|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Features |
| Journals |
| Gitanjali in Zimbabwe |
 |
Guru (2007) Director: Mani Ratnam Cast: Abhishek Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai, Madhavan, Vidya Balan, Mithun Chakraborty Time: 172 min. Hindi with English subtitles Rating: |
Plain and simple—Guru is a disappointing film. As a Mani Ratnam product, it is even more disappointing, especially considering the quality of his past films such as Yuva and Nayagan. However, Guru is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with Bollywood features.
The story follows the basic rags-to-riches arc. After a brief time in Istanbul, Gurukant Desai (Bachchan) leaves his village in Gujarat to pursue business in Bombay in the 1950s. His wife Sujatha (Rai), who he married for questionable reasons, travels with him. The movie then traces his efforts to create the polyester empire of India.
The second half of the film shifts focus to portray Guru as a corrupt, but supposedly likeable, businessman. His former ally, newspaper editor Shyam (Madhavan), and investigative reporter Manik (Chakraborty) proceed to expose Guru’s underhanded business practices, which leads to a federal inquiry into his company. And there is a subplot about the reporter’s romance with the editor’s granddaughter, Meenu (Balan), who is stricken with multiple sclerosis.
As this plot summary suggests, the first problem with Guru (as with many Bollywood movies) is that the story attempts to cover too many threads without handling any of them satisfactorily. Any of the possible stories in this plot—the romance between Guru and Sujatha, the friendship gone bad between Guru and Shyam, the rivalry between Guru and Manik, the corruption of Guru from a simple villager to a bribe-offering businessman—would be more than enough for one film, but here they all compete, unsuccessfully, for attention.
The second problem is the weak character development. Even in three hours, Ratnam (who takes the screenplay credit for Guru) fails to show any depth to his characters. Like many Bollywood protagonists, Guru is one-dimensional. He comes from a village, and he doesn’t like to hear the word no; we are told these details a dozen times, as if they compose Guru’s essence. Also, Ratnam insists that we should like Guru, even though by the second half of the film he emerges as a sleazy, despicable businessman. Of course, Ratnam must convince us that Guru is a good guy; otherwise, his final feel-good speech rings hollow.
One reason for the failure to show any character development is the desire to convey meaning through song-and-dance sequences. Everything we have any hope of learning about Sujatha is revealed when she first appears on the screen in a song sequence. No other effort is made to show us who she is. The same happens when Guru and Sujatha have an argument and temporarily split. They make up during a song sequence without ever resolving the issue that caused them to separate.
The third problem is the meaningless roles written for women. In Guru, Aish has the screen presence of white wallpaper in an art gallery—she’s simply a backdrop. Part of the reason for this is she has only a handful of lines, and most of those are pretty insipid. The rest of the time, she mimes her way through the scenes. Not that Balan’s role is given any more importance. She brings nothing to the plot, and she appears simply to populate the film with some women.
The fourth problem is insidious enculturation messages that Bollywood inserts into movies to promote “values.” In Guru, the message, delivered by Guru at the dramatic finale, is patriotism with a twisted capitalistic bent. The point seems to be that India deserves to be world economic powerhouse and it will fight until it becomes one. However, this message is tainted with the bizarre idea that India should not be forced to play by the established rules of the international community, openly proclaiming that corruption is good, especially if it benefits the people.
Clearly, Ratnam didn’t do his homework when formulating this outlandish patriotic appeal. The Reaganonimics of the ’80s proved that “trickle-down” doesn’t work, and the revamped trickle-down policies of George W. Bush only confirm this. And do the corrupt people scamming the system really share with the people? Of course not. The greed that made them corrupt won’t let them share the wealth with anyone.
The final problem with Guru is the lack of editing, which is rampant throughout Bollywood with its three-hour running times. The film is at least 20 minutes longer than it needs to be. Editing is part of storytelling, and good storytellers know how to edit out dialog and scenes that simply don’t belong in a work. Guru is filled with many scenes that should have been deposited on the cutting-room floor, such as the scene in which Manik proposes to Meenu and the inane opening dance sequence featuring Mallika Sherawat.
Guru does offer some great moments; the scene in which Guru confronts Manik and learns of his wedding to Meenu is wonderfully handled. And nothing in it can be considered exceedingly bad. Abhishek gives a solid performance. Visually, the film is pleasing to watch. A few of the songs are enjoyable.
But overall, every part of the movie is weak, which combine to make the entire production weak. If you want to see a movie, you’re better off watching one of Ratnam’s earlier films because this Guru won’t teach you anything, unless you want to learn how to ruin a good story Bollywood style.
 |
