Padmavati-Homophobic, Islamophobic and regressive.

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Sir-Please

@Sir-Please

Rocker

+ 5

Posted: 7 years ago

#11

Originally posted by: cricketfan1

Sure...So what do you suggest? That Padmaavati takes up arms and wages a war against Khilji instead of committing jauhar? Or may be she should've been more practical and just marry Khilji or be his sex slave (whatever he chooses for her) and live with him instead of dying?

Simple...for a film glorifying mass self-immolation not to have been made 👍🏼

Quote

Elvis12

@Elvis12

Dazzler

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#12

Making a mountain out a molehill

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Sir-Please

@Sir-Please

Rocker

+ 5

Posted: 7 years ago

#13

Originally posted by: aish.
How is it islamophobic?
I'm so pathetically annoyed by people taking religious offence over something that happened centuries ago.
Get over it.
People have too much free time on their hands now to take offence over every small detail.

What Rani Padmaavati did at that point was an act of valour.

Either ways, I've always felt that religious offence is taken when the person itself has a religious inferiority complex.

I'm a Hindu and if tomorrow a movie is made showing a particular incident in which hindus are shown in bad light, I wouldn't care because it's not a representation of my religion. Grow up.

Only one big difference...bi-erasue or showing bisexuals in a negative light continuously or again continously showing muslims as barbaric or evil in a lot of media platforms (worldwide) is not a one time thing whereas the example you set out would be a one time deal.

Quote

MuratHayat

@MuratHayat

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#14

I don't understand the point of these articles. May be political parties are trying hard to drag muslims into this circus. I didn't c any muslims hvn any issues with padmavati...may be everyone is like for once v r spared...but again such articles come up to probably incite such feelings and drag some chicken heads into this circus.

Islamophobic or not any sane person should stay miles away from this madness.

Already some viral fake messages have started stating 5 muslim boys were the ones who pelted stones on the school bus. Gurgoan police had to clarify https://twitter.com/gurgaonpolice/status/956772279953735682

Gurugram PoliceVerified account @gurgaonpolice

This is to clarify that no Muslims boys have been detained in relation to the recent acts of vandalism on a Haryana Roadways bus and a School bus in Gurugram.

405 replies3,628 retweets4,466 likes

405

Retweet

3.6K

4.5K

Glad they did and dey shud hv done it sooner or else situation wud have gone worst and lead to riots.

Quote

1093604

Suspended

Posted: 7 years ago

#15

Originally posted by: Ahlaam5

Only one big difference...bi-erasue or showing bisexuals in a negative light continuously or again continously showing muslims as barbaric or evil in a lot of media platforms (worldwide) is not a one time thing whereas the example you set out would be a one time deal.

I think you have a problem with history in general, you should avoid watching historical based movies so that you don't get triggered by anything that violates your 21st century progressive values and identity politics.

The reason why the Muslims are the bad guys in this movie is because they were the ones doing the invading historically, not the other way round. Let's stop associating with what happened 700 years ago with present day.

Quote

SeeYa

@S_H_Y

Achiever

+ 9

Z-Gen Zest

Posted: 7 years ago

#16

LMAO

I see more idiotic article by Twitter feminist about jauhar.

Why didn't padmavati chose to be sex slave of khilji over death.

This article provide us the hint on who to avoid reading to protect from mental regression.

Quote

Pehchaan.Kaun

@Pehchaan.Kaun

Sparkler

Posted: 7 years ago

#17

A story based on 700 yrs ago - homophobic, islamophobic and whatever-o-phobic. Shocking 😲 Let's find the writer of the poem and kill him for putting such false picture of 13-14th hundred century when the reality was something else !

One shouldnt leave their brains at home while coming to criticize a movie.

Also, why did the poet make Padmini commit jauhar and why not fight back or become sex slave to Khilji - let's ask him. Let's also ask Hirani why he made Joy commit suicide in 3 Idiots instead of fighting back? Why did Aishwariya commit suicide in Mohabbatein instead of fighting back ? Why did Qyamat se Qyamat Tak ending Amir dies instead of doing something good with his life ? Let's kill the freedom of all movie-makers and story-tellers and force them to tell the story only the way these critics' want !

Critics have forgotten their basic duty or job. Their job is to rate the movie based on the movie-making aspects and NOT to pass judgments on the story. Movie critics are to criticize the skills and not the vision of the writer/director. Nonsense to the power of infinity.

Quote

Sir-Please

@Sir-Please

Rocker

+ 5

Posted: 7 years ago

#18

Originally posted by: Heisenberg17.

I think you have a problem with history in general, you should avoid watching historical based movies so that you don't get triggered by anything that violates your 21st century progressive values and identity politics.

The reason why the Muslims are the bad guys in this movie is because they were the ones doing the invading historically, not the other way round. Let's stop associating with what happened 700 years ago with present day.

Theres a world of difference between writing a nuanced 'muslim' evil character and a simple caricaturish barbarian ...forget abt the Muslim/religion thing that everyone is focusing on here (there were loads of religious and non-religious groups that were conquering at that time too).

What's your excuse for Bisexuality being shown to highlight Allaudins depravity or has history too been full of barbaric bisexuals? I love how everyone side-steps this issue is yet hung on the Islamophobic issue.

It's funny that you even think I would pay 1 pence for this movie much less the full amount 🤣

I can watch what I want so don't tell me what to watch. Did I tell you not to watch it? No. So don't tell me what to do 🥱

Quote

Ume Salma Kakal

@sunflower52

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#19

What I am having problem with this movie is the character Khilji, who was a real person. He maybe barbaric but I do not think he was uncouth who had no table manners and do not think Kings on those times would dance like a commoner.

Whether Hindu Kings or Muslim Kings all attacked each other over land, gold etc The times were different and can not be compared by todays standards. Besides the land was known by many names and was divided into many kingdoms.

How much is the truth and how much is fabricated only God knows.

Quote

SrideviFan4ever

@SrideviFan4ever

Navigator

Posted: 7 years ago

#20

I haven't seen the film yet neither have I read the article due to spoilers so going to reserve my comments on that for later but even before the film was being made, I always found it hard to accept Rani Padmavati as a hero and the jauhar as the ultimate symbol of bravery and sacrifice like it is made out to be.

Since there's no existence of her in history books and the film is based on a fictional poem, I'll restrict my argument to the poem and the film only. What I find the most problematic amongst everything is the writing. Let's not forget that the poem is written by a man and how he perceives Rani Padmini and the rest of the characters. We have had female rajput warriors as per folklores and legends before as well but it is the writer who CHOSE Jauhar for the 33K women or whatever the amount is and not the other way round. Why couldn't the women fight for their honour without committing sati? They definitely could have if Jayasi wanted them to but no, a woman's maan and maryada came first rather than the queens fighting in some other way because her honor was kept in her body and the only way the woman could fight was to turn that body into ashes. And that IS regressive. It is regressive of Jayasi to write a fictional poem where the woman is only known for beauty and self immolation. It was a fictional peom, he could've given it another ending which could've been liberating. And now, for hundreds and hundreds of years, that same folklore has been passed on over generations where they worship her for committing nothing but Sati.

Same goes for the film. Yes, it is set in the 13th century, it can be regressive but let's also not forget that from the trailer to the marketing, the film has only been glorifying Jauhar. It is because of suck folklores than all these senas exist today who want to save Rani Padmavati's honor but at the same time disrespect and mistreat the women living around them in order to protect their 'maan maryada'.

Ye, for the thankfully educated lot like us who are able to express their opinions on a forum, we know how to differentiate fiction from fact and know that what applied back in the 13th century doesn't apply today but let us also not forget that we live in a country where even today, new brides have to pass through a virginity test on the first night with the whole panchayat in attendance in certain villages, and they sadly are the masses and not us. And for a massy film like Padmaavat, that will be watched by that same mass audience, there should be a responsibility to not glorify redundant, regressive practices and bring them back again to picture from history and glorify it as one of the biggest sacrifices ever made in history. Who knows, some people might again start practicing this ritual as a threat and also as a means to safeguard a woman's honour.

Oh wait, somebody already did that recently ^. The Karni Sena!

Quote

1 2 3 4 5 ... 12

Padmavati-Homophobic, Islamophobic and regressive. - Page 2

Related Topics

Explore Topics