This is a story with its twists and turns, well-known to most Indians. There isn’t much suspense left to look forward to, either. As a story, Ramayana is intertwined with the collective conscience of millions of Indians. Yet if you turn up at the theatre to watch it, you’re only there to see how it is made. In that sense, it puts a lot of pressure on the makers to ensure the final product isn’t disappointing, to say the least. At the outset, I must say that Director Nitish Tiwari (reputed for his earlier global blockbuster hit, Dangal) and his team have come out of this Agni Pariksha unscathed (Pun intended). After all, expectations from the film were sky-high.
Many of us grew up with different versions of the Ramayana, consumed in various ways since childhood – Amar Chitra Katha comics, plays, musicals, dance forms, and, of course, Ramanand Sagar’s weekly serial on Doordarshan. In particular, the TV series became deeply ingrained in our minds. Therefore, it is natural to compare any other version of the Ramayana to the series. However, the newer generation, without any reference to such a version, starts from a clean slate, and I am sure the viewing experience is bound to be more exciting for them.
In this context, the first thing to come under scrutiny is the cast and their performance. There was considerable scepticism about Ranbir Kapoor as the main protagonist, Ram. Though Ranbir has earned his place in Bollywood as a talented and worthy actor, casting him as Ram was fraught with risk. But Ranbir, despite some stiff body language in parts, gives a good account of himself. Towards the end of the first part, he comes into his own, though it is unclear whether his portions were shot linearly, as in the film. The South Indian star Sai Pallavi was a surprising choice for the role of Sita. She is good, but despite her inherent talent, she looks lost and overwhelmed.
Arun Govil, the quintessential Ram of India, plays King Dasharath, a very interesting choice. The supporting cast chosen for Lakshman, Bharath, etc., is all apt. But if there is one guy who lords over Part 1, it is Yash as Raavan. He has a fantastic screen presence, and with his well-chiselled looks, gait, and performance, he is just brilliant. In fact, one sequence shows him appearing in ten forms in a single frame, which is visually one of the film’s top staging sequences. The ensemble cast also includes familiar faces like Lara Dutta, Kajal Agrawal, Rakul Preet, and Sheeba Chaddha, but the standout is Shobana as Raavan’s mother.
Secondly, in terms of production, there is no doubt the film is large-scale and well-made. The SFX/VFX and animation meet acceptable standards. You will not be alone if you felt a major overhang of Bahubali in the visual imagery and production values. Bahubali itself drew a lot of inspiration from epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata.
As for the animation, I felt the scaling and proportions, as well as the physical appearances of the Rakshasas, were off, but otherwise the animation was high quality. In particular, the fight sequence involving Raavan and Jataayu was truly spellbinding. I don’t know why the wild animals look like robots in their animated versions. The camera work by Pankaj Kumar and Mahesh Limaye is truly world-class.
To me, the music score by A.R. Rahman and Hans Zimmer worked only in parts. While the songs are good and hummable, they remind us of Rahman’s earlier compositions. On the BGM front, it was a mixed bag. The background score comes out well in some sequences and feels relevant to the era, but in most scenes, the sounds feel too contemporary. Rahman’s Ponniyin Selvan 1 score had the same problem.
While I felt Nitish Tiwari pulled off the inevitable fairly convincingly overall, the one area that felt lacking was the absence of an emotional core throughout the film. Though the story and the scenes are well known to us, some of the big moments, like Ram’s banishment, Sita’s kidnapping, Dasharath’s death and finally Jayayu’s death, fail to evoke any emotion. The screenplay fails to lift these scenes largely due to a hurried treatment of them. On the other hand, some sequences involving Shurpanaka, her husband Vidyutijihva, and Raavan run too long, affecting the film’s tempo.
The film opens from the POV of Raavan’s mother, Kaikashi, and devotes considerable screen time to the evolution of Raavan’s character, so much so that we see Ram and his side of the story much later. Yash seizes this opportunity and delivers the most memorable performance in this part. But for this screenplay treatment, the film largely sticks to the narrative of Valmiki’s Ramayana. The costume design, particularly for the women characters, is too opulent for the era the film is set in. In fact, some of the women’s costumes at the Ram-Sita wedding look straight out of a Karan Johar film.
As this part 1 ends and you leave the hall, you can’t help but credit S.S. Rajamouli, the director of the Bahubali films. He made filmmakers and producers believe that India, too, could bring Indian mythological epics to the big screen, like some of the great Greek epics.
This sets higher expectations for the next part, which includes the Yudh Kaand, with a larger scope for visual opulence. This also means the film works best on the big screen. Ramayana: Part 1 is out in theatres and is a good watch.
My Flash Verdict: A good watch, necessarily on the big screen.
Leave a Reply