While watching the film, viewers are taken on a rollercoaster of emotions. The two protagonists’ relationship keeps us in suspense. They start as friends, but we know that conflict is looming between them because of their opposing views. Indeed, they become enemies, but in a shocking reversal, they put aside their differences and become friends again. The movie definitely pulled on my heartstrings.
An article about the ethics of the film by Alex Woodson talks about how different people view the movie from different perspectives. Symbolism is lost for those who do not know much about Indian history/culture. Alex Woodson argues that clothing, flags, names, and locations are “all packed with symbolism” that can be interpreted as suggesting Hindu nationalism. The author of the article mentions that it is hard to understand the details about the inner struggles that were going on during the time. People in the U.S. may not fully comprehend the conflict between the two religious groups, Hindu and Muslim. The director of the film addressed the political topic while bringing entertainment through comedic stunts and supernatural action scenes.
Woodson’s article questions the selection of leaders who were shown at the end of the film. This list of figures did not include any Muslims, which could be interpreted as a political minimization of the role of Muslims in the Indian political struggle for independence from the British Empire.
Woodson points out the use of violence and blood in the film. He mentions the scene where blood splashes on a map with the words, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” This scene is very symbolic, seemingly going against a non-violent stand that Mahatma Gandhi (who was not depicted in the movie) had on the struggle for independence in India.
In a New Yorker interview, the director (Rajamouli) states, “Entertainment is what I provide.” Rajamouli claims that he is averse to any extremist position, while at the same time stating that he “hates” extremism, suggesting that he is more extremist than he wants to portray himself as.
Throughout the interview, Rajamouli tries to defend the political implications that critics state the movie implies. He says that he did not think that the movie would be interpreted as a “Hindu nationalist fantasy.” He states that he just drew on his subjective views, mentioning the historical figures he admired when he was little. He keeps reiterating that the movie’s purpose was entertainment, not a political statement. The issue is that the movie has reached millions of people and is highly influential, affecting the beliefs of people, so the director has a responsibility for more equal inclusion and representation.
Rajamouli states, “American audiences are looking with fresh eyes.” They may not have seen his previous movies as Indian audiences have, so they were probably less expectant of big action scenes. This seems to be a contributing factor to why the movie was such a big hit globally.
Sources:
Ethics on Film: Discussion of “RRR” | Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs (Alex Woodson)
The Man Behind India’s Controversial Global Blockbuster “RRR” | The New Yorker (Simon Abrams)
Leave a Reply