Razia Sultan Review: One of the Few Times Blackface May Be Justified
Don’t panic, I said “may be”. Still shouldn’t have happened, but there’s a reason that particular character had to look darker than everyone else.
Hema Malini playing the female Sultan of Delhi? How could I resist! And it’s by the same director as Pakeezah. It must have been a huge hit! Only, it wasn’t. I could say that was because the Indian audience didn’t like seeing a female ruler, or didn’t like the interracial love story, but it’s probably because it is not a good movie. I don’t know what happened to Kamal Amrohi when he was making this, but it’s really poorly put together. I can’t keep track of who is who, and where they are, and how much time has passed, just that basic stuff. Also, there’s a lot of important scenes and plot moments that are kind of skipped over? In a way that feels like they ran out of money and chose to shoot other less important scenes instead of the ones they really should have shot.
So I’m not recommending it as a good movie! Not even as good as my last silly 1980s film, Ali Baba Aur 40 Chor. It’s just confusing and disappointing because of all the miss-steps. But I am recommending it as a really INTERESTING movie!!!
The historical figure is from way back in the 1200s, so what can be actual considered “facts” about her are pretty weak. She was the daughter of the Sultan of Delhi, she served as his regent while he was fighting a war out of town, and she took the throne from her older brother after he died. Then 4 years later another brother took the throne from her. And finally, the Mughals took advantage of the disorder in the leadership to take direct control of the city. She married another member of the ruling family, and the leader of her army was a former slave from Ethiopa, part of the Hadisha community (still a recognizable community today, from the highlands of Ethiopa, Coptic Christians). She was a woman in a powerful position, so I am just going to assume that vicious rumors were created and circulated about her, sex/love was made primary in her life, etc. etc. etc. Just like Jhansi Ki Rani, just like Catherine the Great, just like Elizabeth the 1st, and so on and so forth.
What had come down to modern India was a love story between Razia and her Ethiopian slave Jamal-ud-Din Yaqut. If you are going to watch a movie called Razia Sultan, you know it’s gonna be about that love story, and also swords and horses and Mughal court life and so on and so forth. And probably some inheritance excitement.
And this brings me to the blackface. It is EXTREMELY important that Razia’s romantic interest is physically visibly different from the royal court. To pretend otherwise would be to erase both the interracial nature of the forbidden romance, and the historical reality of the large presence of Ethiopians in the Delhi court. In a perfect world, the film would have just cast an Indian African to play the male role. It wouldn’t have been impossible, certainly, but it would be been very difficult. Ignoring the potential protests to an interracial romance, just finding an actor with the skill and charisma to play the male lead among the tiny community present in Bombay, none of whom were working in the film industry as leads at this point, would have been really REALLY hard. Another option would have been to cast an natural dark skinned actor in the role, similar to how Ajay Devgan was used in Omkara. But again, I don’t like that idea. This was not a very dark skinned low caste South Asian, this was someone even more “different” looking than that. I would almost have preferred them caste Tom Alter (an actor with the talent and experience to carry the film, who is visibly of a different race) than someone like Rajinikanth who is naturally darker skinned than the rest of the caste, but still not THAT different.
The answer the director landed on was to use really terrible make-up on not just our hero, but on the background constantly present other Hadisha servants. When I say “terrible”, I don’t mean morally, I mean just as makeup. Which, weirdly, makes it less morally objectionable to me? They clearly just painted all visible parts of the skin in the exact same color tone. It’s not at all related to the Western version of blackface with the specific facial modifications. And it’s not an attempt to actually look like a person of African heritage, at least not to me, it’s more of a way of strongly visually indicating this difference at all times, kind of a symbol of the difference rather than the reality. It could even be an attempt to recreate older representations of the characters.
The reason I am giving so much grace to the blackface here, is what the story does around it. In history, Razia did not marry Jamal-ud-Din, she married a cousin, and she and her husband were killed together during the civil war. In this movie, Hema married blackfaced Dharmendra, with the full support of her court, her people, AND religious leaders. It was her racist jealous rejected suiter cousin who started the civil war because he refused to accept an interracial love story. And it ends with Hema and Dharmendra fleeing together on horseback, having killed her cousin, romantically pierced with a single spear. Freezeframe, sunset, the two of them together forever.
If the filmmakers wanted to make a whooooooooooooooole movie about how people should accept interracial relationships and racism is stupid, surely they did not intend the make-up choice as an insult? Not saying it ISN’T an insult, but I really don’t think it was intended that way. It was just the only way they saw to tell this interracial story within the restrictions they had.
Oh, and it’s not just interracial, it’s feminist! And a little bit lesbian? Second movie in a row where Zeenat is there to be awesome with no love interest! She’s Hema’s best friend, advisor, and direct line to her father the Vizier. Hema herself is established as way way better at ruling and fighting and everything than her brothers. And her father recognizes that, says that she would be a better ruler than her brothers.
Her father also recognizes and respects Dharmendra’s abilities, raising him from a slave to a nobleman. Which is historically accurate. Right, that’s another thing! The meaning of “slavery” both in this historical context and for the audience coming to see it in 1980s India is very different from what it would mean in America. So far as I can tell from minimal research, Islamic law forbids enslaving a fellow Muslim. So it makes sense that the Christians of Ethiopia would be a reasonable source for labor. The African slave trade (which I know a little about from some history classes in college) was more along the lines of Prisoners of War. The same practices happened in medieval Europe, after defeating an army you can turn the soldiers into unpaid laborers, or force them into your army. If they do well, maybe eventually they rise to be army generals, or leading farm laborers. The whole concept of “wage labor” wasn’t really a thing exactly, so being a slave was like being a serf or peasant, only with fewer legal and social protections if you messed up. It makes sense that the Delhi Sultanate would have a lot of Ethiopian laborers, it’s geographically close but not a Muslim country, and the visible racial differences would help enforce discipline. But it also makes sense that lots of those slaves would eventually be integrated into society, given power and freedom, rewarded for their efforts.
Which brings me to Padmavat! The movie that I hate. There is this whole confusing relationship in there between Jim Sarbh and Ranveer Singh, very Queer coded, and part of Ranveer’s whole “uncivilized” and “unnatural” and “exotically Other and Different” characterization. I hate the whole othering bit because it’s so clearly Islamaphobic and playing into present day prejudices. But I also hate what they did to Jim Sarbh’s historical character. He was another slave raised to power by ability. Brave, smart, a great leader of armies. He was a slave of an Indian ruler originally, then taken by Alauddin Khalji who recognized his abilities and gave him increasing military power until he became Alauddin’s most trusted general and advisor. Just as Razia Sultan’s political enemies couldn’t handle an Ethiopian former slave as a powerful talented general, so Alauddin’s political enemies couldn’t handle a Eunach former slave as a powerful talented general. In both cases, the answer was to spread stories of an elicit love, it was the sensuous sexuality of the “other” which lead this slave to rise to power, not innate ability. Acknowledging ability would mean acknowledging that the “other” could be not just as good as you, but better than you. Oh, and acknowledging that your political rival was smarter than you because they could see this. I love the Jim Sarbh-Ranveer love song scene, I love the way he plays his whole character, but I would like a lot better if he got to be a brilliant general who was dismissed by fools just because of their prejudice. The same way Dharmendra was in this film.
I just really wish this movie had been better. That we’d had some love scenes between Dharmendra and Hema (and not just Hema and Zeenat Aman), that we’d had a voice over giving some clarity as to time and space in the plot, that there’d been the budget for big battle scenes. Because the story it wanted to tell, I actually like!
Oh, one other thing if you do watch it, there is a MAJOR subtitle error. “Hadisha” is translated as “Negro”. “Hadisha”, as I said, is the name for the community within Ethiopia from which many slaves were imported to Delhi. There is a lot of dialogue about the superiority of Turks to Hadisha. It’s racist, it’s also ethnic, and it’s historically accurate. Turks to Negros? That’s modern day racism. But that’s racism from the subtitlers, not the film itself. I think that might be the first time I’ve seen that so clearly!
Watch it if you want an interesting take on historical slavery and racism, a super Lesbian love song, and some pretty costumes. Don’t watch it for an actual good movie.
