The dubbed version of Bombay (1995) thanks once again to AR Rahman's music piqued enough interest to be dubbed in Hindi but Ratnam never really looked beyond Tamil films till Dil Se (1998). In the bid to increase the reach of his films Mani Ratnam finally bit the bullet and made a film in Hindi. But in spite of everything the film didn't work.ĭil Se featured Shah Rukh Khan, one of the biggest stars who enjoyed a pan India presence, besides a director who was perhaps somewhere more revered than the star himself. I believe that Ratnam's discomfort with the language worked against the film. Ever since the beginning of his career Ratnam has been regarded as one of the most socially aware filmmakers. Even though the degree of his consciousness could be questioned, its presence is more than evident.
For such a filmmaker to be aware of what he's doing is of paramount importance and somewhere his limited ability to think in a language that wasn't his own, to me, seems like the reason for the way his non-Tamil films shape up.
Vishwanath didn't have this problem that seems to haunt Mani Ratnam when he makes Hindi films? Some of K. Vishwanath's most successful Hindi films like Sargam (1979), Sur Sangam (1985), Sanjog (1985) and Eeshwar (1989) have all been remakes and yet the change in the language never hampered the films. Unlike Vishawanath's remakes most of Ratnam's Hindi films perhaps barring Guru (2007) have been in two versions. While Dil Se was dubbed in Tamil it never really worked as well as Ratnam's other films, his next Yuva (2004) was planned as a Hindi film but somewhere in the middle he started shooting a Tamil version as well. When released the Tamil version was more commercially a bigger success critically more lauded than the original.Ĭoming back to Raavan/ Raavanan, Vikram's bravado Veeraiya as opposed to Abhishek Bachchan's non-committal Beera could be a big reason why the Tamil Raavanan is wonderful and the Hindi Raavan completely avoidable.
0 kommentar(er)
