So everyone is finally
happy that the most controversial film in Bollywood has managed to
see the light of day and grab attention even after its tumultuous
release. Is this Sanjay Leela Bhansali's best work. No. Will her role
as the deified queen seal Deepika Padukone's status as Bollywood
queen for posterity? I hardly think so. Was this magnum opus
deserving of all the censorship it underwent to please a fractious
and irrelevant clan of hooligans who claim to be sworn protectors of
a royal dynasty? Absolutely not. And yet, the film seems to have
validated its presence in the modern context by going on to win
plaudits as well as box office return even while detractors and
trolls alike are still attacking the film for all it potrays, honours
and stands for.
From the
conceptualisation to the characterisation of this film, everything in
the making of this film spells problematic from the word go. Why?
Because when you do not have enough material to base your
historical/mythical story on, it will either fall flat on its face
when it comes to creating verisimilitude or come off at the seams,
even when you manage to sway the audience with glorified visuals of
cinematic splendour. I watched this film in 3D and yet, despite the
delicious expanse of its canvas, the film lacked depth, simply
because it didn't even try hard to convince the audience that this in
fact could be authentic. A film is not meant to be a chapter for
history books. It can indulge in fictitiously depicting an age,
character or event provided it mentions the same. No one should be
looking for authenticity here. For that you have libraries. At the
same time, please don't expect a film stuck in a certain orthodox era
to enlighten us about feminism and modern outlook. After all, the
film never meant to take sides about how jauhar or sati are not
acceptable, it merely brought to the fore a previously unseen story
about an erstwhile queen who made this inedible choice due to her
circumstances and the period she lived in, albeit in the wrong
century.
Of course, we cannot go
back to that time in order to identify with her but neither can we
demand that our generation of millenials buy in to this sort of
self-sacrifice in this day and age. So who is the audience this film
is trying to appeal to- youngsters who won't flinch to defy their own
parents's decisions these days on matters of their lifestyle choices
and actually shun marriage as too conventional in this virtual age of
Tinder and speed dating? Are they sensitive enough to be moved by the
moral conduct and strict norms that women of a long-forgotten century
had no choice but to adhere to? Will they be able to identify with
her or relate to her from the cushioned lounge seat they are watching
the film from? Does the filmmaker engage in coercing us in to abject
submission to the film's moral high ground in the garb of honouring a
community's ideas of honour, pride and integrity even if it comes at
the cost of putting down a gender in its wake? A popular actor's
recent diatribe on the film does make you wonder about this and while
the makers may argue that this was the queen's choice to end her life
and not something that was pushed down her throat, it does make you
realise the futility of such debate. What choice do you have when
there is really no choice the society offers you by way of women
empowerment, liberty, justice and equality?
As for me, I really have
other niggling problems with the film viewed purely from the
cinematic point of view. I was fairly disappointed to see how wrongly
Shahid Kapoor was cast as a noble, enigmatic and powerful Rajput
warrior king. The love story between him and the queen looked as
superficial as it could get with no real reasons given for why they
might have fallen in love. The entire plot unravels like a story
outline where gaping cracks are left, jarring the very foundation of
the film. The villain's entire coterie gets meatier roles and screen
time with Alauddin Khilji being the most author-backed. Minor
detailing helps etch out his nature, whims, psyche and aggression.
It's almost as if while we are led to believe that we should side
with the good, we are constantly being drawn in to the black spider's
web of evil, that spins an intricate and believable yarn around us.
So besides Khilji, it's Malik Kafur and the rebellious Rajguru who
manage to stand out as the strongest roles in the film, a strange
pity after all the brouhaha over Rajput valour.
Ranveer Singh bites in to
his role with a kind of raw hunger seen in every film he has made
with his mentor Sanjay Leela Bhansali till date. He is moody,
fanatical, obsessive, crushed, victorious and yet defeated, all at
once! Wonder why the only character everyone seems to be praising is
that of this ruthless, devious and unscrupulous Sultan of Delhi when
it was clearly supposed to be an ode to Rajput glory! No prizes for
guessing why Padmaavat therefore takes its audience for a royal ride,
sans a solid story, sans the poignancy such a legend deserves and in
stead ends up as a gnawing misinterpretation of a beautiful queen
whose name gives the tragic tale its title. As a queen who is endowed
with a lot beyond mere physical attributes, the film would have us
believe that she was sharp-witted, an efficacious ruler with fair
discretionary powers of how to manoeuvre a kingdom without its
rightful ruler on the throne. As someone who was equally meritorious
a warrior as she was a strategic mediator, it is particularly
incredible how her only way to confront a more powerful and lustful
enemy was by ceasing to exist, and becoming the cause of mass
self-immolation. What should have been her war cry becomes a widow's
wail, that too for a king who was neither able to protect his queen,
nor win his empire through military strength or pre-meditated
strategy. Particularly disturbing is the Maharaja's absolute
nonchalance at assenting to his wife's plea to commit a heinous crime
in the name of honour after his death, it's a nod of approval my
husband would give for a cup of tea may be, NOT for a request to end
my life to honour his name!
Since I started with a
question, let me end this tirade of disappointment with another one.
Last heard, a Brahmin group of protestors are now gearing up to seal
the gates of release for another historically inspired film,
Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi starring the oh-so-feminist Kangana
Ranaut. Since we have as a nation already gone beyond solving issues
of national importance like global climatic change and farmer
suicides, we of course have all the time to now engage in fresh
debate over whether this film should indeed be cause for controversy
or not. I can already see our torch bearers of feminism rising up in
arms against the creative liberty that is every filmmaker's right to
making a movie. The INR 200 crore worth question therefore is, are
our filmmakers shouldering the responsibility of at least
convincingly depicting a story on screen for us to uphold it for its
merits? Padmaavat failed on both levels, as a film as well as a
social comment on its time. Sorry Mr.Bhansali, we gave you a fair
chance, but you robbed us of an opportunity to witness and savour a
film that was worth our money and your effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment