Unnai Pol Oruvan on A Wednesday!

First of all, thank you Ram. It was a momentary thing, and the inconsistent me is back.

I made it a point to watch A Wednesday at least a week before UPO released. I am happy man for having done so; for if I had seen the latter first and made these following comments, people would have accused me that whatever we watch first strikes us more. Thanx to my order of viewing, people will only accuse me of being partisan to my mother tongue. Yippeee!!!

Simple stories go a long way - the biggest movies have always had a simple story to tell. Good ones, bad ones, yes, but simple ones. This story is a simple one too. A Common Man, reacts to the distressing realities of his city life and takes matters in his own hands. He holds the city ransom while demanding four terrorists be handed over (the purpose of which is later revealed to be murder of the murderers). I am impelled, as a writer to discuss the essential danger in such a plot - is the Old Testament still the ultimate authority in legal issues? Or has wishful thinking made the makers of this film blind-sided to the ethical implications of the MESSAGE they communicate? We all understand how the author himself feels about it -when we see the fourth terrorist escaping the fate meant for him, the writer.z choice is to kill him anyway for emphasis. But it is not a question of such a reaction to society is right or wrong - but it should be remembered that both the movies have been successful and such an anger is deeprooted in the hearts of the people. Beware of the cats. Particularly the ones that can imitate too well.

Now as I hear swear-words from people who have NOT seen the movie, let me go back to the format of an old fashioned review. From the beginning, I did NOT like the idea of Kamal remaking A Wednesday - for two reasons. 1, A remake means that Kamal is not engaging himself with original material for a significant amount of time. 2, A Wednesday is an extremely topical film - with the background of the Mumbai train blasts the year before and the attacks in November, the movie strikes a chord without having to say much as to the WHY of the story. There is an instant connection. But the story set in a city which has not been under a general curfew since the second world war seemed too far-fetched. What was Kamal thinking?

But I was pleasantly surprised in Kamal.z take on the whole script. The angle with which the Common Man was approached had changed drastically - from Naserudin Shah'z tired old man who wanted to take a stand to Kamal'z socially upright, first-in-line-to-justice and borderline arrogant portrayal, the tempo was markedly different. Initially, like everyone else, I was not okay with Kamal playing Naserudin Shah'z role for the simple reason that while the latter has played roles of ambiguous/negative nature well (even in bad movies like Krisssshhhhh), Kamal, discounting his white-guy role in Dasavatharam, has not played a good villainic role in ages. People are not going to believe that Kamal is the bad guy no matter how hard he tries. They wait for the explanation to connect the dots - as to how is a good guy. Naserudin Shah keeps you guessing, albeit for at least until the unnecessary intermission. I finally figured out that Kamal cannot pull this off.

Surprisingly, Kamal could. And he did. Making the character a good ten years younger, decidedly smarter, stronger and more daring, the lines blur as we wonder if he is doing it to satisfy the ego of the superstar or to actually give more credibility to the motivation. Either way, he is convincing. Only a man who is capable of going well out of his way to make a point would ever come into the cycle. That'z why we have a tougher common man. Like it is said, Common Sense is the least common commodity - we recognize in this character a set of traits which we all want to possess, but compromise in everyday life. This movie is an ego trip and a self-gratification to all who watch it. giving us a sense of power which comes only for a very high price. In A Wednesday, the price is never shown - the fantasy is left in its own plane. But UPO tries as much as it can to ground the fantasy in the sphere of reality. That is why you see the real Chief Minister's house and there is no 6' tall ex-millitary man standing deferentially to Anupam Kher'z decisions. With everybody trying to protect their own interest, the credibility is rivetting.

Technically UPO is a superior film than A Wednesday - in editing, cinematography, sound/re-recording and music. The consistency in which the plausibility is upheld is also commendable. In acting, Naserudin Shah'z performance is a completely different take from Kamal'z and therefore a comparison becomes impossible. However, Anupam Kher'z performance comes a distant second to Mohanlal'z solid presence. Very few movies give good actors roles where everything is going for them - this is definitely one such for Mohanlal. Unlike the saintly Kher whose every word is treated with reverence, Mohanlal has so many practical difficulties despite his apparent unlimited power. UPO fails to deliver with the other actors though - everyone (from the terrorist to the newsperson) doing a half-cooked job. Lakshmi is an exceptional choice who shines in her brief but powerful role (which was not present in the original).

So, the final verdict on UPO is that it is a perfect remake. In the sense, that it was a movie which took the original as a starting point to improve upon, perfect and most importantly, bringing it home to a different audience, tailoring the product to their tastes. It is heartening to know such an effort is possible in a remake, particularly in a time where remakes are diminutive, grotesque bastard children (like Ghajini from Memento). Having said that, I do hope that Kamal'z next is an original script where he contributes to the source rather than developing an already established format. So, until then! cheers!!!

UPDATE!!!! (4th November 09)
A friend of mine sends an opinion of his friend on the movie. I take the liberty of publishing my response as a part of the blog...

Thanx lenny for bringin my attention to this article. the followingreply is to that girl with a name so common tat every one in two kidshave it; male or female. go ahead and laugh at my vitriolicresponse!!! guhuhaahahaahah....

the speaker sums up my point of view in the title of her blog.basically the jobless. enough already! i am tired of people walkinginto a chinese restaurant and crying that they re hindu brahmins whoare offended at the pork-making and cow-killings! nw again, thisspeaker will definitely pick up a fight with Spielberg, for when hemade the movie Schindler's List, how dare he showed that the jews werepersecuted. is tat not an organized way of defaming the germans?particularly when the Jews are no good themselves.. did they notmurder in cold blood the messaih, Jesus Christ himself?!! FOR FUCK'SSAKE! lets have some perspective here. when i am making a film with aspecific story in mind, i cannot tackle everything about theparticular aspect i am talking about. if you feel so strongly aboutit, go make a movie yourself. doesnt take much more than a videocamera. Paranormal has proved it. but let the politics of technologygo to hell for the while. i have a couple of questions. so how SHOULDthe Indian-Muslim be portrayed? or should it be Muslim-Indian? if heshould neither be a terrorist nor a patriot, what other roles shouldthere be for the PERSON? by the way you talk about it, he should be,first of all, a she. Good, i can deal with that; for we are the samepeople who whistled at Angelina Jolie kicking a variety of machoasses. but wait! let me check my necessity for an ass-kicking specimento be the protagonist of the story.. or even my presumptousness tothink that the person has to be a protagonist at all. how dare I!? So,this person should not be shown tackling their daily problems theyencounter because they re a VICTIMIZED group. so the movie should moreor less cover the three hours of a Muslim female who has a pleasantlife, doing whater she likes doing. and where is the story?

at this point, i want to let ur friend knw, tat unfortunately, we areall part of a conventional world where telling a story is still thepoint of a movie. oh crap.! when did that disaster happen?! so re utelling me tat no matter how politically incorrect a movie is, it canstill be a movie?!?!?! seriously, dudette, get a life. OF COURSE BenHur is a movie; despite having kicked half the horses in their buxombutts. if animal rights has a problem with it, tat.z exactly wat itmeans - animal rights has a problem with it. IT CANNOT BECOME ANY LESSOF A MOVIE, BECAUSE OF SOMEONE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH IT! so ya, if youaint down with that, i ve got two words for u.! watch it?! :P

cheers lenny. may the force be with you. n btw, let ur friend knowtat i am all game to defend the Jedis, if she thinks that they are atraditionalist rebellion against the great democratic force of theempire!