bollywood Bhansali slapped by protestors for alleged distortion of history,Anurag Kashyap calls it Hindus Terrorism

[beetle]

14 hours ago, Tibarn said:

The saddest part is, when people see this film at its release, they will actually believe that they have learnt history. 

This unfortunately is true.

[beetle]

4 hours ago, gattaca said:

By looks of it he wants it to be controversy and make more out of it by portraying un verified facts.

I think he depends on it for publicity.

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

Look, just because we've set a poor precedent in the past with regards to documenting history doesn't mean that we shouldn't improve on it now. What Hollywood does is honestly their business.

 

Are you suggesting that the locals should not have protested at all?  

Yea, i don't think locals should've protested, since its a historical fiction movie, not a documentary made for educational purposes.

None of our historical movies have been historically correct anyways either - Mughal-e-Azam, Jodhaa Akbar- none of these are 'historically accurate'. So whats the big deal now ?

 

 

Also, my point is, why get so bent out of shape over 'historic portrayals' that we arnt even sure is actually true for the most part. Its not like Rajputs have a detailed historical chronicle - its just hear-say folk tales.

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, beetle said:

This unfortunately is true.

If people think movies are facts and not fiction, they need to get their heads checked. 

People didnt think Mughal-E-Azam was historically accurate. Or Jodhaa Akbar. So whats the big deal now ?

 

[rkt.india]

This issue has nothing to do with religion then why calling it a act of Hindu terrorism, giving it a religious angle 

intentionally. Did Padmavati even exist? or it is just a figment of imagination of a writer, a poem written by Malik Muhammad Jayasi in 1540 CE while  Maharani Padmini was known mostly for her divine beauty;^[3] and Jauhar (self-immolation) in 1303, the year Alauddin Khilji attacked Chittor.

Edited January 29, 2017 by rkt.india

[rkt.india]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

If people think movies are facts and not fiction, they need to get their heads checked. 

People didnt think Mughal-E-Azam was historically accurate. Or Jodhaa Akbar. So whats the big deal now ?

 

A lot of people had issues with Jodha Akbar too. Ashutosh Gowarikar too had to face issues.

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

A lot of people had issues with Jodha Akbar too. Ashutosh Gowarikar too had to face issues.

But that didn't stop the filming/broadcasting of Jodha Akbar. I haven't seen or heard of a single historical film where people didnt have a problem with it. But so what ? its fiction and not educational. 

IMO, the best historical movies/series ARE fictional ones - such as the series Rome, where its 'loosely based on history' but more fictional than real. And IMO, its a lot easier to get bent out of shape about Roman historical series, because Roman history is so detailed.

 

[jalebi_bhai]

5 hours ago, MechEng said:

 

It would be very arrogant of Bhansali if he ignored this. Bollywood now is filled with narcissistic elites who have no respect for traditions, even the Hollywood which is run by liberal-left wing don't make movies where they hurt sentiments of people by distorting history, except if it's an anti-Nazi movie.

I believe he did meet these people but I'm not sure he actually took their suggestions on board. 

 

Look, I normally don't support vandalism and violence over issues like this. However, this incident is slightly different. (Doesn't help that I'm biased against Bhaiwood)     

[beetle]

42 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

If people think movies are facts and not fiction, they need to get their heads checked. 

People didnt think Mughal-E-Azam was historically accurate. Or Jodhaa Akbar. So whats the big deal now ?

 

Most people are not history enthusiasts and assume the story to be true because they assume the filmmaker would not distort facts .

Why make a movie based on historical figures if you don't want to stick to facts ?Why not stick to making fiction based movies.

 

I seriously believe a lot of filmmakers intentionally do things to create controversy ,as any publicity is good publicity and probably saves them on the publicity budget.

[Muloghonto]

21 minutes ago, beetle said:

Most people are not history enthusiasts and assume the story to be true because they assume the filmmaker would not distort facts .

Why make a movie based on historical figures if you don't want to stick to facts ?Why not stick to making fiction based movies.

 

I seriously believe a lot of filmmakers intentionally do things to create controversy ,as any publicity is good publicity and probably saves them on the publicity budget.

Because fiction doesnt have to be contemporary. Some people like the historical setting. If contemporary fiction is part truth, part fiction, why cant historical fiction be the same ?

As i said, honestly, give historical fiction a try. You will find that it is good drama and to be a good drama, it needs to be 'fleshed out' with fiction because its the details that make a good story and its the details that are not always there in history.

Movies like Shakespere in Love, Jodha Akbar, Ben Hur, Gladiator, etc. are great movies because of the fictional angle to it. Pretty sure there is no 'historical detail' for Shakespeare sleeping with Viola. Or Jodhaa having 'catfight' with Maham-Anga. Or Commodus sleeping with his sister. But it is precisely those 'fiction' that gives any historical fiction its 'body'. Otherwise, might as well do a Richard Attenborough style documentary and include it as viewing material for schools.

The point of bollywood, is entertainment, not propaganda or education.

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by Muloghonto

[jalebi_bhai]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Yea, i don't think locals should've protested, since its a historical fiction movie, not a documentary made for educational purposes.

None of our historical movies have been historically correct anyways either - Mughal-e-Azam, Jodhaa Akbar- none of these are 'historically accurate'. So whats the big deal now ?

 

 

Also, my point is, why get so bent out of shape over 'historic portrayals' that we arnt even sure is actually true for the most part. Its not like Rajputs have a detailed historical chronicle - its just hear-say folk tales.

 

It's a historical fiction movie based on actual historical characters. The historical fiction part doesn't give Bhansali the license to embellish history. He could've simply avoided this entire controversy by using fictitious characters. He didn't. Clearly he had a motivation to use these characters.

 

Now since he wanted to use Rani Padmavati, what did he honestly have to lose by consulting these people and accepting some of their reasonable suggestions?

 

For argument's sake, let's imagine letting a movie director use your family history as a plot and your family members as characters in a historical fiction movie, all in good faith. Unbeknownst to you however, he decides to make some last minute changes and takes a few extra liberties in his character portrayals, maligning your family's image. Would you be ok with that?

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

It's a historical fiction movie based on actual historical characters. The historical fiction part doesn't give Bhansali the license to embellish history. He could've simply avoided this entire controversy by using fictitious characters. He didn't. Clearly he had a motivation to use these characters.

 

Now since he wanted to use Rani Padmavati, what did he honestly have to lose by consulting these people and accepting some of their reasonable suggestions?

 

For argument's sake, let's imagine letting a movie director use your family history as a plot and your family members as characters in a historical fiction movie, all in good faith. Unbeknownst to you however, he decides to make some last minute changes and takes a few extra liberties in his character portrayals, maligning your family's image. Would you be ok with that?

1. I disagree. Historical fiction gives him license to do as he sees fit. Thats the whole point of disclaimers. If i want to tell the story of how there could've been a secret love angle between Draupadi and Ekalavya, why should i be muzzled ? No real person is being slandered/harmed in this regard and certainly no living person.

And historical fiction, as i've noted with examples, is usually at its best when it is based on real history with some fictional elements added. because nobody cares about a completely re-created history and its a lot harder to get invested into unknown characters. But when you make historical fiction with historical characters, there is already some investment, because of fame/infamy. And its the 'fictional twists' that keeps the attention riveted, the story compelling. 

Otherwise,the greatest historical fiction movies/tv-series wouldn't follow the template of using real history with fictional elements, everyone would be making completely new characters and story-line all the time. 

 

2. If its my family, no i won't be okay with that. Because family is a personal boundary. But i still wouldn't litigate if there was a disclaimer(unless of course,it falsely portrayed a living person, because then its libel) and i certainly wouldn't go vandalizing property or confronting people for making a fictional story. 

And i'd understand too if its actual family of these historical characters protesting. But i wouldn't give a whit if you wanted to make a fictional tale about Tagore being secretly gay or if Subhas Bose was secretly a Charasi. Because they are not my family and its a story.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Muloghonto

[jalebi_bhai]

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because fiction doesnt have to be contemporary. Some people like the historical setting. If contemporary fiction is part truth, part fiction, why cant historical fiction be the same ?

As i said, honestly, give historical fiction a try. You will find that it is good drama and to be a good drama, it needs to be 'fleshed out' with fiction because its the details that make a good story and its the details that are not always there in history.

Movies like Shakespere in Love, Jodha Akbar, Ben Hur, Gladiator, etc. are great movies because of the fictional angle to it. Pretty sure there is no 'historical detail' for Shakespeare sleeping with Viola. Or Jodhaa having 'catfight' with Maham-Anga. Or Commodus sleeping with his sister. But it is precisely those 'fiction' that gives any historical fiction its 'body'. Otherwise, might as well do a Richard Attenborough style documentary and include it as viewing material for schools.

The point of bollywood, is entertainment, not propaganda or education.

 

Propaganda and novelization of history are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Propaganda movies can also be entertaining. Most of Bollywood in the 70s & 80s was incredibly laced with sub-textual propaganda. Every other movie had a corrupt, wealthy industrialist as the villain, with poverty being glamorized. 

[rkt.india]

Padmavati is fiction in itself and not a history. Fiction of a poet.

[jalebi_bhai]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. I disagree. Historical fiction gives him license to do as he sees fit. Thats the whole point of disclaimers. If i want to tell the story of how there could've been a secret love angle between Draupadi and Ekalavya, why should i be muzzled ? No real person is being slandered/harmed in this regard and certainly no living person. 

Ok. Would historical fiction give a director the license to show Adolf Hitler as a paragon of virtue who was on a noble mission to rid Europe of the evil Jews? 

 

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

2. If its my family, no i won't be okay with that. Because family is a personal boundary. But i still wouldn't litigate if there was a disclaimer(unless of course,it falsely portrayed a living person, because then its libel) and i certainly wouldn't go vandalizing property or confronting people for making a fictional story. 

And i'd understand too if its actual family of these historical characters protesting. But i wouldn't give a whit if you wanted to make a fictional tale about of Tagore was secretly gay or if Subhas Bose was secretly a Charasi. Because they are not my family and its a story.

And there you go. Most modern day Rajputs claim themselves to be direct descendants of their historical figures. So for them, it is a matter of family and personal boundaries. 

 

See Mulog, I clearly understand where you're coming for; but context matters in this situation. This is India and we're talking about Rajputs, a community who adhere to strict codes of honor and dignity.  

[KeyboardWarrior]

 

[MechEng]

Things got ugly when Bhansali or a crew member fired the gun. If Bhansali had a justifiable reason to film romance between Padmavati and Khilji, then he should have presented an argument constructively to the Rajputs.

 

Firing a gun to scare the Rajputs hurt their dignity, this is usually done to scare animals, and very few would take such a humiliation passively. Can you imagine firing gun in the air to scare away Rajputs in their own land?

[randomGuy]

This controversy is due to whatever Islam has managed to achieve through its existence throughout the world....in Indian subcontinent, Islam has caused bloodshed, division, backwardness as in the rest of the world... all other religions co-exist largely peacefully today.

 

That's the root of the problem if people are honest about it .

 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

B) Your hollow moral grandstanding is hilarious. Your community threatens people with death and murder if your beloved Quran and Prophet are insulted in any way. How many films, books, and people were either banned or are under threat because of you lot?  Right from the British era and Independence era, you lot have gotten books like Rangeela Rasool banned with violence. Even in the last 2 years, one man, Kamlesh Tiwari, was arrested under the NSA because he called Mohammed a homosexual and you lot started rioting in UP to have him hanged. Coming from you lot, any condemnation of Rajput violence is meaningless to me. Lecture your community to act civilized for once, before saying anything to Rajputs. 

 

False analogy. Koran and the Prophet are religious icons. Rani Padmavati isn't religious icon. Your analogy would be valid, if it is compared to Muslims getting bent out of shape for portraying a historical figure. 

 

Quote

Next time, learn to read before making a fool of yourself.  I never claimed that SLB was a mass murderer and rapist. That is your hallucination. You are supporting a film on Khilji, which shows a romance between him and Padmini, and one that shows him as a grey character. Anything that doesn't show Khilji as what he was, a savage, religious bigot, is attempting to salvage him/reinterpret him. This film does that. You supporting this film means you are therefore supporting Khilji. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to do. Your crypto-Islamist nonsense doesn't work on me. 


Sure, your posts in this thread support one. Unless you think Khilji wasn't one. Your supporting of a film that shows him as a grey character is enough proof for me. I don't particularly care if you, or those two morons who up-voted you, agree with me or not. I only suggested that you should show some courage next time and directly quote me if you have something to say. Feel free to carry on with your obfuscation and providing covering fire for a mass murderer and rapist. If you try shadow-boxing with me again, you will get called out. 

Non-sequitur.

You are assuming that anyone who supports a film thinks all films are to be taken literally. I can easily support the 'accepted true story' about Shivaji and still enjoy an alternate, fictional portrayal of Shivaji.

Your comment is a non-sequitur because it assumes that accepting fictional depiction of a historical figure = accepting changing history/histograpy.

 

[Muloghonto]

18 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

Ok. Would historical fiction give a director the license to show Adolf Hitler as a paragon of virtue who was on a noble mission to rid Europe of the evil Jews? 

 

And there you go. Most modern day Rajputs claim themselves to be direct descendants of their historical figures. So for them, it is a matter of family and personal boundaries. 

 

See Mulog, I clearly understand where you're coming for; but context matters in this situation. This is India and we're talking about Rajputs, a community who adhere to strict codes of honor and dignity.  

There is a huge difference between seeing a historical figure as your cultural heritage/ancient ancestors and seeing them as a direct ancestor of your lineage. Unless these so-called Rajputs can prove with records going back to 1400s that they are indeed descended from Rani Padmavati, them thinking they descend from her, is nothing more than self-aggrandization.

 

Honor and dignity are fine- in personal sphere. But when honour and dignity is imposed on freedom of media/speech, it is not acceptable.

 

You see this as 'this is India and it is an issue of honour and dignity'. I see it as an underlying issue of communalism. Because nobody is the 'thekedaar' of their shared history. You are 'thekedaar' of your direct family history. And when people who try to 'represent their culture/ethnicity/religion', they communalize the issue because communalism is, at its core, trying to tell people what to do/what not to do, when one has no authority to impose such demands in the first place.

 

PS: Have you ever considered, how harmful concepts of honour can be ? Have you ever considered, how much bloodshed & hand-wringing could've been avoided, if Bhisma put aside his personal honour for the greater good and accepted the throne in the first place ?

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by Muloghonto