This had to happen! Dynastycrooks are now officially seeing kafirs everywhere. These kafirs are haunting their dreams, these kafirs attack their churches at night when Dynastycrooks are sleeping. Do you know how many times it happens that a Dynastycrook is going to work in the morning and he suddenly can’t find his car keys? Or how many times a Dynastycrook is trying to read a book and suddenly can’t find his spectacles in their usual place? Who do you think is hiding their car keys and their spectacles? The invisible kafir army of Modi bhakts is doing this… and now they are taking over the movies too!
So, no wonder that Dynastycrooks at Open Magazine have detected a Modi hand in the success of Bahubali:
For instance, look at this still from Bahubali carefully:
You see that? Why is the hero lifting a Shiv Linga on his shoulders? Why not lift the Kaaba instead on the shoulders? What is the message that is being sent here?
Let the Dynastycrook explain his case:
“Baahubali in many ways represents Modi’s India and the vocal Right’s assertion of the ancient. The visualisation of Baahubali is definitely the only major attraction in the film. But it is the narrative that is hidden behind the obvious that arrests us. Baahubali is a fictional story with common motifs. Yes, it is fictional, yet the digitally created city is not born out of thin air; it is aesthetically representative of ancient kingdoms. The visual design is embedded in Hindu temple architecture…..The ‘smart city’ has met Varanasi’s Ganga aarti…..The modern Indian mind has used technology to deify the ancient. Some may call this reclaiming the past. Is this not similar to the Right’s agenda and its proclamations on our ‘hoary past’ that are doing the rounds on social media?”
See? S S Rajamouli came up with a conspiracy to use technology to make a grand looking set for his movie. The visual design is “embedded in Hindu temple architecture”… yes we know, in those dark theaters, S S Rajamouli is subtly brainwashing his audience with “Hindu temple architecture”, probably subtly telling them to construct the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. First a Gujarati came from nowhere, smacked the Dynastycrooks in the face and took over Lutyens. Now even a Telugu is coming to take over Bollywood? Where will this sudden empowerment lead? How far will it go? Will every settled aristocracy from the Gandhis of Lutyens to the Khans of Bollywood have to compete with commoners for their bread? The plot thickens:
“Is Baahubali symbolic of the 56-inch chhaati (chest) demanded by our Prime Minister to transform India? The physique is exaggerated to convey the courage and bravery that are needed to achieve one’s goal. Is this not what Modi was referring to in early 2014? His speeches are like that 56-inch chhaati; they are loud, out- there, chest thumping, intimidating and overpowering.”
The insecurity of this Dynastycrook is telling. Ever since he was handed his ass in the 2014 elections, he is seeing Modi everywhere. OMG! If Bahubali depicts Modi, how is S S Rajamouli depicting the Dynastycrooks? Just think of the scene in Bahubali where thousands of slaves are working to raise a giant golden statue of the evil king Bhallaladeva. There are statues and memorials of the Dynasty all across the country! And while raising the statue, the slaves make their anger felt by chanting the name of the rightful king Baahubali! Just like the “Modi Modi” chants that struck terror into the hearts of Dynastycrooks!
Is Rajamouli trying to say that the Dynastycrooks have taken over the country that really belongs to the people? Do people know about this? Does this mean that the game is over? What will happen to the Lutyens elite if people take their country back?
“As with the aggressive Right’s over-zealous attempts to describe ‘Bharat’ as being originally a perfect grand Hindu rashtra (state), the makers of Baahubali too have tried to create a fantastic visual fantasy of equal proportion. And interestingly, both narratives lack nuance and are unable to bury the ugly underbelly of that very same Indianness.”
Nuance? Ugly underbelly of Indianness? Hey…its just a movie yaar…like PK you know 🙂 If you feel like it, watch it. Otherwise don’t. Why get into this bakwas of what nuance should have been there or not? In PK, Aamir Khan featured Sanjay Dutt, a convicted terrorist sitting in jail who was an accomplice of Dawood & Abu Salem. And then Aamir said he was giving a message against common religious superstition! You didn’t care about the “nuance” or the “ugly underbelly” of this message against everyday religious superstition given by accomplices of Dawood Ibrahim, the man who massacred 257 people in the name of Islam! Rajamouli just made a movie, he gave you no gyaan, so if you don’t like the movie, don’t watch. How about that?
Oh…but the situation is indeed grim. The author continues:
“And one cannot but note that Baahubali coincides with the appearance of ‘modern’ re-tellings of Hindu epics and mythologies at the ‘smart’ hands of writers like Amish Tripathi and the emergence of ‘fanatical’ self-proclaimed Hindu activists such as Rajiv Malhotra.”
Oh no! Writers like Amish Tripathi are using their creativity to rediscover the Hindu epics? How dare they do that? Why not do a re-telling of the Islamic heritage instead? You know, long before Amish Tripathi was on the scene, someone actually tried doing that with Islamic heritage. In fact this is what the author did in the book he wrote: (quoting from Wikipedia):
“The title refers to a group of Quranic verses that allow intercessory prayers to be made to three Pagan Meccan goddesses: Allāt, Uzza, and Manāt ”
Yeah…the book was Satanic verses and the man was Salman Rushdie. And you wonder why modern Indians stick to Hindu epics and don’t try their hand at re-telling Islamic stories 🙂
Oh…and I have to mention this line from the article:
“Similarly, enough has been said about what can only be labelled a ‘friendly rape’ scene (I use this grotesque expression on purpose), which is without doubt the lowest point of the film.”
Hmmm…what is he talking about? Did the hero do something with his fingers? Oh wait, Dynastycrook Anna Vetticad has also written at length about this here:
Let’s find out what happened:
“She, a brave warrior, lies on the banks of a lake, falling asleep with her slim hand in the water. Unknown to her, he — an absolute stranger — paints a flower on her wrist….Enraged at the assault, she takes off in search of the offender. When they finally meet face to face, he grabs her, and then comes a sexual dance as he pushes and pulls her about, unties her hair against her will, strips her of her practical fighter’s clothing and skilfully transforms the rest of her outfit into more ‘feminine’ garb. He forcibly smears natural dye on her lips to redden them and lines her eyes with the essence of crushed berries. At this point, she glimpses her transformed self in a sheet of water, and quivers coyly before their dance continues. She finally falls asleep in his arms.”
So, what’s wrong with that? Let Tarun Tejpal explain:
See, Tejpal believed that fingering the woman was automatically consensual because she was “an educated, emancipated woman”. So in the movie, this woman is shown as a brave warrior and hence “emancipated”. By the Tejpal definition, what happened to her is totally consensual, no? So relax.
Here is the last line of the Open magazine article:
“There is no doubt that Baahubali is a victory symbol for the Hindu Right and specifically for Modi. They seem to have won this round, but let us wait forBaahubali: The Conclusion in 2016.”
Ha ha…unlike your Rahul baba, Modi has achieved plenty of things on his own strength. He does not need to have the success of Rajamouli’s film attributed to him. But if you are happy to torture yourself with the belief that Bahubali is a success due to Modi, I am happy to see you suffer 🙂 Enjoy 🙂