MovieChat Forums > Bandit Queen (1995) Discussion > Don't take this movie as truth.

Don't take this movie as truth.

posted 18 years ago by infy_leo
15 replies | jump to latest

To any viewer who has or want to watch this movie....just take a moment to consider this.

This movie is NOT the real account of the life of Phoolan Devi. This is a work of fiction cleverly (or should I say cunningly) disguised as truth so to get it passed from the Indian Censor. Yes it was passed without any cuts and No it was not banned in India and is available freely in full form.

I won't be a hypocrite and won't defend any of the brutal deeds committed by high caste thakurs as shown in the movie But the fact remains that Mr. Shekhar Kapoor made this movie not with any feeling of sympathy for Phoolan devi But to make a movie with all the typical bollywood masalas so he could sell and show it to the West. After all India is Exotic, isn't it. And HE is a good director.

Mr Shekhar Kapoor didn't even meet Phoolan Devi once before making this movie nor did he take her permission. About the book on which this movie is based.....the director has taken too many liberties and has Only and very consciously selected those parts which could be made exotic cinematically. One such example is the scene in which Phoolan is shown killing 22 thakurs(climax) but the reality was that Phoolan Devi only killed those thakurs who insulted her not all 22 but Mr Kapoor didn't show that otherwise the cinematic impact(especially the foreign souls) would be lesson.

Phoolan Devi was killed by some unknown persons after a few years she won a parliament election. So the Thakurs finally completed their revenge. That incident made me very sad and Mr Shekhar Kapoor is no less a culprit than those murderers who shot her. Anybody who has seen his movie would consider that as truth. But who cares about finding the REAL truth. After all truth doesn't sell as well.

So watch this movie if you want but for God sake don't consider it as any real life story of Phoolan Devi. This is just another bollywood potboiler.

[–] darthmagwi 18 years ago

I just saw this movie and while I am not familiar enough with Phoolan Devi to discern what is truth and what is Bollywood, Devi was indeed portrayed as a sympathetic character. It is a complicated story that the director tried to simplify into two or three elements: Violence, caste inequality, and revenge. Whenever you put something on film you will upset some people, but here is the bright side, I am a Westerner with a new found interest in Indian culture, politics and language. That something like this can occur in the world's largest "democracy" is outragous, the buying and selling of child brides, rampant rape, and enforcement of a rigorous caste system.

[–] jpug77 18 years ago

Before i start let it be known that i will proabaly be biased. I love phoolan devi, i own her autobiography(havnt read the whole thing yet). I do agree that parts of the film are fictionalized. I will jsut give two examples. One is the way they dipict vikram being killed. He was shot twice but i think they were both sleeping at the time. Another part is her surronder. I got the impressions that she urronded because her parents were being kept in prison. She may or may not have been the one to kill the thakurs, but the fact is the thakurs she killed where beleived to be the ones who partook in her gang rape. Phoolan Devi did not like this movie, and infact told poeple it was not accurate. I still loved this movie because it does show us at least a snippet of her life.

P.S. I just wanted to say that it is not typical for young girls to be married to old man in modern india.

[–] zima11 18 years ago

actually - a young girl [pre-pubescent] marrying and older man is more common then you think. it is quite typical in certain parts of the country [the villages for example] AND keep in mind this is showing an older time period where it was still much more common then it is now - a more modern time.

so just because in your last visit to india you didn't encounter one who was married in such a manner OR you live in a city and never encounter the aforementioned does not mean that it is not typical. in modern cities it may not - but not that does not include the majority of the country.

[–] tanhaadil 18 years ago

Unfortunately this is a wrong account of Phoolan Devi. To show that she became a dacoit because was raped is in fact accurate and to deny to show the film to the very person on whom the movie was made confirms this (Phoolan Devi had to approach a High Court to get a copy and also get it banned). More over Kapur did not meet Phoolan before making the movie, reasoning that it would distort his view of , rather say, "his Phoolan"
Also Phoolan Devi's struggle started with a land dispute with her father's cousin.
Movie is sure a piece of art, but there should have been a clause that this movie was it was a fictional one.

[–] pk_000 15 years ago

this isn't bollywood...

[–] m.vandersteen 17 years ago

For more information about lies and omissions in this movie, read:

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/users/sawweb/sawnet/roy_bq1.html

and

http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/users/sawweb/sawnet/roy_bq2.html

[–] rvnrr 16 years ago

There is another version here by khushwant singh
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010811/windows/above.htm

[–] Xaositect_Crayon 16 years ago

according to her and 2 victims that didn't die she wasn't even there. And iirc the whole point was for the other dacoits to chase Sri Ram out of the village where phoolan would wait to gun down her husband's murderer. So it wouldn't make much sense for her to be in the village.

[–] deschreiber 15 years ago

There is nothing unusual about a movie based on fact to depart from the truth for dramatic reasons, although it's more honest if the film starts with the words "based on fact" rather than "this is a true story." For people in India close to the story, it may be a major concern. For outsiders, this is less important. We get the main points - children sold into marriage (yes, we know this still happens, as incidents show up in the news periodically) - horrific abuse of members of low caste by members of higher caste (the caste system is one of the ugliest social systems still existing anywhere in the world) - women treated as the property of men. So the idea of a woman rebelling violently against all this has terrific dramatic force. Phoolan Devi apparently did it, so what do we care if some of the details of her actual life were portrayed incorrectly? The big truths are there; the little fictions make the film a drama rather than a documentary.

[–] afro_747 14 years ago

This movie opens a window into facts only "an insider" can know about. There are things one can guess at but there are other things that would probably never cross your mind. The heartlessness and inhumanity are unbelieveable. But, when you hear/see such a story often that very unbelieveable quality helps to give it the clang of truth.

India has a rigid caste system that leads to extreme poverty, fierce hatreds, and the worst in human rights violations even to this day.

In the movie, Poverty apparently "united" people of various origins around the common cause of improving one's lot in life but any means. But, it is a very shakey "union" at best.

Certain of those poor who are of an "upper caste" background appear here to feel their birth status more than their poverty. This leds them to make common cause with the mentality of powerful "upper caste" people -- officers and/or landlords -- and to focus a lot of energy on terrorizing those poor who are of a "lower caste" background. This attitude is similar to that of Western poor whites who often place race ahead of economic condition -- especially those who join KKK or Neo-Nazi skinhead gangs.

Certain of those poor of a "lower caste" background appear here to prefer to go after (rob &/or kill) their oppressors, i.e. rich landlords and merchants, who are of an "upper caste" background. This attitude is similar to that of the English Robin Hood who robbed from the rich (i.e. rich "Nobles" I believe) and gave to the poor (i.e. mostly "Peasants" I believe). This comes out more clearly when the "lower castes" form their own gang.

Caste feelings (involving lack of commonality in birth status), in this brotherhood of the poor, are apparently stronger than class feelings (their common poverty) and this leads to an inherent conflict in the gang and it is not surprising things fall apart into bloodshed. It would be like a group of poor white klansman forming a gang with a group of poor black sharecroppers. That would be very, very, unlikely. And, this really makes you wonder, even with the poverty issue, how ever did such an inter-caste gang ever form ?

One can read about the caste system but who would ever even guess at such a thing.

I will allow that caste lacks the stark contrast of black vs white but still how ever did such an inter-caste gang ever form ?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kyzasoze2003 14 years ago

But to make a movie with all the typical bollywood masalas so he could sell and show it to the West. After all India is Exotic, isn't it.

Well this film in NOT a bollywood film for a start. It's more of a parallel cinema/arthouse film. And another thing, the India shown in this film is certainly not exotic. Not the sort of place you'd want to live.

One such example is the scene in which Phoolan is shown killing 22 thakurs(climax) but the reality was that Phoolan Devi only killed those thakurs who insulted her not all 22

Phoolan Devi was killed by some unknown persons after a few years she won a parliament election.

She was killed by Sher Singh Rana, he was identified by Phoolan's bodyguard and he also confessed saying he was avenging the death of the 22 thakurs she killed.

R.I.P Nirmal Pandey

[–] rafiqi 12 years ago

Despite the film's flaws, it can't be dismissed as just another Bollywood potboiler. Biswas's scenes of rage are too raw and true to be written off like that. How many films can you think of that do a better job of plumbing the depths of rage experienced by those who have been sexually humiliated?

[–] moviefan70 12 years ago

The movie was actually banned in India, but released later on for home video. The ban is the reason why Kapur left the industry.