Swara Bhaskar's open letter to Bhansali on Padmaavat - Page 9

Originally posted by: Maraka_Musso89

BM is in fact very actual. They like to talk down about polygamy when they are into polyamorous love stories lmao

Regarding Jauhar, I think those who are calling the movie out know the difference but remember thathat just a week ago some women were threatening to commit Jauhar, remember that some women can be forced or manipulated to commit this act by taking Padmavaati as an example. Some people are guillable and others uneducated... Will They understand that this practice is from another era or just see this as something to be proud of as Rajputs? A way to grasp at a past glory ?

In all honesty, I think it all depends on how it was portrayed. I haven't watched the movie so I can't comment. If Jauhar was portrayed as the only form of defence and as an act women were forced into then, Swara is wrong and that isn't regressive and only a fact and an incident based on history. But if 'Jauhar' was glorified in the sense that it was shown as an ultimate form of bravery and not as a forced choice, Swara isn't wrong and it is regressive. Regressive communities in India can interpret it wrongly and can lead to more victim blaming. I can imagine those community leaders saying "look, Queen Padmavati sacrificed herself because a guy tried to rape her. You didn't commit suicide so it wasn't rape and you probably wanted it". Sounds stupid, but it's true. So Swara could be right or wrong.

Originally posted by: LiveLifeHonest

In all honesty, I think it all depends on how it was portrayed. I haven't watched the movie so I can't comment. If Jauhar was portrayed as the only form of defence and as an act women were forced into then, Swara is wrong and that isn't regressive and only a fact and an incident based on history. But if 'Jauhar' was glorified in the sense that it was shown as an ultimate form of bravery and not as a forced choice, Swara isn't wrong and it is regressive. Regressive communities in India can interpret it wrongly and can lead to more victim blaming. I can imagine those community leaders saying "look, Queen Padmavati sacrificed herself because a guy tried to rape her. You didn't commit suicide so it wasn't rape and you probably wanted it". Sound stupid, but it's true. So Swara could be right or wrong.

Ultimately, it's a fine line between glorifying it and portraying it as it is. Swara wasn't the only one to say this. I've seen some reviewers and a significant number of public members who've watched the movie say so too about the movie. This leads me to suspect that this fine line wasn't that carefully handled and it did leave room for the interpretation that the Jauhar was glorified.

What's more sad to see is that instead of discussing whether SLB did manage to handle this fine line well or if he did leave room for interpretation that Jauhar should be glorified and is a form of bravery, people are making personal attacks on Swara. She's called a 'pseuofeminist' etc. and she's doing it for attention. Instead of focusing on her arguments and evaluating their validity, they're only making personal attacks on her. Because as far as I've seen, she wasn't the only way who said it. A no. of public members and they did justify their opinions saying that they found it regressive not because jauhar was shown, but because of the way it was portrayed.

Part of being in a progressive and intellectual society is dissecting and assessing the validity of arguments made by a person rather than making personal attacks on a person. That would lead to more progress as it inspires people to critically think and evaluate and dispel assumptions. By making personal comments, you aren't swaying the people who disagree into agreeing with you. The comments that had the most effectiveness in making me (a person who hasn't yet watched the movie) think Swara was wrong, were those that criticised her arguments instead of making personal attacks on her.

*SPOILER AHEAD* They don't give up without a fight. The women of the Rajput household do torture Khilji when he comes to take Padmavati after Ratan's death. They throw burnt coals at him and make a huge uproar like a shield around Padmavati so that he doesn't reach her shadow even. I think it wasn't glorified, it was shown more like a really depressing thing that women had to die cos of monsters like Khilji - like a pregnant woman and a little girl had to die too...it was just super sad and makes you feel so angry at people like Khilji who ruined the lives of those women and girls,..and Padmavati has a smile on her face when she throws herself into the fire, so maybe death gave her satisfaction rather than being raped repeatedly by Khilji, death was the lesser of two evils for her so yeah..it's just her choice and shouldn't influence others. Khilji ultimately lost because he didn't get to even touch Padmavati.

Originally posted by: here4reviews

SPOILER AHEAD.

Hundreds of women in red shouting Rani Padmavati Ki Jai and Jai Bhawani while the older woman doing aarti of Padmavati and then her walk in slow motion to the heroic tune and lyrics of 'rani sa jo aag se balkhe, rani sa badal sa garjay, rani sa rajputi shaan hain, rani sa mhari aan baan hai' while focusing on a pregnant woman taking a sad child bride towards the pyre and only Padmaavati entering the pyre with first a tear, then a smile and then an expression of satisfaction while there are other woman who are throwing heaps of burnt coal on Khilji and his army Ketan Mehta's Mirch Masala style while none of the other women except Padmavati is shown jumping into the pyre. And then screen goes black with the voiceover talking about this brave act of Padmavati being narrated to people across generations and how even today, she is worshipped as a God for doing this for the Rajputi aan aur shaan.

If this is not glorification of Jauhar and presenting it as an act of extreme patriotism, then what is?

It was like this, with ten times the more women, ten times the more fire and ten times the more dramatic music with those lyrics..

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-mudVzl4cM[/YOUTUBE]

^ I'm not sure if she is doing it for attention or not. To me it only made it look like she saw the wrong film. Having a different opinion is not wrong here. But then saying that the film context is in 21st century or confusing between sati and jauhar is funny to say the least. Maybe she could have researched a little more on history before writing this open letter. How can SLB be questionable for how history was passed down or how things were like before. By end of the article, I can only derive one thing. She is probably biased against someone associated to the film and thus had her judgement flawed. I usually don't defend people I dislike this way but I'm not a blind fan also.

Originally posted by: MrBiebersWifey.

*SPOILER AHEAD* They don't give up without a fight. The women of the Rajput household do torture Khilji when he comes to take Padmavati after Ratan's death. They throw burnt coals at him and make a huge uproar like a shield around Padmavati so that he doesn't reach her shadow even. I think it wasn't glorified, it was shown more like a really depressing thing that women had to die cos of monsters like Khilji - like a pregnant woman and a little girl had to die too...it was just super sad and makes you feel so angry at people like Khilji who ruined the lives of those women and girls,..and Padmavati has a smile on her face when she throws herself into the fire, so maybe gave her satisfaction rather than being raped repeatedly by Khilji, death was the lesser of two evils for her so yeah..it's just her choice and shouldn't influence others. Khilji ultimately lost because he didn't get to even touch Padmavati.

Special snowflakes like this Swara just need a reason to get offended and go on endless rants. -.-

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

But this is true for each and every movie

Look at Dhoom franchises glorifying robber's

Fast and Furious kind of movie glorifying car stunts.Gullible and uneducated people can be influenced by anything and everything.So Padmavati is no exception in that.

The moment people start saying Sati and Jauhar are the same i cant take their opinion seriously.I mean one doesn't even need to be a historian to know the difference.Just read the wikipedia article once and the difference can be clearly understood.

Reduced to a vagina 'only'? I didn't read the letter but what did she mean by this?