Yes you read the title correct; Padmavat(i) is an ugly, repulsive & distasteful anti-Invasion narrative that leaves you appalled & insulted as a Human being. The movie starts with a lot of disclaimers including that used specifically when you use names of people living or dead and want to have your own narrative using them or when you specifically think idiots might start crying and fueling your Advertisement. The movie has enough of that and also a statement that the movie in any way supports the practice of Sati.
Now Sati is different from Jauhar, which is as a custom was observed mostly during Hindu-Muslim wars where there were mass immolations to avoid capture and enslavement by the opposite force. This is also related to Sati which is more by a person than by a group.
Then why do I think it is Ugly? It is ugly because not even once in the movie, or at least immediately after the movie ended did it mention that Sati is one of the most heinous , horrifying and Gender discriminating custom that was practiced in India and was often even forced in order to uphold the false pride and honor of a group of superstitious people of the past .
Not even after it shows the colorful, glorified scene of Rani Padmavati walking and being followed by many women including small kids and a pregnant woman into the flames. The whole narrative that this was the courage and that one action proves that it was a victory for Chittor in the end.
Yes that is the last scene of the movie after which it says that even today people tell tales of Rani Padmavati’s valor. I have not heard all the while I grew up in India that she was hailed for her act of Jauhar or may be I did not live among nincompoops who thought so. What I was left with is a complete repulsiveness, thinking of the helplessness of the people following Padmavati. Why?? because they were born as women into a culture that also had customs like Jauhar and Sati back then ?
Jauhar was considered heroic acts and the practice was glorified in the local ballads and folklore of Rajasthan and Bhansali does not do anything different, he is very clearly glorifying Jauhar which in a way is related to Sati.
Now I have heard people say why Jauhar used to happen back then, and that is because once the women are captured they might have to undergo far more gruesome fate. While this might be true I cannot take my mind away from the horridness of act of immolation because the reasons of doing it is as the honor of a cult is nothing but the rules and guidelines pulled from some holy cow’s freaking ass.
If you think there are many other ways to take out one’s life than the painful self immolation. Even the term self-immolation is a nonsense because it is never self it is always forced. If you do not know; Sati is said to happen in such a way that the women when they try to escape and pushed back into the fire. It is not the kind of glorification and courage that Bhansali tries to portray in his poppycock movie. Padmavati and the custom of jauhar and Sati has forced so many women, children and unborn to be burned alive for a horrifying custom to elevate and keep in tact the Rajuptian false pride. And think of it only when invaded and defeated by Muslims. Can you see the problem here.
Yes movies are pieces of Art but at the end of the movie all Bhansali could have done is a few printed or spoken words on how jauhar and Sati are such a horrifying custom and glad that we do not live in those times. May be he cannot talk against Jauhar because of baffoons still glorifying the act in my country, but about Sati he could have said a few words of how mean this custom was. Nope.. Not Bhansali….
The movie is so distasteful that in the brilliant performance by Ranveer as Khilji he is able to show exactly what Bhansali wants. That anti-invasion narrative that even shows such a gruesome custom of jauhar in a light of pious courage meddled in unflinching faith and respect. The movie is where Bhansali creates a Brawl of Muslim Savagery and deceit with Rajputian Valor and Righteousness. Bravo Bhansali…. Bravo….
Bhansali stoops so low that he even takes up the aspect of Khilji’s Bisexuality just to prove a ‘lack of correctness’ in the negative role. This is why his narrative is so way bad………
Mr. Bhansali, this movie would have been just another of your extravagant unbearable pieces and may be you should thank the Karni Sena for getting people into the theatre to watch your distasteful take on a story from the past.
There is a certain amount of basic human decency one should hold even in Art and Freedom of expression, and that Mr. Bhansali for you would have been completely (not the pin sized writing at the start) abhorring the custom of Sati in a very few words at the end. To condemn the sadness and brutality of Jauhar. Such a Shame…. Such a Shame…. Shame for some stupid Shaan.
Ranveer Singh is brilliant and Deepika Padukone looks stunning…
But the smiles as she enters the fire.. really???? the last scene of the smiling women doing self-immolation and a crying invader Allauddin Khilji followed by a narrative that this act by Padmavati and other women are the true victory of Chittor makes me appalled and insulted as a Human being….. We all share the same history Mr. Bhansali, I feel bad for it and people like you in turn glorify it….. Sad…… Shame on You Bhansali
You put the disclaimer that the movie does not glorify the practice of Sati, At the end you could have also condemned the act of Sati… But let me think, if you condemn Jauhar and Sati may be you might not have been able to make the movie in the first place…..
To be honest, completely agree with you here. The entire ‘toss yourself into the fire’ concept is pretty inhumane. Just baffles my mind that such practices actually existed and were forced onto the masses to uphold a societal mirage of pride. I do however think that the director might not have had much flexibility.
Allow me to elaborate. Yes, he stuck to the simple ‘Hindu good, Muslim bad’ message. Yet despite that, so many Rajput Hindus were deeply offended, even though the entire movie revolves around the bravery of their culture. If it takes such little as just Deepika’s Ghoomer performance to enrage that population, imagine how enraged the Hindu Rajput masses would have been had the director indicated anywhere that the Rajput’s time honored tradition is actually immoral. I think that the director attempted to make a beautiful fictional piece with historical inspirations, but since the Rajput community is clearly so sensitive, he had to basically tip toe on eggshells. I’m sure the director does believe that the fire suicides were immoral, but I believe that if he’d expressed that in his film, a lot of bafoons would have been infuriated and accused him of insulting some historical ritual that they themselves are proud of. With the preexisting violent protests and death threats placed upon him and his cast, I can imagine a tenfold increase in such violence had Bansali actually done something that directly insulted the Rajput culture, other than than simply just merely depicting it. That being said, I do wish he could’ve included that such practices were and are immoral.
I personally found the movie to be troublesome too, mainly the mass suicide scene. Each of the characters played their roles to perfection, and the director did his best to honor the Rajput’s ‘bravery’. If there was any shortcomings (which there were), it isn’t the director’s fault. It’s history’s. I personally tried really hard to side with the Rajputs during the movie, but towards the end, I was feeling bad for the Mughal emperor and his futile attempts to obtain his dream. I found myself wishing he’d saved the Rajput queen from her fiery death, if only he’d gotten there a few minutes earlier, if only the Rajput queen had done the right thing and sacrificed herself to the Mughal emperor instead of being the cause of the death of an entire kingdom and all its people.
I wish, in the Rajput’s compilation of unwritten and absurd ‘usools’, that there was some rule also saying no life is greater or less than another.