Wishful Maharaja

2024, Tamil, Theatrical release, IMDB 8.6/10, Directed by Nithilan Saminathan

Following views of mine on the movie has been published in Baradwaj Rangan's Movie Blog on 21st June 2024

https://baradwajrangan.wordpress.com/2024/06/21/readers-write-in-703-wishful-maharaja/

A complex narration of an average person's tale, told with conviction, beautifully concurs a parallel story to catch the audience by surprise. Director Nithilan showcases his narrative prowess through the overlapping plot points and handles the ensemble's individual arcs largely, except for couple of futile female characters. The compromise in exploring the mind space of the lead roles in view of keeping the suspense and non-linear narrative intact, let's the narration down in places.

The director chooses to narrate the story of actor Vijay Sethupathi's title character, keeping in dark his true intentions, up until the interval block. A grim-faced man who is adamant of giving all things best to his daughter, be it sports shoes or an apology from the school principal who had mistakenly accuses her.

I couldn't help being reminded of a similar sequence, a school backdrop in the movie 'Chithha'. Both the situations translated similar to me even though the essence were in complete contrast. In Chithha, on knowing that his niece did commit the mistake, actor Siddarth, the uncle would change her school instead of giving an apology letter. Both men are shown adamant, demanding that the child is given due respect. Here Vijay Sethupathi holds adamantly on to the grill till the ceiling debris down demanding the principal to apologize and there Siddarth adamantly moves his niece from an environment where she might be stigmatized. The latter composition, seemed to have blossomed organically while the former was loudly attention seeking. The director not only establishes how much the child means to Vijay Sethupathi but also seems to build a firewall for the actor's actions that are to follow.

In Chithha, when actor Sidharth tries to revenge his niece's molester, as audience we were left to hope that someone would stop him, so he doesn't become a murderer. But here, owing to the non-linear suspense, not knowing the trauma of his and his daughter's, when Vijay Sethupathi decapitates someone, it doesn't draw the due sympathy for the griever. From the viewer's perspective I was kind of left in lurch, not knowing whether to condemn or commend the actor's deeds.  

The brilliant plot overlapping on timelines works flawlessly. The quest, at the police station to find the whereabouts of 'Lakshmi', the personified 'dustbin' that saved Vijay's 'apparent' infant daughter (irrespective of the master climax twist), reminds of VJS's 'Naduvula Konjam Pakkam Kaanom' repetitive episodes. The repetitiveness would not have been so forceful had there been enough prologue to the character's trait, I wondered. The laughter intended to dodge the viewers off the suspense, does provide comic relief, but only superficially, as it stalls the momentum of the serious story that awaits to transpire.

Anurag Kashyap's performance in 'Imaikka nodigal' was much spoken about, as the character was seen to challenge the protagonist and her team by hampering and trailing their investigations from scene one. On the contrary in 'Por Thozhil' the protagonist was revealed much later just before the interval block. And in 'Ratsasan' the antagonist's story is not revealed much later towards the last third of the movie. All the three antagonist's characters work brilliantly even though their entry into story is differently placed.

In Maharaja, the character Selvam played by Anurag is placed on the parallel story as antagonist and Vijay Sethupathi is on a different trail for a 'dustbin'. By the time the two stories concur on revealing parts of the suspense, the darkness over the motive of the lead actor doesn't pay off as much as it was intended. The reveal of overlapping knots sweeps the awe factor, rather. The reveal was indeed path breaking but the intensity that the other three antagonists in the movies mentioned earlier had, Anurag's character Selvam couldn't emulate.

And yet again in the climax suspense, the reveal was breathtaking and Vijay Sethupathi's reaction on seeing Anurag was priceless. It beautifully reminded the 'gasp' that Kavin's character in the movie 'Star' had when he was given his newborn after the death of his wife. But the final reveal made me wonder if the director had captured enough of the benevolence of the character 'Maharaja' himself, to substantiate the action of Vijay Sethupathi raising 'the baby', that was saved by the fall of the 'Dustbin' Lakshmi.

Except for the incident that Vijay goes to give the baby's chain to the customer Anurag, who had left it accidentally in the former's barber shop, we are not given the prologue of his traits. Other than evident facts that he lives with his daughter far away from the hustle of the town, shares a strong bond with her, is supportive of her passion and is adamant, we are forbidden to enter the mental space of the character, owing to maintain the 'suspense' the screenplay houses.

But the final reveal makes one retrospect the reason behind the grim, non-expressive face of actor Vijay's, all through the movie and the kind of emotions that would have driven him to avenge the way he did. The brave adolescent girl wanting to confront the offenders was super commendable but I was filled with nostalgia, recollecting 'Gargi'. The climax left me walk home with memories of ASI Vinod Kumar, of the movie 'Iratta', played by the fantastic Joju George.

Abirami plays the antagonist’s wife. Her sub-urban dialogue delivery, casual body language, motherly instincts and love talks with her husband doesn't translate the script's depth onscreen, as the innate nativeness went missing in Anurag's vague counter reactions. Indigenousness in a script makes the visuals more profound and I was left to long, thinking of the bond between the characters of Kalaiyarasan and Riythvika from the 2014 movie 'Madras'.

The bars were set high for the director after his debut feature film 'Kurangu Bommai' and while Maharaja doesn't let him down, it doesn't set the bar at a new height, either. Vijay Sethupathi’s passion for the craft, lets him dwell into the mind space of his characters and he chooses intentionally to act restrained in ‘Maharaja’. But sadly, his sketchy scheme, made more sense, retrospectively, much after the end credits rolled.

Anand Ekrashi’s ‘AATAM’

2023, Malayalam IMDB 8.1, Directed by Anand Ekrashi

Published in Baradwaj Rangan's Movie Blog:

https://baradwajrangan.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/readers-write-in-686-anand-ekarshis-aattam-an-introspection/ 

An awakening art, a maze, that shuns all moral solutions redundant and questions one's inner judgments about people around. Committed performance by the much talented cast keeps one engaged, but screenplay undoubtedly plays 'hero'. An enriching experience that prompts one to redefine boundaries, through self-evaluation.

A novel introduction of the premise - a theatre troupe, whose on-screen 'theatre play', tears off the mask of the on-stage protagonist. The play is teaser, for the rest of the film aims at tearing many such real-life masks, off-stage. This complex process eventually unveils few masks off viewers faces as well, at least off the daring lot, who brave to introspect.

The premise finds its parallel in the1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose and its adaptation for the silver screen Twelve angry men. The adaptation had drawn its metaphoric inspiration from the new testament's twelve ordinary men, who were chosen as apostles to serve the world with gospel. The twelve theatre artists in 'Aattam' (which simply translates 'Play') also tries to either identify the culprit or to eliminate who isn't one.

Interestingly 'Aattam' introduces an 'eve' to the equation. The troupe's stage play midst the opening credits, beautifully outlines the essence of the plot. The maker replicates Girish Karnad's 'Hayavadana', and brilliantly attempts to mix myth with contemporary elements such as the #me too movement, to establish similarities between past and present.

When the country is flooded with 'rape statistics' of all sorts, the Writer/Director Anand Ekarshi, chooses to keep aside the trauma of heinous assaults and decides to handle a debatable 'groping' incident, as his primary crux. And the screenplay spins around questioning our believes, through the 12 male characters the film houses, and the director chooses not to include visuals of the incident, making audience the 'Jury Panel'

Apparently, a hand of Anjali's colleague/friend, whose company she trusted, gropes her bosom through the window, in the middle of the night, when she is 'not sober'. What might have been her state of mind then? She obviously couldn't react or confront the person, owing to her intoxication. She presumes who the offender might be and is in a state of shock because the offender was one of the troupe members. She prefers to keep it to herself- a classic feature of guilt in women, who turn victims of assaults of all magnitude. It might also be because she didn't want to distort the troupe's harmony based on her hunch. But ironically, her 'assumption' as to who the offender might be, also loses significance due to her alcohol consumption, as it might have distorted the sense of her judgment.

Each one of the male characters are societal samples of misogyny, patriarchy and chauvinism, but on the contrary the director amplifies the consequences of such 'uncertain', 'not-so-sober' accusations. The screenplay for a while, topples the equation, in favor of them, men. Either the sample size sadly didn't represent enough 'morally ethical men', or our opinions became jaded, given the twisted scenario.

The table keeps turning at many of the twelve men, but the director doesn't put a face to the groping hand- just as I couldn't get a glimpse of the face of the man whose hand sneaked from behind, in the cinema hall, when I was 10. However, the facts point to the 'most liberal sounding' of the twelve men, Sudheer, whose wife and daughter had accompanied to the resort, sharing the room with Anjali on the night the incident happens. But speculations can never lead to conclusion and along with Anjali, the viewers are on their own, to scout the offender for themselves.

Anjali is hell bent, that she wouldn't lie to the group that she 'was sure' that it was Hari who groped her. As much the director establishes her character's morality- she not fearing a conflict with a powerful new entrant of the group, a big screen actor with possible networks, the director also contrasts the character's shortcomings- her 'insecurity' in continuing a relationship, compromising her self-respect. She remains stuck with her self-centred coward, boyfriend, Vinay, played by Vinay Forrt, who had earlier dumped their four-year relationship, to get married to another girl. While Vinay is furthering a divorce with his wife, Anjali pathetically lets him, continue exploiting her, by insisting they keep their relationship, a secret. The flawed character trait brilliantly plays out, emphasizing that even a rational girl like her, needs a blow, to jolt her out of the relationship mess, as 'love' turns the naive, 'blind'.

Owing to atone actor Hari, in exchange for the recognition and remuneration through the proposed European show by the actor, the twelve men, try hard to find faults with Anjali. And 'Tactile Hallucination' is the 'pinnacle of creativity' by the artist bunch. When Jolly proves Hari was in bed ten minutes prior to the incident, and it can't be him who groped Anjali, it's inevitable not to be lured by the revelation. This is because the audience are consciously loaded with vile assassinations about Anjali's character, similar to the copious misinformation that are hurled at us in our real lives by people around.

My teen memories are vivid, those sneaking hands in the cinema hall's 'rexin' wooden chairs, those shoulders that aim at my chest at crowded exhibitions and temple festivities. While I revisited my state of mind then, I was of course left shocked, pretty much like any pre-teen would have been. But what I do remember was, catching hold of the repeating hand from behind and pricking it with a safety pin- a trick my dad had taught, except we couldn't catch a glimpse of the face in the dark. But wondered, why me and my dad didn't dare to cause a commotion, confronting the offender. I realise now that, in the 80's maybe my dad wanted to evade a lecture against taking a young girl in the crowd, especially to a movie hall. Is that why Anjali refrained from calling out the offender immediately, because she would be reprimanded for being drunk?

Anjali wants to keep the incident to herself and not tell anyone else other than her boyfriend. Was it because either she was guilty on the inside or she was ashamed of herself for letting this happen? As a mother of an adult daughter, my first thoughts were, 'if not for the alcohol, she could have found the offender and punished him, so he wouldn't dare to commit a bigger offense next time'. Also, the director adds fuel to the fire by proving Anjali's muddled accusation, might have stained a probable innocent man, Hari, for life, putting an end to his film career.

'Not to step out without Dhupatta (the upper cloth)', - a repetitive counsel I have heard all my life, up until last month, in my late 40's. And surprisingly I have rebelled it all along, arguing that it was not only me who had been fumbled at but also the girls who promptly pinned their dhuppatas to cover their bosoms, also faced such harassments.

Avoiding crowds, staying alert and never trust anyone around, had been my mantra ever since. The female lead 'Anjali' played by Zarin Shihab, actually picks up from where I left. Redefining my mantra, in today's scenario, would it be - not to trust people around and to refrain from consuming alcohol in public, I asked myself? Sounds gravely regressive and judgmental. I wondered what my adult daughter's thoughts would be on this matter? If I had rebelled for not wearing a dhupatta for 30 odd years, I should be rebelling not to accept these assaults, maybe? Perhaps I should work towards a society, that educates men to keep their hands to themselves rather than throwing guidelines at girls for their public behaviour?

The dynamics are different today, but the angst remains the same, as I'm trying to find parallels with my four-decade old teen life, to that of a millennial girl. It pains that the plight remains unchanged. As I mount courage to write about it, so did Anjali, as she stages her experience through a play on the incident, while onlooking savage men continues to objectify and hurt women.

I briefed the plot to an elite women group and asked if they would judge the girl for being drunk, because she was not in a state to confront an offender, immediately. To my surprise I was asked whether the girl was upset that she was groped or not. There are girls who are no longer upset or angry when they are groped? Are girls conditioned by society to ignore groping? Well, I myself was conditioned four decades ago wasn't I, not to make a big issue out of it? I did set out bravely to prick the dirty grouping hand, but wasn't encouraged to call out the offender and putting him to shame in public?

When I did manage to answer the women group, 'yes, the groping did upset the girl'- the women's views were very straight forward. They judged the girl for getting drunk and substantiated that it was only human to judge the girl, as they didn't know her personally. Anjali was not in the company of strangers and was surrounded by trusted humans as she didn't judge any of them. She thought she knew them well, but the twelve men judged her all along, each one of them in their own way.

The world is never going to stop judging you whether they know you personally or not. Only when one learns to become immune to people judging us, we could advance our lives. While judging people around is not uncommon, it is also not a crime, as it ascertains boundaries and helps one stay in a state of awareness all the time. If someone offends you, instead of victimizing one's own self, it is only sane to call the offenders out immediately and move-on, with head held high. And like in Anjali's case, rule out who the real offender is rather than hypothesizing who it might be.

Aatam - Life lessons indeed.

 

Manjummel Boys

 Manjummel Boys

2024, Theatrical Release, 8.7/10 IMDB, Directed by Chidambaram S Poduval

The vision of capturing 'divinity in friendship' in this 'commercial' survival drama, is surpassed sadly by the passionate fan base of the 1991 cult Tamil movie, Gunaa. The fans enjoy milking 'recognition' long over due, for the then underrated masterpiece of actor Kamal Haasan. The movie is an entertainer but the nostalgia mar it's true spirit and mute talents, as emotions become manipulated.

An opening credit about the 2006 true incident that the movie is based on and an animated ode to 'Gunaa', introduces an inquisitive premise. Associating themselves with the name of their home town, a group of boys are shown to cause nuisance and embarrassment at a private event. After losing a tug-of-war match with a rival group (cameo played by the real Manjummel boys) and induced by a brief moment of envy looking at the rival group's vacation photos, the group sets off for a trip to the hills of Kodaikannal in a haste. Little do we as audience know, that their experience with the rope is going to give them an edge in saving their trapped friend, during their upcoming expedition.

The screenplay doesn't spend much time in throwing light on the bond that the boys share, except for the little backdrop of Shubhas's family when Siju picks him for the trip. The director chooses to do away with much melodrama and stacks it for jump cuts in the later half of the flick. At Gunaa Caves, Shubhas slips inside a hole in a 'flick', following the rushing momentum of the menacing boys, trespassing the restricted area. The fall was almost like he was sucked in or disappeared in thin air.

The plot intensifies as the camera stalls zooming in on the insides of the cave, parallel to the delay in rescue, owing to border polity and inattentive police personnel. The camera eventually does zoom in at the reverberation of Shubhas's groans. The terrifying blood soaked visuals on a slippery rounded rock, leaves one spine-chilled, as it looks he could slip further down any moment. When the fire fighters turn incompetent, the screenplay paves way for the 'tug-of-war' boys to shine as heroes. Siju played by Soubin Shahir, volunteers to be lowered into the cave to save his friend Shubhash played by Sreenath Bhasi.

The director's inter cuts of the childhood days of the group of boys, achieves a beautiful composite scene, and is tactfully used to imply the thought process of both the survivor and the saviour. The isolation in the dark cave, triggers Shubashs's childhood fears and It aligns promptly in the narration, adding layers to the story. The standard story-telling technique, keeps alive the urge for the duo's safety. However, establishment of their innocent childhood bonds doesn't suffice. To justify the crossing of restricted barricades despite warnings from the local guide, needed something more complex than conquering childhood fears of the intoxicated bunch maybe?

A friend in the gang of nine, is distantly familiar, mentally unstable and his features vaguely reminding Kamal Haasan's. When the duo, Siju and Shubhas are pulled up together and they wouldn't come up any further, we get a prologue to the most nostalgic moment of the movie. The 'Gunaa look-alike' friend is the one who suggests from atop that the rope is stuck in the cave's groove and asks them to lower the rope and pull it back again. The dramatic turn of the exciting event is 'intended' to appeal to the emotions of the viewers, as the director chooses to reinvigorate the 1991 movie.

And then comes the 'most awaited' sequence, the duo successfully being pulled out and the score of 'Kanmani' song in maestro Illayaraja's music from Gunaa, plays in the background. It was magical indeed, but I was wondering if it would have been organic, had it not been mercilessly pirated and thrust down by social media abusers in the name of celebration. Nostalgia mongers turned promoters, did help the makers achieve the 'magic' numbers, but did they do it at the cost of 'selling the soul' of the movie. Selling the soul of which of the two movies, is yet another debate.

I was contemplating whether the placing of the song could have been done any differently, like a mobile phone ringtone or a distant radio. What could have been more natural, rather seemed 'schemed'. The frenzy crowd in the theater seems to think otherwise though. Did 'Gunaa' steal the thunder of Manjummel Boys, I was puzzled.

People's choices evolve drastically but for a movie to be celebrated after three decades is phenomenal. It is not new that certain work of art flops like Gunaa did, but goes on to become a cult movie. But in Manjummel Boys, by celebrating the cult, both the makers and the viewers didn't let the movie shine on it's own grounds and rather let it be hyped for the elements that shouldn't have been it's primal focus.

The survivor shifted back to Kerala, after minimal first aid, cramped in the same old vehicle with his friends, wiped away the speculation of the gravely critical injuries of Subhash. The save was noble and heroic, but I doubt if the gratification was similar to that of watching the movie 'Aram'. Had the movie ended on a regret note from the boys for risking exploration in restricted areas, putting themselves in danger, would it have been any different? But that is how accidents happen, don't they, I ask myself, especially the fall was unfortunate.

The survival drama did stay true to the genre and to the cult followers of 'Gunaa'. If the director attempted to bring out the divinity in their friendship like that of the Gunaa's with Abirami, then, such divine reiteration should have been backed up by the character arcs of Manjummel boys as well?

Wish the 'God theory' of Shubash's with the driver where they define God as 'The light that shines from above', had extended a little longer. A few more layers to establish the traits of the lead characters would have done good to the screenplay. Malayankunju, a survival drama did that beautifully. Even though this is based on a real story, the makers could have woven a few more sequences in the name of creative liberty, which might have brought us closer to them. Also, wonder if the film was mutilated off a few essential sequences, for instance I was waiting if there was any significance to the mention of Shubhash's belt which he took it from his brother without his consent. Through out the rescue mission my eyes were zooming in on his belt, thinking if it might play a crucial role in lifting him.

The boys who were considered a nuisance, proves people around wrong, by going to extremes to save their fellow friend. Soubin Shahir's humble underplay and Sreenath Bashi's helpless wails does linger long after one leaves the theater, and of course 'Kanmani' song is playing in the back ground as well. A grand pay off for a perfect set up indeed. 

Lover

 Lover

2024, Tamil, Theatrical Release, 7.5/10 IMDB, Directed by Prabhu Ram Vyas

A honest and mature capture of the most painful 'moving on' phase of an intense couple's relationship. The subtlety in identifying the root of toxicity in a relationship, plays to the strength of the movie. The committed performances of the lead and supporting characters make it a 'life lesson' for the 'lost-lot' who refuses to 'move on'.

Actor Manikandan, is convincingly the face of alternative cinema in Tamil in the coming years, if he continues to pick similar work. From Varanam Aayirum, to Vinnai Thaandi Varuvaya, Nee thane en pon vasantham, Mayakkam enna, Premam, the industry has witnessed the world of the so-called 'soup boys' in all possible combinations. While these movies addressed the 'moving on' phase as a part of an entire arc of 'falling in love' leading up to 'failure in love', director Prabhuram Vyas, interestingly opens the movie with an intention of a tutorial on the coping mechanism in love failure.

The phenomena of 'Love' and its expression has evolved with time, and so has the pain on it's failure. The director rightly taps the need for better strategies to reduce unpleasant emotions in the process of 'moving on'. He does all of it beautifully, in a non-preachy tone. Solution driven ventures are the ones that will be talked about, longer. The solutions that 'Lover' addresses are almost subliminal. It is sure to strike the right chord with the gen Z, who aren't ears for anything that slightly echoes 'advice'.

'Possessiveness in Love' - the mundane premise, turns precious, when the realization comes from the male lead in the last leg of the movie. And the director also chooses to signify how the female lead's 'care' turns a 'nag', ultimately killing the spirit of male's individuality and his life choices.

Manikandan's disturbed facial expressions throughout, vanishes when he disembarks the chaotic volatile relationship vehicle. He then boards a journey of his own doing what he confidently dreamed all along. The director easily establishes that, the path Manikanda's character threaded before gaining this clarity, was not merely a selfish one. Contrary to the female lead's accusation that Arun was selfish, the director proves his was rather a 'cry for help' from within, that spurted out venomously in Arun's deeds and words.

Director Prabhu Ram's elaborate sequences emphasizing on the volatility of the relationship, as the couple drift apart, does become repetitive after a point. But, that is the true essence of the story. The repetitive pain symbolizes the painful process of tearing apart two individuals, who had entangled themselves in the process of making a combined future for themselves. And the toil comes to an end, almost out-of-the blue. The timing is a surprise, as the viewers are to an extend convinced that the couple, might be better off if they stay together, come what may. Ironically that is the thought process of an outsider in real life, when we witness a couple's separation, either before marriage or be it after marriage in divorce.

Prabhu Ram, consistently narrates Manikandan's mom's story in parallel and the female lead, Gouri Priya aptly compares her plight to his mom's. And that miraculously acts an awakening slap over Manikandan's insecurity-driven obsession.

The brief realization path of Manikanda's, houses a random mention of 'alcohol' being the cause for his changing behavioral pattern. And this suffices in emphasizing, the sole purpose, of the film. The fear in Gouri's eyes and the battle she fights within, paints an outlook on the aftermath of 'modern love'. The director excels as he keeps 'lust' away from the equation and the supporting characters are true to their roles as well. They truly end up being 'supportive' to the lead pair in helping them realize that their paths have drifted beyond repair.

Gouri's colleague Madan's character, played by 'Livin' fame Kanna Ravi, is etched beautifully. The dialogue where he admits his shortcoming in his previous relationship and how he is cautious in attempting a new one, is enriching. When the couple finally learn the art of 'mutually moving on', the screenplay poetically blends with their life choices without 'letting go' of the care for each other.

Gouri's character Divya manages to balance the surf board fearlessly and there is not much fear in her eyes when she meets Arun again. Manikandan's character Arun also manages to greet Divya, with utmost calm when he meets her after a two year breakup hiatus. Their 6 year long relationship finally earns the 'mutual respect' it had lacked all along. It opens a hatred-less new beginning, for the both individual. Love is all about 'growing up' as the end credits quote James baldwin.

Jigarthanda DoubleX

 Jigarthanda DoubleX

2023, Tamil, 8.4/10 IMDB, Directed by Kathik Subbaraj

The ace narrator's un-compromised screenplay, echoes his passion for art and his angst against the party politics behind tribal plundering. In an apparent 'prequel' of the 2014 Jigarthanda, the Director Karthik Subbaraj attempts to walk a similar path, and succeeds. The monotony is neutralized as the movie explores the director's personal experience on 'How Art Chose Him'.

Jigarthanda's template of 'Art' convincing an 'Offender' to change his ways, is widely the template in Double X as well. The director unveils multiple layers of the story one after the other. The illustrations of how destiny pulls people in to the 'world of art' making them creators and performers, is a striking parallel to the Director's real life experience of becoming a director himself, and this makes Double X even more special.

The Director, holds the viewers by their hands and walks them into the world of his well-rounded characters, establishing his premise in a steady pace. He then slowly makes the audience emotionally hooked to the characters, through his seamless narrative skills. It is as magical as our granny stories, which would start off simple, but end up mending us, by emphasizing on ethical and moral high grounds.

The director establishes his characters and their complex back story with no hurry whatsoever. The intersection of the two pivotal character arcs are placed with a backdrop of a gangster turned actor, auditioning directors for his debut venture. It is a striking parallel to the 'competitive show' for aspiring directors, 'Nalaya Iyakkunar', (meaning 'Tomorrow's Director's) through which Karthik Subbaraj identified himself as a director to the world of art.

The 'meta' narrative - 'cinema about cinema', is an interesting premise, similar to that of Jigarthanda, but this is meta, in more than one way.

• Actor Clint Eastwood while shooting for his film, in a tribal village in Madurai, supposedly names the young hero Alliyan as Alliyus Ceaser. He also gifts Alliyus, a 8mm camera, which Alliyus believes to be a gun (a metaphoric weapon).
• The director subtly substitutes the slogan, 'Pen is mightier than sword' of the 90's Tamil movies with 'Cinema, is the most powerful weapon'.
• The name of the cinema hall, 'Kilities's talkies' (a colloquial Tamil word to mock someone as 'the all-knowing'), interestingly rhymes Clint Eastwood's name, when pronounced in a local Tamil dialect.
• The cinema hall, only screens Clint Eastwood's movies, for Allius Ceaser's private watch, where he plots all his major executions.
• Alliyus's dark complexion is mocked as unfit for silver screen but the then dark-skinned debut of actor Rajinikanth is called out, saying it is rumoured that Rajini is going to make it big in Tamil industry.

The movie is high on 'meta', in gestures, dialogues and even majority of the plot points are driven by it. For instance, rewriting the purpose of the hero's life, so it could be captured as an interesting second half in his biopic movie.

Apart from interestingly written character arcs of individuals, the director uses detailed narration to untangle the plot knots in a decisive pattern, to settle issues and arrive at a definite result. The prime characters are established with an elaborate backdrop. The two protagonists, Alliyus and Kiruban played by Ragava Lawrence and S J Surya respectively, are backed by detailed visual stories. This enables the viewers to set foot into their worlds, and when the two characters meet, the viewers are amply acquainted with their purpose of life. Hence, the director's intention transpires beautifully onscreen.

Nimisha Sajayan, plays a strong character, Malaiarasi, who is in fact the voice of the director. She is the first voice to reiterate the director's vision onscreen, by portraying 'cinema' as a 'weapon', if used wisely. Her bold performance, does justice to the powerful writing.

Sub plots are many, but they all effectively converge to become the 'sole purpose' of the narration. Karthik Subbaraj's previous works are known for luring the audience, as to who the real antagonist is, what the primary hostility is, from where it all starts or contrarily, where it all ends. In Double X, Karthik captivates the audience, by giving the spiteful elephant poacher angle, a political game's distortion.

Critically acclaimed tribal plundering scripts are many, few of which were the well-received kind like 'Kantara' and few other beautifully made works like, 'Thaen', which had gone sadly unnoticed. But Karthik's meta world, lights the premise vibrantly.

Karthik duly hooks the audience, playing the well-crafted screenplay, to his strength. He spins it seamlessly in the right direction, tooling it to convey his true emotion as a film maker. The emotions that he tried conveying in 'Iraivi' and 'Jigarthanda', extends in Double X. Music Director Santhosh Narayanan and Cinematographer Tirru adds energy and excitement to the narration, in the process, elevates the movie watching experience. The rustic lighting, the camera movements capturing the face-offs of the two heroes and the poaching sequences with the spirit of the revenging elephant in the backdrop, encapsulates the director's thoughts, through intricate visual compositions.

Mimicking the soul of Jigarthanda, in Double X, works poetically. The director personifies 'ART' as the 'hero' of his screenplay, and exhibits adequate on-screen mass moments to the art form- 'CINEMA'. The film fraternity's nostalgia is sure to make the Director's work an inevitable chapter, in the history of Tamil cinema. Even though the excitement of witnessing a novel premise, like the experience of watching Jigarthanda in the year 2014, is missing, Double X manages to remain a 'tribute-worthy' prequel.