Saturday, December 23, 2017

VELAIKAARAN - GOOD INTENT LET DOWN BY A WAVERING SCREENPLAY

When I first saw the trailer of Velaikaaran, there was something really original about it; the colour palettes of the kuppam (slum) were authentic (really; visit Kannagi Nagar - the forbidden kingdom of the OMR - once, and you will know what I am talking about), the ringing of the huge bell looked like director Mohan Raja announcing, “Am back, audience”, the indirect conversations with the audience - we have been seeing this in a lot of trailers; in Lingaa, Rajini says, “I’ll meet you very very soon”, in Thuppaakki, the “I am waiting (for the movie to release)” line; in Sema, G V Prakash’s hand gesture signalling his arrival of sorts (okay, I agree bringing GVP here is an insult to the big names, but poor child, he is trying) - towards the end of the trailer, which has become customary these days, brought in a fresh whiff of air.

The towards-the-end-of-trailer visual showed Sivakarthikeyan asking Fahadh Faasil - and Mohan Raja asking the audience, probably - “Idhu work out aagumaa, Sir?” (“Will this work out well, Sir?”), for which Fahadh Faasil replies, “100%”. The audience will most likely reply, “Umm, 70%, or maybe, 80”, after watching the movie. Which does not mean Velaikaaran is not a good movie. The problem is it tries be an Aramm, while refusing to let go of the ‘Samuthirakani phenomenon’, as we know it today.

While Aramm took a very specific issue and tried to expand it to a larger perspective (from a child trapped in a bore well to the differences between the developed and underprivileged India), Velaikaaran takes in a generic issue, and tries to connect it to a particular sect of people (the problem of capitalism and how it affects the most underprivileged people of a small community). The primary difference that results is the number of characters in Velaikaaran. Among the many secondary differences, the number of long, 5-minute rants occupies the pole position.

If the title itself - taken from an earlier Rajinikanth movie going by the same title - suggests what is to be expected, there are bits and pieces that reemphasise the idea. Like the names of characters; the protagonist is Arivu (knowledge), while the antagonist is Adhiban aka Aadhi (Adhibar in Tamil roughly translates to ‘boss’). Like the portion where Arivu’s father - a welder - inaugurates the community radio, which is the brainchild of Arivu, and we see a rod in place of the usual ribbon; it is being cut with the equipment of a welder.

The first half of the movie revolves around the radio, while exploring the suppression of the slum people by their own bosses within the slum (who, in turn, become henchmen for the capitalist, corporate bosses). The narrative is crisp and neat, and we gradually see what the problem within that community is, and how it unfolds. AND, the way Karuthavanlaam Galeejaam - by far the most thought-provoking lyric of the recent times - is shot breaks every single preconceived notion about how the song could have been an introductory number for the protagonist. The cinematography is a treat, with the dance moves of Sivakarthikeyan complementing the actual scenario of the kuppam. “Odhavi nu ketaaka apartment aalu, nice ah appeet aavaaru” shows a high-rise multi-storeyed building in the backdrop, and we kinda get it; the super-luxurious people who live just around the slum would never pay a visit to this poverty-stricken area. Ever. Anirudh’s voice is unusually buoyant, transcending the already possessing lyrics and the camera work to a greater dimension.

As the movie progresses, we see Arivu getting to know about the real scenario of his family - they have a huge debt; his sister needs to continue going to school, for which the school fee needs to be paid - but how he gets to know is also innovative, although the mom-cries-dad-consoles phenomenon is intact. As I stated earlier, the radio IS the centre of the movie throughout the first half. Arivu joins as a Sales Representative (or, Marketing person?) in a large, consumer brand named… Saffron. I could sense where Mohan Raja was leading us, and my hunch became true towards the end of the movie, when Red flags are seen flying everywhere. Metaphor, anyone?

Speaking of metaphors, there are many more of them. Arivu seeks support from his community, asking them to switch on lights and bulbs at 12 in the night, if they agree to his ideas of empowering them. He sure receives support, but we are talking about something more profound here. Knowledge (Arivu) dispels the darkness of ignorance. Hence, the lights.

Mohan Raja somehow fails to realise that these metaphors work a hundred and thousand times better than those endless, preachy rants. And, we also get to know that editor Vivek Harshan left the project midway, and Ruben had to replace him. The result is an imbalance between an interesting movie and a propaganda message for spreading an ideology. The second half - along with the pre-interval block - is especially filled with speeches, which an eighth grader would mug to win a first place in the Independence Day oratorical competition organised in his/her school. While these long monologues are problems that take a toll on the runtime themselves, what is more disturbing is Sivakarthikeyan’s sheer difficulty in delivering those we-need-to-stand-up-and-question-the-bosses paragraphs. The director seems to have kept in mind Mithran of Thani Oruvan while penning the lines, but Arivu lacks the pride of Mithran and he becomes that student who gets tortured by the teacher to recite long passages in the annual day function of a school.


Dialogues like “Soozhnilaiku yetha maadhiri naama maarunadhellaam podhum; inimey soozhnilaiya namaku yetha maadhiri maathuvom” (“Enough of being reactive to circumstances; let’s become proactive”), and “Thevai illaadhadhuku dhaan kaaranam sollanum; thevai irukuradhuku kaaranam solla thevai illa” (“That which is unwanted requires justification; that which is necessary doesn’t”) are both thought-provoking and whistle-worthy, but hey, too much of anything is good for nothing. As it is, the intent of the movie is good as can be seen in the obvious one-line (Rise of the suppressed against unjust capitalism), but the screenplay lacks orientation. You cannot narrate a novel in the time allotted for a short story, can you?