Is There Anyone Who Doesn't Like Mani Ratnam's Movies? My Take

Sometimes, opinions diverge, and personal tastes in cinema can lead to strong reactions. One such case is the infamous director Mani Ratnam, whose works have polarized viewers like myself. While some narrate tales of awe-inspiring masterpieces, I find myself firmly stating: "Yeah. So Me. I don’t like his movies." This essay seeks to dissect my reasoning and explore why I hold such a rebuttal to the often-cited masterpiece status of his films.

Blatant Hollywood Rip-offs

Mani Ratnam's penchant for intellectual flattery often masks a less-than-original approach, leading to egregious rip-offs, especially in 'Nayakan'

'Nayakan,' a film that garners much acclaim, is not a veiled homage to the Italian classic 'The Godfather,' but a direct rip-off, with a script so shamelessly pilfered that it feels almost fraudulent. It's as if Ratnam's vision, along with the actors and crew's efforts, were merely a vessel for Hollywood tropes. Similarly, 'OK Kanmani' blatantly imbibes the essence of a string of Hollywood romantic comedies, further cementing my belief that his borrowing is not a tribute, but a direct theft of creativity and ingenuity.

Lacking Audible Dialogue

Additionally, the characters in Mani Ratnam's films tend not to deliver their lines with an audible voice, a refreshing move they might consider to be a nod to contemporary trends, but in reality, it detracts from the authentic experience of storytelling.

Films such as 'Ravanor Ravanan' and 'Chekka Chivantha Vaanam' lack the crisp, audible dialogue that could breathe life into the narrative. What we are left with is a series of events and actions that occur in a kind of cinematic haze, where the characters' emotions and intentions are often elusive because they remain unspoken. This approach might be seen as artistic, but it feels more like a failure to connect with the audience on a deeper level, where the story struggles to move forward without the clarity that voice brings to the screen.

Dark and Lack of Lighting

Finally, the visual aspect of Mani Ratnam's films is often criticized for being overly dark, lacking sufficient lighting, and predominantly taking place at night, which can be perplexing given the potential of visual storytelling in daytime settings.

It's true that some of Ratnam's earlier films, such as 'Mouna Ragam,' offer a more balanced visual experience, but they still fail to excite my appreciation. On the other hand, films like 'Raj Rani' serve as a stark reminder of what can happen when Ratnam forgoes the dramatic and emotional depth in favor of a storyline that, while not groundbreaking, offers an engaging experience. Paradoxically, 'Raj Rani' is more enjoyable and entertaining than 'Mouna Ragam,' which is a testament to the director’s storytelling capabilities when he chooses to leave the dark kernels out of the mix.

Conclusion

While the persona of Mani Ratnam commands respect and admiration, his cinematic works often fall short of the mark for me. This is not to overshadow the brilliance of those who appreciate his films but to offer a candid and honest perspective on my personal view. Diversity in opinion is a cornerstone of healthy debate, and in acknowledging my distaste, I hope to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the manifold moods and tones that films can take.

So, to the question, 'Is there anyone who doesn't like Mani Ratnam's movies?' I answer unequivocally, 'Yes. Me.' I really hate his movies, and that's my take.