This film shows only Ram and Sita going away for 14 yrs to the Jungle...But in the Ramayana, even Lakshman accompanied them to the jungle.
I think thats a Historical blunder !
Does someone else also think so ?
I don't think she was going for 100% historical accuracy; plus the three narrators mention that there's not always agreement about what the actual narrative is.
...For that matter Lakshman could've been in a separate hut, just not mentioned.
Yes Lakshman did accompany them to the jungle. Not only did the film completely cut off Lakshman but it also omits the whole Lakshman-Surpanakha 'nose job' episode.
But I guess as with every epic that was written centuries ago, there are multiple versions of the same story and everything's open to interpretation.
blah
I very much liked this re-telling of the "Ramayana," but I did find the almost total omission of Lakshman to go beyond mere "creative choice," and venture into some neglectfulness — after all, Hanuman was reasonably present, so Lakshman's absence feels less "decided" and more accidental.
share