Jabberwock

"It seems very pretty," she said, "but it's rather hard to understand."

About me

My books

Long-form writing

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Jodhaa Akbar: notes and an unreliable synopsis

[Statutory warning: I cant promise that everything described here is an accurate reflection of what happens in Jodhaa Akbar. Parts of this review are as authentic a representation of the film as the film itself is of the Mughal era.] It turns out that the controversy about historical authenticity in Jodha Akbar has been such a waste of everyones time. This film is really at its most authentic when it abandons all pretence that it was made for any reason other than to bring together Bollywoods two most beautiful people (and a lot of shiny jewellery). Take the magnificently show-offish moment where a shirtless Akbar (Hrithik Roshan) displays his swordsmanship while Jodha (Aishwarya Rai) watches in womanly awe. The scene exists completely independent of context its about Hrithik as the ultimate alpha-male preening like a peacock (an inordinately muscular peacock) for Aishwarya; its about sending vicarious thrills through starstruck moviegoers of both sexes. With just a minor alteration in setting and costume, it could easily have come out of Dhoom 2, a film that was a fine showcase for this same couple. As it happens, this is one of the most assured scenes in Jodhaa Akbar. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the film makes a half-hearted stab at telling us about various things that may or may not have occurred in the mid-16th century. Yawn. Completely beside the point. Anyway, this is roughly what happens, or what I could make out as I drifted in and out of sleep: (An unreliable summary) The first few minutes give us the background on the many political intrigues of the time, in the stentorian but much-too-familiar voice of Amitabh Bachchan. (Like a stern father-in-law keeping a watchful eye on Aishwarya after that kiss in Dhoom 2, Bachchans presence looms large here: not only does he do these ponderous voiceovers but Sonu Sood, the actor who plays Jodhas protective brother Sujamal, strongly resembles the young Amitabh the moustached Amitabh of Reshma aur Shera, for example, or even Ganga ki Saugandh - from many angles.) Most of the historical information is tedious and complicated, though theres a certain fun to be had in seeing the kings of Hindustan depicted as petulant little boys, sulking, whimpering and clinging to their thrones when faced with the prospect of being made vassals. (As the maharajah of Amer, Kulbhushan Kharbanda looks and sounds like he has serious breathing problems, and little wonder given the number of heavy necklaces weighing him down at all times.) Meanwhile, on the Mughal side of things, there is Bairam Khan, a good old-fashioned medieval psychopath who uses his official status as guardian for the boy-prince Akbar to nurture a very personal fetish for lopping off enemy heads. Unfortunately for Bairam, the boy-prince soon grows up and dispenses with his services. To prove that he is worthy of ruling the country, Akbar then takes on a wild elephant in a scene that is reminiscent of Hrithiks superhero-racingthe-horse in Krrish. But what really puts his courage to the test is when he agrees to wed the

Hindu princess Jodha to complete a political alliance: her long list of demands includes the right to sing bhajans loudly in the next room while he is discussing matters of state with his viziers. Sadly the marriage remains unconsummated because by the time J and A have finished removing all those layers of jewellery they are no longer horny and only wish to sleep. This puts the future of the Empire in jeopardy. Also, there are culture shocks that must be dealt with. The newlywed Jodha, wholly unaccustomed to the brutal ways of the Mughals, watches aghast as her husband has a traitor thrown to his death from the roof (cue bone-crunching sound) and then has him thrown off again when the job isnt finished. (Aishwaryas eyes widen: she never got to see such gory things in the Bachchan household except when Amar Singh and Shah Rukh came visiting at the same time.) Anyway, after watching Akbars topless swashbuckling, Jodha decides that the way to a mans eight-pack abs is through his stomach. So she takes over the royal kitchen and sets about preparing a large vegetarian meal for him with her own hands. However, things nearly go perilously wrong when she misinterprets an order for a 24-carrot salad and slips some of her rubies and emeralds into the dish, causing the emperors courtiers to suffer from indigestion for days afterward. In a delicate and affecting scene, the crafty Ila Arun (playing Akbars wet-nurse) enters the kitchen grounds where countless heaps of vegetables are scattered about, and bursts into a rendition of Mooli ke peeche kya hai. This highly dramatic sequence ends with Jodha falling out of favour; however, after a timely reconciliation, our leads start making out on the floor of the chamber (as chronicled in a lost volume of the Akbarnama) before realising that they should move to the bed in the interests of royal decorum. Meanwhile the political intrigues continue apace, but thankfully they are punctuated by some nice quiet moments between Akbar and Jodha like the one where she bends down to touch his feet and he catches her mid-dive, in the manner of every traditional Indian husband in a Bollywood film (in other words: make sure the woman genuflects, but also make a token gesture that will show how modern-thinking you are). There are an equal number of scenes where the characters simply wander about languorously, admiring the gardens, reclining on bolsters, playing with rabbits and pigeons and looking a little bored, like they wish television had been invented. Despite all the gloss, this is a static film, full of scenes that carry on long past their sell-by date. Ashutosh Gowrikar said in an interview that his movies are as long as the story requires them to be, but even someone who knows very little about the technical aspects of filmmaking will see that Jodhaa Akbar could easily have been shorter and more compact. (The number of reaction shots alone made me think that some bits could have been produced almost as competently by the Ekta Kapoor factory.) The battle scenes are indifferently put together and it's hard to work up much interest in which general's elephant is crushing which foot-soldier's head; I was immensely disappointed even by the final one-on-one combat, which Id hoped would at least give the film a rousing ending. And when computer effects are pressed into service (as in the aerial shot of discharging cannons, with one of them shooting its flaming iron ball straight into the camera), the effect is still flat and uninspired. Diamonds last forever; so does this film I was forewarned that the only reason to watch Jodhaa Akbar was to feast ones eyes on the extravagant jewellery adorning the persons of nearly every member of the cast. After seeing it, I have to agree that the experience was rather like four hours spent in a gold souk that has two large and handsome posters of Hrithik and Aishwarya on the walls, and some soulful A R Rahman music playing somewhere in the background. If you love jewellery that much, good for you if not, you may feel that this film goes on for nearly as long as the Mughal Empire did.

Posted by Jabberwock at 9:57 AM Labels: films

59 comments:
Nitya 10:50 AM, February 17, 2008 in the stentorian but much-too-familiar voice of Amitabh Bachchan. (Like a stern father-in-law keeping a watchful eye on Aishwarya after that kiss in Dhoom 2 -*Guffaws* :p Reply

shaks 10:54 AM, February 17, 2008 (cue bone-crunching sound) and then has him thrown off again when the job isnt finished. (Aishwaryas eyes widen: she never got to see such gory things in the Bachchan household except when Amar Singh and Shah Rukh came visiting at the same time.) ROTFL Okay, stop. My sides hurt :) Reply

Space Bar 11:19 AM, February 17, 2008 Now that's a film I'd have wanted to see: where A&J make out on the kitchen floor and father-in-law, stentorian but helpless on the other side of the screen makes useless threats. That VO would have been worth hearing. Reply

SP 2:28 PM, February 17, 2008 Heeehheee!!! I think I'm going to enjoy this film a lot less than I enjoyed your review. I thought this observation: "she bends down to touch his feet and he catches her mid-dive, in the manner of every traditional Indian husband in a Bollywood film (in other words: make sure the woman genuflects, but also make a token gesture that will show how modern-thinking you are)" could actually be a applied to so many desi customs...like the man insisting he doesn't believe in karwa chauth and other pujas and is only putting up with them because his wife insists, while beaming approvingly at said dutiful wife and puffing up like a peacock when she literally worships him. I was struck by Hrithik's jarring, trendy sideburns and hair - all this historical verisimilitude and sets and clothes and they couldn't get him to stop being all GQ and actually look the part? Grow a paunch or something, maybe? Reply

parotechnics 3:01 PM, February 17, 2008 ohmigod this was so funny - i especially liked the picture of vegetables. I was actually thinking of getting off the overwork treadmill for a while to see this film but sounds like its stately pace might evoke extreme anxiety about deadlines. TV, though, has been invented after all so maybe I will wait... Reply

Patrix 10:45 PM, February 17, 2008 Come on, you are being unnecessarily harsh. Compared to the trash we are regularly dished out (I made the unfortunate mistake of watching Welcome in a theater when I was in India recently), JA is quite refreshing. But of course, I also agree with most of your hilarious observations. Heck, I was thinking of some of them as well while watching the movie. Reply

supriya 8:25 AM, February 18, 2008 hey thanks for the review .. it was a good read. the film never appealed to me and your comments made me not to rethink whether to watch it or not!!! Reply

Jabberwock

9:06 AM, February 18, 2008

I was struck by Hrithik's jarring, trendy sideburns and hair... SP: Yes, the first time he removed his headgear I was like, "Whoa! Isn't that the hottie from Dhoom 2 ?" But I think we had to take it as a given that the historical verisimilitude in this film would be very selective. Parotechnics: I should clarify that the vegetable picture is from Wikipedia. In the film, the veggies are piled up in giant

vessels that look like they might belong to the 16th century. Historical verisimilitude is important when it comes to these little things. Patrix: "unnecessarily harsh" might have been if I had trashed the film in a dead-serious review. I'm hoping this post adequately reflects that even though the film did hardly anything for me (I thought around 80 per cent of it was really dull), I got some unintended fun out of it. Btw I've left out some of the more tasteless things that were going through my mind. Like the possibility that the wet-nurse was so aggrieved because she couldn't get the grown-up Hrithik to nuzzle at her breast...okay, I'll shut up now! Reply

asuph 9:46 AM, February 18, 2008 rotflmao! It's been a while since I came across a well done satirical review. It's so easy to get carried over. Err. You did, but still it's absolutely rocking. asuph Reply

Shwet Awasthi 11:50 AM, February 18, 2008 'By the time they remove all the jewellery they no longer feel horny'. This is a brilliant analysis of the whole film. I don't understand what the director was thinking when he decided to make this movie. Leave aside the factual accuracies and you feel the stupidity of the whole movie. 1.The combat scenes are a Joke , it is as if the people in the 16th century had watched BR chopra's Mahabharat, for the scenes are hardly gory. Medieval battles were gory and brutal , however this does not seem to be the case with the film. If you leave the melodramatic scenes out of 'Gladiator' watch out for the action scenes in the movie and they have been depicted as realistically as possible. When a sword comes down to slash and cut human sinew it can hardly look aesthetic as what the director here tries to do. A case in point is 'Kingdom of heaven ' as well , which though had flaws in looking at the period of crusades,neverthless had praiseworthy battle scenes. 2.The polictical intrigue of the time has beem dealt with puerile urgency. The political ramifications of the time were much more complex and Akbar married a Rajput princess to save his expenditure on war against the fierce though numerically less substantial warriors. 3.Akbar was hardly a great warrior himself as depicted in the film.If you read and analyse Mughal history closely they followed the Mongol theory of combat , which meant that the king or the supreme commander has to remain at the back because he was considered extremely valuable.Also when Akbar was visited by European envoys in his court they give an account of a man Short in stature though wise and articulate. In fact apart from Babur who came from the harsh terrain of Kabul the rest of the Mughals were more administrators than warriors. 4.If the director had to make an epic romance than he could have dispensed off with the extra baggage that the film carries throughout. Reply

Anonymous 12:10 PM, February 18, 2008 I don't care! I loved Hrithik :) Reply

PRASHANT SINGH 12:39 PM, February 18, 2008 Not that i am a huge fan of movie but one must admit that a lot of artistic hard work has gone into it . screenplay might be loose or "boring" as you put it but you can't deny that its a cinematic masterpiece .far better than $45 Million shit like Curse of the Golden Flower . I enjoy reading your blog Jai , but sometime i wonder if you set out to make