| 6th 
                    July 2005
   
                    Aparichitudu
   
                    While every one in town is analyzing Aparichitudu, here is 
                    my jab at it.  Key 
                    message Shankar TRIED to convey in Aparichitudu : -be a good 
                    citizen and Samaritan.  This 
                    is significantly different from  
                     Gentleman 
                      (Robin hood for education root was Corruption in education 
                      system) ; Bharatheeyudu/Indian 
                      (Corruption at all levels RTO backdrop) Oke 
                      Okkadu/ Mudhalvan ( Bad Selfish Leadership Political backdrop 
                      root is Corruption in Politics)   
                    In fact, his earlier 3 had some amount of resemblance between 
                    them in the subject, in the sense that all dealt with some 
                    form of corruption. But they were told in a convincing way 
                    with some very powerful scenes. And public loved them because 
                    we always like movies that blame cops, government and politicians 
                    (even for the wrong that WE do).  Here 
                    in Aparichitudu , he tried to do something significantly different. 
                    Though the acting was great and the movie was technically 
                    sound, this movie didn't come out very powerful like his earlier 
                    ones and I'm sure many feel this way.  His 
                    message should have been more refined: Be a decent citizen 
                    by doing at least things that are 100% controllable by you 
                    as a person. i.e. No scope for blaming on politicians, government 
                    or society.  Here 
                    is my view of why I felt it was not very powerful and convincing. 
                     Key 
                    problem in Aparichitudu Story and screenplay: The message 
                    was not clearly visioned and conveyed. I think the Garuda 
                    Puranam drove his script. He probably picked the different 
                    killings first and then tried to stitch a script around that. 
                    While his research about the Puranam was interesting and a 
                    highlight of the film, I'm afraid, that caused the script 
                    to become weak and less powerful. Also, his core person Ramanujam 
                    is a lawyer - a lawyer in India is far different from general 
                    public. He knows rules to try and handle cops and government 
                    officials, but common man doesn't. That makes it difficult 
                    for public to identify with his feelings.  Let 
                    us analyze the scenes he showed:  Not 
                    taking the injured man in a NEW Car: This is a disaster 
                    in his script. There is a difference between being human and 
                    being noble. When trying to improve the society, the first 
                    step is to try and be human not noble. 99 out of 100 will 
                    not stop their car, not to mention new car in this case, in 
                    that situation (given the implications of common mans fear 
                    of police and court). Maybe 1 noble person would. To expect 
                    everyone to be noble is not feasible. So the reason to kill 
                    him is not one bit convincing for an ordinary man.  Food 
                    Supplier: This was not very good either. But at least 
                    here he threw a lizard into the curry, to convince us that 
                    he deserved to be killed. But in reality, Aparichitudu doesn't 
                    know about the lizard. All he hates is the fact the he is 
                    providing sub-standard food for the price he charges. While 
                    it is wrong to cheat by supplying inferior food, the reason 
                    I feel that this is not convincing is because, his price is 
                    most likely driven by the bribe he has to pay the Railways, 
                    etc .. to get the supplier contract i.e. he has a finger to 
                    point to and justify the bad he is doing. This is the case 
                    with most things in our society were the corruption system 
                    has become a common thing that we live with and do not feel 
                    guilty.(He already dealt very well about that in Indian.) 
                     Sada 
                    purchasing Land: Same as above.  Black 
                    Money: Always the get away reason is - why pay taxes for 
                    the gov that does nothing for me.  Undervalue 
                    registration: black money + partly to compensate for bribes 
                    she has to pay at the registrar's office.  Brake 
                    wire manufacturer: Not very convincing. He didnt show 
                    him go to the Dealer to get original spares. He showed him 
                    go to some local store to buy cheap product so that lost the 
                    impact. Personally, this situation itself is not convincing, 
                    but it would have been better if he at least showed him go 
                    to an authorized dealer and get an OEM part that snapped on 
                    him. The intention that people should not manufacture bad 
                    products especially when it has life threatening implications 
                    is good, but doesn't sell well with the subject he is trying 
                    to convey here. Also, to repeat again, the manufacture has 
                    to pay x,y,z bribes to set up the unit, etc leading him to 
                    make up those costs by making substandard product, like the 
                    food supplier.  These 
                    situations basically spoilt the theme of the movie and got 
                    lukewarm reception. Things that came across well - accepted and appreciated are 
                    :
 
 Spitting 
                    on the road. Disobeying traffic rules.
 Charlies laziness.
 
  
                    It would have been more powerful and convincing if he showed 
                    only situations that are clearly controllable by an individual 
                    (self- control):  The 
                    situations should have been something in these lines:  Spitting 
                    on the road: (100% attributed to the individual difficult 
                    to blame x,y,z). Sticking Bubble gum under the classroom desk and theatre seats: 
                    Could show a student sticking a bubble gum under the desk 
                    and punished him. This is a very common action that is totally 
                    controllable by one-self.
 
  
                    Throwing garbage carelessly: I would have loved it 
                    if he showed Vikram killing someone landing in Madras from 
                    US/Singapore and then opening up a cigratte packet and throwing 
                    a wrapper down on the airport floor. Or a person dumping garbage 
                    over their compound wall into barren land instead of dumping 
                    it in the municipal dumpster at the end of the street.  Disobeying 
                    Traffic rules: This is an excellent area. He touched on 
                    it. He could have gone more into it and showed killing of 
                    a person here for disobeying. No reason why a person should 
                    skip red, go into the opposite lane, drive without proper 
                    papers, or proper vehicle. If we do that, then that gives 
                    a lesser chance for cop to expect a bribe and this is really 
                    a first step towards improving society.  Under-age 
                    driving without license: This would have been very powerful. 
                    People give a damn to age eligibility for driving. Everyone 
                    in our country including you and me start to drive under-age 
                    without license. Though there are rules on what kind you can 
                    drive at what age (like you can drive <50 cc vehicles from 
                    15 I think, and need to be 18 to drive cars, etc..) we dont 
                    respect them. But we follow it religiously in foreign countries. 
                    These are the kind of things I expected Shankar to show. He 
                    should have killed the Dad (and may be the son too) who bought 
                    a bike for his under-age son. Who else can you blame for this 
                    act that endangers others lives on the road?  If 
                    he showed such situations, the movie would have been even 
                    more powerful and convincing and we would not have got the 
                    feel of deja-vu from his earlier films. 
 Still, Aparichitudu is a well made movie by master director 
                    Shankar.
 
 Vijay 
                    Ilavarasan[email protected]
 More 
                    My Movie experiences: Madhav 
                    - AparichituduHazaraon Kwaishein Aisi
 Swades
 Shyam - Black
 Sai - Anand
 Rohit - Anand & Veer Zaara
 Jaya Prakash - 7GBC
 Raj - Anand
 Purnesh - Anand
 Purnesh - The Village
 Sriram - Gudumba Shankar
 Purnesh - Gharshana
 Purnesh - Lakshya
 Purnesh - Yuva
 Leenesh - Yuva
 Kis - Lakshmi Narasimha
 Indian Pride - Tagore
 Raj - Boys
 Phani - Gangotri
 Phani - Khadgam
 Vikram - CKR
 BKR - Indra (Singapore)
 Ram - Indra (Dubai)
 Ranjeet - Idiot
 Rahul 
                    - Indra
 King Koduri - Indra
 Srilakshmi Katragadda - Mitr: 
                    My Friend
 |