Bollywood is misrepresenting history, asserts author Amish Tripathi
Author Amish Tripathi is calling out some (in)famous portrayals of rulers on-screen
Author Amish Tripathi recently saw through the launch of his latest book, The Chola Tigers: Avengers of Somnath. Taking to the mic at the Mumbai event marking the same, Amish made very pointed observations about Bollywood needing to take stock of the 'misrepresentation' it was projecting onto unassuming audiences.
Putting forth the examples of landmark period projects released in years recent and past, Amish specifically made mention of Khilji and Akbar. For context, Alauddin Khilji was played by Ranveer Singh in the controversial 2016 Deepika Padukone-led Sanjay Leela Bhansali release, Padmavat. Akbar on the other hand, was brought to life on screen for Ashutosh Gowariker's 2008 passion project Jodhaa Akbar, in which he starred opposite Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's Jodhaa.
Fiction not fact
Now while both actors were heavily lauded for their respective portrayals (though the context and direction came under severe scrutiny at the time), Amish's point is pegged on the fact that casting extremely popular faces from Bollywood to play rulers who looked nothing alike, given that they came from Central Asia, is essentially distortion of history.
Glaring factual errors
{{/usCountry}}Now while both actors were heavily lauded for their respective portrayals (though the context and direction came under severe scrutiny at the time), Amish's point is pegged on the fact that casting extremely popular faces from Bollywood to play rulers who looked nothing alike, given that they came from Central Asia, is essentially distortion of history.
Glaring factual errors
{{/usCountry}}Now while some may argue that what Khilji and Akbar looked like on screen can be forgiven for aesthetic reasons, Amish went on to argue that rulers of this time period never spoke Urdu, given that the language emerged much later in India. Their languages instead were more old world, like Turkish or Persian. Given that actors with contemporary faces are playing historical figures, and speaking in a language that was factually incorrect for the time period in question, Amish calls the whole picture incredibly misleading.
{{/usCountry}}Now while some may argue that what Khilji and Akbar looked like on screen can be forgiven for aesthetic reasons, Amish went on to argue that rulers of this time period never spoke Urdu, given that the language emerged much later in India. Their languages instead were more old world, like Turkish or Persian. Given that actors with contemporary faces are playing historical figures, and speaking in a language that was factually incorrect for the time period in question, Amish calls the whole picture incredibly misleading.
{{/usCountry}}Why this needs to be highlighted?
Highlighting the entertainment facet of cinema, especially period pieces, may be the first argument that comes up from naysayers. But Amish's argument rests on the fact that the industry holds a certain responsibility when it comes to portraying history through incredibly popular faces, as these narratives then go on to shape the public bank of knowledge and perceptions.
While Amish's book has hit the stands, films like Padmavat and Jodhaa Akbar are available for streaming on OTT.
