If you are making a film, you have to decide whom you are going to serve. Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi is a Bollywood movie so its mission is to entertain and provide nationalistic propaganda for women. Someone like me, an American woman, could enjoy it because the action direction was impeccable and exciting, and I was hyped to see a woman (of color) kicking ass. I decided to see The Warrior Queen of Jhansi knowing that it would have a completely different approach to the same story. I expected that it would emphasize the titular character’s story in a historical context and be a historical drama that would humanize the historical figures. Both films have Indian women directors, but with different daily lives, which I did not know while watching the movie, but guessed then confirmed after watching the respective movies.
The Warrior Queen of Jhansi had a mother daughter writing team with the mother, Swati Bhise, directing and the daughter, Devika Bhise, starring whereas Manikarnika’s star, Kangana Ranaut, wrote, directed, and starred in her film. The Bhise team currently live in predominantly white spaces, like me, whereas Ranaut lives in spaces in which she is the majority. When you are a minority, you may not even be conscious of all the ways that you take your routine off track to consider the majority’s feelings, educate them and take care not to generalize or villainize them. While there is nothing wrong with being considerate and inclusive, it does take away time and energy that could be devoted to whatever you wanted to do for yourself that day, and if you are not careful, it could be such a draining detour that you have nothing left for yourself. It is like telling a story, and someone keeps asking questions instead of letting you just tell your story. If you are not careful, you never tell the story, and you end up talking about something entirely different.
Ranaut did not have that problem. She wanted to tell a story in which she could play a powerful woman, take center stage and she did. To quote myself, “With Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi, I signed up for an Indian woman kicking British soldiers’ ass, and I got an Indian woman kicking British soldiers’ ass and more.” With The Warrior Queen of Jhansi, I signed up for an Indian woman kicking British soldiers’ ass, and I got a movie about a bunch of British people talking about an Indian woman in which the Indian woman seemed to get less screen time than the people NOT referenced in the title! If you want to reassure me that this move makes sense because the British actors are more famous, experienced and better actors than the star, I would agree EXCEPT THE MOVIE ISN’T ABOUT THEM! Call the movie something else. I hate the bait and switch. I love Rupert Everett and Derek Jacobi, but I did not even know that they were in the movie when I decided to see the movie so I was happy to see them until I realized that they were getting more screen time than the woman playing the fracking queen, whom I was here for. If you can’t be the star of a movie that you wrote, then when can you be the star? WTF! This old-fashioned approach to telling the stories of historical people of color is something that does not work anymore.
Initially I was not alarmed while watching The Warrior Queen of Jhansi because it seemed like there was going to be a comparing and contrasting of the titular queen with Queen Victoria who for once isn’t played by an elderly woman. It would have been an intriguing way to show how their different leadership styles informed their actions. Also even though it was not historically accurate, I was willing to sign a waiver for the postmodern, anachronistic creative license of having Queen Victoria paired up with Abdul, who was not born yet, and Rani Lakshmi with Major Ellis as a parallel to show how both leaders used foreign advisers to get an understanding of the opposition and find a way to relate to them, but all queens must be relegated to the margins. Instead time is devoted to teasing a star-crossed romance between Ellis and Rani. I am the chief cheerleader of interracial pairings, but not this time. I was actually psyched when this movie fast forwarded through her early years, which include her marriage and childbirth, but if you are not going to focus on her marriage to an Indian man then do not make a fictional romance with a white man of one of the most powerful Indian historical women if it did not happen. It is an insult to Asian men who are already desexualized in the media and further promulgates the white supremacist idea that to be desired by a white man is the sign that you are truly beautiful. In areas in which people of color are the majority, white people are not considered a catch, and I find it hard to believe that an Indian woman fighting the British to survive would be looking at them, even the nicest ones, as more than an inconvenience albeit an occasional useful one.
The Warrior Queen of Jhansi makes the majority of the British soldiers sympathetic except for a couple of rapey ones. They are simply following orders. Queen Victoria is nice. The only villain is the British East India Company. They are all victims of corporate tyranny, and they remedy it in the end so it is all good. Um, no. I had the opposite reading while watching this story. Every British person knows that the villain is bloodthirsty, inexperienced, sexist and racist, hate it and still choose him over their personal beliefs so they choose to do evil, knowing it is evil, hurt people that they prefer in their own self-interest, solidarity with their countrymen, their race and their pocketbook. It may be an understandable choice, but the filmmakers did not have to accept it. I’m not saying that they had to villainize them though I would have preferred it, but at least they could have not let them off the hook so easy. Maybe they don’t realize that they can be angry about it, and that there are other choices. Many people of color don’t realize that anger and expecting that people make better choices is an option.
The Warrior Queen of Jhansi is a two-dimensional story that tells history in a wooden way. It starts with narration that it abandons until the end, and ultimately does not work because the story shares perspectives that she would not be privy to. At one point, the screen flashed, “Five years before 1853.” Why not say 1848? Why not tell the story chronologically? Then it writes, “Five Years Later.” Um, do you mean 1853 or the present? During a siege that moves forward ten days, everyone is standing in the same location as if a minute passed. The fight scenes would have been better in the hands of a different director. Swati Bhise is a dancer so it was disappointing that she did not adhere to the Fred Astaire school of filmmaking. The final scene is supposed to be fierce, but it looks odd. If you can’t humanize historical figures or breathe life into historical events, and you don’t deliver amazing action sequences, then what are you good for? Nothing.
The Warrior Queen of Jhansi was a disappointing debut for the directing, writing team duo. It would have made an alright television movie if it aired in the eighties or nineties, but considering that matinee prices are in the double digits, and it was playing in Boston, which is a considerable trek when our T is eternally undergoing repairs, it was a waste of my time and money. Skip it except for home viewing, and even then, save Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi for last so you can know what it feels to have an Indian woman take center stage.