While othering is known as a huge practice in the Western world or minority populations, what some people do not know, is that this concept has reared its head into a country in the east as well: India. The historical Bollywood film, Padmavat, directed by Bhansali details the life of princess Padmavat as she marries a Hindu prince, but quickly becomes the object of obsession of a Muslim King at the time, Alauddin Khilji. While this movie is praised for its beautiful cinematography, acting, and musical numbers, there are many problems in terms of misrepresentation and othering that take place in this movie as well.

To start, the character of Alauddin Khilji is plagued with extreme othering and in a way plays into various middle Eastern stereotypes. He is constantly dressed in dark clothing, appearing in stark contrast to the often white dressed Hindu king. He is portrayed as someone who is a savage, through his loud behavior and barbarism that is demonstrated through his violent and inhumane practices of killings. This movie was directed by someone who is Hindu, so this type of natural portrayal of the Hindus as the heroes and Muslims as the enemies are almost common in Bollywood movies. However, as we approach changing times and shifting of thoughts to be more inclusive, should we not wonder, when is Bollywood going to turn the tide? While majority of the population in India are Hindus, it does not change the fact that both Hindus and Muslims alike view Bollywood movies as essential to their culture and Indian nationalism.

The second problem, is the historical inaccuracies. While many historical movies dramatize certain moments in history, it is not common that movies change big moments in history to fit a certain bias. Unfortunately, that is what this movie does. The Hindu prince, Ratan Singh, is portrayed as extremely righteous and noble. Historically, however, he is also known as someone who was rather violent, often going to extreme lengths to gain power, and ruling over his subjects with an iron fist. Many kings at the time, whether Hindu or Muslim, cared about what was best for the country, and was not considered about maintaining an upright character. In contrast, Alauddin Khilji is portrayed as cunning, ruthless, and a terrible person in the film. But historically he was known by his people for being mild tempered and rather pious. This again brings up the question, why was he even portrayed this way if it is a historical movie? If, in reality, their characters in the movie are opposite to how they were historically, would that not make for an interesting movie? Khilji as the hero and Singh as the villain?

The answer is tragic, yet harshly true. The movie would not be successful if this was how they were both portrayed. Many people in India do not like Muslim rulers, and since the majority of the country is Hindu, they have a certain view in their head of the Muslims that ruled them previously. Playing into this stereotype and othering them gives the viewer what they want to see, yet giving them a different narrative that is perhaps, more true is more of a risk, and might be a bit of a movie flop. This was a motive for the director to ensure a financial success.

Another important inaccuracy is the fact that in the movie, Khilji and Singh fight each other, and Khilji unfairly kills Singh by not abiding by the rules of combat. This sets up a binary opposition and others the Muslim population. Yet in reality, Singh was killed in a different war unrelated to his fight with Khilji. This inaccuracy makes me extremely upset. A part of the reason why many people side with Singh in this movie is this display of cunningness that he shows during the fight. But to know that this did not actually happen takes away some of the sympathy I felt for Singh when I first saw this movie. This fight seemed to fit this notion of Khilji as the “other”, because he was seen as the outcast in society because of his “savageness”, and killing Singh in a cruel manner seemed equally fitting. However, this is not what actually happened, further proving that this portrayal had motives to other the Muslim population in India and label them as outcasts.

I have a deep connection to Bollywood movies as a Hindu Indian American who sees Bollywood films as a way to connect to my culture and identity. However, this movie really disappointed me. As a Hindu, I do not want to see the same narrative played out in films. Growing up, I was also shown the same binary. Hindus are the noble people while Muslims are the cunning, deceitful, and evil characters. Hum Core and other classes that I have taken have shown me that this is not an actual opposition, and this needs to be changed. To me, it seems like Bollywood is almost one step behind, and this is somewhat making me lose my interest in something I loved so much. It seems like these films are forcing an identity on to me as a Hindu that I do not want. It is also trying to influence the way I view Muslim people in India that I do not want. All in all, this movie is a clear sign that things need to change in the Bollywood film industry. Othering and forcing binary opposition needs to stop, and Bollywood needs to rethink the way they are portraying various groups of people.

In the movie, The Imitation Game directed by Morten Tyldum, tells the story of genius Alan Turing and his life story starting from his recruitment to Bletchley park and through his decryption of the Enigma Code the Nazis were using for random and unplanned attacks on the British as well as his eventual suicide. The movie was lauded and nominated for several oscars, including a Best Picture and Best Director nomination. While this movie was a commercial and critical success, the message about empire’s treatment towards a man who contributed so much to saving millions of life is interesting to take note.

Alan Turing was known for many things, one of those things being his significant achievements in the areas of science and math. He cracked the infamous enigma code, a complex code that the British would change everyday in order to commit unplanned attacks on the people in Britain. In the movie, Alan Turing meets Joan Clark, and with a team of talented mathematicians, he finds a way to decrypt this extremely difficult code. However, after he does so, he is later exposed as gay and was subject to the cruelty of chemical castration. This caused him to commit suicide. This makes me feel extremely angry and sorrowful. How can a man who turned the tide in World War II be shunned and outcast from his society?

The answer lies in the cold hearted truth about empire that this movie touches on. The British empire had its purpose in using a man like Turing. Once they did use him, they had no purpose for him anymore, and suddenly all of the work that he had done was replaced with this new identity of him committing “gross indecency”. In the movie, Benedict Cumberbatch uses different acting techniques in order to get into the mind of master Alan Turing. He researched extensively about the kind of person he was: cold, quiet, reserved, and somewhat arrogant. He the defined his objectives in each scene as well as his super objectives. Once he knew what he wanted to achieve by the end of the movie, Cumberbatch defined his relationship that he had with Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), and more importantly, the extremely complex and deep relationship he had with himself. While Turing was not a man of many words, Cumberbatch portrays this silent confidence aura exuding from him beautifully. This is also further portrayed within the transition from this slight arrogance to the complete mental deterioration that he experienced because of the chemical castration.

Along with Cumberbatch, Knightley portrays her supporting role of Joan Clarke stupendously. While Cumberbatch carried the movie with his understated layered acting, Keira Knightley lifted the movie by being one of the only companions in Turing’s life. Knightley portrays this role perfectly. She shys away at times, giving Cumberbatch his moment to tell the tragic yet necessary story of Alan Turing, yet she shares the also important story of Joan Clark; the women who loved him. Knightley also portrays how Clarke defies the norms of her time by being one of the most brilliant minds in science and math, and being instrumental in supporting Turing in his difficult endeavour. As the leading woman of the story, Knightley packs in her own complex storyline of being married to someone she could never truly have. While many of us sympathize with the heartbreak that Turing went through, many people empathize with what Joan Clarke went through, as she faced a type of rejection that was never in her hands. Knightley also portrays her as a woman with many layers. On one hand, she is the science and math oriented woman who possesses an extremely intelligent mind, yet on the other hand she is also someone who fell in love, and never experienced that love back.

Through their acting choices, and the heartbreaking story of Alan Turing, Imitation Game is truly a movie made to share an important story. As someone who went to an arts school, I am in awe of the way both Cumberbatch and Knightley went about approaching these difficult roles. I am more in awe, however, with Mr. Turing. While he could have hid who he was very easily, he slashed away any misconceptions people had of him and was authentically himself. While many of us do not share the same story as Alan Turing, his passion and commitment to his work and the strength he exuded through being treated awfully makes him not only a true genius in the workings of science and math, but also a true inspiration as a person.

In the frankly disturbing yet almost necessary movie, 12 Years A Slave, Solomon Northup, a free African American man gets kidnapped and sold in the slave trade despite him sharing that he is indeed free. Once he gets to the plantation, he is met with extremely cruel treatment from his slave owner, Edwin Epps. However, his cruel treatment is overshadowed by the violence and assault that the woman on the plantation Patsey experiences. At the end of the movie, Solomon Northup makes a deal with Samuel Bass, a white man who opposes slavery, to make a deal with a slave trader to set him free. Once he does so he is able to go home to his family, leaving Patsey and the other slaves behind. However, the issues that this movie brings up is extremely relevant to not only the slave empire, but still present in a different manner in today’s society.

Solomon Northup’s story firstly relates to Coates’ account on the harsh realities of the slave trade. The white brutality, the loss of hope, and the theme of surviving but not living both shows itself prominently in both the movie and Coates’ excerpt. Solomon Northup’s account talks about how awfully the enslaved people were treated when they are forced to be on a plantation. Many of them were brutally beaten for no reason, Northup was almost once stabbed by his drunken slave owner, and food was so scarce, and disgusting, that Solomon did not know which was better, to starve to death, or to eat. All of this has been placed upon African people by whites. This relates to some of the themes that we are discussing in Humanities Core such as racism and racecraft. Essentially, the white person, in this case the white slave owner placed this idea of race, and assumption of “biological differences” on the black person. Similar to what we learned in class, race is not biological. Yet a part of what this movie deals with is that there are inherent differences between the black and white body, and that this inherent biological difference places black people below them. There are many scenes where the white slave owner essentially uses Solomon Northup as a pathway to release his anger and frustration on, or to blow off some steam after a fight with his wife. In this way, Epps, Solomon’s slave owner, is assuming that Northup is more like a punching bag rather than a person, which support Dr. Block’s idea of a white people inferring that there is a biological difference, when race really has nothing to do with biology.

Furthermore, the treatment of women in this movie definitely relates to Dr. Block’s lecture on the Gender Frontier, as this idea of ethnographic voyeurism can be related to the way many slave owners saw the slaves who worked for them, particularly the women slaves. This is demonstrated through the lens in which Edwin Epps interpreted Patsey played by Lupita Nyong’o. He gives her somewhat revealing clothing to wear, and rapes her constantly. The first time when she tried to protest, he beats her, and the next few times when she was to weak and limp to protest, he took that as a sign of him being welcome to assault her. In this view, the European colonizer is looking at the woman and placing these identities and assumptions on her from his own lens. He sees her from his perspective without any consideration of her beliefs and what she wants. Furthermore, this idea of savagery vs. civilization is seen in the treatment and beliefs of the slave owner. He sees himself as apart of this group of “civilized” people, and apart of why he took advantage of Patsey was because he saw her as apart of this “savage” world that needed to be civilized, when in reality this was not needed at all.

In many ways, the idea of ethnographic voyeurism can be adapted to today as well. In my own life, there have been many times where ethnographic voyeurism has been used against me and my culture as well. Growing up, whenever people would pass judgements on me in relation to my culture, it would more often than not be about things such as how we “worship statues” or how in world history, we would be taught that Indian people “wore a red dot on their forehead”, without understanding the cultural sensitivity and understanding the perspective of my own people. While the severity of how Edwin Epps interpreted what Patsey wanted is exponentially larger, this concept is still there. This movie, and the experiences these individual characters remind us that nobody else can be in our shoes understanding our own struggles, white cruelty left so many people at the time so hopeless. But the implications of this kind of hierarchy has led to ideas such as ethnographic voyeurism, and has caused many people to be blind to the harshness of people’s realities.

Hollywood is known for its history of frankly racist policies causing this problem of accurate representation in the movie industry. Similar to the video we watched in class on Tuesday, people who were previously conquered by empire need to be put back into art. They need to be given their voice back. One such failing of this was in the casting decisions that were made for the upcoming movie of Aladdin. The movie itself is completely exoticizes the middle east with inaccurate costuming, songs, and it is mostly a  white person’s “ notion of the Middle East” that just does not do the actual place justice. The movie itself has caused some major controversy in its casting of two of the three leading characters. Middle Eastern actors are plentiful in this country, so finding people who actually comply to the ethnicities of these character should not seem like such an arduous task. Yet, Hollywood has once again failed to recognize that people who are not the conquerors of empire in this country have a voice too.

Princess Jasmine is supposedly this Middle Eastern Princess who lives somewhat of a naive life in the bubble of her palace with her father. The biggest problem with their casting is that they chose Naomi Scott to play her. Naomi Scott does not have even an ounce of Middle Eastern blood in her. She is half white and half Indian. Jasmine is not a character that is intended to be represented through the lens of someone who is not that ethnicity. Furthermore, Jasmine is meant to give voice to people of Middle Eastern descent, and she cannot do this if she herself is not Middle Eastern. Many girls in this country garner their sense of racial equality through “seeing people like them” portrayed in the media. Having this opportunity stripped from them is truly a shame. Furthermore, this relates to the theme of the struggle of putting people who were previously conquered back into the mainstream media. By placing someone of half white descent, this gives the power back to the conquerors, not the conquered.

Furthermore, the director of the first film and the new one is also not of Middle Eastern descent. This shys away from the cultural sensitivity that the director of this movie should have. Directors have control over many things: how they shoot their shots, and approval of costumes and set design. But more importantly, they lead the actors in the direction of emotion to go to. In one perspective, I can understand how progressive it is to have a critically acclaimed director such as Guy Ritchie in a movie with people of color. Typically movies with the portrayal of people of color have been rare and dismissed. Hollywood is moving forward in this manner. However, this is particularly problematic to think about in the sense of Aladdin. The lead character, Aladdin, is portrayed by someone who is Middle Eastern. There is something special about someone portraying a character that is of their heritage. The performance just seems more real, and we get the honest truth of the character’s circumstances. To have that taken away from someone who does not understand this truth is saddening.  This is also potentially a big problem because a director who is not Middle Eastern cannot tell someone who is how to play a character of their own heritage. In this manner, previous notions that we explored in our learning of the Inca Empire come into play. This is seen through the white man “civilizing” the native starting to come into play. The director is the person who controls all aspects of the movie, while the actors do what they are required to. In a way, the director is changing the way the actors act to conform to his traditions of what acting should be.

Moreover, these types of inaccuracies in media are something that I can see in my own life. In almost all portrayals of an Indian person, they are told to have some sort of accent that is culturally insensitive, and does not fit into the correct adaptation. As Dr. Chaturvedi mentioned in lecture, the only media that has been released about Indian people is in Bollywood. However, their is not a movie made in America that has an all Indian cast, or mentions a significant event in Indian history. I think that this brings up an important point in the movie making industry. Everyone has a unique story to share that is influenced by their background. But stripping someone from the opportunity to tell that story, especially taking that opportunity and giving it to someone who’s story has been told over and over again is a chance that we are missing to see real art.

The beauty of Ariel from Shakespeare’s The Tempest is one that is explored through many mediums, one of which is stage. The stage aspect of it personifies this spirit like character through costume, makeup, characterization, and physicality. One such unique adaptation that I might be focusing on in my essay is that of Ariel’s physicality, intention, objectives, and action tactics in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of The Tempest.

An actor’s first job when assigned a role is to define their objectives, superobjective, and figure out their action tactics, which are the ways that you achieve your objectives. When reading Ariel’s lines in the play and then comparing and contrasting that to how I pictured Ariel, their are key differences that I find intriguing. One starking difference is in the physicality. I mostly pictured Ariel as a flying creature, similar to Puck in a Midsummer Night’s Dream. In Shakespeare’s plays, fairy’s tend to have magical powers and report to someone in a higher position of power, therefore I imagined Ariel looking like Puck, and serving a similar role to Prospero that Puck does to Oberon. The way he was portrayed however, was someone who was one with the earth. They wore colors of blue, green, had scales, and blended in with the ground. These colors almost portray him as converting between different elements in the earth, almost like “a shape-shifting digital sprite”.Whereas in the reading, it came of like he was more with the sky. Furthermore, their mode of movement and position on stage was different than what my interpretation was in the movie. Ariel’s movement were light, flexible, and fluid. He walks on his toes, and often sinks to the ground gracefully before rising with his own body movements. This mode of movement is similar in some ways and different to what I pictured. Ariel in the stage adaptation walks around on his toes and uses the lower half of his body often, while maintaining a calm stillness in his upper body. In the play I pictured his energy mostly coming from his upper body.

While I positioned Ariel as above the characters in height, hiding in trees and casting spells from the sky, the director positioned Ariel in the middle of the chaos, walking around and controlling the characters right next to them. While in the reading Ariel felt distant from the scene even though he was physically present, this stage adaptation put Ariel as a keen observer, taking the scene in much like the way the viewer is. This almost makes us relate to him, as he is understanding these new characters and his surroundings as the viewer is as well. In contrast, the reading makes our connecting to Ariel slightly more complicated, as his omnipresence in the scenes feel foreign to the reader.

The objectives of Ariel in the play and in the adaptation were more or less the same: to earn his freedom. The action tactics that Ariel uses in both the play and the stage are very similar. They continue to be bound by their servitude with the hope that their freedom will come soon. However, the energy between Ariel and Prospero are different than how I had imagined. In the play, Ariel seems to “lack much human emotion”. However, in the stage adaptation I found there to be a starking difference. There was a rather beautiful and peaceful moment between Ariel and Prospero at the end where the two of them gaze at each other as their final goodbye. In this final moment, a bounty of unspoken emotions flow between the two of them: sorrow, abandonment, gratitude, and love. I felt that Prospero was more of a father figure to Ariel in the stage adaptation than in the play, as he held these same emotions in his eyes. It made their parting bittersweet, as Ariel grapples with the idea that he finally earned his freedom, but he is leaving his caretaker. It makes the reader wonder if Ariel will be more joyful in his new life. My take on it is that it will be somewhere in between; Ariel will learn to become his own person, which will empower him, but he will grapple with feelings of abandonment and loss. He has become adapted to a life with Prospero, now he will have to learn to let go.

To continue, Ariel possesses many qualities that I can relate to in my life. His keen skill of observation, determination to complete his tasks to the best of his ability, and the need for independence. He deals with the complexities of the emotion he feels in his servitude by ignoring it. Instead, he replaces it with thoughts of the future, and the hope that eventually he will find his way out. I think many of us in society tend to try to push positive thoughts in place of our pain, because society tells us that happy people “keep their minds on what they want”. But in reality, it isn’t exactly that easy. How can we deal with our inner pain by thinking about what we want? Learning to accept pain is much more powerful than pretending like it isn’t there. Ariel has a lot of imprisonment and trauma to deal with, yet he mostly pushes it off, much like most human beings in society. In this way Ariel is a direct metaphor to many of us in society, his relationship with others is difficult, but his relationship with himself is much more complicated.

The European conquesters were known to be particularly ruthless, killing many people, and altering the truth of the history they claimed they created. They constantly spread their version deep into most school textbooks, scholarly texts, and media. Now, scholars and students alike look at these texts and understand the incomplete story it tells, and recognizes the controversy. One such media portrayal that caused heavy controversy was that of Pocahontas. This disney movie, which depicts a moment in the lives of the Native American tribe, Powhatan, and the relationship that the Chief’s daughter has with a white colonist, John Smith.

In the movie, many themes of colonialism similar to what the Incas had to go through exist. For example, the white people and the Native Americans are quick  to fight one another. Pocahontas’ father doesn’t view the white people as peaceful or worthy of making a treaty with. Interestingly enough, when the Indigenous people tried to be peaceful, as seen in both the movie and in reality with the Incas, the white people respond rather harshly and not agreeing to notions of peace. That part of history was accurate. However, the movie is another example of history that is told in the eyes of the victor.

This image is definitely a retelling of the story by the White settlers as interactions between the Native Americans and the white people were rarely so peaceful and calm

One of the sources told of the conquest of the Inca was written by Francisco de Jerez, a white man who retold the terrible conquest in a perspective that doesn’t recognize the various aspects of colonialism that should be acknowledged. As Dr. O’Toole stated, “colonialism is a negotiation among multiple actors over economic resources, cultural capital, and political force. The location in which a colonized person and community lives in a place of struggle and violence, but also a place of persistence and survival.” This definition is completely missing in Jerez’s recount of the retelling of the Incas and is also missing in the disney movie. According to Bodenner of The Atlantic, “Pocahontas misses the mark when it comes to representing the tragedy and sorrow that the Europeans brought with them”. It instead focuses on a benevolent interaction between the two which misses the struggle, violence, persistence, and survival that the victims of colonialism have to experience. Similarly, the retelling of the Inca conquest as told by Jerez misses the real interaction between the indigenous people and the Spanish, instead it makes their interaction seem legal, and the Spanish justify their conquest as being a “favor” to the Inca people.

Furthermore, this misinterpretation can be related back to Orientalism. Orientalism and Pocahontas both have one thing in common. It doesn’t focus on the whole story, but rather lets the Occident, or the white Europeans define the narrative. Within Orientalism, they are subjugated and seen as lesser than by the Occidents. This is similar to the real story of Pocahontas, as the white people came to the Powhatan tribe, and their leader John Smith “ terrorized several native villages for their food and resources by holding guns to the heads of village leaders (Indian Country Today).” However John Smith is portrayed as a kind man with only pure intentions. If there was an interpretation that existed that was similar to the other source we read with Titu, then we would have probably gotten a different interpretation.

The innacuracy of the movie is also shown here. It would be “nice” and “idealistic” for Pocahontas to be how she was portrayed in the right, and the white people would have wanted to portray her that way. But the harsh truth was that she was taken away and forced to assimilate. 

Similarly, I can relate to the misinterpretation that can happen. There has actually never been a story of my ancestors, told through their eyes. I am Indian, and all stories are continuously told through the eyes of the British. This portrayal is anything but accurate, as it again misses Dr. O’Toole’s definition of what colonialism actually is. Interestingly enough, my experience with representation and accuracy, Pocahontas, and the Incas all fits the Oxford definition of colonialism. This definition states that the “policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.” Certain aspects of Pocahontas are true, as the violent, often deceptive nature of the colonists are brought to life in times such as when Ratcliffe doesn’t listen to Powhatan’s cry for peace. Similarly, in the Inca representation that was written by Pizarro also recognizes the harsh, and sometimes violent nature of the settlers. In my case, movies such as Mangal Pandey recognizes the terrible intentions that the European people had when wanting to conquer another place.

In the Shakespearean play turned movie, “Much Ado About Nothing”, there are many aspects of Rousseau and what he would have wanted in terms of the civilization that is created within the play turned movie. The cinematic movie adaptation of this beautiful play showcases of two couples and the surrounding family and guests can experience love, heartbreak, and all the pains and agony that come with finding someone to love. Beatrice, the main woman in this play argues constantly with Benedick, but they are true lovers, and while they mask for their feelings for each other by arguing, at the end of the day, there is true love that prevails between them.

The other couple in this play, represent a more innocent love story. Hero and Claudio are younger, and their love story starts off with plain attraction that is turned into something more. These two couples contrast each other in several ways, and this is how they can be first compared to what Rousseau talks about. Rousseau argues that love changes once you are completely submerged into a civilization, that amour de soi turns into amour de propre. Beatrice and Benedick can be compared to amour de soi, because they aren’t going along with the normal expectations of society and getting married right off the bat because society dictates it. Furthermore, they practice self love, because they are secure in themselves to know their self worth, and they do not put their self-esteem or their image in the hands of someone else.

I think that I can relate this because I also agree with what Rousseau is saying because I also think that the type of love that is most important is the one that Benedick and Beatrice share. I feel like it represents the difference between puppy love and adult love. Beatrice and Benedick represent adult, more real love, whereas Hero and Claudio represent the kind of love that I would hope I am too old for, which is the puppy kind of love.

They are extremely confident in themselves, so much so, that when they make fun of each other, they don’t even turn an eye or get offended. This showcases that they are representative of amour de soi because they don’t put their self image in the hands of someone else. However, Hero and Claudio are representative of amour de propre because they do put their self image in the hands of each other. They aren’t content with themselves, so when they aren’t sure of the other person’s feelings, they start to feel lowly about themselves, but if they were confident in their feelings, and secure in themselves, they wouldn’t feel this way. This showcases how emersed they are into society, which Rousseau argues is bad because this leads to eventual heartbreak for them both that could have been avoided.

Furthermore, they are following what society wants for them by going along with the traditional and conventional askings of society. This is seen when they agree to marry each other, but this is portrayed as a fragile union, as they are quickly separated from one another because of a baseless rumor. All together, the movie also showcases how society can sometimes leads to its citizens downfall because they are so quick to destroy each other’s happiness that they are willing to tear each other down by spreading rumors and tearing a union apart. However, it shows the chance of redemption that they have as well because they end up realizing how important self love is in the end of the movie. This movie showcases what Rousseau argues could be the bad and the good that is apart of a civilization.

In the bollywood epic Bajirao Mastani, the themes of empire, ruins, and progress is regress is explored at length. The movie is about a hindu king and a muslim princess who fall in love. However, their love is forbidden because as a Hindu king, he is only allowed to be with Hindu princesses. His wife also has a lot to go through, as she has to deal with his inability to love her, as he is crazed with the love he has for the muslim princess. The first characteristic that the prince, Bajirao, exhibits that connects to him not being a virgilian hero, is the fact that he lets go of all of his responsibilities and puts her before his duties. He neglects his pietas, fatum, and labor. Instead of tending to his delicate nation, he instead only puts her needs before his own.

This relief of responsibilities is what causes his nation to go down in flames. He is similar to Dido in the fact that he, like her, puts his lover first. This characteristic is, once again opposite to a Virgilian hero. He also neglects labor, as he stops fighting for his nation and going through war in order to achieve his goals of expanding his nation. Furthermore, the brahmin priests who are like the Gods in this situation intend for him to govern his nation with the good qualities that they have instilled in him.

However, he instead neglects this and openly disobeys them when they try to remind him of his fate. He instead dismisses them completely which correlates to him letting go of his righteous duties and displaying ideals of trojan decadence, such as being lazy, being too involved with romance, and being extremely selfish and not putting his army or his nation first. Furthermore, this showcases the notion of progress is regress within an empire. At first, his empire is blooming and is extremely successful, however, after he meets her, his empire starts to regress and become prone to being overtaken by the Mughal empire.

I feel as though at times it is hard to have a balance between the responsibilities one has to themselves and what they want, and the responsibilities that they have to other people. But, I think that the best way, is not to jump to extremes, but rather to find away to merge both of those worlds, and divide this type of attention responsibilities equally.

This is regressing, especially after there was so much progress that occurred before he met her. This showcases that no matter how powerful an empire is, and no matter how much success it enjoys, like every other empire, it will also one day fall and lose its leverage. Furthermore, it goes along with the notions of women as agents of chaos. Bajirao was representative as an agent of order as he was ruling his empire and it was known as the most powerful empire of his time, but as soon as she came she served as a distraction to him and kept him away from his duties. Along with serving as an agent of chaos, she is also similar to Dido.

As a princess she has her own duties as well that she neglects when she finds him and she ignores her duties to her own empire in order to pursue him, so much so that she follows him from her own empire to go to his. Both the main characters fit into the stereotypes of what the Virgilian hero has as agents of chaos and agents of order as Mastani, the princess who distracts him of his duties and is represented as ruining his empire.

Mamma Mia has a lot of aspects in it that relates to the themes that Rousseau discusses in his discourses.  The themes of simplicity over the material and money in life, and emphasis on people and the relationships that people have with one another showcase what Rousseau would have wanted. Within the movie, there are also themes of the beautiful and the picturesque.

First off, the characters within the movie are all good representations of what Rousseau would have wanted in a group of people. They care mostly about one another and the relationships that they have with another is one where they have their own individual responsibilities within society. They aren’t open to having a thousand different responsibilities which is important within what Rousseau thinks. Within what Rousseau thinks is the “beautiful” the scenery of Greece showcases this.

The blue water, the blue skies, and the costuming adds to the light colors, feeling of pleasure, fulfillment, and contentment, as well as virtue or harmony which is a common theme within the movie. There is also a picturesque within the roughness, sudden variation, breaking in symmetry with the beauty, roughness, and irregularity within the wedding scene as the sky isn’t blue, there are dark colors around and the overall mood is giving us a psychological association of melancholy. There is also the sublime within the imagery of the character on the boat, as there is a vastness of the ocean and the blue clearness around it.

There is also the notion of progress is regress, as there are also the characters that try to progress in ways such as marriage and building a hotel in ways to progress the area they live in. However, towards the end of the movie, they go back to not progressing, which is then not regressing as they go back to focusing on each other and their overarching goal of trying to find their own inner peace. Furthermore, the main character’s daughter is a skepticist of many of the traditions that has been forced upon her. She doesn’t approve of the nature of marriage just because it is the logical “next step” but rather she ends the movie feeling confident in the fact that she has chosen the person she wants to spend the rest of her life with. She doesn’t always adhere to the reason side of things as she is constantly wanting to branch out from the place she grew up in and travel to fulfill her dream.

I also think that I have changed in this notion as well. I used to think that getting married and going about my life the conventional way was the right direction to go. I now believe that life comes at you in different directions and in unique ways.

This notion of questioning things also correlates with Rousseau. Within the ways of connecting with Rousseau’s notions of the sublime, picturesque, and the beautiful, as well as the themes of simplicity, skepticism, and progress is regress, Mamma Mia connects and strips down away from “ a big show” type of movie and instead focuses on the society and the individuals that make up the society. More importantly, Mamma Mia also, along with Rousseau uses the power of language to connect to a theme that has been common throughout the ages, the idea that man is his own individual, and straying away from being that individual is what makes people lose what inherently makes them unique.

https://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=5446510&page=1

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/mamma-mia-here-we-go-again-reviews-critics-1202875891/