Where is the salt, Mister Bhansali? | Padmaavat Movie Review

Spoiler alert! More than a movie review, this is a critique and has several plot details that you may want to avoid if you would so choose.

Let us all agree that at some point in a good movie, content should take over the form. No, it's not fair to say Padmaavat lacks story. In fact, there is a fairly detailed story with a couple of side plots too. But the film maker continues to wow us with his trademark visual wizardry where story somehow is on the back burner. 

It’s almost like Sanjay Leela Bhansali assumes that his audience cares more about slow mo sequences like that of a king being dressed for war by his (unblinking) wife than about characters, background and context. This kind of narcissistic commitment to treatment puts this potentially masterful director in the same league as Rohit Shetty (who thinks audiences only want to see cars topple) or David Dhawan (who loves cheap thrills) or Abbas-Mastan (who’re all about WTF twists and turns in the plot). I almost wonder if Bhansali now treads dangerously close to Ram Gopal Verma (who after initial breakthrough success was stuck in his “unique” vision that often only he gets!). 

The other thing I must call out, is his repetition of himself. Grandeur apart, several moments seem like they’ve been borrowed from his own previous outings. The Jhoomar raising scene between Shahid and Deepika reminiscent of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, holi crowd shots of RamLeela, and the shut-the-door  climax of Devdas. Not to mention, the bare-chested, low-waisted looks make Shahid come across having a Ranveer-fanboy moment from Ram Leela. Ranveer has his own Deepika-fanboy moment trying to do with a flaming torch what Deepika did incense in Ang Laga de re. Clearly, SLB has a limited vocabulary and seems unwilling to learn or explore more. Or simply, doesn't care. 

No, this is not a terrible film (and way way WAY above Bhansali’s own low benchmark Saawariya), but certainly a dumbing down of the audience’s perceived appetite for entertainment. What hurts is he that he chooses to undermine the very same educated and progressive Indian fans and movie buffs who stood by him and his crew through the entire controversy. Like all we care about is a well done Ghoomar and a well lit jhoomar.

Now you see it, now you don't: Deepika's CGI covered midriff.

Of course the ghoomar is great (even with CGI covered midriff) and the jhoomar, and the sets, and the costumes, and the jewelry are top grade; and dare I say that even royals would lust over this stuff. Let’s not go for historic accuracy here, I don’t think SLB cared to be historically precise in visuals. He cared to wow us. That is a fair creative liberty, and wowed we are. But even a home chef can tell you that good presentation cannot save an ambitious dish that lacks the right amount of salt. Where is the salt, mister Bhansali? 

A quick take while in the topic of history, I want to add my voice to the several others who are confused as to why they were worried about the film damaging rajput pride. Perhaps all they wanted to stop from being shown, was how the Rajputs lost to the shrewd, cunning, selfish Khilji. Despite having several chances of finishing things off. Why, you may wonder? Rajputi Aan, baan, shaan, spin-a-yarn. Survival was not an instinct Rajputs prioritized over their righteous ego and playing by rules. That message is not relevant today. Neither is the regressive patriarchy. One knows for sure that it Rani Padmavati had her way, Rajputs would have had a prouder story to narrate. Instead all the pride in this film is showcased in showcase punch lines about rajput valor. So many “aha” moments with theatrical dialogues and it feels like the movie is making disclaimers after disclaimers in spite of the opening credits that began with disclaimer after disclaimer. I’m really sorry SLB and team went through the ordeal in recent past and I’m also really sorry Rani Padmavati and all those hundreds of women went through that ordeal in history. 

The other thing Bhansali is usually accurate at, is the crackling chemistry between his lead actors. Remember HDDCS, or Guzaarish.  And staying with the current cast, RaamLeela - even the bizzare SMS language syntax worked thanks to the Deepika-Ranveer chemistry. But in Padmaavat, the chemistry is literally mute. Shahid and Deepika spend precious minutes saying nothing. I imagine it went like this : Action > Stare (Don’t blink, I said, don’t blink) > Cut! 

Speaking of cuts, Shahid struts his stuff. As an equalist, why is objectifying a Rajput king okay, just because he is a man. Why wasn’t Shahid's torso covered with a CGI vest after protest!? How come no corny sena caught this. He has lines after lines and poses after poses until finally we learn that the big poser is the big loser. 

Ranveer excels as Khilji except the grotesque Khalibali song.

Then there is Deepika, who (without having to be reminded 76578 times in the film) is truly, Nayaab (precious). This unibrow-vati is divine and unlike Shahid has super expressive eyes. And Ghoomar, as hated as it might be by some people, could easily be one of the toughest choreographies that a leading lady has had to pull off. 

And of course, there is Ranveer. This man is a chameleon. He becomes anything he wants. I was shell shocked when he transformed into a Marathi speaking Bajirao after being shell shocked he could keep his shirt on in an entire film and tone it down for Lootera. And now, with Khilji he has firmly placed himself in the list of all time greats - actors who can both act and draw audiences (and some people find attractive). Khilji is dark, cruel, cunning and full of flaws. Ranveer owns every second of every scene he is part of. But while on Khilji, I want to put it on record that the khalibali song is the worst thing that has happened to Bollywood since tatad tatad. Me during that entire song: 

Lastly: the jauhar scene. 

Am I supposed to feel proud about 100s of women self immolating? This in spite of the figure head, the leading lady, having almost won them the war a few times! But couldn’t because she’s a lady. And was constantly stopped by a man who chose pride and honor over logic. 
 I wonder if honor killing should not be glamourised, why should honor mass suicide be elated as a matter of pride? What really was it? Here is what it definitely was : a fine display of the 2018 Jauhar collection of red lehngas and jewelry  and Deepika's surprisingly blonde tresses. What with the slomo and then the super slomo sashaying around and walk on the runway choreography - which many would say is a gracious treatment of this subject. But there in lies my problem. Should this really be shown as a gracious moment for today’s audiences? What the climax wasn’t was a truthful deception of the act of choosing to jump in fire. Glorification of pride cannot look like glorification of  the act. With due respect to sentiments, I can not get over the pain of the moment. Unfortunately the only “pain” you feel in the climax, is that for Khilji who couldn’t be see Padmavati even once. Sad. I DID NOT like the climax. Mainly because of the treatment. It’s just not relevant in today’s time. You’re not only in disagreement with the sentiment but also can not digest the happiness with which this was done.  While even if it may have happened in the past, the lack of a single shriek of fear or a drop of tear makes this a divine fantasy. 

At best, Padmaavat is Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s ode to himself and how he can try to blind you with form and presentation. Sorry sir, not this time!