As a disclaimer, I am in no way a scholar of the history that this film is supposed to represent, but after lots of research, I have found that Padmaavat does indeed have some historical inaccuracy. I give it a 6/10 because I did genuinely enjoy it when I first watched it, but then I wanted to know the truth behind the story and whether what we are seeing is in a way biased through Bhansali's direction.
First of all, Allauddin Khilji (Ranveer Singh) is a character from the film who does not need any introduction: he is in the most simple terms, portrayed as a barbarian. Historically, there is just no evidence of him being so barbaric: eating meat off of the bone, the extreme look with kajol lining his eyes, the intense, barbaric look of lust in his eyes, lust-driven antics, and the use of multiple women for his desires. I, 100% loved Ranveer's performance, hats off to him, but the way that the character was portrayed in the film was inaccurate according to many historians. There was no evidence of Khilji being a barbarian to this extent. He kills his own uncle in the film, not to mention wipes out anyone that gets in his way and doesn't follow any morals.
The biggest mistake of the film is that Khilji battled over Padmavati, which is just an assumption, as he was said to have fought in the conquest of conquering the land of the Rajputs. Again, I am no scholar or historian, but it is a little unsettling that Bhansali would distort history into making the film Hindu vs. Muslim, which is so prevalent in digging deeper into the motives of the film. Whatever may have been the truth, it seems as though the film has a prejudice against Muslims, especially Muslim men. It shows Khilji as a Muslim man with no morals at any time, while Rana Ratan Singh (Shahid Kapoor) is a Hindu man with all of the morals, on the battlefield, in his palace, etc. Khilji is uncivilized while Singh is mannered, moral-driven, and civilized.
I think these things bothered me the most after researching more and digging deeper. Other than these few things, there was a huge protest over the film's inclusion of Jauhar, a self-immolation ceremony held by women of an invaded territory. It makes sense in the context of the film, although seemingly endorsed the ceremony to some.
The cinematography was splendid, the sets were opulent, and the actors did fantastic jobs, but I think that with more of an unbiased depiction of historical events, the film would have won my heart fully.
Great film, but it just needs to be understood in this sense and through the lens of a biased nature, where the actual story of the film revolves around untrue stereotypes of Muslims and the conflict even today between Hindus and Muslims, promoting a sense of Hindu-righteousness and the stereotyping of Muslims.
First of all, Allauddin Khilji (Ranveer Singh) is a character from the film who does not need any introduction: he is in the most simple terms, portrayed as a barbarian. Historically, there is just no evidence of him being so barbaric: eating meat off of the bone, the extreme look with kajol lining his eyes, the intense, barbaric look of lust in his eyes, lust-driven antics, and the use of multiple women for his desires. I, 100% loved Ranveer's performance, hats off to him, but the way that the character was portrayed in the film was inaccurate according to many historians. There was no evidence of Khilji being a barbarian to this extent. He kills his own uncle in the film, not to mention wipes out anyone that gets in his way and doesn't follow any morals.
The biggest mistake of the film is that Khilji battled over Padmavati, which is just an assumption, as he was said to have fought in the conquest of conquering the land of the Rajputs. Again, I am no scholar or historian, but it is a little unsettling that Bhansali would distort history into making the film Hindu vs. Muslim, which is so prevalent in digging deeper into the motives of the film. Whatever may have been the truth, it seems as though the film has a prejudice against Muslims, especially Muslim men. It shows Khilji as a Muslim man with no morals at any time, while Rana Ratan Singh (Shahid Kapoor) is a Hindu man with all of the morals, on the battlefield, in his palace, etc. Khilji is uncivilized while Singh is mannered, moral-driven, and civilized.
I think these things bothered me the most after researching more and digging deeper. Other than these few things, there was a huge protest over the film's inclusion of Jauhar, a self-immolation ceremony held by women of an invaded territory. It makes sense in the context of the film, although seemingly endorsed the ceremony to some.
The cinematography was splendid, the sets were opulent, and the actors did fantastic jobs, but I think that with more of an unbiased depiction of historical events, the film would have won my heart fully.
Great film, but it just needs to be understood in this sense and through the lens of a biased nature, where the actual story of the film revolves around untrue stereotypes of Muslims and the conflict even today between Hindus and Muslims, promoting a sense of Hindu-righteousness and the stereotyping of Muslims.
Tell Your Friends