9

Ravannan

Posted by Nivi on 9:21 PM
Much as been said about the movie, much more have been read. I am going to keep away from reviewing the movie and rather talk about where the movie worked ,where it could have worked better and why it is going to leave a good after taste. 

For starters, I thought the opening credits were brilliant.It just set the tone for what followed next. Though the movie  starts with a disclaimer like all other Mani movies, it was clear from the beginning that this was Mani's interpretation of a slice of the great epic, Ramayana. 


Going in  , I knew what the plot was about, just like one knew what Thalapathi was . Did anyone notice the striking resemblance in locations between Thalapathi and this? Following Nayagan,Thalapathi , in this movie too, Mani makes the bad guy the protogonist and tries to examine the different shades of his character. We all knew Velu Nayakkar was an outlaw,so was Surya and so is Veeraiyya(Vikram). Where Mani succeeds is he steers the audience away from falling in love with his characters, and instead makes them look at the characters from a different lens than the ones they have been using all along. 


In ravannan too, you dont end up falling in love with Veeraiya's character. However you can see where his emotions are coming from. He is enraged with his brother -in-law who ditched his sister, his is enraged with Dev, for ruining his sister's wedding, he is furious with the inspector for ruining her life. You see his thirst for revenge and you understand why he kidnapped Dev's wide. His idea of an eye for an eye. Mani sticked to the epic here, though taking it to the extreme side. ( for the uninitiated, in Ramayana, Ravana kidnaps Sita because his sister Shurpanaka's nose and ears were cut off by the short tempered Laxman) 


It was Ragini's(Sita) spunk that caught his attention first. Had he been just the usual bad guy who would shoot/stab anyone without a second thought, this probably would not have happened. But Veera isnt. He is yet another robinhood,a goodie at heart refusing to follow the rule of law for doing the good that he believes in. Which is why he is unable to kill Ragini, though he tells his brothers and mates, it would be a matter of 14 minutes, before Ragini is dead.

The more time he spends with her, he realizes he is falling for her. Nothing hard to chew here, we have seen leading men fall for heroines for way less than that. Mani stuck to the epic here too, Ravannan did go to kidnap Sita an act of revenge, but the moment he saw her, he was consumed by her beauty, and wanted her more than anything. The scene where Veera plays with the children while asking her to stay with him was masterclass. I noticed a resemblance to Guna here( did anyone?) . 

Was Veera shown in a much better light that he actually was? I dont think so. It was already established that he had in him a streak of badness. Why go in to details about that? Also again going to the epic, Ravanna was a great ruler, he was infact quoted to be the best ruler in Lanka, who took great care of his citizens. He was an extreme devout, a great musician. But we knew he was a bad guy because of the one big mistake he made.Which is exactly why I do not feel, it was necessary to examine the darkness in his character. Why say  more when you can say less?

That is what I thought about Dev(Ram) as well. He was a police officer and the good guy in this case, as he is out to vanguish the evil , or the outlaw (Veera). He is pushed to his limits, when Veera kidnaps his own wife. He is cold and calculating, we are left schocked when he tortures Veera's brother -in-law, not Ram like  behaviour.Dont get him wrong, he loves his wife and is worried sick of her and her safety. But he is not just satisfied with finding her, he wants to destroy Veera, which explains why he acts the way with Veera's  brother(Vibeeshana). That to me was a different take on the Rama we have grown up knowing.


Contrary to many opinions out there, I actually do not think the plot was wafer thin. The plot was  a slice of Ramayanam, and the director's exploration of the different shades in the characters. And like the movie's website reads,  to ultimately point out that there is a little bit of Ravannan in every Rama and vice versa. Looking at it in that sense, I thought the movie stuck to plot we all have been hearing since we were 3, pretty darn well. Also  I thought the characters were well developed. 


Ragini is spunky, at least to others, She is scared, as she accepts and calls for help from her beloved, but she wastes no time in telling people what she thinks. She is temperamental and spontaneous, which Dev exploits at the end. She gets to see the softer side of her captor and we dont know if she has a soft spot for him or not, which Mani carefully left to our interpretation. 


Veera like the ten headed demon king makes it more than obvious of how confused he is with all the voices in his head. He falls in love with another man's wife and finds himself wanting her love, than just wanting her. So much that when he has an opportunity to end it all , he doesnt. He thinks of her at that moment which proves to be his Achilees heel. Veera even agrees for a truce when accused by his brother of throwing it all away for a woman. Something that Ravannan never did.

Not to mention a different take at the end for the classic "Inru Poi Nalai Vaa". I loved that.

There were some tiny things, attention to detail in the movie that I thought were telling of Mani's brilliance. The scene where Karthik says "Pathuten..." a la "Kanden Sithaiyai" ,how Prabhu seemed to be always handling the affairs of food (Kumbhakarna -What a choice? :) ),and the scene between Veera and Karthik(Hanuman) where it was clear that at some point, it turns in to a clash of ego. 

However there were a few things that made me cringe, the need to make Veera an eccentric. It was a  Vikram we have seen probably a hundred times, and Karthik for the role of Hanuman. For as much as he was entertaining, he was always Karthik, and never Forrest, the character. 

There is nothing I can say that hasn't already been said about  the cinematography. Stunning, yes. And yes although Suhasini did a decent job with the dialogues, you couldnt help but wonder what Sujatha would have written. What a loss!

That's it! I thought it was one of the most intelligently done movies in the recent times. I strongly believe despite the early bad reviews, the movie will grow on people and like I said in the beginning leave a good after taste.




9 Comments

Manasa says:
June 20, 2010 9:49 PM

My biggest grouse with the movie was that there were no shades of grey as the previews proclaimed. Let's say I knew nothing about the Ramayana and was viewing the movie as a stand alone story. Dev is painted in shades of black while Beera is as white as Ragini's chudidar in the climax. There is no back story to why the police raid a wedding to arrest Beera. Why, the 'bad guys' who rape Beera's sister are policemen, the same tribe Dev belongs to. Dev is not shown in a single redeeming act - either as a man by himself or as Ragini's husband. Even in his most intimate moment with her, he compares her to his gun :P

Now if you want to argue that this was supposed to be a take on the Ramayana and the visuals were an interpretation - why is Ram never, ever shown as a Maryada-purush? Where is Sita's adoration for Ram? The dialoges were there, but I had to provide evidence for these statements by going back to the epic as I knew it. And when the characters on screen were not evocative of Ram, Raavan or Sita, it is difficult to use the epic as a filler.

That said, the movie had flashes of brilliance. The scene on the boat, his fate literally spinning. The line about jealousy (which sounded SO much better in Hindi).Jaa re ud ja re in the background as the sister dies, and later, as Beera dies. Beera chasing Ragini through the forest, the music and lines sizzling with passion, the water on his face literally steaming on the camera.
Flashes, sadly.

PS: In the tamizh version, I would have preferred it if Kattu Sirukki had been replaced by lines from kamba ramayanam where ravana describes sita's beauty :)

Nivi says:
June 20, 2010 9:56 PM

Well I see your point there, but I would think, establishing something that we have grown up knowing so well, is redundant, not to mention it would cost the movie a few more precious moments. Having said that I do agree with you on the fact that for someone who is watching the movies with no prior knowledge of the epic, might see the whites and black you mentioned. But here again, isnt being an outlaw and a police officer a rather strong stroke of black and white as it can come?

And I completely agree on using Kamba Ramayanam. It would have been so much more poetic. But I guess that would be Mani having to acknowledge this was indeed Ramayanam which I am sure he wouldn't considering the many groups waiting to cause commotion citing disrespecting culture and what not.

kaarthy m madhan says:
June 21, 2010 7:44 AM

Great observation nivi...Thought provoking for those who got blind sighted watching commercial flicks and just expect that element in Mani's movie... Good Job..simply sooper.

Mystique says:
June 21, 2010 9:57 AM

Reading a lot of reviews, I feel that there has been a compulsive need for most reviewers to appreciate the movie from a director who has a legacy of hallmark movies. Though you pointed out some of the analogies to Raamayana, it looks like Mani missed the bulls eye on my favorite aspect in his movies - subtelity. Karthik's daftness of jumping round like Hanuman, Prabhu distributing food, the Kandein Sitaye scene, pulling PriyaMani's nose to mean she is Soorpanaka, etc. seemed forced and convoluted. Evolution of love between two characters is Mani's forte - Revathi falling for the boisterous rogue and eventually falling in love with her good hearted husband, Madhu loving and scaling the Himalayas for the man she initially thought disrupted her education or even the love that matured in the buzz of Bombay showcased his brilliance in weaving a beautiful love story in a plot where the central theme is different. Veeraiya falling in love with Raagini was abrupt (just because she jumped the waterfalls) and Usure Poguthe was misplaced. The jumbled screenplay and poor character potrayal (a relatively serious Veeraiya at his sister's wedding becoming eccentric whenever Ash talks) left me wanting for more.
The league of Sura and Singham makes me feel that this is definitely a good effort but it is not even at par with what Mani Ratnam can do.

Nivi says:
June 21, 2010 1:30 PM

@Mystique

I am going to have to disagree there.It was definitely not one of those "I have to appreciate him"- atleast for me. I believe we have seen many good directors falter, from KB to Gautam Menon.

And on the subtlety too, I felt there as was as much subtlety as "Thalapathi". Srividhya would leave her kid alone on a train and he floats his way in the river when someone finds him. Pretty much exactly what happened. Deva(Mamooty's ) and Suray(Rajini's) repeated declaration of love for one another's friendship. Surya telling his father he cannot abondon his friend even if he is in the wrong( Karna telling Kunti). Even Rajini falling for Shobana, like Karna is supposed to have. So I don think there was any difference in the subtleness between the two.

I guess and I could be wrong here is the disappointment among those who did not like the movie comes from an expectation that this would be completely different take on Ramayana. It wasn't that, and to me the different take on the characters appealed more than anything.

As for Karthik, like I mentioned, it was a grouse for me. Not prabhu though, I thought he fit the bill perfectly.

Ajay says:
June 21, 2010 2:26 PM

interesting analysis, nivi. and equally interesting comments too. of course, there is not much newness to the story, so we are all interested in how the film is going to presented. As Manasa pointed out, there were no shades of grey in the characters and that was a big disappointment. perhaps in this kali yug, ppl like dev who helps maintain law and order r the raavan and ppl like veera who flouts them are the ram, we get it, but why the decoy marketing?. and we know this is a take on the ramayana, so instead of us finding out, mani's attempts to spoon-feed us who was who was not classy. Aishwarya was beautiful, but her beauty came only from beauty, not from any other grace. perhaps a really good actress might have pulled the Ragini character off, but Aish has still lot to learn, acting-wise. and kartik seemed so garrulous that it kind of jarred.

all that being said, the heroes of the movie were Vikram and of course Santosh Sivan (and yes, Mani). Watching the promos, I somehow felt Vikram saying "pathu thala" more natural than Abhishek's "das sar", and he has proved it. Veera is vulnerable in Ragini's presence and that Vikram has brought out well. Sivan and Mani, not only give us breathtaking shots (the bridge scene was terrific, for one), but also remind us why we are not merely reading a book to know the story. Mani plays with myth on many occasions- the scene where Veera says how Dev edged him and won Ragini, seeming to indicate the difference between a god and a demon. There is also this scene where Veera wonders, is it just 14 days, his relationship with Ragini? Now Sita was Ravana's wife in an earlier janma in one of the myths and that she was his daughter in other versions.
And you may say how such a "tough" man like Veera can forget his sister's and brother's fates and just soften. but every story should have change in its characters, else there is no progress. Vikram's Veera's is love.

Prabhu and Prithviraj have done well. We wonder why an actor like Prabhu seem to fall into stereotypical directors like P. Vasu's movies. The man is a talented actor. It was funny to see Vaiyapuri playing an androgynous part. And there were of course Mani's usual suspects like the train. When in doubt, he revisits his earlier movies and it becomes a little dull to see repetitions. The wedding prep scene reminds you of Alaipayuthey, the bedroom scene with Dev and Ragini reminds you of Iruvar, and the scene where Veera's brother asks permission to "do" something reminds you of Nayakan.

So, all in all, I felt that Raavanan was not mani ratnam's best by any means, but at the end of the day, the positives tipped the negatives. And I felt satisfied, a thing which I couldn't say about his Guru.

Praveen says:
June 22, 2010 3:03 AM

nice review :)

I think the characters were very easily grey. They were dressed in black and white, signifying how they would appear to law/conventional wisdom. Dev just did his job. But he twisted his means to get there, using his own wife. Veera was a baddie who kidnapped Ragini. He loved her. But was not willing to kill Dev to have her, even when he could have.

I also liked the piece where Ragini was relieved to see Dev. She would've believed that would put an end to all her confusion.

One part I'd disagree with is Dev being a doting husband. I think his quest for Veera was far greater. He killing Sakkarai could have put his wife's life at risk. Dev does not take chances without thinking. When he saw her dress hanging, he did not feel sad by her plight, but was angry that Veera was outsmarting him. It looked to me that Dev was all along using Ragini's case to strengthen his hatred for Veera.

The lie-detector thing, Karthik jumping around etc I thought were a bit juvenile for Mani standards. The dialogues were good in parts, but definitely not Mani standards.

The first half was slow without much happening. If there was not much content, it would not have hurt to show some additional scenes about Dev/Veera to strengthen their character to the eyes of a common man.

I did not like the Inbasekar influence in Vikram's portrayal. Mani could have demanded better.

One thing I did not understand... Veera's was love at first sight (perhaps) for Ragini. So he saves her when she jumps off the cliff. But not sure why Ragini would accompany him back to his hideout if her intention was to die? Did she realize that Veera would not kill her since he just saved her? Don't know if I missed something.

I want to watch the movie again to understand it better :)

Harish says:
July 8, 2010 7:15 PM

Detailed and well noted review.

This movie is definitely for movie lovers and not for the pop-corn munching fellas who love to laugh at inane films like Housefull. No wonder the film bombed in the other parts of india.

As said, even against the disclaimer, the film is a detailed and well-crafted homage to the Ramayana with depth of characters. But to be frank, I found Prithvi somewhat restrained. But the touch of brilliance comes out when Ragini questions Dev if he came to save her to avenge Veera.

The scene where Dev burns cigarette holes in the photo to me was awesome and well shot. Santosh Sivan better find a new house with more rack space to accommodate all possible awards to be collected for Camera work.

And yes. As u said, Sujatha's razor sharp dialogs were missed. Yet, after a long time got to hear some chaste tamil spoken on screen than the tiring "avange ivange" slang :P.

To be fair, if this same movie had been made by a westerner(Danny Boyle anyone?), the same reviewers who ran for Mani's blood, might have termed it as a masterpiece. Well, Mr.Mani. U better stick to making tamil films. The lesser mortals dont deserve to see ur work. Let them watch Housefull and MNIK as we rest back and love your work....frame-by-frame :)

Prathap says:
July 22, 2010 11:47 AM

din't you see parallels between Naxal's fight and Veera's tribe's fight for justice? I somehow thought there is a strong Maoist influence on the story line......

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Copyright © 2009 Everyday Musings All rights reserved. Theme by Laptop Geek. | Bloggerized by FalconHive.