Is it any good?
Anyway would really recommend watching it. It’s a wild ride, and incredibly well done. If you’re not from India, you can largely ignore the issues with internal politics
Edit: Since people are asking for links about the politics…
https://www.vox.com/23220275/rrr-netflix-tollywood-hindutva-...
https://slate.com/culture/2022/06/rrr-review-indian-blockbus...
Essentially it’s holding up some of the more radical freedom fighters and downplaying the more pacifist and equitable ones which reflects the directors political stance
It’s subtle but it’s in the same vein of how many military and cop films push messaging
I don't actually remember the end credit scene and I didn't pick up on any contemporary political references. Could you elaborate?
There’s a movement among the right to downplay the more equitable and peace friendly freedom fighters in favour of more radical ones, including ones with ties to the Axis powers.
Again, it barely takes away from the film since it’s just the final credits but it’s quite a clear signal of the directors outspoken political views
- Bose was allied with the Nazi’s. I know it’s debatable whether the ends justify the means but he also held some fairly hostile views that are being used again
- there were notable omissions of freedom fighters who preached peace , but more importantly, those who were against the division of Pakistan and India.
I shared a couple links above in an edit, but there’s definitely an messaging to align with the directors more hardline views of modern Indian politics
A marriage of convenience like when Gandhi allied with the Ali Brothers.
> there were notable omissions of freedom fighters who preached peace
Three of them where Gandhians but OK.
> but more importantly, those who were against the division of Pakistan and India.
Nobody in the Congress wanted partion to begin with. But there was no leader against it when it became clear that it was apparent. Who exactly do you have in mind?
You don’t think it’s suspect that major figures were excluded from the list? And they just happen to be the same major figures the right wing governments try and move away from.
You don’t think being allied with the Nazis and never denouncing their views was an issue either?
the movie had a clear political agenda to it.
Yes. Because it's a fantasy movie. Reading complex political messaging into it is rather silly.
> Your entire comment is a “so what?”
I don't think excluding Gandhi and Nehru from a cheesy dance number is the end of the world.
> never denouncing their views
Again, read what the man had to say about the Nazis after he left Germany. Also read about what Gandhi had to say about Bose and what Bose had to say about Gandhi. We've had an international airport named after him for decades. Bose is not even remotely controversial in India.
> the movie had a clear political agenda to it.
But somehow that wasn't clear to overwhelming majority of the audience who actually saw it.
If omitting a subset of leaders is right-wing bias, then every other movie made in India should be considered congress propaganda.
I agree that there is a streak of revisionism in the air within both academic and pop history in India at the moment. However, it is not clear if this simply a long-overdue correction to 75 years of propaganda or if somehow, all history written by the prevailing powers of the last century were perfectly unbiased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose?wprov=sfti...
He went to Germany to escape the British after a failed insurrection and hoped to ally with the Nazi’s to lead an invasion into India to free it. The Japanese prisoners of war
You’re conflating his later efforts in Japan with his initial allyship with the Nazi party.
This is a very common smudging of history that happens in our Indian history books (the CBSE approved books in particular do this) to make things seem more justified.
> "I swear by God this holy oath that I will obey the leader of the German race and state, Adolf Hitler, as the commander of the German armed forces in the fight for India, whose leader is Subhas Chandra Bose".
This is alignment in every way, so I’m not sure why you’d put that in quotes.
if you don’t find it enjoyable, that doesn’t mean doubting the veracity of my stated opinion. You may however disagree
Like many (most?) Westerners, I obviously appreciated the anti-colonialism aspect, but had no idea about all of that other context.
I am deeply appreciative.
There’s no scenario in which slate/vox would have written a ideologically uncoated positive review of this movie.
That these websites practically thrive on conjuring up issues even where none exists should surprise no one.
Yes. I also consider every right wing media outlet to be between nutty and rabid. Horseshoe theory and all that.
I remember when India had conducted an airstrike on terrorist camps , INDIAN channels left w and right w alike invited their Pakistani defence guests and practically taunted them to start a war! (which thankfully didn’t happen)
It doesn’t matter how far left they are or what that even means
And some of it makes me question the author's familiarity with the actual background.
> he’s seen assuming a wardrobe that invokes his namesake Rama
No, he assumes a wardrobe that invokes Alluri Sitaramaraju, the historical figure his character is based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluri_Sitarama_Raju
And this popular representation and the fictional fiancee named Sita come from a classic 1974 movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluri_Seetarama_Raju_(film)
Rajamouli is not exactly big on subtlety. If the troubling implications need so much ink to explain, maybe the implications aren't actually there?
> Essentially it’s holding up some of the more radical freedom fighters and downplaying the more pacifist and equitable ones
Sardar Patel, Chidambaram Pillai and Tanguturi Prakasam were not radicals, they were lifelong members of the INC and were committed to Gandhian non-violence. Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose were capital S Socialists, it doesn't get more equitable than that. This argument would have held weight if someone like Savarkar was included. As it stands, it makes no sense.
In the end , I haven’t ever seen anyone show me anything that didn’t also require ignoring Bose’s significant ties to the Nazis to have a charitable take on the man and his followers.
And you didn't come across any references of him advocating for authoritarian socialism? This was way before he went into exile or joined hands with Hitler.
But the end of the movie, makes it quite clear that it is a nod to right wing Hindu nationalism. The most pointed example is the exclusion, in the end credits, of the 2 biggest icons of Indian liberation - Mahatma Gandhi and the first prime minister Nehru( the British locked him up for over a decade) who were secular liberals. Nehru happens to be the great grandfather of the main opposition leader Rahul Gandhi.
As the right wing Hindu pre independence movement largely connived with the colonialists, the right wing government today is focused on appropriating a select few independence fighters and projecting them as right wing icons even though they were liberals or socialists. 3 prominent figures.
1. Bhagat Singh - a socialist who is now projected as a right wing icon and stripped of his Sikh beard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh
2. Sardar Patel - Nehru and Gandhis colleague who had some right wing sympathies, but actually banned RSS (Modi's organization) following the assassination of Gandhi by RSS workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Unity
3. Subhash Bose - A foolhardy military strategist who tried to partner with the Nazis to fight the British. Eventually, assisting the Japanese in Burma and helping them invade India. Gandhi was extremely wary of Bose's plans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose
Towards the end, it projects the independence fight as a largely Hindu fight against British and anoints upper caste Rama as a leader of lower caste Bheem. At this point, it seems that the exclusion of muslims, sikhs and some Christians etc. From the script as freedom fighters seems deliberate.
Bheem is a nod to lower caste icon bhimrao Ambedkar, who converted from Hinduism to buddhism to escape caste hierarchies. This could have been a positive inclusion in the story, but it is flipped on its head when Bheem is shown swearing fealty to upper caste Rama in the end. The Ramayana itself, has a negative attitude towards lower castes, which makes this highly improper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka [1]
Moreover the choice of Rama is sensitive in the current political situation in India as Rama is being used as a tool to bully poor Muslims on the streets.
https://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+jai+shree+ram
[1] You will notice that Shambuka is noted as an "interpolated" character in Ramayana. This almost certainly true, but the Godliness of Rama as an avatar of Vishnu is part of the same interpolation. The original smaller Ramayana is simply the story of an "ideal king". This was converted into a story of divinity by the interpolation of Godliness, sexism and casteism(uttara and bala kanda) . Wikipedia has been edited to clarify that Shambuka is a later interpolation, while the article on Rama and Ramayana simply forget to headline that the divinity of Rama is a later interpolation. The interpolation makes complete sense as the brahmins successfully solidified the caste system and inserted casteist and sexist texts into several ancient sanskrit texts to anoint the caste system with divine status. There is a small ongoing movement to refer to the current version of Hinduism as Brahminism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Brahminism
My wife isn’t Indian and she really enjoyed the film (which I did too as an action film) but I was aware the whole time of significant choices used to push the Hindu nationalist messaging. So I’ve been using it as an example of explaining the political climate in India
As a Hindu myself , but with a mixed caste/religion family, I’ve slowly been realizing how much messaging there has been in the media we consume as I expand on this with her.
For rural caste discrimination there are enough incidents like Hathras rape, but this movie gives a good perspective
It's a fantasy based very loosely on two historical characters. Bheem for the bulk of the movie pretends to be a Muslim and is sheltered by a Muslim family that knows his true identity. Claiming that this somehow excludes non-Hindus is farcical.
> Bheem is a nod to lower caste icon bhimrao Ambedkar
Bheem is loosely based on Komaram Bheem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komaram_Bheem and Ram is loosely based on Alluri Sitaramaraju: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluri_Sitarama_Raju
You are ignorant of even the basic premise of the movie. But hey, don't let that stop you from theorising grand conspiracies.
I could be mistaken about the mapping of Bheem, but given that Komaram Bheem is also lower caste, my meta point stands virtually unchanged. And that's just one point amongst the 10 I have made with references.
Moreover, it is very easy for me to see that you are upper caste hindu - about 40% of indias population. You should ask the rest of the 60% about what they read from the movie.
> pretends to be a Muslim
Yes, I watched parts of the movie. How does this matter?
Any elements that you might perceive as mapping to Rama is an homage to the 1974 classic movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluri_Sitarama_Raju
That representation is what is etched into the minds of Telugu audience.
> I could be mistaken about the mapping of Bheem
You are mistaken.
> And that's just one point amongst the 10 I have made with references.
Yeah, the rest them are either unfalsifiable or statements of opinion.
> Moreover, it is very easy for me to see that you are upper caste hindu
I'm fascinated to know how you came to that conclusion. I'm a half-caste with one side of my family entitled to minority status. Try again.
> Yes, I watched parts of the movie.
Wait, you didn't even watch the movie in its entirety?
The facts I mentioned are well cited and referenced facts that are well supported. Thanks for acknowledging that you offer no contradiction.
It is also obvious from your play with words - "half minority" that you are upper caste. Eg, Hindu Jain marriages are common.
> I'm fascinated to know how you came to that conclusion.
Lower castes - SC/ST would be irritated by the supplication by Bheem in the end. Non Hindus would find the conversion of a secular independence movement to a hindu religious paen and the exclusion of secular liberal leaders (the father of the nation and first PM) offensive.
This is a typical UC thinking. The only things that are offensive are those that offend me. If someone else gets offended by something else, there is something wrong with them.
I'm sorry, who bestowed godliness on whom?
> The facts I mentioned are well cited
You claimed non-Hindus were excluded and went into a tangent about the Ramayana.
> It is also obvious from your play with words - "half minority" that you are upper caste. Eg, Hindu Jain marriages are common
I didn't realise OBC Veershaiva Lingayats were now considered upper caste. Apparently stating the truth was playing with words.
> Lower castes - SC/ST would be irritated by the supplication by Bheem in the end.
Bravo, you reduced Ram and Bheem to their caste. Maybe if you had watched the movie before pontificating, you would noticed something else about the characters and their relationship. And interesting how you lump SC and ST together. If you do want to look at it from a caste lens, what does a Gond have to do with SC's? Or do they all look the same to you?
> conversion of a secular independence movement to a hindu religious paen
How the hell is it a religious paen?! Is this one of your facts?
> exclusion of secular liberal leaders (the father of the nation and first PM) offensive.
Exclusion from a cheesy dance number? Really, this is what is offensive?
> If someone else gets offended by something else, there is something wrong with them.
Offence is always taken, not given.
Where is the downplaying part in the movie?
Pros
* Incredibly stylized and fresh (not derivative)
* great bro-drama
* arguably best dance scene EVER
* Not deeply cynical towards society like everything made today.
Cons:
* Long (but still somehow incredibly fast paced and dense, just a lot of arcs)
* over the top (but shamelessly so, and taken seriously)
______
RRR is a tectonic shift in how Indian cinema views itself. It is worth watching purely because of its place in the Movie movement zeitgeist.
IMO, This is the first Indian movie in 10 years that makes it to must watch territory for universal audiences (the last one being 3 idiots).
But on the topic — I think this changes everything. Blender is now literally a viable alternative against behemoth setups that easily go in 5-digits (and 6 digits if you have hundreds of designers as some shops do). It’s now crossed that magical threshold where competent firms will choose it for their projects and any weaknesses that surface then, it will now be the, the big buys at big chops like the Mill or what-have-you, who will be contributing fixes and pushing Blender to new directions. Full alembic support, better volume-related features, some more UI touch-up, and we're almost all there.
I’m nothing short of stunned at the pace with which Blender is moving forward and it’s clear that come another 5 years, it’ll be a force to reckon with and a worthy competitor to dethrone Houdini.
[1] Not without reason. Read up on the depradations of the East India company
I think most educated British people now know there is quite a lot that was "problematic" about the empire. Interestingly there is a very good new British podcast called "Empire" which talks in a lot of detail about what the British did in India and it is not comfortable listening.
I would say the British Empire wasn't as cruel as the Spanish, Portugese or Belgian empires. But that is a very low bar.
I really enjoyed IP Man 2 for the one dimensional portrayal of the British antagonists. Disclaimer: I’m from the colonies.
The few clips I have seen seem to have no relation to the life of the historical figure whatsoever. It is so disappointing when they make a film with a real historical figure and then distort their story out of all recognition (e.g. "Dragon" for Bruce Lee and "Imitation game" for Alan Turing).
The films are mostly entertainment only - only the facts have been changed.
The movies are hilariously sinocentric, but enjoyable for what they are. Much the same as plenty of US movies being sickeningly rah-rah the USA.
Let's just say that nuance/subtlety is not a high priority of this genre of film. :)
I felt totally entertained at the conclusion. I even watched the credits roll.
Many of the CGI effects were pretty obvious but it made the movie more watchable in my opinion. The blending of real action with fake enhanced the ability to tell the story. It was great.
Kudos to all involved in this epic!
I'm curious what if any serious Indian movies there are. Are they common or rare? Pretty much every Indian movie I've seen is full of amazing and fun nonsense in one form or another. Not that I've seen more than 10 or 15 Indian movies, just curious what the mix is of serious drama vs, break into dance and or show crazy stunt movies is
For non fiction, Mira Nair's "So Far from Home" and Roberto Rossellini's "India: Matri Bhumi" are also captivating watches.
Sholay is a classic , in the vein of Eastwood films.
Don is our take on Godfather
Rang De Basanti and Lagaan are also great films.
Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Ghum , Dil Chahta Hai and other romantic dramas are also very serious but do have songs etc because they’re huge drivers of engagement.
In the west, people see the dancing as making the movie silly. But those musical breaks are prevalent in very serious films too. There’sa whole difference in cultural norms when it comes to cinematic language.
Still if you want a list of movies which are "serious" but still approachable enough (i.e doesn't gaze at it's own asshole) and fairly new, I do have a few recommendations -
Udaan, Kahaani, Satya, Maqbool, Khosla's Nest, Masaan, Detective Byomkesh Bakshy, Gangs of Wasseypur, Johhny Gaddar, Kaminey, Black Friday (2004), Aaranya Kaandam (not bollywood)
This list isn't some exhaustive "greatest" ever, just some oddball movies which stick out in my head.
Also keep it in mind this is just the list of Hindi/Bollywood movies which were historically known as "Indian" movies. Other regions of the country have their own list of favorites.
Tumbbad is somewhat considered masterpiece of indian cinema. It was made with just 700 thousand $ https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/hindi/movie-reviews....
>Pretty much every Indian movie I've seen is full of amazing and fun nonsense in one form or another.
They are the most popular genre. Production houses love them as they make them money and viewers also love to watch them as they can be watched by whole families.
>Not that I've seen more than 10 or 15 Indian movies, just curious what the mix is of serious drama vs, break into dance and or show crazy stunt movies is
Most of indian cinema is action genre with slice of life twist. There are also good serious movies with genres like drama, romcom, comedy, horror, history, sci-fi etc.
You must also know that Indian cinema is not a monolith like hollywood. There are 7 big 'woods' in india branched due to various languages. There is hindi wood (bollywood), tamil, telugu, kannad, marathi, bengali etc. Each have their own tasted with respective viewers. Over the counter action movies (like RRR) are most popular in south industries and viewers.
By whom? Don't get me wrong, Tumbbad is an excellent movie but masterpiece is over selling it. And the low budget for VFX really shows.
> kannad
Wince
and if KGF 2 is any indication, they should stop making movies altogether
Yup. It's inconsequential but I find it very grating.
> and if KGF 2 is any indication, they should stop making movies altogether
I absolutely hated KGF 1 and didn't bother with the sequel. I honestly don't understand why people compare it to RRR.
The language is called Kannada. Schwa deletion turns it into Kannad which sounds grating and seeing it written without the a is even worse.
> do Kannada-language films have a reputation?
I'll just say Sturgeon's law applies.
Off the top of my head
I personally found 90% of the movie to be great, but was let down by the climax. Went too hard on the CGI.
I went in thinking it was going to be some nonstop action flick, and didn't like it at all. It seemed like an overly long musical to me, which I've never been a fan of.
My wife on the other hand thought it was beautiful and loved it.
YMMV.