In recent years, there have been many films that were made keeping historical characters and events of history etc. The major reason for this was that these filmmakers neither did full justice to history and historical characters, nor did the film. Sanjay Leela Bhansali makes epic films. Meticulous direction, writing, scintillating cinematography, beautiful dress designing, lavish sets and amazing combination of colors cover up the gaps in the political agenda. His films are also successful in terms of commercial and entertainment.
Kangana Ranaut’s understanding of history is superficial. Obviously, the film on Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi under her direction and heroism is also below average. Kangana sets the Hindutva political agenda through her films. As a result, the film turned out to be very weak. In the film, we were seeing Kangana Ranaut instead of Laxmibai. She could not fit into the character of Lakshmibai. In ‘Ashoka’, Shah Rukh Khan was present with the style of his other films.
We kept seeing Shahrukh Khan in the film, not Samrat Ashok. Almost the same situation was of ‘Emperor Prithviraj’. Not Prithviraj Chauhan, Akshay Kumar was present among the audience. This happens because of the isolation and distance from the historical characters. Emperor Prithviraj was presented as the last Hindu emperor. It can be called a weak and misleading film from the point of view of literature, history and film artistry.
Harshul Bhatt also made a film on ‘Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan’ in 1959. In that film, Prithviraj Chauhan comes across as a national character and warrior of India. Nationalism has emerged in this film as well, but this nationalism seems to integrate India divided into regionalism. The film has a shadow of the Indian National Movement.
The film seems to be changing in the freedom struggle of the country. This fight is not between the Hindu emperor Prithviraj Chauhan and the Muslim emperor Muhammad Ghori. This film is between the foreigners waiting to take over the country and the unorganized but sacrificing warriors of the country. It is the director’s quality that he has presented Prithviraj as a ‘nationalist warrior’ and not a ‘Hindu warrior’. When Jaichand invites Gauri to attack, his wife reprimands him and says – why don’t your chest burst before thinking of making the country a slave and daughter a widow. Jaichand says in response – Our enemies are sitting in our house, then in response the wife says – It is not understood that the enemies of India are sitting in India itself.
The film is far superior in dialogue, acting and presentation, as the director’s vision spans historical characters over a vast span of thousand years, while Chandraprakash Dwivedi narrows them down and tries to fit into the Hindu-Muslim political divide. . In the last two-three decades, this has been done in a very conscious sense. It has been activated in a way.
In Sohrab Modi’s film ‘Jhansi Ki Rani’ (1953), Laxmibai does not bomb the British because the British were hiding behind the temple. By making a sequel to this thing, ‘Manikarnika’ presents it again. This thing has also emerged in the films ‘Bajirao Mastani’, ‘Kesari’, ‘Panipat’ etc. made on the basis of Maratha identity.