Kaaviya Thalivan - Epic Failure

You can make an action/masala movie around a hero and a villian confirming to archetypes, and it can still work. But when Kaaviya Thalaivan takes that route, it falls flat. Fifteen minutes into the movie, every character is delineated (except for Mansoor Ali Khan's and the British Indian cop) to its furthest. We have The Alpha - Kaliappan, a stage actor who relies on improvisation,The Beta - Gomathi Nayagam Pillai, a stage actor who relies on method and struggles from a beta complex, Vadivambal - an aspiring actress who is in love with The Alpha, and Sivadas Swamigal - the theatre producer who puts art and loyalty above all. The rest of the movie simply reinforces these archetypes, while telling a story about how Beta brings Alpha to his downfall. The net effect is that instead of evoking the period, (the film is set at a time "when stage play and theatre ruled the roost in TN"), the film evokes shoddily made films of the bygone era.

And too bad for Prithiviraj, who plays Gomathi Nayagam (I think the name somehow gives away the character. Remember Ponvannan in "Chitthi"?). No film has done a greater injustice to an actor. As a rank outsider in Arjun Kapoor's launch vehicle Aurangazeb, Prithiviraj did a neat balancing act as a man forced to choose between the bad men of his father's adopted family, and the evil men of his own family. And in home turf, all he gets to do is to become jealous of Kali and act on this jealousy, time and again! After some point, it gets too monotonous that even the not so good scenes in the second half, where Kali acts in Swadeshi plays seem like a welcome change. And the fact that Gomathi Nayagam has more screen time does not help. Gomathi's relationship with Kali, Vadivu and his own superstardom, seem to provide lot of promising raw material for the story, but Vasantha Balan paints these scenes with broad strokes, leaving no impact whatsoever.

Siddharth shines in yet another author backed role, but there is only much that Privithiraj and he can achieve with such shoddy writing. To Siddharth's credit, the stage sequences are the films strongest points. It seemed that the film almost redeemed itself when Siddharth provides an impressive impromptu epilogue to Karna Motcham, talking about Arjuna's guilt about slaying Karna. To me that's what the film is about, Kali, Gomathi and Swamigal's collective guilt about screwing each other's life. Looks like this was not the original motivation, and this seems like yet another scene establishing how Alpha's improv skills trump Beta's method acting.

I have always been confused when people trash shoddy writing in decently made films, but Kaaviya Thalivan has a poorly written sequence that serves as a good example. A painter in the troupe is shown following the troupe at a distance, after they depart under Gomathi, seemingly oblivious of Kaali or his ouster. Later, the same painter handpicks the disowned Kaali as the substitute actor. Surprise! Except that it is not. 'Establishing film logic' is the altar where creativity is slaughtered.

Privithiraj is not the only actor to be given the stick. Kishore Kumar (Anushka's friend's boy friend in Deiva Thirumagal) is a mere bystander, and does not get a single dialogue! If Swathi Reddy lost weight and went under the knife, she would probably look like Anaika Soti, who does not get the rough edges come in the way of her portrayal of (Archetype Alert!) the chirpy rich girl who falls for the poor guy (And charming, she is!). Vedika delivers a performance that is polished but lacking in impact.

The film excavates Tamil terms from a bygone era, like Raja Paat, Shree Paat, Side Paat, and a Tamil word for improvisation. Nostalgia - that's one good thing about Kaaviya Thalaivan. Another good thing is how AR Rahman's song gel well with the visuals. A strange thing is how Kaaviya Thalaivan does something exactly opposite to Kadal, in terms of keeping Rahman on a leash and having a sensible cast, and yet achieves the same result! Even Niraav Shah is not at his usual best.

There is a scene in Angaadi Theru, where a beggar cleans a stinking toilet, and unexpectedly gets paid for his services. He makes this a habit and ekes out a living. As someone fed with Tamil films that stealthily reflected the glory of their originals, I was convinced that such a brilliantly written sequence could only be a rip off. The greatest disappointment about Kaviyaa Thalaivan is that how makers of that master piece (writer Jeyamohan shares writing credits with Vasantha Balan) fail to fire. That film had just one archetype - the innocent boy hero, and around him, had an array of characters from women who suffer workplace harassment, a bad boss, an evil supervisor, love lorn couple who meet a tragic end, a long term employee who gets kicked out after an occupational disease paralyzes him and the above said beggar, in our own backyard. Kaviyaa Thalaivan, on the other hand, has only big budget.

Gone Girl: Who's cheating who?

One of the best things about Gone Girl is how riveting it is, despite its lack of style. This may not have been apparent to me, had I not been part of a discussion about film makers who are stylists, versus those that are adept story tellers. I have not watched many films where story telling singularly stood out (I could not think of any during the debate and have not seen most of the films that my friend had listed; if you want to tell a good story there are mediums other than movies for that!), only Thirteen Days and Naan Kadavul come to mind now. When watching Gone Girl, I got a feeling that other than the drama, every thing else receded to the background. I don't even recall noticing background score at any point, if there was even one.

The first half of the film is essentially a thriller, as Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) comes home to find his wife Amy missing, on the day of their fifth anniversary. He calls the police, the media duly take notice and the search unravels, all shot in a matter of fact way, without much fuss. Affleck's too cool to care husband, who is probably happier without his wife, adds to the unfussy story telling. His performance in these portions, super imposed with Amy's parallel narrative of their earlier life, ranges from disturbing to funny (especially the feigned sincerity when he claims how he misses his wife at a gathering), and provides an edge when the story changes track when the truth about Amy's disappearance finally hits him in a brilliantly staged scene.

After this point, the portion with Amy in a motel lingers for too long and almost releases the tension built up so far. The parallel plot about how the husband seeks legal aid and tries to shape public opinion, lack the matter-of-factness of the first half and there is nothing fresh about the commentary on a sensational media coverage (But the twincest joke is a gem!). If you have a scene highlighting the attorney's resourcefulness, (by correctly predicting that Nick's girl friend will speak) at the cost of being predictable to the audience, you ought to repay this debt sometime later. But Fincher conveniently forgets this! It is one thing to slowly and steadily build up Amy's character arc throughout the narration, dropping hints one at a time, and another to stage a robbery immediately after showing Amy drop a bundle of cash.


After the movie has ended, when you think back and figure out how all the pieces fall in place, it does not give you a rush like how The Usual Suspects or Vidathu Karuppu does. And it is if Gone Girl aspires to be an edgy thriller or a dark relationship comedy, and it does not seem like the film wants to be either. The ending lingers for far too long, and had the last few scenes been subtitled The Prologue I would have cared less, but having the twin sister say in agony that "she will be in his side, as they have been, even before they were born" sounds way too corny, and adds nothing to the movie.

The best thing about Gone Girl is how a viewer's perspective on Amy is masterfully shaped. The revelations of the 'rape victim' adds to the twist, and seems to foreshadow how Amy might be up to something more than punishing her cheating husband. But nothing prepares you for Amy's transformation from scheming to vicious, as she emerges out of her captivity with blood all over her hands! The tension built up with this scene carries over till the end, and that's probably why it seemed that the film was heading to an even more spectacular ending.

There is some material on Amy's 'amazing' childhood, having to cope with recession and her mother in-law's illness that could have been developed to flush out Amy's motivation, especially given this ending. Instead you are left wondering why the pet cat accompanies Nick, only in scenes where Amy is missing from the house. May be, by casting Niel Patrick Harris as the depressed boyfriend, the makers are making a statement on how Amy can stifle even Barney Stinsen under her thumb!