Good movie, and everyone acted superbly. Hrithik;s acting was exeptional. The movie dragged in the second half though; it was definitely too long.

Re. the historical inaccuracies, there is a disclaimer at the beginning that this movie is based on a certain version of history, and there are a number of versions.
Even if the movie didnt provide a true picture of the Mughal emperor's relationship with his wife, it has certainly reawakened an interest in the life of the Mughal ruler - amongst the general public, and amongst students... which is surely a good thing! ... More ... Collapse

Jodhaa Akbar, the love story of emperor Akbar and his Rajput queen Jodhabai, has been decreed non-historical by historians. That's no great surprise: the love story of Jodha and Akbar as a Bollywood film would necessarily need to be 'created' by the director. No history book in the world provides much insight into, whether Akbar had, or had not, ever married a Rajput princess named Jodhabai.

One does not need to be an expert of Mughal history to spot discrepancies in the film's period reconstruction. For instance, would a Mughal queen step into the shahi (royal) kitchen and cook a meal for her husband, or would she actually make an appearance before his courtiers to serve him lunch, with the queen mother looking on? Possibly not. The film is most clearly a work of fiction built on a skeleton of history, with some characters who are 'real', others imaginary.

The greater part of the controversy around Jodhaa Akbar has, however, centred around the figure of the Rajput princess Jodha, who in the film is married to Akbar as part of a diplomatic arrangement between the Mughals and the Kachwaha king of Amer. According to historians of the period, Jodha was never married to Akbar. The Rajput princess known as Jodhabai or Jodh Bai was in all probability given in marriage to his son prince Salim, later emperor Jehangir.

On the other side of the spectrum, however, is a powerful popular imaginary centring Jodhabai. Known to have been allowed to retain the practice of her religion even after her marriage to Akbar, the name of Jodhabai stands as testimony to the Mughal emperor's greatness and tolerance. Thus, the tourist guide at Fatehpur Sikri would invariably point out to you the palace of Jodhabai popularly known as Jodha Mahal, and tell you how in the time of Akbar the chime of temple bells from the palace would mingle with the sounds of the azaan emanating from the emperor's quarters. In the popular imagination, Jodha's name is almost as inextricably linked to Akbar's as the legend of Mumtaz Mahal is to Shah Jehan. Jodhaa Akbar largely draws upon that popular imaginary. Faced with questions about the film's historicity the director has acknowledged that he has drawn upon the most popular usage in this context, that of Jodha as Akbar's Hindu queen. In Jodhaa Akbar, the Hindu-Muslim angle becomes the peg for a contemporary audience to consume the love story of a Mughal emperor and his Rajput queen. Historians of the period have pointed that this Hindu-Muslim peg in the film has been the superimposition of a more contemporary perspective on the 16th century, when identities were formed not so much in terms of the Hindu-Muslim binary, but rather in terms of caste, clan and lineage.

For the Rajputs, therefore, matrimony with the Mughals would not be a matter of reservation principally on religious grounds. Matrimonial relations among the ruling classes of the period were mostly determined by considerations of rank and stature, and by political exigency. Marriage between the Hindu and Muslim ruling classes was therefore known even in pre-Mughal days, though it became a more institutionalised practice under Akbar and Jehangir. If at all Jodha was married to Akbar, such an alliance would not quite have been the bolt from the blue that it is in the film, where Jodha confronts her father, Raja Bharmal of Amer, for promising her in marriage to a man who would not even know the significance of the sindoor.

Here, of course, 'communalism' or the Hindu-Muslim binary that has structured Indian history in the 20th century and thereafter becomes transposed on an earlier period for it to be more comprehensible to a contemporary audience. The period trappings apart, it is not greatly different from, say, a film like Mani Ratnam's Bombay, with its Hindu boy-Muslim girl love story and message of national integration. While all of this clearly spells incongruity so far as the film's 'authenticity' is concerned, it also upholds the vibrancy of a popular text in its capacity to interpret the past in terms of the present, and to inscribe greater life into the past.

Other such 'discrepancies' in the film could be likewise ascribed. In the film, Jodha is a feminist figure who speaks in terms of 'her' rights, whether it is when she asks for an audience with her future husband, the emperor of India, where she lays down her conditions of marriage, or, later, when she refuses to be wooed back by her husband who had suspected her integrity.

While such episodes in the film are anachronistic, it is more enabling to look beyond their obvious incongruity. Jodhaa Akbar is as much about Jodha as it is about Akbar; a very contemporary perspective constitutes this love story, for without it there would have been no love story, only perhaps a documentary on Akbar the Great, right out of the history books. This love story has no historical basis, but it is also important to note here the dynamic of a popular medium, its power to make the past relevant to the present through the mechanics of pleasure and the imagination. And can even historians discount the imagination in our interpretation of the past? ... More ... Collapse

Over the last few weeks, television channels have been flooded with debates over the relationship between Jodhaa and Akbar. Was she his wife or his daughter-in-law? The question has seen many answers, arguments and counter arguments. So it isn’t surprising to see a disclaimer even before Ashutosh Gowariker’s epic saga starts.

We are told that while the name of Akbar’s wife remains a topic of debate, historians have agreed that the Emperor did marry a Hindu princess. Further, it acknowledges the existence of other versions of the story, and suggests that this is just one of them. What it does not tell you though that it is about 3 hours and 40 minutes long.

Akbar in Jodha AkbarHaving said that however it must be mentioned that if you can actually sit through this phenomenally long film, you may actually walk out feeling quite pleased with the effort.

As the title of the film suggests, Ashuthosh’s dream project tells the story of two people who meet circumstantially and end up falling in love. It is just incidental that these two people happen to be the Emperor and the Empress of India. Needless to say that this puts them (and the filmmaker) in a rather curious situation. Because there’s so much happening around them that it becomes difficult for their love to reach fruition. And sure enough it becomes a bit of a problem for Ashu to film their story too.

So just what does one concentrate upon: the dynastical politics in Rajputana or the kitchen politics within Akbar’s household? If Ashu is to be blamed he should be for not being able to strike a balance between these two.

Yes, the narrative flags at various points. Yes, you keep looking at your watch. Yes, you want to tell Ashu to get on with it. Yet you sit through it all. Why? Because Jodhaa Akbar, whether we like to admit it or not, is a story that dreams are made of.

Aishwarya and Hrithik in Jodha AkbarBeyond all the glamour and politics, the marriage between Jodhaa and Akbar was union not so much of two souls but of two cultures. And somehow stories like these have always fascinated us.

Think about it, how many times have we sat up and heard out the tales of colleagues and friends who married outside their religion? It’s the very same thing with Jodhaa Akbar – the story and the film.

The magnitude of the canvas is indeed very breathtaking. However it is this very thing that tends to get overwhelming. There are chances that the dialogues and language of the characters may put you off. But we’d say give it a break. If you can stand the archaic English in Elizabeth or Shakespeare in Love, we don’t see any reason why archaic Urdu and Hindi should be such a problem.

If Jodhaa Akbar belongs to someone it belongs to Hrithik Roshan. Aishwarya Rai looks pretty as a doll, but it’s Hrithik who delivers all the goods. Watch out for that scene where Hrithik gets an epiphany and joins the Sufi dancers in trance.

As for the war sequences, they could have well been done without. Ashu doesn’t get too creative here. But he does a superb job when it comes to bringing out the chemistry between Hrithik and Aishwarya.

The palpable but tentative romance between Jodhaa and Akbar is beautifully complemented by AR Rahman’s music. Khwaja mere Khwaja, remains our favourite song, though the rest are lovely too.

Jodhaa AkbarIt is the choreography, however that leaves a lot to be desired. Marhaba (Chinni and Rekha Prakash) is a filled with clichéd dance moves and outdated camera angles.

In another song, there is a part where Akbar sings to his beloved and that little voice inside you says, “Hey, they didn’t tell us that in our history books!” But Jodhaa Akbar has never claimed to be entirely truthful to history (in fact no one can probably ever be).

However, it reminds us what critics for the longest time have demanded – the need to free art from the shackles of history.

So even though it tends to be long and sometimes boring like a history lesson, Jodhaa Akbar in its essence is a boy-meets-girl story. And to write off the story entirely just because the guy takes a little too long to woo his sweetheart, would be a little unfair. ... More ... Collapse