Rest in Peace, Captain!

"Captain" Vijayakanth (1952–2023)

 

“Captain” Vijayakanth’s passing did not come as a surprise. Not to many, not especially to his fans. The news that he had already passed away was circulating long enough to cry “wolf” that when it actually happenedWhatsApp and other social media-consuming folks had to do something they usually don’t: seek the veracity of the news.

If that is sad, it was sadder still that Vijayakanth had to endure a long health radual decline, fading into the occasional rumour headlines with regards to his health and his being. If it is any consolation, some of his hardest detractors, those who did not see him as having made any good contribution to the film industry, including yours truly, have softened up and started searching for some gold dust, at least in the stream of films he had made over the four decades of career.

Well, he did have a place in the industry, that’s for sure. As himself, Captain, a name he retained after playing the title character in Captain Prabakharan (1991),

In the realms of the Tamil film industry, usually the “TOP TWO” reign as kings of cinema, beginning with P.U. Chinnapa and Thiyagaraja Bagavathar, quickly followed by MGR and Shivaji, and as the bell bottoms showed up, the two had to make way for Rajini and Kamal. Kamal’s disco was MADE for bell bottoms; as dis Rajini"s to help balance that haphazard ball-bearing cracking tun of his. But there ought to be a third force.

This third figure usually lurks, especially during matinee shows, in households with a large family, often entertaining those who don’t care one way or another about the TOP TWO. I tried to search and can’t ascertain who it was during the PUC and Bagahavthar eras. The ChatGPT too threw up its AI hands, saying (I cut and pasted this), “I assume you are asking about the third most popular actor in Tamil cinema after Thyagaraja Bhagavathar and P. U. Chinnappa. Unfortunately, I could not find any reliable information on who that might be.”

Shit.

But the closest has to be Ranjan, the daredevil, the Errol Flynn wannabe who would have dispatched Baghavatar’s mantle if not for someone else who actually looked like Errol Flynn, downright to the dimple on the chin—MGR. And as Sivaji Ganesan came along just as MGR was rising, the industry knew who the next two were. The fans were not bothered about Bhagavathar's throne; he was in the slammer anyway. During this time, Jai Shankar provided the third option for thrill, danger, and a bit of family action. He basically took over from Gemini Ganesan, who always looked like he’s playing the second fiddle, even if he is a goddamned hero of the flick.

Like Jai Shankar, Vijayakanth was famous for working with and encouraging upcoming directors, introducing them, or giving them some sort of discount, and putting in additional efforts. It can sometimes be quite telling because he hardly seemed to be pushing himself onscreen—just doing some recycled acting and mouthing punch dialogues. Like Rajinikanth, who pursued spiritualism and spent his energy there enough to come off looking like a husk in some of the films he did post-90s, Vijayakanth’s political pursuit deprived the artist in him of more ambitious roles. The tongue-roll-bite antic became an easy mimicry tool for the aspiring impressionists.

So, during the reign of Rajini and Kamal, he was the number three for quite a long time. Some would have their turn, like Mohan, Prabhu, Karthik, and Sathyaraj. But Vijayakanth remained on his middle-level throne. As Tamil film fans are obsessed with their heroes and also need to be saviours off-screen, Vijayakanth had to be content with a double reputation, depending on who you wanna listen to. On the bright side, you have the “good heart" and “charitable” side brands, with many comparing him to MGR. Then, there’s the darker side: alcohol and “easy access to certain pleasures in the industry." side that we don't want to discuss now. But most visible seemed to be the imbibing, which has been denied by his wife, of course. She’s now the general secretary of the party he founded, DMDK. I wonder why. I mean, how?

I personally liked Captain in some earlier films, where he was very effective. His early roles include one in Visu’s Dowry Kalyanam (1983), a film I enjoyed very much as it worked like a thriller (race against time to get resources for girl’s wedding), and Nane Raja Nane Mandhiri (1985), where he excelled in a comic turn as a doofus who has high esteem for himself, pairing with the vivacious Radhika.

He did not push himself in the acting department like Kamal Haasan; he didn’t have an almost mythical presence like Rajini onscreen, but he managed to capture millions of hearts—the early box office proves that. Even in the latter stage, he continued to enthrall his fans, even earning grudging respect from non-fans. Speaking of which, I suggest you guys get hold of Chatriyan (1991), a film directed by K. Shubash, who had just come out of Mani Rathnam’s shadow (perhaps literally) and tried to construct pseudo-Mani lights and shadow pretentious drama but actually ended up making a thrilling cop flick.

And so, rest in peace, Captain. We will remember you, alright. You made your mark. They all may vie to be the next Kamal or Superstar, but your gig is unique. I don’t think that, as far as the Tamil film industry is concerned, there will ever be another Captain.

Indiana Jones and The Dial Of Destiny

Apparently I didn't post this here, found it in my Facebook (July 1st, 2023). That's how insignificant it is. But I better have this here for the record.

*There could be spoilers here*

I'll rank 'em first.

1. Raiders 

2. Crusade

3. Doom

4. Crystal Skull

5. This damned thing.

The film had already been getting bad press post it's Cannes preview despite the "standing ovation" Harrison Ford received. It was, I suspect, for Ford's career ...not for this dull fest of a disappointment.

The "jump the shark" climax was a bit too much for me to take, and I didn't even had any issue with Crystal Skull's alien ending. But man, Archemedes himself, guys?

The first half was good fun, almost classic Indy. Almost. Because the "wit" is missing...that sparkle that can only come from Spielberg/Lucas magic. It's none. Many moments just passed by heavily investing on Ford's frown.... actually, frowniest here. That Indy cleverness is almost none, remember those private moment we have with him where he knows, and we knew, not the other characters, that he's gonna get out of the mess somehow? That silly excitement of anticipation? None.

It's not the age thing. Ford looks great here, and may be shuffling a bit when rushing but for an 80 years old, he's believable during some of the scenes. But those scenes don't work. The action scenes are choppy, lacked the grace, that balletic quality we've always come to associate with these films.

The supporting characters are unmemorable on top of that. There's been complain that Phoebe Waller Bridge who plays Indy's goddaughter sort of overshadowed him...no, thankfully she was less annoying than Mutt character Shia Lebeuf played in Crystal Skull

The third act was a mess...or, I don't know...I got bored and sleepy and it's still morning. The plot involving time travel just drifted pass my consciousness like a harmless domestic fly. I didn't care. And when it happened, it was perhaps one of the worst time travel schtick I had witnessed on big screen (it didn't help that we are getting bored with these time jumping, multi verse thingy).

This movie shouldn't have happened. Not how Indy should end (if indeed that's the case, the hat never get to be hung long). I'd be genuinely surprised if this film make some decent collection.

#rakeshmovietalk

Napoleon (2023)

More than half a century ago, Marlon Brando played Napoleon in Désirée (1954), a film about Napoleon’s love affair with the title character during the earlier phase of his military career. The film was dull. Worst, Brando was dull and this was during – like Napoleon himself- early stage of his career, the same year he gave his Oscar winning performance for On The Waterfront.

Cut to almost 7 decades later, Ridley Scott made a similar film, focusing on Napoleon’s relationship with Josephine, the marriage and how it fell.

This was reason for the very depressingly slow pace, taking up more than the mid section of the film, the tracing of the trials and the tribulations of their marriage. It could have been terrible if not for Joaquin Phoenix’s wonderful portrayal of one of the greatest military tactician in history.

Ridley Scott managed to get the hit seat after the likes of Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg abandoned plans to make a biography of Napoleon Bonaparte.

His touches can be felt during the battle scenes, something he mastered after the excellent Gladiator (2000), and he pushes the mastery of the craft even further.

Unfortunately there was nothing much he could do with a dull script, filled with duller scenes, dull dialogues that can only spawn dull performances.

Well, not for Joaquin Phoenix though. He walked through it carrying the weight of the world. This is blasphemy, but he was even better, way more effective than Brando

His presence helped me through those scenes. I snoozed twice during Martin Scorsese’s Killer Of The Flower Moon, and that’s my favourite film director. But here the energy Phoenix brought with him reminded me of his performance in Gladiator. I recall hating him after watching that Russell Crowe starrer (also directed by Ridley Scott) only to realise that it was his character that I hated, and that was the power of Phoenix’s acting.

But this film is not Gladiator, doesn’t even have that glowing aura of a saintly hero, because here Napoleon is portrayed from the filter of Shakespearean tragedy. It's also made with a bit of prejudice against France, when the Brits started to control the climax. Scott is a Brit of course and I am not judging here.

The battle scenes, during the opening and before the climax were what we expected from Scott. Violent, brilliantly shot, putting us in the middle of the battlefield with the clarity of knowing who’s who, it was a triumphant filmaking. Alas, those were the best part of the film. I endured the long dull scenes because of Phoenix, and even to some extent Vanessa Kirby who also had to work from the boring pages.

The critics are overall not happy, with 58% rating at Rotten Tomato and meager 6.6 points in IMDB (Vijay films are luckier, with the latest outing getting 7.4…democracy). I have a feeling they might change their minds few years down the road, especially with the 4 hour version prepared for the streaming services.

Wish (2023)

My friend, childhood buddy/classmate, and “frenemy” (he likes soft ass pop shit, I like rock. He likes Roger Moore Bond, I like Connery Bond, so on so forth), invited me along to watch this flick, because his daughter wanted to. So, basically you know what to expect.

We brought along a nephew of his, so there you go, two old goats and two kids. Naturally, the kids liked the film. Not us. Well not so much. 

The story, following somewhat the similar trajectory, taste, visual style and even the euphoric moments that would remind many of Frozen and other sweet, sugary Disney treats of the past, and you can’t blame the makers. Why change the formula, the MCU is been making dozens of superhero flicks within few years using the same mould and base ingredients. They minted billions off the box office, didn’t they?

As mentioned, this flick will appeal a lot to kids and you would do the right thing to bring them to watch this, reward them or something. Otherwise, there are nothing much to surprise, to cajole or to jerk us off the comfortable zone. It’s so safe that you wish they would show, at least, a drop of blood.

Unlike Frozen, the songs are do not have those earworm quality, the animation is as dull as roadside cones and the scenes are not too painterly either – they are just off the factory stuff. 

But the kids will love it. It has enough silly fun moments and characters (many look recycled from previous Disney hits) that would look appealing to the juniors, so go for it if its still playing in the circuits or are in streaming. 

In the meantime, I am intrigued to know why Disney is offering such a lacklustre outing amidst their own financial issues threatening to crumble the house of mouse. One wonders.