Padmavat jewellery and memory

I recently came across a maker who translated the picture jewellery (necklace) worn by Deepika Padukone in Padmavat into macrame. It got me once again thinking about period films and the level of authenticity that we expect from the costume designers in terms of adherence to the time period and Geographical and Cultural practices of that period.

This particular necklace for instance does not belong in Padmavat.

An analysis of the journals of the British ambassdor Thomas Roe, shows how Picture jewellery was introduced in the Mughal India in the 17th century. As demonstrated by other historical accounts, Emperor Shah Jahan comissions portraits of himself to be set in jewelled frames and worn as jewellery having proven the superior skills of Indian artists to recreate the miniature portrait jewellery owned by Thomas Roe. While it was soon adapted in India with Hindu religious imagery, it was not meant for human use until the 18th century. Then how is that a Rajput queen, Rani Padmini wore such jewellery in the 13-14th century during the Sultanate period? Even if we were to consider the ballad Padmavat by Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi written in 1540 as the primary text on which the movie is based, it is still a century too early.

This is particularly interesting because the movie was created with meticulous attention to detail. Its director Sanjay Leela Bansali and costume designers Rimple and Harpreet Narula created an extradorinary wardrobe that paid homage to the textile crafts of the region. Infact, the accurate short choli spired the "bare midriff controversary" that eventually led to the makers changing the title of the film.

The jewellery designer Queeta Rawat too brought to light the reseplendence of the Rajput jewellery tradition with one most pieces of jewellery. Therefore, what could be the reason for adding this necklace to the ensemble?

As an educator who has co-created a course on film styling, I understand that glamour and richness are important in a film and several creative liberties are taken to achieve the same. The necklace could have been included because it was considered "traditionally Rajasthani" albeit from a later period? It could have been used if the jewellery manufactures wanted it featured in the film. Or it could have been used simply because it is grand and beautiful.

Is the reason really significant? I wonder! As an old student of mine who is a film stylist says, "a period film is not a documentation of the truth. Similar to other genres of films, it is firstly about entertainment."

In my opinion, the necklace is significant because it does not belong. Its use shows how memory is influenced to an extent where we attribute a phenomena from a later time period that is entwined in our cuture to an earlier time period. It is significant as it brings picture jewellery - a three hundred plus over old genre of Indian jewellery to light.

What do you think?

I hope you find it interesting

Cheers

Divya N