I will set aside the many structural and creative problems with Ala Vaikunthapuramulo. Honestly, they are the more forgivable issues. I have, and did have even while watching the film last night, two major problems with its philosophy.
1. OGLING IS NOT ROMANCE. Maybe women who enjoy it exist but I have never known any woman who would want to be with any man who creeps her out. Maybe Pooja Hegde enjoys it or she thinks the character Amulya is the type who finds it flirtatious. Many women won't. Trivikram has always written crappy heroines, usually bimbos, who don't need any reasons to fall in love with his heroes. Infact the one strong woman I can think of in his oeuvre is the Parvathi Melton character in Jalsa who expresses her interest in the hero but is turned down because he accuses her of being intelligent. One argument I can see coming is that these are just characters and he does it to bring out the humour but if he keeps doing it and if it's the only thing he seems to be capable of, it gives an indication that he doesn't see anything beyond it. Even the ostensibly progressive strong heroine in Ala, who built up her own business, needs the hero to help her refuse offers she does not want to accept, cannot tell her father that she does not want to marry the person he chooses, and falls head over heels with one of her new employees who introduces himself by salivating at the sight of her uncovered legs. Telugu film heroes and heroines don't need to talk to her each, don't need to share interests or spar ideas, don't need to bond emotionally to fall in love. Their bonding is expedited by the need for a duet.
2. A person's birth deciding his fate is what we call Casteism. We call a society modern if it tries to negate what we believe is the accident of birth by giving every individual an opportunity to realise their fullest potential. I understand Valmiki who is so filled with jealousy that he wants to torture the kid who is his boss's son. What I don't understand is the pride with which Ramachandra claims Bantu. He is overjoyed to realize and take credit for begetting the hero. What he does not realize that he has failed as a father. To be a father is not to complete the biological requirement but raise the kid to be the person you are proud of. And in that respect Ramachandra is a colossal failure because he is repulsed by the person he raised, his true son. This argument holds if you believe that kids are who we raise them to be, atleast to a large extent. By that account both Ramachandra and his wife have failed and Valmiki, despite his best efforts, and his wife have succeeded.
But if you think that we are who we are born as, choosing nature over nurture, then Ramachandra has a reason to be proud, Bantu is the ordained king and Raj will never be anything but a servant. This is what we call caste. Trivikram could have this viewpoint, and I have no problems with that but that raises the question of why did ARK pick Ramachandra from his 'lowly' state and hand him over the kingship?
I've been told many times earlier that I overthink these things, that a 'commercial' film does not have to or need to get into any discussion of competing ideas, that a large section of the audience comes to a theatre not to think but to 'not think' about their problems. Maybe, but no cultural artefact is created in vacuum. It is, consciously or otherwise, a certain way and those thoughts follow structures. And many things we find problematic, inconsistent or unacceptable also come from those structures. And it is those structures that I want to understand and question.
--
In this wonderful interview with Kunal Karma, Anubhav Sinha compares two different riffs on the concept of societal hierarchy. There is a line in Super 30 that goes, "Raja ka beta raja nahin banega. Raja wohi banega jo haqdaar hain." In Article 15, one character questions the other by asking, "Agar sab log samaan hojayega, toh raja kaun banega" to which the other character replies, "Raja ki zaroorat hi kya hain?".
"Middle class predominant గా తయారవ్వటం అంటే అది భయంకరమైన situation. Middle class is dangerous.. for many things" -కె. శివారెడ్డి గారు
1. OGLING IS NOT ROMANCE. Maybe women who enjoy it exist but I have never known any woman who would want to be with any man who creeps her out. Maybe Pooja Hegde enjoys it or she thinks the character Amulya is the type who finds it flirtatious. Many women won't. Trivikram has always written crappy heroines, usually bimbos, who don't need any reasons to fall in love with his heroes. Infact the one strong woman I can think of in his oeuvre is the Parvathi Melton character in Jalsa who expresses her interest in the hero but is turned down because he accuses her of being intelligent. One argument I can see coming is that these are just characters and he does it to bring out the humour but if he keeps doing it and if it's the only thing he seems to be capable of, it gives an indication that he doesn't see anything beyond it. Even the ostensibly progressive strong heroine in Ala, who built up her own business, needs the hero to help her refuse offers she does not want to accept, cannot tell her father that she does not want to marry the person he chooses, and falls head over heels with one of her new employees who introduces himself by salivating at the sight of her uncovered legs. Telugu film heroes and heroines don't need to talk to her each, don't need to share interests or spar ideas, don't need to bond emotionally to fall in love. Their bonding is expedited by the need for a duet.
2. A person's birth deciding his fate is what we call Casteism. We call a society modern if it tries to negate what we believe is the accident of birth by giving every individual an opportunity to realise their fullest potential. I understand Valmiki who is so filled with jealousy that he wants to torture the kid who is his boss's son. What I don't understand is the pride with which Ramachandra claims Bantu. He is overjoyed to realize and take credit for begetting the hero. What he does not realize that he has failed as a father. To be a father is not to complete the biological requirement but raise the kid to be the person you are proud of. And in that respect Ramachandra is a colossal failure because he is repulsed by the person he raised, his true son. This argument holds if you believe that kids are who we raise them to be, atleast to a large extent. By that account both Ramachandra and his wife have failed and Valmiki, despite his best efforts, and his wife have succeeded.
But if you think that we are who we are born as, choosing nature over nurture, then Ramachandra has a reason to be proud, Bantu is the ordained king and Raj will never be anything but a servant. This is what we call caste. Trivikram could have this viewpoint, and I have no problems with that but that raises the question of why did ARK pick Ramachandra from his 'lowly' state and hand him over the kingship?
I've been told many times earlier that I overthink these things, that a 'commercial' film does not have to or need to get into any discussion of competing ideas, that a large section of the audience comes to a theatre not to think but to 'not think' about their problems. Maybe, but no cultural artefact is created in vacuum. It is, consciously or otherwise, a certain way and those thoughts follow structures. And many things we find problematic, inconsistent or unacceptable also come from those structures. And it is those structures that I want to understand and question.
--
In this wonderful interview with Kunal Karma, Anubhav Sinha compares two different riffs on the concept of societal hierarchy. There is a line in Super 30 that goes, "Raja ka beta raja nahin banega. Raja wohi banega jo haqdaar hain." In Article 15, one character questions the other by asking, "Agar sab log samaan hojayega, toh raja kaun banega" to which the other character replies, "Raja ki zaroorat hi kya hain?".
"Middle class predominant గా తయారవ్వటం అంటే అది భయంకరమైన situation. Middle class is dangerous.. for many things" -కె. శివారెడ్డి గారు
