Just wanted to put down a few thoughts about this, and I’ll begin with a disclaimer.
This is just my opinion, and I’m not saying this is the only way to look at this scene. Also, this is not a rebuttal (as such) to the Swara Bhaskar post, which I disagreed with (in terms of content, and put out a tweet to that effect). But any kind of intense, passionate discussion around art and society is good/vital/necessary, and had that post not been written, I may not have wanted to write this either.
My point is just this. I do not get the sense of “celebration” or “glorification” at all. A lot of people have pointed to the staging of the scene — i.e. the visuals — and said that this pomp is unwarranted. But for me, this is how it was with royals. They did everything with a sense of ceremony, with ritualistic rigour. Consider the Holi scene from earlier in the film as well. It’s hardly the “fun” Holi scene from, say, Sholay. There’s a sense of ceremony/ritual between the king and queen playing Holi. And here, too.
Now, consider that Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s directorial style, his vision, the way he sees things is also ceremonial/ritualistic. So the scene is doubly shrouded in a sense of grand theatre — one, from what it is (the content), and the other from how it’s been mounted (the style).
Is this ‘glorification’? I’d say no.
No more than the last scene of Devdas ‘glorified’ doomed love (which a more “practical” mind might define as “acting like a loser, unable to get on with life because you lost your girl”).
No more than the last scene of Bajirao Mastani ‘glorified’ — again — doomed love (which a more “practical” mind might define as “spurning a loyal wife who loves you in favour of a reckless liaison”).
No more than the last scene of Guzaarish ‘glorified’ euthanasia by surrounding the act with much happiness. This particular man chose this particular end, and this particular director infused it with this particular mood. It’s depiction, not endorsement. Now, love it, hate it — that’s the effect of the scene, of Bhansali’s style. But it’s not a ‘glorification’ of euthanasia. Yes, there are many terminally ill patients in India. Yes, this could be a disturbing message to send to them. But that is the author/creator’s freedom. And I do believe that a filmmaker should not be shackled by society. There are filmmakers who are socially/politically inclined. There are those who aren’t. We should judge creators on the basis of the work they do, and not on the basis of whether that work conforms to our ideas/principles.
Here’s the other thing.
There’s never a sense of true ‘celebration’ in a Bhansali movie. His films are built on inner torment, the writhing of the soul. And his endings are conflagrations (in Padmaavat, literally so) that say “at least in the hereafter, maybe there’s happiness, for there’s certainly none to be found on this earth.”
And we know this from the very beginning of Bhansali’s films, because that’s what his theme music (whether composed by him or someone else) sets us up for. With this filmmaker, people seem to notice only the visual cues, but his aural cues are equally important.
Consider the ta nom tara dhere na theme music of Devdas and Rani sa track of Padmaavat, both of which play over the opening credits of the respective films.
This is the mood we are entering the movie with — melancholy, a sense of incompleteness, longing. Is it “grand”? Sure. But that’s the pitch the films operate in. And when we hear Rani sa over the closing ‘jauhar’ scene, this is the mood the audio evokes. At least for me, this isn’t a celebratory mood, a mood that glorifies something. It suggests loss. With the Devdas theme, you can practically smell the incense rising off the burning souls. In Padmaavat, this particular queen chose this particular end, and this particular director infused it with this particular mood.
Again, this isn’t the last word — just some thoughts, because I happen to be a huge Bhansali fan. Not so much of this particular film though (as I wrote in my review here). There’s no telling how much of Padmaavat‘s problems are a result of post-controversy reshaping. But we can only form an opinion from whatever ends up on screen, and I so wish Bhansali had made the film he’d wanted to make.
Do chip in with your thoughts, and thanks for reading.
Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan
January 30, 2018
*Sorry for the mistake in the previous comment. Please delete that one and post this
The problem that I find with our nation is people want anything and everything that’s there to match with their ideologies and what they feel is ‘right,’ but they don’t realise that it is nigh impossible if that is with respect to any art form. Art is one of the very few things that draws multiple perspectives and manufactures various kinds of conclusions for the same subject through the eyes of different people. But, these perspectives often end in less healthy debates because of the intolerance and the offensive mindset we have as a society. As much as we have the right to say our views in public through social media, a person involved in creating art has every right to show his vision through any of the available media that is viable enough for him. The piece by Swara, though terrific, didn’t care enough look at the same from this angle.
LikeLike
venkat
January 30, 2018
swara Bhaskar’s comments are just angry outburst from an activist on an ordinary commercial film, She literally thrust her views on the readers (In that she is not democratic). there is no need of so much fury and frothing in the mouth. The immolation by some woman to avoid rape (sometimes even after rape) is sometimes common (though this need not be supported) not because their vaginas are despoiled because it is one extreme way of taking revenge on the men. Perhaps Ms Bhaskar may also object to purification of Sita in the fire but that is a different age. You must judge the people according to the times of their existence rather than on the views of current generation.
LikeLike
Ramakrishnan
January 30, 2018
It’s very hard to single out what’s being glorified or not. In the case of our Tamil/Telugu mass/masala films, we can only conclude glorification from the bgms/chorus/camera angles used. Even in the standard village-centric films, we constantly have dialogues about the valour and honour of the thevar caste. Sure, it must have been how that community saw or presently see themselves as. But to represent the same in front of a camera with glorious crescendos would mean endorsing it and nothing else. In the case of Padmaavat, there is of course an inherent sadness when Deepika’s character convinces every other woman in Chittorgarh to commit Jauhar in the name of Dharma. But when you infuse it with a background chorus like ‘Rani Sa’, gorgeous colour palettes and more problematically, a smile from Deepika as she enters the flames, what else can one infer at face value than an endorsement of archaic practices? Also, leaving the ceremonial angle of Jauhar/Sati aside for a bit, historians doubt whether such acts were indeed carried out with the full cooperation of women. And this is in the case of recorded acts. When we take fantasy-fiction material like Padmaavat, isn’t it obvious that the treatment given to it in 2018 should be critical?
LikeLiked by 12 people
Anuja Chandramouli
January 30, 2018
For starters let me say that freedom of expression is sacrosanct as far as I am concerned and so yes SLB has the right to make whatever crap he wants to and those of us who have little patience with his nonsense have the right to express our distaste. I am no SLB fan obviously and I thought Padmaavat was ridiculous on so many bloody levels that whether he sought to glorify Jauhar or not is completely irrelevant because the man’s latest misstep simply does not have the kind of depth to even warrant a discussion of this nature.
“A lot of people have pointed to the staging of the scene — i.e. the visuals — and said that this pomp is unwarranted. But for me, this is how it is with royals. ”
Perhaps BR, but the fact is Chittor was under siege and for those who are not sure about what siege conditions entail allow me to explain. The Rajputs on account of their unwillingness to put up a United front against Alauddin knew that he would crush them with his superior in terms of strength, discipline and numbers army in the event of open war. That meant they had no choice to hole themselves up in their forts and (in this case that would be Chittorgarh) and pray for divine intervention. The invading army would then surround them and if unable to breach the walls opt to cut off supplies, attempt to poison the water sources (Alauddin liked killing cows and dumping them in there) or bribe someone on the inside to betray their people and reveal secret passages into the fort.
As for those trapped inside, things would become increasingly desperate with every mouthful of food being rationed carefully. Finally, when driven to desperate straits (sometimes they were forced to consume the spoilt remains of horses which starved to death) the men would assemble and prepare for one last charge and the women would commit Jauhar. Of course, Bhansali with his ugly obsession for all things bright and beautiful can hardly be expected to portray the sordid reality of siege conditions (given the water scarcity and inability to dispose wastes through regular channels, hygiene levels would deteriorate signalling the onset of disease and despair) you can count on him to show the denizens celebrating Diwali and Holi with ridiculous ritualistic rigour or the protagonist and antagonist going at it Mano y Mano (duh). Given the historical context, SLB’s approach fills me with disdain and his brand of empty spectacle simply does not impress me in the least.
Side note: Kamala Devi, wife of Rai Karan Singh Vaghela of Gujarat (Anu Warrior, with regard to your comment in a previous thread, it was around this time that Malik Kafur came into his possession, and it was after Jalaluddin’s death) apparently made the wholly voluntary decision not to escape with her husband who had a reputation for being a tyrant and sadist and opted to marry Alauddin instead. Scholars are in agreement regarding this unlike the Padmavati case where there seems to be no evidence that she existed in the first place. Meanwhile when Alauddin took Ranthambore after a lengthy siege, Hammira Dev Chauhan insisted that his daughter, Devala commit Jauhar though Alauddin had asked for her hand among things as the terms of surrender. History’s decision to deify a Padmavati (whose fictional story is similar to Devala’s real one) and forget a Kamala Devi (wasn’t her decision to live not a brave one?) is something that galls me to the very depths of my being for obvious reasons. Admittedly it is a very personal thing for me, which is why SLB’s portrayal of Jauhar irrespective of whether it was celebratory or not makes me wanna puke my guts out.
LikeLiked by 14 people
Ann Rajkumari Jodhaa
January 30, 2018
Excelente post, estoy totalmente de acuerdo con su contenido.
LikeLike
Ganeshwar
January 30, 2018
What Swara argues is how men when they portray a woman, make self conscious women feel about themselves. You saying that no see it through my eyes or Bhansali’s eyes or for that matter even Bhansali’s Padmavati’s eyes is only reinforcing whatever she’s saying. You cannot ask her to stop being a woman when watching a cinema. And, let’s make it clear – Sita or Kannagi or Padmavati are not history BR. They are all men’s idea of ideal women. When reiterating them, you cannot claim objectivity. BR, we men have the right to view and portay women the way we want is not a great FoE or an artistic freedom defence. So don’t make this about FoE.
LikeLiked by 7 people
MANK
January 30, 2018
Just wanted to put down a few thoughts about this, and I’ll begin with a disclaimer.
This is just my opinion, and I’m not saying this is the only way to look at this scene. Also, this is not a rebuttal
Again, this isn’t the last word — just some thoughts
kya zamana aaa gaya hai. brangan has to put disclaimers and ‘IMOs’ in his own blog 🙂
LikeLiked by 10 people
Vikram S
January 30, 2018
Hi BR, glad that you are starting a separate thread on this…I saw the film yesterday and that ending (despite being a foregone conclusion) made me feel disturbed…I was not looking at the gorgeous mounting etc, to me it did not feel like glorification…
Also, the ppl finding the ending problematic are the ones using a current lens to view something harking back to society / customs of a bygone era… whereas maybe it makes sense to view it as a product of the times it is set in (and not expect it to represent the time it is made in)…
I had similar problems with parts of ‘Rangoon’…there is a small scene that has the movie star (Kangana) telling the soldier (Shahid) of the unnecessary importance given to skin color…that, to me, was not the character speaking but the actor channeling her thoughts…
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
January 30, 2018
Anuja Chandramouli: but the fact is Chittor was under siege and for those who are not sure about what siege conditions entail allow me to explain…
Uh, let me stop you right there. I really don’t really give a rat’s ass about what the REAL conditions in Chittor were. This is a film based on a poem and it makes zero claims to historical accuracy. So I do not expect any.
Lawrence of Arabia is one of my favourite films. I do not watch because it is historically accurate (see link here for the many ways David Lean chose to do his own “imagining”), but because it works for me as a piece of fiction, as a piece of cinema.
About SLB’s “ugly obsession for all things bright and beautiful” — now, now, surely you weren’t sleeping during the Khali bali song sequence, which was in shades of black and grey. So at least say, “dark and beautiful” too 🙂
But no. I do not see Bhansali doing anything different from what, say, Tennyson did with the “situation” in Home they brought her warrior dead:
Home they brought her warrior dead:
She nor swooned, nor uttered cry:
All her maidens, watching, said,
‘She must weep or she will die.’
I don’t say: “This is about a woman riddled with grief that her husband has come back dead. How dare Tennyson beautify this with rhyme (dead/said; cry/die) and metrical precision (exactly seven syllables in the second and fourth lines)? How dare he use so REAL a situation as an exhibit for his craft? How dare he not write in free verse?”
No, for me, all styles work in all kinds of subject matter — and no, I don’t expect others to see it the same way. This post, after all, started with an IMO!
Ganeshwar: You cannot ask her to stop being a woman when watching a cinema.
Oh, I’m so sorry. I guess I should have started with a disclaimer that “this is the not only way to look at this scene. Also, this is not a rebuttal (as such) to the Swara Bhaskar post, which I disagreed with (in terms of content, and put out a tweet to that effect). But any kind of intense, passionate discussion around art and society is vital/necessary…”
Oh, wait. I did that already! 🙂
LikeLiked by 6 people
Jai
January 30, 2018
I read Swara Bhaskar’s open letter with a lot of interest…….and I don’t agree with it at all. 🙂 Despite her arguments to contrary, I felt she was viewing the film not in its historical/mythological setting, but through the prism of present day values and mores.
In some ways, it was rather like Anna Vetticad’s critique of Baahubali as “romanticisation of social status quoism” and “endorsing the undisputed right of the Kshatriya to rule”. The limitation of Anna Vetticad’s views was the simple fact that Baahubali was set in a mytho–historical context, when monarchy and absolute rule by certain social classes was the norm. To not show that, would have been incongruous to the setting of the film.
Likewise, Swara’s open letter is based on her unshakable conviction, that the climax scene in Padmaavat resulted in the “glorification and support of Sati and Jauhar” and somehow “seduced the audience into being awestruck and admiring of this act.” I am unable to see that scene in the light she saw it, at all.
That same scene—watching all those women, including a pregnant woman and little girl walk into the fire— made my wife and me recoil in horror. All we felt was the pathos inherent in that situation; of the dreadful choice that had to be made. The grim resolve to choose one dreadful fate over another. Nothing “glorified” about it.
Swara feels that she, in a similar situation, “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”. Yes, that is a choice too— and a valid one. The fact that many others chose differently, doesn’t invalidate the telling of their story or make it reprehensible.
I think it comes down to feeling that a filmmaker ought to have shown the scene a certain way. Some comments on social media have been talking about how the climax ought to have shown women being forced to commit the act, of being pushed and shoved into the flames. Here’s the thing, though. There is something to be said for interpretation, too? The tragedy inherent in such an unbearable choice—-if deciding between such terrible alternatives can really be termed a choice—-isn’t that horrifying?
Its good though, that such conversations are happening, reflecting on patriarchy, misogyny, sexual violence and how we still haven’t ensured women’s rights to agency. Its good that we are all reflecting on how wars and even localized conflicts present women with such stark alternatives, and to this day, pillaging armies and mobs continue to target women. However, the reality facing us, as Swara puts it, is of “this gang-rape infested India, this rape condoning mindset, this victim blaming society…….”. That is the unfortunate and reprehensible reality, not the “context of this film” as she wrongly identifies it.
The real tragedy would be, if all this reflection and soul searching died down once the movie buzz ends; with attitudes remaining unchanged. How SLB depicted the climax in Padmaavat is neither cause nor effect of the malaise that is afflicting our society now. It is merely a reflection of what society made women choose from (or forced into) in the 13th Century, and sadly, continues to do so (with perhaps a different set of stark choices/ coercion) till date.
How to react to the climax of a movie is just a subjective interpretation. Making the real changes in attitudes, is the hard (and essential) bit.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jai
January 30, 2018
Just for “context” 🙂 🙂 (since this is Swara Bhaskar’s main ground for critique), I just wanted to compare her article defending Raanjhana against the robust criticism it faced from several quarters for glorification of stalking, versus her open letter condemning SLB for supposedly glorifying sati and jauhar.
To quote extracts from her own article:
“Despite its gimmicky, populist and male favouring one-liners, the film may be interpreted within its generic context. Raanjhanaa is the tragedy of an irrational, impassioned, obsessive lover. Depicting such a crazed state-of-mind on-screen requires the lover doing things that go against ordinary and socially accepted expressions of love………………….
Writer Himanshu Sharma has created a hero harking back to the literary tradition of the intensely-passionate-deeply- flawed-self-destructive-tragic-male-protagonist, seen in almost every ‘great’ tragedy in literature be it Saratchandra’s Devadas or Shakespeare’s Othello. Sharma’s Raanjhanaa remains consistent with the generic patterns of the tragic form,…………………….
Sharma’s characters speak the thoughts and language of the world where they belong- the largely socially conservative, patriarchal world of small town India……………
A male-centric perspective? Yes. Politically incorrect? Indeed! Disturbing? Certainly! Emotionally compelling? Also! Misogynistic? I beg to differ.”””
🙂 🙂 🙂
Again, I’m not saying Swara Bhaskar does not have the right to state her views. Its actually very good that such conversations are happening. However, if Raanjhana harked back to literary tradition, then Padmaavat is actually based on Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s poem, which has its climax pretty much as how SLB portrayed it cinematically.
The bottom line is, in the tragically numerous instances of jauhar which happened over centuries, many women would have been drugged with bhang to put them in a narcotic haze. Many others might have been physically dragged into the flames. And others may have voluntarily leaped into the pyre—–if opting for such a horribly painful death as preferable to another stark, cruel alternative could really be termed “voluntary”. To my mind, all these instances are horrifying and reprehensible. Merely because the climax of the film didn’t show the Rajput women being pushed into the fire, doesn’t amount to its “glorification”.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Mukesh
January 30, 2018
Baradwaj Rangan is the perfect caste blind savarna reviewer.. Of course there was no ‘glorification’ of Jauhar, and ofcourse no glorification of ‘Rajput’ caste…neither was any glorification done of cruel Brahmin Peshwas in Bajirao Mastani….all of that is just style and flourish of Bhansali. Don’t we all love beautifully crafted nazi propaganda films too.
And please this comment is not a glorification of Baradwaj Rangan either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vidya Murugan
January 30, 2018
The movie should have ended with the door closing on Alauddin’s face/dream, leaving what happens behind closed doors implied. The loss and futility on Alauddin’s face would have given it a more Sufi ending.
Also, it might have been nice to have some sense of despair on the Rajput side. Afterall no one likes to lose and people do want to live, even the brave and stoic.
The jauhar, to me, should have evoked a sense of tragedy.
LikeLike
Vidya Murugan
January 30, 2018
Maybe with ek dil hai playing in the back instead of rani sa. The “tu” in the song being “Chittor”.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
January 30, 2018
“I really don’t really give a rat’s ass about what the REAL conditions in Chittor were. This is a film based on a poem and it makes zero claims to historical accuracy. So I do not expect any.”
Fair enough BR. Did not exactly expect historical accuracy from SLB either but my feelings on viewing this version was somewhat similar to yours after watching Ra One “And a Tamilian caricature is rendered so outrageously that I laughed in disbelief” Ra One did not claim accuracy in depicting Tamilians either but it does not alter the fact that a Tamilian or someone who finds stereotyping offensive would be mightily pissed off right? Even Padmaavat – Jayasi’s poem is not guilty of the kind of blatant stereotyping evident in SLB’s version . Besides the epic poem thanks to a talking parrot and other seriously fanciful conceits establishes it’s fictional status very clearly whereas SLB’s claim that his movie is based on the poem seems to be something that his lawyers pulled out their backsides because in truth this crappy is a hopeless mishmash that is neither here nor there. Just pointing it out that’s all.
“About SLB’s “ugly obsession for all things bright and beautiful” — now, now, surely you weren’t sleeping during the Khali bali song sequence, which was in shades of black and grey. So at least say, “dark and beautiful” too 🙂”
I’ll content myself with a gentle eye roll here that hopefully conveys a hint of exasperation and a mild urge to chuckle 🙂 🙂
“But no. I do not see Bhansali doing anything different from what, say, Tennyson did with the “situation” in Home they brought her warrior dead:”
Uh, let me stop you right there. Alfred Lord Tennyson was brilliant at what he did and even the faintest comparison with a hack like SLB is tantamount to sacrilege! How could you Sir?
I am all written out on this subject. We are never going to see eye to eye on this but that’s fine I guess 🙂 🙂 To each his/her own and all that jazz right? 🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 30, 2018
‘I can’t do what I like,somehow,’ she said. ‘I can only do what I must.It’s always like that’. ‘I never had to fight for my’ – she coloured-my honour, whatever that is. And I know girls like me have fought for this something I don’t understand’.~ Dawn Winter in Saint Errant.
LikeLike
MANK
January 30, 2018
SLB may be a lot of things , but he’s definitely not a hack. he is a unique passionate cinematic artist in a blatant commercial world of hacks and businessmen. i am not Bhansali’s greatest fan either, but i will give him that , he has an artistic vision of his own, even if it occasionally gets suffocated by commercial interests and smothered by socio political demands.Something like Saawariya will stand forever as a testament to a mad passionate artist pursuing his singular vision in a blatant commercial film industry.
i do believe padmaavat would have been a very different film (better or worse, i dont know) if the sena and their ilk hadn’t put a gun on his head. the situation became so hot that he couldn’t show a single moment of dissent towards the rajputi aan bhaan and shaan
I guess The main takeaway for a filmmaker from the entire padmaavat-padmavati episode is that , prepared to be bludgeoned by the right wingers before the release and by the left wingers after the release
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ajit Singh Bal.
January 30, 2018
Bhansali’s films, as is his fondness for spectacle is reminiscent of Hollywood period classics such as Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments and the like, hardly leave a spell on the viewer. On comes out of the auditorium in daze. The case in point is comparison to Bimal Roy’s Devdas. The movie hung on one’s mind as a feeling of sadness and gloom.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 30, 2018
@Anuja, see also ‘I’m not looking for historical inaccuracy in SLB’s films.’ in that very comment. 🙂
I didn’t see it as glorification; Swara did. BR didn’t, you did. To each his own, I guess. As Shalini put it, the sort of hungama this film has evoked – unnecessarily, in my opinion, for least said, the film would have been forgotten before the screening ended – makes me want to defend it all the more. 🙂
Also, agree with MANK – SLB is not a hack. Not your cup of tea certainly, and to some extent, not mine, either, but he’s not a hack. The film he envisioned and the film that hit the screens are two different films. This is one film, though it did not touch me at all, that makes me want to see the Director’s cut, or the full un-cut version.
LikeLike
GODZ
January 30, 2018
“Women have the right to live, despite being raped sir.Women have the right to live, despite the death of their husbands, male ‘protectors’, ‘owners’, ‘controllers of their sexuality’.. whatever you understand the men to be”
IMO, the writer completely misses the point of SLB and too occupied with her preconceived opinions. IMO, Aladdin wants to own anything thats precious and he uses brutal force, deception etc to own anything that he deems precious. Its like all thing precious belongs to him. This is the fundamental framework under which the character Acts. All Aladdin cares is one night and for him thats the victory. And its really not about the rape. Remember the initial scenes, where he shackles the Queen of devagiri and makes her his toy. Remember the way Aladdin treats his wife as slave? Even Malik kafur does a slave job here. As a shrewd queen, she was aware of the humiliation she has to undergo once get caught in the hands of Khilji.
What she did was Indian Female version of Seppuku. Samurai dont perform Seppuku to protect their penis. They do that to protect their honor and avoid humiliation in the hands of enemies. The way i see is Padmavati performed this suicide to avoid humiliation and not to protect her vagina. All she did was, during that inevitable defeat, she just gave middle finger to khilji and avoided humiliation of being treated like a sex toy by doing Indian Sepuku. What SLB did with that background was the glorification of the intent and bravery behind her decision and not in anyway the practice of Sati
LikeLiked by 3 people
shaviswa
January 30, 2018
@Anuja Chandramouli
“History’s decision to deify a Padmavati (whose fictional story is similar to Devala’s real one) and forget a Kamala Devi (wasn’t her decision to live not a brave one?)”
Uh…no! It makes Kamala a very pragmatic woman, yes, but brave – no. And that is the reason, women like Rani Padmini/Padmavati who as the legend goes, chose to give up their lives rather than live like concubines of the enemy emperor are glorified and deified.
This movie is one such and I see nothing wrong with what Bhansali has done.
LikeLike
IMF
January 30, 2018
BR, you’re on a roll with these extremely low tier takes – first with respect to the Aziz Ansari post (I wrote a moderately lengthy comment in response, but then couldn’t submit it, and later the comments section turned into somewhat of a dumpster fire, so decided against it), now this. I mean, as someone being so perceptive in analyzing the nuances and layers in films, including/especially mainstream cinema, these pieces (especially this one) reads a LOT like some random half assed post from the comments section on FB.
I still can’t believe how you could be so off the mark with respect to Tennyson/SLB comparison. Cinema is a visual medium, and even if you don’t think aesthetic has any point in cinema when it comes to conveying anything (which, I don’t know is a position you yourself would hold otherwise), we are talking about ‘a background chorus like ‘Rani Sa’, gorgeous colour palettes and more problematically, a smile from Deepika as she enters the flames’ (as Ramakrishna has pointed out above).
Secondly, you are being so bizzare with addressing someone, this is the whole comment posted by Ganeshwar
“What Swara argues is how men when they portray a woman, make self conscious women feel about themselves. You saying that no see it through my eyes or Bhansali’s eyes or for that matter even Bhansali’s Padmavati’s eyes is only reinforcing whatever she’s saying. You cannot ask her to stop being a woman when watching a cinema. And, let’s make it clear – Sita or Kannagi or Padmavati are not history BR. They are all men’s idea of ideal women. When reiterating them, you cannot claim objectivity. BR, we men have the right to view and portay women the way we want is not a great FoE or an artistic freedom defence. So don’t make this about FoE.”
He’s not implying you are literally asking Swara to “stop being a woman while watching cinema” (which you quoted and responded to and went on to quote your disclaimer a la “muh free speech”, instead of addressing the very valid point he raised), but rather making a point about how these are written by men, and with respect to men’s ideal of women, especially when it comes to fiction. And you can’t analyze Swara’s piece from a male perspective, what bothered her as a woman/feminist. It’s a critical, feminist analysis/opinion piece by a woman and how you approached it is from a bafflingly typical male perspective, hence missing the point entirely. Doing a critical analysis and showing how a film is being problematic/relies on problematic tropes etc. has NOTHING to do with FoE etc.
This is very disappointing, tbh.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anu Warrier
January 30, 2018
Anuja, let me give you another Tennyson poem, for example, more apropos to what BR was saying than Home They Brought Her Warrior Dead. Look at The Charge of the Light Brigade – a flawed military strategy that send 600 of the best to their certain deaths. Did the men have a choice? Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die… Cannon fodder.
I can still recite that poem by rote; I can ‘see’ the men riding, I can see their despair – but the poem glorified their ‘courage’. What courage? When the rank and file had no other option but to follow the orders of a man who misunderstood (or pretended to misunderstand – since he disliked his brother-in-law who commanded the Light Brigade – the jury is out on that) what ‘courage’ is Tennyson glorifying?
(Of course, Tennyson’s intention was to glorify the men’s courage as opposed to the command’s ineptness, but I can imagine how people can argue this way, too.)
As for ‘History’s decision to deify Padmavati…, our history and through out the ages, it’s always been a practice to extol those who die for a cause. As for Kamala Devi, yes it took a certain amount of courage to leave a ‘tyrant and a sadist’ and a bad marriage. Was it ‘brave’ of her to do so? Yes, but it was also expedient that she chose to marry Allauddin, wasn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vani
January 30, 2018
Very irregular commenter here but I read your posts and the comments with great interest.
I have a question for Anouja Chandramouli, if you’ll permit, sir.
From what you’ve posted, you have written a book on Padmini. Your publishing house is timing this well. The book will sell more copies if it comes out now because people are interested in learning about this queen. Basically you’re piggy-backing on Bhansali and Padmavati controversy to whip up interest in your work. Perhaps more gratitude to Bhansali for having increased the level of people’s interest in Padmini is better than all this venom?
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
January 30, 2018
Vani: Okay, that is a tad unwarranted. Anuja has been writing on historical/mythical characters for a while now. But more importantly, she has been a commenter here for eons — and she has been rapping me on the knuckles for my Bhansali-love for a long time. I can’t vouch for her publishers, but I can say that her venom is pure and untainted by commercial considerations. 🙂
LikeLiked by 6 people
Vani
January 30, 2018
Sorry, BR sir. I work in publishing and I see how publishers use controversies to sell books. So I wondered.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
January 30, 2018
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Agree or disagree with him, BR is a class act and will always have my respect. Even when he pays homage to the likes of SLB or Mani Ratnam who are nowhere close to being in his league (IMHO).
PS: Thanks BR for your graciousness, despite my incessant and relentless rapping on your knuckles over the course of umpteen threads 🙂
PPS: Anu Warrior! I love Tennyson and can quote him from memory too:
His honour rooted in dishonour stood,
And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.
But please let us not refer to Tennyson in any context with SLB. I love the former and loathe the latter. And yes, I am willing to concede that I am being a mite unfair 🙂
LikeLike
maddie
January 30, 2018
what a beautiful piece.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 30, 2018
Can’t say about lethality of a venom, but that last scene can chill a man to death, i laid an egg. She was tall and willowy and gorgeous, with eyes like ice picks that would have frozen a glacier. And that smile was a pasteup job. Wonder what made Allauddin’s heart skip a beat, mine would have stopped beating all together.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pavan
January 30, 2018
Pure and untainted venom. Reminds me of this:
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 30, 2018
@Anuja – I think we have more in common than we dissent. Even if I’m defending SLB here. As I said, I find myself defending this film simply on principle.
But… history buff, Tennyson fan – now if you like Georgette Heyer’s novels (you can’t argue she doesn’t do her research), we could be soul sisters.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 30, 2018
Here’s an interesting take on the film:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/padmaavat-2018
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
January 30, 2018
Anu Warrior: I love Georgette Heyer and binged big time on her in college!! Hey there soul sister 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Leena
January 30, 2018
Firstly, I appreciate your tone and your spirit of furthering the dialogue.
I get that the royals did everything with style and all that, and that it fits within the SLB aesthetic — but you don’t think that a procession of women decked out in bridal attire, led by blissfully smiling, beautiful Deepika, appears to be a glorification of what they are about to do? She is smiling and determined, not crying or remorseful of this choice she is making on behalf of all the other women including a pregnant woman and young girl. Contextualize that within all the dialogue about the honor and valor of Rajputs. This was considered to be an honorable sacrifice, not a tragedy. Even the promotions for the film indicated that it was about Padmavati’s valor, honor, and sacrifice. It was shown to be a victory that she burned right before Khilji could even see her face. She knew her rightful place as the property of her community, and she sacrificed this communal property to uphold their honor. Would anyone show it as an honorable sacrifice and not a tragedy if a woman burned herself to avoid being raped by someone of her own community?
LikeLike
Pratiek Sparsh Samantara
January 30, 2018
Ah, if only all comment threads were this nuanced and wholesome 🙂
LikeLike
csimumbai
January 31, 2018
Thanks for letting your readers air their opinions and the writhing of their souls BR. I personally don’t care much for SLB’s films – too self-indulgent, narcissistic, and delusional (he compared himself to Guru Dutt in some interview).
I was curious though about your statement “And I do believe that a filmmaker should not be shackled by society. There are filmmakers who are socially/politically inclined. There are those who aren’t. We should judge creators on the basis of the work they do.” I am assuming you are thinking of SLB as not politically inclined, but let’s consider the political calculations he made to make the film. He calculated, correctly, that nobody, except a few historians will contradict his depiction of Khilji. He calculated, correctly, that not many will object to the stereotypes he used to depict his wantonness. He calculated, correctly again, that a feminist critique of his film will be a writhing of the feminist soul on the internet and the social media, and will overshadow all other critiques of the film. Where his calculations went wrong, a little bit, was his estimation of the power of and fissures within dominant social/political groups – Rajputs in this case, Kokanastha Brahmins in the case of Bajirao Mastani. It must have come as a little bit of a surprise to him, but not to other people, that endless assertions of valor and honor of a powerful group still invites censure. Honor of powerful groups is a bottomless pit, it is never satiated. And it is also very fragile. This is the work he put into the script, the calculations that SLB made. He should be judged on this.
I think you and many other are being too generous to him when you imagine a possibility of an alternate film that he did not make because of the backlash. This is pretty much the film he wanted to make (I doubt Khilji, Padmavati, Ratan Singh would have been depicted differently in this alternate film), this is the film he made.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Radhika
January 31, 2018
A well constructed thought sir. I do also agree with your perspective too. But I believe the portrayal of jauhar in the end did disturb some because such a scene is highly detrimental to India especially today where misogyny and violence rates against women are so high that somehow we are blind to these situations since it hasn’t affected much to many of us. Also, what confuses me is how people have celebrated Rani Padmini’s bravery because she chose to jump into the fire than being raped. Two great options for a woman !! Isn’t not. Sati was a forced practice. Some say women chose to do Jauhar and this was empowerment.I
would say, it is not ! Women practiced these customs because they weren’t empowered. They were illeterate and they were unaware of their self worth. Today like told by Swara Bhaskar if karni Sena or Marni Sena demands to legalise sati and jauhar today as an Indian naari I wouldn’t be surprised because I feel we are only turning into a regressive nation day by day. Hence in such an age a dramatic ending or a portrayal of jauhar can easily offend some.
I am an SLB fan too and I did not get offended with the ending of Padmaavat as it’s the signature ending of most of Bhansali’s films. But with my above view I was only trying to construct the thoughts of people and their reasons of why they might have got offended.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
January 31, 2018
Dear BR, thanks for the write up. Though i haven’t watched the movie or read the Swara Bhaskar article referenced, I find the discussion happening here interesting.
I am wondering if the criticism around the glorification of the act assumes that the ritual was an act of coercion rather than voluntary. In other words if the act was done voluntarily and if the person is proud about it then is it still wrong to glorify the act? Especially in a work of art and if the art is about an individual rather than a community.
Of course no one may know what the person felt in that instance, but shouldn’t there be a space for such an interpretation when there is no evidence one way or the other? This doesn’t necessarily imply that the person committing the act is advocating or justifying the act for everyone. It could be just that this is what the person whole heartedly wanted to do in the given circumstance like what Kapilar and Pisranthaiyar did after the death of their friends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatakkiruttal
LikeLiked by 1 person
Queena
January 31, 2018
The most sober writing I have read on the film!!! To want a social commentary from a Bhansali creation is as blasphemous as one can get! Since when was the role of art to morally comment on societal correction? If cinema in India will only celebrate preaching films like the path Akshay Kumar has chosen, then we might as well declare cinema dead. Thanks again for your opinion!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leena
January 31, 2018
“Since when was the role of art to morally comment on societal correction?”
LOL! Why do people think cinema is and should be mindless? Do we think that way about literature and paintings, or do we have entire curricula to understand the message the artist was trying to convey, and how it interacts with its social/ political context? Art is not created in a vacuum and given the cross-sectional consumption of something as enormous as an SLB film, the message it conveys, intentionally or unintentionally, is not to be neglected.
LikeLike
Maru
January 31, 2018
Brangan, I agree the visual style of the Jauhar scene is pure Bhansali and I don’t think that’s the reason Jauhar is seen to be glorified. It’s the culmination of the central conceit of the film that the Rajasthani kangan is every bit as potent as the Rajasthani talvar. Padmavati is revered as a goddess because her valor, courage and strength in choosing Jauhar over dishonor lead to Alauddin’s Pyrrhic victory. Padmavati makes that choice for herself but Bhansali underscores the point that Jauhar is a winning war strategy by showing ALL the other women “warriors” including the embittered Nagmati, the pregnant woman, the little girl, the widowed mother of the slain Badal . Padmavati’s final speech even exhorts them as warriors with Jauhar as their lethal weapon. If that isn’t glorification of Jauhar then I’m not sure what is! That said, in the context of the time period and the source material I don’t think Bhansali has an obligation to be socially responsible in his depiction of Jauhar but I can see where Swara’s critique is coming from even if I thought her writing was overwrought and needlessly dramatic.
On SLB, I’m Team Anuja all the way – I too cannot abide his work and swore off watching his stuff post the horrific Devdas. That a bunch of vandals could not just torch his sets and sabotage his shoots but go so far as issue death threats and cause riots so incensed me that I had to speak with my $10 no matter how little Bhansali’s work appeals. On the plus side, my movie theater in Boston was packed so hopefully the goons don’t succeed in bringing the film down. I do hope in the future Bhansali steers clear of these figures from history, I don’t want to have to feel compelled to buy a ticket. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 31, 2018
Anuja, see? We are sisters under the skin. 🙂 Did you know I – regrettably – was only introduced to Heyer after I got married? My cousin was aghast that I hadn’t read her until then, and gave me These Old Shades. Little did she know what she had wreaked. 🙂
@Apu – since the Padmaavat thread is getting a tad long – you are right. We agree more than we disagree. 🙂
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 31, 2018
The baubles that these hick dames wear, from a princess to a pauperess, is similar to the chains of medieval european convicts. And no Quixote with his lance to unshacle them in this land of debauchery. Why,when Daniel Craig reinvented bond, wearing a half shirt and off the store pants and shoes, he was just relieving the long suffering patrons of the walking tailorshop, Pierce Brosnan. And running on foot instead of wheels of dubious amphibious nature, to catch the bomber,is the wind of change that we need. Levis jeans and tee shirt with the graffity ‘Berenstein or Berenstain?’ is my idea of changing times.
LikeLike
sanjana
January 31, 2018
“Pregnant women never perform jauhar or self-immolation, as shown in the movie. (Allaudin) Khilji attacked Chittorgarh when he was aged 55, but the movie shows a young Khilji of around 25. The Chittorgarh Fort’s door was never broken by Khilji, but the movie shows otherwise,” the Karni Sena leader claimed.
He said as per history, Khilji uprooted the fort door and took it along with him to Delhi. “Bharatpur’s then king Surajmal brought the door back and reinstalled it at the fort after 400 years. However, the film shows that the door was smashed by Khilji to enter the fort,” Vijendra Singh said.
He said in the movie, Khilji is shown entering the fort and threatening Raja Ratan Singh to allow his wife to go with him or else he will be killed right there. “This sounds too comical — a king can just not be threatened in his own kingdom.”
He quoted other scenes also which he claimed were not as per historical facts.
LikeLike
Rahini David
January 31, 2018
Eva Braun committed a similar honor suicide, didn’t she?
After having been Hitler’s girlfriend for so long, she did not actually have a choice. The cyanide would have been much less painful than being captured.
These “no other option” situations are different from, “You don’t have a husband anymore, so why don’t you die” concept of Sati. I still can’t get my mind to process what sort of thought process enabled some societies to behave in that way. Did no normal human exist then at all? See how terrible and unruly patriarchy can become. How malignant and repulsive it really had been until even just 250 years back.
It is slightly difficult for me to understand why Honour sucide and Sati is being confused by some folks. The problem here seems to be “But Padmavathy looks happy” It appears voluntary. But the truth is that a particularly beautiful queen ran out of options to remain alive.
She had the option of seducing the what-not and then castrating him when he was sleeping. But this legend (or history or whatever) says otherwise. That isn’t what the legendary queen had done. You can’t make a movie where Titanic does not sink nor a movie where Padmavathy doesn’t die.
Well, yes she had the option of saying “I’d have much rather lived happily ever after with my husband. This sucks” She could have sung a lament for her husband and herself. She could have underlined the point that this is their defeat. But, I am sorry, why should she?
Why can’t she permit herself some agency and say “Nobody tells me what to do. I do what I do”
Why can’t she say something like “Did you want this, spoilt child? Too bad, you don’t always get what you want. Nope. You can’t capture me. Play with the ashes after I make my exit. Good bye” ?
I mean, WHY?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sahir.
January 31, 2018
I have to say, I did not think they were glorifying sati. I think they were glorifying Padmavati’s jauhar; her decision to steer the course of her life on her own terms; because her other option was to spend the rest of her life enslaved to and probably repeatedly raped by Khilji.
So the film tells us, look at this brave woman who made a choice.
But don’t you think the film undermined this slightly by having Padmavati ask Rawal Singh for permission, and asserting that she can’t even die without his ijaazat?
LikeLike
pranavroh
January 31, 2018
When I watch a film in which there is an omniscient narrator, I immediately identify that narrator with the person of the director himself. It is the director acting as a tour guide in a sense – pointing out areas of interest that might be missed by a casual viewer. It works well in a film meant to appeal to the general public and in a sense moulds the narrative he (the director) wants to remain in the audience’s mind. There is a female omniscient narrator in Padmavat – her identity is never made clear but I assume it is Meherunnisa. Be that as it may – it is still a narrative gimmick which allows the director to veil the inferences the lay person may draw from the film with his own – and it is this narrative that makes me question Bhansali’s true intention in depicting Jauhar on screen.
The film closes with a rather bold statement – Padmavati’s Jauhar was Khilji’s greatest defeat. Jauhar is portrayed as a victory, a form of revenge against the conqueror, an honourable strike against the rapaciousness of the invader. This is reinforced throughout the film by Ratan Singh’s naive and hopeless attempts at warcraft where he is bested at every move by Khilji. In the process I feel the women in the Jauhar scene lose their agency as individuals and seem to form nothing more than a reckless clinging to feudal Rajput ideals that lead to their death and any means of resistance to Khilji’s plans of conquest. Pregnant women, children and everyone else is sacrificed at the altar of these ideals which serve one community’s beliefs of right and wrong and balance it against the greater good.
The argument could be made that this is how the Rajput’s lived – but I feel Bhansali spends the entire film trying to justify their way of life and indirectly justifies Jauhar as well. The fact that Padmavati and another lady are seemingly blissful and smiling in their attempt at self immolation seems to echo the fact. Bhansali should have treated the attempt as an event – a tragic one but one moulded by culture and feudalism – not as a victory of good over evil.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
January 31, 2018
For some it looks like glorification.
For some it is repulsive.
LikeLike
"Original" venkatesh
January 31, 2018
Dear God , why does every thread have to bring in Real-Life experiences , Men And Women , Freedom of Expression ….
Fucks Sake.
LikeLike
MANK
January 31, 2018
I wonder why Bhansali is making films based on actual historical figures set in a specific period of history. An artist should have all the liberty to make films about whatever he seems fit, but in Bhansali’s case ,this seems to be a major hindrance to his creativity . come what may, he is going to make the bhansali film with the stock bhansali characters and situations. Picking characters from History is forcing him to compromise on so many aspects of his filmmaking not to mention ,leaving him vulnerable to attacks from so many different directions
His best film IMO is Saawariya. its set in a never never land, in an unknown time where everything including nature behave according to bhansali’s fanatasy. where he is able to indulge in his most excessive tendencies without compromising or disturbing the soul of the film . even if his intention in choosing historical subject matter is to showcase the old world royal pomp and glamour, he should make something in a bahubali kind of universe . that will give him a lot of leeway in terms of both charcterisation and production design.
LikeLike
Rahini David
January 31, 2018
Ganeshwar and IMF: And, let’s make it clear – Sita or Kannagi or Padmavati are not history BR. They are all men’s idea of ideal women.
Yes. No question about it. These are tools that have been used to shape young minds to accept certain thoughts that they otherwise would not have had.
Men were taught that it was honorable to die for one’s country. Ernest Hemingway pointed out that in modern war you will die like a dog for no good reason. John Lennon dreamed of a world without nations. It isn’t hard to do, he points out and you’d not have anything to die for and kill for. Hemmingway and Lennon removed the rose-tint in dying for one’s country and urged us to see the blood bath for what it is. Years after their death, war movies are still made. Nobody seems to ask why these movies glorify violence and murder in the name of bravery. The word “Veeram” is not very different from the word “Karpu” in the way human beings are brainwashed to believing that these are somehow great thoughts to have.
Go ahead and make a movie in which a man of age 21 is forced to join the army and eventually starts to love his country and is happy to die for it. People will go on and bloody on about how the actor worked out for his 6-pack. The songs glorifying the heroes bravery will be on everyone’s lips. No Op-ed pieces saying that men should not be forced to die just because they have testicles. The fact is, that many humans have been forced into dying for one’s country just because they have penises. Ratan Singh was not given the choice to live, no? Just because he was a man, no?
Shall we stop valorizing men who die in war? What about Veerapaandia Kattabomman? Should he have just paid taxes to the British?
What about Mangal Pandey? This is what Wikipedia says.
After failing to incite his comrades into an open and active rebellion, Mangal Pandey tried to take his own life, by placing his musket to his chest and pulling the trigger with his toe. He managed only to wound himself. Court-martialled on 6 April, he was hanged two days later.
Is it ok to make a movie about Mangal Pandey without offending the entire nation? But, but, WHY? Why is this different?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jai
January 31, 2018
Very stimulating discussion going on here. 🙂 And its all to the good that it is encouraging so many of us to reflect on gender inequities and very real societal issues, the continuing struggle against patriarchy.
However, on this particular discussion on whether the climactic scene “glorifies” jauhar or not. A lot of the critique for that scene (both in Swara Bhaskar’s open letter and otherwise) seems to be centered around the visual staging in typical Bhansali-esque flourish. Swara’s letter, for example, talks about “”Then in the climax, breathtakingly shot of course – hundreds of women bedecked in red like Goddess Durga as bride rushed into the Jauhar fire while a raving Muslim psychopathic villain loomed over them and a pulsating musical track……”
Other comments on threads here have taken exception to the fact that the women are all color coordinated as they walk towards the flames…….that they are dressed in bridal attire.
First off, how a filmmaker stages a scene visually, is his/her style, often a signature flourish which permeates most (or all) works in their oeuvre. Bhansali’s films are generally mounted on a lavish scale, and the visuals are stunning, impactful, overpowering. But does this particular sequence leave one feeling gutted at the fate the women underwent? Or does it leave one feeling uplifted and awe inspired at their supposed “glorious” end? Does one feel sorrow for them or overjoyed at their “liberation”?
Though I can see why some people might feel strongly about the latter case, I don’t agree with that conclusion. While watching that scene, I felt—very strongly—horror. At the terrible choices they were faced with (or rather, the lack of them). The fact that the scene was visually compelling (even overpowering), did nothing to reduce the reprehensible, painful nature of such an end.
Secondly, there is something to be said for management of expectations. Going to a Bhansali film, expecting a nuanced, layered take on socio-political realities—is, I would contend, not really rational. I am not saying that cinema should be mindless and inane. I am just saying, that there ought to be space for hard hitting realistic cinema, and there should be space for lavishly mounted costume dramas/ period films/ mytho-historicals— however one chooses to describe this film.
Thirdly, I would contend that arguments objecting to the “color coordination” and “dressed in bridal attire” are themselves historically inaccurate. Jauhar, in historical fact, had women dressed in their bridal attire, leaping into the flames (whether drugged or forced or “voluntary”). The act was horrifying and reprehensible, yes. No doubts there. So what should SLB have done? Shown the women dressed in blacks and greys, or perhaps in a mismatched bevy of colors? Would this have made the scene any more tragic than it already was? But then he would be accused of being historically inaccurate, right? Just see the number of reviews carping about how Padmavati is shown burning a missive from Allaudin without even “consulting” Rawal Ratan Singh, about how there was no way Gora and Badal would ever have listened to her plan to go to Delhi, etc.
But as I said, its all to the good that such debates are happening, such perspectives are getting exchanged. Who knows, one day, there could be a movie made on an actual historical figure, Princess Krishna Kumari of Mewar, and her tragic fate in the early 19th century.
https://scroll.in/article/859606/the-tragic-tale-of-krishna-kumari-of-mewar-and-why-it-isnt-told-as-much-as-rani-padminis
Chances are, the Karni sena right wing zealots of our times would never permit this hypothetical film, based on actual historical fact to be made. And if at all made, possibly, left wing ideologues might object to how the Pathan Amir Khan is portrayed in that tale.
But one can hope, right? Maybe then we can discuss how society all too often robs women of agency, even today. I just hope the debate is fueled by more than taking askance on color schemes and visual spectacle in a climactic scene, that’s all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
January 31, 2018
Sanjana , long time no see, missed you here
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMF
January 31, 2018
@Rahini uh, this is a totally bizarre though. Sure, men leading any movement or dominating any spaces, including resistances/movements etc. is an effect of gender roles/expectations too, this has been discussed at length by feminists with respect of effect of gender roles on men (bell hooks immediately springs to mind).
I don’t know how you made the leap from that to valorizing “heroes” who die in war (men or women), because there can be causes where they have fought for resistance, for the oppressed, for the marginalized. Lyudmila Pavlichenko (the soviet sniper who killed over 300 fascists, to pick a random example) is also a “hero”, like any women who have taken up arms to resist oppression and/or subjugation. I’m obviously not contesting the fact that the “veeram” attribute is typically associated with masculinity (which is and can be toxic), but that’s a different problem entirely.
Even if one were to subscribe to some naive pacifism, how can you compare to this Jauhar, which is linked to an inherently misogynistic notion of “honor”, with any of this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
January 31, 2018
@ MANK “even if his intention in choosing historical subject matter is to showcase the old world royal pomp and glamour, he should make something in a bahubali kind of universe . that will give him a lot of leeway in terms of both charcterisation and production design.”
Dude, let’s not forget that for Baahubali too, there were critics carping on about how it supposedly “romanticized social status quo and glorified the right of kshatriyas to rule”. The fact that it was based in a mytho-historical setting, didn’t stop some from evaluating it against present day socio-political values.
As you remarked in your earlier comment, I think filmmakers just need to be prepared to be bludgeoned by the right wingers before the release and by the left wingers after the release. 🙂 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
January 31, 2018
Thanks MANK for your kind comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
January 31, 2018
“there can be causes where they have fought for resistance, for the oppressed, for the marginalized”
Was I talking about people (male or female) who fought for freedom, or for the oppressed or marginalized anywhere in my comment?
“how can you compare to this Jauhar, which is linked to an inherently misogynistic notion of “honor”, with any of this?
Because inherently misogynistic notions should be fought with impeccably sensible education and not by jumping on the throats of men who want color coordinated climaxes.
LikeLiked by 5 people
sanjana
January 31, 2018
Men who want color coordinated climaxes! Thats a good one Rahini. ROFL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj
January 31, 2018
I wonder what would be Swara Bhaskar’s take on Begum Jaan. What’s even more interesting is that there’s a reference to Padamavati (and her Jauhar) in the end when the remaining women in the brothel kill themselves by jumping into the fire.
I’m no history buff but the custom was clearly meant for women. The equivalent of men was called saka; the survivors would again march towards the invading army (despite knowing their fate) and honourably die at the hands of their opponents. So GODZ, it doesn’t make sense to view the whole thing as “the women were just avoiding humiliation and were least bothered about vagina”. Besides, this viewpoint “implicitly” assumes that women were treated on par with men and the concept of “women’s purity” was never in existence. Mind you, the movie is set in the 13th century and the life of women (sex) slaves was even more miserable than their male counterparts – Malik Kafur was certainly well treated than the female slaves of Khilji. And, this was equally true for every society – even Japan, since you brought up seppukku.
“As a shrewd queen, she was aware of the humiliation she has to undergo once get caught in the hands of Khilji.”
Shrewd? As far as I can see, Kamla Devi can be called one but Padmavati?
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 31, 2018
After going through the buzz-saw the meat grinder, that Modesty Blaise, one realises what cock and bull story this line of talk is, the gender inequality. Not everyone is made of the cast iron constitution of Willie Garvin, and what’s more even Garvin threw the unsuspecting lambs into the she-wolf’s lair.
LikeLike
Madan
January 31, 2018
@Jai/MANK The other way of putting it is the right wants you to not distort history as per their version of it and will not accept any other while the left wants you to distort history until they find it acceptable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anuja Chandramouli
January 31, 2018
“Because inherently misogynistic notions should be fought with impeccably sensible education and not by jumping on the throats of men who want color coordinated climaxes.”
Rahini you are a legend. Loved the points in your previous comment as well about men faring no better than women when up against conventional notions of valour and honour. Bravo!
LikeLiked by 3 people
MANK
January 31, 2018
Because inherently misogynistic notions should be fought with impeccably sensible education and not by jumping on the throats of men who want color coordinated climaxes.
ha ha haaa, Great to see Rahini back in form 🙂
Madan, super comment
LikeLiked by 5 people
MANK
January 31, 2018
Jai, bahubali level of criticism is at least acceptable no?. the situation wasnt that worse where that film couldn’t even be released. But my comment was more keeping in with the creative side of Bhansali’s films. he seems to struggling to keep a balance between what he wants to do and what he has to do and he is falling flat, like here. this turned out to be one of his weakest films narrativewise because he just couldnt manage the contradictions.
Bahubali was a mix of mahabharatha and Ramayana , without explicitly stating it, so names like amarendra , mahendra, sivagami or Kattappa didnt create much problems, imagine if it was Ram or sita , or Krishna or Arjuna, It definitely would have created problems. i genuinely fear for the life of Aamir Khan who is embarking on a 5 part Mahabharat film where he is planning to play either Krishna or Arjuna
LikeLike
Jai
January 31, 2018
@ MANK: Sure, the outrage over Padmaavat has been on an altogether different scale for several months now. Not saying that Baahubali faced a similar situation. There was no right wing loony fringe pressure there.
What I meant was, even if SLB were to potentially set a future film of his in a Baahubali-type universe (as you remarked in your previous comment), it may still not prevent the rather disjointed criticism which tends to judge mytho–historical movies against very contemporary socio–political sensibilities. The left wing critique, as Madan put so pithily above, seems to want to “modify” history till they find the portrayal acceptable and “responsible” in the present context.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vivek narain
January 31, 2018
Why don’t a fella use the proper words, c_nt and c_ck, instead of the quaint, vagina and penis, that sound so corny.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 31, 2018
Rahini, bravo! Both your comments are so eminently sensible and thought-provoking. (You should see the ads for recrutiment into the armed forces in the US. The rah-rah nature of them is disturbing.) Needless to say, I agree with both of them.
MANK, other than Bajirao, Bhansali is not making a movie on historical characters, no? Unlike most others, he’s harking back to his culture, his legends to tell his stories on screen. I’m not a great fan of his excesses, and his Devdas made me want to cut my throat (and having SRK play it in that overwrought way didn’t help) but like Maru, I don’t want to feel compelled to buy a ticket. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
January 31, 2018
Vivek narain: The one time I feel I really understand your comment, you use unparliamentary words. What saar!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
January 31, 2018
MANK:”he seems to struggling to keep a balance between what he wants to do and what he has to do and he is falling flat, like here. this turned out to be one of his weakest films narrativewise because he just couldnt manage the contradictions.”
That conflict was quite visible. The dream sequence could be felt. When a person dreams so much of possessing his or her heartthrob, a dream sequence is what any film maker and that includes SLB will have a go at. Padmavati went to the extent of going to the enemy with nothing guaranteed. And over and above his favourite pair. So many unsaid things by the creator. Khilji was pining for her endlessly which is very unlike of such a stone hearted man.
LikeLike
Naveen
January 31, 2018
BR, it is very rare that we get to understand his Kamalahasanesque tweets anyway
LikeLike
MANK
January 31, 2018
I agree Anu, he is a full blooded indian filmmaker like a Shantaram or Raj kapoor who revels in its culture of myths ,legends and music, but i think his pet themes of masochistic doomed love and obsession can be portrayed without the heavy burden of justifying the authenticity of his characters or their milieu, which he is forced to do (to an extend), when it involves history or overly familiar myth that is passed around as history.
Agree about devdas and i see that Devdas is the film that inspired a lot of viewers here to swore off Bhansali forever, ironic isnt it , the film where he found his voice
LikeLike
MANK
January 31, 2018
Sanjana, yes . i think the aspects of the padmavathi story that he liked most was the final jauhar scene and Khilji’s obsessive love. ( here is a an oversexed deviant savage who falls in love (perhaps for the first time ) with an unknown unseen queen and goes all out to poseess her and the pious virtous queen who decides its better to to succumb to death in fire than succumb to him. these aspects of the story that are staright out of Ramayana – the obsessed demon king Raavana and Sita the goddess who walked through fire – are the main attraction for Bhansali) .He was forbidden from tackling the latter and he goes full throttle in staging the former, naturally the film lost its balance. The last half hour of the film is so spectacular it looks like he designed and shot the entire jauhar scene first and worked on the film backwards
LikeLike
Rahul
January 31, 2018
“it may still not prevent the rather disjointed criticism which tends to judge mytho–historical movies against very contemporary socio–political sensibilities.”
I find this rather rich. Remember, there is a karni sena , that is getting inspired by “mytho – historical” notions of honor to burn buses in the present times. So, asking their heroes to be judged by morales of the time they belonged in, seems like having your cake and eating it too.
Same goes for Gandhi, Ram, Mohamed etc. If one is making the case that they have to be judged by the morality of their times, then one should also agree that these characters are fit to be shelved in the annals of history with no evocation and looking up to as a source of continued inspiration in current times.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 31, 2018
Sorry, Sir, but i suppose i take a bird’s eye view instead of being grounded, and that’s what make the comments dense.
LikeLike
Jai
January 31, 2018
@ Rahul, the Karni Senas of our world are deplorable. But you know what, what I find curious in the way extreme right wing and extreme left ring critiques work is this:
The right wingers want to remain stuck in the past (often a mythical/ imagined version of the past and not quite the actual historical past), and bring that to bear on the present.
Extreme left wing critique is in a sense, the reverse. Taking up present sensibilities and values and using them to judge the historical past, and/or legendary narratives about that past, however incongruously.
Neither approach makes sense to me, with all due respect. But yes, thankfully, left wing critics generally do not call for actual violence and intimidation, so in that sense, of course, they are not comparable to the Karni sena.
“one should also agree that these characters are fit to be shelved in the annals of history with no evocation and looking up to as a source of continued inspiration in current times.”…..
This does happen to a lot of historical characters, no? The shelf life you talk about might be decades, might be more. But historical figures are being reevaluated constantly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ramkumar R S
January 31, 2018
We don’t even understand why Farmers commit suicide today, in the 21st century, (and hence unable to prevent them from happening) and we are trying to judge women and their society that lived many centuries ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
January 31, 2018
Jai, IMHO you did not address my point. If someone is stuck on creating a hagiography around past heroes and appropriate them for their present behavior, then it makes sense to judge their heroes from present sensibilities, no?
LikeLike
Rahul
January 31, 2018
Vivek narain – Sir now it is beginning to make sense. Picturing you as a meditating rope trick yogi who has levitated enough to get a bird`s eye view but not so much to get no view at all.
LikeLike
Madan
January 31, 2018
“If one is making the case that they have to be judged by the morality of their times, then one should also agree that these characters are fit to be shelved in the annals of history with no evocation and looking up to as a source of continued inspiration in current times.” – Sorry but why is this necessarily the case? Surely one can accept the flaws of a past leader as dictated by the prevailing environment in their times while appreciating the positive aspects of their contribution. I don’t think Jai is arguing for anything more than this. So…I accept that say Gandhi had problematic views about blacks. But if we proceed to condemn him as a bigoted racist in the leftist fashion of our times and reject his legacy, that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I THINK this discernment is necessary if we are interested in learning anything at all from history. Otherwise, like Chetan Bhagat, we can pretend that history is useless and our times are the best and we are the most perfect iteration of homo sapiens etc.
LikeLike
Rahul
January 31, 2018
Madan – “and reject his legacy,” is your extrapolation, I did not say that. Other parts of your post is also based on this straw man.
LikeLike
Madan
January 31, 2018
Rahul: And I did not say that you did but referring to the Left’s tactics these days which Jai was also talking about. The rest of my post was also about developing that argument. Anyway, you still haven’t addressed how it follows that allowing past figures to be judged by the morals of their times necessarily means one should not look to them for inspiration. If your point is they should not be made sacred cows, I agree but in saying they shouldn’t even inspirational figures, you have jumped a step.
LikeLike
Jai
January 31, 2018
@ Rahul, wrt ” If someone is stuck on creating a hagiography around past heroes and appropriate them for their present behavior, then it makes sense to judge their heroes from present sensibilities, no?”
I did address your point, but perhaps it wasn’t clear enough. So here goes:
My answer to the above statement: No, it does not make sense.
It does not make sense, because there are many, many people (I would hope the majority, but perhaps I am being naive here), who vehemently oppose thuggish goons like the zealots of the Karni Sena, and yet see no merit in incongruously retro fitting the past and myths/legends about the past, in order to satisfy current sensibilities. For this (hopefully large) group of people in which I count myself, hagiography around past heroes does not hold enticement; but that does not mean what happened in the past/ what traditional tales and myths narrate about the past, needs to be forcefully modified to reflect current mores/ values.
For this (hopefully large) group of people, we wonder why, on the one hand, there is a lunatic fringe who says “”I will decide what film you can make and what you can show, and will threaten you with death, disfigurement, mayhem and arson; and proceed to attack school buses carrying children””; and on the other, there is a group of perhaps well intentioned but (IMHO) misguided critics who say “”I will defend your right to release the film, but will then vehemently criticize what you portrayed and how you staged scenes and sequences, because it does not fit into modern ideals of gender equality and socio–political values. I will crib that your movie romanticized social status quoism (even though it was a period film when social norms were different from ours); or crib that the climax of your movie had the protagonist and dozens of women in color coordinated bridal wear (though women committing Jauhar, did, in fact, dress in bridal wear per historical record)”.
The above may be a tad simplistic; but so, unfortunately, is some of the rather disjointed critique which is coming out about the film’s climactic sequence. 🙂
I am content to let the past remain in the past. When I watch a period film, I do not expect it to conform to current values, nor do I feel that what is shown on screen ought to influence current standards of behavior.
I hope the above addressed your point. 😉 🙂
LikeLike
Rahul
January 31, 2018
” Anyway, you still haven’t addressed how it follows that allowing past figures to be judged by the morals of their times necessarily means one should not look to them for inspiration.”
Madan, this is again a misrepresentation of what I said. A better version is this-
“If someone does not want their icons to be judged by present day morality, they should not look to them for inspiration for their current behavior”.
Also, I hold no brief for the left or leftists.
LikeLike
Rahul
January 31, 2018
Jai , No you did not address my point. If Group B is reacting to something that Group A is doing, just because group C does not care about it or is bored with it , does not make it irrelevant.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 31, 2018
If someone does not want their icons to be judged by present day morality, they should not look to them for inspiration for their current behavior”.
Allow me to wade in? But that is what the Karni Sena is doing, no? They are the ones who look to the past for inspiration for their current behaviour, and they are the ones who do not want their icons to be judged by present day standards. Bhansali is telling a story. Yes, he’s drawing inspiration from the past in order to tell a story, but he’s NOT setting it in the present day context (which is the part I differ from Swara). He’s setting it in the context of the age in which the legend is situated. He’s not saying ‘Oh, Jauhar is great; we should bring it back.’
My argument tends to side more with the views expressed by Jai and Madan.
@MANK – Bhansali is on record as saying suffering inspires his creativity. 🙂 Like him or hate him (and I fall somewhere in the middle), the man is steadfast in his perception of his cinema, and defends it relentlessly. I don’t think the man really looks at what will happen afterwards – he’s too consumed by his vision. For him, his art is his all. That’s admirable.
LikeLike
IMF
January 31, 2018
//Was I talking about people (male or female) who fought for freedom, or for the oppressed or marginalized anywhere in my comment?//
My point was about your “outrage” comment, regarding valorization and how your parallels don’t quite work and it’s a false analogy/equivalence – hence me saying that. And I don’t know what people might have thought of such and such movies or figures predating social-media era, so I can’t comment. Why is all this relevant to any of what me or Ganesh (or even what Swara) are saying, even remotely?
//Because inherently misogynistic notions should be fought with impeccably sensible education and not by jumping on the throats of men who want color coordinated climaxes.//
Right, why is it an either or? Are we gonna pretend that cinema has no sociopolitical impact now? And how does that relate to my comment? I’m not talking about whether this is an effective way of “fighting” misogynistic notions or not BTW, I’m just making distinctions, since you seemed to draw some bizarre parallels between Jauhar and valorization of men who die in war etc. This is a feminist critique/opinion piece/media criticism, not something which is new and has been done before, plenty of times. So why are you characterizing her opinion piece as “jumping on the throats” of anyone?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
January 31, 2018
@ Rahul: “If Group B is reacting to something that Group A is doing, just because group C does not care about it or is bored with it , does not make it irrelevant.”
Oh but you see, what you term Group C (in which I count myself) is definitely not in the bracket of “not caring about or being bored” about what the loony fringe Group A is doing.
However, what you term Group B, criticizing narratives of the past because they are supposedly “irresponsible” in the sense of not conforming to present day values and norms…..theirs is a rather poorly constructed critique.
Mind you, Group B is not just telling Group A “how can you still harken back to these norms which are archaic and rooted in paternalism”…..which is certainly very, very valid. They are also telling the filmmaker “how could you show this sequence the way you did, in such a visually overwhelming manner.” And to quote from Swara Bhaskar’s open letter, apparently “all the ‘minor’ achievements that women and women’s movements have made over the years– like the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to education, equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, the Vishakha judgement, the right to adopt children…… all of it was pointless; because we were back to basics.’ “”
Huh? Wherefrom this linkage of very real present day issues and values with a narrative derived from a historical poem? How and why should the actions of a perhaps historical, perhaps mythical figure be compulsorily portrayed in a manner apparently consistent with modern sensibilities?
Saying that Padmavati should be an inspiration for modern women is obviously incorrect. But telling the filmmaker that depicting her jauhar amounted to “glorifying” this practice was (IMO) ill conceived.
LikeLike
csimumbai
February 1, 2018
@Ramkumar R.S., you may have inadvertently shed light on one of Karni Sena’s reasons for existence. But before that let me assure you there are many erudite studies of India’s agrarian crisis/farmer’s suicides, some of them by government appointed commissions. In a nutshell, the farmer’s crisis requires government investment, government’s over the past 25 years are reluctant to invest in the name of fiscal austerity.
The Karni Sena is the political arm of that section of Rajput castes who must be feeling the economic effects of the agrarian crisis. The outfit was after all created to demand reservations for unemployed Rajput youth. As we know from experience from all around the world, the anxieties of socially and politically dominant groups often takes the form of regressive politics. One of Karni Sena’s main concerns with Padmavati was policing the desires of Allaudin Khilji i.e. they wanted no liaison between Padmini and Allaudin even in his dream. To borrow Ms Bhaskar’s elegant phrase, they reduced Padmini to a ‘vagina’ (and Khilji to a penis). The twain could not be shown to have an intimate encounter or copulate at any cost. One way to ensure this on screen was to show her and Rajput women committing jauhar.
@Anu Warrier about “but he’s NOT setting it in the present day context”
Swara Bhaskar was reacting to this depiction of jauhar. The Karni Sena may have reduced Padmini and Rajput women to ‘vaginas’ (and Khilji and Muslim males to penis’s), but SLB shows no way out of this reductive logic, according to her. She felt reduced to a vagina in solidarity and protest against the destruction of bodies to save the chastity of vaginas. She was expecting more nuance and probably subversion from SLB; he has never betrayed any signs of either in his films. All this to say, a film or any text set in the past, BUT made in the present, has as much to say about the past as it does about the present. Probably it says more about the present than the past. The context of the text is always important.
In all these review, I have never seen anybody mentioning SLB’s rendition of the Sufistic underpinnings of Jayasi’s Padmavat? What has he done with it, apart from the beatific smile on Padmini’s face while committing jauhar?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2018
@csis – thank you for mansplaining Swara’s letter to me. Yes, that’s the way Swara felt – and that’s a valid thing for her to feel. I disagree with her stance, and that’s an equally valid point of view.
a film or any text set in the past, BUT made in the present, has as much to say about the past as it does about the present. Probably it says more about the present than the past. The context of the text is always important.
I disagree. Yes, the context of the film is important. I never claimed it was not. I disagree that the context is the present, however. The story, the context it is set in, the period in which the characters live are all the 13th century A.D. One cannot demand that because Bhansali told this story today, he has to drag Padmini into the modern era where she can be a much more evolved woman than she was.
I do not know how he can ‘modernise’ the context or subvert the story. Doing so would mean he’s no longer telling the story he wants to tell. Swara wants to see a Padmavati of her vision – that’s not Bhansali’s Padmavati.
And if we go by her stance, we will never be able to retell the Ramayana – no agni pareeksha, no banishment to the forest, no abduction, damnit! – the country is reeling under kidnappings, honour killings, and rape. That’s enough to piss off the extreme left-wing. Plus, it shows Rama in a bad light, so the right wing will be up in arms as well.
We cannot retell the Mahabharata – imagine showing the queens sleeping with a man other than their husband – Niyoga is not practiced today! And we don’t need to encourage loose morals among the women!
No vastraharan because, rape! Assault! No Gitopadesh because it will incite strife between brothers. No war because this is fratricide.
Draupadi’s swayamvar? Nope. From the left wing will come the accusation that ‘swayamvar’ was still patriarchal and that women bought into the concept they could choose their own husbands – but it was only from among the suitors that their fathers invited. The right wing will protest because how do you show a woman with five husbands!
So how do we tell these tales in a modern context? Set it, like Benegal did, in Kalyug? Or like Barjatya did, in Hum Saath Saath Hain?
I cannot agree. Legends and myths have a place in our ethos. And depicting it as a period film does not mean endorsing those customs or actions or advocating that they be practiced today. I will judge a film by the age in which it is set, the context in which a custom is practiced, and the internal logic of the characters within that universe.
My tolerance for a film set in modern times, with modern characters living in present day society which shows problematic behaviours are ‘normal’ – and the sheer volumes of those instances that exacerbate an already serious problem (a.k.a stalking) is much less than a legend being faithfully depicted on screen. Forgive me if I cannot muster up enough outrage to care.
The twain could not be shown to have an intimate encounter or copulate at any cost. One way to ensure this on screen was to show her and Rajput women committing jauhar.
Again, I disagree. Bhansali did not show Jauhar to endorse Padmini’s purity or because the Karni Sena was policing Allauddin’s desires. The legend of Padmavati centres on one thing, and one thing only – her self-immolation when faced with the prospect of being at the invader’s mercy. When Bhansali set out to tell that tale, this was not something he could omit.
I’m sure Swara wanted him to be nuanced, perhaps even subvert the legend. But that would be her Padmavati. Not Bhansali’s. Give it to Anurag Kashyap for instance, and he might have subverted this story to something unrecognisable – perhaps have Padmavati castrate Allauddin after sex. But this is Bhansali’s vision – and he should be allowed to make it without others piping in about the movie they wish he had made instead.
(And since I can’t believe I’m defending a movie that, in my opinion, did not deserve a tithe of the controversy it incited, or the reams of press and liberal criticism it received, I think this is my last vishesh tippani on this subject. 🙂 )
LikeLike
Jai
February 1, 2018
@ csimumbai :
“”She was expecting more nuance and probably subversion from SLB; he has never betrayed any signs of either in his films.””
This expecation, to my mind, is the major reason which has given rise to Swara Bhaskar’s critique of the climactic sequence.
But why should she (or anyone else) have this expectation? SLB is known for his sumptuous, almost overwhelming visuals and a narrative celebrating legend, myth, pageantry. Why expect nuance or subversion from him, when he (as you say), has never shown any signs of this in his films? That is not his style. One may hate his style, adore it, or merely like it. But to say one expects him to state something in a layered or subversive manner is, to my mind, an issue of not managing expectations rationally.
“”All this to say, a film or any text set in the past, BUT made in the present, has as much to say about the past as it does about the present. Probably it says more about the present than the past. The context of the text is always important.””
Sorry, this is not something which I think is a standard rule/ metric. This is just one approach to filmmaking. Drawing a commentary on present socio–political realities from parables/myths about the past is one approach. Another approach is to make a period film just depicting what events happened (or which legend says happened). Just because no attempt is made to link it up with present realities and norms does not (to my mind) invalidate the second approach.
If one were to insist on subverting any and all historical/ legendary tales to reflect current mores and sensibilities, we would have precious few historicals ever caapable of being made.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 1, 2018
IMF: So why are you characterizing her opinion piece as “jumping on the throats” of anyone?
The Tone. 😦
how your parallels don’t quite work and it’s a false analogy/equivalence
Well Ok. 🙂
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 1, 2018
BR: So you don’t understand Vivek narain’s comments?
We should probably begin a club “IDUVNE – I Don’t Understand Vivek Narain Either”
We can give out badges.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Vidya Ramesh
February 1, 2018
Victory is not letting the enemy get what they want isn’t it? To me that was how this was..it was like “you want me? Let’s see you get me now” kind of thing. The options before a thirteenth century queen are quite limited IMO and I bought it in the context of the movie. It did not appear to me like glamourising jauhar..besides, who the hell is watching well dressed Bhansali heroines and going hmm, I can relate to that and if I was ever to be threatened by rape I would jump into a fire? Sati has been shunned years ago by most of indian society and nobody questions a rape victims right to live. I have read reports of women in abject poverty and have been gang raped with the police not ready to file an FIR also..there is no public discourse about their right to live or even heard of them being compelled to take their life in modern society. There is obvious trauma and shame but then you always hear stories of them moving on..noone is expecting them to walk into a pyre. Sowhere is this coming from? I have read a lot of people disturbed by the staging..for me the staging is what removes me from it! It makes it obviously someone else and larger than life and definitely something that won’t relate to and extrapolate to my life. It would have disturbed me more if she was disheveled and cried and walked into the fire. The more realistic it looks the harder it hits. It was just the most beautifully choreographed death sequence instead.
LikeLike
csimumbai
February 1, 2018
@Anu Warrier – Mansplaining: Ouch, probably well deserved. Didn’t intend to be patronizing – but it’s always good to know how something gets decoded. Thank you for that.
I must say though that I hold no brief for Swara Bhaskar. Neither do I agree with her argument or her desire for a nuanced Jauhar.
@Jai @Anu Warrier. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. When a writer, artiste, filmmaker is recreating a myth and setting it in a particular time, her/his text says as much about the recreated mythical time as it does about the time in which s/he is recreating it. It is a recreation, an interpretation after all. An interpretation by a woman/man of OUR time. And this, in my view, is important to remember while consuming the text. Even if a writer is rigidly/conservatively/ authentically interpreting a myth, his/her decision to do so says as a lot about the time in which s/he is making the decision to interpret it. E.g. Ramanand Sagar’s Ramayana said as much about Ramayana (and introduced it to new audiences), as it did about his politics and about India in the 1980s. I am not saying Ramayana et al should reflect modern mores, but the artistic decisions that the author/director takes in interpreting the Ramayana says a lot about his/her and OUR time and also reveals his worldview.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
February 1, 2018
‘So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman’ ~casino royale
LikeLike
Vidya Ramesh
February 1, 2018
Nobody is looking at Bhansali heroines and going hmm, I can relate to that..the next time someone threatens my woman’s Honor I will expect her to kill herself. It’s just absurd. Sati is a dead practice. Noone expects rape victims to kill themselves. Very few women even from impoverished families who have been subjected to atrocities kill themselves. So this rape victims have a right to live thing is unwarranted and comes out of nowhere. There may be a lot of misogyny but I have not read or heard about a woman forced to die after rape.
Lots of people had problems with the staging. For me ,the staging is what removed me from it! It was out of the world like a weird drug induced nightmare..a beautifully choreographed death sequence that I could admire and never relate to. If she was disheveled and crying with no background score and ran into the pyre I would have been more disturbed. Who goes into the light with Rani sa playing! it is the filmiest thing ever.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Vidya Ramesh
February 1, 2018
Hey sorry for the second comment the first one disappear ed bR so I wrote the second one. I’m just repeating what I said don’t post it
LikeLike
brangan
February 1, 2018
Vidya Ramesh: You worded the two comments differently and I loved both. So left them there. Remember, this is a blog thhat says FORM is also CONTENT 😀
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
February 1, 2018
vivek narain: Let me add that I was a huge devourer of Chase novels as a teenager and it’s nice to know there are others out there 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vidya Ramesh
February 1, 2018
There was an early comment by Anuja lamenting the fact that this is celebrated while a queen who decided to go with Alauddin was not..it reminded me of the life of pi..when there are two stories one incredible and the other plain..we would choose the one with the tiger in it wouldn’t we? People choose to remember and imagine the more fantastic ending than a real one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jai
February 1, 2018
All this discussion about how “a film or any text set in the past, BUT made in the present, has as much to say about the past as it does about the present. Probably it says more about the present than the past” makes me wonder about “Grandparent’s tales” being handed down from one generation to another. Many of them are apocryphal, but are cherished nevertheless. Can films ever be made on these tales in such times of ready outrage? Taking it to the logical conclusion, should present day parents and grandparents stop even telling kids these tales, since the stories are not precisely synchronized to present-day socio–political mores?
Since this is a thread revolving around Padmaavat, BR, with your leave I would just like to digress a bit towards just such a “Grandparent’s tale”/ parable; in which Malik Kafur figures. 🙂 🙂 Let me at the outset state that this tale is (IMO) apocryphal and is not historically accurate. But the legend exists, nevertheless.
The tale is the saga of Bibi Nachiyar/ Surathani; supposedly a Muslim Princess, who has a shrine dedicated to her in the vast Srirangam temple complex. Why a shrine to her? Well, the tale goes that after Malik Kafur invaded the Pandya Kingdom, his forces swooped down upon Srirangam. His army broke into the vast temple complex, and before the priests could hide the utsavar idol of the presiding deity Ranganathar, the army plundered the temple, took away the idol and marched back to Delhi.
The tale goes that a few men came forward and vowed to bring back the idol from Delhi. The group set out to Delhi, disguised as an entertainment troop. Meanwhile at the palace in Delhi, strange things were afoot. When the soldiers brought in the idol, the daughter of the Sultan, Princess Surathani, was overwhelmed by the charming visage of the idol. (Some say she was Malik Kafur’s daughter, which is impossible since he was a eunuch, but as I said, this is an apocryphal tale). Over the next few weeks, Surathani bathed the idol, dressed it, offered it food and spent all her time playing with it.
The entertainment troop from Srirangam finally reached Delhi and asked for permission to perform before the sultan. When the permission was granted, they put up their best dance and song skills and ultimately so impressed the Sultan that he granted them anything they would but ask for. Of course, they asked for their idol back. The troop waited for night to fall, and when Princess Surathani was deep in sleep, they retrieved the idol and started out of the city.
They fled as fast as their carts could take them, lest the sultan sent his army behind. But Surathani was so distressed to find her idol gone, that she immediately jumped on to her horse and followed the entertainment troop. Malik Kafur followed with his vast army. Frightened by the army, the troop split into various smaller groups and decided to meet back in Srirangam. The man carrying the idol, his father and his son, ran into a dense forest and completely lost their way.
Back at Srirangam however, Surathani searched all over for the idol. Not finding it, she gave up her life before the very doors of the sanctum. As a result of her intense devotion, a shrine was later dedicated to her. However before that, a bloody war intervened in which thousands of people were reputed to have been killed. The beautiful Devadasis of the temple, finally, managed to seduce the army generals and sent them back home.
Now tell me, can you imagine this tale being made into a film today without both right wing and left wing outrage? To me, this admittedly apocryphal story is a tale of syncretism and synthesis, of a willingness to find common ground. But the right wing zealots of one religion would claim that the tale is merely a rationalization, to “soften” the reality of the destruction wreaked by Malik Kafur in his southern campaigns. Right wingers of another religion would claim that the tale portrays their faith in poor light.
Left wingers, on the other hand, would probably object to how the invading armies are shown. Endless debates would ensue on whether the objective of raiding the temple complexes was only to loot wealth, or also to strike a psychological blow. Next, they would object that to show Princess Surathani being so devoted to an idol, infantalizes women and shows them as not exercising mature judgement. Lastly, they would object to the portrayal of Devadasis taking on the generals, claiming that to show these women undertaking this task with a grim resolve, means “glorifying” this admittedly repugnant and oppressive practice.
I am just saying this: Our Culture is millenia old, evolving over time. The past is not always rosy and happy, there have been acts of violence and bloodshed, injustice and chaos. But if today, one side wants to dictate with force what aspects from history/ myth can be shown; and another side complains about how something is shown not commensurate with modern values; then both these sides are shrinking the space available for the center. Debate and discussion are always to the good, but it wouldn’t hurt to also consider, if the critique is really relevant to the time period in which the story is set.
Sorry if this comment is extraneous to this thread, BR. Please hold it back, if you feel so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
February 1, 2018
“both sides are shrinking the space available for the center” – This applies generally and not just to art. Maybe Macron can pave the way for a robust, vociferous center that doesn’t allow a minority but vocal fringe to hijack the agenda. That’s as far as Europe. For India, I have two words: Hey Ram! 😀
LikeLike
Rahul
February 1, 2018
They are also telling the filmmaker “how could you show this sequence the way you did, in such a visually overwhelming manner.”
Jai – Since the start of this conversation I have been arguing about the PRINCIPLE of evaluating the Gods and icons worshiped by people in a certain time through morality of that particular time. It is not just valid I think its imperative. I have no comment on the particulars of Swara Bhaskar’s piece or how this principle applies on Bhansali’s work because I have not seen Padmavat.
LikeLike
Radhika
February 1, 2018
I am curious – if we say that “Bhansali has the creative freedom to make the movie the way he wants to, Swara can make her own gritty, realistic, horror-inducing one if she is inclined” – then why was there a petition against the depiction of stalking, that garnered so much support on this very forum? There too, one could argue that the makers of that ghastly Partibhan movie in which he rapes the woman and she insists on marrying him – or the countless movies where the hero stalks the heroine but then she falls into his arms, so all is good (the villain stalking her is asking to get bashed up ) – that those movie directors too were making movies true to their vision. If I want to make a movie in which a hero stalks and gets bashed up by the heroine, I could, why are we then asking movie makers and heroes to think twice before glorifying stalking? Isn’t this internally inconsistent, to staunchly defend Bhansali’s right to his vision, but deny the same prerogative to the maker of some crap regressive movie that goes against every feminist or humane right that we treasure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Radhika
February 1, 2018
@Vidya : Nobody is looking at Bhansali heroines and going hmm, I can relate to that..the next time someone threatens my woman’s Honor I will expect her to kill herself. It’s just absurd. Sati is a dead practice
I hope. The Deorala Sati may seem like history to many of the millennial viewers, to those of us who recall the horrors Roop Kanwar was subjected to, it’s difficult to really believe Sati is really dead, and not, like some presumed-to-be-eradicated virus, waiting for a chance to make a comeback.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj
February 1, 2018
Folks from Somalia, brace yourselves:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/hc-notice-on-petition-against-aami/article22611592.ece
LikeLiked by 1 person
Radhika
February 1, 2018
@Jai, that’s such a fascinating story – it has all the ingredients for blockbuster movie. Please, quick, write a poem on which a script can be based. Yes, lots of outrage may ensue. Or maybe not! Maybe it will be seen as a the kind of oldfashioned story – ideally the princess should live in the end, saved by a miracle and her angry father will be stopped at the very last minute from razing Srirangam to ashes.
LikeLike
IMF
February 1, 2018
@Ragini
“The Tone. 😦”
That’s not new either, even for reviews, let alone opinion pieces. Critics have torn films in shreds. I have no idea why there’s need to tone police her and go to such lengths to be dismissive of her POV? And actually, if anything, she was all praises for Bhansali and the first half was all about how he’s so great and has a great eye for detail, etc. So even definitely not “jumping on his throat”. Not toning down her feelings about the film is not the same as jumping on someone’s throat. She’s not writing a thesis deconstructing Bhanali’s films, aesthetics and politics, it’s an opinion piece, presented as such, after all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2018
@Radhika, given that I vociferously objected to stalking in films, let me answer this question. I think I did address it in an earlier comment. I don’t find my stance incongruous. I’m dead against showing stalking as wooing simply because the sheer number of those films that normalises even glorifies this behaviour causes a ripple effect in a modern society.
If you are going to continually show the hero ‘falling in love’ with the heroine, despite her not knowing he even exists, and then continually stalking her, misbehaving with her, and acting like she should fall in love with him (and she does- irrespective of what or who he is) then you are telling a susceptible group of young men that this is okay. As Iswarya and many others can attest, her students take their cues for ‘wooing’ from the films they watch. It’s a sense of entitlement.
Bhansali’s film is set in a period where – following patriarchal mores or not – women behaved in a certain way. Now, if every other filmmaker jumped on this bandwagon to showcase Jauhar and Sati as customs to be aspired to, it would be a problem.Jauhar, in this film, was warranted because that is what the legend of Padmavati is all about. However, if they were going to show women committing Jauhar because they were raped/afraid of being raped, or sati because they were ‘good’ wives and so on and so forth… Therein lies the difference.
We aren’t going to have a hundred women commit jauhar because they saw Deepika do it in Padmavati. However, seeing the many ‘heroes’ ‘get their girl’ after stalking her, shaming her, even abusing her? Yup – that’s going to have an effect. Heck, that is already having an effect. Ask Swati.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2018
@csi – 🙂 Apology accepted. Thanks, man. You’re a sport. Let’s agree to disagree.
LikeLike
Madhu
February 1, 2018
@Radhika: then why was there a petition against the depiction of stalking, that garnered so much support on this very forum?
Because, Padmavat is a movie that is depicting what is believed to be ‘The legend of Padmavati’. Whether or not historically proven, it is a believed myth that lives around this queen and this filmmaker has showcased this story. Again, this is a myth that happened centuries ago that has been portrayed in this movie as such, timeline followed and everything.
But, when it comes to stalking, it is a ‘mass-hero-thing’, that has been followed not in one movie, or ten, or hundred, but thousands. Across the length and breadth of India, in all possible languages, you have the man, doing nothing but stalk-stalk-stalk and finally win the girl. And it is seen as an acceptable, sometimes even expected behavior out of a a guy who lives and breathes in this century, in this time, in this place. And it isn’t even depiction of stalking that the petition is against, but the ‘glorification’ of it. The mass BGM with which the stalking man is glorified to, the way movie after movie it is preached that all you have to do to win a girl, is to follow her relentlessly.
Frankly, to compare the opposition that one movie has faced, against the opposition that is being put against something that has become a toxic norm in most movies of India, is being a little unfair.
LikeLike
Rahul
February 1, 2018
Thats a great point, Radhika. Caste is a toxic reality for millions in the country and I think to any movie that glorifies caste pride the same considerations (anti stalking) should apply.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jayram
February 2, 2018
@ Jai, I too have read the tale of Bibi Nachiyar and it is indeed beautiful. But what I read is from a different perspective and I think you got 2 major points wrong.
1) the entertainment troop was not actually an entertainment troop but consisted of Ramanujacharya and his disciples.
2) Bibi Nachiyar gave up her life at the sanctum in Melkote not Srirangam.
Here’s the story I read about Bibi Nachiyar and her Lord Selva-p-pillai:
The story begins with Ramanuja living in exile in Melkote because Krimikantha (a staunch Saivate king) was persecuting the SriVaishnava community in Srirangam. Here he had a dream where Narayana came and said to him, “My Utsava Vigraha (moving image) named Sampathkumara or Ramapriya is located in Delhi with the Emperor. Proceed there and bring it.” So he and a couple of his disciples journeyed to Delhi within 2 months and met the Emperor. The Emperor was very gratified to meet Ramanuja and wanted to know the purpose of his visit. Ramanuja petitioned for the image of Sampatkumara which the Emperor granted. He was shown many deities removed from the temples of India but failed to find Ramapriya.
Then Ramapriya appeared in Ramanuja’s dream and said, “I am with the Emperor’s daughter. She has made a plaything of Me. To her dallyings and her caresses, I am a living person. Come and find Me.” And Ramanuja awoke and immediately told the Emperor that the Utsava Vigraha he sought was with Bibi Nachiyar. The Emperor agreed with his request and took him to Bibi Nachiyar’s room and Ramapriya was there. After entering, Ramanuja called Him by His name “Selva-p-pillai” and the Image immediately jumped down from the couch where the princess placed Him and walked towards Ramanuja, who embraced the moving Deity like a parent finding his long-lost son. With the consent of the Emperor, Ramanuja and his disciples left immediately in the night with the Deity and traveled without any rest for he knew that if the princess wanted it back, her father would seize it from him.
When Bibi Nachiyar came to know about it, she was so distressed and grew sick with longing. The Emperor then ordered his troops to bring back the Deity. The princess petitioned her father to go along with the troops, which he agreed.
Meanwhile Ramanuja had gotten lost in the forest for a while but some Chandalas came and helped him reach Melkote safely where he installed Selva-p-pillai in a secret spot inside the temple. With his vision, he knew that the Lord Narayana incarnated in the form of Sampatkumara/Ramapriya to be united with Bibi Nachiyar and she had completely accepted Him as her Lover and Chosen Deity.
With the pangs of separation and sorrow tormenting her heart, Bibi Nachiyar entered the forest and became lost. She cried out loud, “My Lord! Where are You? Ah, my Lord!” She did not eat, drink or rest as her mind totally situated on Ramapriya. One night, she was able to escape the forest without the knowledge of the army and arrived in Melkote after many days. All were amazed to her intense devotion despite her weakened state. She entered the sanctum and thus her pure frame was dissolved into the body of Sampatkumara.
Note: I didn’t find any information about any wars nor about Devadasis seducing the army generals from what I have. But I did read somewhere about a Muslim general who loved Bibi Nachiyar with all his heart. When she got dissolved in the body of Sampatkumara, he gave up his Muslim ways and became a devotee of Lord Ranganatha in Srirangam. Later, on the command of his Chosen Deity, he settled in Puri and worshipped Lord Jagannatha for the rest of his life.
Now I don’t think my narration of Bibi Nachiyar and her Lord Sampatkumara will ever be made into a film. It may cause even more intolerance to many and it may be boring to the rest. But I felt like sharing it.
And Jai, thanks for writing your side of the story and thoughts. I would love to watch your tale of the legend of Bibi Nachiyar on screen.
LikeLike
Jai
February 2, 2018
@ Jayram: Hey dude ✋ nice to meet a fellow history/ mythos/legend fan.
Wrt the tale. There are two versions of the story…..The Srirangam version which I stated before, and the Melkote version which you have stated (in which Ramanujar is also portrayed). Both these stories exist. As to which, if either, is more historically accurate, or are both largely apocryphal based on some historical facts…….well, we shall never precisely know.
BTW, if my memory serves correctly, there was a film made which showed extracts of the Melkote version. I think (I may be wrong here ), that Rajini played Ramanujar and Sathyaraj played the Sultan. I’m trying to recollect more but the moment unable to do so. If you remember, do let me know. 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Radhika
February 4, 2018
@Anu, @Madhu
I signed that petition on stalking too, so I get your outrage, I do. Movies can be incredibly influential in a country like ours where so much that is seen on the screen is translated into real-life behaviour by adoring fans.
Which is why I am not sure I buy into why SLB’s vision is okay only because it is “just one movie” – so if there were many copy-cat movies on jauhar, then this would be a problem? If women did extol jauhar or sati as a result – or if some of them died – then this would be a problem? This movie is so straggeringly successful and has aroused so much attention, and by year end will have been seen by so many people, its impact cannot be minimises because it i s just one movie.
I hope the optimism is vindicated, and this movie is, indeed, seen as a depiction of an centuries-old culture and custom. There are many reports on how the movie has been received in the very conservative Rajput bastions, which trouble me about the ability of some viewers to compartmentalize the story of the past with the lives in the present. It reminds me, in a way, of the kind of adulation Ramayana got when telecast on TV – and how the audience got horrified seeing the actress who played Sita – ironically another Deepika – behaving as a modern woman would. It’s not just the jauhar scene – the movie is so slanted towards Hindus and the depiction of Muslims so aggressively negative, that I do hope that doesn’t create another round of communal chaos.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 4, 2018
Which is why I am not sure I buy into why SLB’s vision is okay only because it is “just one movie” – so if there were many copy-cat movies on jauhar, then this would be a problem? If women did extol jauhar or sati as a result – or if some of them died – then this would be a problem?
I think if we had this in a modern setting, it would have been problematic. Where I draw the line is there. If, using this film as a template, we began making films that extolled the virtues of sati and jauhar (or any other regressive), yes, it would be problematic. (Which was my issue with the stalking-as-wooing trope, which Madhu pointed out so well) I still don’t see this film as glorifying Jauhar, just showing the legend the way it was, so that is where my view comes from. I’m not saying I’m right.
As for Deepika Chiklia, yes, I remember feeling astonished that people got angry that she smoked and I was thinking back to Shobhana Samarth, who earlier depicted many, many goddesses, openly drinking and smoking without any issue. I think, today, we conflate character and actor so much. Again, this happens more to actresses than actors. No one bothered to find out if Arun Govil was drinking or smoking.
With regards to this film I think the less press we give to this (and I blame the media for giving the Karni Sena so much free publicity such that a fringe group is now entered the national consciousness), the less ‘effect’ this will have on the general public.
LikeLike
Rahul
February 5, 2018
Though Radhika is probably talking only about Jauhar and Sati, building up on her argument i am talking about caste pride. There have been many movies that glorify caste pride, this is not the first and wont be the last – and caste based atrocities are common. To me it makes sense to oppose this on the same principles as we did , movies that glorify stalking.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
February 5, 2018
This infatuation for the queen is crazy, and dire implications of last scene in real life are very real. However the world of Alberto Moravia too exists in this cacaphony, the world of cuckolds and hot pants and erectile dysfuntions and free radicals.
LikeLike
Honest Raj
February 5, 2018
Jai: The film that you’re talking about is Sri Raghavendra – Sathyaraj made a cameo as the Nawab of Adoni.
LikeLike
Dipayan Mukherjee
February 5, 2018
Very well analysed Sir.
LikeLike
Jauhar_Sati
February 6, 2018
Jauhar and Sati are separate things. Jauhar is during war and done before the men go out on the final and war were it is do or die or conclusion is forgone.
SLB films evoke extreme reactions even in normal people so what to talk of K.S. which is becoming like shiv sena, organization that creates babal to gain political power. I don’t like his movies but there is certain poetic beauty and superb in parts than the whole. high art and in parts extreme masala. Tries to create his own mughal-e-azam each time, instead of anarkali it is malik gafur that is veiled here.
The final scene couldn’t have been shot by anyone else the way it was shot and acted. The BGM was perfect too. Deepika’s speech is neither passionate nor pathetic. Neither a glorification nor a sad statement. Walk in perfect dignity. Not all women committed Jauhar. Lot of them were busy throwing hot coals at the enemy when he is entering the fort. It (jauhar) is what one of the commentator said it perfectly. Showing a middle finger to Khilji. It felt exactly like that. I didn’t like the movie but that last scene was perfection itself. There was no clapping or crying but a pin drop silence as desi audience exited from the theater.
That the unruly, incessantly chatty, desis who left their dirty drink cups in the holder and pop corn all over the floor with the container on floor or seat, could be leave in a state of speechlessness, walk in silence, is the power and success of SLB.
K.S should have endorsed the movie and some other minority forces should have protested for their tribe was showm in “bad light”. Thanks to K.S. SLB and co. can laugh all the way to bank! if there was a marketing ploy, then this was a perfect one, one could hope for!!
Here is to Jauhar and more ‘controversial’ scenes in the movies in future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Opti
February 6, 2018
I am a woman. If it is the last choice, I would rather kill myself than be enslaved, raped and tortured.
Maybe Bhansali also thinks of Jauhar as the best thing to do in such a situation. But it is absolutely WRONG and CRIMINAL to force someone else to do it. I believe taking my own life would require courage. Try imagining yourself in such a situation and imagine picking up a knife and slashing you wrist or something The inherent need/instinct in our brain to stay alive makes it very very difficult.
Hara Kiri, Jauhar whatever it may be, suicide is suicide and people do it for different reasons.
The praising song and rich visuals at the end only signify the director’s opinion that this character is brave in making a choice to die. This director supports/agrees with this fictional woman character here. I know I would. I wouldn’t call her a coward for doing it — in this story, this situation. I won’t support someone committing jahuar/suicide when there are other options available.
Swara Bhaskar neither thought this way nor remembered that singing peans to someone who (we think) made a brave but suicidal decision is a very common culture all around the world. What else is Prithiviraj Raso?
LikeLike
Opti
February 6, 2018
@Jauhar_Sati
Thank you for pointing this out…people have seem to forgotten the difference between sati and jauhar. I think in this story, the depiction that it was a brave act was suitable.
Instead of discussing the scene in context of the movie/ story, people are more interested in bashing Bhansali for apparantly glorifying Jauhar and sati, and claiming that he supports forcing women into committing the same. And they keep using ‘jauhar’ and ‘sati’ as synonyms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
February 6, 2018
Oh right! All this discussion only because we were confused between Sati and Jauhar. Thanks for clearing that up. Everyone can go home now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
February 6, 2018
@ Rahul 🙂
LikeLike
Jauhar_Sati
February 7, 2018
Thank you Rahul for clarifying! The desi janta are busy learning about English customs and throwing their weight around by showing how elite and intellectually superior they are (“You know I read heyer” la-di-dah) while they are completely ignorant and ashamed of being Indians, about India and its history, its regional languages and the great authors it produces. If you ask them about Munshi Premchand they will be having deer in headlight looks on their faces. Truely!
Two Sanskrit words, Jau or Jiv meaning “life” and Har meaning “to take” .
Rani Padmini is a warrior princess, expert in bow-arrow, as shown in first scene. In this historical semi-fictional drama. Not a coward princess. Secondly there is a critical scene in the beginning of movie of a captured queen (among other scenes where Khilji and his “ways with women/men” is shown, including his own wife) and her plight. India with its traditions and culture. Say the Rajas followed Geneva convention (for those deer in headlight people we have to use these words). Lets call them by any name…usul or what not, in the movie. At the end of the day, you don’t kill someone you invited over for dinner. You don’t fight someone who has no weapons. But the opposition doesn’t have any such convention (geneva conventions are broken even in today’s times by neighbors so what to talk of 12th century).
What do you do? How do you win something that you already lost? Then I would certainly jump in a fire and show my whichever finger I want to the enemy. My choice. And Rani, is shown as asking for permission. It was a team effort to defeat the enemy while keeping and following their times Geneva conventions. Could they have broken those? Could they have stabbed enemy in the back? But then history would be different. It would be fight of one barbarian against another barbarian. In any case, you cannot shame the present generation for what happened in past just as you cannot hold present German’s accountable for what their ancestors did in the 30s. Caste or Jauhar or Sati.
LikeLike
Jauhar_Sati
February 7, 2018
For the English premi desis this is more palatable.
I am sure you all watch Homeland. very briefly:
In season 4, Saul is captured by the pakis. He is used as a pawn. Then Saul escapes. However, the town he is guided into, is surrounded by Taliban and his capture is imminent. Saul puts gun to his throat. Saul’s wife too pleads on phone to let him die (with Honor and dignity, I suppose. She pleads Carrie to let him do the “right” thing, which is to kill himself).
THIS is American man! of today’s time. Not history. Not historical figure. Not a warrior or navy seal or anything like that. Just a CIA officer/agent. And if THIS can be a reaction of a Gora man, to die in “honor” instead of being used as pawn, then why a Queen, back in 12 century (who is a warrior) jumping into fire, such an unacceptable thing!
Of course homeland is historical fiction just like Padmavati. But that doesn’t cause people to say “Regressive” hai.
Hota hai bhai hota hai.
Many will jump in the fire or put gun to our throats. That is courageous decision too! No one is gonna write a poem on you if you got captured and abused and lost your freedom.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 7, 2018
@Jauhar_Sati (“You know I read heyer” la-di-dah) while they are completely ignorant and ashamed of being Indians,
and
If you ask them about Munshi Premchand they will be having deer in headlight looks on their faces. Truely!
Adding ‘truly’ to your sentence doesn’t make it true. What makes you think that because we read Heyer, we are ashamed of being Indians? Or that we are unaware of Munshi Premchand? FYI, Anuja is a well-known writer of Indian myths and historical fiction. She’s an avid history buff too, and can probably tell you more about the history of this country (not its rewritten version) than you give her credit for.
Yes, I’ve read Premchand in the original Hindi. I’ve also read Bhisham Sahni and Bhaagwati Charan Sharma. I grew up with the poetry of Dinkar and Sumitranandan Pant and Mahadevi Varma, the dohas of Kabir and Tulsidas and Soordas and Mirabai. So?
What makes you think that because we speak English, read English fiction, perhaps even think in English that we couldn’t also read regional fiction, whether it be Hindi or Malayalam or Gujarati or Tamil or any one of the many Indian languages?
Yes, I am English speaking. I also speak, read and write Malayalam, Hindi, and Tamil fluently. And I can read, write and can get by in both Kannada and Marathi. What the heck does ‘English-speaking’ have to do with anything? And when did ‘English-speaking’ become synonymous with being cut off from Indian culture and tradition?
FWIW, no one in this comment thread made the mistake of confusing Jauhar with Sati either. There were many of us, me included, who defended the film and the context in which it showed Jauhar.
LikeLiked by 5 people