‘Samrat Prithviraj’ was a movie that was supposed to rock at the box office.
Often described as “the last great emperor of India”, Chauhan ruled Rajasthan and present-day Delhi in the 12th century. The story of the eternal love of the king and his beautiful queen, Sanyogita, and the battles of victory and final defeat with Muhammad Gorsky occupy a special place in the history books.
Bollywood star Akshay Kumar, who played a historical role in the film, is one of the most accessible actors in India, with a huge fan base in the country and abroad, and recently said that the Warrior King’s performance is “proud that It is”. If his mother had been alive, she would have been proud of her.
But my expectations were dashed when I sat down to watch Samrat (Emperor) Prithviraj at a cinema in Delhi, India, on Sunday. Within two days of the film’s release, tickets were enough and a third of the room was empty. Critics called the film “lifeless,” “provocative,” and “sad.” A film critic Shubhra Gupta described it as “simple, nuanced, noisy and frightening.”
On Monday morning, cinemas announced that they had been cancelled due to unsold tickets and that the film had failed miserably. What happened?
Samrat Prithviraj has been controversial since the beginning. In recent years, Kumar has earned the nickname “Hindu Nationalism Poster Boy” not only for his films but also for his close ties to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. Three years ago, he was ridiculed in a television interview for asking the prime minister to eat, cut or suck mangoes from the sink.
Of course, this film was a good starting point for the government. The three states operated by the BJP have taken duty-free measures by lowering ticket prices and making them more attractive to the public. After seeing him on a special show with Kumar, Interior Minister Amit Shah said it was “an important part of the cultural renaissance journey to bring the country back to its glorious days.”
However, historians say the film is inaccurate because it was based on a poem by royal poet Chand Bardai. They say it is a fake account created in the 16th century, 350 years after Prithviraj’s death. The Mughal emperor is still under discussion
Critics say the film is the latest in a series of films portraying the Muslim minority in India as “foreigners” and “brutal invaders” under the BJP government.
Historian Arup Banerjee says the records are inaccurate. “The historical record cannot be judged by the standards of our time. These writings were written primarily to glorify leaders and leaders. ‘
According to him, the films are intended for a specific audience and have a specific purpose of being “politically conscious roles”, and the audience that goes to Bollywood movies like Pritviraj or Jodha Akbar or Padmawat does not look for historical accuracy. But Professor Banerjee says the complexity of history cannot be reduced to a dichotomous system of Hinduism and Islam.
Prithviraj went to war to defend its territory, not against the Islamic invaders. Resistance was inevitable as the Turks had to cross Rajasthan from the west to reach Delhi, which was a coincidence in history. Therefore, it is no longer possible to recruit him for the benefit of the current ruling party. ”
But now, at the height of muscular nationalism, “Isn’t it weird that a Bollywood Indian director finds a charming figure to bring Pretviraj to the movie screens?” he asks “They choose historical figures and this is part of the BJP’s ongoing campaign to colonize people’s cultural beliefs. The purpose of this film is to awaken people’s imagination, so we want to show that Hindus defeat Muslims. ”
South Indian award-winning Bollywood film turf Shubhra Gupta says many films are made “to glorify the past.”
“To make them so bright and scary, the public is turning a blind eye to everything that is happening now. It is happening not only in India, but in many parts of the world, where governments are uniting people in history for their benefit. ”
But to Akshay Kumar the main question is, “Why did the general public reject you?” she says.
“I don’t think it’s just a matter of film type, but I have nothing to jump off the screen. “A movie that lasts two and a half hours, except for a few minutes, is so boring,” he said.
Before launching last Friday, Kumar rocked social media with controversial remarks: “History books are full of information about Mongol invaders, but little about the glory and courage of an Indian king like Prithviraj.”
