viewing the past through the prism of the present

At a time when teasers of films are also reviewed and recommended by media organisations, a controversy erupted during Om Raut’s 1.46-minute promotional video. Lone man: Failing social media scrutiny as a grand retelling of Ramayan for the youth and digitally mobile, a section of the audience found representations of Ravana and Hanuman to such an extent that they petitioned the courts of Delhi and Jaunpur over the film’s release. A ban was sought. Because the promo has allegedly hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus.

The plaintiffs claim that the depiction of Rama, Hanuman and Ravana does not go with their form described in the epic texts. Apart from Rama’s moustache and aggressive behavior and Hanuman’s leather jacket, what bothered the trolls most was the representation of Ravana as an “Islamic invader”. For him, the get-up of Saif Ali Khan who plays the role brings back memories of Alauddin Khilji, Babar and Aurangzeb. Perhaps, the only possible link is the beard and haircut, which the self-anointed critics found more Islamic than Hindu.

The makers of the film defended the representation by pointing to the Hindu symbols that Ravana is seen sporting and requested that critics should wait for the film’s release. However, lyricist and one of the proponents of ‘nationalist’ cinema Manoj Muntashir said in an interview that both Ravana and Khilji represent the evil of different eras. “Even if they look alike, what’s the harm in that.”

stark resemblance

Perhaps, the representation reflects a continuum that we missed and Raut is getting a taste of the narrative he himself showed earlier where the past is not seen through the prism of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb (contemporary culture). Raut’s previous film Tanhaji: The Unsung Warrior There was also a problematic representation of Udaybhan Singh Rathod, a general villain of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who fought against Tanhaji, who represented Chhatrapati Shivaji, at the Battle of Kondhana. While both the generals were Hindu, unlike Tanhaji, Udaybhan was shown without any religious markers and his sitting and eating habits depicted a conservative version of a Muslim villain.

But the little-known Udaybhan does not stand before Ravana, whom the faithful see as a splendid brahmin, a Shiva devotee who could not control his desires. For years, the face of evil has been an interesting topic for filmmakers. in Mani Ratnam Ravana (2010), a modern adaptation of the Ramayana, Bira is several shades lighter than the popular image. He is portrayed as a social outcast who is out to avenge the injustice done to his sister and in the end, the lines between Rama and Ravana blur.

in johnny bakshi Ravana (1984), starring Smita Patil and Om Puri, myth and reality are intertwined as a village does not burn an effigy of Ravana on Dussehra because years ago a girl turned Ravana into Rama.

Similarly Hardik Gajjar’s Bhavai (2021), originally titled Ravana Leela, The Untold Between Ravana and Sita shows how the epic is being used for political gains, and in the process the audience is expected to appreciate the contrast between the character and the actors who play them.

The idea of ​​interpretation is not entirely new. From Kamban to Tulsidas – who lived during the time of the Mughal emperor Akbar – Valmiki’s Ramayana is a story that has inspired writers for generations. The basic story remains the same but he has taken creative liberties according to his own time and his own life experiences. For example, the depiction of Lakshman Rekha is transformed into a literal interpretation of Ramanand Sagar in the television serial Tulsidas’ version from the Valmiki Ramayana. Similarly, Uttarkand has been depicted in different forms in different forms. The way the poet Kalidas has described the clouds cloud Reads like a tribute to Valmiki’s description of the environment when Rama was made to wait at sea by the rain gods before crossing Lanka. When Akbar ordered an illustrated version of the Ramayana, the artists had little for context. Many of the paintings are innovations of the Mughal period. Interestingly, the miniatures depict Rama without a moustache.

However, in recent times, attempts are being made to blur the lines between literature and history by creators close to the ruling government. Perhaps, it helps, because in the real world, the followers of sage Valmiki are not yet fully integrated into Hinduism. Characters like Kewat and Shabari are invoked during election speeches to underline an egalitarian past. At the same time, a feeling is arising that we are focusing too much on the calm face and ignoring the weapons in the hands of our deities.

reducing the past to a binary

In Ram Setu, the authors make a clear push to treat literary texts as historical evidence. Some arguments sound compelling but the moment you turn the past into a binary, you stifle the imagination of the next writer. So, in Lone man:Viewers feel offended when they find it different from the depiction of Hanuman read in the Hanuman Chalisa and seen in Ramanand Sagar’s version.

At the same time, those who know the miracle universe better than Hindu mythology and are looking for flaws with the special effects of Lone man: It should be appreciated that technology is just one aspect of storytelling. from outside, Ram Leela The one which is played at Shri Ram Bhartiya Kala Kendra in New Delhi technically sounds much better than the traditional Ramlila of Ramnagar In Kashi, enacted without any appendages of artificial lights and other material. But both are equally popular and deep in their own way.

Sculptor Naresh Kumawat, who has sculpted the Ram statues, says that the reference point for the artists is the Hindu deities’ statue of Raja Ravi Varma that emerged in the late 19th century through calendar art. “It is etched in the public imagination and any deviation from it hurts their sentiments.”

Popular author Amish Tripathi, who recently released his fourth book in the Ram Chandra series, says that Indians have big hearts. “They are ready to see a different truth but as long as it is shown with respect.” He reminds us that if you tell someone there is a scene in the movie where someone breaks his foundation Shivling and carries him on his shoulder to a waterfall, he could have felt bad but the way Rajamouli portrayed it bahubali, it didn’t cause any controversy as the director’s interpretation came from a place of respect. Similarly, Ramanand Sagar took creative liberties but the audience could see that it was the work of a true devotee.

And, he adds, sometimes, the controversy is created by the makers themselves because it makes it easier to force the media to talk about it. “Otherwise, you’ll have to conduct a dozen interviews and three-four events.”

Does this mean that only a devotee can touch a mythological story? We know how the Academic Council of Delhi University decided to drop the essay, Three Hundred Ramayana: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation In an apparent reaction to Hindutva activists, who called the piece blasphemous. This essay describes 300 different retellings of the epic by communities throughout India and other parts of Asia. And several cases were registered against an OTT series for allegedly defaming Lord Shiva. People have got a picture of Ravana’s Pushpak Viman Lone man: Incorrect, but the Amish mention the use of glass used to transport Sita to Lanka in Ravana’s famous vimana.

The Amish think that glass existed in ancient India, but it is not sure whether it was in use more than 5,000 years ago. His point is that the Indian audience could see through the intentions. “In some countries, people think that there is only one truth, and if you deviate from that truth, you will burn in hell for eternity. In India we have no such concept.”

However, the response to the 106-second teaser suggests that some are eager for the idea of ​​a truth. And the petitioners who remember the serene image of Rama and Hanuman may have missed raudra The (angry) version of the beloved Hanuman seen on stickers pasted on cars and motorcycles over the years.