On Mani Ratnam's "Guru"

Watched Guru today. It was entertaining in its own way but one expects something more from a director of the calibre of Mani Ratnam. I have not watched his Nayakan which everyone has assured me is one of his best ventures but I have watched his other movies like Roja and Bombay. While both movies were good, there is something simplistic about his stories. The characters were generally unidimensional and he generally had one central theme that he flogged endlessly.

Now coming to Guru. I don't know why I had expected it to be a little different but seeing that a movie like Guru is essentially targetted at a multiplex audience I would have thought that Mani Ratnam would make the movie with a little more sophistication or depth. Earlier, mainstream Hindi movies were extremely pedestrian so anything a little more sophisticated won a lot of accolades. But the past few years have seen the rise of an emerging new class of directors who are ready to make good cinema. They are on interesting themes, not preachy like the previous "art house" movies and deal with a lot of middle class issues. Therefore, the audience have also started expecting a certain standard, especially from good directors. We don't expect anything other than silly candy floss romances from a Karan Johar (although his Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna did try to break the mould of the happy "bhartiya parivar" a bit) or a Suraj Bharjatya or a David Dhawan. But Mani Ratnam is a cut above these guys. So the expections are also higher.

First, the songs. They were a complete misfit. The problem with them was not that they were bad. The problem was they were inappropriate. They neither moved the story forward nor were situational. If the essential theme of the movie was the romance between Guru and Sujata then they would still be acceptable. However, the theme was much more complex. It tried to highlight the essentialilty of a businessman in a country.

Second, the movie is supposed to be about the life of Dirubhai Ambani (although Ratnam has been denying it steadfastly!!!). I can't comment on this aspect as I don't really know much about Ambani's life except the most superficial information. Based on that there does seem to be a resemblance. However, one thing struck me. The movie's uncanny resemblance to a book by Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead. In the book, Howard Roark, the hero wins a case in court by refusing to refute any of the charges against him. The movie also has a scene where in an inquiry against Guru's so called questionable means, Guru refuses to put up a defence and ends up winner! The reason both Roark and Guru refuse to put up a defence is because both in their own ways thought the system itself was flawed and to succeed one had to break those rules. Now, Rand's books are generally set in a fictionalised U.S. on the verge of communism. The movie however is a very real and strong statement against India's license-raj system. That to me was a huge surprise. The importance of the movie lies there rather than whether it was Ambani's lifestory or any other businessman's life story. It was I think the first movie that explicitly denounces the license raj system and implicitly absolves all businessmen of their wrongdoings since apparantly it was the system that made them give bribes, break tax laws, import quotas etc. And all this was being done to empower the common man as sharesholders (which the common man could buy through public issues). In the process, the movie made the rest of the characters opposing Guru seem either naive (Madhavan as the journo) or stubborn (Mithun as the editor) or plain corrupt (the IAS officers).

If Guru is seen as a movie to promote economic reforms it does a good job. However, if it is supposed to be a story of a real businessman, it does not do the trick. Are businessmen as virtuous and great as they are shown? Are they as courageous as shown? Is moving towards a capitalist system such a great idea or should we have a welfare state? There are lots of questions the movie leaves unanswered...