device I am using go berserk with virus warning. This has happened a few times.

So please do check it. Thank you

This was the most sensible review of this movie. Because it was a review, not a piece on the ‘controversy’. You brought up the (right) points about the subject, presentation, where bhansali is good and where bad, how the move is made, visuals and songs etc.

Ever since the trailer released I thought that the story is not worth being repeated, hated or loved at all. I found the trailer boring too (zero chemistry btw padmavati and ratan Singh).

These people are history, if they existed, they did what they could or wanted to or had to in their time. Invaders are same everywhere and equally bad and loathsome and jauhar in some form had been done by people suffering in very very bad situations all over the world, including girls kidnapped by the ISIS.

So when i search to read a review of the movie, i want to read a review of the movie. Not some intellectual pandering on history, liberalism, sati and jauhar (two absolutely different things), Hindu Muslim harmony, real khilji’s and real ratan Singh’s characters etc.etc.

Most reviewers can’t look beyond these and instead of discussing the movie, go on and on about the drama outside the theaters. Thanks for a proper review!

Like Liked by 4 people

Hello Rangan sir…i wanted to ask… (Hope this isn’t silly)…how does one differentiate between a performance and the character? I ask this in context of observations in the vein of “so and so does more for the character/film than the character/film does for them”

In the review you write that “Deepika’s performance gives us no clues, because the character seems clueless.”… I thought the character would seem clueless because if the performance…so how do you make this distinction?

That’s some Bhansali-esque review Brangan!

Also poor choice of casting for Aditi Rao Hydari! There is no real motivation for Ranveer to look outside for Deepika when he had Aditi as his first wife. To see how beautiful, Aditi is , Bhansali had to just see the promo of ‘vaan varuvaan’ song from KV.

In fact, Deepika looks more bisexual Frida with the single eye brow than Padmavathi! 😄

Haven’t seen the film but I am glad that Bhansali has called out the Mughal and Persian/afghan/ rulers for what they are – bloody barbarians. All the invaders were barbarians, the Rajputs were noble like Lord Ram who followed a strict code of conduct – they were back stabbed by their internal enemies. The Mughals on the other hand were scum. Good on Bhansali.

Review can’t be perfect than this. Agree with each one of the numerous points.

I too found the ‘mere haath mein mohabbat ki lakeer hai ya nahi’ so jarring. Up to that point, he was Khal Drogo. From that moment on, he became Devdas, pining for a glimpse of his Paro, on the other side of a wall, fated to never see her alive again. Even his behaviour to Mehrunissa changed, as if they’d had a different (and much more interesting) relationship so far. On another note, I do not think it is the political controversy alone that led to the oversimplifications of the film. Given the amount of money riding on it, and the need to make a 300 or 500 or whatever crore film, right from its conceptualisation it seems to have the broad strokes of ‘good Indians’ and ‘bad outsiders/ bad Muslim rulers’, which is best guaranteed to appeal to the widest possible audiences. This lack of nuance may have, I think, led to the lack of soul that you felt. The nuance then remained only at the level of imagery rather than at the level of writing.

nikkie1602: A character is whats on paper, the screenplay. The performance is how the actor plays the character (sometimes with inputs from the director).

For instance: The character description may say “Ratan Singh is angry”. The performance is HOW this instruction shows up on screen. It could be Shahid throwing a tantrum or Shahid in a close-up, simmering with rage, etc.

This is, of course, a very broad and loose example.

The lengthy review matches the running time of the film. Loved the dissection and assortment of the films and it’s tones. I am a big fan of Bhansali films. They have larger than life characters. They are aesthetically superior to every Indian film. It is an experience in itself. Needless to say, I am more compelled to watch it now !

Anu Warrier

Aap ke ijaazat ke bina hum mar bhi nahin sakte.” Is this line meant as a rebuke from a woman-warrior chafing under patriarchy, or is this just a docile wife who does everything her husband wants her to?

Neither, I would wager. This is the Rajput world celebrated in legends. Jauhar is her right, and she demands it. Honour is paramount. And the ijaazat is because they love each other dearly, and she cannot die without his permission.

Like Shalini, this film is being watched this weekend. I go, prepared to be awed by the splendour. And I have a massive girl-crush on Deepika. I’m willing to watch her read a telephone directory. 🙂

@ Prerna “Though I confess, I never understood why he insists on repeating Deepika Padukone. She’s consistently the weakest link; lacking the dialogue delivery, theatrics, and artistry to fit into his crafted universes.”

Yikes, I disagree with this completely. 😊 Deepika may not be the finest leading actress in Bhansali’s filmography…. though she certainly outpaces Ash and Sonam (combined) by at least a couple miles!

IMHO, however, Deepika has that undefinable quality which makes the whole of her screen presence far, far more than the individual elements one could break it down into. So yes, she may not have the greatest dialogue delivery or the most gifted artistry… but all the same, she has so much grace and presence and sheer charisma, that she holds one in thrall nevertheless. 😊

“You write about SLB’s movies like no one else can, BR. I wait for the movie to release only to read your piece on it. ” — I completely agree with Prashila

abishekspeare

Mukkabaaz also had a generic plot which was uplifted by the director’s uniqueness. Why can’t this happen in big budget films? “

hattorihanzo4784

BR If you have time can you review Ridley Scott’s “kingdom of heaven” and if you don’t can you atleast please explain to me why Edward Norton’s King Baldwin was so tremendously appreciated by the critics. Because on one hand Shahid Kapoor played a monotonous, single note genteel King and is getting criticized by everyone whereas Norton’s Baldwin who wears a mask and as a result cannot give a single facial expression was so applauded. Can you compare both these roles?

@Jai – come and sit beside me. 🙂 I can’t take my eyes off Deepika when she’s on screen.

I don’t see much of differences among your review for SLB’s Ram Leela, Bajirao Mastani, and Padmavat because the movies are SLB-esque 🙂

travellingslacker

@hattorihanzo478 Great thought… this is something I have also wondered over the years although the voice and body language plays a part…

Also, for anyone who is planning to watch the Kingdom of Heaven, I would suggest the long director’s cut rather than the theatrical version…

Agree that Bhansali and Ranveer need a break from each other. And so also Shahid and roles where he keeps giving a Vivaah-like performance, where the only expression on his face is that half-smile reserved for Ram-like heroes. Enough of that too. Haven’t seen the movie yet, will see it his weekend like some other commenters on here, but so dreading that Shahid bit.

abhishekspeare: “Mukkabaaz also had a generic plot which was uplifted by the director’s uniqueness. Why can’t this happen in big budget films?”

To be honest, it happens to films irrespective of budget. It is the filmmaker who makes the difference. If we see Christopher Nolan’s films, irrespective of the storyline and the budget, his pattern of “tell, show, explain what was shown” is always existing. It is a small example to say how a filmmaker can leave his mark on any film he makes even after taking considerations for the star cast and financial requirements.

January 27, 2018

Dracarys: There is no real motivation for Ranveer to look outside for Deepika when he had Aditi as his first wife.

Although I can understand your love for Aditi, couldn’t resist asking: stuck in the 21st century? 🙂

Oh i understand that…I meant how does one do that from the critic/audience point of view…? The sentence “Deepika’s performance gives us no clues, because the character seems clueless.” confounded me. I thought shouldn’t it be the other way i.e. the character seems clueless because deepika’s performance gives us no clues…?

@Jai Funny because I’d contend both Aishwarya and Sonam were able to deliver more as Bhansali heroines. Both have the classic Hindi film aesthetic that complements his scenery. Aishwarya has the added benefit of being a gifted and captivating dancer.

Perhaps none of them have the complete package, consummate heroine skills Madhuri Dixit has to offer.

Just caught Padmavati yesterday BR, and I guess like you, was rather underwhelmed… (can’t really put it better than you already have in your wonderful review…)

Like you, the constant jabbering about Rajputi values and honor made my eyes roll every time and after a point grew so tiresome…

Also a pet peeve, sure the production design is always top notch in a SLB movie, but I don’t understand why they can’t work on the CGI a little bit more… The ostrich and the deer both looked so tacky you could instantly make out they were computer generated…

For me, after Guzaarish, this was my least favorite of SLB’s movies, though I must confess, the final scene where Padmavati commits Jauhar really gave me goosebumps… The way it was so beautifully conceptualized/shot along with the incredible background score made my heart race throughout… It was so poetic… (sorry if I’m romanticizing this a little bit…)

Anuja Chandramouli

Going to watch the movie tomorrow! I had sworn off Sanjay Leela Bhansali as I simply cannot endure his overwrought, masturbatory style of film making, but decided to make an exception for reasons that will become apparent shortly. In the meantime, I’ll just slip in a link below! Please do check it out!!

Anuja, I think I know what you mean. I am not a fan of Bhansali but feel so angry about the way he has been bullied that I feel I should watch it as a protest.

Oh dear.. I just saw what you had posted. I completely got it wrong. I am so sorry. Congratulations on your book!

Anuja Chandramouli: Congratulations, and wishing you the best.

From one of the many readers of the engaging Kartikeya: The Destroyer’s Son (read it at RGIA to kill time as my flight got delayed).

Congrats and all the best, Anuja.

Hah, I had no idea what the real story in the poem Padmwaavat was till I saw this standup comedy video

thats hilarious – bechara Khilji wasn’t even in the picture then!

January 28, 2018

There are 2 kinds of Bhansali films for me. one which i cant stand at all and the other which i love with some reservations. Khamoshi, devdas, Black and Guzaarish falls in to the former category. the rest fall into the latter category. Happy to say that Padmaavat belongs to the latter category. i liked it, may be not emphatically, but with some grouses aside, overall it was a great experience

i love Bhansali’s visual aesthetic, excessive or not, and his ability to deliver a rich audio visual cinematic experience and he doesn’t disappoint here either. every frame is sculpted with so much love and care that you cant help but be mesmerized by it. on first viewing it might appear very similar to Bajirao, but no, he has changed the color palette, the lighting patterns to suit the mode of the story and the lead character – who is an antagonist as opposed to the more traditionally heroic bajirao. this is a more darker film and visually, he delineates it beautifully. the last half hour of the film is visually stunning to say the least and packs the kind of emotional punch which very few filmmakers can manage to do.

Bhansali seems to have picked a few cues from hollywood epics. we get a homoerotic bathtub scene from Kubrick’s Spartacus. A bisexual relationship between the emperor and slave from Stone’s Alexander, a large scale battle sequence with catapults reminiscent of kingdom of heaven and a climactic mano a mano duel from troy- already referenced in jodha akbar

the big downside is the traditional lead pair. both the characters and actors- ratan-padmavat\Shahid-deepika are utterly underwhelming to the extend that every time they are on screen, the film becomes lifeless. which takes a bit of doing, looking how visually rich each frame of the film is

Shahid’s is the classic case of not sending a boy to do a man’s job. his casting is as horrible as Orlando Bloom in Kingdom of Heaven or Colin Farrel as Alexander. seeing him strike macho poses and delivering rousing speeches on rajputi shaan with his expressionless baby face and stiff diminutive albeit sculpted physique are LOL moments in the film. if Karni sena needs to protest, its about his casting. i doubt if Karni sena hadn’t intervened, shahid would have got so much footage, it would have been ranveer Khilji’s show all the way. Alas he is incapable of repaying the sena’s generosity

Deepika is of course deepika, our very own modern Vogue supermodel. i have written enough about her inappropriateness in period setting in the Bajirao thread, dont want to repeat it. good thing is that she doesnt have much dialogue baazi as opposed to mastani, so we are saved to an extend from what the late great Utkal said about her BM performance, swallowing half the dialogue and mispronouncing the rest. it doesn’t help that i like Aditi Rao hyderi much much more than Deepika and my heart bleeds for the thankless thankless role that she has been relegated to.

the music of the film is just average to good. i wish SLB would get ismail darbar to score for him again. he had the ability to take Bhansali’s musical ideas to a superior level. here, except bint-e-dil misiriyame- what a superbly written , composed and picturised song – putting Khilji’s heterosexuality in front and homo tendencies in the background- the way Ranveer pushes aside jim Sarbh’s intimate overtures was kinda funny. alas, like he does to all the best songs in his films, its very short. rest doesnt create much impact

And then there is Ranver who is the life of the film. this film should have been called Allaudin instead of Padmaavat. every time he is on screen, the film moves into a different level. superficial or not, i dont think there is a more entertaining actor in indian cinema today. he is 60 percent of reason why i have loved the last 3 bhansali films as much as i did

But but but… he is getting repititive. i really cant see much difference in this performance from the Bajirao one, except for a full head of hair, a beard and some complicated sexuality thrown in. even the way he stutters at some point and lower his voice are very similar to bajirao. Bhansali films would become unwatchable if Ranveer is not in it, but Ranveer definitely needs to take a break. he cant keep investing 2 years into Bhansali projects and do the bhansali thing. he needs to do some solid masala stuff in his next few films . i see a great masala hero in him and perhaps pairing with Rohit shetty is not a bad idea after all. he has the ability to send the aged, bloated and overrated salman into much needed retirement.

MANK: There are 2 kinds of Bhansali films for me. one which i cant stand at all and the other which i love with some reservations. Khamoshi, devdas, Black and Guzaarish falls in to the former category.

Disagree about devdas, Black and Guzaarish (all of which have many moments that are memorable), but totally agree about Khamoshi. You can see what a Bhansali film it is — but only in conception, though. At that point, he did not know how to transform his conceits to screen, and the struggle shows throughout. I find it nearly unwatchable.

It’s with HDDCS that he started getting a hang of how to do it (though the second half does not work for me), and he really hit his stride with Devdas. Yes, Shah Rukh doesn’t quite sell the film the way a Ranveer does, but “direction”-wise, this is where Bhansali really found himself.

Interesting e-war:

Swara Bhaskar says:

“that’s why this gang-rape infested India, this rape condoning mindset, this victim blaming society is the actual context of your film, Sir. Surely in this context, you could have offered some sort of a critique of Sati and Jauhar in your film?”

https://thewire.in/218456/end-magnum-opus-i-felt-reduced-vagina/

Siddharth Garima say:

“Then don’t watch historicals, here or abroad. A ‘gladiator’ would perhaps shake your sensibilities of a slave in today’s context! Or a Troy might again make you feel like some other body part… A squishy liver perhaps.”

An open letter to all Vaginas

I am on Siddharth Garima’s side because I am against the notion that all art has to “comment” — that mere “depiction” isn’t enough. There has to be space for both filmmakers (or writers or poets) who see art through a political/social prism AND those who just want to tell a story.

When Swara Bhaskar says, “God forbid anything untoward happened to me, I would do everything in my power to sneak out of that fiery pit– even if that meant being enslaved to a monster like Khilji forever” — I completely understand that this is her POV, this is what SHE would do.

Unfortunately, she doesn’t seem to get it that Padmavati (or rather the man who wrote the poem) had different ideas.

At this rate, we won’t be able to stage the Ramayana anymore because of the horrors that Sita went through.

Again, “depiction” is different from “endorsement” — but then, I know I am in the minority on this.

Like Liked by 7 people

If hollywood is to be brought into contention, the bitchy Britney Spears can replace Deepika and androidy Matt Damon can do instead of Shahid. Let Ranveer be if he’s so good.

brangan: “At this rate, we won’t be able to stage the Ramayana anymore because of the horrors that Sita went through.”

Remember the serial Siya Ke Ram, a take on Ramayana from Sita’s point of view. One thing why Rama isn’t completely villainous yet in the feminists eyes is because he was on a self destructive journey after sending Sita away. She is revered as a tribal goddess in the hermitage of Valmiki, whereas Rama is suffering abnormally and is criticised heavily by his own sons. The ego is already massaged. What is there to cry really for? She almost made a bold statement by leaving with her mother at the end, disowning the very man whom she chose when he came for her. Rama has got the middle finger salute already.

Why care for the curse Tulasi cast on Narayana to lose his dear Lakshmi at a later point of time for being responsible for the death of her husband, a “good hearted” demon, which was fruitful when Vishnu descended as Rama on Earth? It is also women empowerment, why care that it was a small event in a larger scheme of things where Narayana gave assurance to a grieving party when their grandfather died in a chain of unexpected events?

Now, let’s see the antagonist, Ravana. Not many find him plain black. Everybody worth their jockey wants to explore the grey shades in his character. Why not accept the same grey shades in other characters? They do. Why focus on the back story of Ramayana, related to many things about Narayana, when you can dismiss it as a pure mainstream filmmaking material for giving subtexts and find inspiration for heroics? Rama wouldn’t mind, not I would.

PS: Finding me anti-feminist? I am not. I am just tired of witnessing the prejudice.

I’m just saying why not allow for all versions of the Ramayana — the original, a revisionist approach, everything? That’s what makes it interesting.

The point I am making is this.

With some filmmakers, the WHAT takes precedence over the HOW. They are more interested in the content.

With others, the HOW takes precedence over the WHAT. They are more interested in the form.

They’re different approaches to art, to life — both are valid, is all I am saying.

Shah Rukh doesn’t quite sell the film the way a Ranveer does, but “direction”-wise, this is where Bhansali really found himself

Agreed and agreed, but the actors with exception of Madhuri and to an extend Jackie completely ruin the film for me. i find the entire devdas-paro scenes, very hard to sit through Brangan, its a damn crying match race. i love every moment when madhuri is on screen , but thats hardly 30, 40 mins of 3 hr film. she would have been the quintessential Bhansali heroine, no wonder he has been so besotted with her. ditto with black and guzaarish- there are some remarkable cinematic moments but the actors ruin it for me . i love rani’s performance , but i just cant take Bachchan in such an OTT mode

I dont think swara bhaskar is asking for a critique in the sense of an overt declaration by any character. Art doesnt have to comment but is it too much to ask the artist to be a tad bit responsible?

The other article is wholly problematic in other ways. The writer actually reduced women to being vaginas. Why the need to deify? Going by the definition of feminism provided by the writer…equality would then also apply to the way we perceive the mistakes made by both the sexes…when you deify, the mistake isnt just a mistake, there is added notion of ‘responsibility’ along with the ‘power’ as spidey put it so well.

Swara Bhaskar’s post is the height of idiocy.

And Jauhar is different from sati. Jauhar is like seppukku or harakiri of the samurais, where the person takes his life in a most painful way to show this he or she isnt doing this out of cowardice, but dont wan to live in dishonor. its a reflection of the times in which the story is set in

and my god brangan, what have you done, now i fear for the future of this thread. would anybody even care to discuss the merits and demerits of this movie from here on. shudder!

i wonder how much of karni sena’s antics forced Bhansali to change his original vision. i do believe that there would have been scenes between Padmavati and khilji, may be not a dream sequence but a masala scene with intense dialogue baazi would have been par for the course, knowing how Bhansali would pit his protagonists against one another. one could sense t in the scenes where padmavati makes the trip to delhi to free ratan singh. the disappointment that khilji feels being confronted with Ratan singh instead of padmavathi might have been Bhansali’s own . if there was no political pressure, then this would have been a different film. we would have seen a more love obsessed khilji. it is this oversexed savage who falls in love for the first time with this unseen, unknown women and his love obsession reaching his peak leading to the ‘mere haath mein mohabbat ki lakeer’ scene . there is a huge narrative gap in what we get to see which makes that scene to stand out like a sore thumb

well Bhansali’s initial ambition was to try a modern retelling of Ramayana. he was going to remake Khalnayak first with ranveer in Sanjay dutt’s role, but i think he found the ramayana arc in Padmavati story, so he decided tot tackle that subject. but he underestimated the forces and the circumstances that were against him .i wish he has an extended cut or something of his original vision- thats if he had actually shot- that could be made available on bluray

Disagree with Swara Bhaskar’s post completely… As I’ve already mentioned previously, I for one absolutely loved the climax scene (which was the only thing I did like) in the movie… It was a stunning cinematic experience for me… And even if SLB was glorifying or romanticizing Jauhar, or at least that’s how it seems to comes across to some, so what…?!?! It’s his vision, and this was the story he wanted to tell… There’s nothing irresponsible here whatsoever… Agree with MANK, you have to put it into context… This is what Padmavati would’ve done, in her morality Jauhar is her right and I had no problems with the choice since SLB convinced and made me buy into it…

Saw it. Found it gorgeous, loud, unsubtle and forgettable. I’m at a loss to understand all the “hungama” it has generated. There is so little complexity, heck, so litle content in Bhansali’s films – what’s there to debate much less get upset about? Color me bemused.

Agree with MANK & Prerna about Deepika being miscast. She tries mightily and her beauty is almost incandescent in some scenes, but as in her other two outings with Bhansali, she and her balayaged tresses are ultimately too modern to reconcile with Bhansali’s baroque vision.

BR: I am kinda sorta with you on this. Freedom of expression is paramount in my book and I don’t think an author is obliged to come up with a ‘moral of the story’, but that said SLB’s vision for Padmaavat is problematic on so many levels for me and I think I am well within my rights to disparage it wholeheartedly though not out of moral or social concern. For all his obsession with aesthetic detailing he seems to have missed the plot entirely. It is annoying that this chap who is willing to blow a bundle to make every frame burst with opulence, synchronize even the flickering of flames and make sure his doomed lady characters are all color coordinated as they walk towards their death can’t be bothered to invest a little more towards authenticity given that this is a historical and all.

For instance, if he had bothered with a modicum of research, he would have known that there is nothing remotely heroic or glorious about Jauhar. Padmavati is not acknowledged as a real character by historians but there is recorded evidence from that same time period of Jauhars committed during Alauddin’s conquests of Ranthambore, Jalore and Siwana. He would have known that when Sati or Jauhar was committed unwilling women were dosed with opium mixtures (kushumba) to make sure they did not go kicking and wailing to a fiery death. Because if he had known this then he would not have lingered lovingly on the ugly reality of a pregnant woman and her daughter walking willingly towards a fiery end brainwashed by the supremely egoistic and incompetent men in their lives. For this and more, I have no respect for this film maker and the supercilious swill he shovels our way.

Also the Khiljis called themselves Shahs and not Sultans because their Kingdom was built on the ashes of the Delhi Sultanate (after Balban’s descendants were disposed off by Jalaluddin’s machinations) and they did not wish to be associated with that lot. Malik Kafur was gifted to the Shah after his Gujarat conquest and he did not hail from Devagiri. I could go on and on with these niggling historical inaccuracies but it would seem like nit – picking in a film that came with a lengthy disclaimer about being entirely fictional. But when you borrow so liberally from history surely it wouldn’t kill you to study the source material a little?

And whatever happened to a balanced perspective? Why portray the Muslim invaders as barbaric and dishonorable and massage the egos of the Rajputs though they failed to rise above their petty difference to save their land or the lives that depended on them? Alauddin by all accounts was ruthless, ambitious and definitely had a savage streak but that applies to every great ruler this land has seen irrespective of their faith. In addition to that he was an able administrator, brave warrior and generous benefactor who patronized the fine arts. Why not give him a little credit? Of course, these things are important to me and if SLB sees fits to showcase his prejudices in his movie, that’s his call. And if he gets called out for the same, he has only himself to blame.

Geez! SLB has to be the most overrated filmmaker ever and it really bothers me that his work is being discussed so widely thanks to the efforts of fringe groups when it ought to be discarded like the trash it is.

PS: In the interests of total honesty, I am not without bias either for reasons mentioned in my previous comment.

Like Liked by 5 people

Disagree with Swara Bhaskar’s post and that’s without watching the movie yet. Simply because SLB is retelling a legend, not offering a post-modern interpretation of it. As for for Swara’s take on Jauhar, I agree that’s an equally valid point to make – I think Apu and I had that discussion on an earlier thread about Padmavati . Left to me (and hearing of the horrors that those poor women faced/face under Boko Haram and ISIS and other terrorist organisations) I would much prefer to commit suicide than be taken prisoner. Only, my death of choice would be a vial of poison, not a trial by fire. (I am a wimp when it comes to pain.)

It take great courage to commit yourself to fire as it does to say, I will survive this as well. Not knowing how, or even whether you will. Neither path is wrong.My choice would have been taken not because of my morality/purity of a woman’s honour, but because I do not fancy being raped over and over and over again. Padmini’s choice, and that of the women of those time, were pretty much the same, I think. Women were chattel, and being taken as spoils of war by the Muslim invaders would have been – to them – a fate worse than death.

I’m also wondering how Swara expected Bhansali to critique Jauhar in the movie? Who should have objected? Nagmati?

I don’t think we can ask a director or story teller to only tell the story the way we want to hear it, but even so I totally disagree with the view that Jauhar, like Seppukku, is an honourable death, and so should be viewed only in that context. Yes, it may be a reflection of the time, but it is foolishly romantic to see such acts as being heroic when they were awful inflictions on individuals. It is possible to show the horrors of such customs, and not make the act so noble and full of glory that it can be seen as traditions to be emulated. Look at Tamas, for example – all those hordes of women who threw themselves into the well, rather than be raped by the marauders – that too was an honour suicide, but Nihalini frames that scene to emphasize the tragedy that it was

Bhansali may not choose to show that – and that is his right – but so is it Swara’s right to bemoan the glorification of such a terrible custom

January 29, 2018

@brangan: how did you find the second half of HDDCS? I wasnt convinced with nandini’s transformation…would love to know your thoughts…

@Madan: Sorry, I couldn’t respond to your comment in Woody Allen thread but here is a followup argument on similar lines.

“Again, “depiction” is different from “endorsement” — but then, I know I am in the minority on this.”

I think I have tried to make this argument multiple times, how could you separate depiction from endorsement? When a left-leaning atheist like Aravindan makes ‘Chidambaram’ or ‘Kanchana Sita’, I will call it some kind of an endorsement.

And more generally, isn’t it obvious to just see the statistics to know about how filmmakers have been completely biased about the topics that they choose to project.

• Most of the historical movies have focused only on romance between the lead characters or the war between two kingdoms or a linear combination of both. I can’t think of a single movie off the top of my head where they showed the good done by these rulers.

Even in contemporary movies, one could easily the skew in movies glorifying stalking vs speaking of the negative effects of it.

The only reason I see why makers do this is they want to stay commercially relevant. Note that this in turn implies that they are almost like employees in a MNC — using your skills to make money. How on earth could they produce pure unbalanced art? Patently ridiculous I say!

A Wise Crackpot

@Akhilan i second you on that. After watching padmavati, i have been conflicted about whether to be happy about how overwhelming the climax was for me or be frustrated about the lack of drama in the rest of the film. For me that sequence is celebrating Padmavati, the women with her and not the practice itself. It made the theater experience count.

Shwetha Anand Narsipur

ROFL. This long and belaboured post and your opinion of Padmaavat have a lot in common. At least Padmaavat was visually stunning and had ethereal music.

Vidya Murugan

I think the movie should have ended 10 secs before it did…with the door closing on Alaudins face/dream.

As per aggressive feminists, men shouldn’t be like Ram because he’s chauvinistic and men shouldn’t be like Raavan because he preys on women. So two mutually exclusive characters shouldn’t exist, so should be every man. Give us some peace damn it

Saw it today; as Shalini said, it was gorgeous, not very complex. In other words, Bhansali-esque. I have no idea why people had to rake up such a controversy. And it’s a shame that criminal intent (and a loud vocalisation of it) is not punishable. It’s a bigger shame that our leaders stay silent when threats to murder or decapitate citizens are made in public.

I never look for historical accuracy in Bhansali’s movies. His vision is never to make a ‘historical’. It is to make his vision of the historical. That said, Anuja, there is no mention of where Malik Kafur comes from. Certainly not from Deogiri, which is the place Allaudin has ransacked. He’s returned to Kara, where Jalaluddin goes to meet him, with Kafur in tow as a ‘present’.

Two, since the story is told from the Rajput perspective, of course Allauddin is going to be a barbarian.

As far as Jauhar is concerned, if he’s going solely by the legend of Padmavati, then he’s not going to show the women are drugged, is he? Even Amar Chitra Katha’s Padmini ends with the tale of the queen and her handmaidens and the other inmates of the harem committing Jauhar with no mention of drugs.

Yes, we can rage about the intercenine warfare that left the Rajputs (and most of ‘Hindustan’) open to the marauders – heck, we even invited the foreigners in, to fight our own – and a patriarchy that made women feel that taking their lives was preferable to ‘dishonour’. But SLB is at perfect liberty to tell his tale the way it was told – once.

Swara, in turn, has a perfect right to write what she does, and I have an equal right to disagree with her (as you do, with SLB’s vision).

Only, as Shalini says, this film is hardly the film that is going to change the world. It is one of those films that you watch, enjoy for the opulence and the beautiful people, and forget.

(MANK and Shalini – I beg to differ about Deepika. 🙂 )

@Anuja Chandramouli Totally and respectfully disagree with you… Honestly, I couldn’t care less about the historicity of Jauhar; neither do I want a history lesson… In SLB’s cinematic world, this is how he chose to portray the practice… It was romantic, glorious, beautiful, and immensely moving for me… It didn’t feel jarring or anachronistic within the context of the movie at all… SLB depicted Jauhar here as a symbol of good triumphing over evil… That at least I think, should be the real takeaway…

Funnily enough, one of the reviews I read took issue with the fact that Rani Padmavati made the decision to go to Delhi, that Badal Singh listened to her, and the army took their orders from her, and that she burnt a message from the enemy before her husband or the commander-in-chief of the army read it – the reviewer questioned how Padmavati could have done that in the very patriarchal Rajput society.

True. But when you argue that Padmavati had to abide by the rules of patriarchy in those instances, then you cannot also argue that SLB shouldn’t show Jauhar because it was a weapon of the patriarchy to supress women. (Yes, it was. So was Sati. And women either bought into it, or were forced into it.)

I’m only positing that the reviewers cannot have it both ways – either Padmavati was so strong that she took her own decisions – against the will of her husband (as in the instance where she shows her face to Khilji) and his commanders (as when she orders a reluctant Badal to accept the Sultan’s conditions), and SLB showed her as such. Or you admit that patriarchy played such a huge role that a woman in Padmini’s position, even if she was the queen, had to abide by the rules of the patriarchal society of which she was a part, and chose death over ‘dishonour’.

Or, as shown in the movie (and the poem upon which it was based), the princess of Singhal was a strong, opinionated woman, and demanded the right of Jauhar for herself if the king were to be felled in battle.

Also, ‘Padmini’ isn’t a historical in that sense since historians are divided on whether she exists at all.

History is the most unreliable and corrupted subject. We have only the architecture, artefacts and medical literature,that can stand a true scrutiny. Even the modern history can retrospectively be examined for intrigues: WW-1 might have been staged to finish off Ottoman empire before it resurged with new found petro wealth of its vassal states of arabia. WW-2 might have been scripted with twin objects of creating Israel and reducing to dust the mighty yellow menace, Japan, why would hitler pound britain when half of the british population is anglo-saxon, of germanic origin, likewise holocaust could be a sham when Rothschilds were the financiers of the global arms industries. The tinpot dictators of catholic south america and central africa are more barbaric than numerically few boko haram and isis cadre. India,the land of majority shaivites, is ruled by minority vaishnavas who are inhabitants of thinly populated rajputana. Rajput pride might be a compulsion to escape the wrath of shaivite mobs, it’s supposed that most of the jauhar women were spirited away to up nepal border via secret tunnels at jauhar sthal with the aid of literal smoke-screen.

“Also the Khiljis called themselves Shahs and not Sultans because their Kingdom was built on the ashes of the Delhi Sultanate (after Balban’s descendants were disposed off by Jalaluddin’s machinations) and they did not wish to be associated with that lot. ”

“Shahs and not Sultans” May I ask the source for this? Ghulam Niazi for e.g. titles his book “… Sultan Alauddin Khilji”

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Life_and_Works_of_Sultan_Alauddin_Kh.html?id=nbZgnqfXjnQC

Also the Khalji dynasty is the second dynasty within the Delhi Sultanate period, so not sure what you mean by “built on the ashes of the Delhi sultanate”

Most of the historical movies have focused only on romance between the lead characters or the war between two kingdoms or a linear combination of both. I can’t think of a single movie off the top of my head where they showed the good done by these rulers.

Well that’s the indian cinema template, we dont make historicals or historical biopics like a lawrence of Arabia or Patton. For us, History is just a rich exotic backdrop to tell the regular movie stories.

kandisachin

You are a true genius, Sir. I have learnt so much from your reviews. Thank you very much.

@Anu, i was waiting for your comments. the above is not enough. did you feel connected to the lead pair ( Ranvir-Deeips ) , the same you did in their earlier Bhansali movies? I remeber there was war on BR’s review page for Bajirao.

@saivicky: You suggest that it’s difficult to separate depiction from endorsement. As a wannabe writer, I disagree completely (feel free to suggest that is the reason I am just a wanna 😛 ). Jokes apart, I will stretch this argument to it’s bizarre but logical conclusion to test it. Is Silence of the Lambs an endorsement of murder for murder’s sake? Surely we agree it is not? So why would it be any different with ideology? In fact, when I make up characters, I will deliberately draw them such that they have opposing worldviews (and also similar and everything in between). Because that is how you create conflict and a lot of great cinema/fiction/music is about creating and resolving conflict. I would also pick starkly different characters to represent more facets of society. I would be horrified to learn that because I chose a particular type of character, the audience thinks I am using it to endorse a particular kind of worldview. Now…is it possible that there is bias in the selection of subjects by artists at times? Yup. Is it also possible that some artists do in fact use art as a medium to promote a particular stance? Absolutely. But does that warrant a sweeping generalization about it being impossible to separate art from the artist’s ideology? Not in my view. I may often make characters say something that is the complete opposite of what I believe in just to make myself and in turn the audience uncomfortable. If it does not provide a reaction, it’s not bold enough. And if it’s bold, it will ruffle a few feathers, cause some people to make baseless allegations, which is all part of the game. Rite of Spring triggered a riot when it was performed and it’s just a piece of classical music.

I don’t understand the hullabaloo around the movie. The fact that the Rajputs were constantly decimated by other kingdoms is a well-established one. Interestingly, some kings who lost the wars married off their daughters to the victors (which includes Mughals as well), while a few helpless women, who had no role in the war, had no other choice but immolate themselves in order not just to save their own honour but that of their clan’s (read men’s). All this is being celebrated as a part of the “glorious culture” even after several centuries. After all, Bhansali has distorted the history and made a genuine attempt to unduly glorify the Rajputs and vilify the Mughals (which is perfectly fine). Frankly, I feel sorry for him.

Rahini David

Madan: Our resident novelist Anuja Chandramouli has taken a similar view. And I think most people who has written even the smallest piece of fiction will agree.

@Naveen, you trying to get me into trouble? 🙂 I did like the Deepika-Shahid romance, but my guess is that I would have been more invested if their romance had been allowed to play through. From what I hear, 50 minutes of the film were cut.

Look, I went in with little to no expectations. I am back feeling pretty okay about the film; didn’t feel like I’d wasted my money or my time. shrug As I said earlier, this is not a film that’s going to provoke me to think or even worry too much about underlying messages. Bhansali doesn’t give you ‘underlying’ messages. He generally hits you on the head with a sledge hammer.

To be honest, I preferred this to Bajirao Mastani , even if I liked the performances there.

(Incidentally, after reading your comment, I went to the Mastani thread. I’d a faint recollection of having had a set-to with Punee there. But I seem to have made only two innoccuous comments – so either my memory is failing me, or the ‘war’ you reference was on another post?)

i might be in the minority here but i think Deepika Padukone is one of the very few actresses of our times who can be a Bhansali heroine. The only other names that come to my mind are Priyanka and Aishwarya. Padukone has that old world charm. i can’t imagie Alia, Kareena, Anushka in any of the recent Bhansali movies. And while Sonam has that “old Indian aesthetic” she is a bad actresses. Deepika was great in Ram Leela, mediocre in Bajirao Mastani and fabulous(imo) in Padmaavat. She portrayed a Queen who had no “adaayein” and”jhatak matak”,no crutches like that. Ranveer obviously stole the show and i felt Shahid was the one who was miscast. He couldn’t match up to Khilji or Padmavati. The movie could have done away with a song or two though.

I don’t understand why people are saying the women were not drugged. Am I the only one who noticed the two queens feed each other bhaang leaves? Small token, the rest I guess is implied.

@Vidya face palm I saw it, but it didn’t register. I mean, I wondered what it was, but it didn’t cross my mind that it was Bhang.

@MS, yet to watch this one which i intend to. I see Deepika as an Imtiaz Ali heroine first ( particularly after Tamasha where I could not separate her from the director ). Anushka could be a better Bhansali herione that Deepika, who, as someone pointed out, is too much of a supermodel. Deepika excelled in Piku and Tamasha, without all the burden of accessories. listening to Ranvir’s interview with Anupama, Rajeev Masand etc. that guy seems set to go on a roll. deserving so.

You gonna love this 😂

http://www.opindia.com/2018/01/this-new-and-improved-script-of-padmaavat-should-put-a-smile-on-the-liberal-pseudo-feminist-face/

January 30, 2018

Not to distract the thread, but had to comment when Akhilan says (about the Jauhar scene): “It was romantic, glorious, beautiful, and immensely moving for me… It didn’t feel jarring or anachronistic within the context of the movie at all”

• Isn’t that what the issue is about? That Jauhar is depicted as a heroic, glorious and respectable (and as per Akhilan – “romantic”) practice – as opposed to something horrific and destructive? And there I think is the problem, and the place, where the director could have made a difference.

Anu: “I’m also wondering how Swara expected Bhansali to critique Jauhar in the movie? Who should have objected? Nagmati?”

• Maybe depict it as a dark practice with less glorification, i.e. not make it seem so heroic, beautiful and gorgeous. Make folks, esp women discuss about it in a scared or defiant way and finally submit to it.

Basically, I understand that the movie is not about Jauhar (and seems like it turned out to be about Khilji more 🙂 ) but as it is the climax, there could be more than one way to depict the climax, no? I mean, for eg. a war can be shown as gorgeous and brave or as a killing mechanism full of misery and pain – or both.

“But SLB is at perfect liberty to tell his tale the way it was told – once.

Swara, in turn, has a perfect right to write what she does, and I have an equal right to disagree with her (as you do, with SLB’s vision).”

MANK: “Swara Bhaskar’s post is the height of idiocy. And Jauhar is different from sati. ”

Gosh, this must be the first time I will disagree with you regarding a non-movie opinion! Even if Jauhar is a showy defiant act and Sati is a submissive one or whatever (sorry if I am reading between the lines) – they are both imposed by society on the women (never men) and there is either no agency in the decision OR the women are trained to accept it as their destiny. Yes, it is a sign of the times they were in, but even now, loss of honor/perceived loss of honor = life worse than death for women, and that is the point of the post.

Like Liked by 3 people

Pavan:”Why not accept the same grey shades in other characters?”

If Ram is a hero who has his failings, cravings, mistakes along with a struggle to be right and do the right thing, that is perfectly fine, but I guess the point is people do not want to paint Ram as “grey” at all. I for one, find it problematic that Ram is supposedly the ultimate Man (Yugpurush/Mahapurush/whatever) who always does the right thing – taking that at face value means that you accept that a perfect man can ask his estranged wife to walk through fire to prove her purity.

Plus, Ramayana is a story told and recorded by multiple folks, so yes, there can be multiple interpretations. If that jars you, then maybe you should pick and choose the versions that agree with your POV – and let others do the same?

I have a dear relative who is religious and a great person, so I totally agreed when she said “People wrongly accuse Ram of leaving his wife – at that point, he was acting in his capacity as a King who should not bend rules to suit himself – so he had to do what he had to do.” True. But he could have finally given up his kingdom and followed his wife, or told her privately that he trusted her.

Anyway, different argument, outside this thread – but had to reply.

BR: “I am on Siddharth Garima’s side because I am against the notion that all art has to “comment” — that mere “depiction” isn’t enough.” “…”depiction” does not mean “endorsement”…”

Agree with your statement on the face of it. But, are we sure that when someone is “depicting” something, there is no room for his/her “endorsement”? For e.g. the ending of Sairat, does it seem like the director is endorsing “honor killing” or merely depicting it and in fact, condemning it?

On a less serious note: Bhansali’s movies from Guzarish to Ram leela to Padmaavat, seems to be increasingly tending toward the subject of “the right to die as I wish”.

Just saw the movie. Tad disappointed. Full marks for grandour.

Full marks to deepika.

No marks to shahid. Unsuitable and bad casting choice.

Full marks to ranveer for his antics. Having said that zero marks for his dialogue delivery. The menacing khilji personality is let down yet again after bajirao due to the same reason- his voice fails to live up to his character. And yet again he cannot outshine himself when in the same frame as raza murad.

The dialogue delivery scene btwn shahid n ranveer seemed so amateur..like everyday conversation btwn 2 young lads.

And am i the only after you who felt shahid looked like a tiny being sitting in that throne. And to think he was cast with the towering deepika.

@MANK: Then why take history in the first place? I strongly believe the makers do this is to make the movie commercially viable. This in turn implies that they operate with vested interests. Where is the art here? If Bhansali had made fiction with a couple A and B, and C lusting on B, then I have no issues with it. In this case, he has distorted history with vulgarity. (This might sound very controversial ) but I don’t see much of a difference between Karni Seva and Bhansali. The former is criticized for violence/vulgarity but the latter shows these things on screen. The former operates with vested interests (say publicity) and the latter does the same. But the former is called a terrorist and the later an artist? Give me an effin break!

@Madan: I agree with you to a good extent and of course, calling Silence of the Lambs as encouraging murders is definitely a stretch 🙂 (which I wouldn’t do). The aspect I want to project is that artists operate in a very commercial medium. Then, that makes them like any other professionals who make consumer products. Let’s take Self Driving Cars (SDC) for instance. Why do you think they are not on roads yet? Primarily because people are unsure of the safety measures. As a budding computer scientist, I would call them a wonderful piece of art (programming/building software/hardware is an art after all). Shall we give creative freedom to the inventors and release it on roads immediately? This is exactly the safety issue I have with movies like PK and Padmavaat and makers like Bhansali.

Sai16vicky – je baat – “The former is criticized for violence/vulgarity but the latter shows these things on screen. The former operates with vested interests (say publicity) and the latter does the same. But the former is called a terrorist and the later an artist? Give me an effin break!” superb. I would say they feed off each other. SL Bhyrappa superbly said about writing about fictional history, please should look it up.

@sai16vicky: But in a mature society, provocative art does not lead to mass destruction because, after all, it’s just art. If it’s malevolent, it will get trashed by the critics and fail at the BO. Now to the argument often made that India is not a mature society. Well, I position that we are in fact growing less tolerant. The late Kundan Shah was on record saying he could not have made Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron today. Do tell me what was so malignant about the film. So if anything, we need to stop mollycoddling people rather than hold artists responsible for the lawlessness of groups like the Karni Sena. The Karni Sena chief reportedly would not even watch the film but was still adamant it should not be released. Are these people to be reasoned with? I don’t think so. They should be ignored and if they break the law, immediately and severely punished. With that said, commercial cinema already has its RTO and a terrible one at that: the Censor Board. I am not sure what further precautions you have in mind.

@Apu But why should it be an issue in the first place…?? Hypothetically speaking, if SLB were to have shown the practice of Jauhar as ‘horrific and destructive’, the entire movie would’ve fallen flat on its face… Then what’s the point…?? As if the movie hasn’t already gone through its fair share of trials and tribulations… I laud SLB for sticking to his vision in this instance and portraying the scene in the way only he can… The bespoke sense that BR refers to; it’s so apparent in the scene, which is what makes Padmavati Padmavati for me, and if people find that problematic, so be it… I for one certainly didn’t…

(I guess I’ll give this thread a rest for now and apologies if I said something inappropriate…)

Even if Jauhar is a showy defiant act and Sati is a submissive one or whatever (sorry if I am reading between the lines) – they are both imposed by society on the women (never men) and there is either no agency in the decision OR the women are trained to accept it as their destiny

Apu, i dont know whether you have seen the film, but before committing jauhar, deepika’s padmavati’s words are something like this the enemy is destroying our country only to posses my body, so we will offer our body to fire and not allow him to have even our shadow leave alone our body and that will be our victory and his defeat or something very similar to that, i forget the exact words. you really think , this is a women who does not have agency. And its not the usual case of invading barbarians raping and pillaging. the very basis of the conflict of Padmavati is that Khilji is attacking chittor only to posses padmavati, his words , we have fought enough for land , so this battle is for beauty , and he repeatedly attacks chittor and imprisons and then kills ratan singh for this sole purpose. so now she decides to use his sentiment against him . the final Jauhar sequence is used as kind of strategic war tactic. its staged as if she is going into battle , a battle shes determined to win, with chants of jai bhavani all around, Khilji is able to capture chittot but fail to possess Padmavati and hence he is defeated

I dont how and what was the real history of it all, its always a contentious subject. but this aspect of jauhar is the basis of the poem and the film and in the context of the film there is nothing objectionable about it.

@ Prerna: “Perhaps none of them have the complete package, consummate heroine skills Madhuri Dixit has to offer.”

Of, definitely agree so much on this. Madhuri is the quintessential prima donna, to my mind no one could surpass her. I could watch Devdas any number of times just to see per performance as Chandramukhi. Her introduction scene as well as her later confrontation scene with Devdas (where she lashes out at him for unjustly pouring scorn on her) and the scene where she meets Paro — she just takes one’s breath away. Especially that scene with Devdas where she castigates him, she had used her marvelous eyes and voice to convey such a gamut of emotions — rage, pain, a tinge of scorn and yet, so much immense yearning. No one, I feel, could have carried off that scene with such aplomb.

Anyway to come back to Padmaavat 🙂 Saw the film over the weekend, and quite liked it. In fact, I much preferred it to Bajrao Mastani . As expected from Bhansali, it is a lavish visual spectacle, a feast for the senses. And I am with Anu Warrier as regards Deepika — I find her stunning . I get what some are saying regarding limitations in her dialogue delivery and so on—-but I think her sheer presence and aura more than compensates. A classic case of the Whole being greater than the sum of parts, perhaps. 🙂

@ BR: “……when Ratan Singh keeps harping on rules and principles and honour and Rajput valour. But is that enough? Where’s the military strategy, the desire to protect his kingdom at any cost? Or was Ratan Singh really like this……”

I somehow felt Shahid wasn’t so bad, given the circumscribed nature of his role . I agree with you that Ranveer’s Alauddin is the most interesting performance —- obsessive, covetous and thoroughly ruthless. Rawal Ratan Singh, on the other hand, has been posited as a rather two dimensional character, who is all about integrity, valor and usool . After a point, one does wonder whether all this steadfast upholding of the rules (regardless of context) would have its own consequences; and whether a more pragmatic, albeit harsh approach might have yielded more concrete results.

The role itself reminded me of the author Abraham Eraly’s analysis of the essential difference in pragmatism between the Rajputs and the other great martial community which would rise to prominence in later centuries—the Marathas. As he says ” for the Rajput, war was an end in itself; for the Maratha, it was only the means. Rajputs played the game, Marathas played to win”. He also quotes Elphinstone as stating ” A Rajput warrior, as long as he does not dishonour his race, seems almost indifferent to the result of any contest he is engaged in. A Maratha warrior thinks of nothing but the result, and cares little for the means, if he can attain his object”.

This comparison by Eraly & Elphinstone may well be a broad-brush generalization—- internecine conflicts between Rajputs were far from principled after all, and there were several instances of chivalrous behavior from Maratha warriors. But it gives an interesting analysis of the difference in worldview, between two famous martial communities.

As to military strategy….well, I had come across this article on scroll some time back. A rather harsh look at the inadequacies of military strategy which caused the Rajputs to fall in battle so many times, despite their acknowledged valour. Interesting read, though I do find it a tad harsh.

http://scroll.in/article/728636/what-our-textbooks-dont-tell-us-why-the-rajputs-failed-miserably-in-battle-for-centuries

on SLB heroines, this is what the horse himself says in one of the interviews with Anupama Chopra, looks like one after Bajirao ” all my heroines are what would be a love child of Guru Dutt and Meenakumari. i would like them to be a Meena Kumari, they should have the strength to withstand love and pain” do watch the interview where he talks about his tortured/ignored child hood, habit of watching Mughal-e-Azam repeatedly and how he grew up watching classics and how these experiences filled him with angst

@Naveen i guess i will just agree to disagree. I can’t imagine Anushka as a Bhansali heroine mostly because I have only seen her playing urban,lively,bubbly Punjabi girl mostly and she kind of lacks the innate grace, elegance and poise that Mr. Bhansali seems to require for his films.

@ Anuja, very nice points on historical accuracy, but I don’t think this ever is something we get in any of our historicals! From watching Jodha Akbar , for instance, you could be forgiven for concluding that Akbar & Jodha were a loving monogamous couple (when in fact Akbar was already a much married man by the time he married Jodha). By most historical accounts, theirs was a political alliance; apart from duly resulting in Salim, the marriage was hardly the love story for the ages we are shown. She was also never Akbar’s Chief Consort, that title of he conferred on his first wife, Ruqaiyya Begum, while his favorite wife was Salima Begum. Also, Akbar is known to have been of middling height, slightly bow legged, and with a large, fleshy mole on his face. Certainly not endowed with Hrithik Roshan grade looks by any means. But tell me, would a Jodha Akbar made on these lines become as big a hit as it did?

Would it take away from Mughal-e-Azam , for instance, to have the historical accounts of Anarkali examined? Apparently, there are a number of indications that she was, in fact, a concubine in Akbar’s harem— the mother of his youngest son, Daniyal, no less. Salim apparently formed an intense fancy for her, which lead to the Oedipal clash between him and Akbar, and caused Salim to rebel. Would a movie on these lines work very well in all centers across the country?

Not claiming SLB is better or worse than directors of other historicals—- but in this case, he has based the movie on the legend of Padmavati. The setting is not a pure historical per se, I would term it more as a mytho-historical (if such a term exists)! 🙂 In that sense, showing Allaudin as a tyrant fueled by lust to possess Padmavati, is the perspective of the poem the movie is based on.

I am with you that we need to have a more in depth and balanced perspective of our history. That would avoid having it distorted and warped by later, motivated retellings. But I just feel a movie is not the lesson in history we need to have, especially when it does not set itself out to be a historically accurate account. There are books out there. Documentaries. History classes have teachers earnestly giving out dates and facts; the fact that many students do not much like studying history, is a pity. “Those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it”, indeed; but to attempt to glean accurate historical facts from films is not a very good solution, either.

I feel like that about Deepika’s voice. As gorgeous as she looks, her voice lacks gravitas.

“Those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it”, indeed; but to attempt to glean accurate historical facts from films is not a very good solution, either.”

Really enjoyed reading your comments Jai. You are right of course. Expecting to learn history from films is kinda silly I guess. My strong response came from my being a passionate history buff and also from a personal standpoint.

@ Anuja, thanks 🙂

And Hi-5 to a fellow history buff. One of my favorite papers all through school.

I used to get bugged with “historical” films with historical inaccuracies too. 🙂 I remember I cribbed on some thread here about how Amitabh Bachchan’s impressive baritone which launched Jodha Akbar , had the year of the Mughal advent off by around 70 years or so. 🙂

And I literally had fits when I saw Macaws being shown in the markets in the absolutely disastrous Mohenjo Daro , at a historical period when there was absolutely no trade between the Indian subcontinent and South America. There was really no way Macaws from the Amazon could have been here. But then, perhaps, Mohenjo Daro doesn’t deserve to be called a historical film at all! 🙂

But Oh well. I’ve learned to make my peace with this, and not expect historical accuracy and authenticity from historical films. 🙂 Though I must admit, getting the year wrong by a scale of 70 odd years still kind of sticks in the craw a bit. 🙂

A friend’s sister is a historian and conducts historical tours through old Delhi and gives talks and presentations in schools. She said that after the release of Jodha Akbar the students (and teachers) were more interested in learning about Akbar, his times, about Maham Anga (of whom no one had heard of), the battles, the forts, etc. So, the movie however historically inaccurate (and it was less so than many others, except of course for a six-foot Hrithik portraying the five-foot-something Akbar), did do some good.

The release of Padmavati and the two-year-long controversy will easily have had many people eagerly looking up as much as they could about Padmavati, Allauddin Khilji, and the siege of Chittor. shrug

By the standards of historical accuracy, a Mughal-e-Azam wouldn’t be made today. Neither would the Draupadi tere akele ki nahin hai; hum sab shareholder hai pass muster today – the right wing would have blasted Kundan Shah for mocking Draupadi; the left-wing would have blasted him for endorsing polygamy, and the lack of a woman’s agency.

And for everyone who looks for historical accuracy in our ‘historicals’ (I would call them ‘period films’ myself), take a look at one of Hollywood’s classics – Lawrence of Arabia . Apart from the many historical inaccuracies in the film, one of the reviewers castigated David Lean for casting ‘one of the tallest actors in the industry to play one of the shortest characters in history’.

As another history buff, let me just say that while in my salad days, it annoyed me, I’ve learnt to look at films as a whole and view them as part of a director’s vision. And as long as the makers are not trying to claim they are staying true to history (SLB didn’t even claim to be making a historical!), I really can’t muster up so much outrage. 🙂

(@Jai – agree with you about Shahid.)

I mean, for eg. a war can be shown as gorgeous and brave or as a killing mechanism full of misery and pain – or both.

How many war movies show war as full of misery and pain? Offhand, I can think of Saving Private Ryan – the first fifteen minutes should be enough to end all war, really – and, back home, Haqeeqat . Otherwise, all war is shown as a fight between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and it is always the glory of war that is extolled. War on film has always been a jingoistic celebration of a country’s (or person’s) might.

Apu, I do agree with a lot of what you say. And in no way would I endorse Jauhar or Sati – I hope that is clear. As Vidya pointed out (and I missed the significance even though I remember the scene), Padmavati and Nagmati feed each other cannabis leaves, so there is a reference to the women being drugged.

Yes, Jauhar came of a rigid patriarchy that deemed a woman’s ‘honour’ sacrosanct but – we had this conversation before, didn’t we? 🙂 I would much rather die than be carted off by an invading army to be used and abused; it has nothing to do with my ‘honour’. If that’s to be my life, then perhaps I’m being a coward by killing myself, but so much preferable a death at one stroke to dying every moment of every day. I have a great admiration for women who go through this and survive. I’m not sure it’s courage that keeps them alive, though.

As for Rama, I had that exact conversation with my paternal grandmother when I was in my teens. My answer to that, then, was, that if Ram was acting as a king, then his wife, by virtue of being his wife, she was also a citizen of Ayodhya – so where was his ‘duty’ towards her ? He’s one ‘god’ I will absolutely not pray to – he irritates me with the ‘Maryada Purushottham’ tag! And Sita depresses me no end.

However, if they were going to film the Ramayana , I would absolutely endorse a film-maker’s right to show Sita’s agni pareeksha . Not because I think it right, or endorse the idea of having a woman prove her purity through trial by fire, or that a kidnap victim should not be accepted by her husband because she’s ‘tainted’ – but because that is part of the story of the Ramayana – it’s how it ‘occurred’ in the story.

It’s a fine line to walk, I agree. And it’s a conflicting space to be in.

I don’t’ agree with Swara’s take on this for two reasons – the first half of the letter was a cop-out: the sycophancy was sickening. So much boot-licking taking place. If you have a principled stand on this issue, then say so. Don’t butter him up one side and down the other. She still wants to work with him, hence the dollops of praise.

The second half was, IMO, an over-reaction. You’re going to watch the tale of Padmini and you are shocked, shocked! that there is Jauhar? Her valid argument (and there was one, if you cared to search for it) was lost in the detritus of her long, rambling, often incoherent article.

Also, as an editor, it upsets me to see a published piece with so many spelling and grammatical errors – Swara is a Master’s in Sociology – the least she could do is clean up her article before she handed it in?

Not about anything related to Padmaavat, but i loved that you included ‘O Nirdayi Preetam’ in this review. What a beautiful song!

Your reviews on SLB movies are also similar 🙂 but interesting to read nevertheless.

“Am I the only one who noticed the two queens feed each other bhaang leaves?”

@ Vidya They are tulsi leaves. The women jumped into the jauhar fire with tulsi leaves in their mouth. You can google it.

January 31, 2018

Anu: Thanks for replying, and yes, we have had that discussion and I know we are sort of in agreement on principle.

Not having seen Padmaavat, or even intending to (I gave up on Bhansali after Sawaariya, would have stopped at Devdas – I don’t think I have the appetite for that kind of cinema, however good it is), I am only guessing at this point, so pretty unfair of me to hog up comment space much.

Agree with “You’re going to watch the tale of Padmini and you are shocked, shocked! that there is Jauhar?” – To my old point, I think it was not “why did you show it”, but more of “why did you show it as a glorious/respectable choice of life”. But i think you understand that.

All the hoopla around this movie (first from the ‘macho guardians on our culture’ and then the vocal feminists) made me lose interest in watching it!

But after reading this… now I want to watch it.

@D, that is what a BR thead with all the top guns firing does to you. i have ended up watching many movies after coming here. some i am glad i did ( Sairat, Arjun Reddy etc ). Aval was the only one that i hated watching inspite of overall good reviews.

Sangeeta Bodhi Das

I so agree with the last line. That should have been the story… Ali Gurshasp’s journey to become Alauddin and his marriage with Jathyapali and relationship with Malik Kafur — malik kafur’s conversion from Hinduism to Islam for his love and then his final betrayal… someday maybe

@MANK : I dont how and what was the real history of it all, its always a contentious subject.

But the whole point is the movie is NOT based on history, it’s based on the poem. This is not the story in the poem. In that Khilji lands up after the Rajputs have killed off each other. So isn’t this just obnoxious to Muslims?

I think it’s ironic that it got panned in india because it was offensive to Hindus, and banned in Malaysia because it is offensive to Muslims – equal opportunity offending.

There are two strands here— One, the poem which is about certain historical figures who really existed—Allaudin and Rawal Ratan Singh—and which also revolves around Padmini/Padmavati who might not really have existed. Two, actual historical fact about what happened when Allaudin invaded Chittor, and Ranthambor too, for that matter.

You are right about the poem, in the sense that in that work, Allaudin’s second invasion of Chittor is portrayed as being after Ratan Singh and Devapal (the ruler of neighboring Kumbhalner), had killed each other in combat.

However, Allaudin’s obsession with Padmavati, his first invasion of Chittor, his demand that the Queen be handed over to him as condition for his lifting the siege, his entry into the fort under the ruse of a truce, his spiriting away of Ratan Singh to Delhi— all this is more or less as per the poem.

Coming to actual history, we know that Allaudin laid siege to Chittor and Ranthambor, and in both cases, there were instances of Jauhar .

Is the movie a balanced, layered or nuanced portrayal of Allaudin? Of course not. It does not set out to be; it is showing the conflict from the Rajput POV, so of course it shows Allaudin in a negative light. If all period films were to be judged on how accurate and balanced their portrayals were, well, we wouldn’t have too many of such films coming out. I’ve already mentioned the inaccuracies in, Jodha Akbar and Mughal E Azam in a previous comment. We can add any number to this list.

Padmaavat had this scene where Ratan Singh asks for assistance from his neighboring Rajput rulers and they all decline to come to his aid; while this did show the internecine squabbles and disunity among the Rajput ruling clans, they ought to have also shown the Ratan Singh—Devapal conflict. I am with you on this point.

A piece about Bhansali’s music, from the time the Guzaarish soundtrack came out…

Songs of the Soul

Jai – thank you, your comments were very insightful, enjoyed them all

Jai, to add to my point above – my crib was not directed at SLB – as many have commented, movies can’t be both entertaining and historically accurate – witness the ire at the recent Churchill movie, The Darkest Hour. My crib was against all the protesters, the nutters who raised such a ruckus.

February 1, 2018

@Radhika, thanks a ton 🙏

I get what you mean about the ruckus surrounding the movie. Actually, while I liked Padmaavat quite a bit, it’s not one of the films that have immensely touched me, or will ‘stay’ with me for ages. But all the brouhaha around the film is making me want to defend it more. ☺

Jai, you can seed the Bibi Nachiyar story into his mind for a possible next venture of his. it is an amazing one that can be a very engaging movie.

Pallavi Bhat

February 3, 2018

By glancing at the comments section, I think its safe to say you aren’t in minority within your realm of brangan-mini-verse, because most people seem to be agreeing with you.

However I dont think you got the point Swara’s article was making. She wasn’t proposing that the director should have done it her way and made a social comment. But she was asking the director to have the RIGHT sensibility.

You don’t clap when a huge number of people give up their innocent lives (no matter what the reason), you are supposed to feel remorse, sadness, horror.

But what the director did is glorify it, color it red and make it look like this was the most apt thing these women could have done and made us audience feel like we should all celebrate their bravery. This is exactly what I felt as I (a scientist, a person who is trained to think exhaustively, comprehensively and logically) came out of the movie hall and that is the power of cinema. In general, power of art.

You can always take a “fact” and depict it, but “how” is still completely your own decision. And after reading Swara’s well articulated article, it is only clear that the director showed something really terrible (mass suicide) and made us feel good about it and that indeed is messed up. I would say that it is infact “irresponsible”. I use the quotes because there is impermanence in such a judgement when one knows that there can be realization and rectification.

Finally saw the film. Thought it was well made, but the subject itself constrained Bhansali. The focus here is on Khilji’s ultimately unsuccessful conquest of Padmavati so it’s war-movie territory from very early on where Bajirao Mastani allowed Bhansali to build a love triangle within the framework of a historical film. I also felt that perhaps this was intended as Bollywood’s response to Baahubali. Because if Bollywood doesn’t produce such grand visual spectacles and more Baahubalis happen, it will get wiped out the way things are going. The scene where Padmavati and Maharawal Ratan Singh meet for the first time evokes the courtship scenes between Baahubali and Avantika, for instance. Ranveer Singh was fantastic but I agree that Jim Sarbh truly stole the show. Perhaps, the Karni Sena was in fact more upset that the more memorable characters were on the Khilji side and also how the film depicts the lack of support from any of the other Rajput kings (so much then for Rajput honour). As he did with Bajirao, Bhansali has played a sly game, apparently siding entirely with the Rajputs but letting Khilji capture the audience’s hearts. This is not my assessment alone; a lot of people in the cinema hall were laughing along with Khilji’s lines. After a long time, a memorable Bollywood villain in the Gabbar/Mogambo mould.

February 4, 2018

I was surprised by some of the negative reactions I read about Deepika’s performance here. Is it because her acting style isn’t very showy? I thought she was outstanding, all fire and ice. Even her Hindi delivery seems to have improved leaps and bounds since Bajirao Mastani. Like BR, I wish she had more to do. I would have loved to know more about how a Sinhalese princess grew to love her saasural, her husband and imbibed their Rajput values so thoroughly. I feel that perhaps Bhansali was trying to stick to the poem here and not add any filler, for fear of retribution. (which is very sad!) Which is probably why I felt that the film was missing something.

Ranveer walked a tightrope between menace and camp, and slipped a few times, but overall I thought it was a praiseworthy effort. This choice to embrace camp was puzzling to me, though, and might have caused audiences to not take him as seriously, especially since he was doing menace very well. I do not know who is to blame here, Ranveer or Bhansali. Maybe they did not want to take a “hero” down a completely dark path? Shahid was the sore thumb in my opinion, not very convincing as a dashing Rajput king and paled in comparison to Deepika’s luminescence. Someone with more personality (Hrithik?) would have been a better choice.

Tridib Bhattacharya

Interesting that you said Aditi Rao Hydari looked lost, I thought she left a much bigger impact in her few scenes than Deepika Padukone did with the whole movie.

Also wanted to point out that I quite like Khamoshi – I feel it has a strong emotional core. And Manisha Koirala is simply outstanding, though I couldn’t stand Salman Khan.

But as always, lovely reading your review of a Sanjay Leela Bhansali film – I think you’re the only critic who really gets his kind of cinema.

Missed mentioning this in my previous comment:

I really don’t know why Shahid Kapoor even agreed to do this film. People in the cinema hall were literally laughing out loud in the scene after he was released from captivity and lecturing Khilji on the values of Rajputs. Unintentionally comical. And he doesn’t have the physical stature either.

Though he did seem to have some effect on a little girl sitting behind me – when he was struck by the arrows from Khilji’s army, she yelled “yeh cheating hai!” 🙂

” Even her Hindi delivery seems to have improved leaps and bounds since Bajirao Mastani. ” – Absolutely. It’s not that she didn’t have dialogues here but she delivered them well here.

“Someone with more personality (Hrithik?) would have been a better choice.” – I also thought of Hrithik. But I wondered how many actors would have been eager to play that role anyway, knowing that whoever played Khilji would overshadow him (Shahid Kapoor mentioned this in an interview). Maybe SLB could have asked the real Rajput ;), Sushant Singh. He is possibly a better actor than Shahid and also has a more apt physique for the role. Shahid played his part well but just seemed to get dwarfed by Ranveer Singh all the time.

“Interesting that you said Aditi Rao Hydari looked lost, I thought she left a much bigger impact in her few scenes than Deepika Padukone did with the whole movie.” – Indeed thought she was great. It was a shorter but more difficult role.

I did feel the early portions which set the stage for what is to come were rather compressed and maybe this was because the film still wound up nearly 3 hours long.

When Khilji was moaning about how he has no line of love on his palm, I actually thought for a second that he was asking Malik Kafur to take a knife and carve one. I was a little taken aback when he started crying.

February 5, 2018

I don’t believe that it was Shahid’s acting that let the film down. Deepika and Shahid were obviously directed to play their characters in a contained and stylized manner so that Kilji would come across as even more brutal. Royalty was portrayed in way which is comparable to constraints exercised in traditional dance, drama and puppetry.

February 12, 2018

Never more disagreed with one of your Bhansali reviews more than this sentence: A gentler side of nature leads us to Padmavati (Deepika Padukone, whose stills could be used by Merriam-Webster to define “genetic jackpot”).

At the risk of sounding unfairly shallow, it seemed ridiculous to cast the far more beautiful Aditi Rao Hydari as the beleaguered wife jealous of an odd looking Deepika Padukone. Supermodel looks? Maybe in height only. Surprised you found Aditi to be lost when I thought she was the most at home in the Bhansali film-verse, even given her limited material.

Not to mention the jarring attempts at intensity that bordered on comical coming from the Rajputs. Shahid is usually a serviceable actor but maybe the flared nostril school of acting from Deepika was contagious. The Khilji side was stacked with charismatic, capable actors that could deliver to the mounting of a Bhansali costume drama, talk about an unfair battle.

May 3, 2018

Look look see see who’s famous 😄

Thanks Tina 😀

Here’s another one (11 minute mark) 😀

ramitbajaj01

Congratulations Sir, hope you get read more by the film industry!

May 4, 2018

Does any one else feel Jim Sarbh could have been a good or even better Freddy Mercury? Not only his uncanny resemblance to Freddy and parsi -ness but I also sense an aura of craziness that would translate very well to Mercury’s character.

tejas: Agreed. Well, most Parsis – and there aren’t a lot of them 😛 – are a little unhinged or maybe just very outspoken and unabashed about their eccentricity compared to the typical docile mentality of Indians. So that does come across with Jim Sarbh, even in the interviews, leave alone the acting. Wonder if he also knows Queen front to back; quite likely he does because Parsis are more clued in about Western music per se.

Had a tax prof in CA coaching class who happened to be a Parsi. He had a flying licence and hated driving cars because he found it too slow. One time the biggest stud in our batch (er, about as stud as a CA aspirant can get) wanted to ride pillion with him on his BMW bike. Guy got scared just from the way he accelerated from standstill and this was in the crowded Ghatkopar station road. Nobody could possibly have taught tax like him. His lectures were so interesting we ended up forgetting what he taught! 😀

Leave a comment

• 25,386,007 hits

Follow Blog via Email

Email Address:

Sign me up!

• Conversations With Mani Ratnam
• Dispatches From the Wall Corner

Other blogs

• RSS - Posts
• RSS - Comments

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

• Readers Write In #725: My Chiyaan Vikram Story – Part Two: Chapter ‘Thangalaan’
• Interview: Sharvari (‘Munjya’, ‘Maharaj’, ‘Vedaa’)
• Despite some “Tamil-film compromises”, Mari Selvaraj’s ‘Vaazhai’ is a work of terrifying cinematic beauty
• Readers Write In #724: Pa.Ranjith–Moving forward by looking backward or Move on?
• Critics can’t critique them…
• Readers Write In #723: Angles, Triangle and Auteurs
• Justice Hema Committee Report Reveals Malayalam Film Industry Is Ruled By “Mafia”, Exposes Power Abuse And Sexual Exploitation
• Readers Write In #722: Why is gold so expensive? A Thangalaan perspective
• Interview: Mari Selvaraj (‘Vaazhai’)
• Namrata Rao’s ‘Angry Young Men’, on Prime Video, is an easy watch, a nostalgic look at the Salim-Javed story, but there’s not much real insight
• The Amateur’s Art #54 – Writer Padum Paadu
• Readers Write In #721: Sarkate ka aatank – ‘ O Sarkataa ,phir kabhi maat aana ,O stree hamari raksha karna’
• #QnA: Thangalaan
• Interview: Nani / SJ Suryah (‘Saripodhaa Sanivaaram’)
• Readers Write In #720: All Goes To Hell In The Second Half: An Aanand L Rai Retrospective
• Readers Write In #719: ‘Thangalaan, the Shaman’
• Interview: Karthik Gowda (‘Powder’, KRG Films)
• National Awards 2024
• Readers Write In #718: Short story: Awakenings
• Amar Kaushik’s entertaining ‘Stree 2’ gives us exactly what we go in for: a silly ghost story with more laughs than scares
• Pa. Ranjith’s ‘Thangalaan’, starring Vikram, has a number of interesting threads, but they don’t come together and the film doesn’t connect emotionally
• Suman Kumar’s ‘Raghu Thatha’, with Keerthy Suresh, is a sweet, watchable film that struggles to live up to its potential
• Interview: Suman Kumar (‘Raghu Thatha’, ‘Family Man’, ‘Farzi’)
• 65 years of Kamal Haasan
• Angry Young Men – The Salim-Javed Story
• Readers Write In #717: Phir Aayi Hasseen Dillruba Is A Disappointing Affair
• Interview: Arulnithi / Ajay Gnanamuthu (‘Demonte Colony 2’)
• Interview: Keerthy Suresh (‘Raghu Thatha’, ‘Baby John’)
• Interview: Prosenjit Chatterjee (‘Jubilee’, ‘Shesh Pata’, ‘Ajogyo’)
• Halitha Shameem’s ambitious ‘Minmini’ has a handful of good scenes, but the overall film isn’t satisfying
• Readers Write In #716: Ullozhukku – A ‘Halo’ Shatterer
• Readers Write In #715: हुज़ूर की कोशिश-ए-हीरामंडी पर बंदा ऐतराज़ दर्ज़ कराता है
• Pari Elavazhagan’s ‘Jama’ is an ambitious, solidly narrated drama about a street-theatre troupe
• Interview: ‘Top Star’ Prashanth (‘Andhagan’)
• Interview: ‘Therukural’ Arivu (about and around his new album, ‘Valliamma Peraandi’)
• Bitty Ruminations 101 – Movie watching
• Readers Write In #714: The Idea Of You
• Interview: Ram Gopal Varma
• Interview: Nikkhil Advani (on the sets of ‘Freedom at Midnight’, coming on SonyLIV)
• Sahadev Kelvadi’s ‘Kenda’ is both muted and hard-hitting, a deep-dive into the life and mind of a “lowly” rowdy
• Interview: Sundeep Kishan (‘Raayan’)
• Interview: Diganth Manchale (‘Powder’)
• My interview with Galatta Tamil, about Dhanush, on his 41st birthday
• Readers Write In #713: Maharaja (spoilers ahead)
• Readers Write In #712: Mr & Mrs Mahi – Of fame and the never ending quest for it
• Readers Write In #711: Raayan
• My interview with Galatta Tamil, about Raayan
• The Amateur’s Art #53 – Hello Technology
• The US elections
• Dhanush’s ‘Raayan’ is an example of how good writing, staging, and spot-on casting can elevate the most templated material

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar