Review of Raavanan

I am no expert on Tamil cinema, but in light of the expectations I’ve come to have about the industry, Raavanan does not disappoint. It has all the characteristics of a Masala film, including every film genre under the sun (romance, drama, action, musical, etc.), song and dance, gorgeous actors, and an allegory of one of India’s most popular epics.

Raavanan is an extremely obvious allegory of the Ramayana, the story known to all Indians as the one whose characters are representative of the ideal dharma of man and woman. Lord Rama represents the ideal husband, brother, and son, and Sita represents the ideal wife, sister, and daughter. The film sticks to the story of the epic like glue, accounting for every character and every plot twist, including the characters of Hanuman and Surpanakha and Rama’s less-than-honorable moment, when he shoots a man in the back.

To the viewer who is familiar with the Ramayana, Raavanan’s plot is agonizingly predictable. Yet the film keeps us engaged with its twist on the villain Ravana. In the film, Ravana is represented by Veera, who becomes surprisingly sympathetic throughout the film—so much so that by the end we find ourselves actually wishing Raagini will stay with him. True to Indian cinematic form, however, the film does not deviate from the plot of the epic: good must triumph over evil. So the movie ends with Dev killing Veera, as we all knew would happen. It’s an altogether predictable ending, but not a satisfying one.

Raagini, who of course represents Sita, has some promising moments of bravery, but in the end she defers to her role as a wife and helpless woman. This is expected and true to the Ramayana, since Sita, as the ideal woman, always defers to the man. Ashwarya Rai does not disappoint as Raagini, assuming we expect her to deliver her now-familiar “bewildered-but-still-beautiful-damsel-in-distress” performance.

Dev, the character who represents Rama, is quite static and unsympathetic, in contrast to the epic hero we know and love. As viewers we find ourselves questioning his motivation and becoming angry with his treatment of Raagini. He triumphs at the end, but at what cost? By this point we have sympathized with Veera, and Dev now looks like the bad guy. Prithviraj, who plays Dev, does an unremarkable job playing an unremarkable character.

The film’s twist on Ravana produces a dynamic character who is nearly mad with grief over his sister’s death and desperate to avenge her. Veera is the star of the story and Vikram does the character justice. He is quite believable as the potentially-crazy, surprisingly-sentimental Veera. We are able to sympathize deeply with the character and find ourselves rooting for him in the end. This is in no small part due to the fine acting of Vikram.

Raavanan is a work of cinematic art. It features an appropriately suspenseful yet somewhat cheesy soundtrack, including several song-and-dance numbers. The musical numbers in Raavanan are easier to sit through than those in some other films, I found, because each scene serves a specific purpose. Whether narrating the unspeakable thoughts of Veera, providing exposition about the lives of Dev, Raagini, Veera, and his sister Vennila, or simply humanizing Veera and his people, the songs don’t feel as though they’re in the film simply for comic relief, as so many cheesy Tamil love songs do.

The film also features beautiful scenery and believable special effects. The effects in the film are well done and not excessively unrealistic, except perhaps Gnaprakasam’s “jumps” that are more like flying (if you don’t yet know he’s Hanuman, it becomes obvious here).

Of course, like any film, Raavanan has its drawbacks. We could live without the gratuitous close-ups of Raagini and Dev (even if we believe that, as representatives of Sita and Rama, they are incarnations of the gods and we can therefore get darsan from them), at least after the first five or so. Also, Raagini is highly sexualized, which gets old pretty quickly because, let’s be real, nobody looks that good after sleeping on the ground for 14 days. On the flipside, you’d think that after performing a dance number in the pouring rain one would not still be covered in mud, but Veera and his gang are perpetually dirty despite the splashing around.

As a cinematic project, Raavanan is an impressive feat. It reads more like a Hollywood film than a Kollywood one, which may be why it appeals to me as a Western viewer. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the film more than any of Mani Ratnam’s other projects. The film definitely represents a step forward for the director, whose other films have been mediocre or so over-the-top as to be bad.

Bombay

Directed by Mani Ratnam, Bombay tells the story of Shekhar, a Hindu journalism student, and Shaila Bano, a Muslim schoolgirl, and the challenges they face as an inter-faith couple living in Bombay during the Bombay Riots.

A journalism student studying in Bombay, Shekhar returns to his coastal hometown in Tamil Nadu to visit his father and discuss his future. One morning, he crosses paths with Shaila, a Muslim girl on her way to school. As the two lock eyes, the winds from the water blow Shaila’s burka from her face, catching her off-guard and exposing her to Shekhar. Instantaneously captivated by her beauty, Shekhar finds himself hopelessly determined to marry her. In true Indian cinematic fashion, Shekhar sweeps Shaila off her feet through a number of carefully devised encounters, leaving the two lovers separated only by their religious differences.

Upon learning of Shekhar and Shaila’s plan to marry, the couples’ families are outraged: Shekhar’s father threatens disownment while Shaila’s father looks furiously for a Muslim for Shaila to marry. Desperate to stay together and eager to escape the consequences dictated by their respective parents, Shekhar and Shaila elope to Bombay.

Soon after arriving in the city, Shaila becomes pregnant with twin sons, Kabir and Kamal. Instead of choosing to raise the boys as one religion over the other, Shekhar and Shaila teach them the values and traditions of both Hinduism and Islam. For six years, Shekhar, Shaila, Kabir and Kamal live happily; Shekhar and Shaila have seemingly overcome the odds of marrying across religious lines. However, this period of peace does not last. With the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December of 1992 come rising religious tensions and a surge of fatal riots between Hindu and Muslim extremists throughout Bombay. After watching their sons come inches from being executed by a group of religious extremists demanding to know their religious identities, Shekhar and Shaila begin to fear for the safety of their family.

With the knowledge of the dangerous events occurring in Bombay, Shekhar’s father and Shaila’s parents put aside their religious differences and travel to the city to help care for Kabir and Kamal. Initially pugnacious in their exchanges, Shekhar and Shaila’s fathers are soon too absorbed in their love for their grandsons to fight with one another. Shortly after their arrival, however, Bombay enters a state of complete chaos, eventually breaking apart the family. Shekhar and Shaila, orphaned and childless, find themselves desperately searching for their sons in the wreckage of Bombay, losing hope as days pass and the riots continue to take the innocent as its victims.

In the film’s last scene, Shekhar finally breaks down and demands his own death, should things continue as they are. He becomes hysterical and pours a rioter’s kerosene over his head while Shaila begs him not to give up on their sons. Transfixed by Shekhar’s wisdom of the ludacris and unable to counter his arguments of the war’s wrongful nature, the rioters drop their weapons. As members of opposing religious groups surrender themselves and join hands, Kabir and Kamal emerge and reunite with their parents.

Bombay initially unfolds in familiar manner to many Tamil films:

- Stage 1: boy meets sees girl, boy falls in love with girl, boy and girl break out in song, girl instantaneously loves boy

- Stage 2: couple encounters obstacle of cultural origin (caste, status, or religious difference), conflict brews, “Will the relationship survive?” question looms

- Stage 3: couple overcomes obstacle, film ends happily

With that said, I found Bombay to go above and beyond my expectations of a Tamil film. First, Bombay excelled at conveying the emotions of each and every one of the characters. Second, the film both accurately and effectively depicted the realities of war, notably how it victimizes not only those on the frontlines and their families; everyone is affected by war.

One scene (shown in more ways than one) that I thought was especially emotionally impacting was that which showed Shekhar and Shaila having to look through the bodies of those who had fallen victim to the weapons of the extremists. Not only did it convey the sheer number of casualties of the riots, but it also illustrated an example of a parents’ worst nightmare.

Another scene I found similarly significant was the scene in which Shekhar is caught between a Muslim and a Hindu. As the two men argue over which group is at fault for the situation, Shekhar ends the conversation, essentially reminding them that such an argument is the reason his own children are missing. This scene represents a person or group’s ability to lose sight of the most important aspect of a war: the lives that are lost in fighting it.

On the other hand, I also acknowledge that Bombay has its flaws. The aspect of the film that I found least developed was its way of developing the relationship between Shekhar and Shaila. While I do believe that “love conquers all,” I also recognize that a relationship relies heavily on the beliefs and values one is raised with. As the product of their parents, Shekhar and Shaila likely would have encountered many more conflicts than were implied.

While Bombay had its weaknesses, they were outnumbered by its many strengths. All things considered, I found Ratnam’s execution of the emotional and political turmoil behind the Bombay Riots to be an overall victory.

Review of Bombay

The film Bombay looks at religious relations within India through the lens of a Muslim and Hindu couple, living during the time of the 1994 Bombay riots. The film is broken into two parts, and locations. The first, is in the couple’s hometown in South India, and focuses on the reactions of the young lovers family’s to their budding romance. The second part is located in Bombay after the couple have married, and had children. This section looks at religious relations in the city of Bombay through the experience of the couple’s Hindu-Muslim twin boys during the time of the Bombay riots. Between the two parts is a gap, which shows the happiness and love of the young family in Bombay.

The stark contrast between the two parts left me wondering if the film had more than one writer. The beginning was frustratingly bad, and unconvincing. This proves to be an unfortunate start for such a good movie. The movie begins with the couple’s first glimpse of each other. The man, Shekhar, sees Shaila, his future wife, as she is stepping out of a small boat. For a brief second Shaila’s hijab is lifted by the pre-monsoon wind, and her face revealed. Although she immediately tries to cover herself, they have made eye contact and he is entranced. From then on any time they see each other, a lingering, emotion-filled stare is shared. A meaningful glance being enough to start a relationship before any words are shared seems to be a common happening in Indian films. Shekhar chooses to go to extremes to speak to Shaila. One day he dresses as a Muslim girl and rides the boat with her and her family members. In the only conversation the two have, he demands she meet him and tells her he wants to spend the rest of his life with her. Bombay has been called a modern day Indian Romeo and Juliet but I have a hard time believing that Shekhar could realistically share the same feelings that a 16-year old Romeo had forhis 12-year old lover, Juliet.

Complicating the story and redeeming the beginning of the film is the reaction of the two families once their intention to get married is known. Each father is depicted as being extremely religious. The intention divides and hurts both families. The intensity of the situation is clear when Shekhar’s father goes to Shaila’s father and threatens to kill him. Shekhar flees his family and returns to Bombay. He sends Shaila a train ticket. She arrives in Bombay and they are married. Here, for the first time, the audience is able to see each of the main characters as whole people. It becomes more difficult to deny their love as the audience watches their sweet interactions, as they start a family and create a home together.

The happy interlude comes to an abrupt end when the Bombay riots break out in the family’s neighborhood. At the outbreak the couple are separated from their five year old sons. Subsequently, men, demanding to know their religion, corner the twins. The twins are unable to answer and, in response, the men pour gasoline on them. Luckily, the parents intervene just in time,saving the boys from physical, if not mental, trauma. News soon reaches the couple’s families in the south. Independently, both grandparents travel to Bombay to make sure everyone is okay. At this point we learn that one of the little boys has a Muslim name, and the other, a Hindu name. Again, peace is restored. The grandfather’s continue to bicker but it has turned from serious to comical. In the face of danger, on a widespread, public scale the family unites to protect itself. Despite the break from immediate danger the movie continues to emphasize the seriousness of the situation through Shekhar’s journalism work on the riots. Through this, the writer’s are able to provide the viewing audience with an understanding of the history of the riots and the feelings of the major players involved.

The climax of the movie comes with the next outbreak of violence in the neighborhood, when the couple’s apartment catches on fire while the family is home. The couples and their twins escape but Shekhar’s parents turn back to save Shaila’s father, who is praying. As a representation of how far the two families have come the Hindu grandfather goes as far as to grab the Islamic grandfather’s Koran for him as they leave. By the time the grandparents return to the window, though, the exit is blocked and they perish in the fire.

While the couple was escaping from the fire, they, again, lose sight of their twin boys. It will be days, possibly weeks (it is hard to tell), before the family will find them. In the mean time the couple searches, desperately, for them. The couple visits morgues and hospitals, in hopes of finding out the fate of their sons, and allowing the audience to fully take in the toll the violence has taken on the city. Finally, the madness reaches a breaking point, and even the fanatical leaders are forced to confront the damage they have caused. Right before the boys are recovered the father mentally collapses screaming at a crowd of protestors and dousing himself in gasoline in the process. The movie ends with the couple finding their children, and the rioters taking hands to form one long chain: a hopeful sign for the future amidst the chaos and destruction around them.

The search for the twin boys is painfully long, and disturbing, as the audience is forced to watch the boys struggle to survive. The movie is extremely effective in making the viewership come to terms with the intensity of what happened in Bombay. It isimpossible to watch, and not be emotionally moved. It is my understanding that the basic goal of Indian cinemais to create emotional responses in its audience. Despite the lack of song and dance towards the end, the movie is extremely effective, and moving.

(Posted for EvaClaire)