After all that aggressive marketing in the social media, and the early positive reviews on the internet, it was virtually impossible for a movie lover to miss the movie Munnariyippu. But after an encounter with the much hyped film in the theatre what I find is this: It is still possible in the state of Kerala to sell something in the pretense of intellect. Its quite amazing.
The film in fact presents a pretty small idea, which if presented in literature could not have run into more than a couple of pages of a short story, and if made into a film could have been justified well in a short film of less than an hour length. But here we see this small theme stretched forth into a full length movie of two and a half hours length, and blown up - yes I mean it, just zoomed up - onto the big screen.
The film was made on a very small budget, shot almost entirely indoors, and hence doesn't give much of a visual treat to the viewer. The five odd outdoor scenes in the movie aggregate to a total length of less than three minutes. The film further reduces the cost of the production, by limiting the shots entirely to either closeups or medium shots, with not even a single wide-shot in the whole film. I seriously doubt whether this film had to be released on the big screen.
Now, coming to the story part, if you ask me what the story of the film is, I will have to say that there is no story.
The promos as well as the screenplay tries to focus on a handful of statements made by the protagonist throughout the film which are but nothing better than those lines that we see daily on the Facebook. And interestingly, these statements are presented in the film as extraordinary pieces of philosophy. At the very begining of the film the story teller tries to give a false intellectual glamour to the movie by bringing up the story of 'Joseph. K' from Franz Kafka's novels. The scripter apparently rests in the assurance that an average Malayalee wont have read Kafka in his lifetime. Putting it short, the film survives on the false pretence of an intellectual work by the screen writer, the director, the characters in the film, the critics and the viewers as well.
Now, if you put up against me the only counter argument to this, that the film in-fact mocks at all these false intellectuals and their pretences, through a clean and plain killer named Raghavan, then I would rather ask, should you have stretched the poor viewers' anxiety for that?
And finally, among the few good things in the film are, when the delivery boy is asked who the picture is of (Che Guvera) on his tee shirt, he replies "This is a big D.Y.F.I guy". And we should not fail to see the talents of the cinematographer who did his job pretty fine, the editor who did her job well giving life to visuals shot in a poor budget, the scripter who made a script not bad for a no-story, and the distributors who sold a mediocre film very well.
The film in fact presents a pretty small idea, which if presented in literature could not have run into more than a couple of pages of a short story, and if made into a film could have been justified well in a short film of less than an hour length. But here we see this small theme stretched forth into a full length movie of two and a half hours length, and blown up - yes I mean it, just zoomed up - onto the big screen.
The film was made on a very small budget, shot almost entirely indoors, and hence doesn't give much of a visual treat to the viewer. The five odd outdoor scenes in the movie aggregate to a total length of less than three minutes. The film further reduces the cost of the production, by limiting the shots entirely to either closeups or medium shots, with not even a single wide-shot in the whole film. I seriously doubt whether this film had to be released on the big screen.
Now, coming to the story part, if you ask me what the story of the film is, I will have to say that there is no story.
The promos as well as the screenplay tries to focus on a handful of statements made by the protagonist throughout the film which are but nothing better than those lines that we see daily on the Facebook. And interestingly, these statements are presented in the film as extraordinary pieces of philosophy. At the very begining of the film the story teller tries to give a false intellectual glamour to the movie by bringing up the story of 'Joseph. K' from Franz Kafka's novels. The scripter apparently rests in the assurance that an average Malayalee wont have read Kafka in his lifetime. Putting it short, the film survives on the false pretence of an intellectual work by the screen writer, the director, the characters in the film, the critics and the viewers as well.
Now, if you put up against me the only counter argument to this, that the film in-fact mocks at all these false intellectuals and their pretences, through a clean and plain killer named Raghavan, then I would rather ask, should you have stretched the poor viewers' anxiety for that?
And finally, among the few good things in the film are, when the delivery boy is asked who the picture is of (Che Guvera) on his tee shirt, he replies "This is a big D.Y.F.I guy". And we should not fail to see the talents of the cinematographer who did his job pretty fine, the editor who did her job well giving life to visuals shot in a poor budget, the scripter who made a script not bad for a no-story, and the distributors who sold a mediocre film very well.