Draupathi 2 Movie Review: Lays siege on subtlety

Draupathi 2 Movie Review:

The problem with zealots, be it on any side of the political spectrum, is that their idea of self-righteousness and a holier-than-thou attitude makes them oblivious to critical thinking, thereby burning bridges for a rational and utilitarian dialogue. This is why director Mohan G's Draupathi 2 does not cut ice and ends up being a rabble-rouser's panacea. Honestly, peddling propaganda would be the last reason to criticise Draupathi 2. Every film, for that matter, carries propaganda. An unrealistically dreamy film with concocted sweet situations is also a propaganda film aimed at restoring faith in love. But what ails Draupathi 2 is that it is relentless to the point of fatigue, pushes things too far too often, and contradicts itself. 

Draupathi 2 begins with Rudra Prabhakaran of the 2020 film (Richard Rishi) being consulted by an elderly person over a vast expanse of land with an ancient temple claimed as a Waqf property. An affluent non-resident native of his village helps financially and sends his daughters to oversee the restoration works of the temple. This incident makes Rudra learn more about himself and the perpetual struggle against the invaders.

There is a lot of value in pursuing a singular objective in a film and navigating characters in achieving or foiling it. Films like Ajay Devgn's Tanhaji: The Unsung Warrior or the recent film Dhurandhar have benefited from this singular focus. Mohan G with Draupathi 2, in this ideology-induced misstep, bungles with an opportunities-laden story. Draupathi 2 would have been a lot more interesting if it were just about Veera Simha Kadavarayan's (again Richard Rishi) siege of Mohammed Bin Thuglaq's Devapuri/Dowlatabad fort to rescue Hoysala king Veera Ballala's (Natty) son. In the first half, once in every two to three scenes, we either hear about or see the sufferings of people who are forced to convert to Islam due to the pressures of Jizya, the protection tax non-Muslims had to pay. But in neither of the halves do we see any portrayal of a specific atrocity in the Northern, North Western Tamil Nadu region adjacent to Karnataka committed by the Thuglaq regime.

Every character is painted in broad strokes in Draupathi 2, and there is greater emphasis on the evil of the wrongdoers than the goodness of the noble people. Depicting Mohammed Bin Thuglaq (Chirag Jani) and Madurai Sultan Ghiyasuddin Dhamkani (Dinesh Lamba) as just lecherous meat-eaters and nothing else seems more like a pernicious tool to villify and loathe the Muslim community rather than a cinematic liberty. Also, some distasteful shots of women being abused by these sultans suggest that the makers didn't have care or empathy for those who went through unthinkable abuses in history.

Veera Simha Kadavarayan's characterisation isn't great either. He is as one-note as it could get. He is the protector of the Hindu Dharma; he is noble, he is a fierce warrior... and that's it. The screenplay remains uncharacteristically silent about every other aspect of his persona as he embarks on a mission.

Cast: Richard Rishi, Natty, Rakshana Induchoodan, Chirag Jani

Director: Mohan G

And what is his mission? Move from one scene to another in a completely artificial manner to rescue people suffering from jizya. Thankfully, there is some respite for Veera Simha in the second half. However, Veera Simha prefers to go through the drill of being in the same village to hear stories of conversion horrors. Again.

Playing the titular role, Rakshana's Draupathi teases a glimmer of a stateswoman, only to fade away unnoticeably. While Veera Simha is busy decimating Sultan's soldiers (don't ask which Sultan), Draupathi is entrusted with ruling Senthamangalam on behalf of the Hoysala kingdom. Being a stateswoman, why is she portrayed as naive enough to believe anything anyone says? These spaces reflect Mohan G's lack of finesse in handling drama-derivable themes like loyalty and betrayal.

Draupathi 2 is no great history teacher either. It doesn't go into the much-needed details of how and why Madurai and the Delhi Sultanates opposed each other. We don't see what kind of atrocities the Thuglaq regime actually did in the Northern, North Western Tamil Nadu region adjacent to Karnataka. Avoiding these nuances made it easy for the makers to peddle Muslim-hatred in the guise of rightful opposition to Islamic invaders. If not, it would have been evident that invading kings were not just about religious expansions as opposed to the film's supposition. It becomes a classic representation of the Good Hindus vs Bad Muslims. On the technical front, the flair required in showcasing majestic forts and palatial buildings from the outside is noticeable in its absence.

To top it off, Draupathi 2 is a historically convenient and ideologically indulgent film that ends up as a dead weight of sorts. Discussing or debating the validity of an ideology should always be welcomed. But an ill-informed discussion does not help anyone. Mohan G needs more focus than fierceness, as he has mistaken Shaivite saint Thirumoolar for former CM CN Annadurai in his potshot at 'Ondre Kulam Oruvane Dhevan' in the film. Hinduism is not antithetical to monotheism; it just doesn't subscribe to the Abrahamic understanding of the term. It believes one God can be seen in multitudinous forms. Mohan G should instead train his guns against making the religion monolithic, and while at it, probably make a film that screams craft before ideology.