Two months after its theatre release, the movie ‘Adipurush’ is now streaming on OTT platforms. Since I did not bother to watch this movie in the theatres, I got to watch it on Prime. After watching the movie, I strongly stand with Aashish Sharma’s words, the actor who played Lord Ram in the TV show ‘Siya Ke Ram’. He said, “The film lacks intent and research. It is a lazy attempt at making Ramayana and it’s like you’ve made it out of WhatsApp forwards.”

Aashish Sharma was, in my opinion, the best actor as Lord Ram, and surely fans of ‘Siya Ke Ram’ (or ‘Seethaiyin Raman’ in Tamil) will agree with me. In comparison, the casting choice of Adipurush was poorly made, with no forethought about the real characters and their descriptions as portrayed in our scriptures. Even the costume designs and other depictions were disastrous!

Let us talk about everything that has gone wrong for Ravana and Lanka. I would even believe Saif Ali Khan to be Ravana, if only he was clothed correctly and his Lanka was depicted in the way our scriptures have described it to be. In Sundara Kandam, as Hanuman reaches Lanka and searches for Seetha, he observes the people of Lanka, the inner quarters of Ravana’s palaces, the pushpaka vimana, Ravana’s wives and the mighty Ravana himself! Hanuman observes that every part of the palace is made of gold! Oh course, Ravana’s palace used to belong to Kubera, his half-brother! In the movie, however, everything was depicted in black and so little gold was seen. Hanuman observes Ravana as, “equaling a cloud, wearing earrings with a brilliant shine with red eyes and with long arms wearing gold clothes,” and “filled with excellent jewellery, with a good appearance, with an ability to assume desired form.”

But what did we get in Adipurush? Lankesh aka Ravana, flying on a giant bat, with flocks of bats flying behind him. Lanka itself was very poorly depicted, unlike the descriptions in the Sundara Kandam of the Ramayana, which claim Lanka to be as follows, ” The earth was made to be full of mountain ranges. The mountains were made to be abounded of trees. The trees were made to be full of flowers. The flower was made to be full of filaments and petals.” Instead, Lanka was portrayed as dark and gloomy, which gives rise to a very uncomfortable feeling. So much of CG and AI were used, the movie seemed to be a poor attempt with no proper research.

I wonder what was the purpose Om Raut had in mind while making this movie. Arnab Goswami dubbed this as “HinduReawakening” while interviewing Om Raut and Manoj Muntashir on Republic. Om Raut said in the interview, “Nobody has the capacity to understand Ramayana… and the little bit I have understood of the Ramayan, is the something that I have tried to portray on to the celluloid…” He compares the portrayal of his understanding of Ramayana, to that of a kid who draws a picture of Lord Ram, which may not look so nice, but the Bhakti expressed it still there. I have no doubt Om Raut has so much Bhakti for Lord Ram, but he has taken so much liberty in his portrayal of the Ramayan, to the extent that it is resembling the western fantasy movies like the Harry Potter series, Game of Thrones or LOTR.

With epics like Ramayan and Mahabharat, it is best to stick to the ample descriptions and dialogues already given in the extensive scriptures, and only slightly re-interpret them (if at all needed). The best example of such a re-interpretation I could think of was why Draupadi decided to marry all five of the Pandava brothers, which was not clearly explained in the scripture itself. Knowing very well that marrying multiple men is adharma, Draupadi nevertheless takes this decision, and all five brothers along with her, take up a life filled with penance. Committing an adharmic act for upholding greater dharma is called apad dharma, and this was very well explained in the Star TV series ‘Mahabharat’.

What really irked me when Om Raut was asked about his depiction of Ravana, and he said that he wanted to show the demonic aspect of Ravana. He said, in an India Today interview upon release of the Teaser ten months ago, “Agar main demonic ke baat karoon, agar main koi rakshas ke baat karoon, asur ke baat karoon, tho mujhe wo aaj ke zamaane mein, mujhe asur wo dikhta hai.” Not to mention, he totally denies the importance of the pushpaka vimaana, when he was asked about why he used a bat for Ravana’s vimana. In the effort to modernise an epic, which he felt the need to without even understanding why Ramayana is already “modernised” as it is, he completely steered off from the original meaning and intent of the epic.

Is the Western/modern understanding of “demon” the same as “rakshasa”? Let us first understand what is a demon, in modern terms. The origin of the word “demon” stems from the ancient Greek, which initially did not have any evil or malevolence attached to the word. The English use of “demon” as synonym for devils or evil spirits. In Hinduism, however, the word “demon” cannot possibly describe a rakshasa or an asura. In Mahabharata and in many other puranas, extensive description is provided as to how the devas and the asuras were born. For example, from one of the saptarishis of the Rigveda, Kashyapa Rishi, gave birth to both the devas and the asuras, namely, the Adityas, Rudras, Vasus, Daityas, Maruts, Danavas, Nagaas, Gandharvas, Apsaras, etc. It is usually the Daityas (e.g. Hiranyakashipu), Maya Danava (i.e. the King of the Danavas, Maya), and Rakshasas (e.g. Ravana), who are often mistakenly referred to as “demons” in English. The distinction in this word association escaped the Bollywood minds of Om Raut and Manoj Muntashir.

Rakshasas are not demonic. In fact, Ravana was not at all demonic. Hanuman in Sundara Kandam observes the ladies kept in Ravana’s palace, as fallen in love and lust with Ravana, and all of them have voluntarily come to Ravana, with the exception being the great pativrata wife of Lord Ram, Devi Seetha. Ravana’s brother, Vibhishana, also belonging to the Rakshasa clan, is pure-hearted and stood with Ravana till the moment he kidnapped the good-souled pure Seetha Devi and committed grave adharma. When keenly observed and studied, you will find dharmic souls amongst the asuras and rakshasas, and you will also find adharmic souls amongst the devas. Just because Ravana belonged to the Rakshasa clan, even though he was born of Rishi Vishrava and the Rakshasa princess Kaikesi, that does not mean he was “demonic”. This clearly shows the poor understanding Om Raut had on Ramayana and why he utterly failed in his attempt at modernising and bringing the essence of Ramayana to the youth of this country.

Then there was the Pushpaka Vimana, which could rise up into the higher atmosphere at the command of Ravana. This was the same pushpaka vimana on which, Lord Ram along with his wife Seetha and brother Lakshman, and the host of Vanaras, together travelled to Ayodhya after achieving victory in the war with Ravana. In Ramayana, everywhere the Pushpaka Vimana is mentioned, it is always praised and described as “wonderful aerial car.” Yet, the director never bothered to include this in the movie, because then he would not be able to depict Ravana riding on a giant bat like in the Game of Thrones. Not everyone can become David Benioff!

The youngsters and the others who step into the theatres to watch this movie, are already familiar with the epic, they know full well what will happen in the story, they have seen all sorts of depictions before, and they have heard the story of Ramayan from their grandmas or grandpas. Om Raut was unable to match the expectations of the audience when it came to the historic perspective of the movie, in his attempt to modernise it, he has in fact distorted the history. Not to mention, the poorly written dialogues in an attempt to “simplify” and “colloquialise” some of the brilliant and intellectual conversations that can be found in the Ramayana itself.