“Although the screenplay was rich in cultural glory, it failed to keep apart misogyny from romance”: Kantara Movie Review

Warning: This review consists spoilers.

Director: Rishabh Shetty

Cast: Rishabh Shetty - Shiva / Director, Sapthami Gowda – Leela, Kishore - Muralidhar (Forest Officer), Achyuth Kumar - Devendra Suttooru (Landlord).

Official Poster of Kantara [Courtesy: Homble Films]

Rishabh Shetty’s ‘Kantara’ is currently busking in amazing reviews from critics and audiences all across the internet and also breaking records at the box office. The visual depictions and the cultural representation of the Kannada film are something Indian Cinema has been searching for repeatedly. The ideas of mythology and faith combined with the issues of land and power are key to the cinema, but does it live up to the ideas and issues it started narrating the story with? That is something most of the reviews are overlooking.

The story takes place across three generations, 1847, 1970, and 1990, to build upon the historical complexity of the land dispute that underpins the plot. In 1870, a king in search of peace travels the world and finds it in a rock amidst a forest, a deity called “Daiva”, who is worshipped by the tribals. The King is ordered by Daiva in the body of a priest, to grant a huge piece of land to the tribals in exchange for Daiva to go with him. Skipping to 1970, the descendant of the King, now a landlord holds no value for the deity and wants the land back legally but chokes to his death on the stairs of the court. Finally, in 1990, where the major part of the movie takes place, the land dispute is between the tribals and the forest reserve. Shiva (Rishabh Shetty), who is a local favorite and also the strong arm of the village, clashes with the Forest Officer, Muralidhar (Kishore) who wants to divide the land through official paperwork and stop the “encroachment” of the villagers. The power picture is given a third perspective with the King’s disciple and current Landlord, Devendra Suttooru (Achyuth Kumar), who is a father figure to the village and Shiva.

The film consists of phenomenal acting from all crew members, especially Shetty who gave goosebumps on multiple occasions throughout the screen time. Shetty also excelled in his directions in vibrantly painting the screens with the vivid culture of the Kannada tribes. The emotional connection the people had with their roots screamed from the screen, quite literally. It was also assisted by Arvind Kashyap’s masterclass cinematography, diving into the traditional village festival and the forest rain amazingly lit by flaming torch lights. The close-shot filming of the folk dance and action sequences added to their brilliance. Action choreography throughout the movie was top-notch and diverse. While the first half showcased a mud fight in the wildest form possible, it held its aesthetics as much as the final action sequence which was in a traditional dance format. The background score was on the same pace to instill the thrill of the movie and establish the relationship of the tribals with the earth.

Although the screenplay was rich in cultural glory, it failed to keep apart misogyny from romance. Shiva is shown pinching his childhood love interest, Leela(Sapthami Gowda), on her waist as a sign of affection while the lady is visually disturbed by it. It is also shown that the same lady, educated and trained to be an officer, when provided a job by Shiva’s power influence, falls in love with him. Adding to the toxicity, they normalize the slapping of a woman by her male lover to let off some steam. The sexism is so copious, the futile effort to show Leela’s power and rage in the climax towards the landlord fails at face value.

Kantara’s impeccable presentation of relationships between village, community, and culture is contrasting with its underdeveloped connections between characters. The single death, a key turning point for the protagonist, failed to create a sense of loss due to a lack of reasons to care. The person had very less screen time for audiences to empathize. Setting aside Shiva, most other characters were shallow. 

The story evades its grey and balanced nature of conflicts when the climax forgets about the villagers’ initial problem with handing over their land to the government and does exactly that, as the landlord is revealed to be the antagonist. The clash between Forest Reserve’s Sustaining ideas and the Forest Tribal’s survival efforts is an issue beyond the screen which is complex. The film’s real-world view on the topic is nullified as the peak of the plot point becomes a Bollywood Masala fight to rob the script of its gravity.

The movie deserves three stars for its iconic and recently controversial depiction of the Bhoota Kola festival, fabulous acting, and the best cinematography. While many compare Kantara to Tumbbad and even go as far as calling it better, the former is much more dedicated to its core idea and is aesthetically much pleasing. While the Kannada movie is made at a 16 crore budget, the Sohum Shah starrer was only made in a 5 Crore budget. In the opinion of this review, Tumbbad remains unmatched in its mythological, folk, and horror representation. 

Author:

Archan Kundu

(The article consists the opinion of the author.)