In its debut weekend, Pad Man finished second to Padmaavat at the North American box office. From February 9-11, 2018, Pad Man earned $689,272 from 152 theaters ($4,535 average), according to Bollywood Hungama*. Kumar’s recent releases have opened within a very narrow range of totals, from Toilet‘s $670,447 on the low end to Airlift‘s $815,933 on the high end. Pad Man‘s performance fits right within that range, so it appears Padmaavat had no discernible effect on Pad Man‘s opening weekend total.
The same applies in the other direction, too, as three-week-old Padmaavat out-earned Kumar’s brand new release. Granted, Padmaavat had a 126-screen advantage and inflated 3D prices for some tickets. Still, its enduring popularity is impressive. Over the weekend, Padmaavat earned $957,302 from 278 theaters ($3,444 average), bringing its total earnings to $10,556,813 — enough to squeak it past PK‘s $10,550,569 total into second place all time for Bollywood movies in North America. LiveMint has an interesting breakdown of where the money Padmaavat has earned so far has gone and how much of it is really profit after recovering costs.
[Update:Box Office Mojo reports weekend earnings of $740,326 from 152 theaters ($4,871 average) for Pad Man, and $1,039,904 from 282 theaters ($3,688 average) for Padmaavat, with total earnings of $10,638,033.]
*Bollywood Hungama routinely counts Canadian theaters twice in its weekly reporting, at least for a movie’s first two weekends of release. When possible, I try to verify the correct theater count with other sources, like Box Office Mojo. The above figures represent what I believe to be the actual theater counts. Bollywood Hungama’s reporting puts Pad Man in 173 theaters (making for a $3,984 per-screen average).
Also opening on Friday at the South Barrington 24 is the India-set American romantic comedy Basmati Blues, starring Brie Larson and Utkarsh Ambudkar (who played Mindy’s brother Rishi on The Mindy Project). It has a runtime of 1 hr. 46 min.
Other Indian movies showing in the Chicago area this weekend:
Padmaavat held onto more than half of its opening weekend business after adding 28 theaters in its second weekend in North America. From February 2-4, 2018, Padmaavat earned $2,438,930 from 354 theaters ($6,890 average), according to Box Office Mojo. That puts Padmaavat‘s total at $8,900,499, making it the third highest earning Hindi film in North America ever after just eleven days. Bollywood Hungama reports slightly lower weekend and total earnings of $2,191,185 and $8,663,321, respectively — still good enough for third place all time.
By the time the highest earning Hindi film of all time in North America — 2016’s Dangal — finished its second weekend in theaters, it had already earned 73.9% of its eventual total ($9,126,258 of $12,357,576). Remarkably, the second ranked movie on the list — 2014’s PK — had earned virtually the same percentage of its eventual total by the end of its second weekend: 73.8% ($7,785,486 of $10,550,569). If Padmaavat follows the same trajectory as those two films and is already 73.9% of the way toward its total, that would give it final earnings of $12,043,977 or $11,723,032, depending on whether you believe Box Office Mojo’s or Bollywood Hungama’s numbers. A lot depends on how much Pad Man affects Padmaavat‘s business starting this Friday. It seems reasonable to assume that Padmaavat will pass PK for the #2 spot but fall short of overtaking Dangal for first place. We shall see.
Other Hindi films showing in North American theaters:
Tiger Zinda Hai: Week 7; $2,473 from four theaters; $618 average; $5,931,673 total
Mukkabaaz: Week 4; $84 from one theater; $75,968 total
My friend Shah Shahid graciously invited me back to the Split Screen Podcast to review Padmaavat, deviating from our usual remake comparison format to tackle this controversial new film. In Episode 33, we don’t discuss the protests leading up to the film’s release but focus instead on the good, the bad, and the problematic elements of the movie itself. Shah makes some great points about the way directors lead audiences toward certain emotional reactions, and we debate whether or not that was properly executed in Padmaavat.
Bollywood studios and distributors were wise not to release anything new on February 2, 2018, after the huge opening weekend numbers Padmaavat put up. Here’s where the period epic is playing around the Chicago area as of Friday, and in what formats:
The wait was worth it for Padmaavat, which just had the best opening weekend for a Bollywood film in North America, dethroning 2014’s PK ($3.6 million). From January 26-28, 2018, Padmaavat earned $4,430,255 from 326 theaters ($13,590 average), based on figures provided to Gitesh Pandya by the film’s distributor, Viva Entertainment. That’s the second best international opening weekend for a Bollywood movie, behind 2016’s Sultan, according to Bollywood Hungama. Adding in the $507,266 from the 295 US theaters that carried the movie on Thursday, January 25, Padmaavat‘s total already stands at $4,937,521.
Final figures for all films aren’t in yet, but Padmaavat‘s per-screen average earnings are more than double those of any other movie showing in North America over the weekend, based on Box Office Mojo’s estimates. Padmaavat is also poised to finish in third place at the global box office, according to Variety. That’s a helluva weekend for a movie that some factions hoped would never see the light of day.
Other Hindi movies showing in North America this weekend:
Tiger Zinda Hai: Week 6; $14,004 from twelve theaters; $1,167 average; $5,920,011 total
Mukkabaaz: Week 3; $24 from one theater; $75,884 total
A note on 3D: My local theater only carried Padmaavat in 3D, but I recommend watching the film in 2D, if possible. The 3D effects don’t enhance the experience, and the glasses dull the colors and details of the costumes and sets. 3D also adds a visual distance between the subtitles and the action, for those reliant upon subtitles.
Spoiler warning: Because Padmaavat is based on a centuries-old poem, I will discuss the end of the movie in this review.
Filmmakers can choose to make whatever movies they want. Why, then, would Sanjay Leela Bhansali choose to make Padmaavat? Why now, and why tell the story in this way? What does he want his audience to take away from this story? Even after watching the movie, I can’t answer those questions.
Bhansali’s story follows the parallel paths of two 13th century Indian rulers until they converge: the ambitious Muslim warrior Alauddin Khilji (Ranveer Singh) and the milquetoast Rajput king Ratan Singh (Shahid Kapoor). While ruthless Alauddin fights the Mongols and steals the sultanate of Delhi from his uncle, Ratan Singh searches for some replacement pearls after he gave away his wife Nagmati’s (Anupriya Goenka) favorite necklace.
Ratan Singh is waylaid in the pearl-producing kingdom of Singala (which resembles the Nopon Braidbridge in Noctilum from Xenoblade Chronicles X, for both of you out there who’ll get that reference), when the princess Padmavati (Deepika Padukone) accidentally shoots him with an arrow while hunting. They fall in love while he convalesces, and she returns with him to his palace in Chittor as his second wife.
Their trouble begins when the palace priest Raghav Chetan gets busted watching Ratan Singh and Padmavati make out. Banished, Chetan vows to destroy Chittor. He meets Alauddin, telling the sultan — who has an infamous Gollum-like obsession with precious things — that not only is Padmavati the most beautiful woman in the world, but Alauddin needs her in order to fulfill a bogus prophecy that sees him conquer the globe. Alauddin and his army head to Chittor to besiege Ratan Singh’s castle.
This is where things really fall apart for Ratan Singh as a character, at least in the way Bhansali depicts him. Whenever Ratan Singh mentions his “honor”, it signals that he’s about to do something incredibly stupid. On multiple occasions, he either underestimates Alauddin’s capacity for deceit or refuses to kill Alauddin and end the war, citing some mitigating rule of decorum that stays his hand. Whenever Padmavati tells him, “You know it’s a trap, right?” Ratan Singh just smiles and walks right into it.
Above: Alauddin swears to Ratan Singh that this time he really will let him kick the football.
There comes a point when rigidly adhering to one’s principles is selfish, especially when it means not just your own death but the deaths of everyone you love, the deaths of all the innocent civilians you’ve vowed to protect, and the loss of your entire kingdom.
Then again, none of the characters in Padmaavat are written like real people, only symbols for concepts like honor (Ratan Singh), lust (Alauddin), beauty (Padmavati), treachery (Chetan), jealousy (Nagmati), and bravery (the Rajput fighters Gora and Badal). All the other soldiers and civilians are just there to take up space. What happens to them doesn’t matter. We know as much because the end notes only mention the place of Padmavati’s sacrifice in Rajput lore, with no mention of the hundreds of other women who killed themselves alongside her.
Ah, yes, the ritual suicide for which Padmavati is famous. The movie opens with a note that the film does not intend to endorse “sati,” the practice of women immolating themselves on their husbands’ funeral pyres. That’s a little hard to believe given the glamorized way Bhansali depicts the mass suicide of the women of Chittor following Ratan Singh’s defeat on the battlefield. Rather than be captured by Alauddin’s army, Bhansali shows Padmavati and the palace women (and girls) resolutely marching to their death in an inferno, defiant tears filling their eyes but refusing to drop. The camera cuts away before we see them burn or hear their anguished screams, preserving their memories as paragons of virtue rather than showing the charred corpses of the terrified victims of male egos run amok.
If Bhansali wanted to dress up Deepika Padukone in elaborate costumes, wasn’t there another ancient Rajput tale he could have picked? One that didn’t make a hero out of a woman for killing herself? Padmavati’s actions — though true to the original poem — don’t even match with her character in the film. As interpreted by Bhansali, Padmavati is a skilled archer and military tactician. Why should we believe that she wouldn’t first try to kill Alauddin herself, rather than follow her husband’s foolish lead and let Alauddin live to besiege another kingdom?
There’s so much more that could have been done with this story, especially since Bhansali appears to have taken some liberties with the original poem (based on a cursory Wikipedia search). The theme of jealousy could’ve been brought to the fore, not just in the rivalry for Ratan Singh’s affection between Nagmati and Padmavati but in the jealousy toward Padmavati felt by Alauddin’s slave and consort, Malik Kafur (Jim Sarbh). The fact that Alauddin and Malik are lovers and it’s depicted as no big deal is Padmaavat‘s greatest strength.
However, that relationship also plays into the characterization of Alauddin as a dirty, feral creature, one who snarls while tearing meat off the bone with his teeth and who will have sex with anyone. He is also Muslim, as we are constantly reminded by the green flags bearing a crescent moon that flank him at all times. Bhansali goes to such lengths to conflate Alauddin’s base appetites with his religion that it becomes gross.
Singh, for his part, makes the most of his problematic character, overshadowing Kapoor in all of their scenes together. Sarbh likewise seems to enjoy his free rein. Padukone looks regal — as does Aditi Rao Hydari, who plays Alauddin’s wife — but she has little to do once she leaves her forest kingdom.
Virtually all of the scenes between Padmavati and Ratan Singh are shot in slow-motion, the two of them making moon eyes at one another. This reliance on slow-mo — which extends to battle scenes as well — highlights just how little actually happens in the movie, both in terms of plot and character development. Padmaavat looks gorgeous, as Bhansali’s movies always do, but looks aren’t everything.