Raavanan

As I keep on watching movies, I try to understand what makes these movies a success or a failure and I am not talking about commercial success. What makes a movie riveting and thought provoking?


Not all the movies I have liked have been directed well, or have had great cinematography or great music for that matter. What they have had is - thought out characters, well researched and connected storyline (the story may not be unique; it is the treatment that matters). I think somewhere in the successful movies the director was clear in his thoughts about the subject, characters and story. He was clear why he was making the movie. And he stayed true to the story and the characters. Be it Manichitratalzhu, Mozhi or Chocolate – movies from different genres and appealing to different generations. The potential of actors and their ability to understand the characters and act of course is primary requirement.

Unfortunately, looks like Mani Ratnam (who has directed good movies earlier) had no idea why he was making this movie. It was definitely not for the story for Ramayana is the most popular story in India; it was definitely not his interpretation either for only last five minutes make any impact on the audience; it was not for the music for A.R. Rahman has produced way better music then the score of Raavanan; it was not to show off the acting prowess of the actors for Aishwarya Rai in the end has all but two expressions on her face. Why then did he make the movie?

The story is simple, Veera (Vikram) believes that Dev (Prithviraj), a SP is responsible for the custodial rape and death of his sister Vennila (Priyamani). Veera decides to take revenge and kidnaps Dev’s beautiful wife Ragini (Aishwarya). Unexpectedly Ragini is a fierce woman and not afraid of Veera. This results in Veera being attracted towards her. This attraction should have brought out the shades in his character and should have been more subtle but throughout the movie you feel that the attraction is the reason for abducting Ragini and not really the revenge. Ragini on the other hand hates Veera but slowly learns of his reasons and sees different shades of his character (not apparent to the audience) and starts admiring him. The movie is a cat and mouse chase of Dev trying to find Veera, eliciting the help of the forest officer Gnanaprakasam (Karthik) who plays the proverbial Hanuman. Again the director missed an opportunity to bring the character of a messenger who believes the good in both the sides but instead reduces it to the mokeyish histrionics. The movie barely touches the shades of grey which should have been explored and dissected to give the movie the much required depth.

Mani Ratnam, who is a genius in exploring relationships, somehow missed some key relationships in the movie. For once he had such a powerful subject. The persona of Raavana itself is so multi faceted and full of contradictions. He could have explored that in greater detail. The character of Ragini symbolizing Sita again had a lot of potential. On one hand she has an honest, morally upright, larger than life husband who loves her and on the other hand this earthy abstraction of a seemingly demonic man who has a curious sense of justice. The confusion and temptation alone would have been mesmerizing.


No doubt, Santosh Sivan has done wonders with his camerawork and Vikram and Prithviraj stand out as Veera and Dev. There are a couple of dialogues and scenes - like when the villagers are describing Veera to Dev and each comes up with his own different version of the man, or when Ragini jumps off a cliff claiming that her life is her own; but these are too few and far too in between.

A subject that had a lot of potential and a cast that could have delivered – that’s what sums up Raavanan for me.

(Can Skip)