As Life Goes Digital

As Life Goes Digital

Technology, Cricket, Deals, Immigration etc …

What did director Shankar do to super star Rajni in Sivaji?

No doubt many of us asked our self this question. Maybe you were sitting in a movie theater watching the movie when all of a sudden an actor whose talent you had admired or whose style had seemed so imprinted in your brain pops up in a average movie like Sivaji. A movie so not above your expectations, in fact, that it not only tarnishes them but makes you feel guilty for once believing in the director. After all, you had invested all your hopes on this person (Shankar), and now they’re out there destroying every ones expectations.

Unless if you’re a die-hard Rajni fan (like me), “Sivaji” is perfectly a mixed average movie experience.

Watching “Sivaji” you get the feeling that entire film was written, produced, shot and edited with out matching to Rajni’s type and his style.

Let’s look at the facts here – we’ve got one big and bunch of semi-big actors (big enough names for people to recognize, like Suman and Raghuvaran) in a relatively high-budget, high-scale flick created and produced by trendy much acclaimed and modern thinker the Director Shankar. You can tell they possibly expect us to take this movie seriously by releasing in the middle/end of a summer season with mega-budget, blockbuster music from A.R.Rahman and superstar.

The key to pulling off a message oriented movie like Sivaji is as simple as the reformer vs. anti-social,corrupted system, etc. is to keep the message clarity with realistic sample incidents (one black money case to build from) and dialogues. Well, “Sivaji” does dabble in that area both for campy humor and confusing theme, but also to seriously push the story along specially the first half.The lame comedy and first half shreya love sequence is some what offbeat to the movie and did not glue into the movie message.

Shankar did that perfectly of ‘love sequence with the message’ when Arjun and Manisha Koyirala acted in that one day chief minister movie.

There isn’t much to say about the plot other than the obvious – it’s about how black money can be put to good cause.

Second half is some what engages us in the movie.With many corrupted politicians and Suman in a kingmaker role stealing the show, but Sivaji’s portrayal of the conversion of rich to poor and from rags to riches being handled with subtlety.Super star as always gave his best in these sequences.

Overall I felt that movie would have been tailored to suit Super star status and style.

Note : Your movie experience might be different all here I’m trying to give my perspective on Shankar directing Rajni. Your experience may be very well different from mine.

Posted By: Kalyan | Date: June 18, 2007 | Categories: Uncategorized

0 Responses to What did director Shankar do to super star Rajni in Sivaji?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Sivaji the Robinhood – An idea for failure
    Shankar has tried to assert his logic of social awareness thru a one man act – A repeat of all his previous attempts
    Gentleman – education
    Indian – corruption
    Mudhalvan – political corruption
    Anniyan – social discipline
    Sivaji – black money

    The first four were of a different nature since they tackle a tangible problem. But the last one a block buster with Rajini theorizing economics like Robinhood – steal from the rich and distribute to the poor – albeit as infrastructure instead tackles an age old theory. The only way to help the poor is to steal from the rich.

    The movie addresses the parallel black economy in India as the root cause of all poverty problems. That if the rich paid all their dues without hoarding then the poor wouldn’t have to suffer. Rajini discusses this as the root cause of all social problems in India and muscles his way thru the economic fabric in delivering to the poor. At the end, Shankar espouses his vision of identity based transactions to keep the money from flowing into the black economy.

    The problem that this vision espouses rooted in the origins of money itself. First visualize the fact that money is traded as a piece of paper today. This is exactly what we criticize Muhammad-bin-Thuglak for printing money in leather seals and floating it alongside an existing gold based currency. People started hoarding gold and soon the treasury had piles of leather pieces.

    Now imagine the last scene in the movie where the villan and the public run around picking pieces of paper (albeit with a 500 and gandhi picture all over it). For over 10,000 years if this scene were published people would have laughed and thought of the actors and the appreciating audience as idiots – Only donkeys run behind paper, people should run behind GOLD or Silver or diamonds. Better yet they ran behind pepper, cloves and spices and never behind paper or leather. Why? Because that is fiat money – under the power of somebody who can produce more of it than reality.

    To explain clearly, if we traded using plastinated mackerel fish as money, then you have a finite amount of money – how much ever you can fish for the day. If I needed more money I would fish more but still have to work for it and even then there is only a finite amount anybody can produce in a period. plastination could extend the life of the money but there is a finite amount. But more the fish, the value of it is not the same anymore. If a bag of rice equals one fish in a 2000 fishes only world, the valuation is definite. But in a 200,000 fish world the value of rice to fish could be 100 times more. This is inflation 101.

    If you replaced fish with Gold then this theory gets better light. Gold is finite and hard to produce. Its valuation is clearly determined in every community in the world.

    Now imagine paper money – the amount produced is left to the Reserve bank of India (Central bank in other every country) under the thumb of the same corrupt politicians. They can promise the world and deliver the same by printing more money when they dont have what was promised. They used to hold gold in the reserve to print an equal amount in paper but that practice was abolished since the early 60s. They used to hold dollars as reserve to print but since America turned on its printing machines in the recent past, you have started seeing the dollar value against the rupee plumet in the recent past. (You havent seen anything of this yet.)

    What use to be around 2000 crores of black money in the Indira gandhi era is now 20 lakh crores. There was not even that much money in circulation in those days. The more you print, the more it gets hoarded.

    First of all the folks who hoard paper money are no less a genius than Muhammad-bin-Thuglak. Every time the Govt prints more money their hoard gets devalued. Next folks who think that getting this hoarded money out would solve all problems are barking up the wrong tree. Throwing more mon

  2. Kalyan says:

    I appreciate your detailed comments.Thanks for writing the comment.I’m happy you explained it which I understand but my problem is not every way side tea shop guy can understand and know about the Sivaji movie message.

    Being in US I can understand how blackmoney is converted to white thru dollars.What I was unhappy with my great devoted director Shankar did not put message simply as he did with previous movies.I asked my 3rd year Engineering cousin of what message he got for the movie and remember this guy is above average who does very good reviews failed to tell me and understand what is shown in the movie.Stealing from poor and giving to rich is what is understood but beyond that is what I felt my director did not put accross the message that every common Indian (majority of Indians fall into this category – say 70%) understands and does his part to avoid this happening.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *