Ranveer Singh as Alauddin Khilji is the star of the show. He owns the character, its viciousness and excessiveness wholeheartedly, and delivers a performance that should make the viewer cringe but instead impresses. At one point, he casts aside a flower he is holding because he is disappointed that it’s Ratan Singh and not Padmavati who has come visiting. It makes him look like a sulky brat, which is essentially the basis of his obsession with Padmavati – the desire to own every beautiful thing in the world, no matter how.
The surprise comes in the form of Shahid Kapoor who, as Ratan Singh, holds his own in most scenes. Jim Sarbh is fun to watch as Khilji’s trusted slave general – creepy, maniacal and hilarious in parts. Aditi Rao Hydari as Khilji’s wife Mehrunisa too is impressive.
Though the film starts off well, the first half is excruciatingly long. We’re introduced to the proud and power-hungry Khilji, and within 10 minutes, the audience knows the kind of villain he is. While Kapoor and Padukone’s scenes do well to set the tone of the film, the ones involving Ratan Singh’s first wife, Rani Nagmati (Anupriya Goenka who has little to do other than pout), are plain unnecessary.
Here too, Bollywood’s obsession with song and dance interferes with the pace of the film. While the controversial Ghoomar is a visual delight (despite some pretty obvious covering-up of Padukone’s midriff, thanks to the Karni Sena’s protests), some songs only increase the length of the film without adding anything substantial to it.
The film picks up in the second half, becoming fast-paced and precise, with some great sequences, including a fight scene between Khilji and Ratan Singh. The background score lifts the scenes, most prominently the concluding sequence where the women, led by Padmavati, proceed en masse towards the burning pyre to commit jauhar.
Bhansali is adept at shooting extravagant, larger-than-life scenes: those of the fort, of the opulence of the Khilji dynasty and of the battle. But the visual effects team lets the film down. Whether this was a result of the numerous changes that were asked of the film (exactly how much was retouched one will never know) or just shoddy work, there are a few glaring continuity errors that throw the audience off. For example, Padukone’s unibrow is missing in some scenes. Similarly, she and Kapoor appear tanned in some scenes, less so in others.
The dialogue writers, too, have failed to stay true to the ethnicity of the characters. Go back a few years to Jodhaa Akbar, where Hrithik Roshan’s dialogues are richly sprinkled with Urdu. In Padmaavat, the Marwari accent comes and goes. For a period drama, these are glaring misses.
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.