A fore note - In my previous blog - i meant 'switched off' as a mode where one is less indulged in the pleasures of an entertainment, but rather the one who reviews it in a 'lower indulgence' mode. Before i go any further, let me say these comments are a reflection what i saw on the movie; i clarify this because, people form their own opinion and view, from the same set of words.
In this case i review it from the angle that Kamal has taken a subject of science and religion to portray both brings evil with it, whether we like it or not. This is such a turning stand from him, given his afflictions to narrow atheist views. I don't mean turning to a theist's view but a balanced view that he tries to find himself as well as try to put it across to the audience. To get the argument across, he has used his acting skills in 10 dimensions, so he could leave a stamp on Filmworld's history. So his personal aim in some sense has clouded his argument - that's where he has failed to deliver or may be succeeded ! - I will come to this point in the end.
Kamal's 11th role is quite underplayed, but that's the important role that we should be reviewing. That's his role in Story, Screenplay and Dialogue. Some subtle dialogues clearly portray the viewpoint- He starts with a chaos theory view and mentions a religious war in India in 12th century and rubs in a line - 'a time when no Islam or Christian gods were there to war, the locals warred using Indian Gods' I think this is such an important quote to reflect - religious hatred existed/exists irrespective of which religion you follow - (Hinduism like to identify themselves as peace loving - note: i consider Buddhism as part of Hinduism) So he has chosen an intra-Hindu religious aggression to convey that point and moves onto science and its menace. As he moves on, another line is thrown in - why did one Hindu god allow its follower to kill and the other Hindu God let its supporter to die in spite of fighting for the God's cause?
Now moving onto Science and its problems - actually science in its own conceptual world is not a problem, the scientists or the people again are the problem-doers! But he well mixes it with the people like the Dalit, the Muslim family, the 95-year old grandma to show humanitarian sides as well.
All in all, he has attempted very well to put a holistic view that People are just different and problems or happines is all self-created! Finally, he quips 'It would be nice, if Gods existed' - the theist heroine who's supposed to marry him is happy that he has reconciled his stand about Gods without understanding what he actually meant!
So goes back to my question - has he failed or succeeded?
If i say he has succeeded, then its indeed a success, coz' i treat it so; but a failure because many others don't agree or do not find the arguments shared similar to my review?
If i say he has failed, coz' he has clouded the argument with his personal aspiration of ten roles and the screenplay defects, then its indeed a failure; but in a way he has succeeded in his argument that it's - inherent human nature to be flawed!
A finishing comment: So if our human nature is inherently flawed - could a scientific solution actually solve it or a religious awakening acknowledge it and move on?
