Kinship and kingship

I have been forced out of my unenforced hibernation by repeated assaults by newspapers' oft-repeated Rajneeti and Raavan comparison. Comparisons are natural and expected and probably justified too. But something in me revolts when Rajneeti is dubbed as a masterpiece rightly judged by the masses while Raavan is said to be a Mani Ratnam's showpiece that fails to even glitter.

For starters, I love movies drubbed by critics but picked up by the masses. But I also like certain movies that critics appreciate but masses don't. And I don't like some movies both masses and classes like. In short, I am fluid - I fall between and beyond the masses and the critics. And like any biased, highly judgemental person my blood boils unreasonably when I read this verdict. Masses may have liked Rajneeti but it is not entertaining to me. Critics may have liked it but I think it is a particularly shoddy piece of work. Inconsistencies in dialogues, unexplained motivations and plastic characters are some of the criticisms already mentioned. But beyond specific cringe-worthy scenes, Rajneeti is a weak adaptation.

Rajneeti comes from the myopia that repeatedly frames and understands Indian politics in terms of the great epic in a way that does not do justice to the creative genius of the original or the complexities of the Indian political scene. Adaptation does not mean tailoring an epic to suit the needs of a contemporary setting. (Even this contemporary setting is vague for Jha couldn't decide if he was going for UP or Bihar. Hence, unlike Omkara this modern day 'adaptation' of Mahabharatha is not rooted in any regional specificity that we could relate too. It takes place, as if in an alternate universe where most members of one families pop off within the space of what looked like two months. Even the first family of the country spaced out their assassinations with quite a few years.) Anyway, adaptations are about interpretation methinks. We know what happened in Mahabharatha, we don't need Jha to give us a recap. And if Jha means that Indian politics is like a kurukshetra then YAWN again. We know that only too well. Rajneeti's success is not about masses getting smart but masses opting to see the only too familiar - the easily accessible film. 

About 20 years back, Shashi Tharoor sought the same path. He fashioned pre- and post-independence politics after The Great Indian Novel. While he showed more ingenuity in fixing mythological characters on real life personalities, people about whom we had preconcieved ideas Rajneeti neither surprises nor engrosses. It shows scant interest in the literary work and less political understanding than I am sure Jha actually has. Most of earlier films that I have seen show a superior grasp of the political undercurrents (Mrityudhand, Gangajal). They are rooted in the region's realities and the actors have a kind of raw earthiness. In Rajneeti, Manoj Bajpai is a Bollywood villain while Ranbhir is the suave scoundrel or Bollywood anti-hero. They are Bollywood fixtures, rather than political entities. The one sly masterstroke in the whole game is locating Dalit politics as the "bastard child of communism". Though the point is debatable it is the only real political analysis in the film. Politics is not just about the people in it - it is over and above us. Jha is not interested in showing politics, only the politicians. They are just faces, Bollywood faces pretty, not so pretty, pained, demonic. That's why Ajay Devgn, the ideal choice for the role, is annoying to the last degree. His claims of being Dalit ring hollow since the film refuses to dig deeper into the political well. He is just a face to Karna. Arjun Rampal is devastatingly goodlooking and creepy as a murderer but nothing more.

Raavan is not about politics but it is overtly political. (In fact it ironically shows a political understanding missing in Ratnam's political films - Dil se, Roja, Yuva.) I need to own up to ignorance about how the film is in Hindi. I am sure not as good as it is in Tamil - Abhishek would have come out as a buffoon in that role if I have seen enough of his films to judge. To be fair Vikram as Ram does not look convincing either. The brilliance of Raavanan in Tamil lies in the perfectness of the looks of actors to the mythological role assigned to them and the inherent deception of the same. Prithvi looks every bit Ram in his fair Aryan arrogance made over with Raybans and khakhis. Vikram looks every bit Dravidian and that's the raw sexuality that Ash's Sita falls for. In Hindi, his passing off as Ram is doubtful. Appearances matter a lot and we grant that Ratnam was not able to pull off the casting coup he did in the Tamil version. I can only compare with confidence once I have seen the Hindi version on Tv but these are my initial thoughts.

Raavanan showed a greater level of engagement with the original text. It understood the original and understood what was the popular understanding of the text was. Rajneeti seeks to be THE plot while Raavanan is just a foil. He locates contemporary characters in mythological terrains - roots them in recognizable reality (if Beera can be found in laal maati then the affinity of Veera's name to Veerapan is not completely misinterpreted). He is then able to destabilise our preconcieved ideas about both the mythology and the contemporary character. For both purposes, he does not go out of the way - he assumes we know our Ramayan and we know (or we think we know) about maoists and a certain 'sandalwood smuggler'. He puts fwd the identity of the mythic characters a little too forcefully so that we have no confusion whatsoever. Ratnam's script probably didn't even cover a page - he narrated his de-constructed interpretation of Ramayan in a fitting abstract canvas. He probably did with more success whatever Sanjay Leela Bhansali tried with Black and Blue (sorry, cheap shot). He painted a breathtakingly canvas to a razor thin plotline. This was probably coz there is nothing really that can be added to the story that we don't know already. We are just given instances that prove what a jerk Ram is and how Raavanan is probably not that much of a bad guy. These broad character brushstrokes are interspersed intricate detailing of a seasoned artist (actually two, Santosh Sivan deserves credit for having shot scenes so picturesque that Ratnam kept showing them over and over again). He records minute details of responses of the mind juxtaposed against static physical expressions.

Above all, watching Vikram is a connoisseur's delight. Limited though he is by the director's obvious preference for sights and sounds his madness is as enchanting as his mildness. He is primarily a director's actor - lack of guidance leads him to don his Pithamagan garb in places but where he is given Suhasini's crafted dialogues to be delivered with calmness unbecoming of his character (his charming proposal to Ash from a boat full of children) you can see why the chaste Sita sways. And sways, she does. This Sita is not only grateful of the respect bestowed on her by the demon god, she lusts for both the gentler side of him and the brute who kidnaps and fights her in her quiet, dignified way. Ironically, it's Ratnam's expertise as far as romances and relationships are concerned that wins again (forget the pretty rainbow).