It's been 5 years since the first franchise of the Magnum Opus called Bahubali was released. It was an ambitious project and the lot of hard work and money that went into its making paid off, perhaps more than what was bargained for. Bahubali went on to become a national sensation. The movie admittedly appealed to the general masses, the regular movie goers who are on a look out for a paisa vasool experience. It had every box ticked when it comes to a typical Tollywood masala movie success formula - a macho hero, a beautiful heroine, a villain, a sidekick and a wronged mother to avenge for. Why, taking a cue from the immensely popular Game of thrones - Rajmouli also created a whole new language in the movie!
Rather ironically for the same reason, the movie held little appeal for a niche kind of movie lovers - the Ayushman Khurana-Irfan Khan ones. For them, Bahubali was loud, dramatic, unoriginal, sexist, with belief-in-hierarchy overtones, not to mention having unendurable show of masculinity porn (a term coined by feminist online magazine Ladies Finger to define hyper masculine portrayal of heroes to gratify the crowd) of its leading star Prabhas.
Considering myself to be a part of the same self assured (self proclaimed?) liberal and feminist social circles, I nevertheless felt head over heels in love with the film.
I don't (and can't) disagree with the criticism leveled
against the movie, especially the first part. Indeed it was difficult to forgive Mahendra Bahubali when he practically steals the crown from the warrior Avantika (Tamanah), decreeing that her mission of overthrowing the tyrannical King Bhalladeva is now his life’s mission.
A little before that, he ‘tames her aggression down’ with the display for his all powerful machismo. Ladies finger captures it in the following words-
And then – and fucking then – as Avantika struggles with him, Bahubali proceeds to tear her clothes off, and he has this goofy my-mother-loved-me-too-much smile on his face while the flirty, lighthearted score continues in the background. Baahubali strips Avantika, kickass warrior, down to red underwear, and paints her face (in lieu of makeup) with some berries and coal. She fights back until he pushes her towards a waterfall, where she sees her reflection (plus Prabhas’s creepy leer in the background) and has an epiphany: she never knew how beautiful she was until he stripped her of agency and painted her face with makeup.
The message here is clear: Dudes, if you harass a woman long enough, she will fall in love with you, and you will probably get laid. Ladies, if you choose to deviate from traditional female roles, you’ll always be inherently unhappy, and secretly, you’ll be waiting for a hero to save you from empowerment.
Later in the movie, we have our beloved Kattappa, declaring how he has vowed to remain bound as a slave to the throne as a part of a promise his forefathers had made to the Kings. In a country like India where caste based hierarchy and discrimination is a living reality, where some people are made to believe that they are not ‘entitled’ to certain priveldges, the glorification of the loyalty of Kattappa to his benefactors, more so as they are oppressive to him, leaves you uncomfortable.
I don’t know if this criticism reached Rajmouli in the process of making Bahubali the conclusion (the part 2), because an attempt was made to rework on a lot of character portrayals. No, really.
Let us take the example of the female protagonists.The failure to give justice to Avanthika was rectified upto certain extent in the portrayal of the other two leading ladies in the movie - Queen Mother Shivgami (Ramya) and Devasena (Anushka Shetty).
Shivgami refuses to be the Queen of the Mahishmati Kingdom, even when her subjects desired it at a point of political vacuum in the Kingdom, choosing instead to govern as the de-facto ruler till her sons came of age. As a ‘woman’ she wanted to abide by the state policy of allowing only male heirs to inherit the throne. However, just because she doesn't legally sit on the throne, she does not become any less powerful. Till her sons could claim the throne, it is her choices and her decisions- sometimes taken by misjudgments and ego- that determined the destiny of the Kingdom.
And nobody is able to stop her from making the decisions, not her husband, not her sons, certainly not her loyal servant Kattappa. Her relationship with her husband is also one of its kind portrayed in Indian movies, it's uneasy because she doesn’t share even a minuscule of her power, and she is totally unapologetic; if not unmindful of it. Neither her motherhood nor her status as a wife could come in her way of her position as a Queen. When her son, Bhalladeva plots tokill Amarendra Bahubali; he still needs her validation, and fears unleashing her wrath if he takes direct steps against his brother. And this is after he was crowned the King of Mahismati. Clearly she held a lot of power even after her son became the King.
Now let us look at Devasena. She is a princess in her own right, but belonging to a less powerful kingdom, is slightly less powerful when it comes to her sphere of influence. That does not stop her from asserting the little agency she had though. She wants to remain in control of her fate when it comes to the man she wants to marry, and on various occasions, speaks her mind out on the point of consent and sexual harassment, even at the cost of dire consequences. She loves her husband but does not worship him and does not expect to be saved by him when she takes on the mighty Queen Shivgami on these occasions.
Both the women, thus, have a strength of character which is their very own, and not necessarily drawn from the royal families they were born into. However, because of their ‘high born’ status, it is relatively easy for them to normalise holding power even as women, something which Avantika was not able to do. Strong as she was, Avantika also had to suffer from the ‘ruling class’ complex and also had to subjugate herself to the ‘true rulers’ - the male heirs of Mahishmati, at the end of the first film. It is thus a movie with strong female charecters, and not a feminist one.
Why does Kattappa kill Bahubali? Million dollar questions answered in the second part and we realise how deeply our caste fault lines run in the film. He was a slave, tied down to the throne. When Shivgami commanded him to kill Bahubali, he had to comply. However, here it should also be noted that he was willing to overthrow his vows and stand by the side of the truth when Shivgami first asked him to kill his Bahubali. It was only when she emotionally beleaguered him with ‘you kill or I will kill’ that he took the step. His loyalty for the throne flinched for a moment, but his love for Bahubali and Shivgami did make him commit the act. Kattappa may have been weighed down by oppressive systems, he may be dominated by powerful personalities like Shivgami, but he was not a flat character. He had an understanding of what is right and wrong. He had opinions. And for the very same reasons, he ends up becoming more than a loyal sidekick.
Finally, let us talk about Amarendra and Mahendra Bahubali (the father & son who are the rightful heirs of the kingdom, both played by Prabhas).
They are both strong and muscular, talented warriors, blue eyed boys with blue blood. A typical case for hegemonic masculinity. Naturally, everybody around them were hell bent on making them kings, their mothers, their girlfriends, their wives, their friends, the masses of Mashimati. And then there are some who are equally hell bent on removing them from their inheritance.
But what do they want?? The truth was that neither of them ever desired that power and the throne in the first place. Or any power for that matter. Patriarchy certainly does not ask women, but also does not even ask men before chalking out their roles for them. Amerendra Bahubali gambled with his love, with his life for something that he did want, and the saddest part is that his fans would still glorify his dying as a hero rather than questioning whether this could be avoided if simply he would have been left alone with his own choices.
The movie thus, unknowingly makes interesting case studies for gender and caste representations, vis-a-vis its applications in real life. All the characters have so many sides to them that it is a critique’s delight to study and analyse them. And this is when I began to like the movie, seeing its myriad and thought provoking dynamics that fitted in the gamut of a regular revenge tale.
Also, it has some awe inspiring cinematography. Just think of Mahaendra Bahubali lifting the shivlinga on his shoulders and placing it under the waterfall. The first big war with the Kalkeya dynasty which sealed the fate of the Kingdom. The three arrow trick that Amarendra teaches Devasena. Kattappa dragged the blood stained sword to Shivgami after killing Bahubali. The ‘lion king’ moment when Shivgami holds the baby high above her head on the balcony. These such priceless scenes!
And yes, I also like the movie because of the delicacy in which the filmmaker created the character Amerendra Bahubali, which goes so much deeper than his warrior moves and royal status. I remember the way he did not hate his rival (Kumar Verma) for trying to woo his love interest Devasena and for humiliating him many times. Also, for the way he stood for his wife two times before his mother and sided with the truth after hearing both of them out. “How did you make this match without knowing what lies in the heart of the woman?” he questions his mother, a simple gesture of how consent matters without making a fuss. I like his easy cameradie with Kattappa which is not condescending and his love for his wife and mother which is all encompassing and yet not blind. He is genuine, open minded, simple and trusting, devoid of cunning, and anti-war really, created as if from a ‘female gaze’ in a hyper masculine movie.
I know I have a tendency to lose my objectivity and go overboard when building an argument for the things I feel passionately about, and maybe this is just one of those things. I would thus recommend everyone to watch and decide for themselves, if it is even worth writing a 3 and half piece article on it. What I guarantee though, is entertainment and Prabhas :-)