N.T. Rama Rao Jr. and Ram Charan Teja in RRR |
Still, it is very much a film of today. My son reports that this is one of the few films of recent vintage that has inspired enthusiasm from the gaming nerds at his workplace. This is because, like most of the recent Marvel and DC movies, it has the momentum and flash found in video games. For most of its running time, as its two main characters engage in feats of derring-do, it reminded me of Assassin's Creed; the game rather than the movie. So, if you want a movie with one dimensional characters, a simplistic battle between good and evil, lots of action, some music and dance, deeply unchallenging themes, etc. (and millions do want the escapism and narcotic effect of this) , RRR provides the goods.
Some intelligent critics, particularly Richard Brody, have defended this film for its positive political stance which celebrates Indian nationalism. The British Raj is the villain of the piece which seems to be set in the 1920s. I have no problem with this and certainly will not defend British imperialism. Stories, epic poems and films are an ideal format for expressing the mythic underpinnings of a nation be they American Westerns of the first half of the Twentieth Century or Virgil's Aeneid. For this reason, the historical inaccuracies of the film don't bother me in the least. What does bother me is that RRR lacks any sense of nuance. The cruelty of the Brits in this film is of the cartoon level and the performances match that low bar. The one sympathetic British character reminded me of the token "good" Indian one finds in a host of mediocre Westerns, most specifically Tonto in the Lone Ranger serials.
I also thought that the use of violence in RRR verges on pornography and jars with the spritely adventure musical trappings of the rest of the film. Some may take umbrage with a Sam Raimi and Peckinpah fan arguing this, but I found that the flogging sequence, in particular, did not fit within the mythic framework of the film. It is belabored and ridiculous (like the film as a whole) and functions as torture porn.
RRR is indicative of the limitations of most of today's CGI blockbusters. I was reminded of the criticism of Inigo Jones' masques by Ben Jonson that Peter Wollen includes in his Signs and Meaning in the Cinema (pg. 110):
...O Showes! Showes! Mighty Showes!
The Eloquence of Masques! What need of prose..
Or Verse, or Sense t'express Immortall you?
You are the Spectacles of State! 'Tis true
Court Hieroglyphicks! all Artes affoord
In the mere perspective of an Inch board!
You aske noe more then certeyne politique Eyes,
Eyes than can pierce into the Mistereyes
Of many Coulors! read them! and reveale
Mythology there painted on slit deale!
Oh, to make Boardes to speake! There is a taske!
Painting and Carpentry are the Soule of Masque!
Pack with your pedling Poetry to the State!
This is the money-gett, Mechanik Age!
Now I don't believe a film has to tell a story or offer a tidy moral, but its cinematic signs cannot be devoid of meaning if I am going to enthuse about it. RRR, like many movies today, is an advertisement for itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment