|
Release
date:
|
October 26, 2018
|
|
Director:
|
Ajay Devaloka
|
|
Cast:
Language:
|
Shine Tom Chacko, Shruthy Menon, Pearle Maaney, Rajeev Pillai,
Prashanth Nair
English, Malayalam
|
What if we are
characters in another person’s dream and death is that person waking up?
What if we could
communicate in our dreams with individuals we have never met?
Writer-director
Ajay Devaloka addresses these questions in Who:
Chapter 2, an English-Malayalam film that travels back and forth across
several decades all the way up to 2040 A.D. Through this time we encounter a
young woman called Dolores and a reclusive man called John who are both
troubled by what they see in their sleep. In the same region, two policemen are
investigating the disappearance of a woman named Isabella when they learn
that tragedy strikes in that area each year on Christmas day.
Dreams and the
scope of the human imagination have pre-occupied philosophers and litterateurs
for generations. Devaloka’s theme per se remains captivating, until a
long-drawn-out voiceover in the end decides to idiot-proof it for us with a
detailed explanation about electromagnetic waves, cosmic connections and other
blah.
Before that finale,
when we are left to ourselves to interpret the goings-on, large swathes of Who are quite interesting, and what
appear to be loose ends are forgivable since a companion film to Who called Isabella is in the offing so one assumes that those gaps would be plugged in
that film. “Quite interesting” but not entirely so because the film never
comes to terms with its chosen language of communication, that is, English with
some Malayalam. Its awkwardness with the former – in the writing and much of
the acting – makes its silences preferable to too many of its spoken
conversations.
Those silences,
draped in the mists of a mountainous region “somewhere in India”, come swaddled
in an alluring air of mystery, foreboding and desolation. DoP Amith Surendran
embraces the film’s setting with both arms, his magnificent frames tempering
the rich green of the mountainside with a perennial gray.
Visually then, Who is stunning. Thematically too it is
filled with promise. But all the intriguing paranormal and pop psych questions
in the world, the Biblical knowledge, the referencing of King Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream from the Old Testament, and beautiful cinematography cannot camouflage
the fact that though the dialogues are written primarily in English with some
use of Malayalam, the writer’s English does not flow comfortably.
The choice of
language is in itself inexplicable. Where in India is this film located that
people would force themselves to speak English even in private spaces although
it does not come naturally to them and they do have a choice since everyone
seems to know Malayalam too? Of course there is the other possibility – a
perfectly acceptable one – that a director/writer would pick a tongue alien to
his story’s setting because it is the language most understood by his target
audience, like Richard Attenborough making Gandhi
in English although we know that the characters in that film would mostly not
have been speaking English in real life, and Milan Luthria making The Dirty Picture in Hindi although it
is set in Chennai where, in real life, most of the characters would have been
speaking Tamil with perhaps a spot of English. If you take that route as a
filmmaker, you may opt for actors who speak in local accents but you cannot
have a writer who writes dialogues in a way that no one speaks.
Not only do many of
the English dialogues in Who sound
pretentious (a woman called Arunima is crushed under this burden), but some are downright hollow to the point of being
hilarious. Like this solo line delivered by John, who grandly tells one of the
cops: Sometimes life is more than just a dream, isn’t it? He then walks away,
as if he is leaving us to think deeply about a gem that just tripped off his
lips.
Or sample this
exchange between the two policemen discussing the fact that Isabella’s body has
not been found although another woman who disappeared was later found murdered:
Cop1: I suspect a
foul play.
Cop2: Yes I
think so too.
Oh, you do?!
Thankfully, these
are the very worst of Who, and the
rest is better. But the language also appears to affect the performances of
some of the artistes since John’s little daughter and John himself sound more
natural when they are speaking in Malayalam, but stiff and strained while
dealing with their English lines. The kid, in fact, struggles with English to
embarrassing effect.
John comes off worse
on the whole though because English dominates his lines and, sadly, actor Shine
Tom Chacko comes across as though he has been instructed to be intentionally
mannered in his speech. Shruthy Menon who plays Arunima must have got the same
memo. Menon is very likely at ease with both languages off screen, but is
better with her Malayalam dialogues in this film, not because her acting
changes for them but because those portions are better written.
One can only assume
that with their theatrical performances she and Chacko are playing along with
director Devaloka’s vision here since this is not how they have been in their
previous films.
The actor who comes
away from this film with her reputation unsullied is Pearle Maaney playing
Dolores. To be fair to the others, hers is the best-written part. Still, there
are places where she could have gone all melodramatic and lofty on us but does
not. Whether she was given the freedom to decide for herself or that was
Devaloka’s call for her we do not know, but either way she manages to keep
Dolores unpretentious till the very end.
The first half of Who evokes curiosity despite its obvious
flaws, because Maaney, the camerawork, and the theme keep it going. It becomes
increasingly laboured as the second half progresses though. This is a theme
worth exploring, it just needed to be handled in a less self-conscious and
self-important manner epitomised by that laughable spoonfeeding session in the
closing voice-over that may as well have been preceded by the words, “Dear viewers,
I just showed you my very very intelligent film that I think perhaps you may
have been too dumb to understand, so let me spell it out for you...” Uff.
Rating (out
of five stars): *1/2
|
CBFC Rating (India):
|
UA
|
|
Running time:
|
153 minutes
|
A version of this review has also been published on Firstpost:
Poster
courtesy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_(film)
No comments:
Post a Comment