mishra Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Where is your source from ? Alex Rutherford. Not a JanSanghi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 10 minutes ago, mishra said: Alex Rutherford. Not a JanSanghi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Rutherford http://empireofthemoghul.com/about-the-author/alex-rutherford-qas/ Seems like you mistook historical fiction for history. Note: There is no mention of Anarkali in Akbarnama or Taz-u-Jahangiri, the two autobiographies of the emperors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Rutherford http://empireofthemoghul.com/about-the-author/alex-rutherford-qas/ Seems like you mistook historical fiction for history. Note: There is no mention of Anarkali in Akbarnama or Taz-u-Jahangiri, the two autobiographies of the emperors. I thought you will go down the line of discrediting the author/work itself. Series like Marco Polo and all are mostly fact in name of fiction. There is more fact and hardwork in them then trext book written by Indian authors. Edited January 30, 2017 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, mishra said: I thought you will go down the line of discrediting the author/work itself. Series like Marco Polo and all are mostly fact in name of fiction. There is more fact and hardwork in them then trext book written by Indian authors. I am not discrediting anything, i am merely correcting you. Check the second link i gave you- the Q&A section has the interviewer clearly asking the author what it is like to transition from writing non-fiction to historical fiction with the 'Empire of the Mughal' series. Anarkali isn't history, its folk tale. Like Layla Majnoo. Thats not history, thats just folk tales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: I am not discrediting anything, i am merely correcting you. Check the second link i gave you- the Q&A section has the interviewer clearly asking the author what it is like to transition from writing non-fiction to historical fiction with the 'Empire of the Mughal' series. Anarkali isn't history, its folk tale. Like Layla Majnoo. Thats not history, thats just folk tales. Quote The story of Salim’s seduction of Akbar’s concubine Anarkali was first mentioned by another English merchant William Finch who visited Hindustan between 1608 and 1611 and claimed while in Lahore to have seen a sumptuous tomb erected for Anarkali by Salim after he became emperor. Though there is no other contemporary evidence for this tragic romance, the story of Anarkali was clearly part of the oral tradition and was taken up by later Moghul writers. It is my own invention that she was Venetian. i.e. Alex Rutherford went to a source all the way back to 1608. Hope thats credible research Edited January 30, 2017 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, mishra said: i.e. Alex Rutherford went to a source all the way back to 1608. Hope thats credible research Bhai, everybody does research for their novels. Historical novels, fantasy novels. Did you know the 'Red Wedding' from Game of Thrones is directly lifted from Scottish history ? What you are saying, reinforces my point - that the best type of historical fiction, is the one that weives a good story with strong historical foundation, because then it gives the fantasy elements of the story its 'body & authenticity'. Thats exactly what Rutherford did and he even admits so! Directly from the author: " Our previous books have indeed been non-fiction. We’ve found writing historical fiction liberating and exciting. We have tried to remain broadly true to the main events. The sources are sufficiently rich – and candid – for us to be able to build up a picture of the emperors on which we can build our interpretation of their characters and motivation. We’ve really enjoyed imagining ourselves into their minds and into those of other players in the drama as well as trying to picture what the locations and the society were like in Moghul times. We explain to our readers in an historical note at the back of each book what is real and what is invented and want them find our story-telling both compelling and historically convincing. It’s for them to say whether we’ve succeeded but we love the whole process of writing historical fiction." Quote Quote The story of Salim’s seduction of Akbar’s concubine Anarkali was first mentioned by another English merchant William Finch who visited Hindustan between 1608 and 1611 and claimed while in Lahore to have seen a sumptuous tomb erected for Anarkali by Salim after he became emperor. Though there is no other contemporary evidence for this tragic romance, the story of Anarkali was clearly part of the oral tradition and was taken up by later Moghul writers. It is my own invention that she was Venetian. The British merchant got it wrong. because we still have that tomb, the person who is buried there, is a noble-woman, which Ain-e-Akbari mentions in similar light to Anarkali : Salim fell madly in love with her, Akbar opposed his wedding to her because he was already married to this lady's aunt and Akbar opposed near-relations according to Ain-e-Akbar, but he quickly gave consent. Sorry, but you are thinking historical fiction is actual history. It isn't. Same applies to the subject of this thread. Edited January 30, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 On 1/28/2017 at 0:39 PM, Mariyam said: ^^ The most damning indictment of humanity is that people are quick to vehemently opposing the quality of the films that Bhansali makes and not the fact that he was assaulted by people who in all probability have no idea what the film is about. No director is going to give away the script. Making a terrible movie is still a legal activity. Trashing the film maker and breaking his equipment isn't. To quote Nietzsche: Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies 1, The muslims ruler is basically scum who killed and raped. 2, The hindu queen immolated herself did not have hot romance with the scum. 3, Bansali took creative liberty in an insensitive way, he could have called her some other name. Or clarified what his movies actual story is. 4, Slapping him around was totally wrong. 5, But he is not without any errors here. 6, We do not know if the people who assaulted him do not know this. Mariyam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 People are loosing patience with libretard ape bollywood basically. Make any movie dont call it historical dont propagate lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Khilji ka khujli : http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sanjeev-singh-blog/is-sanjay-leela-bhansali-ignoring-the-most-interesting-love-story-of-alauddin-khilji/ this blog calls it right, it from TOI but yeah one of the odd ones where its correct. Khilji also had a weakness for beardless boys. He was fascinated by Kafur’s effeminate beauty and ended up buying the slave for a thousand Dinars during his conquest of Gujarat. Kafur took full advantage of Khilji’s enamour for him and rose through the ranks to become the Malik Naib (deputy ruler). This love affair between Khilji and Kafur is well documented in many books including the Tarikh-e-Firozshahi. It is believed that Khilji had almost 50,000 beardless boys in his harem at the height of his empire. There was no love between Rani Padmini and Khilji. On the contrary, it was Padmini who led the 1,600 odd Rajput women to jump into the pyre and commit Jauhar rather than being taken prisoner. Padmini is revered for her valour and has acquired legendary status over the centuries with many temples and shrines dedicated to her memory. " There is no doubt that those who indulged in violence against Bhansali should be taken to task. There is no place for lumpen elements in our society. But filmmakers too need to sensitise themselves when it comes to dealing with historical issues. Why should any filmmaker want to film a dream sequence where Padmini and Khilji are romancing? How about sticking to history and shooting a sensual, romantic song between Khilji and Kafur? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 40 minutes ago, Vilander said: People are loosing patience with libretard ape bollywood basically. Make any movie dont call it historical dont propagate lies. Why ? What is wrong with historical fiction, seriously ? Nobody in the west gets bent out of shape when Julius Caesar is portrayed wrongly from historical records, why is it ok for Indians to do it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Its all about establishing a narrative isnt it? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 5 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Why ? What is wrong with historical fiction, seriously ? Nobody in the west gets bent out of shape when Julius Caesar is portrayed wrongly from historical records, why is it ok for Indians to do it ? Why should we behave like west? diga 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Book_Worm Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 hours ago, Vilander said: People are loosing patience with libretard ape bollywood basically. Make any movie dont call it historical dont propagate lies. It is called historical because it is set in a time period where they had swords kings and queens forts castles. basically in the past. It is just a name given to that type of movies. It does not necessarily mean it is a true account. But in movie terminology it is classified as a historical genre. That is all. Mariyam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechEng Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 hours ago, Vilander said: Khilji ka khujli : http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sanjeev-singh-blog/is-sanjay-leela-bhansali-ignoring-the-most-interesting-love-story-of-alauddin-khilji/ this blog calls it right, it from TOI but yeah one of the odd ones where its correct. Khilji also had a weakness for beardless boys. He was fascinated by Kafur’s effeminate beauty and ended up buying the slave for a thousand Dinars during his conquest of Gujarat. Kafur took full advantage of Khilji’s enamour for him and rose through the ranks to become the Malik Naib (deputy ruler). This love affair between Khilji and Kafur is well documented in many books including the Tarikh-e-Firozshahi. It is believed that Khilji had almost 50,000 beardless boys in his harem at the height of his empire. There was no love between Rani Padmini and Khilji. On the contrary, it was Padmini who led the 1,600 odd Rajput women to jump into the pyre and commit Jauhar rather than being taken prisoner. Padmini is revered for her valour and has acquired legendary status over the centuries with many temples and shrines dedicated to her memory. " There is no doubt that those who indulged in violence against Bhansali should be taken to task. There is no place for lumpen elements in our society. But filmmakers too need to sensitise themselves when it comes to dealing with historical issues. Why should any filmmaker want to film a dream sequence where Padmini and Khilji are romancing? How about sticking to history and shooting a sensual, romantic song between Khilji and Kafur? " My goodness, these folks needed psychiatry hakeems instead of harems. 7 hours ago, Vilander said: People are loosing patience with libretard ape bollywood basically. Make any movie dont call it historical dont propagate lies. I'm wondering whether people still watch Bollywood? It's been more than 15 years since I last followed Bollywood, except I ended up watching an Alia Bhatt movie recently which I regret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulGame Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I'm wondering whether people still watch Bollywood? It's been more than 15 years since I last followed Bollywood, except I ended up watching an Alia Bhatt movie recently which I regret. Is this a serious question ? I assume you are living outside India ,if so, yeah kinda understandable rarely watching Bollywood. Movie is entertainment.Everyone's view of entertainment is different that's what different varieties of movies cater .People get too hung up on this quality of movie, it's all individual perspectives ultimately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Vilander said: Why should we behave like west? Point is not about east or west. Point is, for identical issues, one set of people are completely cool with it, for another group, it's a big deal. So logically, we should ask the latter group what's the big deal ? So so answer with your opinion- why is historical fiction offensive to you ? Is it because this genre of literature is underdeveloped in India ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechEng Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 hours ago, BeautifulGame said: Is this a serious question ? I assume you are living outside India ,if so, yeah kinda understandable rarely watching Bollywood. Movie is entertainment.Everyone's view of entertainment is different that's what different varieties of movies cater .People get too hung up on this quality of movie, it's all individual perspectives ultimately. No man, I from Mumbai. I feel present gen bollywood movies cater to naive audiences only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Bhai, everybody does research for their novels. Historical novels, fantasy novels. Did you know the 'Red Wedding' from Game of Thrones is directly lifted from Scottish history ? What you are saying, reinforces my point - that the best type of historical fiction, is the one that weives a good story with strong historical foundation, because then it gives the fantasy elements of the story its 'body & authenticity'. Thats exactly what Rutherford did and he even admits so! Directly from the author: " Our previous books have indeed been non-fiction. We’ve found writing historical fiction liberating and exciting. We have tried to remain broadly true to the main events. The sources are sufficiently rich – and candid – for us to be able to build up a picture of the emperors on which we can build our interpretation of their characters and motivation. We’ve really enjoyed imagining ourselves into their minds and into those of other players in the drama as well as trying to picture what the locations and the society were like in Moghul times. We explain to our readers in an historical note at the back of each book what is real and what is invented and want them find our story-telling both compelling and historically convincing. It’s for them to say whether we’ve succeeded but we love the whole process of writing historical fiction." The British merchant got it wrong. because we still have that tomb, the person who is buried there, is a noble-woman, which Ain-e-Akbari mentions in similar light to Anarkali : Salim fell madly in love with her, Akbar opposed his wedding to her because he was already married to this lady's aunt and Akbar opposed near-relations according to Ain-e-Akbar, but he quickly gave consent. Sorry, but you are thinking historical fiction is actual history. It isn't. Same applies to the subject of this thread. So as per u, Anarkali isnt mentioned anywhere in "Historical sources"? But as per you it becomes a "fact" that she is is "nobility".How? And to top it she bores some kids too . Then the one who is mentioned is "NOT Anarkali" but a woman in similar light to "Anarkali". May be you need to do some more reseach or just use some common sense about distortion of history before discrediting authors. The author clearly mentions that he has done his research and only thing he has fictionised is girl being a white blonde blue eyed Italian girl (Probably down to his own definition of beauty. Some people read between the lines). Now I have neither time nor energy to spend trying to voiding your claims. All I am doing is using common sense and that common sense says Alex Rutherford is more correct and has done more work than some looney leftist distorting Indian history to make it look balanced. If you are IT guy you can understand that Linux is more Unix than any other Unix but its not Unix and is any day better OS then most in market for server technology. Same goes with your so called fact/fiction of Rutherford Edited January 31, 2017 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, mishra said: So Anarkali isnt mentioned anywhere in your "sources"? But as per you it becomes a fact that she is is "nobility".How? And to top it she bores some kids too Anarkali isn't in the two most complete source son Akbar & Jahangir. Stands to reason, if Anarkali was indeed the one he 'risked his future crown for', Jahangir would've atleast mentioned her. However, She being nobility is based on what the writing on the sarcophagus (coffin) in the tomb in Lahore, known as Anarkali's tomb, states, along with the British travellers Terry & Finch saying that she (Anarkali) is buried in Lahore. Quote The author clearly mentions that he has done his research and only thing he has fictionised is girl being a white blonde blue eyed Italian girl (Probably down to his own definition of beauty. Some people read between the lines). Now I have neither time nor energy to spend trying to voiding your claims. All I am doing is using common sense and that common sense says Alex Rutherford is more correct and has done more work than some looney leftist distorting Indian history to make it look balanced. What loony leftist distorting history is being told here, pray tell ? Because it is clear, that YOU are distorting history by trying to pass off historical fiction as history. He didn't say 'the only thing i did was make Anarkali Venetian'. He said he made her venetian. Doesn't make it 'the ONLY change', especially when the author acknowledges that his book has real history and fiction liberally mixed with it, as my quote of him proves. Point is, Anarkali, or what you think of Anarkali from Mughal-E-Azam, isn't real history. Its folktales. Like Layla-Majnoo. And next time, if you want to establish historicity of something/someone, reading historical fiction is not the way to go. And back to the main topic : I see no reason why one cannot make a movie about romance of Padmavati & Ala-Ud-Din. Especially since nobody is peddling it as historical documentary or educational movie, but entertainment & historical fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Anarkali isn't in the two most complete source son Akbar & Jahangir. Stands to reason, if Anarkali was indeed the one he 'risked his future crown for', Jahangir would've atleast mentioned her. However, She being nobility is based on what the writing on the sarcophagus (coffin) in the tomb in Lahore, known as Anarkali's tomb, states, along with the British travellers Terry & Finch saying that she (Anarkali) is buried in Lahore. What loony leftist distorting history is being told here, pray tell ? Because it is clear, that YOU are distorting history by trying to pass off historical fiction as history. He didn't say 'the only thing i did was make Anarkali Venetian'. He said he made her venetian. Doesn't make it 'the ONLY change', especially when the author acknowledges that his book has real history and fiction liberally mixed with it, as my quote of him proves. Point is, Anarkali, or what you think of Anarkali from Mughal-E-Azam, isn't real history. Its folktales. Like Layla-Majnoo. And next time, if you want to establish historicity of something/someone, reading historical fiction is not the way to go. And back to the main topic : I see no reason why one cannot make a movie about romance of Padmavati & Ala-Ud-Din. Especially since nobody is peddling it as historical documentary or educational movie, but entertainment & historical fiction. Now read your own post http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/99172-bhansali-slapped-by-protestors-for-alleged-distortion-of-historyanurag-kashyap-calls-it-hindus-terrorism/?page=2#comment-3358936 Also re-Read my metaphorical statement about Linux. DO some google cos you dont look like IT. Edited January 31, 2017 by mishra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts