We had a vested interest in seeing Orange, having spent a lot of quality time loitering around the shoot as it took place in Melbourne. The lure of seeing Ram Charan on the big screen, along with the ever entertaining Genelia and our hometown was just too strong to ignore. We avoid reading previews of new release films before we see them, as there is too much PR hype and politics to get much useful information, but the arrival of Charan on Twitter certainly got our attention! The cinema was full, and with a higher number of families and kids than we usually see at the South Indian films here.
Charan plays Ram, a wildlife photographer and graffiti artist with a truly excellent selection of t-shirts. He lives with his sister and brother-in-law in a fancy apartment and drives a flash car. He has strong views on love and honesty and won’t back away from his values. After an earlier relationship with Rooba (Shazahn Padamsee), shown in flashback, we see that he learned a lot about himself and what he wants from life. He doesn’t believe that simply saying ‘I love you’ makes for a relationship, and doesn’t believe it is honest or realistic to promise a lifelong love. He is affectionate, caring, demonstrative, but he is not going to commit to a lifetime, and he will not sacrifice just to keep his loved one happy. He doesn’t want his girlfriend to sacrifice anything for him either – he has been through this unhappiness and is genuinely trying to find an honest and respectful balance.
Genelia as Janu makes a ridiculously chirpy entrance to the film, cheering as she watches a marriage proposal and being as excited for the lovers as if it was her own relationship. She does believe in the idea of soulmates and lifelong love connection and wants that from her partner. She is in love with love, and looking for Mister Right. Several potential Mister Rights form part of the comic sideplot.
So of course, these lovely looking youngsters with completely opposing views fall for each other. The film is then about Ram and Janu getting to understand each other, and the choices they make.
With Puppy (Brahmi!) aiding and abetting Janu, the relationship develops in fits and starts. Ram is persistent and Janu is interested but wary of this charismatic suitor. We knew long before Brahmi mimed Krishna playing his flute that Ram was a ladies man! When he happily admits to having had NINE girlfriends, in relationships spanning from 1 to 387 days in length, Janu decides he is just too much to handle and tries to back off but cannot deny her feelings.
Although for the most part the film is a fluffy romance, there is a serious conflict at the core. While the audience can empathise with both sides, it is clear that something major would have to change for there to be a traditional boy gets girl happy ending. We could maintain sympathy for both the romantic Janu and the more challenging Ram so found the conclusion to be reasonably satisfying and in keeping with the characters. However we suspect that if you can’t connect with Ram’s character, the film will not hold your interest.
Charan’s performance was great. He was charming, funny, energetic, emotionally engaging and totally looked the part. He was convincing as the school leaver Ram, and especially as the urbane young man about town and his body language really suited the different confidence levels of these stages of his life. The fight scenes were typically dramatic and physical, and Charan’s dancing is, of course, brilliant . The choreography was lots of fun and Charan seemed to have a great time sending up some cheesy romantic moves. Seeing these films without subtitles and having only a minimal understanding of language, we rely on the tone and expressions of actors. Charan made us see him as Ram and we understood his character’s views and feelings so we have to say it was a successful performance.
Genelia was her usual bubbly self, perhaps too bubbly, to start with but really showed some depth to Janu over the course of the film. She conveyed the struggle between having feelings for someone and knowing that it wasn’t going to work. We could see her grow from a carefree girl to a more independent young lady as she confronted her own beliefs and tested them for herself to see what she wanted.
Nagendra Babu had a small but pivotal role as Ram’s neighbour who was living in a stormy domestic situation. Brahmi and Prakash Raj are always a familiar delight to behold. Brahmi got more to do in Orange , and his comedy was a bit more varied and often very funny. He also had a fine collection of t-shirts, and a habit of reading Mills & Boon before bed. Prakash Raj was the Telugu cop who gave Ram the reason to narrate his life story. He had little to do, and really it need not have been a Prakash Raj role although we are always pleased to see him. We did watch some of the scenes with him and Charan being shot so we certainly enjoyed that. The rest of the support cast were fine but as we have to concentrate on the main story, we didn’t really give them enough attention to be able to comment much.
We love the soundtrack and the songs looked amazing on screen. We are somewhat disappointed that Melbourne scenes are inter-cut with Sydney to give the impression of one Australian city, as the Melbourne -Sydney rivalry is HUGE, but we will forgive it as we got the opportunity to watch this film being made. Bhaskar managed to skirt the problem of geographic displacement by blending the locations well. The places Ram and Janu were seen were appropriate for their student lifestyle and helped the film’s credibility. We are always a bit judgmental about the skankily dressed white chicks in songs but Orange is family friendly for the most.
Some special notes: We greatly enjoyed Anand Ranga’s updates via Twitter, and shared his anxiety about the weather. When he casually mentioned filming with a lion, we expected maybe a fleeting appearance in a song. Not a full blown encounter with the King of the Jungle who apparently frequents the NSW forests. We cheered a lot! But the audience went wild when the Glen Iris tram was on screen – who knew the number 6 tram was that much of a star? We also enjoyed seeing a return of the pink panda t-shirt first spotted on Charan in Magadheera, this time being worn by one of Ram’s friends. There was plenty for the alert viewer in Orange!
Politics, corruption and family dysfunction provide a fertile ground for film-makers and while they are not top of the list for us to view, there have been some interesting films made on these topics. There has been a lot of talk about both Leader and Prasthanam taking an innovative approach to these themes but we found each conventional in both their story and structure. Both make reference to land and mineral rights disputes, but the films aren’t really about the issues as much as they are about relationships and power. Because of the parallels and contrasts we decided to discuss them together. For the sake of simplicity, as well as being in keeping with the films’ focus, we are also concentrating on the main story and will skim over the subplots.
Leader is the debut film for actor Rana Daggubati, and is written and directed by Sekhar Kammula. That’s some seriously good pedigree and the production values reflect this. The story has more in common with Frank Capra’s Mr Smith Goes to Washington than any gritty political thriller but where Jimmy Stewart oozed heart, there is a hard manipulative core to Arjun Prasad (Rana Dagubbati). Arjun has money and is reckoned a man among men (CEO of a Fortune 500 company, Harvard graduate, tall, fine head of hair, looks good with or without a shirt, you know the deal). Despite his aim of rehabilitating the tarnished image of his murdered father through eliminating corruption and caste discrimination, Arjun immediately takes to his father’s methods.
He genuinely seems to believe the ends justify his means. Personal relationships are bought and sold and, while he does care for the people he is using, he will sacrifice anyone for his greater goal. Things come to a head after some emotional incidents, and despite some soul searching Arjun fails to change his strategy and continues to use any means at his disposal. After a picturesque montage of Rana’s excellent enigmatic walking, he sets forth to rally the masses and triumph over his rivals. Characters appear along Arjun’s journey, some ready to give him wise advice and some there to set obstacles in his path.
But he is a hero in a fable where everything seems to be in shades of grey. The tacit support for bribery and corruption as legitimate techniques is hard to swallow, as well as the disregard for anything that might get in the way of making history take a kindly view of the dead CM. Arjun’s treatment of two women who have feelings for him is cruel, and reminds us that the heart of this story is ice cold.
Rana’s performance was difficult to assess. In some scenes he appeared quite deadpan and almost wooden but we believe that was due to the character keeping his cards close to his chest and not wanting to give any clues to his opponents. He is physically imposing and looked the part of the young man on the up and up. Some highly emotional scenes were underplayed and very moving. In scenes that required him to be lighter, more open, and even flirtatious, he was quite appealing so we think it was a combination of his inexperience and the director’s choices that made some episodes appear a bit awkward.
There is nothing more to say about the plot – it succumbed to all the clichés and ended exactly as you might expect. But it is an interesting attempt to look expectations of justice and idealism, and transpose that into a political fantasy. The supporting cast were uniformly good, particularly Harsha Vardan as the secretary Ali and Richa Gangopadhyay as the love interest Archana. Priya Anand’s character Rathna was really short changed with some silly dialogues and behaviour but she made a strong impression in her time on screen and certainly injected a lot of energy into her scenes.
Prasthanam starts in an independent art house style before the much more conventional end. What begins as a dissection of a bitter dysfunctional family and the play of personal agendas in the public arena devolves into a gore fest with some badly placed songs. Sharwanand plays Mitra, the ‘good’ son of an assassinated father, who seems to be the anointed one in his family’s dynasty. After his father’s murder, Mitra’s mother is married off to Loknatham (Sai Kumar) her husband’s adopted brother. The family relocates to the city but remain involved in politics and factionalism.
What really brought the story to life was the dazzling performance by Sundeep Kishan as jealous psycho step-brother Chinna – a substance abuser with a violent streak and a penchant for face paint. His character is a human train wreck: monstrous yet compellingly watchable as he ricochets from self pity to rage to scheming.
We differ in our opinion on Sharwanand’s acting but do agree he was one of the weaker elements of the film. The brothers are, on the face of it, totally dissimilar but both are driven by their notion of family and status. As the film progresses, the calculating intelligence and loyalty of Mitra is challenged over and over by the animal aggression of Chinna until the bloody and confronting climax. Mitra discovers that his brother and step-father are far more alike than he suspected and nobody wins as he ultimately takes up the same tactics as his family.
Visually the style of Deva Katta’s Prasthanam is both darkly real and annoyingly gimmicky with a reliance on clever angles and effects like blood spattering the camera lens. The songs in the first half are well integrated into the story and maintain a consistent style with the rest of the film.
It seems that someone panicked after watching the first half as there are several songs wedged at random into the second part of the film. Not only do they fail to match the narrative at all, but the placement of the picturisations is jarringly inept which contrasts with the more considered style of the earlier songs. [Thanks to the wonders of Twitter, we have just been told that songs were added for the DVD that were not in the theatrical release of the film. That still doesn’t explain the random placement, but it does help explain to us why reviews didn’t mention such a glaring flaw. Thanks for the explanation!]
Despite the much messier and grittier environment Prasthanam is as much a fiction as Leader is – but as Dolce and Namak pointed out, this family saga is inspired by Cain and Abel.
There is some attempt to inject humour, which is both misplaced and clumsy: one comedic sidekick character declares he will have to go commit a couple of rapes to get more respect, and has this remark met with sarcastic mirth. It was disappointing considering the intelligence behind the writing in general, and wedging the obligatory not so funny comedy track into a film with serious pretensions seemed odd.
As with Leader, the female characters provide an excuse for much of the action without having significant roles in the film. Both films rely on coincidence at crucial points, and the strain on our credulity diminished the impact of some key scenes.
Both leading men play outsiders. Arjun Prasad is the affluent, privileged, NRI son of a corrupt man, and we see Hyderabad and India through his eyes —mostly from boardrooms, restaurants and resorts. He does a lot of brooding and walking, often seeing without being seen as he floats through the ‘real world’. He says he is going to wake up the apathetic youth, and seems to be a symbol of the young cashed up generation in that respect.
Mitra is an unwitting outsider in his own family, but he is intimately involved in the workings of the political games. His world view is far more grounded in a village mentality and his vision of India is much less about air con and fancy cars and more about family and cash flow. This world view shatters when he discovers the truth about his father and step-father.
The soundtracks are forgettable, and apart from the really bad picturisations in Prasthanam, the songs had little impact. The lyrics in both films were quite significant in terms of the story but it just seemed to be a bit overstated at times. And as for the naff English lyrics in the final ‘Leader’ song … Neither film really required much in the way of dancing and, while Sharwanand gave it a go, Rana stuck to his enigmatic walking.
Ultimately both films fall back into the familiar heroic narrative arc, one tragic and one triumphant. Both are fairly satisfying stories and generally well made films, but neither really departs from the predictable path.
Temple says: I found both films quite watchable and engaging, but both have flaws that prevent me from saying I totally enjoyed them. I don’t think they are really attempting anything different in either film as it’s the same old story of corruption and tangled family loyalties, just with modern urban backdrops.
Leader is the more successful film for me, as it is has an internal logic and the characters behave in a way that is consistent with their prior behaviour. As my friend Jenni The Mahesh Fan often says, the Dr Phil test for predicting future behaviour is based on past behaviour. So while Arjun Prasad is not a likeable person, the character acts in a way that accords with his previous behaviours. Even when he temporarily leaves politics, he manipulates that hiatus to eliminate an issue that couldn’t be resolved by legal means. So unlike Heather, I never thought he had ‘gone good’. I believed he was just manipulating the situation again which seemed in keeping with his actions to date. The film has a more cohesive story and builds to a cliched yet satisfactory conclusion. I don’t like the film, as I find its inherent message quite repugnant, but it does work as a piece of drama and once again Sekhar Kammula has told his story in an engaging and slightly offbeat way. Apart from some dodgy green screen effects, the visuals are really effective. I give Leader 4 stars for being a well made, quality film, but I hate the values it seems to promote.
Prasthanam was more entertaining on some levels, and yet a lot less satisfying overall. As the film moved away from the conflict between the brothers and became more about Mitra and Loknatham the wheels started to fall off. Sharwanand just didn’t make Mitra believable and his performance was weakest of the whole cast. He was fine in the lighter or more conversational scenes, but anything requiring extreme emotion fell flat. It didn’t help that many of the veteran actors around him were chewing the scenery for all they were worth, or that he was acting opposite Sundeep Kishan who just owned the screen whenever Chinna was around. There is something curiously immobile about Sharwanand’s face, and in all the scenes where I wasn’t hooked by his lack of emoting I found myself wondering if he had already started to hit the Botox. The final scenes between Mitra and Loknath were just so tear-sodden and emotional and didn’t ring true for me. I thought the very last moments of Sai Kumar surrounded by a multitude of his mirrored reflection was so much more real and powerful than all the snivelling as it showed what he really believed in. It’s very engaging to a point, but then the climax of the film just doesn’t work for me and the really silly handling of the songs threw the dramatic second half off kilter. I give Prasthanam 3 stars.
The women in both films are basically irrelevant to the plot. They are only there as mothers or potential wives and even when it seemed they would play a bigger role, it just didn’t eventuate. The actresses in these roles were all good, but the roles were on the margins of the heroic tales being told. So while it was disappointing to see this happen yet again, it did at least allow for most of the focus to be on the core story.
Heather says: I enjoyed both these films, and despite a few irritating features which detract a little from the final overall impression, Leader and Prasthanam are very well worth watching. I think that both are genuine attempts to step outside of the usual Masala fare, and within their limits are interesting stories, told well and with sincerity.
Leader for me was made by Rana’s performance, particularly considering this is his first film. However I really didn’t like his character at all! Arjun is just as corrupt and manipulative as the other politicians around him. Although I did sympathise initially as he possibly started with good intentions (I’m not convinced though), this very quickly changed as he began lying to everyone. After the interval where I suspect we were supposed to get behind Arjun and his campaign for the popular vote, I just found his deceitful attitude too much. His attitude to the women in his life is another point against him, and I really didn’t want him to get the girl in the end. But I think that to generate that response required some good acting which Rana delivered – as did the rest of the cast who are all excellent. The lack of depth in the female characters stories was disappointing, and I don’t think a journalist could have been side-lined so easily – but this was fictional after all! Despite not liking the character and finding the whole story just too improbable, I still enjoyed the film. Leader gets 3 ½ stars from me
Prasthanam for me was a more enjoyable story. I do like a good villain, and Sundeep excelled in this role. Sharwanand really appears wooden in comparison, and although I am not as critical of his acting as Temple, he doesn’t do his character justice here. The biggest problem I have with Prasthanam is the strange song picturisations and their placement in the second half. They just aren’t necessary and detract from the pace and mood of the film. I liked the soundtrack on first hearing and found it a disappointment to see the songs on screen. The female roles, although still small, seem to be better realised in this film but the struggle between the two brothers and the machinations of Sai Kumar’s character are the definite highlights. The escalation of violence towards the end becomes improbable, and the conclusion is somewhat weak, but despite these flaws the film kept my attention throughout. Again all the supporting cast were very good, and I really liked the cinematography in the opening scenes. Without the songs and the comedy track this could have been an excellent film. As it is, I think it’s still very good and gets 4 stars from me.
Yamudiki Mogudu was made in 1988 which may explain some of the costume choices or, then again, maybe not! Whatever the reason the wardrobe guys seem to have had the time of their lives and the costumes used in the songs here are fabulous. Our DVD came with a breezy alert stating “Regret Poor Quality”. It turns out that was not useful life advice or a comment on the film, but a warning that the picture quality was a bit dodgy so we regret the poor screencaps.
But what about the movie … Well this is another Chiru film which manages to fit in plenty of action, drama, fight scenes, obligatory machetes, preposterous moustaches and hairstyles, romances with two heroines, a double role of sorts and plenty of singing and dancing. And at 147 minutes the pace is cracking, with never a dull moment.
We meet Chiru first as Kali, a thief with a heart of gold who robs, steals and works as a mercenary in order to help fund his brothers education, support his family and generally look after the inhabitantsof the slum area where he lives. On one occasion he is called to the mansion of Kailasham, to be punished for daring to steal from the magnate, when his daughter looks out of a window and spies Kali fighting off her father’s goons in true hero style. Of course, like us, Radha falls instantly in love with the dashing Kali and grabs her video camera to rush down and immortalise the action.
Her love is reciprocated and Radha’s father is appalled when he sees photographs of the two of them together. These photographs are from a dream sequence song so we’re not quite sure about the science that made this possible.
Kailasham conspires with his onetime enemy Kota Kondappa (Kota Srinivasa Rao with a flamboyant moustache), and his repulsive son Chantibabu to destroy Kali. This will allow Chantibabu to marry Radha and put a stop to the depredations Kali is making into the business of the two conspirators. They have been the ones employing him to steal, but logic doesn’t play a big role here. They assassinate Kali on his wedding day, at which point Kali is taken to hell. Kali argues with Lord Yama (Satyanarayana) about his early demise, and gains the assistance of Vichitra Gupta (Velu) who points out the rather serious error made by Chitra Gupta (Allu Ramalingaiah). Lord Yama does some quick thinking to get rid of this loud and irritating human who has dared to tap dance, rock and roll and even disco (yes, really) in a range of amazing costumes with the heavenly apsara played by Ambika.
Kali’s body has been cremated meaning he cannot simply return to his old life. Lord Yama shows Kali three other men who look identical to him, and who are each about to die. Kali can choose to inhabit one of their bodies once they are dead, and in this way return to Earth.
Since he has no other options he takes on the body and thus the life of Balu, a rather pitiful man who has been beaten down into the life of a servant by his free-loading uncle.
Although Kali isn’t supposed to remember his former life, he does know that he is no servant and proceeds to turn his new family upside down. Balu assumes control of the family fortune, frees his mother from kitchen drudgery and spends time with his girlfriend Gauri (Vijayasanthi). His uncle really should have known as soon as that steely eyed stare fell on him that his easy living days were well and truly over!
Of course we know this can’t last, and events conspire so that Kali does regain memory of his former life.
We finally get to a resolution where the bad guys lose, the good guys win and Kali/Balu has to somehow reconcile his relationships with both women. Kali appeals to Lord Yama to help sort out his marital problem. Surely he should have realised that Lord Yama was perhaps a bit unreliable in his decision making?
Chiru is his usual wonderfully athletic and energetic self as Kali and the songs were obviously choreographed to show off his dancing style. While the inspiration for the costumes is anyone’s guess, the backdrop in the many songs is equally bizarre and colourful and we love it! Radha initially plays it straight as the spoilt and indulged daughter, but once she falls in love she is vivacious and energised and does a really good job of keeping up with Chiru in their songs together. She even manages to look comfortable in all the ruches and ruffles of her costumes. Vijayasanthi is beautiful as the feisty Gauri and we thought she had made it through the costume department almost unscathed until she emerged, draped in pearls, from a clam shell. Then we saw Chiru had also been clam shelled. The design department on this film really made it their own!
The film was written by Satyanand and directed by Ravi Raja Pinisetty. The fight scenes are well choreographed and flow nicely with the action sequences. The best comedy is in the scenes with Chiru, Lord Yama,Chitragupta and Vichitragupta. The character of Chantibabu initially is fairly repulsive as he tries to rape Radha to ensure that she will have no choice other than to marry him, but he very quickly becomes a figure of ridicule. Most of the remaining comedy subplot revolves around the relationship between Kota and Kailasham and is not particularly funny, although Kota’s untameable hair is. The real reason to watch it is Chiranjeevi, of course, and the fabulous song picturisations based on the compositions by Raj-Koti and lyricist Veturi.
Heather says: This is one of my favourite Chiru films and I think one of his best performances. The fight scenes are well choreographed, and the dancing is superb, when you can take your eye off the costumes that it! Any film that includes Lord Yama will appeal to me, as I like the opportunity it gives to make the impossible happen, and it usually means plenty of mayhem. I also like the bumbling conspirators and their vacillating between being enemies and friends. Both Radha and Vijayasanthi are lovely in this and do well to hold their own against Chiru in his energetic performance. Its such a shame the set and costume designers don’t get credited as their work in this film is truly outstanding. I did also like the glowing skull eyes in hell and horns on the demons that were very floppy when they danced! But of course Chiru is the reason to watch this film, and the Megastar really delivers. 4 1/2 stars from me.
Temple says: This is so very entertaining, and if you haven’t seen a Chiranjeevi film before I think this is a great place to start. The songs and costumes are brilliant and completely over the top, while still being linked in to the story. I liked that there was some sort of discussion about the whole taking over someone else’s body idea. Kali not only had his self-preservation instinct but felt protective towards the displaced soul and wanted to somehow repair things for Balu. All the performances are good, with Vijayasanthi and Radha being both decorative and memorable. But it really is Chiru’s film, and the film succeeds in keeping my attention through all the plot permutations because he gives it his all. He is fun as Kali and quite pathetic as Balu, and gets to show some dramatic range even while pummelling the bad guys. Like Heather, I always enjoy an appearance by Yama in a film as it usually means lots of sparkly gold and a dance number. My expectations were met, and then some! I’m an unashamed Chiru fan, and I really loved this film. 4 and 1/2 stars from me.
Cinema Chaat 