So, Sanjay Leela Bhansali was attacked. The Hindi Film Industry is shocked, angry and supportive of him. But I am not surprised. It was going to happen one day. It was simply a matter of 'when', not 'if'.
I agree - there is such a thing as 'Artistic License'. I also agree that history is always not an accurate description of what actually happened. But mixing the two is not a wise thing to do - at least in this day and age. Bhansali did this once with Devdas. In Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyaya's novel, Paro and Chandramukhi never meet face-to-face, if my memory serves me right. Yet, in Bhansali's version of Devdas, both of them danced together and sang a song! Though the novel was a work of fiction, this crass change, done with a singular focus on the box office collection, did the novel a great injustice. Of course, when Bhansali chose Shahrukh to play Devdas he had murdered the plot, so to speak. So what he did to Paro and Chandramukhi pales in comparison.
Then he did it again with Bajirao Mastani. In this movie too, we see Kashibai and Mastani dancing together in the formal residence of the Peshawas - the Shanivarwada. Let's leave aside the historic fact that it would have been impossible for Kashibai to dance like that in real life because a problem is her leg didn't allow her to even walk properly. But anyone even remotely familiar with the conservative way of life in that period's royal Maharashtrian household would tell you that it would not have been possible for a daughter-in-law to dance like that - even in an exclusive gathering of ladies. And to imagine that she would do so with her husband's second wife is absolutely banal. Any Indian woman can tell you that. Yet, if my memory serves me right, Bhansali's explanation for this song was that audience expects a song when Deepika and Priyanka Chopra are in the movie. Huh?
Hence, I cannot blame the Rajput community for being worried that Bhansali's 'artistic' imagination will conjure up a dream sequence in which Alauddin Khilji imagines himself dancing away with Queen Padmini. Don't get me wrong. Violence is definitely not the way to go about it. But sadly, merely protesting against the wrong depiction of history didn't work for the descendants of the Peshawas. Taking a legal action is nothing more than a waste of time in this country where the courts are overflowing with truckloads of cases that have been dragging on for years.
No wonder they chose to follow the idiom 'action speaks louder than words'. That's sad. But also a fact of life, more so in recent times. And the sooner we learn to deal with the facts, the better. I hope Bhansali finally gets it this time around.
P.S. The news channels have been calling these people a 'Fringe Group'. But is that what they are really? Ours is a country of multiple cultures, languages and communities. A section of people protesting against something or other are always a 'Fringe Group' unless the history or culture or festival in question happens to be the one that belongs to our community or state. The country India sure figures in the pecking order - but down on the very last rung.
I agree - there is such a thing as 'Artistic License'. I also agree that history is always not an accurate description of what actually happened. But mixing the two is not a wise thing to do - at least in this day and age. Bhansali did this once with Devdas. In Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyaya's novel, Paro and Chandramukhi never meet face-to-face, if my memory serves me right. Yet, in Bhansali's version of Devdas, both of them danced together and sang a song! Though the novel was a work of fiction, this crass change, done with a singular focus on the box office collection, did the novel a great injustice. Of course, when Bhansali chose Shahrukh to play Devdas he had murdered the plot, so to speak. So what he did to Paro and Chandramukhi pales in comparison.
Then he did it again with Bajirao Mastani. In this movie too, we see Kashibai and Mastani dancing together in the formal residence of the Peshawas - the Shanivarwada. Let's leave aside the historic fact that it would have been impossible for Kashibai to dance like that in real life because a problem is her leg didn't allow her to even walk properly. But anyone even remotely familiar with the conservative way of life in that period's royal Maharashtrian household would tell you that it would not have been possible for a daughter-in-law to dance like that - even in an exclusive gathering of ladies. And to imagine that she would do so with her husband's second wife is absolutely banal. Any Indian woman can tell you that. Yet, if my memory serves me right, Bhansali's explanation for this song was that audience expects a song when Deepika and Priyanka Chopra are in the movie. Huh?
Hence, I cannot blame the Rajput community for being worried that Bhansali's 'artistic' imagination will conjure up a dream sequence in which Alauddin Khilji imagines himself dancing away with Queen Padmini. Don't get me wrong. Violence is definitely not the way to go about it. But sadly, merely protesting against the wrong depiction of history didn't work for the descendants of the Peshawas. Taking a legal action is nothing more than a waste of time in this country where the courts are overflowing with truckloads of cases that have been dragging on for years.
No wonder they chose to follow the idiom 'action speaks louder than words'. That's sad. But also a fact of life, more so in recent times. And the sooner we learn to deal with the facts, the better. I hope Bhansali finally gets it this time around.
P.S. The news channels have been calling these people a 'Fringe Group'. But is that what they are really? Ours is a country of multiple cultures, languages and communities. A section of people protesting against something or other are always a 'Fringe Group' unless the history or culture or festival in question happens to be the one that belongs to our community or state. The country India sure figures in the pecking order - but down on the very last rung.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment