Last weekend I watched the much awaited Jodhaa- Akbar (2008) as it finally released in theaters. Set in the sixteenth century, the Muslim emperor Akbar marries a Hindu princess Jodhaa, to strengthen his political relationships with the Rajput Kings. In an act of defiance and retaliation against all expectations of female subordination, the princess agrees to marry him only if she is allowed to maintain her Hindu traditions and is allowed to have a temple in the palace. As the relationship between the couple evolves from an alliance to a marriage based on love, we see the evolution of Akbar into a heroic and humane leader as he is shaped by Jodhaa's teachings of religious acceptance and ruling with one's heart.Despite the reputation of Oscar nominated Ashutosh Gowariker and the star cast of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Hrithik Roshan, the film had a mediocre opening weekend. Supposedly one of the most anticipated films of the year, 1500 prints were released across 26 countries, making it one of India's largest releases. However, several problems, such as the shutting down of theaters running the film due to apparent historical inaccuracies prevented a smooth release. Moreover, the inability of the distributors and multiplex exhibitors to reach a revenue sharing ratio by the release date, as well as strong opposition from animal rights activists caused further difficulty during the opening weekend.
Film critics gave Jodhaa- Akbar raving reviews, but I wanted to examine audience reaction to the film, especially given its problematic release. I therefore decided to explore the blogosphere, and on coming across very mixed reviews of the film, I chose to respond to two posts. The first, Was It Suraj Barjatya Directing the Movie? on FilmiKhabar, is a negative review of the film, discussing its adherence to the formulaic melodramatic conventions of Bollywood. The second, When Love Meets War: Jodha Akbar at Sulekha.com is more flattering, discussing its musical accomplishments, excellent performances and impressive costume design (see illustration above) while pointing out its shortcomings in terms of historical accuracy and set design, as seen in the illustration below. My responses can be seen below as well as on their respective websites.
Was It Suraj Barjatya Directing the Movie?
Comment:
I enjoyed reading your review and appreciate your balanced feedback on the film. Moreover, your comparison of Jodhaa- Akbar to an average Indian family melodrama and even an Ekta Kapoor television soap is interesting, and I do see a superficial resemblance between the two. However, I would like to illustrate the depth and larger significance of Jodhaa- Akbar's narrative in contrast to the meaningless formulaic drama of many other Bollywood films.
Unlike the typical portrayal of an arranged marriage, Gowariker uses this alliance to discuss pertinent issues of secularism and feminism that plague India today. The ground- breaking marriage of a Muslim emperor to a Hindu princess in the sixteenth century, the respect he shows for her religion by allowing her to remain a Hindu, a practice uncommon even today, and her ability to have a Hindu temple in the Islamic palace serves as a metaphor for a larger message of tolerance and acceptance that is still lacking in the country.
The developing relationship between Akbar and Jodhaa is far from predictable, and their characterizations are strong, dynamic and three dimensional. The concurrence of Jodhaa to marry Akbar for her father's political gain, but the stipulation of conditions under which she will marry represents her defiant nature without her disregard for traditions, an important statement for women in India today. Similarly, the "wife trying to impress the husband by cooking food for him" is indicative of Jodhaa's retention of Indian values despite her rejection of Indian female passivity with her confrontational, independent- minded character and her flare for sword fighting. The "husband trying to impress his wife with his body" is more than just a display of Roshan's physique in this case, since the body of Aishwarya Rai, who is known for her beauty the world over, is surprisingly never showcased in a similar light. The objectifying of the male body rather than the female body epitomizes Gowariker's message of feminism in his attempt at straying away from the exhibition of the female body and the prioritization of the male gaze.
I do, however, agree that moments in the film are overly dramatized and that critical plot points are spelled out for the audience, leaving little room for narrative subtlety. Perhaps these elements of a Bollywood masala film are Gowarikar's response to the lukewarm reception of his last film Swades (2004) that went against many norms of the mainstream Bollywood musical. However, the visual scale of the film should not be ignored in favor of narrative critique. Jodhaa- Akbar's cinematography meets international standards with its extravagant set design, opulent costumes and magnificent visual style. The depth- of- field of the shots depicting the growing romance between the central protagonists serves as an effective indication of the larger societal implications of their cross cultural relationship. Furthermore, the rich red and green costumes that are echoed in the set design are indicative of their opposing yet complimentary personalities and the socio- political impact their relationship has
on their surroundings. Although the CGI leaves room for improvement, it is unlike anything Bollywood has ever seen before, let alone ventured to accomplish. Clearly, behind this Bollywood masala film is the cinematic subtlety and vision of a master, continuing to bravely conquer untrodden paths.When Love Meets War: Jodhaa Akbar
Comment:
You make some excellent points regarding the cinematography and music score of the film. A. R. Rahman's music incorporates "Sufi and Meera Bhajans" as well as "classic and folk songs" to bring out the inherent conflict yet the melodic interplay between Hindu and Muslim cultures within India. Moreover, the use of Hindi by Jodhaa and Urdu by Akbar further depicts the religious subtexts of the developing relationship between the two. Akbar's adoption of the Hindi word "rasoigarh" (kitchen) as a sign of appreciation for Jodhaa's hand- cooked feast is one of many understated attempts on the part of Gowariker to add depth to the declining Hindu- Muslim conflicts between the couple as the film progresses. It is true that Mughal- e- azam (1960) is replete with "silken dialogs" in a completely pure and poetic form of an often incomprehensible Urdu. Gowariker however, uses the intricacies of language to depict the dynamics between religions across the country, and imbues dialog with the elegance and royalty of the Mughal era while making it completely comprehensible to the contemporary common man.
In terms of visual design, I think the film is leagues ahead of anything that has come out of Bollywood. Perhaps a comparison to Mughal- e- azam is unfair given that the film was black and white and much of the beauty of the sets relies on audience imagination. In comparing the Mughal palaces of Jodhaa- Akbar to the "Chandramukhi Mahal of Devdas (2002)" however, I completely disagree with your comments. While Bhansali was aiming at assaulting the senses of the audience with sheer opulence and color, Gowariker's sets were far more sophisticated and detailed, never overpowering the actors or their performances like the latter. Moreover, Gowariker uses more than just lavish sets and costumes to contribute to the visual style of his film. From the visceral high- speed tracking shots going backwards as the two opposing armies collide on the battle- field, to Jodhaa's delicate dropping of the beautifully embroidered translucent veil to serve as a barrier against Akbar during the initial phases of their relationship, the cinematography of film is loading with meaning and is visually breath- taking.
On the note of accuracy, I feel Gowariker effectively modernizes aspects of the characters while retaining the authenticity of the period, thereby leaving out certain aspects of Akbar's life in order to convey the themes of religious and gender equality, and to allow audiences to identify with the film. The disclaimer at the very beginning of the film explicitly stating that it is depicting only one version of history, illustrates that the film was attempting to make a much larger "socio- political critique" on society rather than a factual exploration of Emperor Akbar's life. It is a pity that the visual excellence of this film is going unnoticed in several parts of India due to protests against its alleged historical inaccuracies.
1 comment:
TRS - I definitely liked some of your arguments, particularly your analysis of the attempt by the director to reassess the male gaze in a feminist standpoint, considering the famousness of Aishwarya Rai's body. (I would argue, however, that it would be quite a bold move to reveal even a bathing-suit level of her body to the camera, while the men of Bollywood take their shirts off much more regularly.) I also liked how you analyzed how she tried to impress Akbar by "cooking for him" as a retention of Indian values.
Your arguments tend to be quite solid. I liked what you took away from the posts. The only thing that was a bit distracting was that I did not always know what in the post you were referring to. I liked when you quoted the post directly and responded to it, because then I knew exactly what you were referring to. Overall, though, this wasn't too much of a problem.
One other suggestion is about the introduction. You introduced Gowariker as oscar-nominated, and being that it's rare for a Bollywood director to be oscar-nominated, I expected a link about the oscar nod for 'Lagaan.' Also, looking at your links for animal-rights and historical inaccuracies, the links didn't tell me much specifically about what the complaints were - although, in the case of the inaccuracies, the story implied that there wasn't much of a complaint anyways.
Overall, though, the arguments were solid, you addressed most of the points, and you gave a solid introduction that solidly explained the film and the circumstances to any unfamiliar reader (such as me). good job!
Post a Comment