jump to navigation

a decrepit attempt at the critical appreciation of guru January 17, 2007

Posted by anishkny in Bollywood, Movies.
trackback

First off let me start off by saying that this is not a review of Guru. It is merely an attempt, as the title suggests, to examine it under some guise of critical discernment. Also, buyer beware! theres a whole lot of spoilers embedded within the text. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read this; but be sure to stop by later :)

Plot
This movie has good plotting, with the hero and villain sides of the conflict well etched out. One feels empathy for both sides, the ambitious businessman who wants to make his corporation the biggest in the country, and the astute Reporter who takes on the task of unshrouding the wake of corruption and skulduggery left by Guru. The link between the two is editor of one of the most scrupulous newspaper organizations in the country. Surprisingly the rise of Guru to the upper echelons of Indian business is relegated almost entirely to the first act, and seems decidedly perfunctory in its execution. This is not what the story is (mainly) about. It is about Guru Vs. “Intrepid Reporter”.

In the second act, the Reporter unearths tons of dirt on Guru, and his not entirely above board means to the end. And he does this with surprising ease, probably the only person who had an easier time succeeding in his goals (as shown in the movie) is Guru himself. Sure he does have his press’s power cut off and his editor’s car attacked but these roadblocks seem superficial at best. The first act complication leads directly to the second act break (Points for that!) i.e. Guru suffers a paralytic attack. And of course the expose by Reporter leads to an investigation into Guru and his eventual indictment. At second act break, the Hero does seem down and out, with half his body motionless, barely able to talk, and with some 30 odd counts of corruption, and other attendant charges.

Climax
Herein lies, probably, the biggest error of the movie, and my biggest bone of contention. The climax is beautifully set up by rest of the movie. Guru is given a chance to speak up in his defence in a closed doors session before the law. He refuses and instead decides to speak up the next day in the presence of reporters and pretty much the whole world. So one would expect this speech to be the pinnacle of good writing, a great man inspired to deliver his finest speech during what might be the last throes of his career. Alas! it falls sorely short of the mark, and what ensues instead can hardly be described as anything more than rambling. I would say big negative marking for this letdown.

Resolution
After the speech itself, the judges’ hearts melt, and they let Guru off the hook, pardoning all but two charges against him and a moderate fine. Now since the climactic speech is so weak, the resolution smells of deus ex machina. The gods appear in the form of sympathy in the bosoms of the judges, and extricate the Hero from his predicament. (-ve points for that).

Symbolism
This is totally subjective. I felt the Jalkukdi character represents both the innocence between the three main protagonists, and also the link between them. To be sure her death is something of a sign.

Cinematography
Rajiv Menon is laboring under the heightened filmic expectations created by his predecessor in the Mani Ratnam camp, Santosh Sivan. Lets face it, the product, though admirable in places, falls short of the mark on the whole. Some minor points: In the shot where Guru rings the school bell before time, as the camera is rising, one can see a slight nudge, due to the crane hitting something. In the shot in front of the train, as the camera descends through the billowing smoke, the lens fogs up ever so slightly, a nice touch (perhaps even accidental?), breaking the perception that these events are viewed via a magical process, not through a boring scientific technique. The songs are a big let down. I mean come on! this is Bollywood, embrace it whole heartedly. We need more visual panache in the song sequences. A few other techniques come to mind; mounting the camera on the swing in Guru’s home for two separate instances in the movie; the blurred slow motion technique used in the climactic speech and other places.

Hopefully I have provided a good enough read, if not a great piece of film appreciation. Keep reading!

Comments»

1. Diwaker - January 17, 2007

Dude, I had hoped this would be a Guru bashing attempt, as it rightly should have been! Nonetheless, I’m glad that you haven’t beat me to it yet. I’m surprised to read your thoughts, I thought the movie was slightly better than complete trash. But more on that later.

2. anishkny - January 17, 2007

well neither is it a Guru bashing attempt nor a review in the classic sense of the term. i just tried to evaluate the technical aspects of the film that interest me, mainly plot… i leave the Guru bashing brigade up to you

3. Manish Amde - January 17, 2007

I don’t watch a film to understand the technical nuances so it was interesting to see your point of view. There was no takeaway from the movie for me. The message they gave was India is a screwed up country and you can only bribe your way to the top….

Not a movie I will watch again.

4. Kiran - January 17, 2007

well, mamu, i haven’t seen it yet – theatres booked to capacity for a long time here :) – but there’s nothing wrong , fundamentally speaing, in the portrayal , as you put it. True, merit / character / some other such human-devised concept sould be used to get to the top, but bribing is so natural, isn’t t? “you scratch my back, i scratch yours” – works all over nature with the addendum that some are not to be trusted. (same thing holds for human society ,too) so its actually a realistic portrayal , what say? :)

5. Mac - January 18, 2007

What struck me most about the movie was its similarity to Godfather, both in theme and execution. Besides, I found the character of Aiswarya Rai very thought-provoking, my early thoughts on it here:
http://sententiavolucris.blogspot.com/2007/01/of-pastel-amazons.html

As far as the climax is concerned, it was a plain damp squib, calling it deus ex machina almost glorifies it. The difference between Martin Scorsese and Mani Ratnam probably lies in the treatment of Howard Hughes’ censor board and senate hearings in The Aviator vis-a-vis the judicial one in Guru.

6. anishkny - January 18, 2007

good point there Mac. i think i remember us having discussed the similarities between godfather and guru briefly. hell! i think guru was a closer approximation of the saga of michael corleone than sarkar ever was :) tut tut bollywood

7. bodi - January 18, 2007

Thanks to the article and the comments, I will wait for the dvd. Pause kar kar ke dekha jayega :) Yo AKA!

8. nitin gupta - February 27, 2007

Guru, Sarkaaar aur Godfather!.. yadi aaj michael corleone zinda hota to bahut rota..