logo

It is only recently that I was introduced to Mani Ratnam, and I have fallen in love with his films. Even a film that bored me, like Kannathil Muthamittal, is still beautiful to watch because of his cinematography, his style, how he brings out the large emotions with the smallest of facial and body nuances from his actors.

I grew excited about Guru after watching the previews over the course of the last month. The same stylistic elements that have made him famous were obvious in the previews, and I am no fan of Abishek Bachchan, but the previews looked as if his acting in this film might change my mind. That, and I am a sucker for the small person takes on the world and wins on his own terms type story.

But, in the first fifteen minutes of the film, my thoughts weren’t about the scenery, the actors, the gorgeous shots and scenes, but that Mallika Sherawat should never be allowed to dance without a support bra, and that it is senseless to release a subtitled movie in the US without titling the songs, too. And, the subtitling is part of the reason why I didn’t enjoy this movie as much as I wanted to. My Hindi is non-existent, but I know enough to know that I missed most of the dialog in the film.

Or, so I thought. Discussing the movie during the intermission and afterward, I realized that the elements that I thought I was missing due to bad subtitles were elements that were actually missing from the dialog of the film.

You probably already know the story. A bright young man (Guru) with a mind for business leaves his village in India to work in Turkey, only to return when he realizes that he has the skill and the drive to succeed back home. He marries for the dowry money needed to seed his dream, and falls in love with his bride. He makes it rich, becomes an icon to the middle-class, and, like all who rise too far too fast, is attacked by the powers-that-be.

The problem with how this story is told is that we see his struggle, see his rise, and then watch his mentor/father figure try to destroy him as he forgets the basic principals that initially made him a good person and a great businessman. What is left to the imagination is how a moral person can become so corrupted that his own mentor turns against him. Without that character development, I found it hard to support Guru as he defends his business empire. The story never delves beneath the pretty scenery to tell what could have been the fascinating story of a man who becomes corrupted in his rise to power and wealth, while all the while trying to enrich the villagers in his home town and the shareholders in his business. Instead of being a black and white story of power, or a subtle story about the gray areas in the life of a businessman holding true to his values while seeking power, it is just a mildly interesting story about someone who is corrupt but still capable of love.

And, even the love stories in this film are difficult to digest. Guru and his wife love each other, but I had difficulty with Aishwarya Rai’s character, Sujatha. A woman who is presented at the beginning of the movie as a strong woman, independent thinker, and a woman of privilege who cares nothing for money, she becomes her husband’s apologist during his rise to power and his darkest days. What intelligent woman supports a criminal without speaking her mind, without playing devil’s advocate against his illegalities and immoral actions? And, Guru loves Meenu, played wonderfully by Vidya Balan, but the affection between these two is never used to drive the plot anywhere, although it looks as if during an earlier version of the script this relationship provided some purpose. Meenu and Shyam Saxena (a WONDERFUL Madhavan) love each other, and every time the two of them were together onscreen, I kept wishing I was watching the movie about their love affair. Otherwise, their plotline served almost no purpose except to try to show that Guru was capable of loving the people he knew when he was still struggling.

What was wrong with the cinematography? The movie showed Mr. Ratnam’s characteristic genius, the opening scene in black and white that didn’t make sense until half-way through the movie (and, that was then reintroduced at the end of the film), and during the second return to black and white I drew a deep breath, what a remarkable way to tie a story together. But, for every amazing scene and camera shot, there were strange issues that almost gave me a headache. Shaky camerawork throughout the first part of the film was a distraction. Strange cuts between scenes, as if the editor was rushing or Mr. Ratnam had no idea how to segue from one scene to the next, so they just pasted pieces of film together. You know when you see one of his films that you will see the most amazing landscape scenes, but almost all of them in the first half of the film looked as if they were shot on a set, and the song that introduced Sujatha looked as if Ash was filmed on green screen, with the scenery badly imposed in the background - not what I expect from the director who took my breath away in Roja. I was relieved in the second half of the movie when he found his footing and began amazing me, especially in the dance number after the birth of Guru’s children (once again, no subtitles, so I don’t know what the songs were).

Also, I was annoyed in Omkara when the movie stopped twice to show opening credits, this is jarring and makes little sense to me. Mr Ratnam did it here, and it was just as annoying, especially since the credits were wonderfully stylized and should have been showcased at the beginning of the film, not thrown in somewhere between Turkey and India.

And, the music. What can I say. AR Rahman is a genius. If the music sucked, I am too biased toward AR’s music to know. That said, the music in this film didn’t suck, in fact the background score was beautiful, and the theme he wrote to underscore the love story between Meenu and Shyam is sticking with me this morning.

As you can tell, at this point I didn’t think this was a great film. But, there was one opportunity for Guru’s redemption (and for my opinion to change), and that was the government investigation scene where Guru defends his actions, his self, and his decisions. Now, I am the perfect audience for this - a pinko-liberal, ACLU member, Walmart boycotting punker. Instead of getting fired up during this rail-against-the-powers-that-be rant, I was - bored. Yawn. All fury, no substance. And, it wasn’t only the government Guru had to convince that he was worth not prosecuting. At this point I did not care for him. Not that I didn’t like him, but I just didn’t care what happened to him, there was no connection to his character at this point. I can find sympathy with a protagonist who does, by any means necessary, fight the system to succeed while protecting the rights of the common man. But, by this point in the film, all of his activism was as unobvious as his corruption, all of his good points and bad points buried somewhere in a weak script, and only the joke he finished with made the five minutes of him speaking worthwhile.

Then, the final scene. The reason I don’t think this was a bad movie? Because the movie ended brilliantly with a scene that summed up the entire movie, from rags-to-riches, from Turkey to Gujurat, in a specacular manner, showing Mani Ratnam to be a master storyteller through his use of the camera, even when one of his stories is weak.

Unless you are a serious Mani Ratnam (or Ash, she is glorious in this film) fan, don’t rush to see this movie, wait for the DVD. And oh, yeah, it looks as if Abishek can really act…

7 readers recommend this post  Loading ...	Email This Post To Friends
Related Posts Why did Mani Ratnam make Guru? Guru (2007) Aaj Tak’s segment on Guru Guru vs Iruvar Decoding the Guru Mantra “Guru” Pre-Release Activities Show a Different Mani Sir Parzania n Guru…..posting it again Lost To Life: Guru Dutt Guru Dutt:Ek Sanjida Filmmaker No “Dawn” This Don…Only Yawn!!!