Originality, Execution and Entertainment....And Baahubali.
Spoiler Level: 10/10, for King Arthur & Legend of the Sword (KA:LotS)
Spoiler Level: 2/10, for Baahubali.
Spoiler Level 1/10, for Mayabaazar.
Spoiler Level 3/10, for Salaar.
Something I noticed in KA:LotS - both times the sword gets stuck in something organic, the organic matter turns to stone, in KA:LotS.
In the very beginning, King Uther uses this property to seal the sword in him. Once the sword is in him, only his son can pull it out.
Once the sword is pulled out, any one can use it, assuming they are willing to see the darkness in themselves. So, this is the reasoning Arthur tells blue he can have the sword, but warns it 'has a bite'.
For the full magic to come out, the cost is inner peace. For Arthur, this is a nightmare, both because of his past, but also because war is a continuing tragedy.
The property of stone was used again by the mage in the very end, very nicely.
King Vortigern gives the rebels the mage back (he seems to be underestimating women through the movie), in exchange for the sword.
Arthur is sent to be exchanged for the boy (blue), but the mage poisons him in advance to protect him from the snake.
What the mage does is this, essentially:
- She poisons him. Arthur is safe from snake #2, having its poison in him.
- Eagle is controlled, to deposit snake #1 in King's court / chamber.
- Snake #1 attacks King Vortigern.
- King Vortigern kills snake #1, to protect himself.
- Snake #1 was a decoy - the pillar turns to stone where the sword hit it, meaning only Arthur can pull it out. Snake #1 is dead though....
- Snake #2 becomes gigantic, killing all but Arthur and King Vortigern.
- Arthur pulls the sword out (again), and continues through the front door, as originally planned.
Such a clever way to end a 2-party hostage situation for the rebels - give them the leader of the resistance first, with the sword.
Take the mage.
Give them the heir and their only chance of revolution, but poisoned. Take Blue.
There is so much detail and thought in just a couple of scenes, this is an underrated masterpiece.
This level of thought is not unique to generations, or technology. Mayabazar did this too (Krishna's best friend is Shakuni, scene) and Salaar does a relatively decent job, too.
Minus points for the Thor / Captain America writing steal, through the Salaar Bros.
Criticism of Baahubali
Bahubaali doesn't meet this level of sophistication in an original way, nor does it execute well, nor is it fun.
I will be talking about 1 particular scene, to prove a larger point about the movie.
The context is when Raajamaata starts coming up with a plan to battle an invading force.
I am pretty sure Raajamata gives Baahubali a bad army, the same way Dhritharashtra gives the Pandavaas a weak kingdom when splitting the empire.
Assuming that's what Rajamauli had in mind when Bhallaladeva and Baahubali were given disproportionate resources, this is not an original concept.
Similarly, I was disappointed to learn that for a beautiful scene in Baahubali, Rajamouli was inspired by 2 statues*. I really liked that shot, and was, in my opinion, pretty close to Raajamata's portrayal in my mind in terms of quality.
It feels like plagiarism - whoever did the sculpture, deserves the credit, not the person who did the identical visual transfer to the movie.
Artists get inspired all the time - as a child, I heard that Sr. NTR inspired the look on statues of Krishna. In the end, artists need a model, Krishna is a public figure, a God, and NTR acts well. Such comments are more of a compliment to NTR, than plagiarism.
What Rajamouli did is he took core features of Mahabharata, re-skinned it under Baahubali (give or take some hamlet, the resistance, and CGI) and split it into 2 parts.
Irrespective of his seminal effect on the industry (which I agree with), and his creativity that I have noticed**, I don't believe those movies deserve a place on the world stage, much less Indian cinema.
Statue on left - Karna vs. Ghatothkacha. Baahubali and Bhallaladeva, on right.
Salaar's voting system is transformative. Voting is not new, in bidding games, game theory or real life politics. Applying such as a system to an Indian movie, with the potential for such thinking to carry over to sequels shows a lot of creativity, that has the potential to keep audiences engaged. (I was engaged)
A hostage situation with Arthur, Sir Bedivere, the Mage, and Blue is central to any espionage movie, and transformative in a movie that is supposed to have knights in shining armor, but not a slum.
If Raajamaata says 'I have spoken', Arthur says the same thing twice - 'Why have enemies, when we can have friends?'
Royalty vs Rajni Royalty
The scene where Baahubali uses cloth to trap his enemies through siege engines, is original, but bad execution - it's too obvious that Baahubali is being creative.
Krishna seeing Shakuni in the box of desires, and everyone being confused at the reveal, is well done - because the point here is that everyone was confused. After Krishna laughs it off, in a second, the movie moves on.
His reasoning is never really explained, and the viewer being smart, can understand the underlying message here.***
It's not like Krishna can say out loud that he wants the Pandavas to be happy, without risking an overt commitment to one side over the other, triggering a premature world war zero.
In war, timing is everything.
To show Krishan's mysteriousness, Shakuni is shown, out of context. So, brilliant execution.
Personally, I would give it some more points - I suspect that the power of this scene, is directly tied into the idea of showing a person in a box as a technological act that the directors could pull of using tricks.
This is different from the main point, as I am arguing along the lines of the quality, irrespective of technical manifestation.
But it's worth noting!
Entertainment is not something I can validate, or prove.
It's subjective, and 100% justified, no questions asked 👍
That is to say, where entertainment is concerned, all are equal.
I wasn't entertained by Baahubali's creativity - it was too on the nose, and obviously scripted. I found the screenplay boring, a lot of times.
I like seeing Sr. NTR, and I enjoyed KA:LotS, JJK, and Salaar.
To go on record: I believe Bahubaali, both parts, were terrible movies. I believe Andala Raamanna was better, by a huge margin.
I am disappointed that RRR was nominated, and Lagaan didn't win, nor a Nandini Reddy movie.
I also want to mention Kishore, as an honorable mention.
While I brace myself for potential hate, let's see how well my own works standup to others' honest criticism.
Post Credits - Arthur, Arthur, wind and water.
I suspect another property of Excalibur is its ability to be transferred through any body of water, courtesy of the Lady of the Lake.
In an anime (if you know the name, you know it!), Arthur is shown differently, and the elements of the excalibur are wind and water.
Nice joke from Monty Python - these gifs are handy!
If so much magic, and quality, is not enough in KA:LotS, Beckham is there, too!
*Netflix documentary on Rajamouli, Modern Masters
**Baahubali's motif is a horse, and Bhallaladeva's was that of a bull. Used pretty consistently, on shields, and I think flags too.
Bhallaladeva's chariot is pulled by huge bulls, too.
Their combat and aesthetics are pretty similar too - on the field, Rana charges head on, engaging in powered melee.
Baahubali seemed lot more nimble and accurate to me.
***First heard this from my mother, made complete sense to me when I heard it.
For people who didn't grow up in India, or non-Hindus, Krishna is often credited for bringing down the cousins of the Pandavas, as his life work towards Dharma.
Shakuni had the exact same goal, for adharma (vengeance).
Member discussion