Kantara review - The paradox of the anti-caste film

Before going in for the movie, I'd read rave reviews about how amazing the theatre experience was, and later about a few problematic aspects of the film. I usually try to avoid reviews and go in fresh for the film myself, but this time since I caught the film on the literal last day of the Kannada version show, I couldn't avoid the reviews and articles about the film. After watching the film, what bothered me the most was how everyone seemed to downplay the film's problematic aspects; there was a lot that just never sat right with me from the start. I am not the biggest advocate of the "but everything else in the movie was fine" narrative, and I take up issue with the premise, the politics, and the misogyny in the film.

It rubbed me the wrong way from the very beginning, with the juxtaposition of the woman's teeth with those of the buffalo. The same aspect was picked on two or three more times over the course of the movie. I'm still not sure why people's appearances are used as punchlines; it is a low blow and nothing more. Then we have the macho protagonist who sexually assaults the female lead, and she somehow falls in love with him. Why an educated woman, with a government job, would fall in love with someone who is a vagabond and is the personification of male fragility, and more importantly someone who has groped her, is confusing to me. Do the men who write these stories not know anything about a woman? No woman in the film has a good role. Everyone is used to advance the plot and their character remains stagnant throughout. The character of Leela is just used as an object of love for the protagonist and as a decoy to highlight the cruelty of the government.

Speaking of the government, you obviously have the stereotype cruel police officer who wants to exercise his power on the oppressed and wants to demarcate the forest area for the government. You also have the savarna landlord who is itching to encroach on the land which he "rightfully owns". This is not the issue. Of course, considering the premise, the people of the forest are an oppressed people, and the government and the savarnas contribute directly to their oppression and even make their holier-than-thou attitude known to them. However, when a Shetty makes a film about oppression and casts himself as the protagonist who leads the fight of the oppressed, he must have a basic understanding of caste dynamics and politics.

The obtuse arc of the police offer from being the enemy of the people to becoming the good guy who has wanted to help them all along is insulting to the people. It just does not make any sense whatsoever. There is also the curious case of the "good landlord" narrative being revived at the end despite the multiple instances of the landlords in the film being proven to be no more than land-grubbing bigots. This makes me question the intentions of the filmmaker in his portrayal of the themes of being anti-caste. Does he want to be anti-caste, or does he just use this social issue as a plot point for the film? 

Looking up his interviews has not helped his case; he parrots the soft sanghi narrative of caste-based oppression being a "thing of the past". This is where Tamil cinema (okay, not Tamil cinema as a whole, but the sphere which consists of Pa. Ranjith, Vetrimaran, and so on) is head and shoulders clear of any other industry in terms of caste consciousness. All this is made worse by the egregious Brahminical appropriation of the Moolnivasi tradition of the Bhootha Kola into Hinduism. Bhootha Kola has never been a Hindu tradition, and there is a significant attempt at the revisionism of the Tulu culture. Rishab Shetty's open claim that it is a part of Hinduism should be condemned. The media should be picking up on this issue, especially considering the themes of the film. The Sanksrit music used at the end instead of the traditional Tulu verses stuck out like a sore thumb. Panjurli is NOT the Varaha-roopam, as the film suggests.

The aforementioned aspects of the film have outweighed anything good that the film had to offer. The almost amateur storytelling filled with cliches did not help either. Sure, the film was visually and aurally immersive, and a treat to watch at the theatre. There was one fight scene that stood out in particular, that had me in raptures. At face value it was something I could enjoy. However, I cannot condone any of the problematic aspects of the film and I firmly believe it should be discussed more.