Swaroop King

Swaroop King
Title Image

Saturday 8 September 2012

SHIRDI SAI REVIEW

The words "God", "Life" and "death" may be the words that we use everyday, but the questions they arise are innumerable. They can throw you mercilessly into frozen philosophical zones where the answer always seduces you but never lends you its warmth. Is there a God who is responsible for all this? It seems to be the right question to ask if you ever meet a man like Shirdi sai baba. Director Ragahvendra Rao introduces you the Godman but never lets his hero get deeper beyond the surface of "Religious tolerance". Here is my complete review of the film.

Being aware of what a philosophical and emotional depths a film can transcend if it is about a man who is conceived a God by two different religions, its hard to appreciate this film. None of the characters around Sai Baba asks him a tough question. Its not very interesting to see a Godman confronted by people who wait for the most ground level logic to be sermonised to fall for any phakir. Even if it is a film, its hard to imagine that people are such dumbos to get convinced with surface level answers and a pinch of Viboothi. When I was half way through the film, I felt like standing and yelling at the screen "Ask Baba tougher questions". For example, the film shows Baba always talking to some imaginary or mysterious people who are invisible to normal devotees. Is it God, with whom he is talking? If he can talk to God  with that much ease and freedom, why should he go for a three day trip to all the "lokams" of Gods? What difference does that make to his devotees? That forms a question right? But when he wakes up, the britisher never asks this question but instead poses a dumb question like "How did you come to life again?"  And again he gets convinced with the simple logic Baba explains. Doesnt he know that the body and the soul are different? Poor man.Am I trying to dig too deep into something that is layer thin? May be. "Shirdi Sai" doesnt aim to be great. It aims to be a safe commercial project, that can pass off as a typical Raghavendra Rao "Bhakti flick". Thats why when Nagarjuna delivers the dialogue "Ee gaali pilichindi, ee nela rammandi, vachanu", no one takes it serious. Audience didnt seem even to bother about why a man who preaches non attachment to earthly things is so much attached to the air and earth of Shirdi. I am tempted everytime a character enters disliking Sai, expecting  the character to have atleast some brains to ask Sai a deeper philosophical question. When Sai Baba says that man can be happy aonly after death, why doesnt Sai Kumar ask "Then what is the purpose of life, if all is a suffering? What is the ultimate fruit that we get by going through all this mess?" Oh my God....Swaroop, you are expecting too much out of a telugu film.

I have nothing about Baba or his devotees. I dont know whether all this story is true or not. My comments are not about Sai Baba. They are about the film. Is it that Baba's life doesnt have enough masala? Christ's life has the epic "Crucifixion" that provides enough drama for a film. But here, no one lifts a hand against Baba. Is it the reason that we find no conflict in this film?. Yes. The director' s sole aim is to just make a film on Sai. Thats it. But he doesnt have the heart or interest to use this as a vehicle to his display of artistry. Thats why this film appears just like a wikipedia article on Sai. No implications, no enlightenment, no philosophy, no drama.When Sai claims to bear the suffering of his nephew, it doesnt look like a divine compassion towards humankind but just as a human emotion towards a relative. Thats why we just dont get the feel that this man has the wisdom of worlds in his head. He looks like just another old man who prefers to use his retirement money for his daughter's marriage instead of his heart surgery. If it is true that man can be happy only after death, why cant Baba let Taatya die? Oh Again I am going too deep? Sorry. Lets talk about the film again.

The review doesnt end if I dont mention Nagarjuna, who has just given a world class performance. He is completely believable and effortlessly likeable. Undoubtedly, he is the one and only actor on Earth who could do this character. The way he suppressed himself and let the character take him over is commendable. His eyes speak  whatever has been missing in the dialogue. I dont know how Sai Baba spoke or walk. If it is not like Nagarjuna, I can bet that Sai Baba was not as divine looking as Nag. He is sure to bag a number of awards and this is one of the best performances of Nag in his career.

Coming to other technicalities, the sets are pathetic for the reason that they shout that it is a film. Keeravani's music tries to drive the Telugus into "Bhakti" mode and I dont know whether its successful or not because I am immune to such tunes. Srikanth also did well. Sai Kumar is OK. The others overacted. Its no use commenting on the taking of a director who has been making films way past his expiry date.

As a final say, this film is for Sai Baba devotees and Nag devotees.

PS:- If you are a Sai devotee, please dont misunderstand me.  My comments are about the film's mediocrity. I state again that I know nothing about Sai Baba.

PS 2:- Beside me, three middle aged women sat to watch the movie. While I am looking at sides, getting bored, they all are in tears watching Nagarjuna's acting in the climax.




No comments:

Post a Comment