Maamannan

 Maamannan

2023, Tamil, Theater Release, 7.3/10 IMDB, Directed by Mari Selvaraj

Why make movies that speak about things of the past, is the frequently debated question amongst the elite. But discrimination is one such invasive phenomena that needs constant check, to strike the right balance in the society. Visual medium needn't always be branded as an instigating factor that rekindles the pain of the past, rather it's a caution, not to walk those thorny paths, ever again.

The 2022 movie 'Till', https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkQi6GBwmSA a biographical drama, narrates the true story of Mamie Till-Mobley's battle, seeking justice for the murder of her 14-year-old son, Emmette Till, in 1995, who was lynched to death in Mississippi. 'The Emmett Till Anti - Lynching Act', a law more than 100 years in the making, was signed in on March 29th 2022, just six odd months prior to the movie's release in October the same year. It might be a mere political agenda of the west, but if the 'so called' developed countries are at it, we better continue to be at it as well, in our 'so called' secular country, where 'lynching' is loitering our everyday news.

Remembering our history every now and then is critical for us to flourish as a nation, by reflecting on the good, bad and the truth in it. Darkness and denials can hide much but can never erase history. Only by accepting the truth comes, healing and justice. It sounds preachy, but definitely echoes the pain of the weak.

Unjust or prejudicial treatment of masses, needs constant iron fisting, else we would start regressing before we could even realize it. Mari Selvaraj's past work had been similar toned, but on different levels. His first venture ends by initiating a 'dialogue' between the oppressor and the oppressed. His second venture went one step further, cueing to grab one's rights at any cost. His third venture, Maamannan, is a biographical wail on the discriminative treatment he experienced during his childhood, narrated from the perspective of the 'suppressed' and addresses how to unshackle the tag from within.

The 1992 film 'Thevar Magan's 'Sakthivelu' character, whose genotype on tweaking with 'Mayan's character, might lead you to Maamannan's 'Rathnavelu' character, who can very well be a friend of the cousin duo's in the 'Bioscope Universe', if one such phenomena does exist. The director's characterisation of a focused antagonist, with much clarity on what he wants, was beautifully brought to life, by Fahadh Faasil, the 'legend', its time we call him that. Director Mari Selvaraj's seamless 'inter cuts' to project a composite introductory sequence, by contrasting alternate shots of the two prime characters, both introduces the premise and as well reveals the crux.

Mari Selvaraj surpasses metaphors and symbolism in his third venture. He instead, lengthens into allegories, personifying rearing pigs to rearing humans, who are unaware that they are being psychologically repressed. He even goes to symbolize Fahad's regressive behavior by juxtaposing him in an old ruined house and a ravaged car, where he seems to find solace, inferring, he is clinging on to the old notions, inculcated when young by his fore fathers. On the contrary, Udhay's protagonist role, also clings on to the past by rearing pigs, but the key is, he awaits an opportunity to bring in holistic changes, in his father's beliefs, his society's thought process and in the polity of the masses, that his father is a part of.

Vadivelu, playing the title role, has the role of his lifetime, next best to his 'Isakki' character from Thevar Magan. The actor's grimace of pain and deceit, his serenity when troubled, his respect for his wife, leaves one speechless. We have seen the actor in roles that are more than mere comical, like in Emtan Magan. But here, Vadivelu's character demands more than just a serious looking grim face. He comes a full circle, for we see him as a slave who doesn't have a voice, to becoming an untold 'messiah' to set the slaves free, from their shackles. And the actor shoulders his responsibilities promptly as he never strays away to his old comical self, not in one frame. The well-seasoned comedian, devours the meaty role and I was reminded of the legendary actor Sivaji Ganesan himself in more than one instance. Vadivelu caressing his wife's feet, to coax her to calm her anxiety and his constant pleads to his son, not to react in anger, adds finer layers to the character, which Vadivelu convincingly pulls off.

Fahad gets in to the skin of the characters that he gets to play, we know that. But here, He kind of teases the audience, tempting them to decode the actor's on-screen thought process and emotional surges. His character is completely unpredictable and surprisingly the contemplations on his thoughts, beautifully translates to the audience, through his minimal body language and controlled expressions. The actor nails in executing the character's alter ego, in perfect measures, by reflecting it in his on-screen persona.

Keerthi Suresh convinces you with her crucial role, which moves the story forward and she seems to give her best. A. R. Rahman's score, paints 'pain' in a different color. Theni Eshwar captures the milieu of Salem and the location familiarity as a fellow Salemite was a boon and a bane, as I was left constantly to overcome the urge of identifying the houses, bridges and magnesites of my home town. But the intensity in the narration, engaged me and kept me invested in the plot, for most part of it.

The director's attempt to illustrate and invalidate the humiliation, affiliated to a 'pig rearer', as an identity to his bottom carder of the caste pyramid, is noble. It was beautifully analogized in the pen ultimate scene where Udhay's mother, played by the fantastic Geetha Kailasam, shivers with fear, just like the piglet, who lost its entire community, falling prey to a 'dog rearer's' hatred.

The works of the director, were hailed by many, irrespective of their castes, but I have my doubts if the upper crust attempted to digest the intention of the maker in its fullest, rather than just appreciating it's artistic worth. If the sight of a 'piglet' onscreen, despises even a single viewer, it translates that the hardship of representing the pain of the discriminated masses, aren't just enough.

Was fondly reminded of the 1977 anti-caste movie 'Agraharathil Kazhuthai' by John Abraham, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pBTtAue0rA which itself was his ode to Robert Bresson’s 1966 French movie ' An Hasard Balthazar' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL8MuxXB_Eg

Five decades later, if directors are forced to take the 'metanarrative' route to mirror human conditions, it is time we understand the significance and necessity to end our inner repugnance- first towards the 'so-called' lowly animal, a 'pig' in this case and then towards the humans who rear them for living or care for, as their pet.  

Por Thozhil

 Por Thozhil

2023, Tamil, IMDB 8.6/10, Directed by Vignesh Raja

The makers have a clear vision from writing the script to executing it. The narrative, focuses on visual perfections rather than trying to influence the viewer's thought process. Director Vignesh Raja, takes his time to establish the traits of the investigating duo's, played by Ashok Selvan and Sarath Kumar. As an add-on, the screenplay parallels on 'parental responsibilities' in bringing down the rates of such heinous crimes. The director strategizes his screenplay to voice out, that violence can't be prompted to individuals by any medium, while on the other hand, it is the familial values, that might prevent such psychopaths on a killing spree.

Just when viewers are intrigued by Ashok Selvan's versatile work pattern and character selection, one is equally left in awe of Sharath Kumar's striking performance. In a grumpy body language, seemingly an extension of Periya Pazhuvettaiyar's role from PS-2, the stern yet naive actor, refreshes our memories, of his, three decades old, 'Nattamai' days.

The duo along with Nikhila Vimal, the female lead, makes progress on solving the case as a team and trio's personal bond blossoms organically. The brief soul-searching dialogues of Ashok with Nikhila and his ice breaking attempts with Sharath, not only helps in accelerating the screenplay but also reaches out to the audience, making them feel inclusive.

The twists and turns are carefully addressed by an organized screenplay, leaving the audience engrossed, when the plot disentangles itself. As the 'suspect hat', shifts from one suspect to another, the screenplay is comprehensive enough, not bothering the narrative's pace much. At the same time, the final suspect doesn't get adequate screen time to establish his motive, for the newer set of crimes, leaving us deeply hooked with the previous suspect. Also, the 'locking horns' sequences between the Police personnel and the Crime Branch duo, also seemed a little rushed in the latter part. But the director chooses to focus his lenses on the primal plot points and it does spans out beautifully in his favor.

Straight forward and simple dialogues, are yet another strength of the film, making the characters more human and familiar. One such was Ashok Selvan's reply to Sarath Kumar's argument. Sarath argues that children who have been abused, necessarily don't grow up to becoming criminal offenders themselves. He says, they may sometimes become police officials, to punish the people who abuses children, hinting his own childhood trauma. Ashok Selvan fittingly and boldly counters, pointing out how Sarath's childhood trauma result in his 'unapproachable persona'.

The parting words, has got to be about Sarath Kumar. The actor's controlled performance and his blank, stern and emotionless face, ironically tries to communicate with the audience all the time. His face does occasionally, give room for inevitable emotional expressions at times. And surprisingly he divulges those emotions, just to the audience. This makes us audience, long for those untold stories of his childhood. He almost mellows down, child-like, in the climax frame, which gives way for a role reversal to his counter-part Ashok Selvan. And Ashok pulls it off with ease as well. The success of the film is that, we end up wishing 'Por thozhil', be upgraded to a franchise format, that it might offer us uninterrupted crime solving and some beautiful personal story-telling.

One can't ignore the similarity the film shares with the 2018 Tamil film 'Ratsasan', https://g.co/kgs/M1UrgH . But the sub plots amidst which 'Por Thozhil' had been spun, makes it a riveting watch on its own, fondly reminding the likes of P. Sujatha's 'Ganesh Vasanth' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesh%E2%80%93Vasanth which was originally inspired by Sherlock Holmes and Watson.

Ninaivo Oru Paravai

 Ninaivo Oru Paravai

2023, Episode 6: Modern Love Chennai, Amazon Prime, 7.9/10 IMDB, Directed by Thiyagarajan Kumararaja

Nianivo Oru Paravai, is 'A tale of the 'characters' of a tale'. A delusional drama in the guise of an auto biography format, placed in a befitting Gen z's 'modern love' premise. Thiagarajan Kumararaja's overlapping technique of story telling, reveals an undefined situaionship, that blossoms 'commitment', through sexual compatibility. But he maintains the 'real Vs hallucination mystery' in tact, as clues roll out, even in the end credit.

For those who were (are) trying to decode the Thiyagarajan Kumararaja's world and his characters, the director chooses to decode his third venture himself in his own way, leaving random clue trails all over. His characters are not just full of life anymore, but they come alive, and the viewers are left to play spectators. But mind you, it is Kumararaja and he wants to keep the possibilities, multiplying. Hence, he has spun his non-linear fiction, with one too many co-relations, to distract and to be conceived differently by different viewers.

The director, masterminds by dwelling into the lives of fictional characters in a 'hallucination' backdrop, as the plot intertwines and schemes a pattern, to reflect an aspiring director's auto biography. Kumararaja's vociferous shot compositions, captures the true essence of 'modern love'. The director redefines the term, 'character arc', as he constructs the traits of his lead characters K and Sam. The characters seem to have a life of their own inside and outside the scripts of both the lead male K's and director Kumararaja's. Ironically, the arc of his characters, never converges to any given axis.

I was constantly reminded of the 'Black Mirror' series. The crux, patterns a psychological drama, addressing the psyche of beings, who believe to experience the joy of love and the pain of separation. The episode superficially studies the consequences of separation, in a memory loss backdrop, but 'when you look closely to SEE', the backdrop spells 'hallucination'. What are happy and sad memories, worthy of, if the person with whom you shared the memory, doesn't remember it? But this is just a cover for even more hard hitting story line- Sam is hallucinating in entirety.

The director's aesthetic visualization, helps in the capture of emotional intensities at their best, be it, the height of comical moments or the orgasmic pleasures. The director 'words', pains and pleasures, through his spontaneous dialogues, which otherwise are strictly intimate exchanges of a couple or mere giggly whispers of them, when in public.

The director's endeavor in 'visual expressionism' goes hand in hand with his attempts to be 'vocal' about the so called 'sanctified love'. The very love that is bound by multiple ties, over the centuries, especially in our land. The film oscillates our thoughts between the two ends of the civilization spectrum - what 'love' might have meant in stone age, to its contemporary form, summing up the evolution of the 'feeling' called love.

Kumararaja's idiosyncrasies of unrefined color textures, unrestrained intimacy and unexplored sensuousness- showers quite a few gratifying visuals. The director either re-evaluates the archetypal myths of love in vogue relationships or visualizes the inner longings of a woman, who regrets her breakup. Be it the insecurity that lurks in the mind of an independent woman in a relationship, or the biological trait of women, tending to prove that their love for their partner is always greater that the partner's love for them, Kumararaja nails them all. The director, distinctively reiterates deep emotions, for instance, his characters are contemplating had they been of same gender, whose love would have been greater.

The director's primary thoughts on characters having a life, even after the film ends, is something I could relate to. As a young girl, I myself had longed to meet the characters behind the screen, while walking out of the cinema hall. The world that a creator creates, need not end with an end card, the maker hints. Those characters would be aging just like us and they might end up in other movies such as the Singamperumal character played by Jackie shroff in 'Aranyakandam', lands on a wall poster, in the movie Super Deluxe. Similarly, it might land up in other people's story too, just like it did in Lokesh's Vikram.

But here the clues from the handwritten notes of the lead character, an aspiring director himself, in his typewritten script, throws a hallucination angle. The knots of the episode tighten there on, leaving the viewers pausing, to search for more evidences, to substantiate the visuals.

Sam's delusional perspective after K's accident and coma, might explain the psychiatrist's nag to Sam, on not skipping her medications. Sam might as well be imagining herself to be the 'rich girl' character from K's script, which is K's biography. The surprise in the doctor's tone in the end of the pen ultimate sequence, explains Sam's desire to get back with K, is her imagination. The pills that remain unconsumed in her toilet, justifies this very theory.

As always Kumararaja incorporates psychological concepts of 'Last Thursdayism' and Zhuangzi's 'Butterfly Dream' concept that quotes on K's T-shirt. "Am I a man dreaming of being a butterfly or am I a butterfly dreaming of being a man", which later is altered as 'Wo'man when Sam is seen wearing the same T-shirt. The typewritten script having motifs of cactus and twin-bird flying, might be clues to differentiate hallucinated sequences. The huge potted cactus in the walk way is seen changing color and the twin-bird tattoo disappears on and off on Sam's neck, in between her dialogue sequences. The 4 point notes including, hallucinations, continuity errors in the abruptly ending script, which relatively gives us a peek into the mind of 'K' alias Kumararaja.

A person's understanding of an art work is directly proportional to his or her exposure. Suggestive of Kumararaja's previous formats, the episode does leave us with 'n' number of possibilities as anticipated. Mine, naturally is bound to fall in line with that of a mother's, for I am a mother of a daughter in her late twenties.

To me, the movie spoke from a perspective that, the 'psychiatrist' was a metaphor for either the 'inner voice' of Sam's or her family's. And the fortune teller's words, seemed more like a 'societal opinion'. It might also be a seen as a person's 'negative instinct' that creeps when one is anxious. But in the hallucinative world of Sam, the fortune teller is another version of the psychiatrist, as she is echoing the psychiatrist's words- 'Sam and K can never get together'. It is because K is either dead or is in coma (the clue being, both characters are played by the same actor, meaning, the fortune teller is, Sam's hallucination).

To me, 'memory loss' symbolized the way we heal with time, forgetting, either the 'reason' or the 'intensity' of our unpleasantries, say, break ups. 'Memory loss' synonymized 'forget the unpleasant past'. Kumararaja details the 'synchronization of emotions' before and after the break-up, and it transpires onscreen ever so beautifully, for instance, the message on the hidden toilet roll, that surfaces the intensity of the duo's love for each other.

Kumararaja's precision in aesthetic detailing, travels parallel to the story and constantly reminds Bansali's and Myskkin's sensibilities. Sophisticated 'cancer brand' cigarette packs and a trip to the coffee shop, ends in 'sin with us' bar, the exhaustive capture of the acts of love making and the emotional outcomes, using props to imitate the rhythm of coupling, are classic Kumararaja expressionism, on his very own canvas.

Keeping aside the logical explanation of the entire narration being a delusional perspective of Sam's, to me it translated positively. Led by her instincts, Sam, rehabilitates both her partner and their broken relationship. Led by his belief, the only person whom K's memory didn't dodge him off, after his accident and surgery, K gets back with Sam. Sheer magic when the characters of K's first draft, experiences the 'happily ever after moment' for themselves, inside the story and out, reminding Director Partiben's Kathai thiraikathai vasanam iyakkam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld39TnjzU4s) and Kudaikul Mazhai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudaikul_Mazhai) for some reasons.

The title of the episode, is the first line of a nostalgic landmark song from the Illayaraja musical the 1978's Sigappu Rojakkal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeyWdplou6U) The maestro does a remarkable job of rekindling the memories of the 70's boomers and at the same time enticing the Gen Z's curiosity, nearly five decades later. Illayaraja's scores, transcends and compliments Kumararaj's flawless portrait like visuals. The symphony scores, used to kill random silences and as a cheat code, for the delusional theory, does spark the cupid within, making us fall in love with the maker, the music director and with our own selves.

Wamiqa Gabbi as Sam, leaves the audience spellbound with an array of emotional displays, both happy and sad. The outbursts of laughter, anger and pleasure of PB and Wamiqa, surprises the audience for their spontaneity. PB's subtlety as K and Wamiqa's loudness as Sam are in perfect harmony.

It's an addictive experience, as the possibility of creating a new version of story, multiplies with each watch. With every watch we are one step closer to solving TK's puzzle. As always this work of TK also demands collective watches, debates and discussions, -a superficial version for the movie lovers and an encrypted version for the movie fanatics.  

Ponniyin Selvan II

Ponniyin Selvan II

April 2023, Tamil, IMDB 8.4/10, Directed by Manirathnam

Documenting visuals to the largest selling novel of the Tamil community, is an arduous task in itself. But the ace team manages to draw the curtain down on the part II, with a bang. In the process it elevates the novel to newer heights, amidst few creative liberties on the silver screen. Manirathnam's signature shot compositions delivers an untold reminiscence of the craftsman's career. It beautifully parallels the reader's nostalgia as well, as the novel is the pride of the Tamil literary heritage.

While reading stories that are narrated from the angles of multiple plot points, we are left to hangover in the previous chapter's occurrences whilst reading the subsequent chapter's plot. When PS II is unveiled, our dynamic sense organs are ready. From smelling the cool ocean perfume, to hear the roars of the thunderstorm, to even taste the salinity. We await to witness in detail, the silver haired Nandhini 'look alike', to save Arulmozhi from the deep end. We expect the visuals to leave us experience the 'goose pimple moment' in all its excitement.

The director chooses to cut our imagination short and skips chapters to the 'static grief' of the kith and kin to maintain it a surprise for the audience who haven't read the book. It sets back the expectations of Ravi Varman's underwater camera work and Manirathanam's shot choreography.

The team decides to begin the part II with the reiteration of Nandhini's pain, which apparently lay foundation for the fictitious plot, and vital from the story-building perspective of Manirathnam. It does sadden the adventure mongers, who had dreamt of a continuity, through months of wait, with bated breath.

The complex storyline of the novel with swarming subplots, to be briefed for adaptation purposes, is always a walk on tight rope. It may easily drift away from the ethos of the original. The writing team does a remarkably good work in condensing the plot by merging a few and omitting a few. The beauty is, the master director's add-ons, creatively tucks the audience by their reigns, for a few fresh surprises, as the director dons his 'love forte'.

Karthi and Trisha's Vandhiyathevan and Kundavai, are blessed by the director's story extensions in PS II. But the showstoppers are Nandhini and Aadhithya. Director's opening arrangements, now makes more sense. Those lengthy prologue dedications were meant to hint the audience on the different narrative standpoint different from that of the novel's. Nandhini's and Aadhithya's voices and emotions are the loudest. And the duo, surpasses their familiarity, from their Ravanan days, to deliver in freshness, the love-hate relationship. They stay true to their characterization in the print form as well.

The ensemble with their introduction done already in part I, dives straight into action with less scope for comedy or sarcasm. Few exceptions, like the conversational creativity in Aadhithya's, expressing his dis-approval of the 'old' Periya Pazhuvettaiyar for marrying his childhood love interest, Nandhini.

The scene where Karthi 'love-talks' with his eyes tied. The director asserts- all an actor needs is the commitment in convincing the audience. And Karthi does the magic with his expressive eyes, all closed.

The novel, sports a concoction of ambition, treachery, bravery and friendship. The movie dwells in all of the above with a vocabulary of its own to suit the visual compatibility. Also the need for a clarity in its narration for the benefit of the non-readers, are duly accomplished by simplifying its complexity.

Manirathanam's efforts are commendable. And so is the production house's, for aiding the director realize his dream project.

Vikram's 'Paata', 'Thatha' sarcasm working on the reigns to keep his horse from trotting, Aishwarya's bewildered ocean deep eyes, Karthi's naivety in swapping roles of a hero and a comedian, Ravi's swag in its own subtlety, Trisha's sibling concern and expressive dutifulness- there can't be another for each of their roles in the Tamil industry.

A tribute to Manirathnam's movie making style, by cinematographer Ravi Varman is evident in many sequences, that reminds fondly the legend's previous masterpieces. In her introduction, Sara Arjun who plays the young Nandhini, reminds the 'Kunitha puruvamum' song from, 'Thalapathi' moviehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6478pdqRjw8. Prakash Raj's top angle shot with Trisha while he narrates Mandhgini's story, reminds of 'Iruvar' movie's shot with Tabu in his arms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287R_zugj9o. The 'Idhayathai Thirudathey' kind of motion capture in Nandhini and Aadhithya's final scene, where they battle out their overwhelming love for each other, except the emotions are uniquely different in both instances.

The sibling trio's bonding sequence in the buddha vihar is an intricate scene. The three actor's unconventional close ups, all three facing different angles, profoundly captured that one's angle doesn't hinder the other from showcasing their prowess.

Prakash Raj, holding the lifeless body of 'Mandhakini' Aishwarya's and yet her eyes sparkling with 'much' life in it, sheer magic.

Like the first part, I enjoyed it even better on my second watch, as I was seeing the movie from Mani rathnam's perspective and not through the author Kalki's vision like I did on my first day. Actor Jayaram and Karthi, tries their best to squeeze in few laughs as Nambi and Vanthiaythevan. But as the screenplay is tightly packed with twists and turns, the audience's amusement is quickly silenced as the duo engage on serious missions themselves. The audience were pin-drop quiet throughout the nearly 3 hour screening, even on the opening day's show. A sign of reverence to both the novel and the director's meticulous detailing.

A. R. Rahman's references to MS Vishwanathan and G. Ramanathan's work from the 50's, beautifully marries the ethnical lyrics of Illango Krishnan's. Rahman reinvents himself and his background score is in mystic sync with the 10th century's rustic visual backdrops.

The ambition and devotion of the crew is justified by the seamless screenplay and its execution, thanks to co-writers Jeyamohan and Kumravel for skimming the novel to the onscreen version. The two part masterpiece, is sure to remain in the Tamil's treasury just as the Novel did for nearly seven decades.

Love

 Love

2020, Malayalam, 7/10 IMDB, Netflix, Directed by Khalid Rahman

Is 'Love' is subjective? Of course it is. When narrowed down to romantic 'Love' with a partner, is it subjective still? It again is highly subjective, as it is about 'two conscious people' with individual 'point of views'. But, isn't it the 'objective love' that binds a couple a given relationship-married or in courtship? That's the crux of the movie, written in a satirical tone- the very 'absence' of the 'so called', 'spontaneous and unconscious love', among the Millennials and Gen Z.

In any strained relationship, the 'unborn' is often the litmus test. The director Khalid Rahman, chooses to spin the story from that point in the lives of the lead pair. The maker also attempts to explore the scopes of a simple linear narration of this twisted tale, giving it a newer shade, by surprising the audience with an unexpected element, that topples the entire screenplay in its pen-ultimate sequence.

Spoilers ahead!

A marriage that is falling apart, is the 'start' of the premise. The 'middle', relates to the millennial's personal and professional lives and the 'end' houses a twist, a sheer revelation, of the intention of the maker. It speaks, rather 'warns', the confused generation, irrespective of gender, about their volatile relationships. There were ample trails in the introduction sequences, that might have given away the surprise that is thrust upon the viewers towards the end. But the makers cleverly uses them to intrigue the viewers to stay hooked to the narration.

The composition of the initial 'Physical Abuse' sequence of the couple, Anoop and Deepthi, played by Shine Tom Chacko and Rajisha Vijayan, was ironical, for the background was fascinatingly scored with a harmonious symphony. The symphony seemed a subliminal reminder to the audience that, 'life is a symphony', whereas the contradicting visuals of their physical abuses on each other, silently screamed- Life might have been a symphony, had they stayed 'adjusted and stable'.

There might have been instances in our lives, where we would have witnessed people swearing to kill each other in a 'fit of anger'. The key here is, the swearing comes from both the participants, meaning that they are 'equal' in their power, rage and of course in 'crime'. That is the synopsis of the maker's thoughts- In simple words it takes 'two to tango'.

Just as the symphony ends, the wife Deepthi, 'sits' dead peacefully, with her eyes opened and the background goes, 'silent as a grave'. She looks so alive, that you are hoping if she would choke and come back to life anytime soon. Anoop tries to kill himself, for the chaos that he had entangled himself in. Soon it dawns that, it's a decision made by him in 'reflex' and not in 'regret' to the murder that he had committed. When the door bell rings, Anoop shifts Deepthi to the bathroom and finds his 'friend' at the door - a 'friend' who doubts his wife of having an affair with his business partner 'Shellby' and thier sinking business is also taking along with it, his apartment to pay off the debts.

Anoop counsels his friend, to resolve his differences with his wife. At this point the viewers are made to believe that its the 'gyan' post-murder. But, when the story takes a U-turn towards the end, the counseling seem to have a whole new meaning. So is the advice to his another friend who has brought someone else's wife with him, to Anoop's house, requesting to use the bedroom for a while. As audience, we are in a chaos, as the story extends to weird extremes and the murderer Anoop doesn't seem to be assertive enough to ask both the friends leave, so he could decide whether to involve the police or escape or try to dispose Deepthi's body. Instead the three friends argue, whether killing 'troublesome' wives, is a wise decision. Anoop warns the other two friends that 'women's thought processes are different from that of men's' and 'never to mess with women folks'. We clearly could attribute it to his guilt, but after the major twist, these dialogues, translates differently.

Major spoliers ahead. If you are planning to watch the movie, revisit the review after you finish watching it.

Just when the viewers give up the thought that deepthi might wake up from dead, the door bell rings and to our surprise, it is Deepthi. The story in reality unfolds and we realize that both the 'friends' are the inner voices of Anoop himself. Anoop had supposedly had a dream that he 'killed his wife'. The director, cleverly visualizes the conscience of Anoop, by giving two different characterization to the two shades within him- interestingly, one is an uncivilized brute, who wants to kill all wives who flaw and the other friend, an urban, 'cheating' husband. The inner selves of Anoop, fights with each other, arguing 'for and against' the murder Anoop has committed. Evil and the Nobel are the usual binaries in one's inner self sage. But, we have dual 'fraudster sides' of varied intensity and the 'rational self' Anoop, as the third entity, who mellows down, apparently after he had spent 'quality time' with his 'silent' wife's corpse, during the process of plotting, to escape murder charges.

The realization of the 'consequences of murder' in his drunken state of mind, makes him evade his wife Deepthi's repetitive accusation and calms him to answer with caution. She comes home to reveal that she is pregnant, but starts to pick a fight bringing up Anoop's affair with the married woman. The makers try to picturize two kinds of scenarios, with reversed roles for the couple in each version. The technically sound composition, proves educative, for the viewers could reflect to analyze the gender specific behavioral patterns in themselves, upon internalizing which, it could help them rectify their real life mistakes. This is the success of the film, I thought.

Yet another 'super spoiler' ahead. Read at your own discretion!

The minute long suspense in the end reveals that, in reality, Deepthi kills her abusive cheating husband and surrenders to the highway police, while she is trying to take his body in her car's trunk to dispose. The irony is, Anoop actually had dreamt of killing Deepthi, but Deepthi ends up killing him for real. The final argument between the couple was effectively orchestrated. It showed how Anoop, restricts an outburst of anger, as he had experienced the pain of being a murderer, but he does loose his patience because he was cornered by his intriguingly pushy 'detective' wife. Deepthi on the other hand, could have easily walked out of the abusive relationship, deciding either to keep or not to keep the baby. But she chooses to win the argument with Anoop by proving to him that he after all is a low life looser and the detective role's upper hand seems to give her a 'high' of some sort.

There seems a pattern in both their behavior which the makers try to enlighten the viewers upon- Anoop's excessive chauvinism and Deepthi's unacceptability of reality. The black comedy elements enveloping the hallucination sequence, is an intentional realistic peek into the toxic masculine minds of a looser. On the other hand, Deepthi's inquisitiveness and choosing not to 'let go', might be because, either she fears of being left alone or she wants to prove she is right in choosing Anoop, over her Dad's caution over her marriage choice.

Either way, we realize, there never had been a true essence of the so called 'unconscious love' between the two. They were spontaneous in conducting themselves as 'husband and wife', but 'love' seemed to have faded away when the true personality traits of the individuals take over and make them what they end up as.

An interesting suspense thriller that leaves the viewers engrossed for its content, its making and inferences through its non-verbal channels. The conception of the crux and its clever narrative are commendable - a negative ending narration, leaving a collective thought to ponder. This was missing in the recent, 'Ela Veezha Poonchira', which ended negative and substantiated by speaking 'for' the human behaviors that are influenced by the unconscious psyche and its weird urges. The impact that both the movie leaves on society, are by far contrasts.

Easily one of my favorite movies in recent times.