“Kadali” (Telugu) or “Kadal” (Tamil) has been touted as a comeback vehicle for Mani Ratnam and a launch-pad for star-children Gautam Karthik and Thulasi Nair. It may turn out better for the newcomers but Mani Ratnam has given a disappointing film. “Kadali” means “ocean” and for the first time after “Sakhi” and movies like “Mouna Ragam” and “Gitanjali”, he has gone back to love story which got him maximum adulation. However, Mani Ratnam’s film leaves a lot to be desired because of gaps in characterization, screenplay, pace and overall lack in entertainment values.
The story is set in a fishing hamlet where the villagers care a damn about Church and God. When Aravind Swamy (Sam Fernando) sets foot in the village church as a Father, it is in shambles and un-serviceable. He slowly builds trust and respect for himself, God and folks taking their religion seriously. He shows restraint, patience, understanding and enormous love for all those who confess to him and Church. He starts doting on Thomas (Gautham Karthik) whose mother dies and father abandons him. Thomas grows up as an energetic fisherman and becomes a son to Father Sam. Enter Beatrice, a Nurse-in-the-making on the other shore who bumps into Thomas and instantly connect with each other. Meanwhile, Burgsman (played by Action King Arjun) re-enters the village as a warlord who is a terror in the village, he extorts, terrorizes, smuggles and kills people for a living. His first entry alongwith Aravind Swamy at the film’s outset dazzles; the scene carries the seeds of conflict between the two more like a battle between Evil and Good, Satan and God. The entire movie then is a double-pack sandwich: the rift between Aravind Swamy and Arjun who both influence Thomas into toeing their respective briefings on one side and the love story between Beatrice and Thomas on the other. Had Mani concentrated on the love story only or the conflict between the Good and the Evil, it could have got better. Instead of giving a simple story, Mani Ratnam complicates the plot and hasn’t really delivered on all fronts.
The problem is also not a plot that smacks of Christian traditions. One can argue that from the first frame till the end, Mani Ratnam showcases the Christian traditions of Church and religion in full glory with a built-in bias. I have no problem with that because he wanted to make a film on aspects of Christianity where followers are torn between temptations of Christ vs. temptations of Satan the evil. But at several time in the film, the angles of cinematographer Rajiv Menon and the director’s eye point towards an explicit portrayal of a religion and its traditions rather than moving the story forward. He should have taken care to make a plot where atleast some characters have names from other religions. There is a scene in which the heroine steps into a boat driven by the hero and alongwith her ten girls step inside. All the ten girls’ names belong to a religion. I don’t understand what made Mani Ratnam give such a blatant treatment. I trust him to do an honest job as a director and not be influenced by anybody for extraneous considerations towards promoting a particular sect or religion so obviously. I have nothing against that too as a bit later in the film, I found it intriguing to learn about the traditions of baptizing, confessions, seminars etc. and also realized that most films are actually made for the majority with names like Rajesh and Gopi and Gita and Anjali so I could empathise with how others feel when there’s no inclusive approach to giving a universal evocative appeal. But as a honest critic, I felt this and thought it must be highlighted as many others may not even comment on such issues. In the 80s, Bapu made a film like “Rajadhi Raju” which shows a conflict between Satan and God more explicitly and all characters are biblical names. Bapu garu were quite honest in admitting the film is financed by Christian producers and the names and characterizations were all representative of a creed. Over 150 minutes of slow-paced screenplay and a half-baked story later, I felt a bit cheated by the dishonest approach in over-highlighting a particular religion. No offence meant here, please don’t get me wrong. In the 80s, “Seethakoka Chilaka” also portrayed an intense love story in the backdrop of a Church father but never made it look like a religious movie either. Here, Mani Ratnam portrays a parable in modern format and doesn’t give any hint of it in promotions so I failed to understand his compulsions.
As for the story, Arjun steals the show every time he appears on screen. He provides the lightest and most entertaining moments in the film with his versatile acting. Aravind Swamy also does his part with great conviction and honesty. Newcomers hold lot of promise together especially Gautam Karthik. Gautam is handsome like his father Karthik and has the right personality to make it big in films. Thulasi looks more elderly than her sister Karthika on screen but has the looks to make some impact in Kollywood. AR Rahman’s sound track and music give a good lift to the many moods of the film. Out of the two duets, Mani Ratnam uses one song “Gunjukunna” as a background song while showing dialogues between the young couple and the other song “pacchani thota” which is superbly shot is shot on the other side of the Indian Ocean in Mauritius, not on the side where all the story action is happening. That looked out of place but the song is a visual treat and compliments ARR’s music well. Rajeev Menon’s cinematography is breath-taking and elevates the feel of the film and its music to oceanic levels. I hope someone covers the craft of a cinematographer of his caliber one day to tell us how he gets into the mind of the director so well in giving the unseen eye such riveting attention of various visuals. Editor A.Sreekar Prasad is one of the few technicians who alongwith AR Rahman gets Mani’s recurring patronage for the last several films. But I wonder if that’s working now for him. Sreekar who is known to be now part of story discussions and film shooting sequences should detach himself from the director if the final output has to get better and watchable; this is not worth 150 minutes of footage and many scenes and even characters could have conveniently got left out. Dialogues are sharp but quite serious.
Mani Ratnam has taken three years to make this film. I wonder whether he has learnt or introspected on his previous works which failed to fire before completing this film. A sabbatical of three years should have done wonders to Mani’s original sense of story-telling but there is still no freshness in his frames. Most directors have, like any human being, three senses – visual sense (Bapu, Shantaram), sound sense (Sreenu Vaitla, K Balachander) and kinesthetic sense (sense of touch and feel – BharatiRaja, Balu Mahendra, Vishwanath, Subhash Ghai). Mani Ratnam falls somewhere between visual sense and kinesthetic sense but over the years since “yuva” and “Guru” and “Raavan”, his directorial prowess hasn’t kept pace with the lagging attention of his audiences who have outgrown the visuals he thinks the world will still love to see while ignoring the crying needs of entertainment, comedy and drama – which make a film click at the box office. In his obsession with crafty technicians and faultless film grammar, Mani Ratnam has developed a huge credibility gap and an execution gap between what’s on his mind and what’s the cinematic output he expects to get received as. Faultlines can also be blamed also for the teams that co-opt for his movies – everybody calls him “Sir” and everybody is overawed by him – there is no critical input coming at the shooting stage. I also have a bone to pick with him in Telugu dubbing, he has shown scant respect for the sensibilities of Telugu audiences over the years – audiences who love his films and his style, audiences who lapped up “Gitanjali” and made it one of his biggest hits, audiences who gave their first positive verdicts on films like “Gharshana” (“Agni Nakshatram”) and “Nayakudu” (“Nayagan”). Mani Ratnam, from what is reported, hasn’t treated Telugu audiences with the same veneer they look upto him with. He shows some town in Tamil Nadu with Tamil name and the dialogue says “its Bheemli”. Look at the lyrics in one song “Gunjukanna”, it is atrociously translated by Vanamali. Roughly translated from Tamil without respecting the beautiful nuances of Telugu language, it says,”Kudiseti gadiyaaram = a clock which rains” or “Palemo perugu laaga indaaka padukunde = milk is sleeping like curd”). What kind of crap is that which even bears the stamp of endorsement from AR Rahman. From the beginning, look at the producers who backed Mani Ratnam’s projects dubbed into Telugu, not one producer has gone back to him after one or two films – CL Narasimha Reddy (“Gitanjali”), MuraliMohan (“Iddaru”), Sunkara Madhu Murali (“Yuva”) and now Gemini Film Circuits. So, you see, he is investing in his catalogue of films but is not getting a consistent producer because of a dwindling reception at the box-office. He only invests in those Telugu dubbed films which he feels will click at the box office. The last time it worked was "Sakhi" and the bad run continues. This is more patience for an audience who adore Mani but he hasn't reciprocated their respect and treats them like a bid market. Mani Ratnam and his craft have been discussed at length by Baradwaj Rangan in his book “Conversations with Mani Ratnam” (a review I will deal with later). But for now, “Kadali” is a disaster and doesn’t deserve a rating better than 2 out of 5.
The story is set in a fishing hamlet where the villagers care a damn about Church and God. When Aravind Swamy (Sam Fernando) sets foot in the village church as a Father, it is in shambles and un-serviceable. He slowly builds trust and respect for himself, God and folks taking their religion seriously. He shows restraint, patience, understanding and enormous love for all those who confess to him and Church. He starts doting on Thomas (Gautham Karthik) whose mother dies and father abandons him. Thomas grows up as an energetic fisherman and becomes a son to Father Sam. Enter Beatrice, a Nurse-in-the-making on the other shore who bumps into Thomas and instantly connect with each other. Meanwhile, Burgsman (played by Action King Arjun) re-enters the village as a warlord who is a terror in the village, he extorts, terrorizes, smuggles and kills people for a living. His first entry alongwith Aravind Swamy at the film’s outset dazzles; the scene carries the seeds of conflict between the two more like a battle between Evil and Good, Satan and God. The entire movie then is a double-pack sandwich: the rift between Aravind Swamy and Arjun who both influence Thomas into toeing their respective briefings on one side and the love story between Beatrice and Thomas on the other. Had Mani concentrated on the love story only or the conflict between the Good and the Evil, it could have got better. Instead of giving a simple story, Mani Ratnam complicates the plot and hasn’t really delivered on all fronts.
The problem is also not a plot that smacks of Christian traditions. One can argue that from the first frame till the end, Mani Ratnam showcases the Christian traditions of Church and religion in full glory with a built-in bias. I have no problem with that because he wanted to make a film on aspects of Christianity where followers are torn between temptations of Christ vs. temptations of Satan the evil. But at several time in the film, the angles of cinematographer Rajiv Menon and the director’s eye point towards an explicit portrayal of a religion and its traditions rather than moving the story forward. He should have taken care to make a plot where atleast some characters have names from other religions. There is a scene in which the heroine steps into a boat driven by the hero and alongwith her ten girls step inside. All the ten girls’ names belong to a religion. I don’t understand what made Mani Ratnam give such a blatant treatment. I trust him to do an honest job as a director and not be influenced by anybody for extraneous considerations towards promoting a particular sect or religion so obviously. I have nothing against that too as a bit later in the film, I found it intriguing to learn about the traditions of baptizing, confessions, seminars etc. and also realized that most films are actually made for the majority with names like Rajesh and Gopi and Gita and Anjali so I could empathise with how others feel when there’s no inclusive approach to giving a universal evocative appeal. But as a honest critic, I felt this and thought it must be highlighted as many others may not even comment on such issues. In the 80s, Bapu made a film like “Rajadhi Raju” which shows a conflict between Satan and God more explicitly and all characters are biblical names. Bapu garu were quite honest in admitting the film is financed by Christian producers and the names and characterizations were all representative of a creed. Over 150 minutes of slow-paced screenplay and a half-baked story later, I felt a bit cheated by the dishonest approach in over-highlighting a particular religion. No offence meant here, please don’t get me wrong. In the 80s, “Seethakoka Chilaka” also portrayed an intense love story in the backdrop of a Church father but never made it look like a religious movie either. Here, Mani Ratnam portrays a parable in modern format and doesn’t give any hint of it in promotions so I failed to understand his compulsions.
As for the story, Arjun steals the show every time he appears on screen. He provides the lightest and most entertaining moments in the film with his versatile acting. Aravind Swamy also does his part with great conviction and honesty. Newcomers hold lot of promise together especially Gautam Karthik. Gautam is handsome like his father Karthik and has the right personality to make it big in films. Thulasi looks more elderly than her sister Karthika on screen but has the looks to make some impact in Kollywood. AR Rahman’s sound track and music give a good lift to the many moods of the film. Out of the two duets, Mani Ratnam uses one song “Gunjukunna” as a background song while showing dialogues between the young couple and the other song “pacchani thota” which is superbly shot is shot on the other side of the Indian Ocean in Mauritius, not on the side where all the story action is happening. That looked out of place but the song is a visual treat and compliments ARR’s music well. Rajeev Menon’s cinematography is breath-taking and elevates the feel of the film and its music to oceanic levels. I hope someone covers the craft of a cinematographer of his caliber one day to tell us how he gets into the mind of the director so well in giving the unseen eye such riveting attention of various visuals. Editor A.Sreekar Prasad is one of the few technicians who alongwith AR Rahman gets Mani’s recurring patronage for the last several films. But I wonder if that’s working now for him. Sreekar who is known to be now part of story discussions and film shooting sequences should detach himself from the director if the final output has to get better and watchable; this is not worth 150 minutes of footage and many scenes and even characters could have conveniently got left out. Dialogues are sharp but quite serious.
Mani Ratnam has taken three years to make this film. I wonder whether he has learnt or introspected on his previous works which failed to fire before completing this film. A sabbatical of three years should have done wonders to Mani’s original sense of story-telling but there is still no freshness in his frames. Most directors have, like any human being, three senses – visual sense (Bapu, Shantaram), sound sense (Sreenu Vaitla, K Balachander) and kinesthetic sense (sense of touch and feel – BharatiRaja, Balu Mahendra, Vishwanath, Subhash Ghai). Mani Ratnam falls somewhere between visual sense and kinesthetic sense but over the years since “yuva” and “Guru” and “Raavan”, his directorial prowess hasn’t kept pace with the lagging attention of his audiences who have outgrown the visuals he thinks the world will still love to see while ignoring the crying needs of entertainment, comedy and drama – which make a film click at the box office. In his obsession with crafty technicians and faultless film grammar, Mani Ratnam has developed a huge credibility gap and an execution gap between what’s on his mind and what’s the cinematic output he expects to get received as. Faultlines can also be blamed also for the teams that co-opt for his movies – everybody calls him “Sir” and everybody is overawed by him – there is no critical input coming at the shooting stage. I also have a bone to pick with him in Telugu dubbing, he has shown scant respect for the sensibilities of Telugu audiences over the years – audiences who love his films and his style, audiences who lapped up “Gitanjali” and made it one of his biggest hits, audiences who gave their first positive verdicts on films like “Gharshana” (“Agni Nakshatram”) and “Nayakudu” (“Nayagan”). Mani Ratnam, from what is reported, hasn’t treated Telugu audiences with the same veneer they look upto him with. He shows some town in Tamil Nadu with Tamil name and the dialogue says “its Bheemli”. Look at the lyrics in one song “Gunjukanna”, it is atrociously translated by Vanamali. Roughly translated from Tamil without respecting the beautiful nuances of Telugu language, it says,”Kudiseti gadiyaaram = a clock which rains” or “Palemo perugu laaga indaaka padukunde = milk is sleeping like curd”). What kind of crap is that which even bears the stamp of endorsement from AR Rahman. From the beginning, look at the producers who backed Mani Ratnam’s projects dubbed into Telugu, not one producer has gone back to him after one or two films – CL Narasimha Reddy (“Gitanjali”), MuraliMohan (“Iddaru”), Sunkara Madhu Murali (“Yuva”) and now Gemini Film Circuits. So, you see, he is investing in his catalogue of films but is not getting a consistent producer because of a dwindling reception at the box-office. He only invests in those Telugu dubbed films which he feels will click at the box office. The last time it worked was "Sakhi" and the bad run continues. This is more patience for an audience who adore Mani but he hasn't reciprocated their respect and treats them like a bid market. Mani Ratnam and his craft have been discussed at length by Baradwaj Rangan in his book “Conversations with Mani Ratnam” (a review I will deal with later). But for now, “Kadali” is a disaster and doesn’t deserve a rating better than 2 out of 5.
Awwwwe Awwwwe... Awesome review Sridhar. That's so detailed and you have taken the readers to unseen / unknown areas of "Kadali." Your knowledge in movies reflects from umpteen examples you gave in ur analysis. Loved them. Kudos. You echoed my feelings after watching the film :)
ReplyDeleteThanks Raja Satish for your kind words...I liked the depth of your reviews also...lets stay in touch...
ReplyDelete