If you are a Tamil cinema fan, there must be only one movie on your mind at the moment; Raavanan. The most respected film maker of India has given a product that has not quite lived up to his reputation; that is what many people are saying at this point of time. Of course, no one has even dared to opine that this is a bad movie.
It is just the fact that Mani Ratnam’s standards are so high that we expect nothing less than a masterpiece from him every single time. It is like all cricket fans of India not being ready to accept anything less than a century every time Sachin bats (even 99 means that he is out of form) and Brazilian football fans not wanting anything less than a World Cup win (not even making it to the final will do; ask the 1998 team). Some people and organizations have to deliver at a higher level than others to satisfy us because they simply don’t have other competition.
So, where in Raavanan did Mani Ratnam fall from his own lofty standards? Certainly not the technical part; it is world class; helmed by some of the best. In fact, Raavanan might be considered technically superior to all previous Mani Ratnam films. It is in the casting, characterization and nativity that Mani seems to have got entangled a bit. How?
Mani Ratnam is a director who is known to give thoroughly new dimensions to actors. He pulls them from the ordinary stuff and makes them do things that they would never have thought of; this is testified by many actors who have worked under the director. He revamps an artiste and presents them in moulds that surprise audiences. This is precisely what he did when he cast Abhishek Bachchan and Mithun Chakraborthy in Guru, Madhavan in Ayudha Ezhuthu, Mohanlal in Iruvar or even Janakaraj in Roja.
All the above cited examples are instances where actors have been made to do roles that were hitherto uncharted territory and they came out trumps in each of them. We must agree that we all loved the casting and they provided immense strength to the films. Even in Raavanan, most of the casting seems apt, true to the Mani Ratnam style. But the one which seems to be a let down is that of Priyamani, the ‘Surpanaka’ in the modern Ramayana. Now, this might not sound like a very convincing reason.
But, many people having watched the film have opined that the casting of Priyamani in this role was a give away about the character’s ultimate fate. Why is it so? Because of the impact of the ‘Muthalagu’ character from Paruthiveeran. It is easy to be wise in hindsight, some might feel. But, a director of Mani Ratnam’s caliber must have been alert to such possibilities while casting for his film because the audience is not ready to accept anything but the best from him.
The other aspect where the Mani Ratnam perfection was not present was characterization. Yes, Raavanan was an adaptation of the Ramayana. But, was there a need to almost caricaturize characters in order to make the analogy obvious. Isn’t Mani Ratnam capable of conveying things to his audience in a much more subtle manner? We have seen Mani Ratnam adapting stories from epics and real life. But never has he made characters overdo trademark traits to emphasize identity. But, Raavanan had its fair share of overdone mannerisms.
For example; did Karthik have to be shown as a bouncy, chirpy and acrobatic forest guard who pops out of trees and invades the screen from out of the blue to show that his character was modeled on Hanuman? A normal, serious and true to life forest guard would also have sufficed and looked much more effective, we think. Also, did Prabhu have to be shown as constant munching machine to emphasize that he was Kumbhakarna. In any case, isn’t his wide girth a give away about his character. Likewise, there are such caricatures and overdone mannerisms that are so unlike Mani Ratnam.
Finally, the nativity. Many have said, Raavanan just doesn’t feel completely like a Tamil film. There have been instances before where such opinions have risen, like Guru and Dil Se. But, those were different cases because they were not originally intended as Tamil films. But, Raavanan was meant to be one and when such opinions are raised about this film, it does not augur well for India’s top film maker.
Maybe the pressure of having to vibe with audiences of both south and north India while making a shot by shot bilingual forced Mani Ratnam to deviate a bit from authentic Tamil flavor. The locations, the palatial structures and huge statues are unlike anything that is found in the mountainside villages of South India. One wonders that after almost two years of thought and effort, how such a thing was allowed to pass by Mani Ratnam.
We all love Mani Ratnam films and Raavanan too is worth a watch for its visual beauty and performances. But, when the man is Mani Ratnam we raise our expectations, wanting nothing but the best. And, in the case of Raavanan, those expectations have not been met; this is definitely not Mani Ratnam’s best.
Just like a million Indian fans moan in despair even when Sachin gets out after making 50, ruing the missed century, we too are not quite satisfied with a good film that could not be great. Let us hope that Mani Ratnam gets to his century next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment