With a Maniratnam film (and anyone who keeps releasing a movie once in 2 or 3 years) it is always a tough choice between reviewing the film and how the film is made. A lot comes to be expected by the audience on both the fronts and hence it is inevitable that the review touches upon the latter as well.
If i were to put Ramayanam in a nutshell, it is all about God enacting a larger design that includes 14 years of vanavasam, refusing the love interest of surpanaka, wilfully chasing a magical deer allowing the abduction, killing another demon of a brother named Vaali in the course of a path that is designed to culminate in a war with Raavanan aimed at vanquishing him and all this at the behest of the Devas who constantly keep going to Maha Vishnu to help them decimate one asura or the other. Given this overall context, it is pretty much possible that Raavanan had many strong aspects to his personality many of which could be positive traits which do not find a mention in the mainstream narration of the Epic as it is more about the virtues of Lord Rama.
The movie Raavanan is however about a step brother who is out to avenge the police force for violating the modesty of his step sister in the course of attempting an encounter on him in her marriage during which he is made to escape by his devout gang of followers. The foundation of Veera's character being an outlaw as that is the only way to represent the interests of a subjugated lot of tribal people, in no way reminds you of the character in the Epic who runs his own prosperous kingdom only to commit excesses like getting a invincible boon from Lord Siva causing the devas to shit in their pants and run to Maha Vishnu. Starting from his name it is nothing but a symbolisation of the sandalwood smuggler who has variations of folklore about him being a hero for his local populace and who had his own misgivings with the police force.
Having compared the outlines of the two stories, I am wondering what made me compare it in the first place given so many departures from each other.
Sadly the following tenuous reasons which I do not expect from someone like Maniratnam
a) Title of the movie being Ravanan of which there is only a fleeting reference by Prithviraj's narration that Veera is known as Raavanan by the local populace for his multi-faceted traits
b) A forest guard officer who jumps from tree tops to jeep tops constantly muttering uttalakadi girigiri just to indicate there is a representation of Vanara race, in the process also doubling up as Hanuman only during the episode of going as a messenger (A caricature of the powerful Sundarakandam episode of Ramayana that showcases the valour, virtues and divinity of Hanuman).
c) Just before the Surpanaka's character's modesty is outraged, she being hurt in the nose by the police officer who represents Lakshmana's character. Lakshmana cuts her ears and nose in the epic for her act of attempting to get physical with Rama. Here Lakshmana's character gets physical with Surpanaka's out of a sheer exploitation of holding her hostage till Veera's whereabouts are known.
d) It is said that Raavana's end will come when he first touches Sita. That parallel can be seen in the last scene where Vikram touches Aish for the only time to push her down to take the bullet aimed at him which she is preventing (having understood him fully).
Having said all this, I have no problems with the script of Raavanan. I feel that by itself it is a well made movie with exceptional visuals and good music and quite an enjoyable screen play. I would have really loved this movie had it been simply named Beera or Veeraiyya (as Veera is already a super star film title) and the narration had started logically at a point that justifies his heroism among the local populace with a sudden interruption of the abduction episode leaving the audience to wonder why he commits the excess with a natural flow to the past where his step sister gets assaulted, culminating in a climax that shows Prithviraj eventually emerging the winner for the simple fact that it is the politically correct thing to show to the masses.
I am just completely let down by the fact that Mani choses to ride on the epic to tell a interesting narrative when We all know how it could be a role reversal where the police commits the first excess resulting in the marginalisation of a few and the emergence of a righteous leader among them.We dont need to see an epic being pulled into the mud and its lead characters like Rama and Lakshmana being shown as saddists or immoralists to drive home such a possiblity that even a guy like Raavanan could have had his own justifications to commit his excesses.
The movie actually shows Rama's character pressing the dismembered shoulder of Veera's brother in law (who is himself a victim of Veera for he deserts his sister immediately after marriage after seeing the police encounter) just to show that he is not disturbed by such acts of Veera as he thinks it is a psychological game to make him give up his pursuit of Veera. Further he mercilessly shoots down the younger brother of Veera who comes to broker peace and reflective of a parallel to the sandalwood smuggler's life history where he lost his brother Arjun to a police encounter.
To earn the title of Ravanan and to get even remotely compared to the epic in terms of content (not narration) Mani should have worked more on the script to show justifications on both sides of the warring gangs resulting in two men of equal valour fighting it out due to a contentious clash of perspectives or ideologies with one emerging the eventual winner based on which side the box office might prefer or the title already tilts towards.
Like Thalabadhi, it would have been so wonderful if it had kept the audience guessing whether it was inspired by Raavanan or Veerappan or neither....by just avoiding the obvious references to Ramayana and the convenient departures to satisfy an atheist agenda.
I loved the locales, cinematography and Vikram's mind blowing portrayal of a complex characterisation.But on the whole I am a little disappointed with Maniratnam's thought process of making this movie this way.
What I still dont like in Maniratnam's films which is again something that surfaces in this movie is a scene in a flashback where Aish after listening to the excesses of Veera from her husband and colleague (Lakshmana character Hemanth) starts excitedly saying things like..."what are you guys then waiting for....why dont you shoot him down immediately....after all we have given you uniforms to protect us".
Mani has this irritating habit of having a child like solutions to complex issues pouted by either a child or the most beautiful woman in the sets with the hope that the audience will love them just because it comes from such a person. It gets on atleast my nerve.
Usually I see Maniratnam's films multiple times in theater but I am looking forward to his next film already and more with the hope that he will choose a smaller set of variables to deal with and deliver a more enjoyable screenplay like Agninaksathram, Mouna Raagam or Alaipayudhae.
I really feel Mani should limit the size of his canvas and focus more on the picture he is painting. Refrain from too many things in one movie like making it a bilingual, making it pan indian, involving a ensemble cast and so on. I believe this creates so many distractions both in terms of expectations for the movie goer as well as narrative compromises for the movie maker.
I think Roja was a great film but has done more damage in terms of forcing him to always think of employing a lot of variables in film making just for the heck of raising the bar.
Hoping to get back the vintage Maniratnam soon in his very next movie !!!
