Padmavat : Poetry on screen vs historical spleen

How do you show a tale of a power hungry , masochistic, arrogant ruler who wants every Nayaab Cheez in his hands in a Bollywood good should win over evil movie ?  Khilji was evil, he plundered temples, imprisoned women as slaves and committed all the atrocities and debauchery like a marauding ruler. So when your rulers are like this, poets will be forced to write some bad verse instead of bad words. ( excuse the PJ). Hence some one considered a legendary poet of those times, wrote a poem called Padmaavat. So I looked up Padmaavats wikipedia entry - it seems like a poem in its best form can be talking about the 'Tyranny of Desire" best exemplified in the following words quoted in the wiki -
" Desire is insatiable, permanent / but this world is illusory and transient / Insatiable desire man continues to have / Till life is over and he reaches his grave".  

In what would have been a Delhi Sultanate version of Macbeth -   he was trying to say - that desire kills everyone. 
One also needs to realise that Padmavat was the poets best work or best known work. In an era that also had a certain Amir Khusro, this guy could well be as famous as Madan Lal in cricket. Hence its not the best source nor is it the greatest poem of its age. 

Ranveer Singh is so perfectly cast and lives the role with apblomb. His eyes smoke with desire, his body language lusts in motion and watching him devour meat is borderline Clockwork Orange. In fact this movie should have been just that a historical Clockwork Orange type narrative , but unfortunately history comes in between a good story. Neither did Khilji die a painful death, nor he did not repent for his sins. So that story angle is out.

Some records show that he did become more and more dependent on his trusted confidant - eunuch, Man Friday, slave, begum - Malik Kafur. That would have been such a love story , never seen on Indian screen. The most epic bromance turned gaymandance to ghamandance ... hoi hoi hoi - see what a plot that would have been. It could have been the first Anurag Kashyap Karan Johar coproduction! And of course it would have been banned for sure. So instead of a bumper Friday booking , it would be just an Amavasyic (sic) Black Friday. 

Unfortunately this is a Sanjay Leela Bhansali movie where even a barrage of bullets is a Rasleela. , So there needs to be the saga, the lyrical motions, the sets , the costumes, the picture perfectness that should also have historical perfectness of the Rajput valour.  And it has all of that in amazing glory.  The gorgeous Deepika holds fort in both beauty and brains and being worthy of a titular conquest.

But somehow her acting is still stiff in parts , but that is not her fault. Its the Bhansali trying to have perfect frames , especially in the romance between Rani Padmini and Rattan Singh ( Shahid Kapur). In fact the depiction of this is painful as Sanjay Leela Bhansali fights his own tyranny of desire for the frame he wants. The most crippling part of the movie is the Rajput in slow motion problem ,  there is a barbarian at the fort gate and you are optimizing the curvature of the tilak to be put on the forehead!

In fact the movie when removed of its 'political correctness problems' actually has very interesting facets. A smarter queen actually makes the power moves, although Rajput queens are more famous for their pearl collections and johar. When does Johar training beginning for a woman , they seem to be running like a practised drill. Why did the Rajputs collude in front of a common enemy and so on.

The movie is almost one dimensional and ends up like that one ride in the Rajasthan touristy circuit.