Another version of the Ramayana, a new debate. Om Raut directed and wrote the dramatic epic retelling Adipurush. Naturally, with some creative leeway. Additionally, it is the most recent topic of heated social media debate and controversy. Right-wing trolls have a lot of internal conflict. Half of them praise the movie to the tune of “Jai Shri Ram,” which is also the trailer’s theme song, and the other half says it “exploits Hindus’ emotions.” This response is not at all surprising. Calls for blacklists have been raised over motion pictures that have everything and nothing to do with religion.
In the tweets that call the movie an embarrassment in the comments, one notices unusual friendships; an improbable fellowship between individuals from all religions. It is a remarkable sight in a time when religious divides are as apparent as they are now.
Additionally, read Manoj Muntashir’s defense of Hanuman’s dialogues in Adipurush: One review of Adipurush features a YouTube creator on the verge of crying while wearing a bhagwa shirt with oms and swastikas all over it. His primary complaint appears to be the film’s loose language; Many people have been disturbed by the Hanuman character’s foul language. Ironically, the language used to criticize the dialogues on Twitter and other social media platforms is far from parliamentary.
Numerous times over the past ten years, Bollywood has been at the center of controversy. There was Pathaan’s orange two-piece; There was Padmaavat, and there were rumors of a nose cut off; Ram Leela was there. The animated Ramayana: Even in 1992: Yugo Sako’s The Legend of Prince Rama could not be shown in theaters in India. Keep in mind that all of these films are based on myths or historical events. They are strongly nationalistic or have religious undertones or overtones. They are designed with the intended audience in mind. Despite having substantial budgets and precise objectives, they frequently encounter controversy.
The censor board trimmed Pathaan’s “Besharam Rang,” changed “Padmaavat” to “Padmaavati,” and changed “Ram Leela” to “Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ram-Leela.”
Writer Manoj Muntashir tells Arnab Goswami in an interview that he simplified the dialogue in accordance with the oral tradition he grew up listening to in his village so that everyone can understand the film. In the 1990s, Sako shared the same sentiment: he was captivated by Ram’s story, spent millions of dollars, and devoted over a decade of his life to making this project successful and reach millions of people. In any case, for savages, neither Muntashir nor Sako was sufficiently devoted. For quite some time, the BJP has used religion as a political category. That is not served by the resolution of the controversy. It’s possible that this is the reason why films like Adipurush, Brahmastra, Padmaavat, and Bajirao Mastani appear to succumb to the same fate when they attempt to capitalize on this momentum with large budgets and production budgets (the budget for the movie was 500 crore rupees).
There are good movies and bad movies. Additionally, there are violent films. This movie might even qualify for that classification. However, the volatility we experience on a daily basis when discussing religion, in addition to the livewire that any work centered on religion inevitably becomes, points to a problem that is much more extensive than the Adipurush dispute. It refers to a disease that goes deeper and gets worse every day. It is becoming increasingly difficult to make movies that we can enjoy as public discourse shifts and everything becomes tense; movies that are fun to watch. However, one thing might be helpful. The Ram-Lakshman-Ravan trope is no longer relevant. Now we can tell a different tale.