For those of us who grew up in the 70s, the stories of cabbages and kings and consorts came from hardbound books and colourfully illustrated comics. There was honour and valour, treachery and betrayal in narratives that captured our imagination. All it took was a “willing suspension of disbelief”. For students of literature, interpretation is fundamental.
For those of us exposed to films in regional languages, there have been retellings of stories from another’s point of view. The MT Vasudevan Nair-scripted Malayalam film Oru Vadakkan Veeragatha has Mammooty playing the central character of the tragic or anti-hero to much acclaim. The tale of the legendary ‘betrayer’ chathiyan Chandu had the film and actor winning many national awards. There are books like The Palace of Illusions where the narrative is from Draupadi's point of view. The cult film, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro , took a satirical view of the times we live in.
Book and films are replete with creative expressions that interpret or show people in different hues. This is the poetic licence creators use to exercise our minds and thoughts beyond the obvious. So the shrill protests over Padmavati reflect but a shallow view that people have of the essence of the creative arts. The film is a work of creative interpretation, not a document of history. And if it’s disagreeable, the power lies in you to switch off the television or walk out of the theatre. Or as former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee is reported to have said, counter a book or article with a book or article. Or film perhaps? And save those protests for issues such as fighting female foeticide, for instance, a reality that should disturb people and governments way more than any film.
Deputy Editor