Mani Ratnam's Raavan was all about the statement that maybe there is a Ram in every Raavan and a Raavan in every Ram. This is, by no means, a new thought. It has been contemplated in a lot of movies before Raavan. One half of the statement was made into an entire movie by Subhash Ghai. The crux of Khal Nayak was that there is a Nayak in every Khal Nayak. Mani himself handled the subject in Talapathy, without spelling it out. If you consider Rajini's character the Ram in the movie and Arvind Swamy's character the Raavan, Ram (Rajini) does have a Raavan streak, where he kills people. And Raavan, Arvind Swamy, does have a Ram streak, because of his drive to end crime. If you consider the roles reversed, with Arvind Swamy as Ram and Rajini as Raavan, Ram still has a Raavan streak, because he decides to use an underhanded technique to get rid of Rajini, by allowing Ambrish Puri to try to kill him. And Raavan, Rajini, has a Ram streak because of all the good he does to people around him. So, the concept of a Ram in Raavan, or a Raavan in Ram is nothing new to either Indian Cinema, or to Mani himself. But that doesn't diminish the merits of Raavan by any stretch of imagination. If anything, rather than play it subtly like he did in Talapathy, Mani decided to bring it into sharp focus.
If anybody had any doubts about who Mani's protagonist is, they are dispelled by the name of the movie. The moment the movie was named Raavan, all doubts about who's point of view the movie is from are erased. In this scenario, it is only logical that Ram would have a secondary role, even though it is vital to the story. But does Mani deliberately go out of the way to show the Raavan in Ram? Is Ram, or Dev in the movie, short-changed? While I do not know what Mani had in mind, I have formed my own theory on the character of Dev in the movie. The movie wants us to take Dev to be a ruthless cop, with a psychopathic obsession to bring down Bheera. He kills, tortures, lies and hurts anyone and everyone for the one goal of killing Bheera. For just a sampling of his many sins: 1. Torture - he tortures Bheera's brother-in-law for information about Bheera, even when the brother-in-law is on the verge of dying. 2. Lies - he lies to Bheera's brother that he will not harm him. 3. Kills in cold blood - he kills Bheera's brother in cold blood. 4. Uses his wife - he suspects his wife and uses her to get to Bheera. But there is one aspect to all this that people may overlook. In the Ramayana, Rama's first and foremost dharma was to the people of his kingdom. The people's happiness and peace was the utmost to him, even at the cost of everything else. When some people felt that Sita was not pure after Raavana kidnapped her, Rama had her banished to the jungle, because not a single person from his subjects should have an iota of doubt on the king's character. Taking this to Raavan, Dev was, above all else, a police officer - an encounter specialist. He was given a job - to kill Bheera. He made that his only goal. When Bheera kidnaps his wife, his search for Bheera becomes more urgent and intense, but for him the goal was always to kill Bheera. Just as Rama would kill Vali treacherously to get help to find Sita, Dev would do anything in his means to get to Raagini and, in turn, to Bheera. After killing Raavana, Rama tells Sita that he does not respect her because she was with another man for a year. He tells her that she was only instrumental in getting him to do what he was destined to do - kill the greatest and most powerful rakshasa of all time. Sita decides to end her life and jumps into a fire. But her purity is such that the fire has no effect on her. Seeing this, Rama says that he always knew she was pure, but he had to prove it to everyone else, so that no one would have any doubts about her. In Raavan, after Dev finds Raagani, he vows that he will come back, because his real job was to kill Bheera. To do this, he is willing to sacrifice his wife. He puts his duty above even his personal life and happiness. He taunts her with Bheera and threatens her with a polygraph test. Disgusted, hurt, broken and finally defeated, Raagani decided to end her life as she knows it and walks out on Dev. There can be no confusion that the scene where Dev asks her to take a polygraph test is only to instigate her to lead him to Bheera. Yet I have read reviews that state that the scene is so awkward and laughable. Could that mean that the reviewer didn't actually understand the simple fact that it was a deliberate taunt? Or is it that I am interpreting this wrong? The movie shows Bheera's companions as naive people and gives you the impression that they are good people at heart, but the world has made them bad. So when Dev kills them, it shows us more of his Raavan side. But is that really the case? In the Ramayana, when Surpanaka's nose and ears were cut off, she goes to her cousin, who lived in the same jungle that Rama was exiled to and goads him to kill Rama, Sita and Lakshmana to avenge her. Her cousin came to kill them with his army. Rama faced the army on his own and he killed 14,000 rakshasas in the battle. Yet, the very nature of rakshasas was to obey their leader, Surpanaka's cousin, and fight. They were as nature had meant them to be. Yet, Rama is praised for killing them. Why should we look down on Dev for killing Bheera or his companions? In the end, when Dev kills Bheera, it is clear that his relationship with Raagani is not going to be the same, even if it survives the 14 day ordeal. Yet, Dev chose to do the things he did. He found Bheera's weakness, his own wife, and used it to finally accomplish his goal. Was this any different from what Rama did? He sacrificed his wife and domestic happiness to do what he was meant to do. I personally feel that Dev was more like Rama than it is apparent by taking the movie at face value. Bheera may be contradictory to the actual Raavana, but that is less to do with his good streak and more to do with things that don't actually mean much in the movie. For example, Raavana was a learned Brahman and his knowledge was greater than any other king, rakshasa or man. Bheera, by contrast was not that learned. But the Ram in Bheera, his innocence, his apparent just ruling of his subjects, is similar to Raavana, who himself was one of the best kings ever. So really, the neither Ram nor Raavan were seriously different from their classical interpretations in the movie. But all this does not suggest a failure of the movie. For me, personally, the movie is one of the best cinematic experiences of this year and one of Mani's most interesting works. It could be that my expectations were lowered after Guru, but the movie works for me. I fail to see the reason for all the negative reviews and sentiments. In a single term, the reactions to Raavan can be called "mixed to negative", with phrases such as "illogical plot", "incoherent scenes", "over-the-top acting", "screeching" and "sub-par soundtrack" being thrown in. Why did this happen? Why such a strong negative reaction to the movie? Well, it is really the age old question that no one can answer completely. Why did Blade Runner flop? Why did Fight Club (English) flop? Why did Mera Naam Joker flop? Why is Avatar a hit? Why is Kabhi Kushi Kabhi Ghum a hit? It took me just 4 visuals in the beginning to get hooked to Raavan and I was hooked for the length of the movie. These were: 1. When Bheera is contemplating the jump, he peeks over the edge of the cliff. The camera follows his gaze, but via the magic of a seamless cut, we actually see a puddle in the middle of a road, miles away from where Bheera is. 2. The jump that Bheera takes. This has been shown in every trailer and promo for the movie, so it loses its impact when actually watching the movie. But still, it is one amazing shot. 3. When Raagini is in the boat, an eagle flies down next to her. The camera gives us the eagle's point of view, which is one of the most innovate and impressive shots I have seen. 4. The underwater shot of Bheera's boat smashing into Raagini's boat. There is no doubt that the cinematography is excellent. Even the most negative review of Raavan concedes that the cinematography was phenomenal. The reviews seem to put the blame squarely on Mani for everything else. Shouldn't he get the credit for the cinematography as well? I am certain that it was Mani's requests and questions that pushed the camera work to the levels it reached. In every interview where actors or technicians talk about Mani, they talk about how he pushes them to do the best. Wouldn't this be true for Raavan's cinematography as well? Would the cinematographer have thought of the mind-blowing eagle's PoV shot, or would it have been Mani who asked if it could be done? A person like Amitabh Bachchan says that the editing was horrible in the movie, which left Abhishiek's performance illogical and confusing. What is he talking about? Does he know editing better than someone who has won 10 national awards for editing? The movie is there, like Mani wanted it to be. I couldn't find any slap dash editing at all. In fact, the editing was one of the strong points of the movie, cutting between the action as required and also keeping the movie length at a lean 2 hours 10 minutes. My example of the cut from Bheera on the cliff to the puddle on the road is an excellent example of what the editor accomplished in the movie. The music and song choreography? I prefer Raavan to Mani's last, Guru, as well as to any other Rahman album released this year. And the songs were picturised very well. While we had movies like 1947 that would butcher Rahman's excellent compositions to drive the movie forward, here almost all the songs are utilised to great effect. I cannot think of a more appropriate situation for a song than the situation where Behne De comes. The entire scene leading up to the song and the song itself is so rich so apt, possibly the best placement of a song I have seen in a long, long time. Raavan is one of the movies where the songs are add to the movie's progression, rather than hinder it. None more so than Behne De. It isn't just that one song either. Bheera Bheera is apt as a title track and Thok De Killi is amazing as a war song. Kata Kata is the quintessential Mani marriage song, with old ladies, children and a happy marriage crowd. That brings me to Ranjha Ranjha. It is my favourite song of the album and it is used only in bits for Priyamani On the face of it, it is disappointing. But Mani has other ideas on how to use the song. A more intense and erotic version is used in the scene where Aishwarya tries to kill Abhishiek. The scene just sizzles with the background vocals, the pure rage Raagini has and the primal heat that Bheera feels, being so close to Raagani and touching her. The sexual tension is palpable as Bheera slowly moves his hands just inches away from her body. At one instant, Raagani realises that there can be dangers worse than death. At that instant, Bheera’s admiration for Raagani’s courage is joined by his physical attraction to her. And the next instant, Raagani is alone... As a treat, and almost as if to make up for not doing justice to Ranjha Ranjha, Mani gives us Jaa Udd Jaare. It is a wonderful counterpoint to seeing Bheera’s expression as he falls away from us and Raagani’s shock at his death. And as the credits roll over the song, with pictures of Raavan, I was left with a sense of sadness. Performance-wise, the movie is generally top-notch. But I preferred Raavanan to Raavan. That has to do with 2 factors. Firstly, Vikram definitely played the role better than Abhishiek did. Abhishiek opted for a more theatrical performance, channelling his father in Black, rather than a more naturalistic performance, like the brooding intensity of Sarkar, or the unpredictibility of Yuva. His performance of Bheera should have been an amalgam of those 2 performances. Sadly, he goes for a more theatrical performance, which is less impactful that Vikram's take. Vikram give a performance to eclipse his performance in Pitamagan. His Raavan hit all the right notes and brought out the dual identity of Raavan. Even his naivety is more sincere than Abhishiek's. The scene that really shows the difference in the 2 actors is when Bheera/ Veera asks Raagani if she will stay with him, when he is on the boat with the children. The second factor that made me prefer the Tamil version was Aishwarya Rai. I am not sure if she did her own dubbing in Tamil, but I felt that just for the vocal performance, she was better in Raavanan. In Hindi, some of her screaming did border on screeching and it was bothersome. But Tamil, whether it was her or someone else who dubbed for her, even the screaming was amazing, rather than grating. As for Dev, I really don't know whose take I prefer. Prithviraj had a quiet menace about him that made him seem more ruthless. Vikram's unfamiliarity with Hindi delivery didn't bring out the menace that much. This is especially evident towards the end, when he finds his wife and he is to shout that he will be back and that the enmity is not ended - he just isn't able to scream the dialogue and he just says it for his wife to hear. However, I am just nitpicking. The supporting cast is uniformly good in both the movies. I loved Govinda and loved watching Karthik as well. Ravi Kissan was a revelation and Prabhu was as watchable as he has ever been. I love Priyamani and loved her in this movie as well. I don't think anyone can find a mistake with the supporting cast. Looking back, it seems to have been the shortest cycle ever for a Mani Ratnam movie. Raavan came in theatres, debuted on pay-per-view TV, then on DVD and finally on prime time TV, all in under a month. From just a few years back, when it took forever for Aayitha Ezhuthu to debut on home video domestically, to this, it really is something to behold. What could be the cause for this? Why such a strong surge of negative emotion for the movie that gave it such a short life cycle? I am not the person to answer that question. I have my own theory for the short cycle. The deciding factor was that it was released by a corporate house, Big Entertainment, just like any major film now-a-days is. This meant that when audience reaction to the movie was negative, the corporate house wanted to recoup losses and released it immediately on Showcase and DVD. Not to be left behind, the channel that paid for the TV rights decided to broadcast it as soon as possible, to grab whatever little interest and sponsorship they could to recoup their losses. All in all, this is a good thing for me. I have enjoyed watching Raavanan thrice and Raavan twice so far. I have bought the DVD of Raavan and had also recorded it when it came on Showcase. Still, it is sad that the movie was so badly trashed. It didn't deserve it. It is possibly Mani's darkest movie. It is violent, it is beautiful, it is emotional, it is haunting and it has an excellent soundtrack. Again, the question arises. Why did it flop? Then again, why did Iruvar flop? Why did Agneepath flop? Only questions and no answers. End Note: I really recommend reading Ramesh Menon's "Ramayana: A Modern Redention" to anyone who is interested in the original story. It is very well written and very easy to follow. And what is more interesting his Ramesh Menon's translation of The Mahabharata, the greatest epic in the world!
