« Mithya - Illusory Reality | HomePage | Black and White - No Grays »
16 February 2008
Jodhaa-Akbar - Almost a Masterpiece
| Powered by: Chakpak.com | Jodhaa Akbar |
I can understand how Ashutosh Gowarikar conceptualized Jodhaa-Akbar. A love story between two people - a Mughal King and a Rajput princess - whose marriage was purely for political reasons opens up immense possibilities, especially when history books don't talk anything about this. He must've thought that he could build a story about how two individuals separated by culture and religion fall in love after marriage. That is surely an imaginative thought. Only, the basic assumption here is that there was 'love' in that relationship in the first place. From what I have read about Akbar and his roving eye, it is very possible that love didn't even enter the picture. But Ashutosh had made up his mind about creating an 'immortal' love story from this relationship that doesn't get more than two sentences in history books. Fair enough, for that is what creativity is all about.
But how does one go about creating a love story for a man who married multiple times and is believed to have had a harem of more than 300 wives and concubines? Simple. Just ignore these facts. Ignore that Akbar was already married twice before the Rajput princess came into the picture (history books don't call her Jodhaa and even the film starts with a disclaimer...read my earlier posts about the stories told by the guides at Agra). Ignore that Akbar has been described as a "sexual predator", whose "sexual appetite had seemed insatiable" in his twenties, and whose eyes "fell even on married women". Ignore that "Akbar, for all his intellectual refinements, was very much a ruthless medieval warloard, driven by earth hunger and blood thirst". If you want to spin a yarn about pakeeza rishte (chaste relationships), it becomes necessary that the individuals forming that rishta are cleansed thoroughly of any vices – or seemingly negative traits - in their characters.
Oh no, don't dismiss me as a purist who wouldn't want history to be tampered with. I'm all for it, because history can be annoyingly boring and if one has to make a historical film it is imperative that some elements of fiction (at least some dramatization) have to be sprinkled through the screenplay. What is history if not an interpretation of what happened somewhere in the past? It might be based on tons and tons of research, but at the end of the day, it's still an interpretation. A filmmaker has the creative license to interpret history in his or her own way as long as it results in a compelling film. So what I mention above is not a grouse against Ashutosh Gowarikar, for he has surely made a good film. Just that I felt that he could not make up his mind about what his focus should be.
A love story in a historical perspective is a great idea, but the narrative should keep its eyes firmly on one of the things: love story or history. Here Ashutosh keeps jumping unsurely from one to other, such that there are times where too much stock is used up for events that do not impact the Jodhaa Akbar story. I found the final climactic moments completely superfluous. They did not add anything to the love story. It would have been a much better film had the film ended with the beautiful In Lamhon Ke Daaman Mein song, which marks the culmination and consummation of the relationship between Jodhaa and Akbar.
To give credit where it's due, Ashutosh has tried his best to weave actual events and characters around the fictionalized romantic core. I felt it was a nice touch to create conflict between the lovers through the character of Maham Anaga, Akbar's wet nurse, because here is a character that history identifies as a conniving person who held Akbar under her complete control. However, Maham Anaga is a much more interesting character than is actually depicted. Abul Fazal wrote, "….in reality the business was transacted by Maham Anaga…..to whose knowledge and perspicacity the bridle for opening and closing all affairs, political and financial, was…. entrusted at this time." She was the one largely responsible for Bairam Khan's fate, but that aspect is not shown in the film at all. Agreed that it would have made this already long film even longer, but that might have been more compelling to watch than the other historical sub-plots that Ashutosh Gowarikar chose to spend inexplicably long time on. And that would have further established Maham Anaga's character. I would have also liked it if Akbar's first wife, Ruqaiya Begum, was shown in the film and Ashutosh Gowarikar had created an imaginary sub-plot around the sexual politics between the two wives. That would have made the film even more interesting.
The film really comes on its own when it focuses on the lead characters (played remarkably by Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan). They make the ideal Akbar and Jodhaa. And the chemistry between them is – for want of a better word - perfect. They are in complete control of their characters and even Aishwarya's worst detractors (and that's a HUGE number) cannot dismiss her performance as 'bad'.
Ashutosh Gowarikar seems to be completely at ease while handling the romantic bits. Whether it's the scene where Akbar is being given an important piece of advice by Maham Anaga and he is distracted by Jodhaa's visage on the terrace, or the scene where he gets completely mesmerized by her bhajan and dismisses his assembly at the deewan-e-aam, or when Jodhaa learns calligraphy for Akbar only to realize that her husband is illiterate, or that fleeting moment where Jodhaa catches a partial glimpse of her would-be-husband though the parting of the curtain – they build up the love story in a great way. The pièce de résistance, however, is the picturization of the In lamhon Ke Daman Mein song. Can't get more passionate and romantic than that!
It's the historical portions that the director struggles with. He tries to pack in more than he can chew. How can he not talk about Akbar's secular beliefs and people-friendly policies, when that's what everyone knows him for? So a reference to the abolition of the religious taxes (the film only talks about the pilgrim tax and not the jiziya tax that was abolished a year later) becomes mandatory. But the entire sequence of events that lead up to it – the Agra Bazar sequence – seems to have been penned quite perfunctorily and tends to acquire a sanctimonious, preachy tone.
Akbar's affinity for mysticism is depicted in a brilliantly composed and choreographed sufi qawwali, Khwaja Mere Khwaja. At the end of this song, a divine ray of light hits Akbar and he goes into a trance. One would think it is the writer's imagination creating this surreal sequence, but such an incident is actually recorded in history, although it is believed to have happened much later in his life. Akbar had gone hunting when a similar incident happened where "a mysterious divine call had descended on the emperor, which tranced him completely". Even though it has been used in a different context, Ashutosh Gowarikar deserves a whole-hearted applause for his research. I don't see anything wrong in using actual incidents in a different context as long as it doesn't dramatically alter the reality.
What doesn't work at all is the sub-plot about Akbar's brother-in-law. It has no role to play in the love story between Jodhaa and Akbar and the climactic moments are way too formulaic for my liking. Surprisingly (I certainly did not expect this of Ashutosh Gowarikar), the handling of crowd scenes, whether it is in the battle sequences or on the streets is very tacky and amateurish. Crores have been spent on the costumes of the lead actors, but the costumes of the extras seem like something out of a school play. Everyone seems to be wearing the same style of kurtas, with similar cummerbunds and headgear. Was it a feeble attempt at depicting 'equality' in Akbar's time, Mr. Gowarikar? If you're making a spectacular, high-budget historical of epic proportions there can be no excuse for cutting corners.
So, you might ask, did I like the film or not? I certainly did. Not once during its long running time did I feel bored, in fact even when the film ended I did not want to come out of the Mughal ambience that was so faithfully created in the film. And that is certainly a comment on the quality of the film. The performances by and large are good, the songs divine, cinematography mouth-watering and the art direction simply superb. It's hard to believe that most of the film was shot on sets. If I have spent more time expressing my reservations about this film, it's only because I wanted this film to be even better! It falls just short of a masterpiece it could have been.
PS: All sentences in quotes are from Abraham Eraly's wonderfully written book: Emperors of the Peacock Throne - The Saga of the Great Mughals
21:45 Posted in Film | Permalink | Comments (22) | Email this | Tags: Movie Reviews
Comments
Hi Aditya,
I have been following your blog for a while and am a great admirer of your wonderful movie reviews, but I have to disagree with your assessment in calling JA an "almost masterpiece". I do not think it comes even close. I am all for using cinematic license to gloss over historical facts but how can you forgive portraying the life of India's greatest Mughal emperor, an extremely interesting, multifaceted figure by all accounts into a cardboard cutout (as essayed by Hrithik..I would blame Gowariker for this) and his fascinating career being shown as a haphazard bunch of Hindi movie cliches (the scheming foster mother/step mother figure, the "mere suhaag ko maaf kar do" sister, the villainous brother-in-law etc). And if you are going to tell me this was about the "love story" (which may or may not have been), well, I did not find it very interesting either. I agree with you about the total lack of narrative focus as well. Another thing I will agree with you is regarding Aishwarya Rai's nice performance (and I am an avowed Aishwarya detractor :-))
-Vishal
P.S. And what is with the Troy like fight sequence at the end and the Zorro inspired sword fight? I almost expected Akbar to start stripping off Jodhaa's clothing. Maybe her Rajput maann scared him off.
Posted by: Vishal | 17 February 2008
Vishal, I knew a comment like this was forthcoming. To call a film with many flaws "almost a masterpiece" was risky :) . I think it came close to being a masterpiece because of the grandeur which was faithfully realized and the chemistry of the love story. I have not witnessed such crackling chemistry between the lead pair in a long long time. The love story might not have anything dramatic going for it, but the intimate moments were so well captured! The "almost" part came because of the lack of focus on the part o the director and the perfunctory nature in which the sub-plots were written (as you say, replete with cinematic cliches).
About the Troy like fight sequence, I have mentioned that the 'climactic moments were way too formulaic for my liking'.
Posted by: Aditya Pant | 17 February 2008
Aditya,
The (uninspired) Amitabh commentary reminded me of Satyajit Ray's Shatranj ke Khiladi and after the movie made me think..."that is how it needs to be done!". While Ray had a much better script in hand, I also much preferred the way he brought the Awadhi shaan-o-shauqat to life, in a subtle manner. Gowariker's description of all the rooms in the harem and all the dishes had me tearing my hair off.
-Vishal.
Posted by: Vishal | 17 February 2008
The Awadhi shaan-o-shauqat of the 19th century certainly didn't have the same splendour of the urooj-e-mughaliya of the 16th century, did it? So I don't blame Ashutosh for the ostentation. :)
That was in a lighter vein... I take your point about Ray's subtlety. But tell me, did you really expect Jodhaa-Akbar to have the same delicacy of Shatranj Ke Khiladi? If you did, then disappointment was a foregone conclusion. If I call this an "almost masterpiece" my frame of reference is not absolute but Hindi commercial cinema.
Posted by: Aditya Pant | 17 February 2008
Hi Aditya,
again, you have come out with a masterpiece of a review! I am continually amazed your grasp over the cinematic medium, the English language, all genres of music, and a knowledge of history.
I have not watched the movie. I have read Khaled Muhammad's scathing review of it in HT. But he failed to get into the intricacies of movie-facets like you did. It speaks volumes for your versatile genius that you can go to watch a movie with so much knowledge, but yet not bogged down by your own baggage of knowledge. For you, the knowledge is a tool and not an impediment. You are never condescending in your movie-reviews, and your write-ups are never self-promotional. There is no instance of an effort to showcase knowledge, but to put things in perspective using knowledge as a benchmark.
Kudos for the balanced views.
Jayanta
Posted by: Jayanta Ray | 18 February 2008
Hi Aditya,
Of course not. I was just merely pointing out a fine example of bringing a part of our history to life without making it seem like a history lesson. I even take exception to your calling JA an almost masterpiece of commercial Hindi cinema. Do you think it measures upto classics like Guide, Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam, Mughal-e-Azam or even Lagaan? Let us examine the ingredients for making a great period love-story epic (within a commercial format, I am not talking Ray here) and see if JA possesses any of them.
a) a tragic, enduring love story of epic proportions...nope..the love story is so lukewarm that I felt it could have ended when Ash served hubby dear the Rajasthani lunch.
b) great dialogue that would be quoted by generations to come.. BIG failure here. The dialogues were embarrassingly prosaic.
c) classic songs and memorable picturization. The songs were pretty good but honestly, are you going to be humming them 10 years from now?
d) Bravura performances. Again decent, but bravura? Nope.
The only place where JA scored was in set design, costumes and jewelry. Makes JA a glossy product with a hollow core, imo.
-Vishal.
Posted by: Vishal | 18 February 2008
Great read, Aditya.
Posted by: tushar | 18 February 2008
interesting review, you point the flaws and yet choose to call it an 'almost masterpiece'. I see the movie doing well and landmark roles on the actors resume. But 5 yrs from now, would you still feel like watching it on setmax?
Posted by: maxdavinci | 19 February 2008
Hi Aditya, I came here from B Rangan's blog and I was mighty surprised to see you call it an almost masterpiece. The only scene worth talking about was Hrithik's slow amble on the terrace after meeting Jodhaa minus her veil in the mandir. The only things masterpiecey about the movie were the sets and the jewellery. Even the script was shoddy.
And Max, I don't think I'd want to watch it on setmax even 5 months from now.
Posted by: Sumantics | 19 February 2008
Vishal: It is blasphemous to even compare JA with Guide or Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam or Mughal-e-Azam. But Lagaan, yes I can compare it with Lagaan. Lagaan worked very well when it was released, but does it have a long shelf life. I'm afraid No (at least not for me). I think JA would have a longer shelf life, if not for anything, just for being a brave attempt at a historical in a long long time.
BTW, howcome your list of masterpieces doesn't have any recent films? That was my point. There hasn't been a Hindi film in many years that has vowed me with visual splendour and overall gandeur as much this one. That's why I thought it came close to being a masterpiece. A flawed (almost) masterpiece nevertheless. And if it had the ingredients you mention, it would be flat-out classic. (and do you hum Lagaan songs now..after 7 years?)
Max/Sumantics: Looks like I put my hand in a snake pit by calling this film an "almost masterpiece". But I really felt it. Yes, I saw a lot of flaws but still I think the film had an enduring quality. Of course, you disagree, but I'm sure you'll find someone on this planet who would even call RGV's Aag a masterpiece. So please forgive this poor soul :) BTW, yours truly even liked films like Eklavya and Jhoom Barabar Jhoom, which many people count among the worst of last year. So there.
oh yes, I even watch the re-runs of the likes of Jaani Dushman (the old one) on Set Max, so what's JA :)
Posted by: Aditya Pant | 19 February 2008
Hey Aditya, I wrote a long comment on this including a short review...it disappeared!
Posted by: tushar | 20 February 2008
Tushar, I got your long comments on many other posts of mine, but none here. The only comment I got from you here was 'Great Read, Aditya'. Maybe it didn't get saved properly. I would love to see what that detailed comment was (am sure another exception to my use of the work 'masterpeice'...:)
Posted by: Aditya Pant | 20 February 2008
I re-wrote it, still unable to see :-( but this time I have backed it up.
Posted by: tushar | 21 February 2008
Its been 4 days since I saw the film and my views on it have been taking shape all the while more on the positive side. Gowariker makes engaging cinema. We must understand here is an auteur who is making his cinema his way and is proud of it. That man exudes the same grace that his films adorn, all so called critics of sanity be damned, I find him doing to me what a Barjatya used to do long back, leave a sweet aftertaste. OK he might not be changing our lives with making revolutionary or genre breaking cinema but he is at least true to what he does.
sorry for all that venting. just got frustrated by all the bickering all these days, so thought this might be an apt platform to express.
coming back to jodha akbar, a fine piece of cinema. unconventional song usage and brilliant at that as has been pointed out. loved the detailing. I have stayed practically close to 'sanganer' for 10 years so can tell the rajasthan depicted is not fake. I am gonna give it a re-watch mostly because the first viewing had some buffoons sitting in the theater. that kinda rage kills my film viewing experience more so if its a textured film like this.
flaws are definitely there but are far less compared to the courage that has been displayed in form of this film. i would say lagaan and swades were easier films to realize. JA is ambitious and doesn't shy away from it. I wouldn't mind a longer director's cut. i could care less about all who have a problem sitting through a finely detailed and nuanced film for reasons like 'length'. hello? what are you talking about??
here are the few things I wrote immediately after seeing the film on saturday:
JA builds up an interesting premise, almost perfect and then shies away from it in a flurry of fluctuating priorities. It would all be a tad delightful and rewarding in its same diverse and resonant tone were it executed with the same tonal flourish that adorns the few frames that could very well light up the echelons of history. When one thinks of text book history, or rather the events that would have or could have rather constituted the promise of one; it spews square images, wide-angles, and the likes. The elements tether with a positively restrained imagination, the one seated in a blithe love of the yore. Somehow the ambition takes over the possible manifestation of dreams and it all becomes fantastically good to be true.
Ashutosh Gowariker scores a ten on the dream; it's the latter that doesn't flow with the same fervor. Old styled film-making, replete with scripted prophesies and impending threats as narrative devices, it is not the resistance to gimmick that fails the film, it is rather the lack of everything that makes up for a great film, make it a film with its moments. Moments the film has few and far between, but they are battling a constant incoherence on the tonal front. Even the much-celebrated title track didn't work for me sadly, and it is indeed sad for the single-minded devotion of the maker is too pronounced to ignore. The poise and poignancy that is allotted to the startlingly-captured silences give out the committed craftsmen that is behind this visual fest, only it becomes too big a task to be handled/assigned to one taskmaster. Enough can be said about the protagonist and how they make for a visual and perceptive treat, the finely nuanced Khwaaja, the changing hues in a King's coming of age years, the blinding faith in the interpretation of vacuumed in-betweens, the innovative use of music and experiments with lights (almost bordering on a kindergarten innocence and postcard fascination), and the overall deftness of a historian behind the camera. Having said that, the film falls short of a comprehensive classical, a rarity indeed, it either becomes a bad Alexander, an all-too-pleasing Lagaan, a risk-infested Mangal Pandey, a deconstruction setpiece Rang de basanti, or a bad case of period-film hangover as seen in many others.
Kudos Gowariker, for the painstaking effort and the almost exquisite visual panache that you devote to the film, it however might all be a tad easier if looked at in a different light
Posted by: tushar | 21 February 2008
Hi Aditya,
I have been following your blog for quite sometime now,and am an admirer of sorts.Your grasp of 'language' is something I marvel at.
But,I quite wholesomely disagree with your review,here.Jodha Akbar did absolutely nothing for me.The format adopted by Gowarikar was half your average historical format and half Bollywood cliche(something he isnt alien to,Swades was ample proof).
The way scenes are prolonged almost excruciatingly at times,the whole camp villainy schema and those frequent trespasses in didactic discourses that Gowarikar so thrives in,murdered the film(and I havent even mentioned the amateurish use of cumbersome equipment and most wooden acting of the extras).Even the performances did nothing for me..Akbar's character was too derivative and obvious to make much of an impact anyways(though Hritikh was decent enough) and it is unfathomable for me to buy Aishwarya making those cute little gestures of charming defiance in romantic sequences because of the way she projects herself.
Posted by: Abhinav | 22 February 2008
hi aditya
i totally understand your metrics for calling this an almost masterpiece:). I do think the movie worked at multiple levels, first and foremost as a love story.Hrithik and Aish had some kinda chemistry! and the love story was extremely well written, the court shennanigans were somewhat tacky esp the caricaturish maham anga..
Aish was surprisingly good in this movie.. Hrithik's urdu impressed me, except he cldnt say "khilaaf" to save his life:)
Posted by: moonbeam | 17 March 2008
Hi Aditya,
I recall spending some time getting to know Urdu poetry when I first came here from brangan's blog last year. I remember thinking "ah what a wonderfully sensitive soul." This is my second visit here from *the* blog. I was just re-reading brangan's JA post because a reader had "accused" him of imbuing his description of lead pairs with a certain mush factor. (And elsewhere someone condemns him for calling Vairamuthu "a modernist God," which the poet absolutely is especially within the framework of that context in which the reference was made.) What's wrong with people these days? We're turning into a society of cynics. It seems aesthetics (of any sort) could glide just as smoothly off our collective backs as water off a duck's. Not only that, holding terrific writers' particular points of view hostage to the popular "mob mentality" (for lack of a better term) seems to be national-sport du jour (next only to cricket)!
Coming back to JA reviews (brangan's and your being the only ones I've read), one might just as well wipe out this entry from the book of proverbs: "A thing of beauty is a joy forever." It seems to have lost its relevance amid all the eye gouging (small wonder most of us seem to be blind to beauty of any kind, lately). I see that you got hit with a barrage of flak also for gaping at the opulence of JA. How could you get so carried away that you made the blunder-of-blunders, called it a near masterpiece? Now wrest that child out of you and immediately send it away to a foster home. There. Now you're "officially" ready to start watching movies and talking about them again (and no gushing, mind you). But hey, adults gush too. When you see people who look like they just walked out of a Ravi Varma painting, what's not to gush? Geometrically precise faces, heart stoppingly beautiful features, poise, elegance AND on top of that such crackling onscreen chemistry...That's enough. Stop dead in your tracks. That's not adult, that's adolescence. Now beat the crap out of this adolescent and drive him out of your psyche (ok, drive "her" out of your psyche too, bah, all this political correctness begins to get under your skin!). There. Now you are a true-blue adult. Only minus a point of reference. Theory of Relativity, anyone? Too much to ask, no? People can't remember what they ate for breakfast today and you ask them about some stupid theory that hit the textbooks some 100 years ago, only to vanish from our collective memory at the speed of light, ostensibly!
Phew. Had to get that off my chest, Aditya. Thanks for listening. I loved your JA review, by the way, and continue to stand by what I say in sentence two up on top. I would never have guessed (from your comments on *the* blog) that you're capable of such dreamy writing...one with a quiet gravitas that simply pulls you in, line after lucid line. I'll keep an eye out (ungouged, hopefully!).
Posted by: Sagarika | 27 March 2008
Sagarika: I know, I know.....this "near masterpiece" will probably haunt me for the rest of my life. Wrong choice of words, eh? And, what a great adult-adolescent analogy!
Thanks for appreciating my writing. Looking forward to more visits from you :)
I must tell you that I absolutely love your comments on *the* blog. I don't think anyone (me included obviously) who comments on that blog writes with such clarity of thought and delightful writing style. Even if you don't put your name, I can easily identify your comments (like BR did a few weeks back) :)
Posted by: Aditya | 27 March 2008
Hey Aditya,
Did you miss my point here? :-) I was actually *defending* your right to call JA whatever you want: masterpiece, magnum opus, laugh-riot, botched-up-piece-of-mad-moviemaking...it's TOTALLY your prerogative, based entirely on your intensely personal experience and what wowed you (or not). That whole second para of mine was a rant/satire on the culture of wrist-slapping that I see perpetuating, with serious potential for penetrating every creative pore that's out there and clogging it. Do we want the best of our writers ending up with creative acne? Does that bode well for our society at large? Why the hell can't we understand individual frames of references of the ones whose genral body of work appeals to us? That was my whole point. And don't you dare let your use of "near masterpiece" haunt you, no matter what. :-)
Posted by: Sagarika | 27 March 2008
Sagarika: No, I didn't miss the point. It was an unsuccessful attempt at scoffing at the naysayers (the ones with "mob mentality") :)
Posted by: Aditya Pant | 27 March 2008
Aditya, I'm so glad! It would have been a painful irony (for me) had you missed it. :-) I'm obviously also glad that you enjoy my comments. I don't know about the "clarity of thought" part (if you took a peek inside my head, or simply asked my husband, you'd know what I mean!) but yes, language is the love of my life...and I've often wondered what I must have done right to deserve such unconditional love -- I don't read enough and I simply don't write enough! :-) I think some of us are luckier than we deserve to be, and I don't say this with any coy conceit...it's exactly how I feel.
Posted by: Sagarika | 28 March 2008
I agree with the author on most of the points. Yes it is a master piece though there could have been more interaction bet the couple. Last fight scene was totally unnecessary. It was the most boring scene. They could have used some truth like it was Akbar who asked for Jodha's hand. She did change her religion though Akbar let her follow Hindu ways. The Movie would have still been romantic. But they wanted to show Akbar as a mahathma. I watched this movie several times on the DVD. Could'nt get enough of it. In my opinion it was even better than Mughle-e -azam. Chemistry bet Aish and Hritik was the best and way better than that of Madhubala and Dilip. may be salim's character was not that strong. It is even better than Liz Taylor and richard Burton in Cleopatra.
Posted by: Janavi | 07 April 2008