Read the full article on Film Companion, here: https://www.filmcompanion.in/2.0-moral-universe-thugs-of-hindustan-shankar-aamir-khan-rajinikanth/
Or why films that attempt to deviate from the formula of the masala movie need much better writing.
Spoilers ahead if you haven’t seen ‘2.0’…
During the intermission of Shankar’s 2.0, I made a note: “complicated moral universe.” I didn’t talk much about it in my review, where I just said: An Indian-like development where a benevolent old man turns into a pissed-off vigilante in order to teach uncaring people a lesson? Check. Now, of course, everyone knows I was referring to the so-called “villain” of the story, Akshay Kumar’s Pakshi Raja. Where’s the complication? It’s in the fact that he – and not the “hero” – is the sympathetic character
The masala genre (I use the term “genre” loosely) is one of the most MORAL of genres, like the Western. The lines between Good and Bad are clearly drawn. When Thugs of Hindostan came out, this was the problem. I wrote: The only way this story would have worked is if we were constantly kept on edge about whether Firangi Mallah is a rogue or a nice guy — and with a superstar like Aamir Khan, it’s never in doubt that he will feel a twinge of conscience and rise against the British. But it’s more than that It’s more than just the fact that our big heroes almost never play morally complicated characters in big movies (as opposed to, say, an indie-ish film like 1947: Earth). It’s also that the masala universe cannot (and will not) accommodate such a character.
Continued at the link above.
Copyright ©2018 Film Companion.
Baradwaj Rangan 
sanjana
December 1, 2018
A very good re analysis by you. Our sympathies are with the birds. But everything will be destroyed for one reason or another in due course. Today it is birds and forests. Tomorrow it maybe directed against less fortunate human beings and weeding them out as advocated by one celebrated novelist and by one Hitler by using more brutal methods.
Aamir’s Fanaa worked though he played an unrepentent terrorist.
Toh was sabotaged to some extent by twitter trolls. Indian audience who regularly patronise bad films by superstars and smaller stars cannot suddenly wake up and find things terribly wrong with Toh.
LikeLike
Venky
December 1, 2018
This, an inspiration from Karthik of CCV write-up fame, perhaps?
LikeLike
V
December 1, 2018
Yes. This was my confusion throughout the film (I knew the premise already from FDFS reviews)
Even in the case of Pakshi Rajan, we dont “see” him kill any aam aadmi, but only those with whom he had a bitter experience in the past. We see him fling people mid-air but seeing how sweet he was with birds when alive, he “could” have saved them in the last second too – we dont know. We dont see. For this kind of a character arc, what BR suggested would have been the better conclusion – self destruction.
As far as mobiles go, most of us feel & know that mobile addiction is for real and yet are unable to quit. So whether for the sake of birds or not, seeing mobiles fly away doesnt incite anger in us. Certainly not like how we get furious when the Education minister demands bribe from poor students or when Nizhalgal Ravi refuses to treat the burn victim or even when the railway caterer serves substandard food in other Shankar films.
Just my thoughts. As someone who enjoyed Enthiran fully but is somewhat unsatisfied with 2.0.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Srinivas R
December 1, 2018
it’s a fuck-you not just to Pakshi Raja (“you want to kill humans? Watch us kill your precious birds!”) but to the film’s very “cause”, its very reason for being.
sums up everything really.
Didn’t anyone in the film crew see how problematic or even stupid this is?
LikeLiked by 3 people
therag
December 1, 2018
Well then this movie mirrored real-life. When you have a rail-roko or a roadblock by farmers protesting farmer suicide, what is the thought process of the average Indian? Sympathizing with the farmers for about 5 minutes, and then wondering why the police have not evicted them yet. And we know now how the government treats protests/protesters. Ultimately, when you point out to humans that they are responsible for causing irreparable damage to the environment, they’ll shrug it off until things come to a head.
Chitti 2.0 is resurrected because it is a mindless killing machine, and more importantly a fall-bot who can take all the blame. You are going to see a lot of this in the future – “the algorithm went rogue and we are not to blame”. I don’t know if Shankar was aware of the implications of AI but this movie is pretty smart. It is not a moral universe but an immoral one, driven by corporate greed and human apathy. With that in mind, the events in the film make perfect sense.
This goes against the masala ethos for sure, and to be honest, this could have been a better film if a writer rooted in that ethos had given his/her treatment to the story (thinking Baahubali’s screenwriter). But I don’t think this film would have worked if given the masala treatment. For one, the general audience today looks down on masala (for now) and looks for “logic” in cinema, especially in a movie about technology and a supposed Hollywood competitor. Masala logic would have appeased a few critics maybe, but the audience probably won’t dig it.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Varsha
December 1, 2018
Warning: Spoilers ahead
There is one particular logical/scientific flaw(at least I felt so) in a scene in 2.0 which I found really strange for a sci-fi movie to have glossed over. Maybe because it’s just one small scene, or maybe because the writing is flawed in more places than this, but still, I find it strange that I could not see anyone even discussing it. I am talking about the scene where Pakshi Raja’s aura has entered Vaseegaran’s body and Vaseegaran pleads to Chitti to terminate him. Chitti’s difficulty in following Vaseegaran’s orders is understandable. But we also have Nila in the picture, who is the one(if I remember right) in control of the terminating machine. Both Chitti and Vaseegaran give her conflicting orders. We are shown her getting confused a bit over which order to follow, and eventually she obeys Vaseegaran(again, if my memory serves right. Sorry, but I am not able to recollect the scene as well as I would like!🙂). And therein lies the catch! In the beginning, when Vaseegaran introduces Nila to a bunch of students, he clearly says that she is designed in accordance with the three asimov laws of robotics. When she obeys Vaseegaran, she clearly violates the first and second laws. IMO, such flaws in a sci-fi movie are more suicidal than any lack in writing or emotional depth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Varsha
December 1, 2018
An explanation similar to the one given in I, Robot for VIKI’s actions could be given here also, but that is not at all evident from the movie per se. No explanation is given, not even an indication. It’s as if everything is simply taken for granted!
LikeLike
Odiyan - Sreekumar Maska - Mohanlal toast
December 1, 2018
@therag – I agree to your perspective and your comment has sparked a similar thought in me – maybe pakshirajan is a stand in for Naxalite/Maoists – we all agree that the tribals are being screwed over by the politicians and bureaucrats but the moment Maoists kidnap people or attack businesses we are against them – not because we no longer sympathise with them but because we don’t agree to their methods…And if what will bring immediate peace and calm is armed attack against them by the govt – we support that over the Maoists /Naxalites attacking us… Also, what must be noted here is that vasigaran and co are here are vaging the war on behalf of the govt – iirc, we don’t get one scene where the public says we want chitti to attack pakshirajan…It is only in chitti’s intro scene and chitti 2.0’s entry into the stadium that the people cheer them respectively and that too because most of them didn’t know what was going on and just wanted to side with the known force which could rescue them – just like we would too if we saw a policeman when confronted by armed revolutionaries… Otherwise we are not too fond of policemen either…
Maybe shankar wanted us to read between the lines…Especially since Jeyamohan was involved this is probably what they wanted…They show us a few scenes to show us that chitti 2.0 is amoral…1) In the stadium 2.0 mocks vaseegaran when pakshirajan turns into vasee thinking he’ll be able to stall 2.0 just like he did with chitti earlier…2) in many of the gun firings done by chutti 2.0 and company ine can clearly see that he was reckless and ppl in the gallery were frantically taking cover..a driver in a car attached magnetically to chitti most probably died or got paralysed when he fell from such a height 3) 2.0 attacks an innocent officer at the secret alien communication facility just cause he was coming in the way of his mission (that man most probably died), 4) In the end 2.0 almost kills vasee when he shoots at pakshi rajan cause all he cares abt is killing pakshi at that point and it is nila who prevents this from happening and saves vasee…—-it can’t be just by chance that shankar left so many clues and nods towards 2.0’s amorality…Also 3.0 is 2.0’s creation so it is only logical that he too will resort to the whole neck twisting thing…
I feel like br sir said writing could have been stronger to make some of these conflicts a bit more clear…Especially the neck twisting scene plays out in a sort of a heroic way…
Maybe the fact that this is a rajni movie came in the way…Maybe akshay kumar didn’t wanna be too bad…
Some of the abv goes for vaseegaran too in both the movies — i think he is supposed to be a boring asshole…But being rajni movies they just couldn’t take it too far..
Regarding Pakshirajan killing only ppl who had wronged him – he almost killed the entire stadium and the chitti’s prevented it… Also, he gives some sort of justification at some point in the movie abt all the ppl using cell phones only being sad abt it for 5 min and sharing the links abt env effects of cellphones online and then thinking their part was done…He did kill a lot of people though it hasn’t been shown — like the bird’s first fight with chitti – a lot of ppl definitely got killed along the way though a few were saved by chitti (though I felt chutti entering a building needlessly endangered the occupants of that building)… Explicit killing of innocents by pakshi rajan would be him killing all those military ppl in tanks and all…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srinivas R
December 1, 2018
@therag – my question is how is this movie logical, masala are not. I mean it’s pseudoscience plus the movie turning against it’s very reason for being.
Again, it works well as a mega WWE show peice, just feels like a missed opportunity IMO.
LikeLike
Reuben
December 2, 2018
BR, in a tweet you once said that a film is rated in relation to its own ambition; what it sets out to achieve and how well it achieves it.
What in your opinion was the ambition of 2.0?
LikeLike
therag
December 2, 2018
@Srinivas, the root of the conflict may not be actual science, but once the conflict is established, the response of the bureaucrats, the apathy of the people, the deployment of 2.0 etc are all logical IMO.
And what do you mean by movie’s reason for being? This movie does not exist to raise awareness about radiation affecting birds does it? That is sort of a pseudo-macguffin, not completely irrelevant to the proceedings, but in all likelihood it exists because Shankar wanted that uber cool CGI bird in there, and it fit the social spectacle framework. In this movie, the social has been considerably weakened in favor of spectacle.
If this were a Marvel movie for example, the backstory of Pakshi would not get a 20min flashback. It would just be 2.0 vs Supervillain who can control phones and/or birds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marcus
December 2, 2018
My review of Thugs of Hindostan.
‘Firangi In Engleeshthan’ – Cracking the TOH Code!
Some have talked about Amitabh in TOH and how it is a tribute to his peak imagery that has been lost in time. A few Aamir fans have said Firangi is a ‘fun’ character and that Aamir had a ball doing this. There is no doubt that he did, not at least to those who has actually seen this film. But thats not all!
I have loved this character (seen it 2 times in theaters already and will eagerly wait for it to some on netflix/prime for more viewings). Its not that you can resist laughing WITH him and AT him, the ‘duplicity’ in this double-crossing ‘thug’ quite amusingly represents Aamir in Bollywood over last 20 years. For every Sarfarosh he has always backtracked with a Mela. There was MP following Lagaan, Fanaa after RDB, Ghajini after TZP, DG after 3I (!), D3 after Talaash and son and so forth. After he reached a crescendo with Dangal’s success all over, he selected to do TOH with YRF/Acharya gang! In short, he has been double-crossing his different set of audience all through these years and everyone had accepted it passively. Till TOH released …
There is an introductory scene of Firangi, after double crossing a maharaja, a bunch of thugs and then the brits (with a grandma dying story) he proudly goes off sitting on a donkey (that he proudly calls his master – a dethroned Nawab) wearing a ridiculous hat and a pair of red goggles. The scene is gleefully edited with Firangi’s donkey taking one step forward, then one step backward. Its a hilarious representation with an apt bgm … and is more allegorical than Amitabh’s physically impressive swashbuckling gig at 75.
And its not done in a way to demean anyone. Its much more self-deprecating humor than Mera Naam Joker or Kaagaz Ke Phool. At one point his reluctant side-kick tells him that either he is ‘mahaan’ or a ‘kaminey’. Firangi coolly retorts back claiming he is a ‘mahaan kaminey’. He literally kills the film by winking at his audience for 3 fun-filled hours. And during my second viewing I felt that showing a mirror to all his diverse audience was perhaps the primary reason behind such extreme backlash uniformly from all quarters.
If you revisit the film, once Khudabaksh dies (apparently) and passes the amulet to Firangi, he is just using his duplicity to help out in the cause. Its a devious Machiavellian way to get to the target. He just appears to be helping the brits. At least for me, that is the highlight of the film! [ And I will add this bit. Both of Aamir’s characters in Secret Superstar and TOH are similar in the fact that both come across ‘non-hero’ like (even repulsive to some extent as defined by tradition in the revered masala-universe) but actually helps out in the cause more than anyone else. So in that way Secret Superstar and TOH form an uncanny ‘couple’. This maybe one focal reason why both films have been rejected in India. We perhaps cant consume such characters in a mass scale commercial entertainer. Or maybe all the message-oriented films have made it impossible for him to be acceptable in a non-straight role in India? ]
After his usual betrayal, Firangi asked Khudabaksh not to sacrifice himself. In fact he explicitly states that he first betrayed him and then saved his life. So they are now quits as per him. He has no qualms or guilt regarding Khudabaksh sacrificing himself. But since Khudabaksh requests him to save Zafira, he obliges cause he perhaps felt responsible for putting her in danger with his betrayal. Once he saves her, he wants to leave the thugs and move on. But has a change of heart when the brits attack their hideout. Why shud he suddenly become a shahenshah like messiah as expected in a regular masala movie? It makes no sense.
However, once he has a change of heart he takes Zafira to Surraiya and together they plot to kill clyve during dussehra festivities. But when he finds out that Khudabaksh is alive he pretends to side with brits so that he can give them an advantage which he clearly explains later. When the time comes he saves Khudabaksh and the thugs finally defeat the brits. Once that job is done, he wants to move on because he has another dream to fulfill – Firangi in Engleeshthan! So no surprise that he is planning MB with Netflix next.
In some pop-philosophy thrown in TOH, he did what it took to be ‘alive’ given his circumstances. To which Khudabaksh says that everyone gets a chance to redeem himself … and Firangi responds well when the time comes. Remember Lagaan, RDB, DCH, Dangal, PK to name a few?
In another perspective, its a dual tribute to both masala and jack sparrow – which made in jarring to some extent, more alien in my books to a surprised audience.
Anyways, in TOH the emotional connect for revenge angle had to be with Fatima’s character. But it never happens to due to Acharya’s lacking and Fatima’s poor acting. [ Even SS suffered with similar lack of connection with the lead girl due to more aggressive and one-dimensional characterisation. ] TOH is more hollywood at its core (specially Firangi’s characterization) than any regular masala troupe that the general indian audience is used to. I guess it was bound to face the backlash the way it did. Whats completely logical in a typical hollywood script can unsettle the indian audience due to their ‘set’ expectations. That way TOH is perhaps as big a disappointment as Taran is shouting for last few days. [ But SS did fine in China. Lets see what TOH does in Jan. ]
I felt that the cinematography is top-notch – They have created a true fairy-land with forts and jungles and all that is supposedly exotic to foreign eyes about India. The Rajasthan bits just seals it. I had previously criticized the vfx shown in trailer, but didnt mind it during theater watching (cant say that about BB2). Yfx team surely did some work here after the trailer backlash.
With the overall backlash and no general acceptance of TOH, this will hopefully be the end of his Firangi-ness in his project selection. Khudabaksh puts it aptly that he can sense a ‘restless’-ness in Firangi and hoped to make him truly free (Azaad!). I guess he may truly succeed in this. The MB decision is the right direction (no matter what results such a huge project will yield).
Bye bye Masala. Bye bye Firangi. And as Firangi would say – “Jai Shambhu !”
Postscript – On Mahabharata Web-series:
Looking at the Indian response to Secret Superstar and TOH, i dont think its wise to invest a lot of money to make a MB films with Aamir as Krishna. Unless one dumbs it down … but then the essence of the story itself will vaporize. Krishna is a lot more Machiavellian character in MB than Firangi. I am quite intrigued to know how masala fans wud react to see a ‘desi masala film’ where Arjuna defeats Bhishma using Shikhandi as a shield (as advised by Krishna), Krishna emotionally brainwashing Arjuna (by citing Abhimanyu’s death) to unethically slaughter Karna (when the latter had requested a pause in battle) or Bheema defeating Duryodhana on final day by sheer cheating (again as advised by ‘God’ Krishna). No way he can play such a character in any other platform than a Netflix web series.
One can never emotionally connect to a character like Krishna (whether depicted in a serious avatar or a more notorious ‘natkhat’ avatar). You can perhaps connect with Pandavas or the Karna character emotionally in a masala setting (lowbrow or highbrow) with all their history and value for righteousness and other angles romped up properly by a director of Rajamouli’s caliber. Krishna’s actions are not so black or white and will never connect in a ‘traditional’ masala setting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
shaviswa
December 2, 2018
This is precisely what Blue Sattai also says in his review:
https://www.filmcompanion.in/2.0-moral-universe-thugs-of-hindustan-shankar-aamir-khan-rajinikanth/
LikeLike
Honest Raj
December 2, 2018
And when the 3.0 army threatens to strangle a few thousand birds, it’s a fuck-you not just to Pakshi Raja (“you want to kill humans? Watch us kill your precious birds!”) but to the film’s very “cause”, its very reason for being.
Remember “Naalu perukku nalladhu na (in this case human lives) edhuvume thappu illa”? 🙂 Even Nila utters the line in an earlier scene.
LikeLike
Madan
December 2, 2018
Haven’t yet seen 2.0 and didn’t see ToH but did have this problem with Vedhalam. Ajith’s character was so vile it was difficult to understand why I was supposed to take his side but for the fact that Ajith was playing this character. Well, ok, one doesn’t HAVE to take sides in films but with what passed for a plot in that film, there was little else to do and without emotionally investing in the film, it was a real drag.
LikeLiked by 2 people
shaviswa
December 2, 2018
@madan
Same is true about Mangaatha. Every character in that film was double faced. A very horrible film.
LikeLike
Jox John
December 2, 2018
Good that you took on the WWE example. But here is the thing….that too is a form of an entertainment and the writers struggle hard week after week for the next big thing. And many a times, even though they do this good vs evil storyboard, they find that the personality of the bad guy is do magnetic, that he becomes the “crowd favourite”. And then it becomes challenging because the personality beings to override everything you would write in a good vs bad formula.
ENTHIRAN had the whole Ramayana angle. We want to support the “Ram”, but we find the “Ravan” is the cool personality. Sure we enjoyed watching Ravan burn down last time. But it worked only because both roles were played by Rajini.
But halfway into “2.0” we see how bland the character of Dr Vasi is, how righteous “chitti” the robot is, and how the movie was running out of anything “fun”. It required the bringing back of the “2.0” to save the situation, in every sense, both for the script as well as for fans. Hence proving sometimes all good also means predictably dull and boring.
If you are walking into the franchise as a fresher, you have no clue why people are cheering on for “2.0” because the screenplay has not established anything about him. But this is no standalone movie, but a true blue sequel (unlike what the makers kept claiming earlier). So one of the criteria is that you know your Enthiran well and Shankar assumes that you are a “2.0” fan. It works for those who dug the “Raavan-bot”, not for those who go by the good vs evil rule book. That is thrown out at this point.
Even in recent comic book movies, the villains that work are the ones who have a strong set of ideologies and are committed to them. Killmonger from Black Panther was an audience fave so much that many still consider him to be the heart and soul of the movie. Or Thanos from Avengers. From their viewpoint, they are doing the right thing and are the heroes in their head. And irrespective of how violent or wrong their path is, their conviction to the cause is admirable. Pakshi Raj is getting a similar treatment here. Especially in the North…they are partial to the Akshay character in a big way, irrespective of Rajini. It does not matter the good vs evil lines. Despite the weak story-line, writing, they are in for a visual ride and are enjoying the light and show experience for once. Something Indian movies is “never” known for!
The part that really needed a good writing was on the change of attitude of Pakshi raja. From the aged man to this raging aura, the reason for this rage and fury could have been better written. Something enough for us to feel a part of that rage in some form. What could have been lazy but more effective, is to have this old man and his protests a serious threat to the mobile businessman’s new plans that they start threatening him. and when he does not relent, they try to teach him a lesson by buring his house, and killing all the birds with it. Yes, something from Mudhalvan, but since a lot of things is a Shankar rehash, it would not have hurt this movie and given more gravitas to the man’s rage visually.
TOH suffers from unimaginative setup. The movie should have started off showing the Firangi character, his antics and then through him we should have been introduced to the Thugs without any backstory. The reason for their actions and their emotional flashback should have been shared with the viewers only in the second half, and then moving into a change of heart from Firangi and then heading towards the revenge seeking climax. It would have worked significantly better. Imagine a MERSAL or a VADA CHENNAI if the flashbacks portions were narrated right before the titles, what follows would have been boring screenplay offering no excitement whatsoever. What TOH did was something from the 80s and hence paid the price for it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
December 2, 2018
Haven’t seen Mangatha.
LikeLike
Saket
December 2, 2018
Wrote something about 2.0 and its relevance to the horror genre elsewhere…
Having read the plot of Shankar’s 2.0 (I’ve decided I’m not watching this film), I’m reminded of the avenging spectre trope used in Horror cinema, across both Hollywood and Bollywood. The plot in such movies is usually quite simple: an honest person is wronged and killed. That person’s spirit rises from the ashes and seeks revenge, often stopping after the perpetrator is killed.
In Hindi cinema, films like Madhumati, Bees Saal Baad, Suryavanshi, Bhool Bhulaiya (Chandramukhi in the South), Om Shanti Om, Talaash, Darling, Bhoot and now Stree offer the same (or a slight variation) of this familiar plot device. In Hollywood, we have What Lies Beneath, Candyman, The Grudge & Ghost among other such films. It’s such a common trope that it even finds its way into popular literature.
The interesting part about this seemingly generic motif lies in its usage. Almost exclusively, in Hindi cinema, the avenging ghost happens to be female. It’s not a coincidence. Rather, it serves as an example of effective social commentary. Women in India being oppressed and marginalized are given superpowers (after death) to right their wrongs via this plot device. The other option (story-wise) is to let the oppressed women fight it out against the system (a patriarchal society) but that sometimes makes for a not-so engaging social drama (e.g. Shakti — The Power, starring Karisma Kapoor). Moreover, the first approach is usually more commercially viable as well.
In Stree, Bollywood’s recent runaway hit, the script writers take the former approach. In what is essentially a pro-feminist script, set in a small village where male privilege runs rampant, the all-powerful avenging spirit not only hunts for males but also takes them away naked, metaphorically stripping them of their masculinity. The horror film genre conventions stay in place, but this subtext offers delicious irony with respect to the battle of the sexes. The males in the village are, in fact, forced to wear sarees in order to escape punishment. In other Hindi films, the retribution is not so harsh, and certainly not all males are targeted, but the unscrupulous villain, always a man, is found running terrified. The social order is thus inverted.
Shankar’s 2.0 also has an avenging spectre in his story. But this time around, it’s the story of a man, an ornithologist, who takes revenge on mankind for destroying his favourite species — birds. Although one can’t deny that birds represent a marginalized section of life on Earth, I’m inclined to think this plot point is so far out there, it’s practically irrelevant. It’s a manufactured cause, a politically correct subtext that’s neither here nor there, in case it offends anyone. And offending people, even a small sub-section, for a big-budget extravaganza is like committing wilful suicide — especially in today’s politically charged climate. But this informs a separate discussion.
There is another point of commonality between Stree and 2.0 (based on the story I’ve read) where once the spirit becomes omnipotent, it imparts punishment indiscriminately. It doesn’t really care if someone is innocent or not, it’s out there to get everyone who remotely fits the bill. This reminds of the legend of Parshurama — the sixth avatar of Vishnu who wiped out the entire Kshatriya race no less than 23 times. I find this similarity, this greying of areas, quite interesting. Direct revenge is perhaps justified, at least in a cinematic universe, but how does one deal with repeated instances of killing? Should our sympathies still lie with the avenging spirit once it starts killing out of mere habit? I find this kind of moral conundrum to be a surprise package in genre films. In a good way, of course. I personally look forward to more such open-ended explorations in commercial cinema.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MANK
December 2, 2018
What complex moral universe?, what subversion? Just mediocre filmmakers corrupting the masala template inspired by Hollywood. What we are seeing is our filmmakers blinded by the franchise films of hollywood and stupidly following their lead trying mix theirs with our masala aesthetic. its not going to work. As i mentioned in my piece on thugs, the main problem with the Firangi character and the film is this attempt to hollywoodise what should have been left pure masala..
Shankar makes big films but he is not a big picture man, if you get what i mean. He just keeps throwing one spectacular item after another at the audience and numb them into submission without caring about how its going to affect the overall film.He has a great gift for well imagined and well shot spectacle that makes his expensive B movies appear as some kind of masterpiece. These films needed to be treated just that. they have their own enjoyment quotient and i like them for what they are.Nothing more. Its sickening to see him referred to as a visionary , genius or whatever . he is basically our version of Roland Emerich who has been making the same film from independence day onwards with the same subject :How best to destroy the world, each time with better technology , more spectacular visuals, while the writing , acting and other aspect of his films keep getting worse.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
December 2, 2018
“Shankar’s 2.0 also has an avenging spectre in his story. But this time around, it’s the story of a man, an ornithologist, who takes revenge on mankind for destroying his favourite species — birds. Although one can’t deny that birds represent a marginalized section of life on Earth, I’m inclined to think this plot point is so far out there, it’s practically irrelevant. It’s a manufactured cause, a politically correct subtext that’s neither here nor there, in case it offends anyone. And offending people, even a small sub-section, for a big-budget extravaganza is like committing wilful suicide — especially in today’s politically charged climate.”
This is an excellent point. Maybe part of the reason masala films used to work back when they did was they took a stand and didn’t pussyfoot. QSQT took a stand against conservatism and violent feuding, for instance. Sairat was a hard reality version of QSQT in some ways and a massive hit and again it boldly called out the elephant in the room.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MANK
December 2, 2018
I’m inclined to think this plot point is so far out there, it’s practically irrelevant. It’s a manufactured cause, a politically correct subtext that’s neither here nor there
Its also a very good case of ripping off from the catwoman mythology. Just like a dead michelle pfeiffer is resurrected by a bunch of cats in Batman returns and becomes catwoman wreaking hovac on the streets of Gotham, here we have Dr salim ali surrogate being infused with the spirit of the birds. Cat-woman > Pakshi-raja
LikeLiked by 2 people
Venky
December 2, 2018
Exactly my thinking, MANK! Just like Karthik’s write-up of CCV, this, too, reads too much into a very average(I am counting Shankar’s ideas and the VFX in, otherwise it’s mediocre!) film. Where it differs markedly from the CCV write-up is that, as BR himself says, this is an “if only lament”, which karthik’s isn’t. BR’s write-ups are usually good, so that similarity goes without saying.
LikeLike
therag
December 2, 2018
Was this film made with the masala template at all? This was a very Hollywoodish film. If you take out the flashback, this film could have been made in Hollywood. Not all all high budget Indian films are masala films right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
December 2, 2018
BR, did you mean that if the writing is generic, then its better to not subvert a genre?
LikeLike
Gautam Nidharshanan
December 3, 2018
#AskBR Dear Sir, you have questioned filmmakers about involving writers in the process of film making very often. I consider Writer Jeyamohan is one of the sensible person whom you could converse a lot on this concern. Usually he is not a person who appears on social platforms and open to cine interviews, not even occasionally. But recently came across a interview of him on 2.0. It’d be great to see you both sharing a space simultaneously. I wonder If you could interview him…!?!
LikeLike
Marcus
December 4, 2018
My review of 2.0.
I happened to watch 2.0 last night. Nothing much to say about the film. Its not bad nor good, plain average. and nothing much remains with you the next day. Its less masala than a regular Shankar film, at least till the point where an irritating 2.0 or 3.0 version of Chitti show up (and Rajni starts his usual antics that he is famous for). Rajni was fine in the first half though. However, Akshay Kumar has done well here (and he shows up in the second half to save it). I think that is the main reason why hindi dubbed version is doing relatively better at box office. Akshay deserves all the credit for that.
This film needed to be an outright Rajni vehicle from the get-go to make it really big in TN/Telegu/Kerala belt. And to make it work well in high-end plexes all over india (referring to 227 cr nett from Avengers a few months back), it needed to mute Rajni in the second half. So its neither here, nor there – dangling somewhere in the middle.
I think in hindi version it will do 170-175 cr nett and be a plus film in the end. [ I am hoping it does 200 cr in hindi and gets certified as a hit. If Devgn could get a 200 cr film with the last Golmaal, then Akshay surely deserves to get there with his effort here.] However, in south its downward trend is likely to continue.
As for being a visual spectacle, Shankar uses his imagination better than he did in Enthiran. But the vfx execution is not as great as his imagination (probably budget constraints). There is a cartoonish feeling to the vfx execution here that it somewhat dilates Shankar’s visual ambitions. Hollywood extravaganzas are all beyond such amateurish feel. One needs to check the visuals from the upcoming chinese sci-fi production – The Wandering Earth, whose trailer recently released. Even our neighbors have cracked the vfx code much better than us.
The best thing about the film is Akshay by a margin. He has a good role, and performs v well. But his ‘message’ gets belittled by 2.0 – quite literally. Dont know why Shankar decided to trivialize the issue with cell-phones by the end of it all. He seems completely confused about what he wants to say in the film. Again a middle ground.
I wont recommend it as a visual spectacle. But wont discourage anyone who wants to watch it either – just for Akshay. For his message here and of course the way he entertains. And no, I am not an Akshay fan.
I wud prefer this film over ‘Katappa Kyon Maara’ sequel anyday. But its not a patch on Baahubali The Beginning either. Yet, its an upgrade from Enthiran – and a lot better than bollywood’s krrish series or any such sci-fi attempts from north.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
December 4, 2018
Marcus, that’s a fair analysis.Its strictly average fair bolstered by some great spectacle. I noticed the cartoonish effect in the VFX. Indian cinema has still to go a long way here.considering that this was a 75m$ film. yes they had to redo the vfx twice , so all that money is not on the screen, but when we see chinese films made for lesser budgets than this with much better VFX and considering India is the go to place for outsourcing vfx for even Hollywood companies, this is disappointing. As a film its no patch on either the 2 bahubali films or the first endhiran, But on the spectacle\special effects front it scores.
But i dont share your enthusiasm for Akshay that much. He was surprisingly good as the old man. but that entire flashback portion was utterly bland.He is hardly there as Pakshi Rajan as its all pixels created in computer and i am afraid his attempts at being terrifying is rather terrible , may not be as bad as in OUTIM2, where he was unintentionally hilarious, but still didn’t make much impact. And no i dont think Akshay is the major factor that the film is running well in the north, the film had opened poorly, , its more WOM, 3D and the bahubali effect- this big spectacle film from the south – that saved the day. But agree that Akshay deserves a 200 cr grosser. He has slogged long enough and worked his way up from being just an action hero in the 90’s to the point he is today. i wont grudge him , if he gets all the credit for its success in north.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marcus
December 4, 2018
MANK, appreciate your views on this. But from my perspective, I am swayed with what remains with me the next day after watching the film; rather than just the experience of watching it. In short, I recall every movie from its lasting residuals (if any). In this case of 2.0, what has remained well-sketched in my mind, are a few images of Pakshirajan’s sympathy for the hapless birds. The rest is all a bang for your bucks kind of stuff; like watching a T20 final in IPL.
I think if Shankar and team had highlighted more of Akshay in the trailers, 2.0 hindi may have opened around 20-25% higher than its eventual box office collections over the extended weekend. It is perhaps an opportunity lost for them.
LikeLike