Jodhaa-Akbar (2008)

जोधा-अकबर

Ashutosh Gowariker's take on the story of the ecumenical court of the great Mughal emperor Akbar owes a debt to Hindi classics like Mughal-e-azam as well as modern Hollywood epics in the vein of Gladiator or Troy.  Epic in scope as well as in length, Jodhaa-Akbar does not quite hit all the right notes, but at its best moments it's effective, painting a story with modern resonance on a lush historical canvas.

The young Mughal emperor Jalaluddin Mohammed (Hrithik Roshan) dreams of a united Hindustan, joining both his own Mughal territories with the tribal lands ruled by the valiant and proud - and Hindu - Rajput clan.  He attempts to annex the Rajput kingdoms with a combination of military might and honorable rule, doing away with his ancestors' practices of slaying conquered kings and making slaves of their people.  Meanwhile a succession struggle within one of the Rajput kingdoms, coupled with the ambitions of certain members of both the Mughal and Rajput houses, leads to a marriage between the young emperor and a Rajput princess, Jodhaa (Aishwarya Rai).  This alliance - and in particular the marriage of the Muslim emperor to a Hindu princess - sends shockwaves through both the Mughal courts and Rajput palaces alike, and tensions flare even within Jalaluddin's own household.  Jodhaa demands respect for her religious traditions, and the ecumenical Jalaluddin is happy to comply, to the outrage of his Muslim advisors - particularly his closest advisor, his wet-nurse and surrogate mother Maham Anga (Ila Arun).  She begins plotting against Jodhaa almost the moment the Rajput princess arrives.  In the midst of this grand-scale political battle and the politics of the royal court, Jalaluddin has clear goals that are easier to state than to achieve - to unite Hindustan without bloodshed; to rule a peaceful nation where Hindus and Muslims are each free to worship as they choose; and to win the heart of his stubborn Rajput bride. 

This is truly the stuff of which epics are made, but it's a whole lot to fit into a movie.  Gowariker attempts to graft a classic filmi love story - where partners in an arranged marriage gradually develop real tenderness - onto a grand historical tale with all the full complement of battle scenes, palace intrigue, and allegorical resonance.  The result is a film that is not always sure what it's trying to be. 

It is one part a paean to Jalaluddin, whom history remembers as Akbar - the Great - and the film's Jalaluddin is certainly flawless almost to the point of dullness, with his limitless capacity for compassion and forgiveness, and his vision of a united and tolerant Hindustan.  Jalaluddin is presented as the first Mughal emperor actually born in Hindustan - these roots are part of why he sees himself as an emperor of the people rather than a conqueror.  The parallel between Jalaluddin and the generation of Indian leaders born after Partition is certainly not lost on Gowariker.  And just as Mughal-e-azam made its subtextual plea for Hindu-Muslim unity to a post-Partition audience, Jalaluddin's impassioned speeches about tolerance are clearly directed to the modern audience even more than to Jalaluddin's ministers and subjects.  Indeed, the film portrays his great proclamation of religious equality - abolishing the Pilgrimage Tax against Hindus - as the act that earned him the title Akbar.

In another aspect Jodhaa-Akbar is a grand swords-and-horsemen drama, with interminable battle scenes in which Gowariker shows his technical skill at managing sophisticated shots stuffed with thousands of extras and adding little to the film except a Hollywood sense of spectacle.  The alliances and betrayals swirling through the Mughal and Rajput camps add more in the way of substance, but even the best of these episodes of palace intrigue - the betrayal engineered by the terrifying Maham Anga - is reduced to shorthand and resolved almost instantaneously after it unfolds, with no real lasting consequences for the story. 

Finally, and perhaps most indulgently, Jodhaa-Akbar is a romance, developing a love story between the emperor and the princess in occasional moments of erotic heat embedded, unfortunately, in a large base of rather ordinary filmi conventions.  In one of Gowariker's cleverer moves, he provides the requisite gratuitous bare-chested shots of Hrithik Roshan exercising in the sun - firmly anchoring the scene to the story's arc by showing Jodhaa (who has not yet allowed her husband to touch her) slack-jawed with lust, surreptitiously watching him.  The effect is that even if the beefcake show isn't your thing - it isn't mine - the scene is memorable and appealing.

On balance, despite Jodhaa-Akbar's directorial indulgences, it's a satisfying spectacle, a solid timepass with a few elevated moments.  While its stars are too pretty by half - their bearing is more like movie stars playing dress-up than like a young emperor and princess - their performances are adequate to the film's unsubtle presentation.  (In a nice detail, Jalaluddin speaks high Urdu while Jodhaa and the Rajputs choose a much more Sanskrit-derived vocabulary.)  It is a waste that neither Hrithik nor Aishwarya gets to dance in the film. Gowariker attempts to compensate by giving them swordplay but it isn't the same; Jodhaa's swordplay in particular is a gratuitous and silly plot device, if pretty to watch.  But there is some wonderful music all the same, including two very memorable song sequences - the grand, imperial celebration of "Azeem-o-shaan shehenshah" and the gorgeous hymn "Khwaja mere khwaja" (discussed further by Sanket here).  The latter ends with the swirling dance of a troupe of Sufi dervishes, and in another of the film's touching moments the sensitive Jalaluddin is moved to join them in the dance. 

Comments

[Emily (Noelblue)]

Great review - I agree wholeheartedly that "The result is a film that is not always sure what it's trying to be."

And while I truly enjoyed both Hrithik and Aish's performance, I did also find, interestingly, that their looks were a distraction. (Despite, paradoxically, being a huge draw)

This is largely styling, and is subtle. But Akbar's salon-perfect, gleaming, pointy-side-burned coif, Aish's shimmering pink lipstick and subtle but throughly modern eyeshadow, it took away from my ability to completely enter the film.

Of course, the main culprit in that was, to paraphrase your review, there was just too much attempted, not enough quite achieved.

[Andromache]

Nice review! It'll help me ground my expectations for when I go see it.

From what I can see from the promos, this comment sounds accurate: "While its stars are too pretty by half - their bearing is more like movie stars playing dress-up than like a young emperor and princess." There's a lot of talk out there about how Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai look like royalty... But what does that mean, exactly?

As a side note, I'm glad that you and others are enjoying Azeem-o-shaan shehenshah. One of my friends helped work on that song. :D

[maxqnz]

OK, now I'm really wavering. I have been wanting to see this since the trailers first came out, and was planning to go and see it next week. This would involve 4.5 hours on a bus to get to the nearest cinema showing it, an overnight stay and another 4.5 hours back. I'm now beginning to think it may not be worth it. Your opinions matter to me since they are generally very similar to my own, and I sense from some of your comments that this movie be afflicted by shades of the sermonising dullness that strangled the life out of Swades. Is it *enough* of a big-screen spectacle to warrant travelling 300 kilometres to see, or should I wait for the DVD?

On a tangential note, does anybody know if there is any footage online of the qawwali that was reportedly cut from the cinematic release?

[carla]

Emily - neither Hrithik nor Aishwarya's looks is a draw for me under any circumstances; I find them both pretty in a completely uninteresting way.

Emily and Andromache: There's a line in *Monty Python and the Holy Grail* where King Arthur rides past some peasants scrabbling in the dirt, who then have a conversation about him. "How do you know he's a king?" one says. "He hasn't got shit all over him," the other answers.

I felt this way about Jalaluddin several times during the film. Not that he needed to be encrusted in poo, just that the entire film would have been more immersive if the actors were permitted to occasionally have a hair out of place. Gowariker got this completely right in *Lagaan* and *Swades*; in *Jodhaa-Akbar* he let it all be a little too slick.

max: In my opinion - and that's all this is - I wouldn't travel that far for this film. I don't think you'll hate it as much as you hated *Swades*, but I don't think what pretty there is in the film is SO magnificent as to be worth taking that much time out of your life. (The only film I've ever taken a trip like that for is *Honeymoon Travels*. So by analogy I wouldn't recommend that sort of journey for you, for anything less than Nandita ji's next.)

[maxqnz]

Thanks, Carla. I was beginning to lean that way anyway. I shall wait for the DVD. Better to think "that might have been impressive on the big screen" than "I wasted a whole day on THIS?!"

And FWIW, I didn't actually hate Swades in the way that I hate Black, KANK and Baghban. I was merely turned off by its crude sermonising, and disappointed that the sweet Gayatri was so under-used. It's still my favourite post-2000 soundtrack though, without a single miss, imo.

[Bitterlemons]

Carla,

haven't seen the movie yet, though it's playing in my city (at multiple theaters too!) because I can't find a babysitter for the weekend :( BUT I have only a hormonal reason to watch this movie - I found the stills posted in Bollywhat and the Youtube clips of the couple so HOT, I now want to see them on big screen! Especially the leadup to the In Lamhon song...shallow yes, but it *is* so pretty!

Also, while I find Aish's normal heavily madeup face grating and not so beautiful, I really do like her in movies like Guru where she doesn't have obvious makeup on - and in youtube at least, she looks somewhat similar in this movie as well...is there really eyeshadow visible - that is sad.

Bitterlemons

[a ppcc representative]

Very good points; loved the discussion of post-Partition allegories, since I was slow and didn't pick it up. Agreed that the movie didn't seem sure of whether it wanted to be Hindi or Hollywood, and the moments which attempted to mimic Hollywood (the huge opening battle scene, a bit like Gladiator or Spartacus, and the final one-on-one showdown between Jalaluddin and that one obnoxious guy, very much like a slowed-down Hector-Achilles scene from Troy) generally failed for me. At least, Gowariker is such a lovely director at times - more on this in the next paragraph - and yet his style was just so stilted and slow for the battle scenes. It was like watching something out of the 50s!

But, weak as his battle scene directorial style was, he is SUCH a bad-ass in other ways. He is particularly bad-ass at finding wonderfully evocative and fresh camera angles, they are so resonant and I've never found them gimmicky (as can sometimes be the case with other directors). For example, when Jalaluddin is compelled to whirl with the dervishes, those slow shots lingering on the hem of his coat, or his feet stepping around, and just his head rotating - guh! Gowariker is a GENIUS. That really struck me, it was so evocative. In some respects, he reminds me of Raj Kapoor back in the day - he too had some wonderfully interesting shots: for example, in Aag's Zinda Huun Is Tara, when the camera repeatedly pulls into Nargis sitting in the corner of that illuminated window - GENIUS!

(In case the link doesn't work, Zinda Huun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNx0UXh7eLU)

[maxqnz]

"Raj Kapoor back in the day - he too had some wonderfully interesting shots: for example, in Aag's Zinda Huun Is Tara, when the camera repeatedly pulls into Nargis sitting in the corner of that illuminated window - GENIUS!"

I like Aag as a whole for many of its shots. Always nice to see Aag getting another plug.

[Sanket]

I agree, that great rulers are much more believable if they are allowed to get their hands dirty once in awhile, i.e. Dilip Kumar in 'Mugal-E-Azam' & Russell Crowe in 'Gladiator'. Extreme examples yes but their characters had me actually wanting to succeed just because they weren't just pretty boys.

I found this movie much easier to understand due to the mix of Urdu/Hindi - compared to the aforementioned 'Mughal-E-Azam' in which the subtitles are a necessity for even a native Hindi speaker.

[yves]

Hi Carla,
Nice review: and I'm rather surprised at reading your benevolent position: there must be some good in the film after all then! I was really not very interested, and what you say about the chest-baring makes me want to run away, "appealing' though it might be.
Anyway, there's so many other movies to watch!
cheers

[Meera]

Hi Carla

I am must be the lone voice of dissent here. To be frank I am terrribly disppointed with your review.

I enjoyed watching Jodaa Akbar and I think Gowarikar has done a very good job on a difficult subject. The script is good and so is the acting of all characters including the ones supporting the story.

I think he has done a better job than Swades which suffered from being too long (bad editing) and being preachy and sounding like a documentary.

Most of my friends who saw the movie on my recommendation liked it too and thought it was worth the trip to the big screen.

This is one movie which definitely won't be that enjoyable on the small screen ie DVD

regards

[carla]

Meera: "Terribly disappointed with [my] review?" I'm sorry to hear that. What is the source of that disappointment? It seems you might have liked the film a little better than I did, but you're not that much more effusive than I was so I'm not even sure of that. And I can't imagine this is the first time we've ever disagreed. How have I let you down so?

Yves: I would think that an admirer of Aishwarya, such as yourself, would be eager to see this film, all other considerations be damned.

Sanket: Perfect heroes are very dull indeed. I did love the language in *Jodhaa-Akbar* - I very much enjoyed the contrast between the Rajputs' Hindi and the Mughals' Urdu.

PPCC: Camera-work and such technical things I don't feel at all qualified to evaluate, so I appreciate the comments of folks who know how to watch for those features. I do occasionally say "ooh, I like that shot," or will occasionally notice symbolism in the way things are framed or lit or what have you, but for the most part I watch movies in blissful ignorance of that whole aspect of the art. I will try to keep my eyes open when I watch *Aag* in the not-too-too-distant future.

Bitterlemons: Thanks for the commmetns. I don't think Aishwarya is not beautiful; I just don't respond to her beauty in any way. She does nothing for me at all.

[maxqnz]

Meera, you say: "Most of my friends who saw the movie on my recommendation liked it too and thought it was worth the trip to the big screen."

Would they have said that if the "trip to the big screen" was around 700 kilometres return?

[Meera]

Max

All these folks live in Metropolitan Sydney which as you may be aware (being from NZ) is really a spread out city! JA has released in Hoyts out here which does not have a good chain of theatres unlike Greater Union which has more outlets in strategic areas in and around Sydney. So for some of the folks it is a matter of making a long trip to the Hoyts in far off suburbs.

700 kms? I really dunno.

[maxqnz]

Meera,

J-A released through Hoyt's here too, and the nearest to me is in Wellington, around 350km away. I was REALLY annoyed when the release date was moved from the 25th of Jan, because I was in Wellington at that time, and would definitely have gone. Whenever I read people complaining about having to make long trips to see Hindi films, I'm tempted to suggest they try living in NZ for a while outside the 3 largest cities, so that they stop whinging about having drive half an hour or 40 minutes to see a film. :-)

[Meera]

Max

That is a long way indeed! So sad that you missed a chance to see it when you were in Wellington. I wasn't aware that the release date was postponed. I hope you enjoy watching the movie on DVD. I personally liked the movie for its good screenplay, direction, acting and music (background score especially). I think lavish sets, costumes and good looking actors alone cannot carry a movie (there are plenty of examples of that!). These are an added bonus in J-A from my PoV.

cheers

[maajhi]

"Whenever I read people complaining about having to make long trips to see Hindi films, I'm tempted to suggest they try living in NZ for a while outside the 3 largest cities, so that they stop whinging about having drive half an hour or 40 minutes to see a film. :-)"

Think of all the money and time you're saving! Not to mention the mental aftereffects of sitting through some true horrors. The gems among them, you can easily pick and watch at home on your X" giant screen.

[maxqnz]

"Not to mention the mental aftereffects of sitting through some true horrors."

You're right - the only thing worse than watching a KJo or SLB abomination would be watching it on the big screen. Guru Dutt and Raj Kapoor and the divinely beautiful Waheeda, otoh I don't mind watching on my non-giant TV screen. :-)

[Nida]

Carla-
I absolutely loved this film, much much more than you did (although I think your review is probably more accurate and completely unbiased while mine is more akin to a lovesick puppy). But I have to agree with you that some of the subplots were resolved wayy too quickly. For example, the one right before the intermission, while I desperately wanted the truth to be revealed, came out almost immediately in the second half. They could have made me sweat it out a bit more.

As for Hrithik and Ash, I have always found them to be too pretty to warm up to in their other films. However, in this one, for some reason, I fell head over heels for them both! I'm in agreement that Ash looks better with less eye makeup on, as she does here (I think they did a good job with her eyes--someone above commented on the shadow, but in film you have to have some makeup on lest you look washed out).

Max--I would go out on a limb and advise you to make the trip, despite what everyone else is saying, because I loved it that much! However, then I would have to take the blame if you weren't as smitten with it as I was...:)

[maajhi]

maxqnz, think Swades only more soporific and schoolplayish, and you have Jodha Akbar. Neither of the leads, and quite a few of the company can't act if their life depended on it. It's got pretty visuals, and a couple of good songs. For that, a 40 km trek is probably not advisable.

Irrelevant to you, but I'm not exactly a fan of the politics in this movie either. All the peace and love message notwithstanding, what we have in the final analysis is a Hindu Rajput woman who was forced to become the originator of thousands of Muslims in present-day India. The conquest continues..

[maxqnz]

Wow - MORE soporific than Swades - that must be nearing Veer zzzzzzzzzzzzzaara territory.

As for the politics, it's not entirely irrelevant to me, since I literally owe my life to Partition, but this ain't the time or place. :-)

[Akshay Shah]

Nice review here Carla as always..mines up on my blog..deifnetly Gowariker's weakest film to date IMO (not a bad thing being inferior to LAGAAN and SWADES).

BTW living in NZ for 20 years of my life, I can vouch that finding Hindi films in cinema became a LOT better before I left (I was a Aucklander now living in Sydney). The boom of multiplex meant Hindi movies were screened with multiple screenings akin to Hollywood, however the same couldn't be said for Welly and Chch....or any other parts of NZ which is sad...

mast hai baba