By Gnanaozhi
The movie simply didn’t work for me. It has a severe GoT season 5-8 problem. Seasons 1-4 were sublime, it adapted the books faithfully but the Showrunners added some minor twists of their own (like that scene where Tywin is being served by Arya who is pretending to be a lowly servant). However once the source material ran out, it became a putrid pile of festering garbage. It looked stunning sure, the BGM by Ramin Djwadi is one for the ages, the acting was terrific but the core script just didn’t add up.
Ps1 was brilliant. PS2 the first half took the brilliance of Ps1 and then amped it up. The second half? Utter nonsense.
The brilliance of Kalki was that he took certain and known historic events, did meticulous research and then filled the gaps in.
So we know Adita Karikalan was murdered by the beauty of the work is the whodunit that runs throughout.
We know there was a Chola war against a Pandya rebellion.
We even know of high officials like Anirudha Brahamarayar or Vandhiyathevar.
We know Kundavei was a powerful noblewoman with her own vast estates who did a lot of good deeds.
We know that the line from Sundara chola skipped Arulmozhi went to Utama Chola and then came back to Arulmozhi aka Raja Raja. .
And a lot more historical facts. Kalki took these sparse facts and spun an exquisite tapestry.
MR though simply skips this meticulous research, writes guys characters into weird cul de sacs and worst of all commits atrocious historical errors.
Let’s start with the history first.
The Rashtrakutas and Cholas had a war, yes and the Rashtrakutas invaded also yes that’s right but it fricking took place during the time of Parantaka Chola 1. Parantaka Chola is the grandfather of Sundara Chola (Prakash Raj) and the great grandfather of the 3 siblings (Adita, Kundavai and Arulmozhi). By the time of the events being described the Rashtrakutas had ceased to exist.
This is like if someone made a historical movie on WW2 and showed the Germans allying with Napoleonic France to fight Soviet Russia. That’s how ahistorical this is.
Am not even bothering with the actual weapons or that Roman scutum style shield, or leather armour that looked like something a BDSM practioner would wear. Or the tactics. I assume that Indian directors in general, even someone as great as MR even bother with historical accuracy.
Spoiler territory ahead.
In the books it was not brawn or even chance but a battle of guile and wits. Anirudha Brahamarayar and Kundavi were the best of the best master of whispers whole Nandini on the other side could match them and even best them. Men turned to putty in her hands and she wielded that power fully. She was extremely strong willed (as was Kundavi or even side characters like Poonguzhali). The Nandini of the book and indeed the PS1 or the first half of PS2 would have not hesitated to plunge a dagger into AK’s chest and she most definitely would have not committed suicide or even regretted that she used Periyapazhuvetayar as a chess player would a Pawn.
Kundavi who orchestrated events had no role in the movie.
While yes watching Vikram who was in peak form was just amazing, the shift in focus from Arulmozhi to Adita also didn’t make any sense.
Parthibendra switching allegiance because…. reasons? Also made no sense.
Arulmozhi and Kundavi not even speaking for and on behalf of Vandhiyathevar? Makes no sense besides all is forgotten and suddenly he is back to being best buds with them?
Things happen not because of an organic movement of the plot, as Kalki structured it, which was akin to an intricate Swiss watch while here things happen because they have to happen.
Yes it looked stunning, the songs were good (the BGM simply didn’t work for me though), Vikram was sublime, as was Karthi. Even Jayam Ravi was good. The show stealers were young Vikram and young Aishwarya.
Lastly I get that Aishwarya is MR’s muse and all but she simply can’t pass off as this young ethereally beautiful woman. And that face has all the acting range of Steven Seagal!
Baradwaj Rangan 
Madan
April 29, 2023
Yet to watch and might be a long while before I can but…
SPOILERS If it’s true that the movie shows Madurantakan abdicating the throne to AV, that’s both ahistorical and laughable. Benefit of doubt : MAYBE Mani managed to justify it in terms of plot but on the surface, it feels like an unnecessary concession to populism.
LikeLike
brangan
April 29, 2023
The Nandini of the book and indeed the PS1 or the first half of PS2 would have not hesitated to plunge a dagger into AK’s chest and she most definitely would have not committed suicide or even regretted that she used Periyapazhuvetayar as a chess player would a Pawn.
I thought this arc was pretty well brought out. Because after Part-1, Nandini’s emotions are steadily humanised here. She is the same person till she meets the Pandiyas, but from the time she learns about Oomai Rani, she is steadily softened. By the time she learns about her parentage, she has turned from steel to putty.
(I am talking about the movie, not the book.)
Anyway…
LikeLiked by 3 people
gnanaozhi
April 29, 2023
@madan
Heavy heavy spoiler territory (giving a lot of text break below)
It’s worse. Madurantaka Devar alias Uttama Cholar doesn’t just switch sides, he is shown as walking right upto this imaginary Rashtrakuta emperor and allies with him. Even accepting his daughter in a marriage alliance. This is historical sacrilege. After the Battle of Takkolam, any such alliance was ruled out. If anything internal fissures and a rebellion will end the Rashtrakuta empire (except a tiny rump state) with a few decades of Takkolam (which was fought with Arulmozhi’s great grandfather was on the throne)
My point is, if it’s not based on Kalki and your own story, then sure feel free to have at it but one of Kalki’s strengths was his historical rigour. Heck even the Pandyan conspirators like Ravidasan are named in the Leiden plates as being traitors and responsible for THE murder.
@BR this shift to me at least was as unexplained as say Danerys going beserk and committing genocide in Kings Landing, just before Adita walks into her chamber she assures Ravidasan that she will do the deed. She a few days ago puts in a plan that would, if executed see the destruction of the Parantaka Chola line and we are to believe that she just randomly sees Adita and has a 180* change of heart?
It’s definitely not organic imho.
It is also interesting to me that the strong women characters of the book simply don’t translate to the screen and there are inexplicable changes here too. For instance young Nandini wasn’t the shy type shown in the books. She and Kundavi developed an intense rivalry because Nandini was jealous of the power and authority the young Kundavi wields. This if shown in the flashback would have given so much meaning to the line where she tells Adita that she always wanted power, riches and the throne (because that’s very clearly established in the books).
Too many changes that just don’t make sense
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nappinai (@Nappinai2)
April 29, 2023
Gnanozhi – I feel you’re being too harsh on PS-2 here. Needless to say, SPOLIERS AHEAD.
I will address the historicity of Rashtrakutas, Uttama Chola and Aditya’s murder.
The events of PS-2 take place around 970-973. At this time the Rashtrakuta ruler is Khottiga, who incidentally dies in the same year as Sundara Chola and Aditya (around 973). Khottiga is succeeded by Karka. So, the names in PS-2 are not fictional.
After the battle of Takkolam, Rajaditya (Parantaka’s son) is killed and Cholas lose vast tracts of territory in northern part to Krishna, the Rahtrakuta ruler and are reduced in power greatly. So, in no way did the Rashtrakutas cease to exist during PS-2. However, they’re engaged in war with the Paramara ruler at that time and then the Chalukyas, both of which they lose. Rajaraja eventually defeats the Chalukyas and establishes Chola supremacy. All that PS-2 does is take a short cut, IMO, to show Rajaraja’s decisive victory against Chola enemies. It’s not historical but not egregious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nappinai (@Nappinai2)
April 29, 2023
SPOILERS AHEAD – Now to the other two aspects you raise. Kalki himself struggles to solve the Uttama Chola conundrum. Most historians agree that Uttama conspired to assassinate Aditya and the Udayurgudi plates establish Pandya high officials as assassinators (Ravidasan, SomanSamabavan, Parameswaran etc.) It’s likely then that the two conspired. So, how did Uttama then succeed Sundara? Was Rajaraja unaware? Kalki solves this by having two Uttamas – one bad and one good. Mani has one Uttama who is not all bad and becomes good when it matters.
The books do allude to Aditya’s suicidal streak while the movie is more explicit. If I am not wrong, Periyava Pazhivettarayar does hint that the prince may have taken his own life because of which he takes the blame upon himself to save the Cholas from disgrace.
So, I don’t see why PS-2 is such a sacrilege compared to the books, I would argue it’s in line with Kalki’s take.
LikeLiked by 1 person
therag
April 29, 2023
No comments on the Rastrakuta-war-Madhuranthakan angle because I found it unconvincing as well.
But a lot of what you said does happen in the book. “The Nandini of the book and indeed the PS1 or the first half of PS2 would have not hesitated to plunge a dagger into AK’s chest” -> she does hesitate even in the novel. I don’t exactly remember but I’m quite sure it plays out very close to what we saw in the film (She wants to want to do it, but is unable to). Kalki had the luxury of not having to show exactly who did it while Mani does not. But I thought what we saw in the film was a sensible interpretation – Aditha Karikalan intends to get stabbed by Nandhini and initiates it, and then the Aabathuthvigals take over.
Parthibendhiran switches allegiance in the novels as well – and it is exactly as abrupt. Kalki even spends a few paragraphs saying essentially “Men will be Men” to justify this.
LikeLike
Anand
April 29, 2023
–Spoiler Alert—
@Madan In the movie , AV “sacrifices(Thyaga Sigaram)” the crown to the real and only Madhuranthakar (which is closer to reality) rather than to Senthan Amudhan turned Madhuranthakan as per the novel. The entire twist with child swap angle has been avoided , which makes it logical clean and more dignified to the royals.
LikeLike
Madan
April 29, 2023
SPOILERS
“In the movie , AV “sacrifices(Thyaga Sigaram)” the crown to the real and only Madhuranthakar (which is closer to reality) rather than to Senthan Amudhan turned Madhuranthakan as per the novel. ” – Oh wait, what I got from gnanaozhi’s post was that Madhuranthakan abdicated the throne to AV? In fact, Anuja and Kay’s comments on the movie thread also mentioned an inexplicable change of heart on the part of Madhuranthakan? Well, I guess I will wait to see the movie, whenever I am able to, to find out WHO actually became the king after all. The historical fact is that PS allowed Uttama Cholan to become king, who then ceded the throne after a short reign of a few years to PS (who became known as Raja Raja Cholan).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Satya
April 30, 2023
“The historical fact is that PS allowed Uttama Cholan to become king, who then ceded the throne after a short reign of a few years to PS (who became known as Raja Raja Cholan).”
Yes, that’s the film’s end as well, though the throne is passed to PS after Uttaman’s death. If anyone is livid that I spoiled this, please blame Wikipedia as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karthik
April 30, 2023
I thought this arc was pretty well brought out. Because after Part-1, Nandini’s emotions are steadily humanised here. She is the same person till she meets the Pandiyas, but from the time she learns about Oomai Rani, she is steadily softened. By the time she learns about her parentage, she has turned from steel to putty.
The arc of Nandini is one of most wonderful pieces of writing in this film. In Kalki’s version, Nandini was both fascinating and frustrating. She kept you guessing, and her motivations were at times hard to discern, especially because there’s that weird gap in her connection to Veera Pandian. As I remember it, Vandiyathevan was the only character who brought out a humane side of her. I also remember that some time after she orders his killing, Kalki had issued a big clarification on why she chose to do that. Now after she had made this choice to kill her own “humanity,” so to speak, it becomes conceivable that she was cold enough to do The Murder.
(Spoilers)
In the film, I thought the writers parsed her motivations and made it more accessible. That lengthy opening sequence establishes her feelings for Karikalan (and her eye on the throne too). At the end of that sequence, the angst Nandini owned was against the Chola royal family, and not specifically at Karikalan. Her hatred towards Karikalan is partly a “borrowed” hatred from the Pandyas, which is symbolized by the “fish” sword (and she is repeatedly reminded by Vasuki and Ravidasan about it.) We see Nandini’s face express something close to hatred only when she wields that sword. At those times, she’s acting on behalf of the Pandyas, acting on a dying man’s wish.
As to Karikalan’s act of killing Veera Pandian, the film made it out to be almost wholly driven by his feelings for her. My favorite moment in that final scene between Karikalan and Nandini is when she tries to “kill” him by killing their love, expressing that she only wants the throne. But when she drops the “fish” sword, she’s no longer acting for the Pandyas, but for herself. And even when Karikalan pleads with her to put him out of his misery, she is unable to. (there’s a bit of reverse Raavanan here).
LikeLike
Madan
April 30, 2023
“Yes, that’s the film’s end as well, though the throne is passed to PS after Uttaman’s death. ” – Ah, in that case, don’t see what’s wrong with the ending. I agree with Anand that it is in fact Kalki’s forced twist of making Senthan Amudhan the hidden claimant that doesn’t work so well and is not supported by history either.
LikeLike
VS
April 30, 2023
I think Mani has done as well a job as he could have, given the constraints of a 5-6 hour telling of a long historical novel. My guess is that he or (if someone else in the future) had gone for a series with say 9 – 10 episodes, the character development, plot points etc could have been detailed out even better. I felt like the first half of PS-2 was a bit rushed, no pauses to absorb the information but that is really the price Mani has to pay for such a rich script, the number of interesting characters running in the tens at least, the pace of storytelling and a 2 part movie.
LikeLike
Prat
April 30, 2023
“It is also interesting to me that the strong women characters of the book simply don’t translate to the screen and there are inexplicable changes here too.”
So true. Their agency was so diminished here, especially Nandhini’s and Poonguzhali’s. Nandhini is one of the best ever female characters we’ve got, and her end here was so pathetic and insulting.
LikeLike
Severus Snape
April 30, 2023
HEAVY SPOILERS
As a person who didn’t read the book but heard a 40-minute summary on YouTube, I didn’t feel as bad as the book readers might’ve. I thought MR would’ve extracted more drama out of the twist, but he did so after for the remaining plot points and probably decided not to confuse the audience. I only wish Periya Pazhuvettarayar got to die(especially after showing Nandhini committing suicide). At least from the version I heard, he kills himself out of guilt that he let himself be swayed by the girl’s charm and put the kingdom at stake. Considering how much the film glorifies the Cholas towards the end, he would have done his “part” by killing his own incompetent and repentance self.
LikeLike
Vanya
May 1, 2023
Spoilers ahead
Agree with others about the women in the movie. Not having read the book, I was disappointed in how Poonguzhali, Kundavai, Vanathi, and Mandakini were written. It wasn’t clear what motivated their actions (beyond supporting the men in their lives) and some of their personalities were almost interchangeable. Nandini was a refreshing change in PS-1, so it was all the more disheartening to see her position reverse by the end and watch her die by bad CGI. What was the point of having her deliver that badass line to Ravidasan only to have her unravel 5 min later? Why have that moving scene with her asserting to Vanthiyathevan that he was the first man to see her tears, only to reduce her to a puddle of emotions in front of everyone at the end?
That said, the movie was visually interesting and hopefully made a compelling case for Prime, Netflix, etc. to invest in a long-form show that allows the characters the depth they deserve.
LikeLike
gnanaozhi
May 1, 2023
Hey Napinai, good points you make, but my core I think still stands no?
As much as we can trust dates / years from history, Uttama Chola’s becoming crowned co-regent coincided with the demise of the Rashtrakutas.
If I remember Kamath’s Karnataka history well, even before Khottiga the Rashtrakuta were declining, and his reign was prtty much the end of it the Empire.
Looping back to the argument I made, Kalki researched history meticulously, including and upto naming conspirators and officials (Ravidasan, Aniruda Brahmarayar for ex) from real history. There was never any Rashtrakuta, Ganga, Pallava (also Eastern or Western Ganga but that is being pedantic to an extreme so leave that be) alliance invading Chola territory AFTER Takkolam.
Now, if it is a pure fantasy work, then sure go at it. Like I would never nitpick on “why did the Kalakayeas invade” for instance, because it is a High Fantasy universe and things happen per that universe’s rule. Here though imagining an invasion out of thin air jsut for a shoddily shot battle scene is pushing the boundaries of creative thinking.
@therag, it has been 4-5 years since my last read (just started my 5th re-read though, so will be caught up soon), but can you elaborate on how Adita had suicidal tendencies or Nandini ‘humanised’ enough that she would not kill her bete noire?
@ Madan, sorry that didn’t come through well, Madruantakar has a very weird arc. In the books and in PS1 he was shown as this dainty shiva bhaktar (in the books Nandini gets into his head, here I don’t think they even meet alone) who is even in the Queen’s palanquin. In Ps2, he raises an army of Shiva Bhaktas, swears an alliance with the Rashtrakuta EMperor, accepts his daughter in marriage (not sure if they ever married though), and then in a comically silly scene, the gang is assembled outside the Rashtrakuta war camp when he says something about being Chola blood and walks out, right back into the Arulmozhi camp and fights in the vanguard.
Broadly though am happy this movie came out and was a success, India needs a lot more historicals – our historical phase stopped in the 70’s with the angry young man trope that the Big B pioneered, that morphed into the pure masala garbage that the likes of Selmon Bhai and Vijay na push out. Sure we have other genres, serious movies, but historicals have been lacking and I hope BB, RRR and PS wake producers upto the goldmine they are sitting on.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nappinai
May 1, 2023
@Gnanozhi – I would have to disagree here. While the claim that the battle is not historical is true, it’s not as big a blunder as you make it out to be.
Your basic premise seems to be that the Rashtrakutas were declining after Takkolam (949 AD) indicating that they were not powerful enough to invade the Cholas. In reality, it was the other way around. The Cholas take a body blow at that battle and cede vast tracts of land to the former, ruled by Krishna III. In fact, it is the Cholas who are a declining force in the years prior to PS-1/PS-2. Also, note that the Rashtrakutas go on to win the Paramara ruler as late as in 963 AD.
The film is correct in showing the empire ended with Khottiga and Karka. no? The difference being it’s the Chalukyas who inflict this defeat. Chalukyas in turn are defeated by Rajaraja years later.
(The source material here is Nilakanta Shastri’s A History of South India.)
Look, I am not a big fan of the battle in PS-2 but I think it’s purpose is to convey that AV defeats the Chola enemies decisively to establish a grand empire, which is historically correct. Now, I don’t think it’s possible in a 2.5 hrs film to show all this history, so a short cut while not ideal is fine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nappinai
May 1, 2023
Also, the entire episode of two Uttamas of Kalki is weird. There is no historical basis for that as well. If you’re fine with that, why not with PS-2? What makes one less palatable than the other? Unless, of course your objection is purely from a story standpoint.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yajiv
May 1, 2023
“Also, the entire episode of two Uttamas of Kalki is weird. There is no historical basis for that as well. If you’re fine with that, why not with PS-2? What makes one less palatable than the other?”
Really want to hear the answer to this question.
Fascinating discussion nevertheless
LikeLike
vijay
May 1, 2023
when Karthi meets Kundavai finally, it ends up being more a romantic scene than some kind of reflief for Kundavai..whereas Kundavai should have been anxious wanting to know from him the fate of her brother AV and whether he was alive, and if so, how was he coping..but she is shown flirting instead and being in a romantic mood..did i miss anything before that scene that indicated Trisha already knew her brother was alive and fine in Naagai? if not, that scene was’nt placed well tonally..and veerapandiyan’s actual relation ship with Nandini was a bit confusing as well..I thought she was married to him in PS1 (or thats what was implied in the book) as it enraged Aditya karikalan to behead veerapandiyan..but she turned out to be his daughter? thats a bizarre twist..maybe again i missed something..these are rushed through at the end.
the movie really had 2 high moments for me..the siblings brief bonding after years of separation and the final Karikalan-Nandini encounter..both done well..I just wished there were a few more moments like this..but it looks like the novel must have been quite flabby for all its supposed twists and turns(one too many I suppose) and it probably took a lot of trimming and some clever liberty to even get it down to this..that way, its quite something.
LikeLike
Raghu Narayanan
May 2, 2023
Ultimately, I guess its like ‘to each, his own’…I for one did not at all find the Madhuranthakar / Utthama Thevar split / swap weird at any point. It worked for me big time when I was reading the book. I felt the kick when the twist came for there was never any indication of something like that up until then, at least for me, and I thought it was done really organically too. For one, IIRC, in the story the emergence of Sendhan Amudhan as the real son happens after the disappearance of the ‘until then’ Madhuranthakar. And, the swap of the new-born children also does not happen in the ‘cringe-worthy’ manner as it was happening in all out movies of the past decades. Having said that, as I had mentioned in my RWI as well, I also agree that MR’s dropping this line in the movie was quite wise. But he goes on to make a mess of the role in part 2 by showing him as a naive, indecisive and unworthy successor to the throne.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raghu Narayanan
May 2, 2023
“she does hesitate even in the novel. I don’t exactly remember but I’m quite sure it plays out very close to what we saw in the film (She wants to want to do it, but is unable to). Kalki had the luxury of not having to show exactly who did it while Mani does not. But I thought what we saw in the film was a sensible interpretation – Aditha Karikalan intends to get stabbed by Nandhini and initiates it, and then the Aabathuthvigals take over.”
The way I remember it, Nandhini in the book was all grey through and through. The only emotion that she showed which I felt was genuine was that her mother died before she could meet her. Everything else that she does or makes happen was always causing an element of doubt in my mind as to what her real motive was. Even in the scene (in the book) where she is waiting to kill Karikalan (where she is talking to Vanthiyathevan and Manimekalai), she talks and acts as if she wants to back out but does not do so. She says to Karikalan that she is incapable of killing him, and wants him to kill her – maybe all the while knowing that he will always be incapable of killing her. Even after the event, she is not shown to have any regret at having killed Karikalan. Maybe a bit of pity towards PP. However, MR could not have taken this line because where Kalki decided to leave Nandhini’s thread open-ended and therefore still grey, MR had to give a closure. In which case, she had to move out of the grey and into the territory of black and white. IMHO, he achieved this feat in the most masterly manner.
LikeLike
Maru
May 3, 2023
@Yajiv, I agree that this definitely an interesting question and hence my 2 cents on some bits of it.
@Nappinai, first off thanks for clarifying the deets, I was wondering about the historical facts of the final battle. In my understanding, historical fiction usually colors withing the lines of history – i.e. known/recorded dates, events, places and participants are generally kept intact and fictional narratives are introduced within them. In that sense, the “shortcut” that cuts across timeline, place and participants is definitely a violation of what I generally see as the rules of the genre. Perhaps how forgiving one is of the transgression depends on how much the film as a whole worked for the viewer. Like you I wasn’t a fan of the battle and would have preferred to have watched more of the character drama instead.
On the issue of the two Mudhurantakans, I’d agree that it was a clunky and convoluted plot line by Kalki. PS2’s re-imagining was definitely more spare and elegant. In analyses of Kalki’s PS I’ve often seen references to the inordinate influence of Alexander Dumas on his characters – e.g. D’Artagnan like Vandiyadevan or Milady like Nandini. It’s not a direct parallel but I did wonder while reading the books whether The Man in the Iron Mask influenced the tale of the Madhurantakans and the twins separated at birth.
At any rate, in PS2 the lightning quick volte face of Madhurantakan (from fierce aspirant to the throne to Arunmozhi’s loyal ally) gave me whiplash. Of course they didn’t have time to set that up better but having made that plot choice they also chose to just hand wave us through it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
vijay
May 3, 2023
Maru, what about the whole angle of Nandini’s alleged husband(or lover), Veerapandiyan suddenly being revealed as instead her father? thats a perverse twist..i havent read the book, but readers have claimed that VP marries her a couple of day before his demise..really? why would he do that knowing that she is his daughter? or did I get it wrong? In the movie it left me a bit confused, the rushed reveal at the end..seems like even amongst the bookphiles there is some confusion..
https://www.quora.com/Is-Veerapandiyan-Nandhinis-father-or-lover-in-Kalkis-Ponniyin-Selvan-novel
LikeLike
brangan
May 3, 2023
vijay: PS was not written like a regular book, in which the author could go back and make changes. Kalki wrote stuff week after week — so there many small and big inconsistencies, and the biggest is probably this Nandini factor. Even Karuthiruman — at one point — says he fathered Nandini and Madhuranthakan.
But in the movie it is very clear, no? She nursed vengeance on behalf of Veera Pandiyan. Finally, when she realised he was the father (by raping her mother), everything that she stood for until that point falls apart. She realises that the only person who has been true to her is Periya Pazhuvettaiyar. So she thinks of him in her final moments. I think this is very clean.
Maru: Regarding “the lightning quick volte face of Madhurantakan,” it is foreshadowed in Part 1 (the fact that he is a Shivabhaktan and even his mother says he does not have the fighting qualities that Aditha and Arunmozhi have) and in Part 2 (when Prabu lays siege and Madhurantakan escapes through the dungeon, saying he wants no bloodshed and he will take the throne when everything is okay). So he just wants the throne and there are hints that he is repelled by violence, and when he hears the Rashtrakuta king putting together a war alliance, he says he does not want the throne that way and does that volte face. Even in the books, he is kinda not really a schemer. His mother was the one who insisted Sundara Chola ascend the throne after her husband died, so maybe she was a bigger schemer 😀
For me the only issue about Madhurantakan was that he joined the Cholas in the war at the end, being a sort of coward/kinda-sorta pacifist/unskilled in martial arts.
LikeLike
vijay
May 3, 2023
“But in the movie it is very clear, no? She nursed vengeance on behalf of Veera Pandiyan.”
that’s clear that she nursed vengeance, but its not clear how she looked at Veerapandiyan and why would she seek vengenace, what was the relationship between her and veerapandiyan ? did she know veerapandiyan for a long time?..we are just shown that Vikram sees her with Veerapandiyan and kills him..so I could assume that she married veerapandiyan(and in the book she asks AK to spare her ‘husband’s’ life whereas in the movie no dialogue is spoken) and seeing her husband getting killed in front of her, she sought vengenace..if that’s the case, then the twist at the end of VP being her father is bizarre, especially for its times..(or are we to assume that just because veerapandiyan was played by a much older actor like Nasser they had sort of a father-daughter kinda relationship?) Since the whole movie revolves around this vengenace plot, this should have been brought out better. Unless I missed something in the movie itself that explains their relationship earlier.
LikeLike
Rahini David
May 3, 2023
Vijay: I have watched both movies and read book one. I was also shocked when I read the whole “kadhalan” statement in the books.
As per the movie’s last scene (and no knowledge of the books 2-5) Ravidasan says Veerapandian always had spies around ‘orphan’ Nandhini and was curious about her whereabouts and that after she was exiled from chola kingdom he accepted her as a sort of agathi inpite of knowing that she deserves better. It is assumed that she showed gratefulness to the pandian king which he believed that would be washed away if the paternal relationship (and rape situation) was admitted openly.
LikeLike
Rahini David
May 3, 2023
I assume there is a point to parthibendra pallavan in the books. But in the movies he can be completely axed and would not have changed the plot or characterisations one jot.
Or am I missing something there?
LikeLike
Enna koduka sir pera
May 4, 2023
In the books, it is not very clear what the relationship between Veera Pandian and Nandini is. Given that, I thought the movie did a clean job of not clearly ascribing what the relationship between Nandini and VP is and yet convincing me as a viewer as to why she would seek vengeance. And as BR says, the moment where she finally realizes that he had raped his mother, completes the arc of her character.
What was not clear to me was the final scene where she goes into water, she says that everybody used her as a tool except for Periya Pazhuvettaraiyar. Why does she say AK abandoned her, when she knows now that he didn’t have any part to play in her being sent away. Is it because she thinks he didn’t come to find her and get her?
With all this, the Chinnanjiru Nilave song is still haunting in my head and I wish an entire movie would be made with just the AK-Nandini story 😀
LikeLike
Enna koduka sir pera
May 4, 2023
Rahini – In the books, his character is always shown to be in competition with Vandhiyathevan from the beginning. (SPOILER for the BOOK) This ultimately results in him falsely accusing Vandhuyathevan of killing AK – which is also shown in the movie, but in an unconvincing way and Vandhiyathevan doesn’t suffer any consequences as they go to the final war immediately. But, in the book, he is imprisoned for 10 years because of this. The movie definitely did not have the space to depict all of this – which is again why I feel it should have been at least 1 more part to show the character arcs and transformations convincingly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maru
May 4, 2023
@Vijay: In the books Kalki leaves the entire origin of Nandini a mystery – we are left guessing about what her relationship to Veera Pandiyan was. At the end Kalki simply says we may see her again somewhere down the road. One can only surmise that he figured he may pick up the story thread at a later time but never got the chance to do so. Even though the movie re-imagined her origins, I didn’t have a problem with that. How to adapt the fictional portions is the prerogative of the writers. Changing historical timelines and characters seems more problematic to me.
@brangan: In the books we weren’t left in any doubt about Madhurantakan’s cowardice from the moment he gets out of Nandini’s palanquin at Kadambur. It’s clear that he wants the throne but only by riding on the bravery and initiative of others. His mother was definitely a canny schemer/strategist and blocks his ascent to the throne from the start. Not sure if Kalki intended it from the start but certainly by the end (with the 2 Madhurantakans plot) it’s clear why – he wasn’t of Chola royal blood and could possibly have been Veera Pandiyan’s son.
However in the film even if his pacifist nature/cowardice is established the volte face is still unexplained in that his sudden willingness to be Arunmozhi’s slave rather than hang back and support the enemy doesn’t make any sense. As you said his abhorrence of war doesn’t explain why he volunteers to lead Arunmozhi’s army take the first blow. I don’t think any of it is set up convincingly.
@Rahini: There are plenty of characters in the movie who didn’t have a whole lot to do and could have easily been axed without the movie suffering a whit – At least Parthibendra Pallavan is a character from history but a host of other fictional characters given how little they had to do could easily have been axed – Sendan Amudhan, Chinna Pazhuvettaraiyar , Poongoozhali (who is such a kick ass character in the books!) could all have been very easily left out. Perhaps the decisions on who to include had to do with a sense of loyalty to the cast of characters in the books and also perhaps to wanting to keep options open at the editing table where the film gets rewritten all over again. I hope brangan does Conversations Part 2 and gets us some of the answers 😉
LikeLike
brangan
May 4, 2023
I thought the mystery around Nandini was brought out in a very intelligent stretch of the screenplay. Trisha gets one “theory” from Prakash Raj. She is unconvinced. Then she goes to Jayachitra and gets another “theory”. That whole “Nandini origins” bit is cleanly folded into this stretch.
PS; Trisha could be a stand-in for the viewer, mulling over all this for many years 😀 😀
LikeLike
Enna koduka sir pera
May 4, 2023
BR – do you have any inside secrets on whether MR has any plans of releasing an extended version of PS, just like Vetrimaaran did? Pls pls share if you know 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raghu Narayanan
May 4, 2023
“But, in the book, he is imprisoned for 10 years because of this.”
I think this needs to be double checked because I certainly don’t remember it that way. In the book, the whole story happens between the months of Aadi and Thai, no (about 6 to 7 months time period)? Yes, VT does get imprisoned in the pathaala sirai but then he and Karuthiruman overpower Pinakapaani and escape. So his period of imprisonment is only for a few days, IIRC.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raghu Narayanan
May 4, 2023
BR – For me the only issue about Madhurantakan was that he joined the Cholas in the war at the end, being a sort of coward/kinda-sorta pacifist/unskilled in martial arts.
I feel that the entire Mathuranthakar’s character has been scripted indecisively and asynchronously in the movie. He is shown to have the qualities of Kalki’s Mathuranthakar all through, but there is no twist of real vs substitute, as was in the book. So now a coward has to be shown as a ascending the throne, which is unacceptable. So he had to be seen as being brave. There is no consistency here. The other inconsistency is about him joining hands with Rashtrakutas, who are enemies of the Chozhas and who had handed them a resounding defeat at Takkolam. Given this history, no true Chozha, leave alone one who aspires to be the next king, will join hands with them. But MR shows Mathuranthakar does exactly this, which is equal to being a traitor. And the reward for such a traitor would be death and not the crown. That’s why I feel this whole character has been completely messed up in the movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
vijay
May 4, 2023
“I thought the movie did a clean job of not clearly ascribing what the relationship between Nandini and VP is and yet convincing me as a viewer as to why she would seek vengeance.”
does the book describe then as to why AK kills VP? he doesnt know the extent /nature of relationship between Nandini and VP..so why is that when he sees them together he gets even more enraged and kills VP? is it because, as in the book, Nandini asks him to spare her ‘husbands’ life and that enrages him even more? we dont hear what she says in the movie, as the music takes over..for me to empathize with Nandini’s motive for seeking vengenace(and thats important given that this movie gives the vengeance thing precedence over all other threads), they should have added a scene or two in the initial AK-nandini flashback scenes as to how she was taken in as a refugee and was cared for by VP and so she looked up to the Pandian king..instead they stop with just nandini fleeing the chola kingdom, we dont know what happened to her between then and the time she became PP’s wife..its all revealed in a rush with Ravidasan’s confession at the end..
LikeLike
Rahini David
May 4, 2023
Enna koduka sir pera, Why does she say AK abandoned her, when she knows now that he didn’t have any part to play in her being sent away. Is it because she thinks he didn’t come to find her and get her?
I think N always knew that AK did not have an actual active part in her being sent away. But he had previously told that he is going to war and he also just before going to said war announces that this poor girl is going to be his pattathu raani. He seems too naïve to guess what will happen to an orphaned girl if he just announces his intensions to make her queen and then galavants away. He is too privileged to understand the situation she actually is in.
Also going to war obediently when asked to is his calling and that maybe something she did not understand or chose to not understand.
Also when we say stuff like “You are the only one who was always there for me”, we don’t always literally mean it. It only feels that way and Nandhini feels that way about PP. That is how I saw it.
LikeLike
Rahini David
May 4, 2023
Also, a question for those who read all the books.
I found the first book easy to follow but I didn’t that much excitement.
Will reading the other 4 books be worth it or is it more of the same?
Note: I found both movies especially the second completely enjoyable.
LikeLike
Anand
May 4, 2023
Kalki’s novel was ambiguous in Nandhini-Veerapandiyan relationship , lover or daughter was not clarified.
MR clears it leaving no doubt that she is his daughter. Surely leaving it ambiguous would have landed him in another controversy that he suggests incest.
Nandhini here is shown as beliving herself to be a foster daughter of Veerapandiyan and when she learns that he is bioligical father and had violated her mother, she feels disappointed
and adds fuel to her final decision.
LikeLike
vijay
May 4, 2023
“Nandhini here is shown as beliving herself to be a foster daughter of Veerapandiyan ”
is that mentioned in any scene that she thinks of herself as his adopted daughter ? did she plead with AK to not kill VP as she is his adopted daughter?
LikeLike
Nappinai
May 4, 2023
“is that mentioned in any scene that she thinks of herself as his adopted daughter ?”
When Nandini is in the bullock cart driven by the Pandiyan lady -in-waiting, she is reminded that Veera Pandiyan cared for her like a father. He protected her from preying men and you don’t sense Nandini objecting to it. That’s the scene where their relationship is explicitly told for the first time. In fact, Nandini is reminded how AK abandoned her while Pandiyan shielded her like a father.
As others have pointed out, the books are not definitive about Nandini’s relationship with Veera Pandian. In the initial books it does look like Kalki wanted to show her as his lover or let his readers believe so. One must remember, it’s primarily Aditya Karikalan’s POV that Nandini addressed Pandiyan as a lover/ husband.
However, in the later books this changes. There is a conversation between Azhwarkadiyan and Vandiyathevan towards the end. The former says, Karikalan was in a psychotic rage when he was chasing Pandian and seeing Nandini there drove him over the edge. There is no saying what Nandini told and what that mad Karikalan heard. For, all we know she could have said father! (Azhawarkadiyan is the one who indicates Pandiyan’s hideout to AK , so while he wasn’t in the hut, he was present during the chase).
The AK in books is a different beast than the Vikram character we get in PS-2. The film AK has lost the light and fight even before he enters Kadambur. However, the AK of Kalki is a raging tusker, at the peak of his youth gripped in a psychotic rage. In the Kadambur scene from the books, he says things that don’t make sense, make him seem unhinged but at the same time sends shivers down the spine of everyone there, including Nandini. So, it’s very plausible that this mad man misheard Nandini in Sevur when he beheads Pandian 🙂
LikeLike
Nappinai
May 4, 2023
Enna koduka sir pera, Why does she say AK abandoned her, when she knows now that he didn’t have any part to play in her being sent away. Is it because she thinks he didn’t come to find her and get her?
Nandini has a deep sense of abandonment due to her being raised as an orphan. If you notice, she uses a similar term for her mother in the last scene despite knowing the terrible circumstances of her birth. She doesn’t cut Mandakini any slack either. I don’t think it’s possible for someone like her, given her life, to not feel abandoned by AK.
Moreover, one must remember AK beheads Pandiyan despite her pleas. That one act of his, sets her on a path of revenge that was a subterfuge. It was never hers and she is played by the Pandyas. If AK had listened to her, her life may not have been so cruel. So, she carries some of that resentment as well.
LikeLike
Maru
May 4, 2023
@Rahini: I thought the stakes were raised and things became increasingly thrilling and absorbing as we went on but I was hooked from Book 1. It reaches a crescendo in Book 4; Book 5 (which is the equivalent of 2 books) was a bit of a slog and after we lost the electrifying presence of Karikalan, things dulled quite a bit for me. It’s probably obvious by now that I’m a huge fan of the books so you should take what I say with a grain (sackful) of salt 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
May 4, 2023
Thanks Maru. Previously the names intimidated me. Now, the movies have become a sort of Konar Notes. I am planning to go through them in the strict pace of one chapter per week. Hopefully that would be a reasonable pace for someone who had lukewarm response to parts of the book, but enjoyed parts of it.
LikeLike
Raghu Narayanan
May 4, 2023
“Moreover, one must remember AK beheads Pandiyan despite her pleas. That one act of his, sets her on a path of revenge that was a subterfuge. It was never hers and she is played by the Pandyas. If AK had listened to her, her life may not have been so cruel. So, she carries some of that resentment as well.”
It’s really the beauty of Kalki’s imagination that he had sketched Nandhini’s character so grey that it is open to multiple interpretations. Also, in the book it does not seem that the Pandiya conspirators – Ravidasan and Co., were aware of who Nandhini is and what her relationship with Veerapandiyan was. We know this because, finding her with Veerapandiyan’s body, they tied her hand and foot and were going to burn her along with him. However, only because she promises to help in taking revenge do they allow her to live. We know this based on the first meeting between Nandhini and Ravidasan in the latha mandapam. So it could again be that Nandhini took an oath to seek revenge just to stay alive. All very grey.
Regarding her relationship with Veerapandiyan, as it seems that the Pandiya conspirators are not aware of who she is, I guess we must assume that it was either a secret relationship or one that happened after Veerapandiyan escapes from the final battle at Sevur and therefore a very brief one. But still it was possible that Veerapandiyan, in that brief period tells her about her mother which then gets him her loyalty.
LikeLike
Raghu Narayanan
May 4, 2023
@Rahini: ” I am planning to go through them in the strict pace of one chapter per week.”
Luck to you! Assuming here that you are reading the Tamizh version. I got hooked right after the secret midnight meeting in Kadambur. After that it was, for me, un-put-downable!!! I averaged 1 book every 3 days and finished it in about 15-16 days. So, happy reading!
LikeLiked by 1 person
vijee
May 5, 2023
@RahiniDavid –Here is a wonderful audio version of the 295 chapters of PS. (Only Volume I & II have been covered in PS1 — which is about 90 chapters). Narration by Deepika Arun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yK_so1IEzU&list=PL-huV8Ukorxv8g8q-YOUEru-P76CGZQ3A .
Should you read or not read? If you read it, you will understand what a great job Jeymohan & MR did in patching the many holes in Kalki’s plot.
Of course, in the adaptation they also chose to excise a lot of it and, frankly many of the characters like Manimeghalai, Pinakapani and so on are extraneous and you can see why for yourself.
In my opinion Kalki introduces that Karuthiruman character played by Yog Japee very, very late… though his ‘secrets’ are pivotal to the plot. So, again good job with the adaptation.
LikeLike
vijee
May 5, 2023
Folks, help me here:
Why on earth did that Sembian Madevi and her husband name their son madurankanthan (Destroyer of Madurai) if all they wanted or him was a quite saintly, Shiv-bhakht kind of existence. Such hyprocrites!
Later he was a benevolent king and earned the title “Uttama” Chola — so good for him.
You may have driven by a town called Maduranthakam in the Chinglepet district, with the Maduranthakam lake. It is said to have been built by the Uttama Chola, also called as Maduranthaka, during his reign, according to Wiki.
Also that Kundavai character — in the movie (and perhaps the book too) turns around and asks her dad why didn’t you marry Mandakini? How could you have abandoned her etc? Geez — Didn’t that supposedly smart want her brother AK to do just that — Have nothing to do with the commoner Nandini?
Or was it Sembian Madevi too who wanted Nandini out? Then in the book she is hardly likely to have been noble enough to accept Mandakini’s son as her own — again not royal blood, not a Chola etc. etc. even if she did try to make sure that substitute son did not sit on the Chola throne.
LikeLike
vijee
May 5, 2023
@napinai Poonkuzhali laughed at Sembian’s Madhavan strange offer for domestic bliss — that was true to character I thought, and I could not digest her about-turn in the book.
LikeLike
Ravi
May 9, 2023
@Vijay
“(and thats important given that this movie gives the vengeance thing precedence over all other threads),”
In the post-release interviews, writer JeMo and others were projecting it as a great love story between AK – Nandini (among other love arcs like VD – Kundavai, VD – Manimekalai, Poonkuzhali – AV, Sundara Chozhar – Mandakini etc ). It’s like setting the narrative after seeing the output. At least Kalki never set out to write this as a great, unfulfilled love story.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
May 9, 2023
I was very disappointed in PS2 (just as much as I loved PS1). It was flat, had too many slow-mo sequences and while it all looked very beautiful (and the women’s jewellery was to die for!) it just felt soulless. The only part which made me feel anything for any character on screen was the confrontation scene between Nandini and Aditha Karikkalan. Aishwarya and Vikram did a good job of it. In fact, I think Vikram was the one actor who really made the role his own.
The women – Kundavai, Poonkuzhali, etc., were completely sidelined in this telling (though I am really glad Vanathi was ignored – the character is irritating).
And while I understand the many changes made to the original plot, Madurantakan expressing remorse was so out of the left field that I just couldn’t believe it. (Of course, that could also be because they needed a reason to have this Madurantakan accept the crown at the end.)
p.s. I really didn’t like the translation I read – it was such a banal retelling of the story, but even that was preferable to this totally bland version I watched.
p.p.s Mani should never ever do action scenes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
vijay
May 9, 2023
“In the post-release interviews, writer JeMo and others were projecting it as a great love story between AK – Nandini (among other love arcs like VD – Kundavai, VD – Manimekalai, Poonkuzhali – AV, Sundara Chozhar – Mandakini etc ). It’s like setting the narrative after seeing the output. At least Kalki never set out to write this as a great, unfulfilled love story.”
Right. I didnt come with the baggage of having read the novel and still was left unsatisfied at a few places. The AK-nandini scene was the emotional high point and done well, it did something to me. After that, the air left the balloon. Vikram is the male star who comes out a bit ahead after PS-2. Hope he uses this break to make wiser screenplay choices for Innings 3 of his career.
LikeLike
MANK
May 9, 2023
Vikram’s next “Thangaalan” with Pa Ranjith looks promising. He has lost a lot of weight for the role.
LikeLike
brangan
May 9, 2023
MANK: Something happens with posts that have links. And yes, I too think BRAVEHEART was the last time we got a TERRIFIC non-choreographed looking war scene that was all about chaos.
As for the REVENANT example mentioned above, it is a fab scene – but it is choreographed to death. You can practically feel the presence of the camera operator.
LikeLike
vijee
May 15, 2023
I took a break during the battle scenes — that is how much I liked them.
Wish they had more scenes of Mandakini diving in the deep sea to save the prince and things like that which we have not seen elsewhere. Our Tamil foremothers have been diving into the sea for a long time now apparently. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/05/07/1129895843/its-not-for-the-faint-hearted-the-story-of-indias-intrepid-women-seaweed-divers?fbclid=IwAR0nvl86_2v_meNu__63eZJ9A_V2Ea3VVk3mfZyHgKiwMib_cgtB2ypQA1M
LikeLike
Voldemort
May 16, 2023
Interesting points about chaotic battles. What do you guys think about the battle of the bastards in Season 6 of GoT? I thought it was very well done, showed the brutality and suffocation of the war, (let’s forget the plot armour saving Jon), the stakes were so high and it was absolute mayhem.
LikeLike
Anand
May 16, 2023
@vijee Very interesting read on seaweed collectors. Its sad that they need to risk more to compensate for the alchohol addiction of their husbands’ that drains their families.
LikeLiked by 1 person