In Mythology, there is heroism, but every character also has a fatal flaw, an Achille's Heel, if you please. A grey area which makes them unpredictable, where logic and emotion end up at logger heads. It doesn't make the person evil or good, just human.
When we worship our mythological characters, we attribute morality for their actions. We make them gods and demons.We throw in a couple of imaginative curses to justify their actions. We play down the weaknesses and increase the strengths of the hero. We split characters into black and white. We paint them dark or light, Aryan or Dravidian. We use today's moral standards to interpret a story set in a time of different social mores by exalting it to third and different plane, that of religion.
Rama's fatal flaw was his sense of duty as king. He was a unitasker. He is justified in killing Vaali by devious methods because Vaali deserved it. But we bestow him with godliness instead of embracing his very human flaw of being a workaholic duty-driven king.
Ravana's mistake was to abduct another man's wife. Do we embrace this as a flaw? Having said that, if he had abducted the wife of someone deemed evil, is that justified? If Ravana killed Vaali, who would be the hero in the shades-of-grey fight between two 'villains'? We also attribute a curse by Rambha to Ravana's not laying a finger on Sita. What if the bloke was fundamentally decent, but much like an animal, wildly aggressive if anyone from his brood was insulted?
Mani Rathnam's Raavanan is a wonderful retelling of the Ramayana story and comes from that amazing place in his mind that gave us the stirringly interpreted Satyavan Savithri story - Roja.
Raavanan is a statement in shades of grey - from the character motivations to the visuals. High time we had this for a black and white epic such as Ramayana. And it depicts the Ramayana for what it is - a tragedy.
STORY - Ragini is abducted by a brigand, Veera. Her husband, Dev pulls out all the stops to find her and hunt Veera down. At some point, the difference between the two blurs for Dev. Ragini comes to know Veera's story and her view of the world being black and white is slashed into shades of grey.
PERFORMANCES - Vikram plays Veera so well, that I'm rather reluctant to watch the Hindi version now. Am a big fan and he has lived up to my faith in his talent. Aishwarya has acted - she's not busy looking beautiful and that's one less distraction for the audience. Maybe it was because of the assured Tamizh dubbing voice - she sounds rather bleaty otherwise. Prithviraj as Dev is rather unidimensional (and er...rightfully so?). Prabhu and Karthik - great to see you back. Ranjeetha was rather wasted in her silent role as Prabhu's wife.
COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER - The sequences of Dev and Ragini's erstwhile happy life is unnecessary - we'd have taken her word for it.
Also, the Ramayana references are forced in portions. We love the ten-head part, but it is obvious from the story who Vennila (Priyamani) represents - we don't need a cop to tweak her nose. But I liked the Vibheeshana part - reinforces the shades of grey. The agni pariksha motive is interesting, but Ragini's motivation to go back and ask Veera what he said about her, is unconvincing. She comes across as dumb at the end of it all - ironically, Veera understands Dev's motivations in slandering her better than she does.
TECHNICALITIES: Too many songs. Rahman - well - ok. A lot of percussion and wind instruments. Brilliant BGM - unobtrusive, but atmospheric. Visually spectacular. Hard working dialogues - Suhasini. Also, this is one movie where you won't find the characters speak in the stereotypical 'Mani Rathnam-Hush'.
My recommendation, non-tamizhians please watch the Tamizh version with subtitles - PVR has it. Having said that, I don't know if that would distract from the movie.
Abhishek Bachhan as Beera in the Hindi version is likely to be doing a better job than his contemporaries in Bollywood, but I doubt it would be better than Vikram's performance. He is bound to come across as youthfully hammy to Vikram's mature restraint. There IS such a thing as the Indian film industry outside Bollywood and Raavanan has proved it to be true with this modern-day retelling of a centuries old story.
Should we see this as just a story with no Ramayana element? Sure, there's more comfort in it. That way, it will be the one-sided love story of a brigand. Should we embrace this as a Ramayana interpretation? Only if we're strong enough to live with the layers and questions to reinterpret and perhaps strengthen our view of the Ramayana.
When we worship our mythological characters, we attribute morality for their actions. We make them gods and demons.We throw in a couple of imaginative curses to justify their actions. We play down the weaknesses and increase the strengths of the hero. We split characters into black and white. We paint them dark or light, Aryan or Dravidian. We use today's moral standards to interpret a story set in a time of different social mores by exalting it to third and different plane, that of religion.
Rama's fatal flaw was his sense of duty as king. He was a unitasker. He is justified in killing Vaali by devious methods because Vaali deserved it. But we bestow him with godliness instead of embracing his very human flaw of being a workaholic duty-driven king.
Ravana's mistake was to abduct another man's wife. Do we embrace this as a flaw? Having said that, if he had abducted the wife of someone deemed evil, is that justified? If Ravana killed Vaali, who would be the hero in the shades-of-grey fight between two 'villains'? We also attribute a curse by Rambha to Ravana's not laying a finger on Sita. What if the bloke was fundamentally decent, but much like an animal, wildly aggressive if anyone from his brood was insulted?
Mani Rathnam's Raavanan is a wonderful retelling of the Ramayana story and comes from that amazing place in his mind that gave us the stirringly interpreted Satyavan Savithri story - Roja.
Raavanan is a statement in shades of grey - from the character motivations to the visuals. High time we had this for a black and white epic such as Ramayana. And it depicts the Ramayana for what it is - a tragedy.
STORY - Ragini is abducted by a brigand, Veera. Her husband, Dev pulls out all the stops to find her and hunt Veera down. At some point, the difference between the two blurs for Dev. Ragini comes to know Veera's story and her view of the world being black and white is slashed into shades of grey.
PERFORMANCES - Vikram plays Veera so well, that I'm rather reluctant to watch the Hindi version now. Am a big fan and he has lived up to my faith in his talent. Aishwarya has acted - she's not busy looking beautiful and that's one less distraction for the audience. Maybe it was because of the assured Tamizh dubbing voice - she sounds rather bleaty otherwise. Prithviraj as Dev is rather unidimensional (and er...rightfully so?). Prabhu and Karthik - great to see you back. Ranjeetha was rather wasted in her silent role as Prabhu's wife.
COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER - The sequences of Dev and Ragini's erstwhile happy life is unnecessary - we'd have taken her word for it.
Also, the Ramayana references are forced in portions. We love the ten-head part, but it is obvious from the story who Vennila (Priyamani) represents - we don't need a cop to tweak her nose. But I liked the Vibheeshana part - reinforces the shades of grey. The agni pariksha motive is interesting, but Ragini's motivation to go back and ask Veera what he said about her, is unconvincing. She comes across as dumb at the end of it all - ironically, Veera understands Dev's motivations in slandering her better than she does.
TECHNICALITIES: Too many songs. Rahman - well - ok. A lot of percussion and wind instruments. Brilliant BGM - unobtrusive, but atmospheric. Visually spectacular. Hard working dialogues - Suhasini. Also, this is one movie where you won't find the characters speak in the stereotypical 'Mani Rathnam-Hush'.
My recommendation, non-tamizhians please watch the Tamizh version with subtitles - PVR has it. Having said that, I don't know if that would distract from the movie.
Abhishek Bachhan as Beera in the Hindi version is likely to be doing a better job than his contemporaries in Bollywood, but I doubt it would be better than Vikram's performance. He is bound to come across as youthfully hammy to Vikram's mature restraint. There IS such a thing as the Indian film industry outside Bollywood and Raavanan has proved it to be true with this modern-day retelling of a centuries old story.
Should we see this as just a story with no Ramayana element? Sure, there's more comfort in it. That way, it will be the one-sided love story of a brigand. Should we embrace this as a Ramayana interpretation? Only if we're strong enough to live with the layers and questions to reinterpret and perhaps strengthen our view of the Ramayana.
1 comment:
Great review Saritha! I agree that Vikram was the best there. All others pale into insignificance for me. The story dragged in the first half, I suppressed an almost loud yawn. The second half also did not create a wow experience. Hmm the locales yes. I like your review more than the film. Mani Ratnam -Are you listening/reading?-Savithri
Post a Comment