sayeekumar ramaswamy

MANMADHA LEELAI 2022 What is the movie's message? It is plain and clear: one can philander, steal, manipulate, blackmail, or even murder someone, and still be cool about it as long you are clever enough not to get caught! It reflects poorly on our justice system, law-enforcement, education, parenting and our own personal values of right and wrong if such messages-- emboldening heinous criminality, are watched and applauded by audiences in the name of entertainment. I ask the director, cast and crew of the film this: you are all rational, thinking-feeling beings. Look in the mirror; scan your conscience and ask whether you would want your loved ones to cherish or espouse such low-brow values in their life and conduct. If not, then why show and celebrate such vicious, unethical behaviour through the film's hero-character? The film glorifies a new-age meritocracy defined merely by cognitive intelligence, wealth, street-smartness and guile rather than human-values or reverence for life. And, how can the evil that men do, not leave behind tracks, trails or footprints? When even the smoke that leaves the tailpipes of our automobiles and apparently escapes into airy nothingness returns to haunt us as lung disease, what can be said of a crime as grave as murder!!! In an eagerness to be contrarian and creative, the filmmaker mischievously shows how homicide can be committed with impunity, thereby, trying to shake our innate belief in justice and consequence. One may be disillusioned with the justice-system, but, never with justice itself. But this movie empowers and rewards the criminal by making him unaccountable to justice itself: and how? It denies even a semblance of closure for his victims while also hailing his dastardly actions as brainy and heroic! In this age of post-modernism and post-truth when morality itself is viewed cynically and subjectively, I request filmmakers to desist from making such dehumanising content since it is destructive of goodness, equity and hope for our next generation.

The film is indeed fun to watch. However, no traditional Hindu woman--howsoever wounded her ego is, would do something as blasphemous as endorse divorce; since such vows-- taken before the sacred fire; accompanied by the chanting of mantras, and blessings of elders-- are considered binding and non-negotiable on the couple. That Amruthvalli is seen encouraging her son to divorce Vrinda makes such depictions fake, misleading, unreal and a gross misrepresentation of traditional Hindus and their attitude towards marriage vows. Besides, there is an attempt to show that all progress is merely a hand-out of Western modernism. Further Hindu elders who embody old-world values are treated condescendingly; shown as prejudiced and faulty while modern-day youngsters are pampered into believing that they are the sole ambassadors of progressive thought and finer feelings. To sum up, the movie, though hilarious perpetuates Hinduphobia.

This movie looks at dating, marriage and family values through the lens of feminism and caters to the vanity and self-importance of beautiful women. The guy has to invest all his time, energy, skills, emotions and resources and bend backwards, if necessary, in order to appease his lady-love. Such a gentleman is too impossible and well-nigh utopian to imagine, especially, in the Indian dating scene. He also runs the risk of being labelled as a jobless bum by the families of both--boy and girl, contrary to what is depicted in the movie. Boys in general are brought up in an atmosphere where brahmacharya or continence is highly respected and valued in Indian conservative households, a scenario very different from the USA or Europe. Being so, it requires not only unusual courage from a boy to chat up to a girl, but also unusual self-abnegation to handle rejection or even reproach from her. Or, boy and girl should have been neighbours or mates at school, college or office. Furthermore, often civil attention or a benign gaze from the boy is enough to irk an Indian girl and make her paranoid: this is celebrated as female intuition or her third eye! Also, Indian laws are indulgent towards women and boys can get on the wrong side of the law for even a silly impish peccadillo. Therefore given the odds stacked heavily against boys in the Indian context, the only alternative is for the girl to walk up to a guy; initiate an overture; or ask the guy out for a date. That would be a desi version of modern dating. So Indian filmmakers! Create such content, please...that would be more realistic. Further, filmmakers, nowadays, create plots wherein the woman's ego and value-systems are so refined and high-brow that even a small backsliding or slightest blooper from the boy is enough to offend her and prompt her to call it quits. Or the man is shown as utterly fallible while the woman is a paragon of perfection and can therefore, do no wrong. Such hypersensitivity and 'upwomanship' not only disqualifies her for any enduring or meaningful relationship with men but also discourages men from the dating circuit since they are perpetually envisioned as much-flawed characters. So, please create more credible, balanced content. Lastly, my moot question to the makers of this film is only this: will such hypersensitivity in a woman be tolerated by the guy if she were egregiously obese? Or will the filmmaker ever cast such a hypersensitive, fastidious but overweight woman as his film's lead heroine? Or would such an obese woman --having the same tender set of values the pretty heroine espouses, be wooed in a similar desperate manner by the 'handsome" hero?!!! The filmmaker cannot afford the risk, since it will not sell! So, the message is abundantly clear: a man must love her tender values but ignore hypersensitivity or any other imperfection in a woman just because she is slim and beautiful. Thus the film not only devalues woman, but also, degrades the man. In an eagerness to celebrate beauty, it defeats the cause of feminism!

DJ TILLU How the hero gets so much money to hit back at his tormenters and girlfriend, is too outlandish to sound credible: a more plausible explanation could have been considered. After all, trying to blackmail an influential man with deep pockets can only invite a 'supari' on Tillu's head! Siddu's straight-faced wit is effective. Neha looks cool and pretty but her expressions are inadequate.

NATCHATHIRAM NAGARGIRATHU 2022 P A Ranjith's film as is his wont, feeds into caste-faultlines in Hinduism for moolah, ideology and religious harvest. It is time the courts intervened and stopped such mischievous content that defames Hinduism; facilitates conversion, and perpetuates reverse discrimination and prejudice towards FCs. Else, such misuse of creative license will break up the nation by fragmenting our centripetal, collective psyche. And, as if to authenticate his divisive narrative, one or two real-life videos of honour-killings are repeatedly shown to draw generalisations and stereotypes about Hindu communities. The heroine-character Rene looks perpetually angry, reactive, nitpicking, violent, implacable and hypersensitive -- nay, unfit for any relationship whatsoever. Of course, we Hindus value marriage above live-ins because we respect the sacred fire; believe in the vibrational value of mantras, and the abstract effect of elders' blessings. Is this all to the archetypal 'bold and empowered' woman the director's mind can conjure? What is the use of reading a hundred progressive books only to end up constantly disgruntled, bickering and querulous about everything and everyone? You eat beef not to protest inequality but to slight with disdain the reverence of Hindus towards the cow. Even if the whole world were gifted to you on a golden platter, you will still be cynical and claim victimhood since you gleefully thrive on the prospect of someone to hate and hurt. Thus, in the garb of creating awareness, a lot of venom is directed against upper classes using fabricated storylines where Dalits, backward classes and other religious denominations are embodiments of civilisational virtues while others are shown as regressive and villainous in their outlook and hence, deserve either reproach or death.

ASHOKA VANAMULO ARJUNA KALYANAM -- A REVIEW While the film is quite funny and holds attention in the first half, it frustratingly drags in the second. Vishwak's acting is good in his depiction of humour, pathos, romance and resignation. And of course, in true filmi style, he can beat up goons to pulp single-handedly upon seeing his lady-love being assaulted. I guess, raw anger endows film-heroes with a sudden, intuitive knowledge of martial arts. Rukshar's acting skills are barely tested: she maintains a monotonously sad expression throughout. Even when her father acquiesces to her choice of life-partner, she offers only a weak smile. Rithika's acting is good in parts, especially when she shows her character's bubbly, playful, prankish and mischievous side. In the second half, an aspect of the storyline appears majorly unconvincing: when the elder daughter goes missing, a police complaint is made and thereafter, no great urgency or anxiety is demonstrated by her father or family to trace her whereabouts: Rithika's character joyfully spends her time trying to romance and woo her sister's groom; the elders seem to get busy with their everyday lives. None show concern or sensitivity to the elder daughter's disappearance: such child-like trust in the power and competence of the police-force is too difficult to fathom or relate to. Besides, all the elders of the archetypal Indian family--without exception, are shown as blundering, foolish, casteist, crude and quarrelsome, having to learn the spelling and spirit of wisdom, maturity and fine feeling from its younger generation. The only saving grace is that the oldies are willing to reform and edify themselves. This sadly, is the filmmaker's assessment of India's elders! So, the upshot of this assessment is that, our ancient nation has managed to survive and come through this far, without any old-world values or civilisational virtues and that all progress is merely a hand-out of Western modernism! Further, what a crying shame that such regressive stereotyping of India's elders is fashionably used as a trope to showcase youngsters as the sole, true ambassadors of progressive thought. All-in-all, the film is part-funny, part-serious: the funny parts are enjoyable and enacted well. The serious parts are not so enjoyable for the long drag; also, in an attempt to flatter and pamper the younger generation, India's elders are blamed and type-casted for Her social ills.

F3 MOVIE More than the story, it is the acting, dialogues and music that lend charm and substance to the film. Besides, the ladies outperform their male counterparts in the acting department. The humour is very engaging in most places and is backed by some fantastic acting.Tamannah, Mehreen Kaur and Sonal Chauhan emote and dance very well while Pragathi gets into the skin of her character with natural mannerisms and superb dialogue-delivery; Pooja in her guest role enthrals with her dance moves. Tamannah's antics and expressions dressed as a man stand-out and tickle our funnybones while Sonal's histrionics as her lover are beautiful to behold. The film--through masterful comedy and classy acting, highlights the importance of money and how it needs to be earned honestly and saved wisely. However it leaves the message incomplete when it fails to show how such conserved money may be utilised responsibly and humanely for the betterment not only of one's family, but also of society, at large. Another major drawback of this film is the taint of misogyny: all the women in the film--without exception, are depicted as cunning, greedy and manipulative with the menfolk, being their helpless victims. Also, in order to boost the sales of toys and discourage children from smartphone-addiction, the pseudo-sons and their enablers decide to make talking-robots modelled on Telugu megastars like Prabhas, Mahesh Babu, Allu Arjun, Pawan Kalyan, Ramcharan Tej, Junior NTR and the like while blissfully ignoring talented female artistes in the Telugu film industry. This begs the question whether there are no lady-superstars in Tollywood that children can admire or adulate. Or does the filmmaker feel that there are no female-artistes in the industry whose mannerisms and screen presence are grandiose and worthy enough to match up to the male-heroes; impress audiences, and serve as talking-robots to their children? Let's hope that F4, the next instalment in the series, rectifies the misogyny by edifying its women-characters and heroines while also highlighting the need to spend money wisely for a cause higher than oneself.

HEY SINAMIKA The film comes off as mediocre in at least three vital places where the storyline appears juvenile and unconvincing: Mouna wants to get rid of her husband Yazhan's clingy presence and hatches a plan: she convinces him to join a radio channel where his gift of the gab makes him a hugely popular radio jockey. His soaring popularity further lands him a job as an RJ for an even bigger radio channel in Chennai. However, when Yazhan departs for Chennai, Mouna is genuinely unhappy and sorely misses Yazhan's presence. She regrets her action and longs for his return. This sadness is weakly conveyed by the director: To the audience, it appears as if her sadness is more, an outcome of her game-plan being discovered by Yazhan when his friend RJ Selva, in a foot-in-the-mouth moment, accidentally blurts out Mouna's game-plan in the cake-cutting scene. This is a glaring gaffe that dilutes the intensity and genuineness of Mouna's sadness upon the separation from her husband. Secondly, when Yazhan finally takes a vote from his audience, he suddenly departs from his mature, suave self by revealing that the scheming wife and frustrated husband for whom he is seeking the poll are in fact, his wife and himself. Imagine what an impact such revelation and public shaming through media by a husband--who is also a popular anchor, can have on a woman! Won't she feel totally devastated by the humiliation? Won't she be trolled and made the butt-end of ridicule? Will a sensitive character like Mouna who threatens suicide at the drop of a hat be able to even survive all the witch-hunt against her? I don't think so. On the contrary, she is shown begging forgiveness from Yazhan and seeking reconciliation with him when Yazhan too is majorly at fault for publicly defaming his wife. Malar is an incomplete psychologist, who judges the worth of men only through the lens of fidelity. Hence, she is totally smitten by Yazhan and cannot see beyond his strengths: she just cannot contemplate him as a fallible mortal who--like the rest of us, can be sometimes, wrong. Last but not the least, in the final scene where the partners meet each other for formalising their divorce, Mouna turns emotional and pleads for reunion. As a precondition for reconciliation, Yazhan asserts that he should be allowed to be himself in as much as Mouna deserves to be herself: Mouna gleefully agrees to this out of immense love for Yazhan. Such a statement from Yazhan smacks of sentimental bombast that merely reflects his inflated ego and an inability to correct himself. No one is so perfect that they can do no wrong or that they are so capable of scanning and anticipating all their mistakes and self-correcting them. We need to be humble enough to accept criticism, soul-search and rectify our mistakes so that we can evolve together as better human beings, soul-mates and partners. Therefore such an inflexible assertion from Yazhan thwarts any potential for true reconciliation or convergence between Mouna and Yazhan. That the director still has them reconciled makes the reunion look unreal, forced and deemed to be doomed. To sum up, such scenes are hardly empowering for women and elicit disappointment and shock--being as they are, the handiwork of a woman-director!

Talented acting...but narrative is clichéd and Hinduphobic: same old Brahmin-bashing and shaming of Hindu mahants and religious icons under the smokescreen of reform since these are soft targets. Under the overarching gaze and presence of the deity, the sacred fire is shown being desecrated by the 'hero' through dramatic visuals and sound effects: utterly sad and horrifying for any self- respecting, practising Hindu. Besides, the message clearly suggested here is that the deity is just a passive witness; a lifeless, powerless presence that can really do nothing-- much like the Hindu laity assembled there, whereas it is the Leftist ideologue who ultimately intervenes, punishes the oppressor and delivers justice to the victim. Such irreverent depictions and storylines supported by superb acting and aesthetics can only foster prejudice and bolster the mind-space and marketshare of other religions and world-views ...as though our religion-- its symbols and practices; its gods, worshippers and holy men, lack all credibility, conscience or soul! Art is the pursuit of beauty. Hence it enjoys tremendous traction and patronage among the masses. It can mesmerise and influence: so, why misuse the medium to kindle the wrath and baser instincts of the subaltern by always stereotyping the 'other' unedifyingly? While film makers and cast laugh all the way to the bank after executing such mischievous content, the Hindu populace is kept in a constant state of ebullition. Further the repetitive nature of such content makes one infer that some filmmakers and script writers have diligently studied India's social and religious demographics and are gleefully exploiting Hinduism's internal dissensions and faultlines for moolah, ideology or religious harvest. Art without responsibility is what comes across as one watches this film. For a perspective on the Devadasi system, caste census, Brahmins and artiste Leela Samson (who plays a psychologist in the film), the viewer would do well to read the book 'Breaking India'.