Making a film on a story that is rooted in history is always risky business for a filmmaker. Even the slightest departure from text can lead to severe backlash that is hard to ignore. Time and again, filmmakers have faced the ire of those who have accused them of getting their facts wrong. Ketan Mehta had received a legal notice from Raja Ravi Varma’s granddaughter for portraying the artist as a playboy in his film Rang Rasiya. The Rajput community was not happy with Ashutosh Gowariker’s portrayal of Jodhaa in Jodhaa Akbar. Now it is Sanjay Leela Bhansali's turn to face some backlash for his soon-to-be-released film Bajirao Mastani.
Earlier this week, Mohini Karkarey, a descendant of the Peshwas, wrote an open letter to the director stating that Kashibai couldn’t have danced since she was suffering from arthritis, and that Mastani, the second wife of Bajirao, was not a courtesan but a royal. The letter further states that she was the daughter of Raja Chatrasaal of Bundelkhand. Mohini also objected to the costumes.
“The way the nauvari was draped, it did not allow even an ounce of skin to show,” the letter stated. That’s not all, the descendant of Bajirao Peshwa I, Prasadrao Peshwe, wrote a letter to the chief minister Devendra Fadnavis asking him to review the film, stating that “the historical references of the period drama appear to be distorted”. This controversy has once again given us a few points to ponder — how to strike a balance between a filmmaker’s vision and historical accuracy? Are they overlooking their responsibility as storytellers? Or are we taking them too seriously, expecting them to get their facts right?
Remo D’Souza, who choreographed Pinga, believes that a commercial film should not be compared to a documentary. “A period film is largely based on the filmmaker’s vision. We have simply presented the song in a glamorous avatar to cater to today’s audiences, so I don’t know why people are reacting to it negatively. Our job was to make Bajirao, Mastani and Kashibai look good and that’s exactly what we have done. I think people should come to conclusions only after watching the film. The film is meant to entertain and shouldn’t be seen as a documentary,” he says.
Priyanka Chopra also echoed Remo’s sentiments while talking about the issue. She said, “This love story is definitely a part of history. This film is based on a book called Rau — the author’s version of what happened in Bajirao and Mastani’s love story is translated on screen. So look at it as a beautiful rendition, an epic saga told from the vision of the director.”
In 1994, historian Shanta Gokhale won the National Award for Best Biographical Film for Colors of Absence, based on the life of painter Jehangir Sabavala. Speaking of the Bajirao… controversy, she says, “Hindi films are not to be taken seriously. It is ridiculous to give it more importance than this since Sanjay Leela Bhansali is not making a historical film, he’s making an out and out entertainer.” She continues, “If you are talking history and research, a serious filmmaker will do that, whose standards aren’t set by ‘what can get by with the audience’. Unfortunately, not many abide by such principles in this film industry. They work on formulas to entertain, and love stories of this kind is one such formula that Sanjay often works with. So I won’t expect any historical truth from his films.”
Sanjay’s take on the fictional period film Devdas, too, was reinterpreted and adapted. For instance, Paro and Chandramukhi even meet and perform a dance routine, something that never happened in the Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay’s novel on which the film was based. However, at that time, the director announced right at the start that his film is a reinterpretation of the original novel. Film historian SMM Ausaja believes that a disclaimer from the start would have helped Bajirao Mastani immensely. He says, “If the film is based on a historical figure, then good amount of research is needed. If Sanjay didn’t pay attention to the minor details, then it is sacrilege. People will obviously take offense. People look forward to his films and take his work seriously, and if his research is flawed, people are going to make a noise about it.”
Historian Shrimant Kokate opines that when the subject matter is rooted in history, it will most definitely be checked for accuracy. “The director may call it cinematic liberty, but then he has intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented a section’s belief and philosophy. Why take up a story from history when you do not intend to retell the story as it is?” he says.
Filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, however, stands by his colleague. Admitting that he is not fully aware of the entire debate, he clarified that he “could only comment on the craft (of filmmaking)”. He said, “The be all and end all of the entertainment industry is to entertain. If you take the history of India post-independence, you have experts at loggerheads with each other. This whole tone of absolute, that my version is the gospel truth is flawed. Having said that, I don’t think a filmmaker like Sanjay would be so careless to deliberately make mistakes or have a don’t-give-a-damn attitude to such a historical time.”
Download the all new Deccan Chronicle app for Android and iOS to stay up-to-date with latest headlines and news stories in politics, entertainment, sports, technology, business and much more from India and around the world.
