Bharatiya

+ Adding to the good parts, Hans Zimmer ( assuming he is the one behind the BGMs) Excels in delivering the poignance and magnanimity as well. While I should have ideally left the theatre in the awe of the spectacle, some things bothered me. I weighed in to analyze if I was nitpicking or if I was too rooted in the aesthetic of Telugu Cinema (Bapu) that the spectacle did little much to leave me touched. Two things about Rama's portrayal bothered me for far longer than they should have. Because they were not small enough to ignore. They persisted to create that restlessness which made me pause before I gave a great review. Rama in Action came out as a struggling survivor who goes for the jugular when frustratingly pushed to a corner. This phenomenon is jarring in the Khara-Dushana confrontation till the moment he finally releases the Divyastra. The pacifism shown here doesn't fit Rama. We know him as Ranadheera/Rana-karkasha and that rasa stubbornly refuses to come out till he is pushed to the cornermost corner. (Ironically the name of the actor is this attribute that refuses to show itself!) And the scene where Shurpanaka impersonates Sita and succeeds in almost stealing a moment of privacy with Rama before Lakshmana and the real Sita break in. Folks, Rama was someone aware of even Sati Devi's impersonation of Sita and here in the film, though for a moment, that gullibility is glaringly jarring. And I felt that gullibility far more offensive than Sita's sympathy for Shurpanaka (an ignorable flaw in comparison) I am not the one who gives into jibes of Anti-Hindu, Ravanayana, etc etc. The diagnosis I have for this glaring flaw is not in the actor but in the conception itself. As I cited in the last post, the attempt to portray Rama as 'what Ravana isn't' comes to bite at what could have been an awesome experience. Casting Rama as the 'everyman Hero' archetype (as I guess) failed to capture the complexity that is Rama. Rama cannot be fit into an Archetype known to the western world. RAMA IS THE ARCHETYPE. Perhaps it is the bias of researcher Dr. Bodhisatva who might be more influenced by the Rama of Buddhist Dasharatha Jataka or the general perception of the calm man with plastered smile stereotype or a combination or whatever that was. Giving the benefit of doubt of the makers, portrayal of Rama is harder than portrayal of Krishna. But this challenge is exactly what they should be aware of and hence apply their fullest effort in rigour of the requisite Rasa. Portraying Rama effectively requires a surrender to His anomalies and not recrafting His character to a set narrative. Going by the story structure, I hope to see this Ranakarkasha (Ruthless on battlefield) Rama in part 2. If that aspect is failed there, it would be the biggest lost opportunity. AR Rahman is another disappointment. No tune lingers beyond the cinema hall and that's a blot on any musical attempt at Ramayana. Despite these, I still say, the film is worth a watch. Because the grand first step of taking Itihasa to the global screens and introducing the grandeur of Hindu Cosmic cinematically is achieved and it is no mean achievement. That the same achievement is possible without Auchitya Bhanga is a milestone that Indian civilization should still aspire to achieve.