Tag Archives: Doordarshan

Film Review: Adipurush (2023)

STORY

Raghava rejects Shurpanakha‘s proposal which infuriates her and attempts to kill Raghava’s wife, Janaki. In retaliation, Lakshmana bleeds her nose with an arrow. Shurpanakha informs her brother Ravana. Ravana kidnaps Janaki which starts an epic war.


INTRODUCTION

Adipurush is a mythological action film based on the Sanskrit epic from ancient India called ‘Ramayana‘. Before I jump towards this cinematic disaster piece, let me give you a few insights about where this story is coming from.

Hinduism is arguably the world’s oldest religion. After four holy books of Vedas, two Sanskrit epics that together forms the Hindu mythological belief and constructs a university of faith are Mahabharata and Ramayana. And Adipurush is based on Ramayana.

A legendary poet Valmiki wrote this epic poem thousands of years ago. The poem covers Rama‘s life, his 14-year exile to the forest with his wife Sita and his brother Lakshmana. And then Sita’s kidnapping by Ravana that resulted in a war. And last of all, Rama’s return from exile.

Who was Rama? Rama was the prince of Ayodhya in the kingdom of Kosala. Kosala was one of the 16 realms that existed in the ancient India between 6th and 4th centuries in BCE that were collectively called “Mahajanapadas” which means great footold of people. Rama’s father was Dasharatha, the king of Kosala. He had three wives; Kausalya gave birth to Rama, Kaikeyi to Bharata, and Sumitra to twin sons Lakhsamana and Shatrughna. Bharata is the one who ruled Ayodhya when Rama was exiled.

So when Ravana kidnaps Sita to his Lanka, Rama and Lakshmana are informed about this shocking incident by Jatayu, the vulture, who tried to rescue Sita. Rama and Lakshmana seeks help from Sugriva and Bajrang Bali to raise an army against Ravana and liberate his wife from the captivity.

So readers, I have given you a lot of insight. I have shared you some bullet points of the story. So why is Adipurush a box-office disaster? Why the Indian viewers of Hindu faith have taken this film as a blasphemy? What went wrong? Almost everything.


REVIEW

See, I have read the bullet events that occurred in Ramayana and Mahabharata. And I think that Hindu mythology really gives us some interesting stories. Back in the 1990s, I happened to watch a few scenes from Ramanand Sagar‘s Ramayana that, if I am not wrong, used to be telecasted on Doordarshan. Whatever was happening in the show looked to be weird to me in those times. In my mid-teen, I was not a film critic but a typical Shah Rukh Khan fan. So, my opinion in the childhood matters the least or close to none.

But in 2023, with elite level of CGI and many technologies to ponder our unsettling surprises, I can easily envision that if Valmiki’s epic poem is given justice by its true loyalist, both Ramayana and Mahabharata will be shot with the aesthetics of a combined universes of James Cameron‘s Avatar and Peter Jackson‘s The Lord of The Rings.

But in 2023, the general audience especially of the Hindu faith are tortured to watch three hours of Adipurush which is in all sorts, outrageous and quite insulting to Hinduism. Most surprisingly, a film on Hinduism has severely messed up when Narendra Modi is the prime minister of India.

AGONIZING THE VIEWERS

Adipurush begins with a disclaimer that mentally instils the ‘Hindu’ audience to expect a volcano erupt from the presentation. It clearly states that ‘certain elements, characters, and events may have been interpreted or modified to suit the screen adaptation’. Later on, it also informs that they may have include dramatizations and fictional additions. I have always believed that if the film is based on a true story, just depict in its true nature with the highest level accuracy as possible. Because if you don’t, the film carries no purpose at all. And Adipurush is based on Hindu mythology that has become a religion to more than a billion people on the planet. So altering the story or trying to install the whole story in different aesthetics will do no good.

CASTING AND TERRIBLE PORTRAYALS

One of the massive issues with the film is an extremely enormous production budget which is ₹500–700 crore. With that budget, the film ridicules the audience with one of the worst visual effects ever paranoid. Also, with that budget, the casting and their costumes and make-ups don’t fit at all. One of the highest-paid actors in India, Prabhas, played the titular role of Rama. But more than Rama, he looked like Karna of Mahabharata. Plus, Rama sporting a moustache looked pretty odd because I think this has never happened before. Not even in animated films.

Beautiful Kriti Sanon plays Sita but by her attire, I assume she is reimagined as Sita in a modern setup. But Adipurush’s Sita also suffers from cheesy dialogues that corrupts the portrayal further. Imagine one of Sita’s responses to Ravana in Ashok Vatika is ”Ye kesa prem hay, Ravana? Mujhe koi aisi cheez do jo kuch din chale.” (What love is this, Ravana? Give me something that lasts for days).

Two more castings raised the eyebrows. One was Saif Ali Khan as Ravana and Devdatta Nage as Bajrang Bali. I dont have knowledge from what family did Ravana belong to but Adipurush’s Ravana, with his spiky hairstyle and Muslim beard, definitely comes from the house of Targaryen who instead of riding a dragon rides a gargoyle-like bat. Ravana’s original ride was called Pushpaka Vimana which was a flying chariot. So I am unsure what caused to change the ride whereas Pushpak Vimana was shown for a few seconds when Hauman flies to Sita. And then the bizarre alignment of Ravana’s heads in such an outrageous CGI. The ten heads of Ravana, if I am not wrong, always appears in one horizontal parallel. This is the first time, I see a 5×5 dramatizing of Ravana’s heads.

The portrayal of Hanuman is a joke. Neither the right actor was picked nor the physique was muscular enough to hand him over the mace. Plus, the dialogues he uttered were garbage. I felt that Devdatta was trying to be a silly Hanuman. But in any case, the makers surely had a lot of muscular choices for Hanuman. Overall, the casting on that massive budget needs an inquiry. Vatsal Sheth? Sonal Chauhan?

ZERO AESTHETICS

Adipurush doesn’t have a soul for magnificence in visual artistry or storytelling. I feel director Om Raut was being extremely lazy in giving a better look at this ancient world. A viewer cannot watch and say if the aesthetics are inspired. Almost every creativity in Adipurush will remind you of something and make you convince that the makers copied. Ravana Targaryen’s Westeros has striking resemblance with Marvel‘s Asgard. The legend is that Ravana’s Lanka was made of gold. Adipurush’s Lanka is made of coal. Almost everything is coal black. Bollywood has a tendency to dark the tone in the film when the world of the antagonist has to be portrayed as hell. But there is a level. Adipurush’s Lanka is more than elite level.

Not only that but Ravana Targaryen has an army of Orcs borrowed straight from Tolkien or perhaps Peter Jackson. There are a few sequences of Ravana Targaryen riding on his bat that will remind you the flights of the Witchking of Angmar.

Ravana’s son is one of the worst characterizations in the film. Those who have watched Vatsal Sheth giving a B-grade performance of Ravana’s son but doesn’t understand his value. Let me inform you what Indrajit meant in Ramayana. My research says that this guy nearly destroyed the race of vanara when he killed 670 million Vanaras in a single day. Vanara is the race of ape-people from where Hanuman belongs. They were created by Brahma to help Rama defeat Ravana.

Another legend is that Indrajit defeated both Rama and Lakshmana not once but twice in Ramayana. Plus, no warrior possessed all the three Trimurti astras other than Indrajit. Om Raut destroyed this character by making him the Lankan speedster Indrajit Allen aka The Flash. If I am not wrong, there is no mention of Indrajit being a speedster.

The vanara king Sugriva is a shameless replica of Caesar from the Planet of the Apes trilogy. Not only that, the dramatizing of the vanaras will precisely remind you of the Bandar Log from The Jungle Book. The jaw-dropping throat slitting scene is brutal false as that never occurred in Ramayana.

There is a sequence where Rama, Lakshmana, and a few vanaras are surrounded by the army of Orcs just like before the start of the Battle of Black Gate in The Lord of the Rings. And then comes a shot of the heroes warming up for the fight exactly like the first assembling of The Avengers.

In the beginning, two universes collide when Adipurush’s Rama fights against Harry Potter‘s Dementors. Whatever those creatures were, had no part in Ramayana.


WTF IS YOUR MESSAGE???

The laziness of filmmakers is so plentiful that the most controversial dialogue of the film ‘Jali Tere Baap Ki‘ which itself is so subpar to listen is taken from a spiritual motivational speaker, Amogh Lila Prabhu. He uttered Hanuman’s entire dialogue in one of his addresses with using the word ‘Ravana’ instead of baap.

Can you imagine the sages, deities, or the most respectful figures of some mythology or faith, to whom millions or billions of people dedicate their lives or respect to its zenith, speak such cringe, low-level, or pedestrian dialogues? And in all honesty, it is not funny for people of any faith. Imagine a Christian or Jewish film being highly disrespectful and inaccurate. As a Muslim, I will not tolerate if a film is based from the times of Muhammad and instead of depicting the true soul of the story, make the joke out of it.

Om Raut wrote and directed Adipurush, Manoj Muntashir wrote the dialogues. They shamelessly defended against all the criticism. Ramayana is such an incredible story and its live-action adaptation deserved a very careful planning to transform it into a live-action. There must be inquiry about the film’s production cost because with almost zero creativity and cheap editing resulting into one of the worst VFX results from an assumed ₹500-crore budget film questions the authenticity of truth. This film is no way more than ₹50 crore at all. Perhaps, a half of this budget is Prabhas’ pay for the film.


CLOSING REMARKS

Adipurush lacks the emotional value that would show the cultural and religious significance of the Hinduism. It just doesn’t remind you of the core or some essence in which Ramayana is valued to the hearts of the viewers but a three-hour Western portfolio and re-imagination of the ancient India unsuccessfully and unfaithfully resetting that war between good and evil.

Without watching any Ramayana or related show, I can blindly tell you that Adipurush is the last thing to remember for a Hindu content and unfortunately an unforgettable project for the wrongest possible reasons. If Om Raut and Manoj Muntashir are alive, that is only because they are Hindus. There is no excuse of this insult.

Those who want to try Adipurush, at your own risk. I wasted my three hours on the film and three days working on this content as a blogger and vlogger because this is my work. But you, let me save your 173 minutes and recommend you watching a 7-minute bhajan from Swades called ‘Pal Pal Hai Bhaari‘. That has music, poetry, essence of Ram, and Sita’s devotion.

Adipurush is a cinematic disaster which is lost in translation of the scripture that is sacred to the billions.

RATING 1/10


SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND WATCH MY FILM REVIEW HERE


FOLLOW ‘THE DARK KNAIK’ ON OTHER SOCIAL PLATFORMS

TIKTOK  https://www.tiktok.com/@thedarkknaik
FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/thedarkknaik
INSTAGRAM https://www.instagram.com/thedarkknaik/

TWITTER

 

Film Review: In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones (1989)

aa-cinema-in-which-annie-gives-it-those-ones-cinema-screening-poster

Creative, Perceptual and Supplemental to ‘Change’…

A well-derived project driving to a theory among the young generations for ages! a very ageless message with no casualty of emotional hullabaloo…

There was a TV film played on Doordarshan channel back in the late 80s, “In Which Annie Gives It Those One“. I honestly believe it undeniably is one of the (at least) twenty-five best feature films ever produced in India in any language. The film achieved cult status in those days but has been lost and forgotten. You will find and can watch the film on YouTube.

Before becoming an author, famous political activist Arundhati Roy used to work for TV and films. And she has the credit to write the screenplay of the film which is based on her personal experience as a student of architecture in the School of Planning and Architecture. The film was directed by her the-then husband, Pradip Krishen.

It is not a coming-of-age film but portrays a group life of architects and their projects in their final year of college in the 70s, hanging on a critical time under the concluded judgment of ‘Fail’ or ‘Pass’ from the judges of fate, when one young man dreams the impossible while his academic career suffers low. It shows a teacher-student relation and their complicated personal and architectural understanding.

Student bullies are no new surprise as well as funny moments between the roommates. I like the way most of the students have been distinguished in their manners and traits. Among the enrolled students is a foreigner from Uganda who makes noises when he dreams and his mates make fun that he dreams Idi Amin who killed his father. Then there is a granny girl with a pair of two ponytail who is very traditional and staid in nature and there is one who is keen on playing table-tennis. Then few are love birds which carry joint boiling hearts who have to think twice for smooching (Yes there are few kissing scenes).

Among all the students, it is the story of student Annie mostly focused on who daydreams a project to plant fruit trees on either side of railway tracks, where rural India defecates daily. Also, he sells eggs from the two hen he keeps in the room to earn sum. He is a repeated failure in the institute and in relation with Bijli, a cabaret dancer.

Roy herself plays the supporting role in the film as Radha who is a nonconformist student and lives with her boyfriend, Arjun. By her screenplay, she has described a rich amount of civil and institutional confrontations like a disagreement between her and the teacher on architectural thesis and the teacher rejecting many creative art models prepared by the students and closing their subconscious dreams. Also, her presentation in the final interview to the panel of judges is also very interesting one.

There is an urban and liberal wave in the whole film with a lot of western influence which was quite innovative in those days but the story based on a Delhi institute of 1974, it shows the students in those days used to accept free speech , open and liberal views. Quite a movement ran by the hippies in the 60s had changed much of the value of thinking and living which can be seen in the film, say a shed of light. More proof to common opinion in my theory is the students were listening and singing The Beatles.

 

annie-film-photos

The whole film is mostly restricted to the rooms of the hostel and the classroom keeping it to the subject but what the most impressive aspect of the film is its heavy detailing. The direction reminds me my recent observation on directional works of François Truffaut who was a keen observer of the details related to the subject he shot. The classroom environment was lively and rigid, very true to reality like one particular ‘disturbed’ student coming late to the class, the students being juvenile and making awful sounds during the lecture, teacher smoking in front of students (quite rare in the films based on institute life) etc.

Room-renting is another interesting part in student’s social life and the director makes a good impression in displaying a heavily occupied small room where the projects are done, where the books become a pressure cooker, where a friend is helped to co-study with them and bring their girlfriends. If a viewer has a close look in the film, he/she will find very interesting graffiti everywhere (I like the graffiti of the toilet scenes). Then we have a couple of scenes of fantasy picking on Radha by street perverts and cheapskates.

The film involves impressive casting who later became popular names on TV and Hindi cinema. Besides Roy, the film stars Rituraj, Divya Seth, Deepika Deshpande and Himani Shivpuri. British actor Roshan Seth plays the principal of the institute. Raghubir Yadav and Shahrukh Khan (used to be TV actor before entering the film industry) have very short roles in the film.

The film is very poetic with the understanding that these students are the bright sunshine in the process of development and would like to theorize the word ‘Change’ and make their world a better place to live but the headmaster of the institute and all government appointees act as a hindrance. Seth’s principal character Y.D. Billimoria is named Yamdoot by these students. Yamdoot is Yama, an angel of death in Hindu mythology and even his character isn’t severely evil at all but sitting in the top chair and victimizing Annie for making fun of him despite begging/requesting numerous apologies makes him the culprit.

In Which Annie Gives It Those One was a remarkable TV project by Roy and Krishen, funded by Bobby Bedi‘s Kaleidoscope Entertainment. The film went on to win two National Awards for Best Feature Film in English and Best Screenplay. Despite the fact the overall performances were just average, it is a freshly baked story and brilliant filmmaking to avoid injustice. Not to declare underrated but it is easily one of the most famous ‘unwatched’ films in India.

Ratings: 8.4/10

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @saminaik_asn

annie-04