Baahubali: The Beginning (2015) & Baahubali 2: The Conclusion (2017)
I'm going to write about these 2 movies together, since I watched them on back-to-back days, and kind of treated them in my mind as 1 movie- Baahubali, which is how I'll be referring to it later. So, here goes.
My overwhelming response to the whole thing was that the women actors basically carried it on their lesser-paid-than-male-counterparts shoulders. Ramya Krishnan, Anushka Shetty and Tammanna managed to give the movies a lot more depth than I was initially expecting, even though Tams was unfairly under-utilised. The second movie was way better than the first one, mostly because of the screen time given to the ladies. Honestly, Baahubali 2 should actually have been named Devasena. There is no way that one can watch that movie and not come out whole-heartedly stanning her.
Having said that, after watching Baahubali, I completely understand why it became the cultural phenomenon that it did. The trajectory of the plot is at the exact mid-point of simple and convoluted, so you do have to use your brains to follow the story, but not too much. Plus, it's thematically very similar to Mahabharata, so it's kind of familiar in that sense also. Another engaging factor is the background music, which is what I would call the most immersive aspect of both the movies. Also, of course, the special effects and all are very nice. I had to fast forward through most of the fight sequences though, since I am not a big fan.
Also, Prabhas was completely underwhelming. I don't know, maybe it's because I was favourably impressed by the other performances (Rana Daggubati, Sathyaraj, and Nassar, apart from the women obviously), but I somehow felt something was lacking in his portrayal of the epic heroes.
Baahubali is so not subtle about its casteism- the entire plot can be summed up by saying that it's a moral guide as to the duties of a Kshatriya and the duties of a slave. That's it, that's what all the drama is about. And of course, god forbid if one shows tribal populations as "us"- they have to be pushed into the "other" category by all means, whether by showing them as "dark, mystical forces" or the ever-popular "savages". Anyone who claims otherwise, or thinks that these are not important enough issues to be discussed, really needs a reality check. If we don't question the casteism and racism of one of the most popular Indian movies ever, that literally appealed to people in all parts of the country, what's even the point?
In conclusion, this was interesting for me to watch purely because of the cultural phenomenon factor, and the women. And also Rana, I guess. I was not expecting him to be this good? I mean, I've seen his interviews and he seems like a very sensible person, but the way he talked about acting made me feel like he wasn't very good at it. Plus this friend had a huuuge crush on him back in high school, so I always had this image of him as eye-candy. He is eye-candy, no doubt, but also a very talented actor. I appreciate.
My overwhelming response to the whole thing was that the women actors basically carried it on their lesser-paid-than-male-counterparts shoulders. Ramya Krishnan, Anushka Shetty and Tammanna managed to give the movies a lot more depth than I was initially expecting, even though Tams was unfairly under-utilised. The second movie was way better than the first one, mostly because of the screen time given to the ladies. Honestly, Baahubali 2 should actually have been named Devasena. There is no way that one can watch that movie and not come out whole-heartedly stanning her.
Having said that, after watching Baahubali, I completely understand why it became the cultural phenomenon that it did. The trajectory of the plot is at the exact mid-point of simple and convoluted, so you do have to use your brains to follow the story, but not too much. Plus, it's thematically very similar to Mahabharata, so it's kind of familiar in that sense also. Another engaging factor is the background music, which is what I would call the most immersive aspect of both the movies. Also, of course, the special effects and all are very nice. I had to fast forward through most of the fight sequences though, since I am not a big fan.
Also, Prabhas was completely underwhelming. I don't know, maybe it's because I was favourably impressed by the other performances (Rana Daggubati, Sathyaraj, and Nassar, apart from the women obviously), but I somehow felt something was lacking in his portrayal of the epic heroes.
Baahubali is so not subtle about its casteism- the entire plot can be summed up by saying that it's a moral guide as to the duties of a Kshatriya and the duties of a slave. That's it, that's what all the drama is about. And of course, god forbid if one shows tribal populations as "us"- they have to be pushed into the "other" category by all means, whether by showing them as "dark, mystical forces" or the ever-popular "savages". Anyone who claims otherwise, or thinks that these are not important enough issues to be discussed, really needs a reality check. If we don't question the casteism and racism of one of the most popular Indian movies ever, that literally appealed to people in all parts of the country, what's even the point?
In conclusion, this was interesting for me to watch purely because of the cultural phenomenon factor, and the women. And also Rana, I guess. I was not expecting him to be this good? I mean, I've seen his interviews and he seems like a very sensible person, but the way he talked about acting made me feel like he wasn't very good at it. Plus this friend had a huuuge crush on him back in high school, so I always had this image of him as eye-candy. He is eye-candy, no doubt, but also a very talented actor. I appreciate.
Comments
Post a Comment