It’s highly enjoyable though it is also very nationalist propaganda in parts, which foreigners won’t pick up on. For the most part it never becomes an issue because the brunt of the movie is fighting colonialism and therefore quite appropriate and incredibly good. The end credit scene is the only part that I’d consider problematic from a messaging standpoint as it takes a hard line on who they celebrate and isn’t subtle about the directors political allegiances.
Anyway would really recommend watching it. It’s a wild ride, and incredibly well done. If you’re not from India, you can largely ignore the issues with internal politics
Edit: Since people are asking for links about the politics…
Essentially it’s holding up some of the more radical freedom fighters and downplaying the more pacifist and equitable ones which reflects the directors political stance
How can you possibly seriously describe Vox as extreme? Perhaps they’re more liberally biased but “extreme”? There’s no world where that would be an accurate description
Vox is literally the definition of neolib trash. I don't understand how you can call it far left. People on the left don't actually mind the label, but don't call shitlib stuff far left. The left is explicitly opposed to neoliberalism. If you wanna read something actually on the left: https://jacobin.com/
What organizations do you consider to be sane, rational center/center-left (vox) and leftist (jacobin) media? Is it possible you consider every leftest media outlet between cookoo and deranged?
Media is mostly disingenuous and needs chaos or outrage to get viewership.
I remember when India had conducted an airstrike on terrorist camps , INDIAN channels left w and right w alike invited their Pakistani defence guests and practically taunted them to start a war! (which thankfully didn’t happen)
Rajamouli is not exactly big on subtlety. If the troubling implications need so much ink to explain, maybe the implications aren't actually there?
> Essentially it’s holding up some of the more radical freedom fighters and downplaying the more pacifist and equitable ones
Sardar Patel, Chidambaram Pillai and Tanguturi Prakasam were not radicals, they were lifelong members of the INC and were committed to Gandhian non-violence. Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose were capital S Socialists, it doesn't get more equitable than that. This argument would have held weight if someone like Savarkar was included. As it stands, it makes no sense.
I have in the countless times this has been brought up. My high school had a Bose statue and taught us a lot of his history as well to try and reaffirm his greatness.
In the end , I haven’t ever seen anyone show me anything that didn’t also require ignoring Bose’s significant ties to the Nazis to have a charitable take on the man and his followers.
> I have in the countless times this has been brought up.
And you didn't come across any references of him advocating for authoritarian socialism? This was way before he went into exile or joined hands with Hitler.
I can’t tell if you’re trying to be sarcastic? The Nazis were not socialist. The name of the party was itself a piece of propaganda. They had a burning hatred of socialists.
> The end credit scene is the only part that I’d consider problematic from a messaging standpoint as it takes a hard line on who they celebrate and isn’t subtle about the directors political allegiances.
I don't actually remember the end credit scene and I didn't pick up on any contemporary political references. Could you elaborate?
I updated my post with links for reading but it’s essentially subtle but insidious.
There’s a movement among the right to downplay the more equitable and peace friendly freedom fighters in favour of more radical ones, including ones with ties to the Axis powers.
Again, it barely takes away from the film since it’s just the final credits but it’s quite a clear signal of the directors outspoken political views
What are you talking about? The part where they refer to Indian freedom fighters? Because I thought they did a really good job of highlighting a lot of them, not just well known ones and across vast political spectrums. I mean they had Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose as well as Shivaji and Mirabai.
That scene was good till you consider a few factors:
- Bose was allied with the Nazi’s. I know it’s debatable whether the ends justify the means but he also held some fairly hostile views that are being used again
- there were notable omissions of freedom fighters who preached peace , but more importantly, those who were against the division of Pakistan and India.
I shared a couple links above in an edit, but there’s definitely an messaging to align with the directors more hardline views of modern Indian politics
A marriage of convenience like when Gandhi allied with the Ali Brothers.
> there were notable omissions of freedom fighters who preached peace
Three of them where Gandhians but OK.
> but more importantly, those who were against the division of Pakistan and India.
Nobody in the Congress wanted partion to begin with. But there was no leader against it when it became clear that it was apparent. Who exactly do you have in mind?
You don’t think it’s suspect that major figures were excluded from the list? And they just happen to be the same major figures the right wing governments try and move away from.
You don’t think being allied with the Nazis and never denouncing their views was an issue either?
Yes. Because it's a fantasy movie. Reading complex political messaging into it is rather silly.
> Your entire comment is a “so what?”
I don't think excluding Gandhi and Nehru from a cheesy dance number is the end of the world.
> never denouncing their views
Again, read what the man had to say about the Nazis after he left Germany. Also read about what Gandhi had to say about Bose and what Bose had to say about Gandhi. We've had an international airport named after him for decades. Bose is not even remotely controversial in India.
> the movie had a clear political agenda to it.
But somehow that wasn't clear to overwhelming majority of the audience who actually saw it.
God forbid 1 movie among 1000 misses Gandhi or Nehru in them.
If omitting a subset of leaders is right-wing bias, then every other movie made in India should be considered congress propaganda.
I agree that there is a streak of revisionism in the air within both academic and pop history in India at the moment. However, it is not clear if this simply a long-overdue correction to 75 years of propaganda or if somehow, all history written by the prevailing powers of the last century were perfectly unbiased.
Bose “aligned” with the Nazis so he could free the Indian POWs captured by the Japanese which he then used to build the Indian national army. Also, the Nazis were fighting the British who in India were enemy number one. He wasn’t antisemitic or racist so his alignment is pretty irrelevant.
He went to Germany to escape the British after a failed insurrection and hoped to ally with the Nazi’s to lead an invasion into India to free it. The Japanese prisoners of war
You’re conflating his later efforts in Japan with his initial allyship with the Nazi party.
This is a very common smudging of history that happens in our Indian history books (the CBSE approved books in particular do this) to make things seem more justified.
> "I swear by God this holy oath that I will obey the leader of the German race and state, Adolf Hitler, as the commander of the German armed forces in the fight for India, whose leader is Subhas Chandra Bose".
This is alignment in every way, so I’m not sure why you’d put that in quotes.
Great Movie. Nice to see us British from the anti-colonial standpoint, we always get cast as the nice guys but we have a shit ton of historical baggage, I think we deserve the odd movie payback to even things out.
I agree with this. I saw this in the theater in India and the overtly Hindutva stuff definitely got me laughing. It's not even subtle, hard to miss when you know the context.
I’m Indian and I saw it when I watched the movie. Your comments show you have a right wing attitude to these things and I doubt you’d have therefore picked up on it since it affirms a particular world view.
No, we're not. I believe the movie is just ridiculous in a very fun way. The other side claims that in addition to that it has subtle propaganda that promotes a Hindu nationalist agenda.
I did wonder about the Indian politics in the film. I did pick up a few bits here and there, but probably missed a lot. Care to say a bit more about that? If not, I understand.
What’s there to doubt? I’m not speculating that it will be enjoyable. I am making a statement that it was enjoyable to me (and my friends, along with many many others online who’ve raved about it)
if you don’t find it enjoyable, that doesn’t mean doubting the veracity of my stated opinion. You may however disagree
+1 on that. I only watched the action sequences in the movie as RRR is not the kind if movie I enjoy.
But the end of the movie, makes it quite clear that it is a nod to right wing Hindu nationalism. The most pointed example is the exclusion, in the end credits, of the 2 biggest icons of Indian liberation - Mahatma Gandhi and the first prime minister Nehru( the British locked him up for over a decade) who were secular liberals. Nehru happens to be the great grandfather of the main opposition leader Rahul Gandhi.
As the right wing Hindu pre independence movement largely connived with the colonialists, the right wing government today is focused on appropriating a select few independence fighters and projecting them as right wing icons even though they were liberals or socialists. 3 prominent figures.
1. Bhagat Singh - a socialist who is now projected as a right wing icon and stripped of his Sikh beard
2. Sardar Patel - Nehru and Gandhis colleague who had some right wing sympathies, but actually banned RSS (Modi's organization) following the assassination of Gandhi by RSS workers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Unity
3. Subhash Bose - A foolhardy military strategist who tried to partner with the Nazis to fight the British. Eventually, assisting the Japanese in Burma and helping them invade India. Gandhi was extremely wary of Bose's plans.
Towards the end, it projects the independence fight as a largely Hindu fight against British and anoints upper caste Rama as a leader of lower caste Bheem. At this point, it seems that the exclusion of muslims, sikhs and some Christians etc. From the script as freedom fighters seems deliberate.
Bheem is a nod to lower caste icon bhimrao Ambedkar, who converted from Hinduism to buddhism to escape caste hierarchies. This could have been a positive inclusion in the story, but it is flipped on its head when Bheem is shown swearing fealty to upper caste Rama in the end. The Ramayana itself, has a negative attitude towards lower castes, which makes this highly improper.
Moreover the choice of Rama is sensitive in the current political situation in India as Rama is being used as a tool to bully poor Muslims on the streets.
[1] You will notice that Shambuka is noted as an "interpolated" character in Ramayana. This almost certainly true, but the Godliness of Rama as an avatar of Vishnu is part of the same interpolation. The original smaller Ramayana is simply the story of an "ideal king". This was converted into a story of divinity by the interpolation of Godliness, sexism and casteism(uttara and bala kanda) . Wikipedia has been edited to clarify that Shambuka is a later interpolation, while the article on Rama and Ramayana simply forget to headline that the divinity of Rama is a later interpolation. The interpolation makes complete sense as the brahmins successfully solidified the caste system and inserted casteist and sexist texts into several ancient sanskrit texts to anoint the caste system with divine status. There is a small ongoing movement to refer to the current version of Hinduism as Brahminism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Brahminism
> At this point, it seems that the exclusion of muslims, sikhs and some Christians etc. From the script as freedom fighters seems deliberate.
It's a fantasy based very loosely on two historical characters. Bheem for the bulk of the movie pretends to be a Muslim and is sheltered by a Muslim family that knows his true identity. Claiming that this somehow excludes non-Hindus is farcical.
> Bheem is a nod to lower caste icon bhimrao Ambedkar
That Ram can map to Alluri, but the mapping to Lord Rama is absolutely loud and vociferous.
I could be mistaken about the mapping of Bheem, but given that Komaram Bheem is also lower caste, my meta point stands virtually unchanged. And that's just one point amongst the 10 I have made with references.
Moreover, it is very easy for me to see that you are upper caste hindu - about 40% of indias population. You should ask the rest of the 60% about what they read from the movie.
> pretends to be a Muslim
Yes, I watched parts of the movie. How does this matter?
The mapping to divine Lord Rama is unmistakable, and the Godliness bestowed leaves no room for doubt. The iconography of lower caste Bheem showing fealty to lord rama is how the movie ends.
The facts I mentioned are well cited and referenced facts that are well supported. Thanks for acknowledging that you offer no contradiction.
It is also obvious from your play with words - "half minority" that you are upper caste. Eg, Hindu Jain marriages are common.
> I'm fascinated to know how you came to that conclusion.
Lower castes - SC/ST would be irritated by the supplication by Bheem in the end. Non Hindus would find the conversion of a secular independence movement to a hindu religious paen and the exclusion of secular liberal leaders (the father of the nation and first PM) offensive.
This is a typical UC thinking. The only things that are offensive are those that offend me. If someone else gets offended by something else, there is something wrong with them.
You claimed non-Hindus were excluded and went into a tangent about the Ramayana.
> It is also obvious from your play with words - "half minority" that you are upper caste. Eg, Hindu Jain marriages are common
I didn't realise OBC Veershaiva Lingayats were now considered upper caste. Apparently stating the truth was playing with words.
> Lower castes - SC/ST would be irritated by the supplication by Bheem in the end.
Bravo, you reduced Ram and Bheem to their caste. Maybe if you had watched the movie before pontificating, you would noticed something else about the characters and their relationship. And interesting how you lump SC and ST together. If you do want to look at it from a caste lens, what does a Gond have to do with SC's? Or do they all look the same to you?
> conversion of a secular independence movement to a hindu religious paen
How the hell is it a religious paen?! Is this one of your facts?
> exclusion of secular liberal leaders (the father of the nation and first PM) offensive.
Exclusion from a cheesy dance number? Really, this is what is offensive?
> If someone else gets offended by something else, there is something wrong with them.
Thank you for adding to the list of subtleties that foreigners wouldn’t pick up on. These are great points and I’m very appreciative you took the time to list them
My wife isn’t Indian and she really enjoyed the film (which I did too as an action film) but I was aware the whole time of significant choices used to push the Hindu nationalist messaging. So I’ve been using it as an example of explaining the political climate in India
As a Hindu myself , but with a mixed caste/religion family, I’ve slowly been realizing how much messaging there has been in the media we consume as I expand on this with her.
Anyway would really recommend watching it. It’s a wild ride, and incredibly well done. If you’re not from India, you can largely ignore the issues with internal politics
Edit: Since people are asking for links about the politics…
https://www.vox.com/23220275/rrr-netflix-tollywood-hindutva-...
https://slate.com/culture/2022/06/rrr-review-indian-blockbus...
Essentially it’s holding up some of the more radical freedom fighters and downplaying the more pacifist and equitable ones which reflects the directors political stance