This Non Film Critic Points out All the Shortcomings in the Film – Adipurush

Everything wrong with “Adipurush,” from inaccurate descriptions to excessive westernisation, has been pointed out by a non-film reviewer.

The audience’s interest in the Ramayana-inspired film “Adipurush” has crashed and practically died down within a week of its debut for a multitude of reasons.

Beginning with the fact that this Om Raut misadventure is marketed as a version of the epic, individuals who grew up in Hindu culture are bound to raise an eyebrow, whether or not they expressly connect with the Ramayana-oriented belief system.

And people outside the community who want to learn a little bit about “Hindu culture” by casually watching a movie would be hilariously misled if they base their decisions on what they observe. Poor dialogue is merely the beginning of the problem.

Even though he was a demon, Ravan was a magnificent demon king because even the gods saw his indisputable brilliance.

Despite the whims of climate change, his realm was located in the tropical part of the Indian subcontinent, thus the Lanka of the Ramayana would have been considerably greener than we can imagine – not dark!

The movie’s details, which could have been a sign of great cinematic finesse, are only a distasteful imitation of some iconic details from Hollywood films: the death eaters that float around Lord Ram (Raghav) in Harry Potter fashion; Ravan’s Game of Thrones-style gait and his dragon-like bat for a vehicle; a charcoal-finished Lanka that resembles the evil version of Asgard from Thor; the Planet of the Apes-style ‘vahana

These remarkable intricacies were easily appropriated to the context of Ramayan, which is not just a luxury object but also a highly valued cultural relic. Knowing that it is an ancient tale, even Hollywood would have used exotic goblets in place of the gold-streaked black wine cups.

The visual effects in this Rs 500 crore film, which were spectacular but horribly misplaced in a tale that basically hurried to an end, may have been otherwise justified. This amounts to an insult to our cultural heritage and a mockery of it.

There may be no creative limit when it comes to making ordinary films, but when it comes to portraying a well-known work of art, particularly one with religious overtones, there is a need to complete such an assignment with a sense of responsibility.

Tandav is a dance form (the divine dance performed by Lord Shiva), and the Tandav Stotra is a hymn composed by Ravan in praise of the god — it is not a victory jingle! This inept recitation of a portion of the Tandav Stotra by Ravan before Sita only betrays the embarrassing lack of research by the makers!

The researchers and artists would have provided better research and illustrations, guiding the filmmakers to portray the details of the era (the architecture and artefacts) with some semblance of authenticity, even if they had been hired for just Rs 500 per day. They would have been among the few research scholars and artists struggling to find stable employment.

Simply said, the mistakes and misrepresentations keep happening. A few representations are overstated in addition to being factually inaccurate. Instead of immortality, Brahma bestowed to Ravan the blessing of invincibility and protection from all gods, demons, celestial spirits, serpents, and wild animals.

He was killed by a person, Lord Ram, as a result. While Hiranyakashyap, the demon king from the Pauranic literature, who was destroyed by Lord Vishnu in his Narasimha (half man, half lion) form, actually received the death-evading blessing, the movie mashes up mythological figures from many scriptures and shows Ravan enjoying it.

The’swarna jheel’ invention also makes the occult warrior prince Meghnad almost a fictional character. In the midst of a conflict at its turning point, treating Lakshman with what appeared to be a shallow neon Sanjeevani juice bath was going too far without regard for basic reason.

Even the film’s name, “Adipurush,” is wrong and completely dumb. The term, which is properly translated as “the first man,” is meaningless in the context of Ramayan. ‘The first god’ is what the phrase adidev signifies.

Arun Govil, who played Lord Ram in Ramanand Sagar’s “Ramayan” (the 1987 TV series), is one of several Ramayan-related actors who has voiced his disapproval. He had a good point when he said that the Lord and the Ramayan are beyond “modernization” and that there is no need to try and disrespect people’s devotion.

However, it is still the duty of the director to recognise and maintain the boundary between artistic licence and deception.

‘Adipurush’ is undoubtedly a profoundly terrible misadventure, yet one can question why such a movie even exists. How, furthermore, did the Censor Board see no need to “regulate” its content?

Even before “Adipurush” was launched, word spread that Nitesh Tiwari was producing a “Ramayana” with Alia Bhatt and Ranbir Kapoor as Sita and Ram.