cinema cinema:tamil

2.0: Hollow Spectacle



Shankar’s sci-fi sequel begins in twilight.  A wonderfully constructed suicide; it could very well be a testimony to the director himself.


Is the Shankar sun really setting?


If it is, then it really wants us all to remember the previous glory.

2.0 is an oddly stitched together film of mostly “Shankar elements”, who knows this movie can give rise to an ‘Ultimate Shankar Movie Checklist’


Here goes an initial draft:

Shankar’s main vigilante will want to kill people to make things right because no one listens to him- Check

He might use some ancient text/symbol/martial art to justify/aid his killing- Check

Vigilante will compete himself & previous Shankar films in devising improbable deaths- Check

Using common folk to convey the confusion about what is happening on the ground or “public pulse” shots- Check

A set piece in a stadium- Check

Amy Jackson’s ….never mind – Check

Corrupt businessmen and politicians- Check


Ok, yes there is a lot more which we left out including the minister’s secretary wearing safari suit (Check).

Directors tend to repeat themselves, happens all the time man.

We understand that people can run out of ideas and would very much recycle existing works; marketing has a fancy name for this called “re-purposed content”.

The beauty of such content is in making it feel like a whole new experience, in 2.0 the opposite happens and the regular stream of Shankar references also do not help.

The film reaches fantastical levels of unconvincing-ness when Akshay Kumar turns up as prosthetic Pakshirajan or bird-man who somehow has summoned the dead spirits of sparrows to take away cell phones from humans. He believes that humans+cell phones have caused the caused the sparrow deaths and they must be punished. He also believes in wearing a sweater in Thirukazhukundram (70 Km from Chennai).

Dr. Vaseegaran on the other hand believes no man is match for bird-man and summons up Chitti ( The robot from Endhiran). Yep, that’s it; very simple.

Shankar and his team of writers (including Jeyamohan who is writing the Mahabharata in modern form) have gone to the Keep It Simple School of Screenwriting.

If there is a problem, then there is an immediate solution and the protagonist knows what it really and exactly is and hence there is no real tension. Even when a gigantic metallic bird threatens to destroy the city.

Let alone the story, 2.0 refuses to engage in complexities in its science too; everything is reduced to positive and negative. This reductive science approach undertaken to cater to the breadth of the audience ends up hurting the film which after a while feels like a hollow assemblage of well rendered visual effects.

Immediate wow-factor not withstanding 2.0 also overstays its welcome, so eager it is to show us this spectacle that it forgets that the film is pretty much over before the titular 2.0 appears.

2.0 is again Rajnikanth who in the absence of good writing and an effective BGM makes those scenes work with ‘that’ trademark laugh and quips, but by this time it is difficult for humans to really feel connected for the final forty minute action display.

Very early on in the film, an engineering student falls ‘immediately’ in love over the immaculate beauty that is Nila (Amy Jackson) only to fall immediately out of love when he comes to know that Nila is in fact a humanoid robot.

Good to look at, but nothing much beyond that.

Oh wait, that’s the movie too.



The Utter and Cultural History of the Elements

Periodic Tales: the Curious lives of the Elements

Hugh Aldersey-Williams

I restrain myself from giving this book review a much referenced title: “the stuff things are made of”, but that title would fit any book on the elements, as eloquently put on the back cover of this neatly designed book. “Everything is made of them, from the furthest reaches of the universe to this book that you hold in your hands, including you.”

Hugh Aldersey-Williams(HAW) informs simply in his mono tone website that he was born in the year 1959, the same year C.P Snow gave a lecture on the division between science and culture, if I had read the author bio before reading the book, this wouldn’t have made much sense to me, but author seems to be the kind of romantic who takes pride in riding those two diverse fields side by side.

But what are the elements, if they do not say much about the people that use them. HAW’s Scottie Ferguson like obsession with the elements begin with the periodic table and his memory of a periodic table “like an altar screen” behind his teacher’s desk. Right from the beginning HAW tries successfully to draw on the importance of the elements by tracing its cultural origins and backlashes.

For the periodic table itself he takes us through a lithograph by artist Simon Patterson in which Cr does not stand for chromium but Julie Christie, in which the artist tries to find bizarre connections between the positions and the elements occupied by it. A recurring theme however is HAW’s quest to build his own periodic table physically; he pops up here and there to collect samples for the same. A visual periodic table merely wouldn’t help him know more about the substance.

But proceed he does, not in order; but by the stories that go behind them.

Never dipping in interest, the book uses Dr Strangelove to explain halogens, fireworks for pottasium and Jean Cocteau’s Orphee for mercury. It is not just the cinematic references HAW inserts in the book, but also from literature, art and architecture and how these elements shaped the thinking of man and the things he did with them.

For a man who likes to read about people, this book is a treasure trove but for a man with a memory capacity of a damaged alarm clock, it is a bane. This book requires a separate companion for the number of anecdotes it reminisces and better appreciated when read not as a paperback thriller through the whole night; the book’s 500 odd pages deserve some place on your bookshelf.

HAW’s infectious liking for the elements also spills over to the lives of chemists and mineralogists and the sadness of these professionals in not being in the same level of coolness as that of say theoretical physicists or mathematicians

I have a liking towards science which isn’t very academic, though I could never embrace the greatness of the things which were taught to me at school, simply because we were not made aware of their importance, but only to learn equations by rote. Their significance disappeared immediately after the examination bell, but it would be going a bit further in claiming ‘Periodic Tales’ will take the place of a textbook. For me a text book will always be boring and only a secondary source of learning, and a man who would want to know, will always look elsewhere.

Hugh Aldersey-Williams is the author of ‘The most beautiful molecule’ and ‘New American Design’