VidurNeeti 🇮🇳
tg10 тыс. подписчиков
Открыть пост ↗
Media & politics has made this nation an angry country,
Free unlimited internet has made it an excessively over-opinionated country (with no substance),
And too much democracy has made it only about rights & entitlements, but nothing on duties & civic sense.
So when a movie on Ramayan is made, do you expect any balanced opinion? This despite the fact everyone knows the story. How unfortunate it is that how little is our understanding on every subject. Let's go point by point:
1. Hindu epic is wrongly depicted.
Which scripture is your basis? Valmiki ji's Ramayan? There are at least 300 versions of Ramayan. Since you know just one, doesn't mean others don't exist. From BC to 16th century (Tulsidas' ji's Ramcharitmanas) there are Indian & international, Hindu & non-Hindu, & even local state-wise versions (will list them in comments). There is a Nepali one written as late as 19th century.
The makers should have educated the masses on this as a disclaimer.
2. Ravan is glorified.
Of course he will be. He is theh co-producer of the movie. What else do you expect? An actor to project himself differently. When the story is known in advance, he will bring the projection on himself.
This is where director & creative heads have to put their foot down. Else Ravan will be shown ruling from a KGF mine & be all Toxic. Reason why actors when they became directors seldom clicked.
3. Definition of big budget in India has become only about larger than life VFX- an army of 1 lakh coming from one side, another 2 lakh from other, & both colliding, flying. Unreal & gives headache now. That same dinosaur romping over skyscrapers, how many times will you see? Big budget can also be Titanic- fresh & huge. It can still be Mughal-e-Azam. Why are sequel has to become international to become larger than life? Why not more rustic & rooted? Has Bollywood completely forgotten how to focus more on capturing actors conveying the message through tight close-up shots, human emotions?
4. Ravan is shown as a grey character.
Here lies the fault of makers & viewers, both. A big fault & the crux.
In a movie there is a protagonist (A) & antagonist (B). Those who are mainly driving that plot are seen as either hero or villain by public. But in between the two lies an anti-hero. A hero can be A or B, so can villain & anti-hero. That is acceptable to public. But in a story where majority sees the villain singularly as a rakshas (villain) if you change that inherent foundation of a character to become an anti-hero (asura), that people won't be able to digest. That again connects to points 1 & 2 above.
Some literacy among viewers, some educational disclaimers from makers in advance, and some creative checks sums it all.
If you show Ravan as oppressor, there is a section in society which would have outraged. If you show Lord Ram as the oppressor there would be a brigade outraging.
If Ravan is showed as the one oppressed, why is a section quiet? Not even a word.
And to those who feel Lord Ram wasn't the oppressor- how do you never outrage to Osho's scathing commentaries on Him? Maybe it's beyond the brigade's comprehension or because it requires real reading which is a banned concept in that sect.
Hope all the sides are equally offended in this post because the trend these days is to label everyone paid.
VidurNeeti
Free unlimited internet has made it an excessively over-opinionated country (with no substance),
And too much democracy has made it only about rights & entitlements, but nothing on duties & civic sense.
So when a movie on Ramayan is made, do you expect any balanced opinion? This despite the fact everyone knows the story. How unfortunate it is that how little is our understanding on every subject. Let's go point by point:
1. Hindu epic is wrongly depicted.
Which scripture is your basis? Valmiki ji's Ramayan? There are at least 300 versions of Ramayan. Since you know just one, doesn't mean others don't exist. From BC to 16th century (Tulsidas' ji's Ramcharitmanas) there are Indian & international, Hindu & non-Hindu, & even local state-wise versions (will list them in comments). There is a Nepali one written as late as 19th century.
The makers should have educated the masses on this as a disclaimer.
2. Ravan is glorified.
Of course he will be. He is theh co-producer of the movie. What else do you expect? An actor to project himself differently. When the story is known in advance, he will bring the projection on himself.
This is where director & creative heads have to put their foot down. Else Ravan will be shown ruling from a KGF mine & be all Toxic. Reason why actors when they became directors seldom clicked.
3. Definition of big budget in India has become only about larger than life VFX- an army of 1 lakh coming from one side, another 2 lakh from other, & both colliding, flying. Unreal & gives headache now. That same dinosaur romping over skyscrapers, how many times will you see? Big budget can also be Titanic- fresh & huge. It can still be Mughal-e-Azam. Why are sequel has to become international to become larger than life? Why not more rustic & rooted? Has Bollywood completely forgotten how to focus more on capturing actors conveying the message through tight close-up shots, human emotions?
4. Ravan is shown as a grey character.
Here lies the fault of makers & viewers, both. A big fault & the crux.
In a movie there is a protagonist (A) & antagonist (B). Those who are mainly driving that plot are seen as either hero or villain by public. But in between the two lies an anti-hero. A hero can be A or B, so can villain & anti-hero. That is acceptable to public. But in a story where majority sees the villain singularly as a rakshas (villain) if you change that inherent foundation of a character to become an anti-hero (asura), that people won't be able to digest. That again connects to points 1 & 2 above.
Some literacy among viewers, some educational disclaimers from makers in advance, and some creative checks sums it all.
If you show Ravan as oppressor, there is a section in society which would have outraged. If you show Lord Ram as the oppressor there would be a brigade outraging.
If Ravan is showed as the one oppressed, why is a section quiet? Not even a word.
And to those who feel Lord Ram wasn't the oppressor- how do you never outrage to Osho's scathing commentaries on Him? Maybe it's beyond the brigade's comprehension or because it requires real reading which is a banned concept in that sect.
Hope all the sides are equally offended in this post because the trend these days is to label everyone paid.
VidurNeeti
Новый список