Films of Mani Ratnam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thilak4life

This is what I like about Mani. :) I don't think he dabbles though. It appears so because, he isn't making a statement, or taking a stance in his narrative, lets the viewer to dissect the themes, motifs, and the nuances themselves.

---

Adhellam dhaan avar padangalil kidaiyadhu engiren :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thilak4life

The non-judgmentality that he exhibits in his narrative is second to none.

---

Non-judgementality is the last thing I expect from a movie-maker. A movie must have a perspective, whatever the subject, otherwise it just becomes a dramatization of events (that's exactly how I view Guru - Mani's odd support for the character notwithstanding). Impartial analysis should be left to documentary makers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thilak4life

This is also to do with tolerance for the filmmaker's trope and trademarks to complement his style, in that respect, let me bring Tarantino (bohemian,) or Woody Allen (Neurotic.) Not to say that Mani or these filmmakers have no variety, but every filmmaker have their own personal style attached to different characterizations spread across their oeuvre.

---

Aaha, ore line'la Mani'ya Tarantino, Woody Allen kooda serthuttingale :D . Their trademark is not just the dialogues. It goes much beyond that. We will digress if we venture into that aspect.

I may seem too critical of Mani, but it is only because he is often praised as THE best director we have. Take away that sobriquet, and I do agree that he has made some good entertainers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kannannn

I may seem too critical of Mani, but it is only because he is often praised as THE best director we have. Take away that sobriquet, and I do agree that he has made some good entertainers.

---

can we help if people are in awe of this man :huh: - i think mani is defnitely below Mahendran and BR - when it comes to finer aspects of story telling.......but i think he is the most successful in giving commercial cinema with great aesthetic sense.........technology wise - he beats the *new* guys left-right, leave alone BR and Mahendran.......and the variety of themes - there too, he scores a point over the rest........

he has his own way of making movies - which is defintely not the most superior - but received well by people......

Morality, I think, is very important in the discussion of a film like Guru. Not because its protagonist deals with a moral conflict within himself or with others, but because he simply doesn't. Here's a protagonist who refuses to see his business through the prism of morality and ethics. The central conflict in Guru is not between two moral perspectives, but between morality and the absence of it. This is why it should not be taken as a capitalism vs. socialism duel, as capitalism is also an ideology and very much about being morally right. The conflict is between the morality of the Nanajis (I pluralise intentionally to say that most Indians held up to the same moral) and the amorality of Guru.

My viewing of Guru (the film) was in this point of view. The film actively engages with the amorality of Guru when it comes to pursue his goal. This is where Mani takes the 'allegorical' path (as he has done many times before) and places this very angle in the various strands of the film; in his relationship with his wife, brother-in-law, mentor and so on. Many might not be able to approve of Guru's decision to marry Sujata. (Sujata when she comes to know of it is shattered herself.) But, Guru has no problem with it and the way he sees it, it has nothing to do with his love for his would-be wife.
Mani also comes up trumps in the way he 'humanizes' Guru. In any other film, we'd have had this relentless pursuer of wealth portrayed as a slimeball, but not so with Mani Ratnam. Vidya Balan connects more to Guru than her idealistic father or even her husband. She buys into the pragmatist standpoint of Guru. (Not to forget that she's a shareholder of Shakti Corporation.) In a sheer populist sense, the Nanajis of the world have become less significant and influencing. This is not the director judging them, but contemporary social reality. This is why a Dhirubhai Ambani is a national icon while a Ramnath Goenka isn't quite.
I must say, Mani Ratnam creates a miniature of the social scenario effectively by establishing these characters. Like I was talking about Shyam Saxena before, he's the real peer-opponent of Guru in many ways in the film, while Nanaji is his father-figure from whom he inherits his ethics. But much as Shyam inherits his vitalities from Nanaji, he is similar to Guru in many ways. He's also quite amoral (or non-judgemental) when it comes to exposing Guru. He carries his job with unquestionable fervour to expose Guru and his corruption, but he would't mind if the expose is called off, he can indulge in a banter with him, unlike Nanaji. And, Guru for what he is simply holds no grudges against these people who judge him. He lives with them. "Ab pair padoon, kya?" he asks his brother-in-law when he's miffed at the way Guru sidelined him.
I don't understand the question about why these shades of Guru are brought into the film. That's precisely the idea! It's simply because Guru is the central protagonist in the film, these dimensions are added to his character. But at the same time, neither is the morality of his opponents deconstructed, nor their charges against Guru answered in the film (or by its protagonist).

Here's where I significantly differ from the criticisms on the film and why it holds up better than a Nayagan in terms of a balanced artistic viewpoint. (Nayagan is a far more raw and visceral film, flawlessly executed, and a breakthrough in its formalistic aspects. So, no question about which is the better film overall.) You say, in Nayagan, things are kept simple (even simplistic) and obscure, and there can't be severe complaints. Absolutely. But, why keep it simplistic when there is a social angle in the story? (Just watching The Godfather and Nayagan side by side will tell us the social angle is the big difference between the two films.) Now, I'm not fond of consciously deconstructing characters within a film at all, but it sticks out if the filmmaker avoids doing what I'd call as "natural or spontaneous deconstruction." Mani hardly deconstructs Velu, but he (and "the public" in the film) completely deconstructs Guru for the audience (which includes you and me) watching the film. In fact, by virtue of the characterisation, there's no need for an explicit deconstruction. Because Guru himself is shown to know as much (his amorality surfaces again) as can be deconstructed about him. This is the real challenge that was posed to the audience (or, at least, to me). Like someone said when the film was released, it's like 'The People vs. Larry Flynt.' (I haven't seen the Miloš Forman film myself, but the premises of the two films seem to be strikingly similar.)
Now, only by watching the film, I came to witness the "negative shades" (or, the amoral side) of Guru. I didn't have any idea about the backstory or the history of events. It's the director who portrayed these events and provoked his audience. Like I had originally mentioned in my notes on the film (which Thilak linked to here), I didn't approve of the way the denouement is staged either (too upbeat for a cynic like me!), but I don't think it came off as fake. While it's the staging I disapproved of (for that matter, I don't find the romanticisation of the larger-than-life hero in Iruvar as absolutely fitting either; I take these as fetishes, not that that's how one must take it; after all, it's reasonably appropriate to stage it for the film's audience as if to suggest that the audience is part of the junta in the film), I think it depicts the reality. Who're these people who're cheering for Gurubhai? What do they think of him? Why are they cheering for him?
You mention about the cab driver, the share-holder of Gurubhai's company. Now, that scene was indeed amusing to me, and what instantly hit me was again the Nayagan-connection. But, it almost works like a wink-wink scene here where Mani overtly deconstructs a scene like that (in the generic sense), even as he plays it out the same way. In Nayagan, Velu is shown as a saviour in a literalist sense in such a scene, but here the cab driver is a shareholder who's willing to be complicit in Guru's corruption (a shareholder!) as far as he makes his profit out of his "share." This backstory is very much underlined in Guru. But even here Mani remains doggedly neutral. Who's he to pass a judgement on the cab driver who made money out of the investment?

Isn't that why we first see Guru addressing an empty ground as the film starts? (Which I missed, by the way.) And, as the film draws to an end, we see the same shot (and the ground still seems empty), but the shot extends further and we realise that now we've a full audience! But, the questions raised (by his brother-in-law, Nanaji, Shyam Saxena all of who vanish from the narrative at some point or the other) all remain nevertheless.

In any case, the denouement, regardless of how it worked, doesn't sum up the whole exercise. In Guru, Mani engages with a contemporary reality in an inconspicuously commercial format, but also provokes the audience with its subversiveness. Yes, he doesn't go the full mile. I think the commercial format and not-going-the-full-mile is by design as far as Mani Ratnam goes. I've come to live with it. May be, I'd have liked a film like this even more if someone more contemptuous about formulaic cinema had made it, but that's irrelevant. It's for this very subversiveness and slyness, I think Guru holds up. Unlike Yuva which was more wishful thinking than reality. Now, that's a film about which I'd say, "this film was still decent enough for the premise it hangs with." :) (The Inba story is superb to say the least, but that doesn't sum up the whole exercise, to borrow the same expression. :)) But, the premise of Guru itself is potent, the way I see it. I'd be as critical of reading this film as "an epic paean to can-do spirit." (NY Times called it that.) Not because it's being critical of the can-do spirit (wow, what a premise! I'd want to make a film like that :)), but because it falls far short of summing up the full exercise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramsri

In general, the film tends to follow the "non-expositional", putting-the-audience-in-the-scene style equanimus had talked about earlier. The characters look, feel, talk and react to situations in a way thats consistent with how they've been written, and in line with our understanding of what kind of people they are. That's what authenticity is about, in my book. The film doesn't lie about its characters and their moralities. It doesn't feel the need to justify actions, events, situations, reactions - it relies on the strength of its characterizations to do all that. It assumes that what you've been told about these people is enough to make up your own mind as to why someone said what they said, in the way in which they said it. Equanimus - not sure if I'm reading you correctly - but all this, in part at least, is responsible for ultimately creating the effect of the audience being "in the scene", rather than the scene "speaking to the audience".

---

Absolutely, Ramsri. If you read my post again, I wasn't suggesting that Mani doesn't follow a putting-the-audience-in-the-scene style. That's elementary Mani Ratnam. These scenes are executed in typical Mani style, and that was the acute challenge I was talking about. :) When the plot proceedings and dialogues are all but screaming out loud for a kitsche treatment, Mani insists in putting them in his world!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramsri

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

I quoted that line to say that it works rather well in the context of mythology. It's the film that I find unrewarding on the whole in the context of the mythology.

---

I'm not sure if the film is meant to be taken in the context of the mythology. Guess we're all agreed that the enormity of the source material is such that it would almost always completely dwarf any attempt made to adapt it. What Mani's adaptation does is lift the spirit of the Mahabharata's characters and try to place them in a setting of his choice. Admittedly, it comes across as shallow and halting at times :x , but I don't think that's necessarily a result of looking at it in the context of the epic. The mother-son weepie scene, for example, would've been no more believable if it'd been "original".

---

Surely, it'd not have been! I didn't mean to say that the film failed (I am not sure if I'd say the film failed at first place, but it's really underwhelming for sure) because it looked at the source material "in the context of the epic." I was just challenging my own criticism by reasoning out why Mani might have gone intentionally overboard in many scenes in the film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramsri

So to sit in judgement of the film on an absolute level, and say it doesn't go down well in light of the original, might just be a tad unfair. What say you??

---

Going down well in light of the original is a very tall order indeed. There have been good adaptations of Mahabharata though. Like Benegal's superb Kalyug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MADDY

i think mani is defnitely below Mahendran and BR - when it comes to finer aspects of story telling.......but i think he is the most successful in giving commercial cinema with great aesthetic sense.........technology wise - he beats the *new* guys left-right, leave alone BR and Mahendran.......and the variety of themes - there too, he scores a point over the rest........

he has his own way of making movies - which is defintely not the most superior - but received well by people......

---

:notworthy: :notworthy: I will leave it here for you guys to discuss Mani and his movies :D .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kannannn

Let me clear the air here. I don't have a problem with movies that don't have a strong plot. In fact, I love films where the plot is just a device that helps the director unleash his philosophical musings. There is a thrill to such films. Mani doesn't make such movies, so I won't walk that road.

---

Kannan,
Apologies if there was a lot of air to be cleared in my "adhiga prasangi" capturing of your criticism. :) I didn't mean to ask if your criticism is on movies that don't have a strong plot at all. And, as you say, Mani hasn't made such movies either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kannannn

Unfortunately, Mani tries to dabble in both social and personal aspects of his characters' lives that more often than not, his real intentions are unclear.

---

That, in a gist, sums up what I was trying to say in that post of mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Kannan,
I think I see where you're coming from. Your criticism isn't really about the film's politics (and its "stance" about Guru) as much as the lack of it (politics). I suppose your complaint is rather that the film isn't engaging enough in showing the actual struggles that Guru faced, and the audience doesn't get to witness a real contest, and that it doesn't offer strong perspectives about Guru. This is one of the biggest criticisms Mani has faced for many of his films -- Dil Se, Iruvar, Kannathil Muthamittal etc.

Now, the film engaged me for sure, but it doesn't really delve into in great detail about Guru's struggle and the challenges he faces in his dizzying rise as an entrepreneur; there's also a liberal dose of other elements (love, personal life etc.) to the film. This again is one of the "hallmarks," (or a dull trait, based on how one sees it) of Mani Ratnam. As you've mentioned, this tendency "to touch upon the aspects at a surface level" can be seen in many of his films.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kannannn

Non-judgementality is the last thing I expect from a movie-maker. A movie must have a perspective, whatever the subject, otherwise it just becomes a dramatization of events (that's exactly how I view Guru - Mani's odd support for the character notwithstanding). Impartial analysis should be left to documentary makers.

---

Well, I very much consider it a merit. When the camera is not judgmental on the characters. Not that it's one of the first things I expect from filmmakers (after all, what's more judgemental than expecting that films must be non-judgemental?), but I cherish that quality in any form of storytelling. This doesn't mean at all that the film doesn't offer any perspectives. Telling a story without getting judgemental, isn't that by itself a perspective?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kannannn

I may seem too critical of Mani, but it is only because he is often praised as THE best director we have. Take away that sobriquet, and I do agree that he has made some good entertainers.

---

Ah, now I feel like I should distance myself. I don't think of him as the "THE best director we have" at all. Also, it depends on who the "we" over there refers to. If we're talking about Tamil cinema, yes, I think he's one of the best filmmakers we have, but again not the best.

And, I wholeheartedly agree -- *nods aggressively* -- about Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi! Now, that's a wonderful, wonderful film, and the best film of 2005 (among what I've watched, of course) to my mind. Here are my notes on the film that I wrote back in 2005.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Apologies if there was a lot of air to be cleared in my "adhiga prasangi" capturing of your criticism. :) I didn't mean to ask if your criticism is on movies that don't have a strong plot at all. And, as you say, Mani hasn't made such movies either.

---

It was probably my post that was ambiguous (as it happens so often these days). Glad to have it out of the way.. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Well, I very much consider it a merit. When the camera is not judgmental on the characters. Not that it's one of the first things I expect from filmmakers (after all, what's more judgemental than expecting that films must be non-judgemental?), but I cherish that quality in any form of storytelling. This doesn't mean at all that the film doesn't offer any perspectives. Telling a story without getting judgemental, isn't that by itself a perspective?

---

It is my view that any story told with a perspective turns out to be judgemental - eventually. Perhaps expectations are different on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

And, I wholeheartedly agree -- *nods aggressively* -- about Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi! Now, that's a wonderful, wonderful film, and the best film of 2005 (among what I've watched, of course) to my mind. Here are my notes on the film that I wrote back in 2005.

---

Excellent write up there. That's one movie I can't stop raving about. BTW, I was a member of Collective Chaos as well when I was in Bangalore until 2005. Shame they had to end it. Their mailing list is still active though, with some stimulating discussions from well-informed members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kannannn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thilak4life

This is what I like about Mani. :) I don't think he dabbles though. It appears so because, he isn't making a statement, or taking a stance in his narrative, lets the viewer to dissect the themes, motifs, and the nuances themselves.

---

Adhellam dhaan avar padangalil kidaiyadhu engiren :D

---

There are.. Some of 'em in this very thread, and there are lot more..

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thilak4life

The non-judgmentality that he exhibits in his narrative is second to none.

---

Non-judgementality is the last thing I expect from a movie-maker. A movie must have a perspective, whatever the subject, otherwise it just becomes a dramatization of events (that's exactly how I view Guru - Mani's odd support for the character notwithstanding). Impartial analysis should be left to documentary makers.

---

But, it's one form of storytelling, a skill which for all its blandness on paper still captivates the viewer, I understand that you personally find it underwhelming. I think the aspects within or between his characters are very elementary, but it's subtle, and matter-of-fact with Mani's refinement or glossiness (depends on how you look at it). I also think there is no dramatization of events, he rather elucidates the events with some deft touches.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thilak4life

This is also to do with tolerance for the filmmaker's trope and trademarks to complement his style, in that respect, let me bring Tarantino (bohemian,) or Woody Allen (Neurotic.) Not to say that Mani or these filmmakers have no variety, but every filmmaker have their own personal style attached to different characterizations spread across their oeuvre.

---

Aaha, ore line'la Mani'ya Tarantino, Woody Allen kooda serthuttingale :D . Their trademark is not just the dialogues. It goes much beyond that. We will digress if we venture into that aspect.

---

I meant their style of filmmaking has their trademark handling of different characters. Of course, I know there is lot more to be discussed...

Quote:

---

I may seem too critical of Mani, but it is only because he is often praised as THE best director we have. Take away that sobriquet, and I do agree that he has made some good entertainers

---

Kannannn, I accept the criticism, and his mainstream values to add to it, he has his share of flaws, but I generally find his finer qualities outdoing his flaws or shortcomings. For that matter, every other filmmaker has. I rate Kamal haasan, and Vishal baradawaj over Mani Ratnam, but Mani over the spread of two decades, still remains one of the best filmmakers in commercial cinema. I would be absolutely shaken if Mani's style of filmmaking was non-existent.

As for Mahendran, Balu Mahendra and Mani Ratnam, I prefer Mani, and I also prefer Mani to KB and Bharathiraja. This I say after some serious introspection. Enough Gushy talk for today :) But in general, I realize the general criticism, even I have my share of 'em. But with Mani, it's his personal vision of his films, so it's imperforate from what I see. He is confined to his own self-realization and, he has matured in time.

Equanimus,

The post on Guru is interesting as always, but I still don't feel convinced. The execution, acting, and the presentation as a whole was clobbering for Gurubhai. Anyway, I've had my share of criticism.

And, Sudhir's handling is impeccable in HKA. The denouement was surprisingly matter-of-fact and unapologetic for what it is, and the film glides along. The start was symbolic: the riots and slaughtering of men, only for the blood to be washed away at the brink of dawn..