Director: SS Rajamouli
Walking out of Baahubali 2, my
mind was filled with concepts relating to the art of communication. Most of
them were surrounding the view that a movie becomes complete only in the minds
of the audience. Yes, from the most submissive to the most dismissive audience
member, everyone, in some form or the other, prods the movie in his or her own
way to understand what the director is trying to convey through the silver screen.
While watching Baahubali 2, I had more than one thought propping up in my mind; but not all were positive.
Take for example the last shot of
the film. The golden statue head of Bhallaladeva is thrown into the river on Mahendra
Baahubali's command to demonstrate the consequence of acting against dharma. The
head drifts and falls from the waterfall, tracing the path of Shivudu’s ascend
in the part 1. Rajamouli, the director, clearly wants to convey that
Bhallaladeva is falling from the same heights that Shivudu climbed and
eventually become king and stresses that life and the movie are a circle, what with
the movie ending the same way it began. Yet, while watching this sequence,
considering how the gold statue was made by robbing the common man, I thought
why can’t Baahubali be more economical in making a statement? Similarly, when Amarendra
Baahubali and Devasena fight in the war against Kuntala kingdom, I was wondering should the heroism of Baahubali be established at the expense of the home soldiers' inefficiency.
I am not nitpicking the film with
an agenda. No film is perfect and yet one succeeds, at least in first viewing, by making
the audience not concentrate on these trivial questions and instead on the intended narrative and USPs. Baahubali 1 did this marvelously.
It took a plot that any film or literature enthusiast would have come across in
life and made it mesmerizing by tweaking it in a novel manner; be it through
visuals or ingenious plot devices, all the while giving something for every character to do. The ‘how’ which made an ordinary scene into
an engaging one in Baahubali 1 is seldom present here. Going back to the war in
Kuntala kingdom, the ‘hows’ do come in the form of bull-fire and the archery
romance that happen between the leads. Yet, they weren’t packed enough to stop
me from asking those trivial questions. More importantly, the whole Kuntala kingdom episode which takes up a lot
of screen space is on one note to show how Devasena is in awe of Baahubali. I
would any day take the troubling romance between Shivudu and Avanthika over
this long drawn drab. Even the much hyped why Katappa killed Baahubali,
although convincing as idea, since it was squeezed beyond its milkable level,
tested my patience by bordering tv serial level of drama, especially by Bijjaladeva.
It also doesn’t help that Bijjala Deva continues this one trick approach
throughout the movie. Another highlight of Baahubali 1 was the ingenious and
street smart tricks in the war sequences. While the scale of visual grandeur is
higher here, idea-wise it sure is a letdown, especially in the manner with
which Mahishmati is taken down after setting it up with so much protection
strategy in part 1.
It doesn’t mean Baahubali 2 is a
disappointment. Conceptually, this part is equivalent to the first if not
better in terms of how the screenplay is designed intricately. Take for example the fire
pot sequence in the beginning of this film. What seemed like a typical hero
introduction scene (a good one at that) has more significance in the end, on
paper. On screen, it needed little more fleshing out instead of being content
with generic and random underlined punches. The portion that captivated me the
most was the whole stretch from Devasena entering Mahishmati till Baahubali and family are banished. Thinking back, the reason I seem to have enjoyed that stretch a lot is
because of how tightly packed it was with the ‘hows’ and the equal footing it
gave for all principal characters, something which was maintained throughout
Baahubali 1 unlike here. It also doesn't help that the whole living with people reminded me of Lingaa more so because of the Sabu Cyril connect.
Ultimately, all my concerns are
due to the inherent form of the two-part film. The first part was draped with
whys and hows as the characters wandered into the maze. Holding back key
information and unleashing them at the right moment was the underlying theme of
the first part. Heck, the character of Bhallaladeva was effective for the same
reason. Meanwhile, the second part, in trying to answer all the questions raised and to
give a befitting end, transformed into a neat labyrinth from being a maze,
consequently became less interesting compared to the first. Nevertheless, seen as a
single film, this is still a towering example of audacious imagination.
Comments