Films of Mani Ratnam

Ah equanimus, let me declare upfront that I am a sucker for well made melodrama...Well, the "well made" in the previous sentence was just my ego talking and can be ignored :-).

Let me mention a non-iconic scene, but one of those links between events that every story needs to have. When Devaraj comes to Surya's place:

When Devaraj comes to meet Surya asks him to move in with him I am defencelessly floored by the last lines that close the argument.
"ivvaLo pEr irukkAnga dEvA.."
"unakku ivvaLavu pEr irukkAnga....enakku nee oruthan dhaanE irukke"


When I am up on my feet I do think that the scene is a bit unreal, the lines pretty cliched and even DEvarAj's preceeding lines (maNushANA maathare blah blah) are plain naive. But all that is after the event. He just had me that moment. That is the precise reason why MR is so enjoyable. (Coming to think of it, none of the lines and force of the decision, are beyond the impulsive Devaraj)

I agree that MR has this schizophrenic mix of subtlety and -to use your word- sledgehammer. Some of his sledgehammers erase any other nice memories one would like to have about the film (eg. Bombay). ThaLapathy is nowhere there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

But, Mani took it to the next level. With Mani Ratnam, the scenes didn't speak to the audience at all. The audience was put in the scene.

---

Nice perspective. Very true !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

I think thaLapathi posed a challenge to Mani's writing skills in an obtuse way.

---

Was the challenge acute and his writing obtuse ? Interesting angle though :mrgreen:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

But the result frankly is somewhat unrewarding.

---

The myth of "enna vENumnAlum kEkkalAm" not working may be there. But the very mortal limitedness that SuryA feels in that scene pushes everything else to the background. "dEva en kayila andha kuLandhaiya koduthappO eppidi irundhichchu theriyumA..." is a line we know miles before it is spoken. We understand he is not as much as Deva says he is. He cannot give the baby what she wants (as the mother quite piercingly, eloquently and silently says). Rajini :notworthy:

Okay, "Guru" fans can take a peek at "What movie you last saw" thread. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram

Ah equanimus, let me declare upfront that I am a sucker for well made melodrama...Well, the "well made" in the previous sentence was just my ego talking and can be ignored :-).

---

PR,
I am a sucker for melodrama too. salangai oli, nandhA (to pick diverse, melodramatic films), the list is long. Actually, when I mentioned about the film being melodramatic, I wanted to add this caveat note and mention nandhA in context. Now, that is another film which deals with a broken mother-son relationship; it is melodramatic and it works so well. There, the content is really heavy that one doesn't feel like questioning its appropriateness. In other words, the film is possibly more effective because of the very melodrama.
But, here in thaLapathi, the setting is fittingly bleak, as bleak as it gets in a Mani film. But, what Mani makes of it is shockingly simplistic. Frankly, I must say, the adaptation (from the Mahabharata) is rather poor (considering how strong the source material is). When the mother and son meet, it takes no time for them to bridge the unbridgeable gap, they hug each other and weep together. [For a comic relief, let's cut to another scene from another film and recall the first line that Venu Gopal gets to speak to one of his four sons. :rotfl: That cracker of a line, anyone?]
There's simply no dilemma, no crisis, in the minds of these characters. Less said about Arjun, the better. "en aNNan koodavA nAn ithana nAL mOdhittu irundhEn!" he quickly turns apologetic about his tiffs with Surya. And, what does Duryodhana do? He surrenders, of course! ("en surya'voda kudumbam en kudumbam!" he declares.) Ah, why beat around the bush, it's a cloying, full-fledged family reunion out there! (Arjun calling out Surya as "aNNA!" is another such moment; I refrain from calling it "priceless" only because it comes from Mani Ratnam. :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram

He just had me that moment. That is the precise reason why MR is so enjoyable. (Coming to think of it, none of the lines and force of the decision, are beyond the impulsive Devaraj)

---

That's what I referred to as the "challenge." Here, Mani still manages to succeed, but the impact that ought to be there is not there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

I think thaLapathi posed a challenge to Mani's writing skills in an obtuse way.

---

Was the challenge acute and his writing obtuse ? Interesting angle though :mrgreen:

---

The challenge is indeed acute, but it can be seen as a formalistic challenge only in an obtuse sense (or by obtuse guys like me).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

But the result frankly is somewhat unrewarding.

---

The myth of "enna vENumnAlum kEkkalAm" not working may be there. But the very mortal limitedness that SuryA feels in that scene pushes everything else to the background. "dEva en kayila andha kuLandhaiya koduthappO eppidi irundhichchu theriyumA..." is a line we know miles before it is spoken. We understand he is not as much as Deva says he is. He cannot give the baby what she wants (as the mother quite piercingly, eloquently and silently says). Rajini :notworthy:

---

Very true and a very effective scene. And, 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.

BTw, I thought Amudha's lines was much like Arjun, with "pa", "ma", very textbookish, and also the way its spoken was slightly similar!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

considering how strong the source material is

---

Stiff standard. I remember reading a recent interview by Malayalam director Lohitadas. He said "all stories have been told by vyAsar". These kind of statements are usually made very superficially but with "this" source material it is largely true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

When the mother and son meet, it takes no time for them to bridge the unbridgeable gap, they hug each other and weep together.

---

Quite a let down. But I would say that is a scene that was doomed to fail, but MR had redeemed it "not wholly or in full measure but substantially"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

The challenge is indeed acute, but it can be seen as a formalistic challenge only in an obtuse sense (or by obtuse guys like me).

---

Ah. Don't even bother replying :-) That was just me, not being mature enough to leave a potential pun alone. Was itching to say something more like your angle being right us reaching a congruence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

It's the film that I find unrewarding on the whole in the context of the mythology.

---

I thought MR's interpretation was pretty human an -dare I use the word - real.
If the original parted with his kavacha kundaLam, Surya (besides all the "deeds") makes a powerful impact with "yENNen azhugureenga....verum paNam !"

It would be great if he considers more of these kind of reinterpretation themes doing what Vishal Bharadwaj is doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

considering how strong the source material is

---

Stiff standard. I remember reading a recent interview by Malayalam director Lohitadas. He said "all stories have been told by vyAsar". These kind of statements are usually made very superficially but with "this" source material it is largely true.

---

Absolutely. Mahabharata is so rich and profound that anything is bould to fall short in comparison. I'm sure you'd agree, to take into account the strength of the source material would not be to set a stiff standard, but to expect some sophistication in adapting it and handling the various themes as it is all there already!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

The challenge is indeed acute, but it can be seen as a formalistic challenge only in an obtuse sense (or by obtuse guys like me).

---

Ah. Don't even bother replying :-) That was just me, not being mature enough to leave a potential pun alone. Was itching to say something more like your angle being right us reaching a congruence.

---

Ha ha, I know! But, I couldn't resist another obtuse (!) pun in turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram

I agree that MR has this schizophrenic mix of subtlety and -to use your word- sledgehammer.

---

By the way, I initially did call it "a weird concoction of subtlety and the sledgehammer." There was a nice ring to it. (However, I changed it because the peer-opposite of 'subtlety' would rather be "sledgehammer-ness" or something. Duh!)

Equanimus,

I agree on broader terms in terms of a mature Mani from the Nayagan days. Let's forget the bad sensationalized sequences in Guru, the film has an underlying propaganda of glamourizing the rise of a bourgoisie Entrepreneur to a visionary, this I personally find surprising and underwhelming, coming from the man who made Iruvar. In Nayagan, the deeds were of less personal interest, because of the character. Gurukhant is different from Velu and Anandan, who were both lowbrow in a plebeian sense. Anandan's interest is fascinating in general, for one could emphasis over a simple line, yaarum pasi patni-oda irukka kudaathu. Or, does he love the power he attains? Or, Is it to prove a personal point? Or, is it a combination of things? With Guru, Mani's love for the middle class spirit is ostensible enough. He clearly stresses, that India needs many such Gurukhants to cope globally (with the Gandhi metaphor in the courtroom, you go 'wtf',) and he brings the middle class values along. He says to the effect that the rising of the middle class is curbed in India (he says even the Sarkar and the system is a part of it,) and hence Guru's rise is being questioned, now isn't that contradictory to the defense of Guru being too powerful to not to let go scot-free? (let me play the devil's advocate here) While Mani brings in a justification with such passion, the denouement looks less convincing, for what is to follow is the mere opposite. Or, the jury must be manipulated by the end of that hilarious speech. Velu's court proceeding is made obscure, and hence exciting enough, for we don't get see such a contradiction. :)

However, there's a clear justifcation available. From the start, you see a middle class boy who is ambitious, getting bigger and bigger. The film is more of Guru's own perspective, it begins with his monologue (I think you missed it,) and ends with his 'success' speech. How his dreams are attained is what the film is about, and hence all views expressed are justified to him. I personally find such a take to be very elmentary, less interesting, and less rewarding. Thematically, the film is again on the obvious lines. I missed the non-judgmental Mani here, and in the process of being a puppeteer, ends up being a marionette for the reliance propaganda (and indirectly, Bachchan upheaving.) The masala moments are the lowest yet for a Mani film. The overman lines from Guru to Saxena, or to the Jury (with some pompous BGM).

I certainly don't find the question of Morality and yes, I don't find the flawed protagonist going Scot-free to be utterly problematic. But it's the profuse enchantment that Mani offers to Guru, the handling with which he approaches the character. Thankfully he didn't make it kitschy in Nayagan with court sequences, or the cinematic confrontations from Velu to the antagonists, with one liners, and finally, the less complicated Velu isn't justified, Velu's justification or his daughter's objection are equally balanced. Compare that to Manik-Sax being insignificant by the end of it. All the more problematic here. [In essence, I find Nayagan flawless and seamless, this I say while categorically finding Iruvar to be his best film/biopic.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Thilak,
I've seen Guru only once (yet to revisit it, despite missing the first few minutes including the first song). So, I might not have the same things to say about the film over multiple viewings. I really liked the film, but am not comfortable calling myself a *fan* of the film, and don't want to sound too defensive about the film. :) But -- but, I don't buy the the criticism on the film in terms of its morality.

Firstly, I don't think it was a hagiography of Dhirubhai Ambani. Mani clearly fictionalized the material he has (which is bound to resemble one of these astonishingly successful entrepreneurs) with the various other elements like romance, love and friendship in his film. I think his vision was to chronicle the rise of an entrepreneur in a left-leaning nation (with all of his trademark "commercial elements") and not to document the rise of Dhirubhai Ambani. What's so questionable abou this, I don't get. And, I appreciate the way Mani treats his "biopic" films. They're no exposés. He is sensitive to his protagonists and builds their stories around their personal lives. And here, it was especially commendable because the protagonist is a businessman, a man who is only interested in promoting himself. There's simply nothing to romanticise about him.
Secondly, I don't think Mani took sides with the protagonist here. To say this would be somewhat akin to say that Mani took sides with Anandan in Iruvar. The beauty of Mani's non-judgementality lies in the way he puts Anandan and Thamizh Chelvan on the same pedestal and observes them regardless of their ideologies (or, the lack of it in Anandan's case).

Now, Guru, I thought was a smart and mature film because as much as it's sensitive to his protagonist, it is not blind about him. Throughout the film, the only "reasons" offered to Gurubhai's deeds are his own interests. The film is not apologetic about his criminal activities. In this aspect, the depiction here is much more honest than in Nayagan. Where you hardly get to see Velu Naicker doing his business. And, what's more ironic than the same audience which empathised with a much bigger (in pure legal terms) criminal like Velu Naicker finds it hard to accept that a Gurubhai (whose crimes are far lesser in comparison) goes scot-free?
Many pointed out how the judgement scene is ridiculous. (I might agree about some of the lines spoken by the judges just before the judgement though! After all, the finale in such cases are often a matter of formality.) The truth, I think, is we've watched way too many films in which criminals are let go off just like that, and this was equated to that. Really, what other sort of judgement can one expect on a man as powerful as Gurubhai?
The final speech was Gurubhai just showing off his achievements, his reach among the mass ("public se kya darna sahab? main khud public hoon!"), manipulating the junta so as to cement their support for him and threateningly pointing out his inevitability -- as his photos are being clicked all over. When he gets up, he even turns around, poses for these camera and gestures with his hand before starting his speech. Again, Mani doesn't villainize him here either ("khada ho jaoon ya, iske liye bhi license chahiye?"). But the choice is again apt because that's what the film is about.

I think the court scenes in general are played out in an outright masala format, but they also had strong moments such as these. (It's worth mentioning that Nayagan even keeps out of a court scene like this.) The whole film is unabashedly mainstream film; most of the masala moments actually worked for me. The staging of the ending was a bit too upbeat and on a congratulatory note for me though. But again, that exactly is the reality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MADDY

vidya balan - Guru is shown as a person who is very self-centred......so Vidya balan was a contradiction to that character of Guru.....the "will u marry me sequence" and ending it with a "rakhi tying" is vintage mani

---

So, Vidya Balan's character was created to show the soft side of Guru? Well, see that is the problem. Every character in Guru seems to have been 'created' to showcase Guru's persona. As I said, the movie seems like a chronicle of Guru's life. I don't have a problem with it as long as there is perspective. Here it is just reads like a dateline of Guru's Shakti Parivar. 19xx - Guru starts SP. 19xx - Guru charged with excise tax evasion, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maddy

Climax is 100% reality.....If u read dhirubhai's life story, he was slapped a fine of Rs.60crores+ out of his Rs.40000000000 property for all his irregularities

movie is about how a confident human mind can overcome any obstacle.........if thats a worthless excercise :roll:

---

I don't mind if the climax was what happened in reality. Mani could have done two things. Either show strong arguments against the committee's charges, or leave it for the viewer to infer (just as in Nayagan, as equanimus pointed out). You can't show a dumb court scene with no relevance to the charges and end the movie on that note.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Firstly, I don't think it was a hagiography of Dhirubhai Ambani. Mani clearly fictionalized the material he has (which is bound to resemble one of these astonishingly successful entrepreneurs) with the various other elements like romance, love and friendship in his film. I think his vision was to chronicle the rise of an entrepreneur in a left-leaning nation (with all of his trademark "commercial elements") and not to document the rise of Dhirubhai Ambani. What's so questionable abou this, I don't get. And, I appreciate the way Mani treats his "biopic" films. They're no exposés. He is sensitive to his protagonists and builds their stories around their personal lives. And here, it was especially commendable because the protagonist is a businessman, a man who is only interested in promoting himself. There's simply nothing to romanticise about him.

---

I don’t mind movies with grey characters. In fact, I would prefer such movies to Mani’s. The problem with Mani’s movies (after Nayagan) is that he touches all issues superficially. In Guru, the protagonist is not your pristine ethics-conscious businessman, but for such a character to work, I expect either
a) the inner turmoil of the character to be presented in a convincing way
or
b) the character to overcome, or succumb to, external battles against him.

Guru doesn’t deal with the first. Fine. But the second isn’t dealt with strongly either. Mani just seems to have skimmed the surface of Guru’s struggles. As a viewer, I expect more than just empty challenges to the protagonist. At every turn we see the same words thrown at Guru: “Yeh kaam tere se nahi hoga” . And what do we see next? Voila, our hero (?!) has overcome the challenge, with nothing more than a smile as response. This movie has superficiality written all over it. Right from the scenes in textile market to the final committee hearing, the movie revolves around Guru with the other characters created to just aid in the magnification of his character.

And speaking of superficiality, notice the scene where Sujatha and Guru are left standing alone, just a foot away from each other after Sujatha’s brother reveals Guru’s true intentions behind his offer to marry. Cut to the next scene, where a tram worms its way through (!!) between them signifying a distance in their relationship. Now, if Mani was going for symbolism here, I am sorry for him. All, I could think of was how Mani would have asked Abhishek and Aishwarya to move away so he could create space for symbolism. As series of such corny scenes only left me wondering if Mani knew what he was doing!!

Quote:

---

our hero (?!) has overcome the challenge, with nothing more than a smile as response.

---

This was irritating after a point. Abhishek uses his smile, and later his drooping jaws to varying proportions. Mainly because he is insufficient to convey deeper moods with a suitably nuanced expression, like Kamal or Lal!

The tram symbolism was to pave way for the song which was to follow. In any case, I thought Mani was crying out loud about Gurubhai's achievement. Imagine a "Velu-naicker-naicker-naick.." or "Anandan" chorus in "Nayagan" and "Iruvar" respectively. :)

So we've got quite a discussion going here after all! :)
thilak, kannan - extremely insightful views on Guru - still plenty of room for discussion there - but I'm going to pass over that right now, choosing instead, to stay with Dalapathi 'cos I think we have some unfinished business there...
Picking up the pieces from equanimus then -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Frankly, I must say, the adaptation (from the Mahabharata) is rather poor (considering how strong the source material is). When the mother and son meet, it takes no time for them to bridge the unbridgeable gap, they hug each other and weep together.
There's simply no dilemma, no crisis, in the minds of these characters.

---

Agree wholeheartedly. That was quite unlike Mani. But I'm inclined to think PR has a point when he says the scene would've ended up a stinker anyway, and Mani probably just about managed to salvage something from it, by constructing it that way.
Be that as it may - my experience watching Dalapathi has been that such shallow scenes and cliched reactions are more the exception than the rule. Agreed, it does have its Aw-c'mon-gimme-a-break moments where the screenplay slips out of line... Arvind Swamy's "unna madhri enakkoru annan irundhurundha" and even for that matter, the "accham illai, accham illai" is the kinda stuff that makes you cringe. But such moments are few and far between. 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".

There might be exaggeration and melodrama (which I'm glad to note, is not a bad word on this forum :D), but one thing you will not find is pretence. And that's more than can be said of some of MR's more recent writing - superficial is not a word one would normally associate with his work, but he's increasingly (and not without good reason) being accused of artificiality and a tendency to deal with so-called issues at the surface rather than delve deeper and come up with something profound. But hey - I'm digressing here - more on all this when we talk of Guru
:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram

He just had me that moment. That is the precise reason why MR is so enjoyable. (Coming to think of it, none of the lines and force of the decision, are beyond the impulsive Devaraj)

---

PR - it's interesting you should mention it. We're often led to believe that the ultimate mark of a filmmaker's craft is the ability to create the kind of moments that stay with you long after you leave the cinema. In all of MR's work, one could name at least a dozen such scenes that have achieved cult status and become iconic. On the other hand, you have these wonderful, albeit non-iconic moments (such as the one you've mentioned) - whose effect you don't feel until much later, or after repeated viewings. The greatness of the scene, basically, is in its simplicity - you're in and out of the moment so quickly you probably don't realize how much you've enjoyed it! :2thumbsup:

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". 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??
That said, I've gotta agree with your fundamental point that of the themes common to the source and the adaptation, there were a few that could (indeed, should) have been better woven into the screenplay. Karna's conversation with Kunti before the great war is the stuff of epic legend - and immediately comes across as something that could've made for brilliant screen material. Wonder how that kind of thing got sidelined - looks like MR missed a trick or two there after all... :huh:

All this talk of Dalapathi has really whet the appetite...
Was just watching this and found myself completely blown away (yet again!) by the sheer intensity of the scene. Watch how it starts on an ordinary note - "Inga ungaLukku oru thani court, thani police" (the lawman taking the first round - its his den, after all), note the self-effacing smile on Deva's face when the collector says "Oru thani AtchiyE nadathareeNga". When he reacts with "Udhavi kettu varANga..." you still have no idea what we're headed for... Surya's first remarks ("neeNga eppayAvadhu yEzhaya irundhirukengaLA...?") might sound cliched but you can't help falling for the earnestness with which they're delivered.
Then the escalation - "Yedhu seri yedhu thappunu mudivu seyya nANga irukOm" and "Neenga senjA seri, adhE nAnga senjA thappA??"
The tab line from the collector which you know has been coming for a while - "Unga kathalukku indha oor janaNga bayapaduvAnga, nA bayapadamAten"
A critical point in the conversation - the music (:thumbsup:) takes over as the camera peeps out from behind Arjun's shoulder to show us how Surya is taking this.
And then the climax -
"Unna mAdhri rowdythanam paNravaNgaLa enaku pudikAdhu"
"Idhu Surya saar - urasAdheenga" (a line written specifically for Rajni??).
MariyAdha illAma pesarAn rascal!!
Dai, thodra pakalAm, thodra pakalAm!!

(Awesome!! The knee-jerk reaction here... :notworthy:)

And then Deva diffuses the situation with -
UngaLuku ippo enna vENum?...

A combination of screenwriting, acting, direction, camerawork and music that's just out of this world... phenomenal... yet again, :notworthy:

Thilak,
My defence for the film is purely about its politics and surely that's the biggest criticism that the film faced. I thought it was a good film, but I don't think it's an exceptionally well-made film (as I said before, I can't even say I'm a *fan* of the film; it won't even make the top 5 films of this year for me), but I think it's strong on its politics. In short, I agree with how Greatbong summarised the film in his review.

Quote:

---

In the lavishly mounted “Guru”, Maniratnam (arguably India’s finest mainstream movie director) tries to answer these questions through the fable of Gurukant Desai or Gurubhai, a thinly-disguised surrogate for Dhirubhai Ambani, challenging you to interpret this man as either a crooked businessman who justified his brazen transgressions of the law by self-servingly appealing to a higher ideal (the freedom to make money) or a revolutionary who broke the anaconda-like grip of the permit raaj (you needed a permit to import machinery, you needed a permit to increase production, you needed a permit to make more profit) on Indian businesses by showing how the system itself made it impossible to run a successful enterprise without engaging in corruption.

---

It's one of the best reviews I've read on the film. The thing I most liked in the film is its politics and the way Mani conceived his lead character. Otherwise, it's a rather straightforward film with all commercial trappings. (Just read Greatbong's review again, he calls it "straitjacketed.").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thilak4life

With Guru, Mani's love for the middle class spirit is ostensible enough. He clearly stresses, that India needs many such Gurukhants to cope globally (with the Gandhi metaphor in the courtroom, you go 'wtf',) and he brings the middle class values along. He says to the effect that the rising of the middle class is curbed in India (he says even the Sarkar and the system is a part of it,) and hence Guru's rise is being questioned, now isn't that contradictory to the defense of Guru being too powerful to not to let go scot-free? (let me play the devil's advocate here)

---

I don't get what you mean by "middle class spirit." I don't think Mani wanted to play out this film as the success of the middle-class spirit at all (By the way, I hated the caption -- "Villager, Visionary, Winner"; one of the reasons why I thought the film would suck). If Gurukant Desai or Dhirubhai Ambani did anything at all, it was the right opposite of what the bourgeois does, or even thinks of doing. The middle-class people (I for one don't!) might revere Ambani for what he became, but that's in the aftermath. And, his "spirit" (whatever it means) is anything but middle-class. And, if the bourgeois middle-class thinks otherwise, what's more ironic than that! That's exactly why what you've said above is contradictory.

Guru isn't really an idealist-capitalist, that is, a capitalist on ideological terms. He's a businessman who finds the government policy (the license raj) unfair, manipulates it to his own good, tweaks and breaks the government regulations by playing it to the bureaucrats. The film challenges the audience to judge him for what he is. There's no pretentious reason offered for his corruption.
Guru's defence -- a self-serving speech on his struggle, success and strength -- is not relevant to the case at all. In fact, he tacitly accepts the accusations about of his unlawful activities and his defence is only about the whys. It's all said in rhetoric. But, he does make the all-important point about the license raj and regulations that were best done away with. The Nayagan-equivalent is Naicker's scene with his daughter. Again, the difference between the two scenarios is glaringly -- Guru's unlawful activities are far smaller in comparison and largely "victimless" (government can of course be seen as one!).
Manik Dasgupta and Shyam Saxena (despite not having a good share of screen time; one of the places where I think the film could've done much better) have really sinister criticisms to offer against Guru and they never change their minds.
This conflict isn't played out as a conflict of ideologies because it isn't. The ones who find Guru reprehensible are not all socialists. Manik Dasgupta is, but Saxena isn't really one (at least, not shown as one). Saxena is hell-bent on exposing the corruption of Guru, but isn't opposed to his ideology (if at all Guru had one). He is angered at the way Guru has left strains of corruption wherever he went. Or, he is a zealously idealistic journalist trying to pull off something big. These are fascinating dimensions that Mani adds to the small role which is unfortunately cut short. He loathes Guru's ways, but unlike Manikda his conflict with Guru isn't personal (effectively portrayed in those scenes where these two confront each other). He's very well aware of what he and Manikda are doing to Guru; more clearly than Manikda himself. In a very good scene, Manikda, after coming to know of Guru has suffered a stroke, naively asks why did it happen to Guru, who's at least twenty years younger to him. Madhavan coldly replies, "Shaayad hamaari vajah se." When asked what, he says, "Aap, main, Swatantra, sab unke peechhe pade hain na?" But, wait, he isn't being apologetic, only truthful. He is just about to publish a new article and he asks for Manikda's nod (which the latter gives). And, he doesn't mind crossing the line himself when it comes to exposing the corruption of Gurubhai.
It is these dimensions that Mani adds to the characters that squarely put Guru and the Manik-Shyam duo on an even pedestal and makes the conflict interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thilak4life

with the Gandhi metaphor in the courtroom, you go 'wtf'

---

Actually, some serious political commentators consider the analogy to be apt. (I can't say about the aptness myself thanks to my lack of political awareness.) But, we should see it in pure political, lawful terms, because that's exactly how Guru means it. (I know zilch about Ambani, by the way, all I used to know about this fellow was that he's considered a major national icon post-independence, and that he makes it to the top 10 every year in Outlook's greatest icons or something like that. The rest is all on random reading and hearsay.)

Let me end this by making a controversial case. I think the politics of this film is more stimulating than the politics of a film like anbE sivam. My choice of anbE sivam is intentionally provocative (I very much like the film nevertheless). Now, that's one film we all love to love, isn't it? Whose politics is conveniently pleasing. I don't mean to say it shies away from the realities of the world, it surely doesn't (that's how we got those wonderful moments with the ambulance on a roadside). But, it puts it all in one universally agreeable basket of altruism.

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.

But, I don't read that as superficiality at all. I'll try to respond to this criticism (if at all I've captured it right) and the way I read this purported "lack of depth/intensity" one of these days. Just my two cents.

Oh, Apologize for the delayed response. I've been meaning to reply to this. Now that I have all the time, Let's start. I'm glad that morality is out of the question, why would such an elementary view be discussed? :)

Quote:

---

The middle-class people (I for one don't!) might revere Ambani for what he became, but that's in the aftermath. And, his "spirit" (whatever it means) is anything but middle-class.

---

Well, that's precisely what I meant. Mani himself is a part of the consummate bourgeoisie who isn't politically well equipped. His line of thinking is much in line with middle class consumerism and consumption, who cares zilch about the effects of capitialism, but still revere the dhirubhais of the world, for it benefits 'em of course. But, I couldn't care less on the "effects of capitalism" or whether it's good or bad i. But what I do care about is Mani's handling , and his craft of sculplting brilliant narratives with such refinement and finesse!

Quote:

---

With Guru, Mani's love for the middle class spirit is ostensible enough. He clearly stresses, that India needs many such Gurukhants to cope globally (with the Gandhi metaphor in the courtroom, you go 'wtf',) and he brings the middle class values along.

---

We talk about nonjudgmentality, borrowing my favorite critic's phrase, Guru is an ode to capitalism. Whether this is good or not, is not my issue, but how this simple premise was made, it's too sensational for my liking. But, to claim that Mani didn't stress it out is not true. Guru is nothing but Reliance's baby!

Let me also clarify this,

Quote:

---

He(Guru) says to the effect that the rising of the middle class is curbed in India (he says even the Sarkar and the system is a part of it,) and hence Guru's rise is being questioned, now isn't that contradictory to the defense of Guru being too powerful to not to let go scot-free? (let me play the devil's advocate here)

---

This was for,

Quote:

---

The truth, I think, is we've watched way too many films in which criminals are let go off just like that, and this was equated to that. Really, what other sort of judgement can one expect on a man as powerful as Gurubhai?

---

If Guru was in fact that powerful, then why defend on lines of being targetted as a middle class entrepreneur to the jury, and his rise is curbed? Isn't that a contradiction to the fact that he's too powerful for the jury? However, I realize the fact that Guru once again could have played with the legal hassles too, and came out the winner. So, the speech and the court proceedings fall in place, yet again.

And to the beginning. Guru has always been a keen observer, and the street gambling sequence in turkey where he wins it all, is what the film was about. And, what we get is less rewarding and an equal gamble like the last bet, (except that we end up being underwhelmed, more so for a Mani fan.) I say it again, there was an unabashed glamourization of Gurubhai's rise for the most part, except that there was a dramatic paralysis phase, Sujatha-Guru pick themselves up from, that was perhaps a countermand to Vidya balan's life, (Btw, Saxena's relationship with her ends up tragic/short, Manikda is left stranded with no one,) whats more than a visual cue in her funeral, when Gurubhai helps Manikda out to place the last log? :) Besides, we also see Guru end up successful both personally and professionally, while none of the ideologists, or socialists or even communists aren't spared one way or the other (whats more than the commie who ran incapable of supporting Sujatha? .) If the film was to slamdunk the *other* completely, then why debunk it with such elusive deftness, and such propaganda. Worst of all, a tag of "Villager, Visionary, Winner" (thanks for reminding,) cringeworthy for Mani standards!

Quote:

---

The film challenges the audience to judge him for what he is. There's no pretentious reason offered for his corruption.

---

The reason is clear, he is ambitious, and he tweaks and breaks the set rules - Fine. But that wasn't ambiguous in any case, and the film doesn't let us judge, because it already challenges us with a propagandistic product! What's more ridiculous is the way the court sequence was kitsch, weird, and utterly ridiculous, for it makes the Jury more gullible than the audience. Wait, before the court proceedings too, The shareholder to Gurubhai about his unmarried three daughters, and his support for Guru - Is there anything more judgmental, and slanted than that? Such manipulative sequences has often been a part of his, but it's exaggerated to no measures here. Finally, I have to end up with the positives, Mithunda and Maddy were both brilliant, and the acting wasn't bad in general (perhaps a more nuanced actor could have helped the film, Irrfan in Guru would be the *thing*.) Rajeev Menon's work here is absolutely brilliant. And, heartfelt eulogies to Mani, for this film was still decent enough for the premise it hangs with, and proves that he wouldn't get substandard even if he was forced to. :notworthy:

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.

---

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. Let me just list a couple of movies that deal with either the social themes with personal life of the protagonist as a backdrop or vice versa. How about 'Thaneer Thaneer' for the first? The movie is a powerful statement on political apathy and the struggle of the common man. Saritha's personal problems are just fleetingly touched upon. As for the second, Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi comes to mind. The tumultous 70's is just a backdrop to the events that unfold in the life of KK, SA and CS. Neither is pretentious and most importantly neither confuses the viewer. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thilak4life

Wait, before the court proceedings too, The shareholder to Gurubhai about his unmarried three daughters, and his support for Guru - Is there anything more judgmental, and slanted than that? Such manipulative sequences has often been a part of his, but it's exaggerated to no measures here.

---

:exactly: Mani's ambiguity comes to the fore again in this outing. He builds a strong case for Guru and yet pretends to take the middle path.

Anyway, I am eager to hear equanimus' take on the criticism against Mani. More grouses against him start here(from the old discussions):
http://mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=899478#899478

Kannannn,

Quote:

---

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.

---

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. The non-judgmentality that he exhibits in his narrative is second to none. The admiration for Mani's craft is simplistic to many, that is the cinematography or music - because they find his films to be void of stimulative implications. This I disagree. Moreover, if one is put off by the political correctness (or lack of) in his films, or any specific detail in his films, one could still love the understated handling by Mani, his refinement easily makes up for the lack of authenticity we expect (the reason I rate Kamal a few notches above Mani is precisely because of the balance he achieves here.) Regarding the dialogues, I'm a fan of visually driven narrative with terse writing, I admit. 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. Mani's style and his way with the characters are much suited to his subtlety. However, their background often justifies such characters! Even the kid in KM is a self-centered brat, spoilt by the upbringing, which is reflected by Simran's concern, and Madhavan's weakness for the child. In fact, this quality defines her relentless urge to meet her mom!

As for Iruvar dialogues, I agree that Prakash Raj's lines sounds like a pseudo (you get the feeling that Suhasini was the one who spoke) at times, with such stress. But on subsequent views, you see that the whole film isn't about intricate details, and realism. Was Lal's dialect, persona, and ways of dialogue delivery anywhere close to being 'junta's delight' (like MGR's.) It's just reflection of realism - mended, and sculpted with deft touches. Thamizh Chelvan's characterization is a caricature (in Mani's standards) for a reason, and he's a convincing characterization from what I see. His dravidian inclination, and his love for the language is stressed, it has some reverberance to the general theme of Anandan (terse) having lesser faculties than Thamizh Chelvan (verbose,) but still sways the millions. There's an underlying beauty to Thamizh chelvan's view to life being different from Anandan's, and their relationship adds an extra dimension to this. The film also has brilliantly conceived sequences that's unparalleled, it would be unfair to reject it. It's my favorite Mani Ratnam film, easily one of the best from commercial Indian cinema.

Mani is from an elitist, upper middle class background, and his films often reflect his view towards life, the mood and feel his narrative often expose. He has also passed his own vision and philosophy of life, though deceptive. For the best example, the love in Alaipayuthey isn't the instinctive love between the lead characters, not the one which develops after the marriage, not the one that suddenly blossoms out of minor or major rifts, but the one which is put to test in the worst of times. This was presented nonchronologically with superbly chosen events from the relationship, and Mani's viewpoint has often been elusive in the film. But the presentation is subtle and least judgmental. And, I would still say he is one of his kind, surpassed Mahendran, and Balu Mahendra in my estimantion, inspite of the fact that he falters comparatively in terms of authenticity (lack of Tamilness, tamil roots,) and strayed over unwarranted (and equally unrequited) territories. In essence, I would be equally sad with just one particular style of filmmaking, that is, with filmmakers like BR, KB, etc (although I've begun to hate their style in comparison,) or Mani Rathnam, Mahendran, Balu Mahendra. Very few try and strive to achieve that balance, and we know who it is.. :)

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kannannn

He builds a strong case for Guru and yet pretends to take the middle path.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crajkumar_be

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kannannn

He builds a strong case for Guru and yet pretends to take the middle path.

---

---

Oh, Guru is a film that I thought was a definite case of having a clear cut case of capitalism and a success story, it was never a middle path. Only the film is refined for its made by Mani.

And, when I speak of non-judgmentality, it's not the complete lack of it, but it's been the least of all commercial filmmakers. Because, his case is often been on balanced grounds than endorsing a faction (save Guru.)

well, i agree Guru is one film where Mani strongly advocates for the protagonist ......the scene before the climax where a person comes to Guru and says - "i dunno if u r right or wrong, but with ur shares, i got my daugthers married" - i think that was Mani's judgement on this issue :D ....

throughout the movie, he builds so many "pros" for Guru, that we are left with no option but to believe Mani was "for" Guru and not the usual middle stand he took for Dil se, Bombay, Kanathhil muthamittal, Iruvar......but i felt he did show some scenes "against" Guru - his selfishness towards his own bro-in-law, unfairly publicising the contractor's deal to buy him, bribing manekda's employees for the same, digging up old issues to shut the minister, etc etc. - but i agree he lacked any force when he placed these negative points......

i presume, it would be bcos, Dhirubhai is a big icon in west (india).......i mean, he is suppposed to be one of the major reasons behind Gujarat's giant growth, his shares have really uplifted many gujaratis, mumbaiites lives.......i remember one friend of mine, shedding tears for his death :shock: .......mani had to play with this sentiment to deliver a hit in Hindi and boy it worked absolutely well...... :D

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..

Thilak,
Yeah, I'm tired of writing about the film already! I'm not *that* fond of the film myself. :) I don't think it's a great film at all, I don't even think it's tightly crafted. But, I do think it's unfairly dismissed by critics and moviegoers (who take movies "seriously," whatever that means) as a film that glorifies Ambani. I remember reading a very well-written critique of the film that, nevertheless, ended with a note that J. R. D. Tata would serve as a much better example for today's youngsters and wannabe-entrepreneurs than Ambani. Now, that's like saying a film set in the times of "freedom struggle" is better off with a Veerapandiya Kattabomman than a Marudhanayagam as its protagonist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

I remember reading a very well-written critique of the film that, nevertheless, ended with a note that J. R. D. Tata would serve as a much better example for today's youngsters and wannabe-entrepreneurs than Ambani. Now, that's like saying a film set in the times of "freedom struggle" is better off with a Veerapandiya Kattabomman than a Marudhanayagam as its protagonist.

---

:lol: Nice Analogy.

Maniratnam is a director gone lucky. He has the best of technicians.

In his films, there is no script as such. He takes a contemporary person/episode & films it.

Egs : Guru, nayakan, bombay, roja, dil se

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamath

Maniratnam is a director gone lucky. He has the best of technicians.

In his films, there is no script as such. He takes a contemporary person/episode & films it.

Egs : Guru, nayakan, bombay, roja, dil se

---

best of technicians?? he has maintained his sound quality - be it IR or ARR........Rajeev menon, santhosh sivan, P.C.Sriram, or anyone - his picture quality has always been great......

all the movies u mentioned, except for Guru, the movie surrounds the event and not the event itself.......compare it with other director's works which will be directly abt the even itself....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamath

In his films, there is no script as such. He takes a contemporary person/episode & films it.

---

:lol:

Superb article:
http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-mov...ni-ratnam.html

Kamal sir - a Mani contribution? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerd

Superb article:
http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-mov...ni-ratnam.html

---

The heading may be mis-leading but the innertext is so good that each and every word fits the bill 8-)

An acting legend whose fame stretches across the country, he started his career decades before his tryst with this director. But what makes their union an event of historical significance is that the film Nayagan changed the course of both their lives forever. Mani’s movies got greater recognition, Kamal started challenging himself more and his ever increasing appetite for variety became even greater. Not to mention the national award he received for his performance in this masterpiece.

super article.......Nayagan defintely changed Kamal's course of career......idhu marukka mudiyadha unmai..... 8-)

y did they leave out arvind swamy :cry:

Kamal got into his auteur work from '81. As the writer-producer-actor with SSR for RP. They had already done the film, "Sommokadidhi Sokokadidhi" two years earlier.

But he started making films with all his long time friends from. Sippy for "Saagar", Sujatha's script for "Vikram" (86?). He influenced KB to make way for his chaplin homage with Chaplin chellapa in "Punnagai mannan". Next up, produced his friend Santhana Bharathy with Sathyaraj for "Kadamai ganiyam katupadu"(87). Prathap pothan for "Vetri Vizha". "Nayagan" with Mani Ratnam in 87', Suresh krishna in 88', again with SSR in 88' for Pushpak. Crazy for "Apoorva Sahodarargal" in 89'.

If there were directors who were to shape Kamal, it was KB, and KV (although he is known to dominate when directing with both the legends). As per this theory, one could very well say, Balu mahendra and Bharathiraja were shaped by Kamal.

So, it's just that "Nayagan" is such a great film, that people claim Kamal redefined himself. He redefined all along from 79' to 87', in significant ways. In other words, if there was no "16 vayadhinile", "sigappu rojakkal", "Moondram pirai", "Salangai Oli", "Swathi muthyam", "Raja paarvai", "Varumayin Niram Sigappu", "Ek Duuje Ke Liye", and many more. Then perhaps Mani as a contributor is acceptable, otherwise it's just pretty stupid.. As usual BW makes an half-baked list.

As for the list, Rahman is the best contribution by Rathnam. Hands down!

By the by, his contribution on (re)shaping two other actors, one - the ever-so-dependable Revathy, and next, the man who would become a youth icon back then, Karthik. Giving their respective best for Rathnam in "Mouna Raagam". Ironically, both these actors were first introduced and mentored by Bharathiraja.