An ordinary police constable is sent to enquire a notorious murder case of a union leader because he happened to be the love interest of the superior officer's daughter. The police constable, Pavitran (Mammootty) goes there disguised as a merchant and he soon gets involved in that life, makes a fast buck, resigns the job of a police constable to be a 'muthalali' , faces trials and tribulations and as an aftermath decides to begin the enquiry afresh. 'Venice le vyapari' has all the requisite elements for a masala movie; songs, two heroines who fall for the hero, comic aides, stunt, a murder mystery, a catchy title reminiscent of the Bard and his 'Merchant of Venice', and a super star.
The story is set in the 80's and one get to see bell bottom trousers, big collared shirts, chiffon saris plus the Jayan- Seema evergreen duet 'kannum kannum' (from the I.V Sasi movie 'Angadi'. It seems the remix/remake trend is here to stay for a while). Typical negative roles are ascribed to the villains and the movie has a predictable climax. But what was unexpected was the
lukewarm opening for a superstar movie, with no fan fare and an almost empty second class section for the first day first show.
Siddiq lal started a new wave of film making with rib tickling comedies that had merit as well rather than you- laugh- and -forget kind of movies. Rafi Mecartin followed that trend and now its Shafi's turn with a sure shot success formula with films like 'Kalyanaraman', 'Thommanum Makkalum', 'Mayavi' 'Marykkundoru Kunjad' and the like. 'Venice le vyapari' starts as an
investigative story. But before we think it's another 'Sethuramayyar' kind involving Mamootty as a shrewd investigating officer, the tale takes a twist and it is altogether a new story. The director establishes the skill of the character in doing business in the very beginning where he goes to buy a tape recorder. The hero goes to Alleppey, the Venice of the East, disguised as a
merchant. The rest of the drama happens there. In films like 'Big B' and 'Arabikatha' a hidden camera is used to record the villain utter the truth, which in turn will be used against him.
In 'Venice', as its happening in an era where nothing of that sort is available, the hero hides a Police officer so that he can hear the bad guys revealing their best kept secrets. The director tries to capture the setting via the costumes and he succeeds, but do we really care when the story is taking place, as long as it has no relevance whatsoever in creating meaning for the viewer. Or is it the new found interest in indulging in nostalgia, feudal nostalgia for that matter with a black and white characterization, the hero Vs villain story and the charm of the long lost village girl? There is nothing new to offer in this movie, the comedy track carries old jokes (Jagathy's reason for being a drunkard is one such example), the villain has no scruples about making money through hook or crook and destroying the opponents. Curiously both the villainous families, the Muslim and Hindu tharavads, had no female inhabitants!
The script writer James Albert is not a prolific writer as he has done only four films in five years ('Classmates', 'Cycle' and 'Ividam Swargamaanu'), but we can't find quality of his yearlong home work in these films except for 'Classmates' perhaps. Looking at the scripts by James Albert, it is like trying to cook variety dishes with the same ingredients; a murder, more than
one woman falling for the hero (in cycle it was two separate love stories), an ordinary guy playing shrewd when the situation demands, and the triumph after facing t tribulations. May be it's the unexpected success of the first script that has made him adhere to the same formula film after film.
Does the director think that Malayalees have a penchant for a basket full of stories piled upon with sub plots in tow? In this movie too the plethora of stories in the narrative- a police investigation story, a triangle love story, business success/failure story and the story of the workers struggles and the role of communist party in uniting them- chokes the viewer and it was a rushing to the denouement in the second half of the movie.
The story is set in the 80's and one get to see bell bottom trousers, big collared shirts, chiffon saris plus the Jayan- Seema evergreen duet 'kannum kannum' (from the I.V Sasi movie 'Angadi'. It seems the remix/remake trend is here to stay for a while). Typical negative roles are ascribed to the villains and the movie has a predictable climax. But what was unexpected was thelukewarm opening for a superstar movie, with no fan fare and an almost empty second class section for the first day first show.
Siddiq lal started a new wave of film making with rib tickling comedies that had merit as well rather than you- laugh- and -forget kind of movies. Rafi Mecartin followed that trend and now its Shafi's turn with a sure shot success formula with films like 'Kalyanaraman', 'Thommanum Makkalum', 'Mayavi' 'Marykkundoru Kunjad' and the like. 'Venice le vyapari' starts as an
investigative story. But before we think it's another 'Sethuramayyar' kind involving Mamootty as a shrewd investigating officer, the tale takes a twist and it is altogether a new story. The director establishes the skill of the character in doing business in the very beginning where he goes to buy a tape recorder. The hero goes to Alleppey, the Venice of the East, disguised as a
merchant. The rest of the drama happens there. In films like 'Big B' and 'Arabikatha' a hidden camera is used to record the villain utter the truth, which in turn will be used against him.
In 'Venice', as its happening in an era where nothing of that sort is available, the hero hides a Police officer so that he can hear the bad guys revealing their best kept secrets. The director tries to capture the setting via the costumes and he succeeds, but do we really care when the story is taking place, as long as it has no relevance whatsoever in creating meaning for the viewer. Or is it the new found interest in indulging in nostalgia, feudal nostalgia for that matter with a black and white characterization, the hero Vs villain story and the charm of the long lost village girl? There is nothing new to offer in this movie, the comedy track carries old jokes (Jagathy's reason for being a drunkard is one such example), the villain has no scruples about making money through hook or crook and destroying the opponents. Curiously both the villainous families, the Muslim and Hindu tharavads, had no female inhabitants!
The script writer James Albert is not a prolific writer as he has done only four films in five years ('Classmates', 'Cycle' and 'Ividam Swargamaanu'), but we can't find quality of his yearlong home work in these films except for 'Classmates' perhaps. Looking at the scripts by James Albert, it is like trying to cook variety dishes with the same ingredients; a murder, more than
one woman falling for the hero (in cycle it was two separate love stories), an ordinary guy playing shrewd when the situation demands, and the triumph after facing t tribulations. May be it's the unexpected success of the first script that has made him adhere to the same formula film after film.
Does the director think that Malayalees have a penchant for a basket full of stories piled upon with sub plots in tow? In this movie too the plethora of stories in the narrative- a police investigation story, a triangle love story, business success/failure story and the story of the workers struggles and the role of communist party in uniting them- chokes the viewer and it was a rushing to the denouement in the second half of the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment