In the latest big-screen retelling of her story, Shakuntala is short-changed once again

Spectacles don’t lend to an engaging viewing experience unless the story is told well. This becomes Shaakuntalam’s biggest drawback. The movie opens with an abandoned infant being spotted by Kanva Maharshi and his disciples in a forest. He fosters the baby and names her Shakuntala. The focus, however, quickly shifts to Dev Mohan’s heroic entry as King Dushyanta. He is fearless, tackles ferocious tigers and saves villagers. After the king’s boundless valour is showcased, he comes across Shakuntala, who has so far led a protected life at the hermitage, located on a mountain top.

As expected, they are drawn to each other. Such is the intensity of instant passion triggered in Shakuntala (Samantha Ruth Prabhu) the first time she lays her eyes on Dushyanta that her bodice’s knot is unfastened by her heaving chest. She is duly shy and simpering while Dushyanta is the manly man who can effortlessly tame a wild elephant as well as convince his ladylove for gandharva vivaha (consensual wedding between a couple without any witnesses and rituals). Then on, the movie follows the familiar trajectory of Shakuntala being cursed by quick-tempered Durvasa; losing the ring that Dushyant had given her; and facing rejection from the king who doesn’t recognise her even though she is pregnant with his child.

One would expect the movie to dwell on Shakuntala’s emotions and conflicts as she, more than once, is abandoned by her loved ones. But her character remains underdeveloped and deprived of the attention she deserves in what’s described as an ‘epic love story’. Hence, the storytelling suffers and the film lacks soul. This is baffling because Ruth Prabhu while dealing with her difficulties and detractors, in real life, has often shown remarkable maturity and grace. The director could have easily drawn inspiration from the actor to give the character of Shakuntala a contemporary touch. That’s something this retelling desperately needed.

In fact, in the opening credit the movie’s title reads as ‘Gunasekhar’s Shaakuntalam’ even though Kalidas’s play remains the basis for it. So, one expects the director, who is also credited for the screenplay, to have incorporated some fresh perspective in the story that’s projected to be woman-centric. Instead, it reinforces all the stereotypes associated with male gaze, such as depiction of a woman as a sexual object, being submissive and without any agency. At one point in the movie, Shakuntala is even blamed for her own misery (sounds like victim shaming?). While defending Dushyanta, who forgot all about her, she is told that it’s her daydreaming about the king that invited Durvasa’s wrath. This, kind of, even justifies Durvasa’s curse that Dushyanta would have no memory of Shakuntala.

Since her birth, Shakuntala was short-changed by those who were supposed to be her caregivers and benefactors. Shaakuntalam does that again. Irrespective of its title, the movie not only puts Dushyant at the centre of the narrative but also goes the extra mile to establish him as the noble king who can do no wrong.