logo

I finally watched Sivaji on Monday, which is practically blasphemy for a Rajnikanth fan and a serious follower of Tamil cinema. But I think the wait was well worth it, as going to a theatre in the first week would have rendered impossible any attempt to follow the movie or its dialogues.

After seeing the movie though I realised I had done the correct thing by not getting into a frenzy about it. For, though it proves that Rajni is still the boss, Shankar seems to have exhausted all his ideas.

Rajni plays a software systems architect who returns to India to set up a college to provide free education and a hospital where all the patients are to be provided free treatment. But once he sets off on this journey, he realises that the changes that have taken place in the society are only artificial. That though his intentions might be good, it is only the language of money that the politicians and bureaucracy understand. The movie is about how he finds his way out of this quagmire, and also gets even with the villain. Sounds good on paper, but the movie turned out to be a big letdown.

Here is a list of all that is ugly, bad and good about the movie.

The ugly: Where was the script? The movie just meanders in the first half, with Rajni searching for a “girl with Tamil culture” to be his wife even while he goes about meeting government officials to set up his institution. He finds Shriya [dressed in revealing garments or as they say in Chennai "glamourous" outfits in all the songs] to be that girl, and then begins his attempt to woo her and her family.

This is the most irritating segment of the movie, and the humour is so forced that you have to see it to believe it. The interactions between the two families is downright silly, and I wonder how Shankar allowed things to come to such a pass.

In between, Shankar also reiterates the cliché about Indians being in awe of fair skin, and how applying “Fair and Lovely” and drinking milk with saffron in it helps one become fairer. I would have felt much happier if the director had not plugged for the multinationals who are minting money by selling such “beauty” products.

The portion about the horoscopes of Rajni and Shriya not matching and that if they got married, it would prove dangerous to the groom’s life was also irritating.

The second half, though it gathers a little more pace, is still a letdown. Shankar reiterates another cliché by showing that Muslims are hawala operatives, when they help Rajni take money outside the country.

The worst was the idea he sends out to the lay public about cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CPR is usually effective if it is carried out within six minutes after death, that is within six minutes after the blood flow stops. But in the movie, a doctor played by Raghuvaran administers CPR and electric shocks to Rajni after quite a lot of time, but is successful in reviving him. Also, though CPR results in few complete recoveries and those that do survive often develop serious complications (according to Wikipedia), in the movie Rajni is fit as a fiddle and even bashes up goons after undergoing such a procedure.

The bad: Throughout the movie, politicians and bureaucrats are shown as being corrupt, and only act when tempted with the prospect of a bigger payout. When this is the case, how does the director justify the “IT Department and the CBI” being very honest and scrupulous? Maybe Shankar did not see this contradiction when he was working on the story.

It is said the movie is among the costliest to be made in India. Just makes me wonder where all that money went, which is exactly what one upcoming director told me. As Shankar’s budgets become bigger, his storytelling skills seem to be getting poorer and poorer. All gloss and style, but no soul.

Give me the Shankar who made ‘Gentleman,’ ‘Mudhalvan’ or even ‘Anniyan.’ Those movies had solid stories and screenplays, and there was never a dull moment in them. I would have been much happier if Shankar had been able to work out a screenplay like that of ‘Indian.’ Though the movie revelled in gimmickry, he still had a strong story that railed against corruption. I think Shankar should go back to working with actor Arjun — with whom he gave two big hits ‘Gentleman’ and ‘Mudhalvan’ — and also to the storyboard, so as to come up with hard-hitting and gripping screenplays. Moreover, Arjun is in the doldrums after a couple of bad roles and movies, and is in desperate need of a hit.

The good: Rajni, Rajni and Rajni. He is the only thing good about the movie. He might be nearing 60 in real life, but you will never realise this if you see the way he dances and does stunts in the movie. He carries ‘Sivaji’ on his able shoulders with his goofy charm and enthusiasm.

I can’t imagine any actor — and that too at the height of his popularity — spoofing himself in his own movie. Rajni does it and more, and he is able to carry it off with élan. He also does a terrific impersonation of Sivaji Ganesan, M.G. Ramachandran and Kamal Haasan in the movie.

Makes me think that Rajni is still the box-office boss, and Shankar not quite.

Loading ...	Email This Post To Friends
Related Posts Rajni…. Sivaji-The Boss: Experience of a Fan Happy Birthday to the BOSS - R.D. Burman PAPAJI OR PROJECT-WHO IS THE BOSS? Pancham Unmixed : A Salute to the Boss - R.D. Burman Shankar Nag- A Maverick, A Genius NAYAK (2001)- SHANKAR AT HIS BEST Exclusive: Interview with Shankar Ehsaan Loy Dehumanizing cinema A diamond falls from a tree - last tribute to Director Sridhar