Recently watched Raavan by Mani Ratnam. Frankly I was quite stunned to see the amazing photography (or do they call it cinematography - am a bit confused) of Santosh Sivan. He has created magic frame after frame where you get drenched in the rain & greenery. Contrary to the popular belief, the story doesn't support Red terror, rather its a story of personal vengeance, where Raavan gets the author's support and becomes a stronger character compared to Ram (aka Dev). And here comes the dilemma.
Beyond the superb photography, the movie has a new approach to Ramayana (the Hindu epic which has set the moral standards of the country so far). Here Sita develops a soft corner for her kidnapper - Raavan. And this has created quite a flutter amongst a few folks - including some of my friends, who are quite enraged to see the audacity of someone called Mani Ratnam to challenge Ramayana.
I feel its a dangerous trend to castigate any divergence from our set moral standards. In the literature (there are debates whether a guy called Ram really existed or not - lets skip it), Ram is shown as the most perfect man - which I don't like at all even from the perspective of literature. The shades of his character are not explored. The author has spent utmost effort in showing Ram as the most perfect guy on this world and Raavan as the worst scoundrel ever born.
But do you see such characters in real world? Have you ever met any "Ram" in your life so far (including yourself)? If not, why the hell do you expect Mani to create another Ram-charit-manas? :-)
No comments :
Post a Comment