If not for M.M Keeravani’s lilting compositions, director Raghavandra Rao’s much-hyped success wouldn’t have materialized (many would agree with me). It’s one of the rare films that succeeded purely on the strength of its music since Rao’s screenplay was dreary, clichéd and slow-paced. Films are considered to be an ‘audio-visual’ medium and both should compliment each other but this devotional saga just had one USP (music). Raising doubts about the narrative skills of Rao’s even after 100 odd films. Agreed that the plot of a ‘good-hearted man with a noble mission” had some limitations but director fails to address the all important `transition' of the protagonist from theist to atheist and then to theist convincingly instead relies on lyrics to convey it. With his vast experience, Rao could have delivered one of the ‘best’ films of his career but misses out a good opportunity. Instead of focusing primarily on the agony of a disciple who even doubts the existence of ‘god’ while in jail Rao keeps deviating from the main plot to insert unnecessary elements. In the end, Rao should have also avoided comparing a doubtful disciple like Ramadasu with Lord Hanuman, the personification of Bhakti. If my viewer friends agree that the ‘subject’ could have been `handled’ better, then read on.

Director Rao’s fascination to fuse commercial elements like comedy, bit of skin show (agreed that it was much below his standards) and clichéd scenes even for challenging `plots’ like this, resulted in a routine film than a path-breaking effort. Before we stepped into the cinema halls, most of us vaguely know that Ramadasu was a disciple of Lord Ram who was jailed for building Bhadrachalam temple with Nizam’s funds. It was natural for us to expect more unknown facets of the ‘noble person’ by delving deep into the plot. But it wasn’t the case as film dabbles in noted periphery making the theme less exciting to ponder over. While suffering in jail, protagonist even doubts the existence of Almighty and even makes mockery of him (evadaba somani kulukuthintivo). It would have been challenging for any director including Rao to explore the drastically ‘changing’ mindset of a disciple who is ignored by God during bad times. (Ignorant human beings like us also blame God when He doesn’t solve our problems instantly) Protagonist later repents his cynical attitude and pleads for His help to end his problems.(nanu brovamani cheppave). Instead of placing the camera in the jail room to capture the changing moods of the protagonist realistically, Rao was busy canning comedy scenes between Venu Madhav, Ali, and Jayaprakash. Leaving the ‘transition’ to be registered mostly through songs while showing the anguish of a convict ‘occasionally’. Even Sneha’s feelings were not captured in its ‘totality’ rather punctuated here and there and even doesn’t show the approach of Ramadasu’s kin who serve as advisers to Nizam to resolve this issue.

Instead of making his narrative dramatic, Rao tries to drum up ‘melodrama’ by registering the ‘reactions’ of Lord Ram, Sita and Hanuman to the sufferings of the protagonist. Aptly indicating the inept screenplay of Rao as its falters to capture the reactions of kin and people around protagonist to give it a `realistic touch’ instead Almighty feels bad about him making it ‘mythical’. After depicting protagonist as a normal human being who shares love and hate relationship with God, Rao equating him with revered Hanuman is just ridiculous. (I think there is no need to explain why). It could have been hailed as a ‘classic’ if the narrative has been ‘fine-tuned’.

More Different Perspectives by Friendly Viewer:
• Vikramarkudu
• Don (Hindi)
• Pokiri
• Stalin
• Bommarillu

Tell us how you liked the article