Image source: WorldOfRamayana
Ramayana and Mahabharata, these two epics are the foundation of storytelling in India. Valmiki wrote the story of Ram and after this every language and every tradition presented this story in a new form according to its need.
Kamban in Tamil and Kritivas in Bengali gave a devotional color to the story of Ram. Saint Eknath wrote his own Ramayana in Marathi. Whereas, G. D. Madgulkar and Sudhir Phadke's 'Geetramayan' took this story to every home of Maharashtra.
In Jain tradition, Lakshman kills Ravana in 'Paumachariya' of Vimalsuri and in the end Ram becomes a Jain saint. This has been shown because non-violence is given great importance in Jainism. A. Of. Ramanujan told in his article 'Three Hundred Ramayanas' that there is no single original form of Ramayana. Every storyteller presented this story with the questions of his time.
Same thing happened with Mahabharata also. In Marathi, Iravati Karve's 'Yugant' and Shivaji Sawant's 'Mrityunjay' are two big examples of this. In this tradition, knowing the story in advance has never been a hindrance. Listeners and readers kept returning to the same story again and again, because every storyteller made some changes in it and there was some reason behind those changes.
Therefore, while watching 'Ramayana: Part 1', one question seems most important. This story has been told so many times, so what was the artistic need to tell it again through film in 2026? The commercial answer to this is simple. This film can be successful with the help of new technology of big screen, reach to the audience all over the world and religious faith of the people. But these are commercial reasons for making the film. From these we cannot understand the real specialty of the film, we will have to find the answer within the film itself.
The film takes the liberty of showing the character of Ravana in a new way.
The film does not begin with Ram. The first part of about 45 minutes focuses on Ravana. In this, the story of his family, his penance and his rise to power has been shown in detail.
Apart from being a successful warrior, Ravana is also a scholar. Just as he adorns himself with gold, he also covers his kingdom with gold. Therefore he is also shown as a just king. He murders a relative who misbehaves with a woman.
Ravana, an expert in black magic and tantra-mantra, is strict in matters of justice. This villain, a devotee of Lord Shiva, looks completely alive on screen. He has his own thinking and his own nature too.
End
The tradition of looking at Ravana from a new perspective is old. Sympathy towards Ravana's dynasty was shown in Michael Madhusudan Dutt's 'Meghnadavadh Kavya'.
The thinkers of the Dravidian movement read the Ramayana from a different perspective. The clearest example of this is Periyar's 'Sachchi Ramayana'. There is a special political perspective behind this thinking and it should be understood from that perspective.
Image Source Prime Focus Studios Monster Mind Creations DNEG
Special stories selected for you by Nitin Srivastava
Learn more
Mani Ratnam's film 'Raavan' (Tamil: 'Raavanan', 2010) also brought the same question on screen. This film tried to understand the political and personal reasons behind Ravana's violence. Therefore, full credit for this thinking cannot be given to the existing film.
But one thing has to be accepted. In the case of Ravana, the film has got the freedom to understand and show the story from its own side. It seems that this is where he found the reason to tell the story again. She wants to give the villain his own world, thoughts and morality. If this film has to prove its worth, the answer is found in the first 45 minutes. But this raises the next question. Why doesn't the film give its hero the same freedom?
After the first 45 minutes, the film switches to the story of Ram's birth and its pace slows down as soon as it reaches Ayodhya. In her book, Linda Hutcheon has described presenting a story in a new form as a combination of two things. One is to repeat the old story, but not in exactly the same way. The second is to add something new to it. In this film, except the part involving Ravana, the story has been completely repeated and there is almost nothing new in it.
making Ram's character flat
To defend the film, it is important to accept a few things. Everyone knows the story of Ramayana, so there is no need to give separate information about each incident.
This is the first part of the film, so it cannot be expected to show the entire story of Ramayana or end it. While showing religious characters on screen, the film makers must have kept in mind the religious sentiments of the people. The film must have been prepared keeping in mind the large scale VFX and the worldwide market.
But despite keeping all these things in mind, a question remains. Why is the thrill and emotional connection of the story not that strong in the film? Why can't its characters also leave a deep impression on the minds of the audience? After all, why is his personality and thinking not visible in the film as they should have developed?
In Swayamvar, Ram picks up Shiva's bow and breaks it. This is a great opportunity to show Ram's power on screen. In the film, Sita is happy when the bow breaks and the people present in the gathering are shocked. But all this happens as if it is already decided. Nothing new or special is felt in it, which would thrill the audience. Other incidents have also been shown as just happening one after the other.
Image source: Ramayana: Rise of a Legend, Sony Pictures
Here it is important to understand the difference between Ramayana and Mahabharata. In Ramayana, more emphasis has been laid on ideal behaviour, good conduct and clear rules of right and wrong. An ideal moral system is visible in this.
In contrast, in the Mahabharata, religion is explained through human decisions and their consequences. In this, the characters take many decisions in their lives, but those decisions also have such consequences which they could not have even imagined.
Even today there is debate about the rightness and wrongness of Yudhishthir, Karna, Bhishma and Duryodhana.
Ramayana also raises many disturbing questions. Like the killing of Bali, the ordeal of Sita and the story of Shambuk. A. Of. The books written by Ramanujan and Alf Hiltebeitel reveal the depth of these two epics. Still, the way of telling the story of both is different.
Despite being based on ideals, there is no dearth of conflicts and tension in Ramayana. In the first part of the story, the decision of exile, the incident of Shurpanakha and the incident with the golden deer clearly show these tensions. But the film shows Ramayana as a simple story in which everything happens according to a fixed system. The film ignores the conflicts related to those events.
This is where the issue of making Ram's character flat comes to the fore. To show Ram as close to a human being, it is not necessary to show him as morally weak or wrong. The price of accepting exile, his sense of responsibility, his sacrifice of personal desires and his ideal behavior are enough to give depth to his character. Being a role model and being an interesting character are not contradictory to each other. The real problem arises when the film starts showing a character only in his idealized form rather than as a human being.
All the events are present, but the thrill is missing
In the story of Ram, exile is the first test of his religion. When he comes to know that to fulfill his father's promise he will have to leave the kingdom and go to the forest, he accepts this decision without any hesitation. Arun Govil has played the role of Dasharatha in the film.
Arun Govil played Ram in Ramanand Sagar's TV series. That's why an artist from the previous 'Ramayana' is present here. Before him, Kaikeyi (Lara Dutta) and Manthara (Sheeba Chaddha) make their moves. Ram, Lakshman (Ravi Dubey) and Sita go to the forest for 14 years and the throne is left vacant for Bharat (Adinath Kothare). In the film, the exile remains the result of a conspiracy and the decision taken by Ram himself disappears from the story.
The faces of all the actors in this film seem to be from a different world. From Ranbir Kapoor and Sai Pallavi to Lara Dutta and Rakul Preet Singh, everyone's faces are decorated on the screen as if they have come from the world of the future. A glimpse of their old characters is also visible in the acting of many actors.
Sai Pallavi is one of the most natural acting actresses in Indian cinema today. His character also looks quite flat. This makes the weakness of the film even more clear.
It's easy to assume that the artist is being careful to avoid offending right-wing thinkers. What is visible on screen is that no actor is taking risks in his acting. If this guess is correct, it coincides with the film's biggest flaw. A film that is afraid of saying something and raising questions cannot make its characters come alive.
In the forest, Shurpanakha (Rakul Preet Singh) falls in love with Ram and her face is disfigured. This action of Lakshman is one of the most disturbing scenes of Ramayana. But in the film this incident also appears like a pre-decided incident.
The same happens with the golden deer and the Lakshman Rekha drawn for Sita. In the original story, Laxman's hesitation and his big mistake are seen here. But in the film, these incidents are shown only as obstacles that have to be crossed to take the story to the next stage.
In the last part of the film, Sita is kidnapped from Pushpak Viman. Meanwhile, Jatayu flies in the sky and confronts Ravana and a war begins between the two. This scene has been filmed grandly, but despite this it lacks emotional depth and thrill.
The same problem is visible in other small and big war scenes of the film as well. All the important events and big scenes are present in the film.
Like Hollywood fantasy movies
It has an old visual tradition of showing the story of Ram. Temple sculptures, paintings in manuscripts, puppet plays, Ramlila, Raja Ravi Varma's paintings and calendar art have created a special image of the characters of Ramayana. Pictures of Ram, Sita, Hanuman and Ravana are already present in the minds of the audience. The film had the opportunity to add something new to these old images, to show them from a new perspective or to create a completely different visual style of its own. But it seems that the film could not choose any of these paths.
The monsters in the film seem to come from the sets of 'Game of Thrones' (2011-2019) and 'Lord of the Rings' (2001-2003). The question that arises here is whether it is necessary to adopt the visual style of Hollywood fantasy films to make a grand film on Indian mythology?
In his book 'Mythologies', Roland Barthes has described myth as a second language which, due to being repeated again and again, starts to seem natural and normal to people.
Image source: Getty Images
Today, the moral thinking of Ramayana has also settled in the minds of people in a similar manner. Themes like the struggle between good and evil, the kidnapping of a wife and the eventual re-establishment of religion and moral order have repeatedly appeared in the stories of popular films for many decades. The pictures shown in Ramanand Sagar's Ramayana and calendar art have also created a definite image of the characters of Ramayana in the minds of people.
If the story of Ramayana is presented again in front of such an audience without any changes, then the impact is reduced. The audience does not get any new experience. Instead the film refreshes his old memories. If the film had to compete with these memories or create something different with the help of them, then the form of the story would have been different.
If the film had to move beyond these old images and memories, it should either show something new or use these same images to present a new perspective. But this could not happen. If the film could have done this, then its way of telling the story of Ramayana could have been completely different.
The memories of Ramayana in the minds of many viewers are not created by the Ramayana written by Valmiki. These memories are made from Ramanand Sagar's TV series, which the family members used to watch together on Sunday mornings. These memories are also created from the photographs displayed in the houses. The audience reaches the cinema hall with such memories. The film should have shown something new keeping these memories in mind. She could raise new questions from old assumptions or present the story from a different perspective.
Image source: Ramanand Sagar Productions
'Ramayana: Part 1' has been made in a grand style like Hollywood films and to watch it, huge prices are charged from the audience for the big screen tickets. In such a situation, every scene of the film should prove why the experience of watching it on the big screen is special. But when a familiar event is reenacted without a new perspective or a new perspective, grandeur alone does not create impact.
grandeur is not enough
Indian film 'Baahubali', made in two parts, had completed the journey of its story in the first part and had also created curiosity among the audience for the next part.
'Ramayana: Part 1' ends with the abduction of Sita. From here the story takes a big turn, but the events preceding it do not create their own thrill until the film ends. It is understandable that the story is still incomplete. But as its first part, it should have given the audience an experience that was impactful and satisfying in itself. This lack is felt in the film.
Respecting religious faith and preventing art from raising questions are two different things. Nina Pelli's animation film 'Sita Sings the Blues' (2008) tells the story of Ram in a completely different way. Darren Aronofsky's 'Noah' (2014) gives its own take on the Biblical story. Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' (2004) is a religious film, which stays very close to the original story. Still, some strong decisions have been taken in the film. This means that while respecting faith, the film can still have its own point of view. However, while comparing these films, their different cultural environments should also be kept in mind.
If we look for the answer within the film itself, it is found in the first 45 minutes of Ravana. There it seems that the film wants to say something. Instead of finding new meaning in the remaining parts, he has chosen the easy path of showing everything with complete respect.
To make a film an epic, its events do not have to be grand. It is important that its drama and its meaning be felt on the screen.
Ram and Ravana will face each other in the second part of the film, which is scheduled to release in 2028. It is possible that at that time the film might be able to give a different answer to the questions raised in its first part. Till then, a lot of space has been given to the character of Ravana and his world in this film. At the same time, the character of Ram has also made his place in the story. But the story of the original Ramayana is much deeper than this.
(The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author.)
Published by Collective Newsroom for the BBC.
Download the new BBC World Service app
Choose BBC News Hindi and get news alerts, live TV, podcasts... all in one place
Please note: The new app is not available in the UK and US.
short video
end of short video
