Sudhish Kamath's Pad On The Net

Vishwaroopam, Polarisation and Duality

A colleague was recently attacked for his positive review of a film simply because he had authored a book on the filmmaker. This, despite the fact, that he had mentioned that in the review itself (This amounts to full disclosure).

Additionally, my colleague had expressly put it on record in the book that he’s a fan of the man. You cannot be more honest than this.

So maybe I should start with this piece with a disclaimer too.

I am a huge Kamal Haasan fan – to an extent that I believe that the difference between Kamal fans and others is that true Kamal Haasan fans are also smart enough to criticise his films. They are quick to see how The Scientist became Neela Vaanam.

I also know Mr. Haasan personally because I was once involved behind the scenes in organising the Chennai International Screenwriting Workshop. He’s always been an inspiration to me as a filmmaker and my film begins with thanks to him.

So, when his partner Gautami was telling me about their new portal Maiam, I had in fact suggested, that I would like to review ‘Vishwaroopam’. I told her that maybe I could write a very critical piece on the film once I had watched it and that they should carry it to establish the credibility of the website.

She was game. I was excited because I really wanted to find out if they would carry a bad review. Too bad we can’t find out now.

Because the day the film released, I messaged her back saying I cannot do it. I loved the film. It didn’t make any sense for Haasan’s own portal to carry a positive review.

Coming back to my colleague and the controversy of social networks attacking critics, I must admit that it’s quite a difficult task to resist from replying to people. Because the idea of a social network is to socialise with people. And when you are a film critic, everyone has a counter opinion.

This year, we have seen fierce disagreements on pretty much every other film. ‘Matru Ki Bijli Ka Mandola’ (which I thought was pretty OK though inconsistent and a few loved), ‘Akaash Vani’ (which I loved and many hated), ‘David’ (which I loved and many hated), ‘Kadal’ (which I thought was bad by Mani Ratnam standards but a few liked) and ‘Vishwaroopam’ (which I loved and a few hated).

When everyone is a critic, the art of criticism becomes even more significant. At the risk of sounding condescending/patronising, I must say here that the average Joe hasn’t been exposed to the basics of criticism or film studies. He reacts on an instinct, like a child getting his first injection saying: “I don’t like it. It was a bad experience.”

The average Joe probably hasn’t understood why willing suspension of disbelief” is such an integral aspect of storytelling, an artistic licence that allows the filmmaker to tell stories that are larger than life.

Which is why while he has every right to crap over everything he has paid to watch and troll anyone who does not agree with him, these shouldn’t be taken seriously for the same reason that critics shouldn’t be taken too seriously either. What you need to consider is the criticism – the arguments – why is it good or why is it bad.

Since, it’s easier to present further arguments using a modern relevant example, I am going to demonstrate by dissecting ‘Vishwaroopam’ and take you through my thought process of interpreting the film since this is a classic example of a film that’s got polarised reviews from critics, fans and haters.

And also because it’s all about the duality – of being a commercial film with so many metaphors to put most arthouse films made here to shame.

SPOILERS FOLLOW, read further only after watching the film.

Genre: Spy thriller.

What that means: Which means plot involving saving the world/country/city from bomb/some form of nuclear attack/terrorist plot/conspiracy. Simply put, not everyday events. These are things that require action, willing suspension of disbelief.

Director: Kamal Haasan

What that means: This is an atheist filmmaker and activist actor known to make films about humanity, compassion, non violence etc but is considered arrogant, indulgent and narcissistic. The films he has directed so far are usually rich in metaphors and recurring motifs. Mental note: Watch out for them.

The hero: Vishwanath a.k.a Viz who we learn is actually Wizam Ahmad Kashmiri, a secret agent who had infiltrated the Jihadi group.

What that means: First, Viz is an effeminate dancer, who isn’t quite the man of the house, contrasted with his working wife – a Brahmin meat eater – a sharp contrast to the vegetarian Muslim hero. The paradox.

The duality of all their roles. Like the trailer informs us: Everyone has a double role. “I am a hero and a villain” as the hero tells us, a man with “too much emotional baggage” that he has no time to get into since he needs to save New York. His surname Kashmiri is a hint of who the man is: A Muslim abandoned by his father, torn between his love for the State and sympathy for his brothers across the border. Till the end of the film, he refers to the villain of the film as his “brother Omar”.

The villain: One-eyed Omar Qureshi, Jihadi leader who considers Osama his mentor, but also questions his God.

What that means: An eye for an eye? Literally blinded by his beliefs (or possibly a bomb shrapnel/gunshot from American forces as we will probably find out from the sequel), he can only see one aspect of Jihad as presented to him by his mentor – Osama Bin Laden. Omar is educated, speaks English and acknowledges to Wizam that he knows health care is important but cannot afford to have white doctors around with American soldiers held hostage in the next village. He’s as human as anyone, a man who questions his God on the face of adversity. He’s troubled yet does what he believes is right. In one of the most telling shots in the film, he takes the filth from his teeth and feeds it to a pigeon – the metaphor for peace loving Muslims in the film. We see these pigeons in Afghanistan and later in the US. In the US, pigeons are poisoned with pellets that spread radiation and terror around New York. Pigeons and Jihadis who end up dead after being exposed to radiation in the warehouse: #sameguy.

The conflict: The growing terror network of Jihadis around the world caused by American attacks on the Islamic world.

What that means: Haasan decides to intercut between cause and effect – training in Afghanistan and terror in New York – while taking us through Wizam’s days as the villain (when he betrayed his brothers for his duty towards the State) intercut with his days as the hero (when he has to fight his brothers trying to wreck havoc among innocents). In the Afghanistan portions, we see him discover the human side of the Jihadi. Omar loves his son, who wants to be a DOCTOR not a WARRIOR (Later, we also see Omar playing with his son by blind-folding him and quizzing him on the kind of bullets – semi-blind man wanting to blind his son in his game of violence).

Omar’s son refuses to be called a child when Wizam tries to put him on a swing. But another child-like grown up is quick to get on the swing, is more easily swayed. This character ends up becoming a suicide bomber at the NATO base after he’s given a burqa (eerily introduced into the frame as a hand puppet by the senior Jihadi – again, a lovely metaphor to show that the kid has become the hand puppet later when he wears the burqa and blows himself up!). As we cut from the newspaper shot of his death, Wizam remembers the now dead kid swaying on the swing, as he walks across another swing with a younger child on it.

It’s a shot of the swing in the background that lasts all of two seconds. A little later, he sees the dead doctor lying near a dying horse, frees the animal from misery by shooting it dead (again, duality and the irony – that death is sometimes the kindest act you could do), takes her stethoscope and gives it to the kid who wanted to be a doctor.

The father walks in and points his finger like a gun and mock-fires at the kid’s defiance. The hero helps the kid point his finger as a gun at this father and mock-fires. The villain’s sidekick laughs, villain mock-fires at the sidekick. Kid runs out of his home and starts mock-shooting other kids. It has become a game. Kids shooting kids. Violence begets violence. This is a harbinger of things to come. American troops bomb the village, killing innocents. Cause. Intercut with Effect – Jihadis come to America, bomb New York. Not just Jihadis from Afghanistan, from all around, including Nigeria.

Treatment: Intercutting present with past, effect with cause, in a rather REALISTIC tone for a spy thriller!

What that means: This is a spy thriller. There’s absolutely no need for restraint. We have seen Bond, Bourne and even Agent Vinod do the craziest badass things. Yet, Haasan wants to play it real because he wants us to invest in the people and care for them. The only thrills are through rash driving cars in traffic. And gunshots. Not hand to hand combat. The spy knows he cannot barge into an FBI operation, he can only politely request: “Can I come with you?”

His wife, being an expert on the nature of the radioactive material, is asked to help the bomb squad. When she first mentions the Faraday Shield that was needed to stop the bomb from being triggered by a mobile phone, the bomb expert knows what she’s talking about. Later when she is allowed to the room by the FBI officer who thinks it’s over, she repeats the need to get a Faraday Shield. The bomb geek says the Faraday Shield “should be there in five minutes” (so he clearly has arranged for one already).

Realising that might be too late, she looks around and sees that a microwave could do the same. She saves the day. Why should she? Because education saves life. Not violence. A doctor saves life. DOCTOR not a WARRIOR (Deja vu? Omar’s son wanted to be a doctor) Woman preserves. Man destroys. Not the hero… who gets to put the last bullet into the Jihadi after he’s shot multiple times by the SWAT team. Compared to other heroes in movie situations like this, our hero doesn’t get to do much at all, except maybe blow through the bottom of the door to make a cockroach get away from the Spycam. Earlier when the FBI officer Tom apologises to him for kicking him, before he could say anything, his boss, the Colonel (Shekhar Kapur) butts in saying: “No need. These things happen.”

Haasan is happy to take the backseat and let other characters deal with most of the action. It’s quite unusual for a hero considered narcissistic to give the villain a far more complex role than his own.

Moral: A Muslim agent has to fight a Jihadi group that he once infiltrated and betrayed.

What that means: It’s not everyday do we see a spy thriller made out of India that looks so credible and plausible, while maintaining the equipoise and the duality of truth – of both camps. American and the rebel camp…The Jihadis.

The villain, Omar is fighting for a cause he strongly believes in. Even if it’s caused by blind beliefs, to avenge the death of his family. What US calls collateral damage. The duality of truth is that while there are fundamental Muslims like Omar, Vishwaroopam also tells us that are many liberal Muslims like Wizam, who marry Hindu girls, who stay vegetarian, are patriotic to the country, are peace-loving, have sympathy for their misled brothers… and yet are willing to fight for what they believe is right. To save innocents from collateral damage.

You can replace Wizam in Afghanistan here with Jack Sully in Pandora (Avatar). A man sent to infiltrate the natives for unobtanium/oil that the imperial capitalists want. While Jake wasn’t a native himself, here Kashmiri is a Muslim himself fighting his misled brothers. He maybe misled himself, given that his act of betrayal leads to death of innocents in Afghanistan. He knows he did a lot of wrong, which is why I strongly suspect that we will learn in the sequel that he did in fact, save Omar’s son, who is probably now studying to be a doctor.

It’s very rare to see a Muslim hero, a patriotic one at that, in our films. Or even American films for that matter. Haasan takes a genre template and infests it with so many metaphors, recurring motifs and meaning for those who like depth in their cinema. And I haven’t even got started on the science versus religion subtext (a theme that he explored in Dasavatharam as well).

But I have to concede it’s mostly lost on the audience. But I wouldn’t blame the filmmaker at all. Because that would be like blaming a writer for the illiteracy of his reader.

The average Joe isn’t cinema literate. Which is why criticism, NOT critics, is all the more important today. Criticism means arguments, not just judgments in 140 characters (though we do that too as a teaser to the full review later). We present our case, let you watch the film and make up your mind.

But at the end of the day, it’s still just one person’s opinion. I don’t expect you to agree with me. Similarly, it’s not fair for you to expect a critic to agree with you. If you will only read reviews you will agree with, you must write your own and read them.

A true critic understands duality. That it is possible for the film to be good and bad at the same time, depending on who’s watching it.

Which is why, it’s all the more important, to present your arguments and leave.

Let people be the judge.

Because people also are smart enough to see the difference between argument and judgment. Between reason and emotion. Between critic and troll!

(This was written as a guest post for IBN-LIVE)

About these ads

14 responses

  1. deemelinda

    Interesting Analysis Sudhish! I am of the opinion however that even Wizam Ahmad Kashmiri is also not his true identity. He is a RAW agent and plays several roles and this is one of them.
    I found the film/ though rich in metaphors-very indulgent in terms of repeating action sequences in slow motion. Kamal Hassan as director is fine but choosing to play a man much younger to his age- did not do justice to his character.The first suspension of disbelief was to ask the audience to believe he was in his forties ( at the most)
    Also I don’t understand your statement which says “Vishwaroopam also tells us that are many liberal Muslims like Wizam, who marry Hindu girls, who stay vegetarian..” especially the ‘staying vegetarian ” part. Muslims are not vegetarian per se. Vegetarianism is very specific to certain faiths- not Islam.Hence he would have to ‘turn vegetarian” not ‘stay vegetarian’. Also being liberal cannot be equated with being vegetarian. People who are non-vegetarians are liberal as well and vice-versa,
    Also, Vishwaroopam as a film, as much as I wanted to enjoy it, was a tiresome experience as it is very predictable and suffers from some bad pacing ( and some bad acting) It could be far better edited without losing the richness of the script. I love slow films which made consciously with that intention.Vishwaroopam, after choosing a genre that it wants to belong to, does not manage to keep up with it.

    February 11, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    • sudhishkamath

      I didn’t say vegetarian, hence liberal. Incorrect assumption but I see the sentence construction made you believe so. But yes, maybe I should’ve said “turn vegetarian” instead of “stay vegetarian” but there’s no proof of that in the film either.

      February 11, 2013 at 7:09 pm

  2. Reblogged this on The World is flat; like this webpage and commented:
    Well said

    February 11, 2013 at 7:58 pm

  3. shreyas

    for niroopama it was a marriage of convenience(so that she could do her Phd bla bla)
    for vishwanathan it was a marriage of convenience too cos he knew that she was going to work in deepak’s company and so he can get information through that company.
    niru has doubts on vishwa and assumes he is also cheating like her to clear away her guilty feeling . then later she understands that he truley loves her and does anything for her and saves her.
    slowly throughout the movie she understand that kamal is a good guy and not actually gay.
    finally they combine together and prevent the bomb from exploding.
    vishwanathan + niroopama =vishwaroopam (god takes vishwaroopam to protect the ppl if im not wrong? )

    February 11, 2013 at 8:09 pm

  4. Obuli

    Hi sudish excellent post on the finer nuances of the film! Me and my friends have argued countlessly since the movie released. Me against and my buddies for the film.
    I agree per se its an excellent Indian film. A film that India can be proud of. But is it an excellent Kamal film? I beg to differ, There has been better films from him than this.
    I disagree that Kamal sits back and let others do the acting. From the first to last scene invariably every scene has him. Second half beyond a point it became too much Kamal for me. Realistically tell me any one character you remember for good acting and screen space apart from Omar when the film ended?
    Also this you are an Indian RAW agent, working in collusion with US Military to kill Jihadis and expose what they are upto. In the process you discover that the leader is planning something very sinister in the heart of America, so logically what can you do?
    A. Use the GPS phone or transmitter which he and his ppl so readily have within the camp to alert the US FBI or CIA and make them prepared?
    B. Alert to Indian RAW who inturn alert the FBI
    or C. Take all upon yourself, go into the heart of America, painstakingly set up an alibi without even shred of alerting FBI and only after you voluntarily get caught you everything to them?
    And as shown in the movie immediately after they are informed the FBI are more of a help than hindrance to him which brings us to the question why did he keep it from them in the first place?

    What me and my friends agreed in the end was Kamal had two great stories, one about the Jihadi life in Afghan and two about international attacks. The way he mixed both of them wasn’t right. It ended too vague and singled out this is not his best film. A good film but not best.
    He has given out too little in first part and left himself too much to explain in second part.
    And me for one the motion capture didn’t work primarily because it was used too much. Ok when showing the Jihadis while planting the GPS transmitter it was good but throwing the money scene and all using it, was too artificial.

    February 11, 2013 at 10:02 pm

  5. Vivek

    I too contradict ur statement.
    The heroine dint know that vishwa is a Muslim while she marries him right.
    ‘Liberal Muslims like wasim’
    He married her by showing himself as a non-Muslim right?

    And the duality from Omar-
    He did go with his guys and trash the dance party and the guys who were dancing dressed as girls, which does means its a sin.
    And he tries the same technique by disgusting his warrior son as a female sending him as a human bomb.

    February 12, 2013 at 12:02 am

  6. At the beginning u say, “These are things that require action, willing suspension of disbelief.” Towards the end u say, “It’s not everyday do we see a spy thriller made out of India that looks so credible and plausible, while maintaining the equipoise and the duality of truth – of both camps.”

    So, I should suspend my disbelief and at the same time appreciate the film for being credible?

    Oh! This is also duality perhaps? Where’s Schrodinger’s cat when we need him!

    February 12, 2013 at 9:16 am

  7. mythily ramachandran

    neatly dissected and well written Sudhish.

    February 16, 2013 at 7:24 am

  8. why did an Indian Army guy get into a Taliban outfit in the first place ? Secondly, why did he along with his senior dupe a Brahmin girl into marriage faking to be a Brahmin ?!! It just beats me ! Do you have insights on these two, Sudhish ?

    February 16, 2013 at 5:16 pm

  9. Nithya

    Hi Sudhish – This is quite a review and I can see that you have put in a lot of thought in writing this. I personally , am not a fan of kamal Hassan, i.e, I appreciate what he is as an actor, but will not rush out to watch his films.( In fact after watching dasavatharam with the annoying Asin, I sent out an impromptu review, trashing the film to the now inactive bombaybitch and even received a Job offer , hahaha) BUT, I truly liked this movie, It was real and everyone has shades of gray and this brings in an element of realism. I also quite like the fact that the makeover for each role that Kamal played was flawless, especially so as ‘Wizam’. These things are pretty much over looked by other film makers. So this made me appreciate the movie more. I cannot comment on the technical aspects of the movie, as I am no expert, but felt every thing was done very well. I have always appreciated Rahul Bose and quite liked him in this movie.

    One thing that saddens me, is all the negative publicity, with vicious slurs on his personal life and the lack of support from within the film fraternity ( which should have been overwhelming ) in getting this film a timely release. But I also laughed when on of Mr.Hassan, aggressive fans said on national TV ‘ Naanga Avarukaaga Thee kulipoom’, Huh really? :)
    I hope all this adverse publicity, worked out well for Kamal and he really raked in the moolah with this project.
    I also hope that, Mr.Hassan, does not get ‘the once bitten…’ thingy and makes a sequel.

    All said, a fantastic review.


    February 19, 2013 at 9:06 am

  10. All you critics are searching for too much reality in a .cinema.The message which kamal’s film says is quite obvious.violence in any form is a double edged weapon and creates only hatred with in societies and in that process of getting an eye for an eye innocents get massacered for no fault of theirs.Instead of watching the run of the mill movies where heroes chasing the skirts and heroines in semi clad dresses dancing to numbers this is aquality movie.Kamal’s acting as an effeminate kathak dancer itself is worth the money.the faminine tinge a male dancer gets naturally after decades of performance comes to him with utter ease. He has done tremendous home work.

    February 20, 2013 at 8:11 pm

  11. K S Sriraman

    Honestly speaking, Brahmins should have caused a ruckus and not the Muslims for the way he portrays (degrades) them ..Mr Hassan carries his penchant for criticising them even in this film.. of course the way he acted as the effeminate dancer was par excellence…it would have been better if the screenplay was racy in the middle (i almost dozed off) for the kind of story it intends to narrate..

    March 3, 2013 at 10:30 pm

  12. arithar

    one interesting thing i noticed is that Omar applies eye-drops when salim is talking over the phone to farooq. when the scene cuts to farooq, a seeping water drop falls on farooq’s eye. I dont think that is mere co-incidence

    March 21, 2013 at 7:49 pm

  13. A great review loved reading it.. Simply genius! as was the movie itself… good luck with ur movie – from one Kamal ji fan to another ;)

    June 18, 2014 at 8:24 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43,973 other followers