Vettaiyan: A Tiring Film From A Tired Rajinikanth

THERE ARE always visual and grammatical cues to determine the origin of any kind of cinema. In India, it differs with language and region but there is one kind of image that is not exactly the pride of Tamil cinema. Simplistic and overused in the last thirty years, its progenitor is probably director Shankar though the image draws power from the long history of Tamil Nadu in post-independent India. It is the sight of protesting people, the sight of people pouring their emotions out to the TV media, news footage spilling over as a character on screen and people surrounding a terrible event or crime. They mean to add to the gravity of the situation. The severity of it all. It has appeared in many films and evolved to feature on the internet and social media. An indelible image from Tamil cinema, one that looks to quickfire solutions to sociopolitical issues, in which one man fights for the angry citizens populating these scenes. TJ Gnanavel uses these images in Vettaiyan, his third film, this one increasing the stakes by featuring Rajinikanth taking the law in his hands while also being responsible for its preservation.

There are many such scenes of disgruntled citizens and news footage in Vettaiyan. Gnanavel concerns himself with several issues at once, it is like walking into a multi-cuisine restaurant and not even a single dish is done well. There is the NEET exam recast as a generic coaching centre scam, caste and class prejudice, and most of all, extrajudicial killings popularly referred to as encounters. It is hard to believe that Gnanavel is a former journalist, we see TV news flashing the autopsy report after the rape and murder of a woman. Her name and images are everywhere and there is video too. Just because the murderer's identity is the initial mystery that moves the plot, he returns to the crime several times playing it through different angles. Maybe the film needs to take some liberty for the plot mechanics but is it impossible to tell a story about how extrajudicial killings are nothing but murder without involving the collective discontent and restlessness of a whole population? Does it take an innocent man’s murder to realise the mistake? Can’t the point be made at a purely ideological level? There seems to be a flaw in the approach even if the intentions seem noble.

Rajinikanth plays Athiyan, an SP in the Kanyakumari District police who is feared by criminals and the state for his speciality in encounter killings. When Saranya (Dushara Vijayan), a concerned citizen and government schoolteacher helps him bust a drug racket, he jostles with Satyadev (Amitabh Bachchan), a retired judge unhappy with how Athiyan solves crimes and punishes perpetrators. Vettaiyan is unambiguous about building up the aura of Rajinikanth and Athiyan when he delivers justice using his preferred method only to circle back to its social justice endeavours for its reformist reworking. The action scenes are cold not because of the encounter aspect but due to their tired physicality, a bunch of kicks and punches strung together with a weary Rajini struggling to keep up. A less disingenuous attempt would make these killings cold-blooded instead of building them up as mass moments. The film doesn’t commit to this bit which harms the intended message as well as the medium.

Even the anti-encounter stance the film takes is not fresh. The film seems to make a generic bugaboo out of police officers and corporate criminals—played here by Rana Daggubati—and doesn’t look inward. There is a redemption arc to Athiyan and his ways (we can see the intermission “twist” coming, it makes many police officials look incredibly stupid to contrive it) and he brushes it off by saying he is ready to face any inquiry. But the film bothers itself with investigating the crime instead of Athiyan’s internal monologue and the external indictment. Can we call a film 'brave' for simply taking an ideological stance? If it follows what it preaches, why is Athiyan walking with confidence and vigour, in the end, dressed to kill with his style, instead of facing that inquiry and possibly turning himself in? Too often, we tend to settle for less from our stars and filmmakers who claim to have the most noble intentions. Yet they are happy with vanilla messaging that will satisfy an ideologically inclined crowd while also celebrating the star unscathed.

The other trend in Tamil cinema pulling the industry down is the random casting of actors from other states. It is an insult to Manju Warrier’s talent and stature to have her play this plain housewife with hardly any dialogue in most of her scenes. It is painful to watch Amitabh Bachchan so clearly mouth dialogues in a different language but dubbed over in Tamil. This might be a commercial film with all its exaggerated elements, but this removes the layer of legitimacy from the cinema we are watching. Why is the music director Anirudh dancing in a song? I thought we were watching a serious movie that critiques extrajudicial killings! It is as if the frames aren’t sincere enough. Only Fahadh Faasil has understood his assignment, maybe because his role is not underwritten, and he is having immense fun. If only Rajini is allowed that kind of looseness. We will get better roles, better performances and better films.