Amrapali, the story of a young woman torn between love and her beliefs, reveals not only the society of Magadha and Vaishali, but also perhaps the society and ideology of India in the 1960s. At the time the movie was made, historical epics were very popular. This was largely due to Hollywood's newfound obsession with them. Smaller film industries followed in Hollywood's footsteps and began producing their own movies of the past. The movie Amrapali is one such film, made in 1966 and directed by Lekh Tandon. Although it is set in the past, it very much pertained to and represented present beliefs in India at the time it was made.
One pretty obvious statement in this film was that of peace. Our main character, Amrapali, becomes a Hindu at the end of the movie in order to have and to live in a state of peace. The second to main character, Ajatashatru, Emperor of Magadha, chooses this path as well after he has utterly destroyed Vaishali and Amrapali's heart. Besides these prominent pointers, there are other indications towards not only peace, but Hinduism as well. Ajatashatru is very violent for most of the film and this is seen as a bad thing, the thing which ultimately separates Ajatashatru from Amrapali. On the other hand, Amrapali is seen praying several times in the movie. Even when destruction ensues for her sake, she is grieved by it. From all these different aspects, it can be concluded that peace and a god of some kind was important to the producers of the film and certain people of the time.
Despite the broad message of peace carried out in the film, Vaishali's strong war efforts were encouraged. Why is this? Seemingly, the film supports both fighting and peace. When Ajatashatru wants to war against Vaishali, his mother advises against such action, saying, " But don't forget that it's impossible to defeat the army of Vaishali, because they don't fight to maintain a king's rule. They fight for independence and to protect their self respect." Here, their war efforts can be seen as valiant and morally good. Later on in the film, Amrapali, our princess of peace, sets a figure of the king of Magadha on fire, a direct act of violence. Besides this example, she asks for Ajatashatru's head from a friend. Her defiance against Magadha and it's king is almost seen as heroic, so why is it that the war efforts and violence from Magadha is seen so poorly? The reason is, Vaishali was a republic nation and was fighting for it's liberty as a defense, while Magadhi was a nation of tyranny seeking after power by conquest.
Even though Vaishali's violence is somewhat justified by it's motives, is it fully justified, and does it match up with the message of peace? That depends on the definition of peace and the definition of violence. Are peace and violence simply words that label certain actions or are they words that label the nature of certain actions? Vaishali's defense of self isn't necessarily violent when the latter is considered. If protecting themselves in order to protect ideals preserved in their nation is the true motive behind Vaishali's fighting, it is possible they are not being "violent" at all. In order for the movie to have a message undivided, it must support some sense of intention being what's important and also a little bit of "ends justify the means" ideology.
Another dimension of the movie was Amrapali's struggle between loyalty to country and ideals and her love for a man. This struggle could possibly be simplified down to the struggle between emotion and sense. This is a struggle we all face daily. In the end, Amrapali chose sense and loyalty. As a result of this decision, however, she gains genuine love. Had she gone by impulse and been convinced by Ajatashatru to become queen of Magadha she would have received counterfeit love instead and a continual grief and guilt for the ideals she threw away. In Amrapali's struggles, the movie supports a sense of choosing what's right before what feels nice, and often nice feelings will follow.
Although the movie Amrapali supports peace, it also supports physical violence if it is justified by cause. The reason for this is that although the action may be violent, the heart supposedly isn't. Another ideal supported is that of choosing what is right over emotions. Oftentimes when we do, emotions follow anyway. These ideals and standards were very much upheld in India in the 1960's, so the movie was not just a reflection of ancient times, but also of the modern world.
Personal Opinion:
So far, this has been my favorite Indian movie. The only parts I didn't like were the amounts of skin showing and the ending. Besides these two aspects, the cinematography was graceful, the acting was superb, and the plot was intriguing. On top of these key elements, the dancing and song numbers were beyond amazing. Vyjayanthimala dances as if she is an attachment to the music, or vice versa. Her character is also charming and amusing, yet able to deftly switch into a mode of agony and despair. She, like Veronica from The Cranes are Flying, is an actress I won't be forgetting soon. If at all interested, I would definitely give this movie a chance!
No comments:
Post a Comment