Bad architecture

I watched Sivaji over the weekend when it was screened in a theatre close to Ashburn. As someone who considers Rajnikanth to be a brilliant businessman with minimal acting ability, I went in with very low expectations. Add to that, it was being directed by Shankar who is very good at spending huge sums of money on his movies with very little to show for an effective story. The movie didnt even surpass the minimal expectations.

The movie opened with a short trailer for an animation movie
Sultan produced by Rajni's daughter. It once again goes to show how much of a good businessman he truly is. As he ages, the style elements he pioneers will not sit well on him(Even if it does, those who follow it will be a narrower segment). Switching to animation allows him to portray a limitless range of gimmickry and style leveraging his movie persona that is not possible for him in his advanced age in movies. The challenge from younger actors also means that Rajni has to pass the baton to someone else like MGR did in his day and animation would provide him a second lease of life away from snickering of general public that MGR encountered in his doddering years. I am wondering whether Kamal will be smart enough to understand the power of animation. Rajni has used animation within his movies before(Raja Chinna Roja) and shouldnt have difficulty tasting success given his fans include children. The lack of acting skills when compared to Kamal also makes it a great option for Rajni. It just might be that Sultan might beat Marudanayagam to the punch and Kamal might be left holding debts while Rajni (once again) reigns at the box office. The quality of the trailer was very good and I am looking forward to it.

Sivaji's Story:
Rajni plays a NRI(a system software architect given his target audience comprises of software engineers who grew up watching his movies back in India and are now spread all over the world ready to splurge on his movies) who returns to india with a boatload of money and a desire to 'give back to the country'. He proposes to open a one stop shop for educational and medical needs that doesnt charge people for its services. He runs head long into a power broker, played by an ineffectual Suman, whose business empire(and political clout) would be threatened if Rajni's plans take off. He falls in love with Shriya after seeing her at a local temple. Rajni jumps through innumerable bureaucratic hoops only to find his project stopped by political machinations. After losing all his possessions in the bargain, he vows to strike back at Suman and the corrupt political system. How he goes about it forms the rest of the story.

Analysis:
Shankar has built a production house out of successful movies that show one person fighting against the corrupt system (bureaucrats, businessmen and politicians) and generally winning the battle at the end. Movies like Ramana did a classier job in portraying one man's fight against the system while at the same time accepting the need for a support structure for the operation's success. I would have thought the presence of Rajni would preclude any reasonable presentation of the concept. I was right on that but surprisingly, that is more Shankar's fault than Rajni's. Overall, the movie makes for terrible viewing.

One staple of a Rajni movie for a long time has been sequences showing how he becomes rich in the course of one song(Annamalai, Padayappa). It would have been great if Shankar had given some thought to that portion. Instead, the route Rajni takes here has a whiny feel to it. The solution is something that will be welcomed by Rajni fans mainly because of a lack of healthy scepticism about their thalaivar. However, it flies in the face of what Shankar wants to convey in the film. The solution to the problem of unaccounted-for cash assets (a.k.a 'black money') that Rajni hits upon sounds acceptable to me only if I can consider Rajni's character to be exempt from moral considerations of right and wrong in the context of the movie. Shankar offers the wimpy way out of 'If his competitor(with support from the system) is doing something morally wrong, why not Rajni too ?'. Instead of rooting for the hero because of the undeniable feel good effect on seeing him getting his revenge(through becoming rich), I was left wondering, at the lack of differentiation between his character and Suman's except for them being slotted on opposite sides in the screenplay. Shankar's movies generally run on this tension in hero's portrayal(Indian 'thaatha' being upholder of rules who however has to break them to clean up the system, 'Ambi' in Anniyan being the righteous lawyer who breaks rules to implement innovative forms of torture from Garudapurana etc.). At least Anniyan had good justification('Ambi' suffering from multiple personality disorder was a very believable reason) for maintaining the tension. Sivaji or, for that matter, Indian has none. Shankar might have figured the popular base for Rajni and Kamal are blind enough to overlook the discrepancy and I think he has been proven right going by the reception of the two movies.

Usual Rajni characters start from lower economic strata in the society(generally content with their station in life) and end up far higher at the end of the movie, while bemoaning the sacrifices that come with single minded devotion to that journey. Prime example would be Annamalai or Nallavanukku Nallavan even though Padayappa had a variation on the theme(where he starts being rich, loses it all and comes back on top again). Sivaji is similar to Padayappa but has none of the verve of the latter(I hate Padayappa but am a fan of those songs in Rajni movies).Here, we have none of that. The focus in always on the larger goal of building colleges and hospitals but in so doing, Shankar also sacrifices the emotional identification with Rajni's character (from seeing him and his family struggle) his movies of past have leveraged. Some of Shankar's movies too, have precisely used the same imbalance to become big hits. Gentleman was a big hit precisely because it dealt with educational challenges for lower class whereas Sivaji deals with lower class people as peripheral characters in the story. It might signal a break in whom Rajni is targeting or it might just be temporary diversion from Shankar.

As he has become more successful, Shankar has constantly found new, outlandish ways to stage fights in his movies. Anniyan set a new standard in nonsensical fights just for the sole purpose of showing one. Sivaji follows the trend and the slowness of Rajni(with advancing age) made the fights a nightmare to get through, for me. Shankar has compensated by slowing down the frames at certain points in the fight but it still couldnt prevent me from pitying Rajnikanth's agility in the movie.

The romance portion was horrendous, to put it mildly. The fact that Rajni continues to play much younger roles than what his age demands has been rankling me for quite a long time. As much as Shankar tries to hide the age on Rajni through make up, it shows(except for the last 15 minutes. I am wondering why Shankar didnt use that get up for Rajni earlier in the movie). Shriya doesnt have to act that much and she doesnt even try.

The disturbing section of the romance portion was the open ridicule of darker skin(That tamils are recent masters at practicing colour discrimination might be one reason). Rajni has always referred to his skin colour in his movies, using the discrimination to his advantage. The heroines, in his movies, are generally fairer than him and he has used it to target his core audience of youth in tamilnadu(If someone as dark as me can get a fairer girl, you can too. You just have to learn to do cigarette(or with Sivaji, gum) flips.Learning to smoke it makes you cool too). Here, Shriya uses his colour as an ostensible reason for turning him down(which, given his prior movies, isnt a surprise). The portions where Rajni tries to turn himself white were mildly funny even though nowhere close to what he is capable of as a comedian. After that, what was intended as humour was sickening. That Solomon Pappaiah is roped to do this portion is even more despicable, given his general standing in tamilnadu as moderator of television debates and literary commentator. He is a neighbour to shriya and after she turns Rajnikanth down on account of his colour, he keeps offering his two daughters( younger than shriya and darker than Rajni) to Rajni who proceeds to turn them down, with the director leaving us in no doubt the rejection is because of their dark colour. The only message that was conveyed through that sequence was that darker you are, the lesser attraction and appeal you have(that is, if one can discount the horror of offering those young girls for marriage). To have it in a Rajni movie was even worse. This is an actor and personality who holds absolute sway over tamil movie fans who treat his movies as fit for family consumption. Audience in the theater were actually laughing at the sequence. This isnt some uncouth rural tamilnadu 'keeththu kottaai' patrons but moderately well heeled, supposedly well educated tamil expats. His prior movies have always used the darker shade of skin as positive reinforcement(for the most part). The perception of dark skin advocated in this movie is hurtful and unbelievably stupid that will add onto the negative consequences of being dark in tamilnadu for some time to come(Not that, it already isnt a big issue with tamil culture).

*******Spoiler alert - Dont read if you dont want to know plot twists and turns**************

The electric shock sequence in jail which leads to Rajni's escape is juvenile and incomprehensible. Does he know how much electric current is enough to still his heart without completely stopping it ? Plus the movie doesnt specify a time frame within which the switch happens so how does one know CPR will even work ?. While Shankar gives a clue in earlier portions of the movie(where the kid at the construction site gets saved by CPR) as to where Rajni's character gets the idea from, to use it as a plot point without reasonable devotion to the preparation, shows Shankar's laziness.

Rajni has targeted two of the most successful icons of tamil moviedom and co-opted their brands into his image. The movie name is the namesake of Sivaji and the character at the end of the movie takes on the name of M.G.Ravichandran with someone even claiming the name is actually MGR. He has sequences in the movie where he acts out Sivaji in Mayakkam Enna and MGR in Azhagiya Tamil Magal Eval songs. Just as the younger crop of heroes like Dhanush use Rajni's image to bolster their fan base.

As someone who has CPR training(but has let the certification elapse), I was glad that they highlighted its effectiveness. A Rajni movie is a far better vehicle to create awareness of CPR in tamilnadu than a dedicated government program run by bureaucrats with no idea as to how to portray it. Shankar follows up the discussion of multiple personality disorder in Anniyan with CPR here. At least for his effort in creating awareness, he should be commended.

Shankar showed that he is good if he is left to his own devices instead of directing an actor with larger than life image. The sequences in the jail leading to the climax were very well executed and would have been even better if not for the obvious compromises Shankar makes for Rajni, the superstar.

Performers:

Rajni looks good in his role once I accepted the unbelievable premises behind it. He has tried to look a lot younger than what he actually is but the age does show in other ways, in his body movements and the one and a half chin(there wasnt quite a double chin). The punch lines were definitely delivered well.

Suman was the wrong choice for the villain role. If Shankar wanted to convey a certain calmness and menace in Suman by making him wear sunglasses all the time, it just made him look out of place. Even the guy who played the inspector(who also played Peikkaaman in Virumaandi) would have done much better in Suman's place.

I had high expectations for Vivek but he was good only in patches. Some of his jokes were just statements of the obvious that fell flat in delivery. It might be that Vivek made a conscious decision to downplay comedy so as not to overshadow Rajnikanth. So, he gets to shower Rajnikanth with praises which, to me, sounded not much different from what ADMK does to JJ.

Shriya performed her role of dumb tamil heroine character well. She doesnt have to do anything other than being eye candy for a much older hero and she does what is expected of her.

Conclusion:

Befitting their thalaivar's priorities(money first, performance later), the people who screened the movie charged $15 for admission which I was willing to pay as I figured I was due for a Rajni induced torture, 3 years after Baba. In comparison to Baba, Sivaji was much better but that isnt saying much. The movie was long but towards the end, it started looking like an OK tamil movie after having been in the gutter for most of the time. Shankar's production house comes out with very good movies like Kaadhal, Veyyil and 23aam Pulikesi. Sivaji is a blot on its track record even though the collections of the movie will top all the other three put together.

It is good to be the king

History of the World Part I makes fun of history(biblical, roman and french) in a delightfully crass manner. Seeing that movie has always made me think about lack of such movies in tamil.

Tamil historicals were always so full of themselves, insisting on the righteousness of the king and putting every two bit tamil king on a pedestal, most of the time because he happens to be of tamil heritage. To be fair to them, the audiences liked it which only made the directors even more insufferable. As much as I love Veerapandiya Kattabomman, to see Sivaji shout his way through most of the movie does get unbearable. It would be a great day when Kattabomman's story is told in a far more restrained manner. I dont think there have been comedy tracks in tamil movies about the portrayal of kings in them. The past few years have seen comedy tracks targeted at portrayals of different characters in older tamil movies(Vivek's brilliant mockery of Parasakthi scenes in Palaiyaththamman).It is to the credit of Shankar and Simbudevan that they take on that task in Imsai Arasan 23aam Pulikesi and come out unscathed, for the most part.

Story:

The story is a simple and funny take on the Sivaji's old movie, Uththama Puththiran(which I read recently, was 'inspired' from Man in the Iron Mask). It is about the exploits of a palayakaaran(r?), Pulikesi, played by Vadivelu. He rules a fictional region called chozhapuram in the year 1771 when British have made significant inroads into India through East India Company. He is an extremely incompetent administrator, given to capricious decisions and cavorting in the andhapuram(royal garden) most of the time. Unbeknownst to him, he has an identical twin who was separated at birth due to the machinations of their evil uncle the rajaguru, played solidly by Nasser who also is the power behind the throne. The rajaguru toys with pulikesi as he is also his guardian after the death of pulikesi's father, played by a barely recognisable Nagesh. The rajaguru sets the policy of the kingdom as one of assistance to the british, much to the discomfiture of the old queen, pulikesi's mother played by manorama, and sorrounding palayakkaarars. The twin(aptly named Ugrapuththan) grows up in the outskirts of the kingdom and becomes a fearless man of action and education, everything pulikesi is not. He uses the aall-maarattam technique practiced for eons in tamil cinema and becomes the king. How he deals with the resistance from British and the rajaguru forms the rest of the story.

Analysis:

The name of the characters themselves point to the eventual success of the movie. Even though it takes place in 1771, the story treats its characters without slotting them in a specific period. It proves to be a great tool for the satire that runs throughout the movie. So, Ugrapuththan gets his education from Nalanda even though historically the university is long gone. For people with exposure to historical literature in tamil, pulikesi is a name associated mainly with Sivakamiyin Sabatham(SS) and the association is not that flattering(Literary fans in Kannada might take strong exception to that, from what I have heard). Add to that, the rajaguru in this movie matches closely with Naganandi, the villainous character in SS, in dress and skills(He doesnt use snakes though like Naganandi). The only difference I can think of is the actual relation with the king. The name of the kingdom is chozhapuram that references the setting for the other famous kalki novel, Ponniyin Selvan(PS). The characters of the twins are very well delineated. We know the sympathy of the director lies with Ugrapuththan even though it is Pulikesi who provides the laughs. Pulikesi is incompetent, in love with intellectual sophistry(beautifully illustrated in comic sequences involving a riddle and the royal guard's slip up in praising him). Ugrapuththan, as the name itself suggests, is a man of intelligent action(as opposed to most tamil movie heroes). He is the epitome of the director's wish for an ancient tamil king(well educated, well versed in fighting skills, suitably enraged at foreign occupation, in love with tamil, on the side of common man). The director has assumed that there is a desperate demand for making reasonably well made movies on historical novels in tamil literature and his characters attest to that. The success of the movie also means that the director was well justified in his assumption. This might be the first movie that has dared to approach SS and PS in this manner. Compared to the claims by maniratnam and Kamal, an unknown director has made a well deserved attempt, even if it is tangential, at best, in approaching the two novels.

The starting scene of the movie itself gives a taste of what is in store, as has been pointed out in other reviews. Not many tamil historicals start with a caption identifying a random lizard in the palace as 'aranmanai palli'(palace lizard). From there, the movie takes aim at most of the holy cows as portrayed in tamil cinema. There are the captions around andhapuram that show the director casually applying present day concepts to erstwhile royal institutions. The one notable exception that goes untouched is the extreme devotion to a particular brand of tamil, at any point of time, within tamil culture in contravention of historical evolution of that language. That is understandable given the movie is targeting literary fans for its success. You cant make your movie a commercial success(especially in a culture that doesnt look too kindly on mockery of its sacred symbols) if you make fun of the very thing you primarily share with your audience.

However, the director has a field day with other holy cows.

Cricket comes in for some good, even if minor, treatment. It targets only tendulkar(represented by a player who has a '10' on his bloodied shirt) and dravid(whose post match interview style is mocked). The prize check that is bandied about in cricket matches is mocked too.

It takes aim at the caste consciousness that is part and parcel of tamil culture. Pulikesi's method to prolong caste divisions(encouraged by Rajaguru) fits in perfectly with the way his character has been developed. Even the difference between the castes ties into pulikesi's portrayal as someone who is more at home with language and its use than resolving the issue at hand.

The painting sequence is another where the director takes a dig at historical representations of royal personages. What we have is only the figures and paintings about a specific king and that is only part of what actually happened.

The director also makes fun of the craze for foreign beverages, mainly pepsi and coke. Given the strict limits on attack ads in india, the movie calls them 'kapsi' and 'akka cola'. The method of manufacture, even if exaggerated, makes us think as to what chemicals go into the drink.

The most hilarious ones are sequences that call out government employees for their incompetence, laziness and lack of work ethic. That they are being upbraided by a lazy and incompetent king is just icing on the cake. The movie even has reference to the laughable ordinance that provides tax breaks for tamil movies with tamil movie names, infamous TADA , child labour and low quality of manufactured products.

Tamil movies in historical genre dont use themselves as reference. They take themselves very seriously, a hangover from being the vehicles of social change in their earlier incarnation. The aranmanai josiyar's response to the dilemma of who, among the identical twins, inherits the throne is priceless for its careless humour that is rare in that genre.

As far as the negative points go, the end of the movie was prolonged through the needless ten commandments pronouncement. As expected, they had things that the present day indians would like to see their government execute. The romantic interludes could have been dropped as they didnt have any bearing on the movie as such. Some of the solutions(especially like the one on soft drinks) were not well thought out. The sequence involving the poets' description of pulikesi, I didnt find any reason for its presence. It seemed to go against the character definition of pulikesi even though the explanations were funny. The sets in the movie looked flimsy. One would have expected much better sets from a movie produced by shankar. Maybe, he reserves it only for his movies and scrimps on money for other directors under his banner.To me, the first 30 minutes of Devadhai set the standards for representation of architecture of ancient tamil kingdom which no tamil movie(to my knowledge) has come close. Devadhai as a movie was horrendous but the first 30 minutes were etched beautifully.

Performers:

Vadivelu plays the role of twin brothers and pulls it off handsomely for the most part. He is at home as Pulikesi given it leverages his talents at physical comedy. There were times I squirmed at the lack of gravitas in Ugrapuththan as a serious king but on the whole, he does a commendable job. Nasser does very well as Rajaguru even though he would have sleepwalked through this role anyday. Other characters do their job including Seeman(playing the commander disgruntled with pulikesi and rajaguru at their support for british), Nagesh(playing pulikesi and ugrapuththan's father), Manorama(playing pulikesi and ugrapuththan's mother),V.S.Raghavan(playing aranmanai josiyar to great effect), 'Vennira Adai' Murthy(as the palace official who brings up Ugrapuththan), Illavarasu(who plays the pliant minister to Pulikesi very well).

The movie is impressive, overall, given the paucity of such offerings in tamil cinema. It is also a pioneer in showing that tamil movies can be smart and funny if they try. There are tons of subjects for ridicule and mirth and it is a testament to the intellectual bankruptcy of tamil movie directors that even an initial effort in revisiting history takes a long time to materialize.