| |
|
Why
Mani slipped from his perch?
|
|
 |
|
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.
(By
Sudhakar, with inputs from Arun.)
Respond
to 
Behindwoods is not responsible for the views of columnists.
|
|
|
