Come October 2nd, we are all glad that it is a national holiday. Most of us know that it is also the birthday of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. It would be unwise to expect the common men of India to swear to take an oath to live their lives by Gandhian principles on this 'holiday'. But what is reasonable is for us to at least remember Gandhi, the ideals that he stood for, and have a constructive discussion about his principles and his way of living. Hence, this article aims to provide an unbiased opinion of Gandhi.
The point that I would like to focus on, in this article about Gandhi is the apparent lack of knowledge about Gandhi. People in India can be classified into broadly two types:
1. Those who know nothing about him, but idolize him equivalent to God just because someone told them that he was a great human soul (Mahatma).
2. Those who know all the wrong things about him (propagated mostly through unverifiable sources) and claim to hate him, either because they want some attention or because they are tired of hearing all the good things about him.
What is shocking is that most of these people never seem to consider him human: he is either a 'Mahatma' or a 'Stubborn-Prick'. Why can't people think of him as a human: a normal human being with flaws but courage and determination enough to stand up against the British empire through an unusually effective strategy: non violence?
Another common myth that is quite prevalent among the youth of India - especially post 'Rang De Basanti' and 'The Legend of Bhagat Singh' - is that, Gandhi was someone, who in spite of having the opportunity to save Bhagat Singh from being hung to death, chose not to. The truth is way more complicated than that.
One can understand that Gandhi did make attempts to talk to the then viceroy, Lord Irwin[1], but the viceroy was unmoved. Lord Irwin remarks, "As I listened to Mr. Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I
reflected
first on what significance it surely was that the apostle of
non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of the devotees
of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it
as wholly wrong to allow my judgment to be
influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a
case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved"[2]. It is obvious from verifiable references that Gandhi had made his best attempts to save Bhagat Singh, but people would rather choose to believe in conspiracy theories of what 'could have been'.
There are more horrible accusations against him about his 'Brahmacharya Experiments' and his stubborn nature, but on a deeper personal thought, one can make out that these accusations - whether or not they have credibility - are rather desperate attempts to make people hate Gandhi.
Summing it up, I personally believe that Gandhi was a great human being - no, not a Mahatma, but a Mahapurushya. And, rather than hating him for no reason, if people would give time to read some books of history, they would understand the magnitude of his contribution. It is sad that we forget all that and claim to hate him for no apparent reason. Yes, very sad!
References:
[1] http://www.quora.com/Mahatma-Gandhi/Could-Gandhi-really-have-saved-Bhagat-Singh-if-he-wanted-to
[2] http://www.flonnet.com/fl1808/18080910.htm
I took a risk by booking for "Kalakalappu" on the very first day. And that too, to watch it with family. Though the trailer was rather dull, the movie's cast boasted of people such as "Chennai 28" fame Siva, who can make you laugh with anything he says, "Kalavaani" Vimal, who has consistently chosen good roles to play and most importantly Santhanam whose mere presence adds screen value these days to movies. Added to that, the fact that Sundar.C - who can forget his "Ullathai Alli Tha" - is directing a movie after a long time. Well, I took a risk and am more than happy that I did it. Because at the end of the movie, as I was walking out, everyone was busy discussing which of the scenes was the funniest and everyone had one favorite scene of their own. My mom, sister and granma were all praise for my choice of movie to watch as a family. Voila, Sundar.C, what were you doing other than directing all these years?!
The storyline concerns Seenu - played neatly by Vimal - whose only possession his his three-generation old traditional restaurant, "Masala Cafe", which is now in ruins. He struggles to keep business afloat and hopes to make his restaurant big one day. When the new food inspector Madhavi decides that "Masala Cafe" isn't hygenic enough and gives Seenu a two month notice period to either improve the infrastructure or close his Cafe down, his brother, Raghu - perhaps Siva's best role yet - an ex-con, helps Seenu to get out of the problem. Meanwhile, a set of diamonds, hidden in a cell phone case, comes accidentally into Siva's hands and all hell breaks loose.
Anjali as Madhavi and Oviya as Maya play the love interests of Seenu and Raghu respectively. One is surprised that after acting many strong character oriented roles right from her first movie, Anjali has opted to play a not-so-significant tole in this movie. Also, she definitely looks odd in song sequences wearing skimpily clad outfits. Oviya doesn't have a big role to play but she does the best with what she has.
The real plus of the movie is that the first half is definitely owned by Siva's unique brand of humor evoking statements. For example, "Kaalam kaalama attu figure ku good-u boy-um, good-u figure ku attu boy-um thaan set aagum!" and "Unaku ipdi ellam doubt ae vara koodathu. Naan yaaru kaasu kuduthalum vaangipen!", when Maya expresses doubt if he would accept money from her, has the audience in splits. Though he has a long way to go in acting, his unique dialogue delivery style and the baby-faced innocence make up for it.
The second half, though, belongs to Santhanam. As the to-be-groom of Madhavi, all the scenes involving him evoke hearty laughter. The car chase scene in the second half and the confusion in it evokes wild laughter. In fact, there are so many laughs throughout the movie and most of them work.
The movie is not without its flaws: there are lots of logical loopholes in the movie and the songs actually stagnate the pace of the movie. For example, Madhavi, who seems nonchalant towards Seenu accepts his proposal at once. And when there are so many ways to hide your assets, would the villain be stupid enough to hand over the job to his stupid cousin, that too in a cell phone? However, such an analysis would be too rough on a movie which tries to evoke healthy laughter throughout.
Sundar.C is back to directing movies and with a bang. Go watch it and laugh your heart out. Quite an enjoyable fare.
A deserving 3/5.
Director Rajesh of "Siva Manasula Sakthi" and "Boss Engira Baskaran" fame hopes to hit a hat-trick through his third venture "Oru Kal Oru Kannadi" (OKOK) starring Udhayanidhi Stalin, Hansika Motwani and Santhanam in main roles. But the problem is, though the treatment tries to be fresh, the story and screenplay are often seen ones in tamil movies - the best examples being the director's first two movies itself.
Sample this: The female lead actor, in spite of a number of attempts by the male lead actor, seems uninterested in him. The male lead persists and finally makes her agree. Then, Santhanam does something stupid and causes a rift between the male and female lead. This rift widens to the extent of the female lead getting engaged to another guy. Finally, something really stupid happens and the male and female leads are united.
The above is the storyline of OKOK. You could have been excused for thinking that I was telling you the storyline of "Boss Engira Baskaran" too, because it's virtually the same over there. Sometimes, in the second half, the staleness of the storyline gets to you and you start getting bored. Fortunately, every time you begin to get bored, Santhanam comes in and makes you laugh.
You need to give it to him: Santhanam carries the movie on his shoulders and delivers his witty dialogues with perfect timing. But sometimes even his dialogues fail to arise laughter and it is more so because you tend to feel that he shared a better rapport with Jeeva (in 'SMS') and Arya (in 'Boss..'). He plays "Paartha" aka "Parthasarathy" - a Brahmin boy from Triplicane. It is visible that his accent and role have been well etched and due credit must be given to the director and actor for that.
Udhayanidhi Stalin does much better than what I expected him to do, but he still falls way short of the justice that amny other actor could have done to the role. His role has shades of grey - he back stabs his so-called best friend 'Paartha' on a numerous occasions - which goes unnoticed partly because of the monotonous expression on Udhayanidhi's face.
Hansika actually has a decent scope to emote in this movie and the child-artist-turned-actor does her best. However, her dialogue delivery leaves much to be desired.
Saranya Ponvannan as Udhayanidhi's mother shines in her role and once again proves what a capable artist she is. The rest of the cast also do justice to their part.
The cameos by Sneha, Arya and Andrea are a wasted effort - they neither have the desired effect, nor do they create a huge impact, which, again, is one of the downfalls of the movie. The climax - especially- leaves you irritated: its a shameless confession that the director has ran out of ideas to unite the male and female lead.
Bottomline: An otherwise ordinary effort, watchable only for Santhanam. 2.5/5.
Ever gone to one of those movies just because your friends force you to and you expect it to be boring and dull, whereas it turns out to be surprisingly good? That is what happened to me with Ambuli. Neither the title or the trailer were impressive. It seemed like one of those bad low budget movies from the outset, so I was never been in the mood to watch it in a theater. But my friends insisted and I did. And I' quite thankful now that they insisted. Ambuli definitely is worth a watch in the theaters.
"Avatar" started this new wave of 3D flicks. Two years after its release, Kollywood comes up with its first Steroscopic 3D flick - Ambuli. What is heartening is that the makers have concentrated not just on the 3D effects to be delivered - as usually is the case with most of the 3D movies - but the story and screenplay have been quite well etched and executed. The result is a movie where 3D does exactly what it has to: enhance the quality of movie watching experience without overtaking the need for a plausible storyline. In that regard, Ambuli scores well.
The story is set in the late 1970s in a rural town with Tamil Nadu with more superstitions than people, and the most important of them being the presence of an animal born to a woman 25 years ago which comes out at night and kills people who wander along a forest route connecting the town with a nearby college. Sounds like a joke right? That is what our lead actor and his best friend think and they set out to break the myth; to bring proof to everyone that "Ambuli" doesn't exist. But some myths turn out to be true.
The first ten minutes offer exhilarating 3D fun. The first half that follows is engaging because the 3D here isn't the only good thing: it has a decent story and a logical screenplay as well for three fourths of the movie, quite a rarity in tamil movies, nowadays!
Apt casting is one of the biggest pluses of the movie: almost everyone match their roles and play their part well. The fact that debutants have been cast in the leading roles actually help the cause of the movie - it brings a much needed freshness also to the script. Fortunately, the songs don't bore you and are used such that the story moves forward with the songs.
For a "creature" movie, the plot is quite logical, and it is obvious that the directors have done quite a lot of research to explain how "Ambuli" was born.
However, as the movie veers towards the climax, the plot loses all logic and the confrontation of "Ambuli" with Parthiban is more funny than scary. R.Parthiban's behavior is confusing, at many instances. His role has been wasted. But for these minor plot holes, the movie is definitely entertaining and worth watching.
A deserving 3/5.
Usually, with popular movies that are remade, there are bound to be comparisons. Director Shankar, who prides in making "original" movies, has taken an exception for "Nanban", obviously due to both the scope and the vast canvas that the script offers.
The more sensational news is that, the script is a multi-starrer, and no ordinary one at that: it has Vijay, Jeeva and Srikanth, all three who are very good actors in their own right, but not in a great patch at the moment.
The story is about the life of three friends, Panchavan Parivendan aka Pari (Vijay), Venkatramakrishnan aka Venkat (Srikanth) and Sevalkodi Senthil (Jeeva), who are students of the best institution in India, "Ideal Engineering College". They invite the wrath of their college Dean, Virumaandi Santhaanam aka VIRUS (Sathyaraj) when Pari openly speaks up against the system after one of their College seniors commit suicide, being unable to complete his project on time. How they handle that and complete their education and what happens after that in their life follows the rest of the story. The aforesaid three are reprising the roles of Aamir Khan, R.Maadhavan and Sharman Joshi respectively from the Bollywood Blockbuster, "3 Idiots".
I, personally found "3 Idiots" to be a bad movie because I had read "Five Point Someone" only a couple of days before watching "3 Idiots" and I felt that the movie was quite unfair to the book and that it did a "balathkar" of the book. However, it touched the hearts of people because it showcased a huge problem - the illogical education system - in a light manner.
To those people who loved "3 Idiots", "Nanban" may be a bit of a dampener, because it is just a xerox copy of the original. It is surprising, because, you would have expected to see more of director Shankar's touch.
It would be obviously unfair to compare an Aamir Khan with Vijay. Aamir is older and has worked with some world class directors and so, the perfection that he etches to his roles can't be usually re-enacted that easily. To his credit, Vijay has done a very neat job of playing the smart Pari with an attitude that rocks, though at times, the body language that Vijay displays - especially at the beginning of the movie - seems to be an imitation of Aamir's. He could have avoided that.
Srikanth has come up with a sterling performance. What is good is that, he hasn't tried imitating Maadhavan from the original and looks every inch a college boy during the flash back. This movie should resurrect his sagging career. In the scene where he convinces his dad to let him pursue Wildlife photography, he rocks!
Jeeva underplays his role very well and does justice to his part. The actor seems to mature more and more in every movie. Good for him!
Together, the three actors display a rocking chemistry and look every inch as three close friends. That should be a big factor in ensuring the success of "Nanban".
Sathyaraj plays the strict and hardworking professor with ideals. Those who had watched the original would swear to God that no one could do justice to Boman Irani's role in "3 Idiots" in any language again. I thought so too - till I saw Sathyaraj in this movie. Brilliantly cast, he is a huge asset to this movie. His role has been well etched and equally well performed. One wonders why he doesn't do such roles more often.
Ileana's acting is worse than what Kareena's was in the original. Thankfully, she doesn't have a huge role to play in the story. Sathiyan, as Srivatsan does a neat job of playing "Silencer" from the original.
Music by Harris Jeyaraj is good. A couple of songs are hum worthy and carry the movie forward rather than slowing it down.
Coming to the negatives, as I had mentioned earlier, the movie is an exact xerox copy of "3 Idiots" and so, the negatives in the original also get carried forward here. For example, in the scene where the friends try to deliver the grand daughter of VIRUS in the Table Tennis room (due to certain unfortunate reasons, she could not be transported to a hospital), there is a power cut in the college. Would such a huge college not have a generator facility? Shockingly, it doesn't. Which is comfortable, because, it would allow our "hero" to let him use his smartness to connect an inverter to car batteries and power up the room to perform the delivery! Wow, what brilliance! Seriously, Shankar, didn't you have the brains enough to think over this?
Next, there comes the inexplicable logic behind the crassness involved in Silencer's Teachers Day speech. I mean, in the original, only the word "chamatkar" would have been changed to "balathkar". Here, the many words in the whole speech has been modified to make the speech sexually explicit. Wonder what the censors were doing there, especially during the last two lines of the speech, which should have been muted.
But, on the whole, if you haven't watched "3 Idiots", you could love this movie. If you had, go with an open mind. You may just like it. If you'd ask me, I'd say that it's worth a watch, for either case. If you are a Vijay fan, by the way, you would love it. It's been long since he acted in a script where he doesn't jump 10 storeys. We can gladly welcome "Nanban" warmly!
A solid 6/10!
Trivia:
* This is perhaps the first movie in a long time where all the main characters take a dig at Vijay and he doesn't retreat with any punch dialogues. :D
* This is also perhaps the first time where there is a smooch (towards the ending) and the Chennai censors have granted it a "U" rating. Good to know that they are becoming more broad minded. :P
