The movie works because the story does. So the first credit should go to Valmiki, and for the Tamil version of the movie, Kamban. These two gentlemen gave not only a solid story to work from, but pages and pages of beautiful poetry, full of metaphors, similes and poetic nuances.
Suhasini’s dialogs sound fantastic because she has done a brilliant job of adapting poetry into simple rustic and colloquial language. Vairamuthu’s lyrics soar in this context. The movie is packed with delightful and fresh visual interpretations of the scenes we know so well—be it Sita pining under a tree, or Hanuman meeting her bearing Ram’s message, or a Bacchanalian celebration of the Asuras. Watch the movie for the fantastic cinematography by Santosh Sivan, if nothing else.
Kamban is also responsible for the humanization of Ravanan that we see in the movie. In the Tamil Ramayanam, Ravanan is depicted as a fantastically talented man and a great king. His single weakness which leads to his eventual downfall is that he falls for another man’s wife.
The movie works well because of this premise. And especially because Vikram gives such a controlled, nuanced, and studied performance of Ravanan. His triumph is that he uses his single head and body to bring out 10 shades of personality—angry asura, thoughtful leader, loving brother, playful young man, and a heartbroken lover, to name a few. There were moments of his performance which gave me goose pimples—that scene at the river, where he asks Sita about her relationship with Ram and talks about this all consuming jealousy he feels for Ram; so much jealousy that it makes him expand and feel bigger than anybody. Just look at the myriad of emotions that flit through his face—his eyes! Oh man!
The movie works because Mani has pushed the envelope and explores the possibility that Sita falls for Ravanan too. I read a review which called it Stockholm Syndrome, but really, I believe it is written by a moron who never asked the following questions about Ramayana: Why is Sita so passive? Why is she so dull? Is she a human being at all, or just a male chauvinistic interpretation of the ideal womanhood? Why does Sita, as depicted by Deepika Chiklia, cries all the time?
Mani presents a much overdue alternative: a fiery and feisty Sita, a well read and talented Sita, a Sita who has strong opinions, and a human Sita who can be conflicted and who can have complex emotions. A Sita who looks at Ravanan and tells him, “My life is not yours to take. It is mine and you have no right over it,” and “Why are you making a woman a pawn in a game between men?” Kudos Mani. And Suhasini for that bit of emancipated dialog!
Which brings me to Aishwarya Rai Bachan’s performance: like most of us, I hate her on principle. She is pretty but she is cold, plastic, and an extremely mediocre actor. And she is married to Abhishek Bachan. Enough said.
But oh boy, has she worked hard in this movie! A lot of physical work definitely--she jumps into ravines, clambers up rocky mountains, runs barefoot in the forest, digs a man out of a hole he is buried into with her bare hands, and so on. And also a lot of acting work—it is a complex and difficult part and she does a good job of it. She looks her age in some angles, which makes her more acceptable, I guess. :-)
Prithviraj as Ram looks handsome, and he plays his character with such single minded ruthlessness. My complaint in the movie is that while it explores the psyche of Ravanan and Sita so well, Ram is merely a Terminator kind of presence, who tortures a maimed man, does encounter-type killing with impunity, and sends his wife as the Trojan horse to get his man.
The movie is fantastically cast. Prabhu and Karthik share the screen in a Maniratnam movie after 24 years (since the epochal Agninatchathiram). It is a treat to watch them as always. And Karthik as Hanuman—gosh, that is brilliance itself! Prabhu somehow gets cuter with every passing year and every kilogram of weight he adds to his expansive person—Ranga Rao’s mantel of the genial Asura has been passed on to very capable shoulders. Vaiyapuri’s underplayed eunuch character is lovely.
ARR’s music is great. Here’s my humble submission—ARR’s music sounds the best with Vairamuthu’s lyrics. They share such a wonderful chemistry. And for those of you who don’t understand Tamil, it is a big loss.
One big relief for me—after a long, long time, Mani did not screw up a climax. He doesn’t stand on a soap box and give a lecture; he is not obsessed with a “social consciousness”. Instead, he keeps it personal, tight, and very effective.
Of course I have my share of issues with the movie: the first half is jerky and settles only in the second half. The metaphors look very obvious—like the hawk that represents Ravanan’s presence. Seriously? Surpanakha’s story is done in broad brush strokes, in a hurry, and very unconvincing. The narrative sags in some places.
But overall, the old lion roars once again!
Suhasini’s dialogs sound fantastic because she has done a brilliant job of adapting poetry into simple rustic and colloquial language. Vairamuthu’s lyrics soar in this context. The movie is packed with delightful and fresh visual interpretations of the scenes we know so well—be it Sita pining under a tree, or Hanuman meeting her bearing Ram’s message, or a Bacchanalian celebration of the Asuras. Watch the movie for the fantastic cinematography by Santosh Sivan, if nothing else.
Kamban is also responsible for the humanization of Ravanan that we see in the movie. In the Tamil Ramayanam, Ravanan is depicted as a fantastically talented man and a great king. His single weakness which leads to his eventual downfall is that he falls for another man’s wife.
The movie works well because of this premise. And especially because Vikram gives such a controlled, nuanced, and studied performance of Ravanan. His triumph is that he uses his single head and body to bring out 10 shades of personality—angry asura, thoughtful leader, loving brother, playful young man, and a heartbroken lover, to name a few. There were moments of his performance which gave me goose pimples—that scene at the river, where he asks Sita about her relationship with Ram and talks about this all consuming jealousy he feels for Ram; so much jealousy that it makes him expand and feel bigger than anybody. Just look at the myriad of emotions that flit through his face—his eyes! Oh man!
The movie works because Mani has pushed the envelope and explores the possibility that Sita falls for Ravanan too. I read a review which called it Stockholm Syndrome, but really, I believe it is written by a moron who never asked the following questions about Ramayana: Why is Sita so passive? Why is she so dull? Is she a human being at all, or just a male chauvinistic interpretation of the ideal womanhood? Why does Sita, as depicted by Deepika Chiklia, cries all the time?
Mani presents a much overdue alternative: a fiery and feisty Sita, a well read and talented Sita, a Sita who has strong opinions, and a human Sita who can be conflicted and who can have complex emotions. A Sita who looks at Ravanan and tells him, “My life is not yours to take. It is mine and you have no right over it,” and “Why are you making a woman a pawn in a game between men?” Kudos Mani. And Suhasini for that bit of emancipated dialog!
Which brings me to Aishwarya Rai Bachan’s performance: like most of us, I hate her on principle. She is pretty but she is cold, plastic, and an extremely mediocre actor. And she is married to Abhishek Bachan. Enough said.
But oh boy, has she worked hard in this movie! A lot of physical work definitely--she jumps into ravines, clambers up rocky mountains, runs barefoot in the forest, digs a man out of a hole he is buried into with her bare hands, and so on. And also a lot of acting work—it is a complex and difficult part and she does a good job of it. She looks her age in some angles, which makes her more acceptable, I guess. :-)
Prithviraj as Ram looks handsome, and he plays his character with such single minded ruthlessness. My complaint in the movie is that while it explores the psyche of Ravanan and Sita so well, Ram is merely a Terminator kind of presence, who tortures a maimed man, does encounter-type killing with impunity, and sends his wife as the Trojan horse to get his man.
The movie is fantastically cast. Prabhu and Karthik share the screen in a Maniratnam movie after 24 years (since the epochal Agninatchathiram). It is a treat to watch them as always. And Karthik as Hanuman—gosh, that is brilliance itself! Prabhu somehow gets cuter with every passing year and every kilogram of weight he adds to his expansive person—Ranga Rao’s mantel of the genial Asura has been passed on to very capable shoulders. Vaiyapuri’s underplayed eunuch character is lovely.
ARR’s music is great. Here’s my humble submission—ARR’s music sounds the best with Vairamuthu’s lyrics. They share such a wonderful chemistry. And for those of you who don’t understand Tamil, it is a big loss.
One big relief for me—after a long, long time, Mani did not screw up a climax. He doesn’t stand on a soap box and give a lecture; he is not obsessed with a “social consciousness”. Instead, he keeps it personal, tight, and very effective.
Of course I have my share of issues with the movie: the first half is jerky and settles only in the second half. The metaphors look very obvious—like the hawk that represents Ravanan’s presence. Seriously? Surpanakha’s story is done in broad brush strokes, in a hurry, and very unconvincing. The narrative sags in some places.
But overall, the old lion roars once again!
Comments
You are probably very homesick or you wouldn't write such a glowing review of what I would unhesitatingly classify as the Worst Movie of the Decade.
the biggest missing piece in this movie is the lack of any characterisation or a script which has any depth. Editing and pathetic dialogue add to the totally moronic script in making this the most unbelievably boring movie. I am also taken aback by the caricaturisation of Karthik and Prabhu. The only saving graces are Vikram and Santhosh Sivan (cameraman), but there is little they can do to hold up a terrible movie let down by its director, scriptwriter and editor.