Saturday 5 April 2014

Perspectives to "as seen by the rest"- Why Ulidavaru Kandante is one of the best plots ever!


Please Continue Reading only if you have watched the movie. Spoiler alert !!







A must Read for those who watched the movie and never really understood it and therefore concluded that it was a waste of time- I'm Making my Honest efforts to change your perspectives!


Lets begin with the end:

We all saw Raghu get killed. It was old vengeance between Richie and Raghu. We all knew it . Some of us predicted it.  And just when we thought we were right Dinesha says Raghu did not die and he left home to meet his mom.  And then we all thought, “oh! Well, he’s definitely lying, We watched him get shot! “ and some of us didn't even pay attention to what he said, because we knew it for sure that he got shot. And the rest of us were probably too bored by the end , and then we concluded the movie was a waste of time!

This was the only ending!. Right? Wrong! Now this is why UK stands out . Let me go through the whole thing once again and hopefully by the end of which you will appreciate what Rakshit Shetty tried to convey through this epic master piece!!

What did we all watch on screen? Was it the absolute truth?  It was finely stitched to make us believe that it was the absolute truth until the end! So what did we watch? Oh wait..Who narrated what stories again? Oh wait..There is no clarity as to who narrated what part of the story! This is were the beauty lies.  There is no clarity as to who narrated what!  “The Rest”. This is the crucial part of the movie. Shailesha, Dinesha, Democracy, Shankar Pujari and most importantly Balu are the ones who have narrated this.  WHEN YOU THINK ON WHO NARRATED WHAT..YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH! That is exactly what Rakshit Shetty intended on doing and he did it successfully!
Rakshit shetty , like a magician, makes us sway to his screenplay and diverts our attention from intricacies  of the plot! This is why we all conclude that Raghu probably died!
Lets go through the scenes one by one again..and compare what we saw on screen to what we were supposed to see and I promise you, this will make you realise what perspectives are all about! A perspective to “As seen by the rest”!!

Scene 1- “Mounada Maatu”


What we all probably saw :  Raghu Steals the Bag which had the “thing”.  He told his mother he would be coming the next day for dinner. Promising shailesha that he would take him to Dubai. Telling him to make arrangements for Passport , so that he could take his mother to Dubai.

What we were supposed to see!!: This whole scene is as narrated by Shailesha.  Therefore, How true could this be? We are convinced that this is the truth! But most of us forgot that this was as narrated by Shailesha  and as interpreted by the journalist. We were so overwhelmed by the mother – son emotional scene..however who really witnessed that scene to describe it in the first place?  Think again!



Scene 2- Richie
 




What we probably saw : Richie is a bad ass. Rakshit shetty is so amazing! I wish I could watch him on screen for longer !  The dialogues are hilarious! Rakshit shetty is so amazing!!

What we were supposed to see: This scene can be narrated by,  in all probability Dinesha, and some of it by Richie's father and some of it by Shankar Pujari.  When Shankar pujari calls Richie to discuss about Balu, He clearly says “ This isn’t really about the money, its about loyalty” . He also asks Richie to take it easy on Balu.  Further,  if you observe, during the discussion, Shankar pujari also mentions about Raghu’s arrival to Richie!! ( Watch again if you haven’t observed this).  Also  Dinesha never describes much about the “thing” or the red bag!

Scene 3: Meen Curry



What we probably saw : A mother who is filled with sorrow and pain of losing her husband and son. Sells fish for a living.  Her son returns and tells her he is going to take her to Dubai. She is overwhelmed.  We all wept with the mother and son on their reunion. Highly Emotional. The Son never came back to have dinner! And therefore this helped us conclude Richie Killed him on the Boat! Convenient!

What we were supposed to see!!: Who even narrates this sequence? How do they no if she waited ? Why doesn’t the Journalist interview the mother when she is very much alive! A lot of things would have been very clear had she interviewed her! Now this sequence is just added to make the audience believe that the mother was waiting! Was she really waiting? Considering that Shailesha has narrated this story, we might be able to conclude something. However in the end of the movie, Shailesha Himself Says that he is unsure about whether or not Raghu Visited the mother!! This scene therefore could be an interpretation of the journalist and need not necessarily be the truth!

Scene 4 : Kelada Pisumatu

 
What we probably saw:  Democracy is so cute! Gatiya ilidu is such a melodious song! Oh Achyut kumar is the one with the tiger costume! Damn! Balu got murdered !

What we are supposed to see!!  Who narrates the sequence? In all probability the lover boy part of the sequence is narrated by Democracy and Dinesha. Detailed description could be based on Democracy’s  perception as he was all the time with Munna. When Munna goes to meet Shankar pujari, Shankar Pujari stressing on “not to harm Balu “ beyond limits is once again played on the screen. Mind you the same sequence appears twice on the screen. Also, Munna finds a bullet on the boat( No clarity as to who narrates this part as on the screen nobody sees munna find a bullet)  when he goes in search of balu.

Scene 5: Kaagi

 
What we probably saw: As predicted, Raghu Dies!! Obviously !!  Because Richie was pissed of f with him. We all came to know about  “the thing”. It glitters! Raghu stole the same “thing” that Balu found and the same “thing” for which Shankar poojari was behind Balu.  The annoying “KAW KAW” of the invisible crow. And how Achyut kumar has brilliantly delivered his dialogues in Kundapur Kannada. how “the thing” led to the death of Raghu.  Most of us are still curious about what  “the thing” could be!!

What we were supposed to see!! : In all probability , Balu is a schizophrenic  Marijuana Addict.  In the beginning of the scene, He says “ they are all looking at me, what will they think about me” while he refuses to narrate the incident.  The camera angle clearly shows that no one was present in the scene except the journalist and the guy who is convincing him to tell the story! Also he repeatedly shoos off an imaginary crow which he believes is following him! The journalist also has a “puzzled “ expression on her face on witnessing his behaviour. (observe closely the next time you watch it) .  Also through out the sequence, he is smoking Bhangi (Marijuana), which proves that he is a chronic Bhang addict.  Even during the tiger dance sequence he is constantly smoking weed !  The lines from the song kakig banna kanta “ Bhangi sedi tali, satya kanta, sullu kanta”  could be an indication it self, which could mean, the brain cant distinguish between what is true and what is not, when one is high on Bhangi ( marijuana).  This is really important for the conclusion!! Now think again, the entire death of raghu sequence was narrated by Balu, who happens to see things that are not there , who happens to smoke weed through out the movie.!! So did he actually die????

Ivallera nimitta!!

Lets admit it. Most of us never paid attention to these details. Of course we didn't. So recollecting all the details. How do I conclude it? Here is my conclusion to it.

The facts:
In the end. Dinesha says Raghu made a trunk call before they left and was very tensed. He also says he left early to meet his mother. Shailesha is unsure about whether Raghu met his mother or not. However he believes that Raghu would have definitely called him if he had safely reached Dubai. This could not be true. Raghu was never bound to call Shailesha and we have seen only shaileshas description of raghu and we haven’t seen what Raghu actually was! Also we notice that, in the end, Munna finds Bhangi on the boat and he smokes it and kills Richie . This bhangi , in all probability could be Balu’s, as he is seen smoking bhangi throughout the movie.  Therefore , he must have smoked bhangi on the boat as well!
We also see Shankar Pujari Repeatedly mentioning not to Do much Damage to Balu.  We also see that Shankar Pujari is the one who informs Richie about Raghu’s arrival and the details of were he is staying.

Possible conclusions:
1)      Balu’s version of the story is highly exaggerated. He is not in a sane state of mind due to excessive usage of Bhangi.  Richie might have shot a few shots in the air on the boat, just to scare balu, and Balu might have imagined that he killed Raghu. Balu Believed that the “thing “ was bad omen and therefore he wanted to believe that Raghu died because of it.  In all probability he is hallucinating. If what balu said was the truth, then why would Shankar Pujari not kill him?  Considering all this, we may conclude that there was never “the thing” . And its all Balus imagination, Like how he imagines the crow! Therefore  Raghu never got murdered.  HE might have visited his mother and left to Dubai without informing to shailesha.
2)      Shankar Pujari might have got the information from Mumbai underworld. Therefore he informs Richie about Raghu’s arrival and how he has stolen the bag from them. Richie takes him and murders him on the boat. Dinesha Says Richie didn't kill Raghu, only to protect Shankar Pujari. Kindly note that, Richie gets the information about Raghu’s arrival only Via Shankar Pujari
3)      What Balu says could be the truth. And the ending shown in the movie could be the real  ending. Dinesha could have hidden the “thing” after Raghus Death, Therefore, to avoid further discussions about it, He Says that Richie Did not  Kill Raghu.
4)      In the last scene when Richie dies, No one but Dinesha witness’s his death.  Even though Shankar Pujari is said to be watching the tiger dance, There is no trace of him while Richie dies!! This could mean the journalist’s conclusion of the last scene could be wrong. In all probability, Dinesha and the others on the boat might have hidden “the thing” and killed Richie who was trying to hand it over to Shankar Pujari!! And therefore, Dinesh could be lying about Raghu not being murdered!


5)      Last But not the least!!  This whole thing could be similar to The joker’s Plan in the first scene of Dark Knight. Let me explain it!!

Several times in the movie, Shankar pujari Talks to Richie in private and no one knows what they talk about except for Shankar pujari himself.!
When Shankar Pujari is talking to Munna, he asks him about the engine, But none of the others narrating the incident, that is Dinesha, Shailesha and Balu or democracy, Know what he exactly talks to munna!!

As Balu says…Shankar Pujari Could have been Behind “the thing” . He gives information about Raghu’s arrival to Richie and tells Richie to murder Raghu once he collects the bag. He might have in turn told munna to murder Richie once Richie collects the bag. And in turn,he might have told Dinesha to murder munna and close the loop. Therefore Dinesha completely hides the death of Raghu and closes the entire loop. Richie could have been a strong threat to the “the thing” and therefore he dies.


I could come up with a 100 endings just like this and this is why "ulidavru kandante"is a true master piece. Much like real life, there is never an absolute ending to an event. People can give you Perspectives and no matter how hard you try, truth is never absolute!



34 comments:

  1. Dude... the whole part abt weed is wrong... balu was not a weed addict... he smoked beedi in the tiger sequence... if u had not observed the yakshagana sequence abt Madhwacharya and the merchant whose ship had got shipwrecked, then u aint seen shit... Probably Madhwacharya had sealed that "thing" into a log of wood and cast it away into the sea because it was cursed... then after that in present day whomsever came into its contact got their ass busted... The crow thing might be because he had got the curse... This is the director's way to show that ppl in that part of Karnataka are really into this curses and stuff... And Richie gets killed on Janmashtami.... The dir could have chosen any other day... Somehow he gets a feeling to sing "baagilanu teredu seveyanu kodo hariye" before he kicks open the door... When the "thing" is shown, background music was flute and with singers saying Govinda... Hence it can be said that, that thing was an idol of Lord Krishna...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Nice interpretation Kashyap. Something other than the obvious. I was unaware of Madhwacharya and merchant story.

      Delete
    3. THIS. I wanted to mention the same. The Madhwacharya background story strongly links to the fact that the THING is a Shri Krishna idol
      Things that prove:
      a) Gold Like but not gold (balu says this)
      b) Several of these were cast in the ocean (explained in the Yakshagana)
      c) Expected value in crores because it's ancient and due to it's historical value ( the money angle)

      Delete
    4. Could be one of the possibilities! However Balu is a weed addict. He isn't smoking beedi through out. Kaakig banna kaanta song is all about hallucinations on ganja. Kaanta means visible in kundapur kannada

      Delete
    5. My logic for disregarding the yakshagana or the madhvacharya conclusion is..This whole sequence will appear in richies perspective. So richies perspective will be narrated either by Dinesha or shankar pujari. Whoever narrating it to the journalist...will usually tell the outline of the plot rather than what was being said in the yakshagana if you think of it logically. Also there is no context for them to explain about what happened in the yakshagana..They would rather explain about how Richie died ! The dialogues in the yakshagana is purely the interpretation of the journalist because there can't be a possible narrator to that scene!!!

      Delete
  2. The movie is pretty simple 'atleast one of the journalist's source isnt true'. But I still feel the narrator would have interviewed Raghu's mother as she is still alive. Also, Bhalu and weed addict you can't conclude it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Awesome write up. it's nice to see how much thought people have put into it and how much we audience are putting too, after watching the movie. That's the beauty of the movie, there are so many possible dimensions. Remarkable.

    But I have to point out that "Bhangi" that Munna smokes, was the one which Dinesha brings back when they goto the beach after buying beer through democracy. Dinesha goes to get cigarette but the painter tells him that there is bhangi available. Dinesha comes back with 2 and throws one on Richie. But Richie smokes 2 puffs from Dinesha and doesn't smoke his. That's what Munna smokes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah, the author seems to have confused about it. The bhangi Munna smokes is definitely from the beach that was thrown by Richie and not from the boat.

      Delete
    2. Ah. Makes sense. I hadn't really thought about it!

      Delete
  4. Superbly written. Some of it was in my mind too. But after reading this post, a lot of it makes this movie even more brilliant.

    And Balu's "kaaki" problem is surely hallucination (or schizophrenia as you pointed it). The scene where Sheetal interviews him, there's no kaaki, but he is so obsessed and paranoid about it.

    The killing of Raghu - my thoughts were exactly the same as I came out of the theatre first time especially Raghu being shot in Balu's perspective. But then, when you look at Dinesha's perspective (him protecting Richi and hence Shankar Poojary), that's where the journalist's narration "yaavudu satya yaavudu sullu" (what is lies, what is truth) comes in to play. So the director has made a very clever bit of teasing of the audience there.

    Overall, a superb movie. Need to be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please don't talk about rights and wrongs. I have used the word probably several times in my review. And it's my perspective. Kindly respect it and share your thoughts too. Remember there is no absolute truth to life.

    ReplyDelete
  6. yes shyam,wrt to bangi part you are absolutely right,munna smoke the same bangi which dinesha throw it on richie... one more things, if you guys have observerd,munna says to baalu, after smoking one puff of bhangi he says "beda jasthi hodidre,nan thalene nilakilla" !!! in the climax, munna smoke s whole weed, and as he said "nan thalene nilakilla ",he get risky pissed off (coz he smoked while weed)about richie n go shoot s him....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes. He loved the girl, and he thought Richie had murdered her brother, Balu due to all the circumstantial evidence that he noticed (bullet, talk about blood). Also given the fact that he had his issues with Richie, fetching booze from Democracy, which had him pissed already. These two factors coupled with the fact that he was high on weed, made him kill Richie

      Delete
  7. nice perspective!!!! can be acceptable???? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh man! What have you done?!! After watching the movie, I thought this is not a movie about perspectives but one about irony as Richie dies in the same kind of confusion as he often describes in his Antonio Montana story. I had never really cared who explained what to the journalist. Though I didn't have the epiphany I was looking for at the end of the movie, after reading this perspective of yours, I feel like the kid who just simply wonders why he didn't get the trick before the magician revealed it. You must have watched it atleast 3 times to get this kind of thought. I'm gonna watch it the next chance I get to look at it from your perspective. Your perspective might not be what exactly the director had in his mind, but you said yourself, there is no absolute truth which is depicted in the movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks a lot. I have watched it twice. Both times with an open mind. Wouldn't mind watching it once again.

      Delete
  9. I have watched the movie twice. With complete love for it. Since I'm into auditing..I'm used to paying attention to detail for a while now

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unfortunately, A movie is being explained rather than it should have been conveyed. Such a abstract illogical movie!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you think about it..everything around you is abstract. Finding a logical explanation is seldom possible. It's a thought provoking movie if you look at it positively. Appreciate your opinion nevertheless!

      Delete
  11. It looks like you had a lot of bhangi before writing this!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. My disappointment with this is that director has taken substantial freedom in screenplay and inserted scenes which can't be attributed to any narrator.
    IMHO, the movie should not have taken that 'director's freedom' which is not available for the audience and shown us the scenes which are witnessed by each narrator ( say like Munna getting the shot bullet on the boat) and still leave the audience with umpteen possibilities to conclude as to what really could have happened and what motives of narrators and the characters could be. That's the true genius plot.

    Roshomon is a fine example of that!

    But the attempt is truly appreciable given the present state of remake movies!! Kudos to Rakshit for trying this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you. Many scenes can't be attributable to any of the narrators! That perhaps is the only drawback

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yentha Saava! Boda Sheeeeraa . . Shoot madbekaa ? heheh ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sucheth,In the facts section,you have mentioned that Munna smokes bhangi on the boat...I find this not correct...I use not correct because it a fact and a perspective...He smokes bhangi outside the school premise where he had painted previous night and if i am not wrong its the same bhangi he had smoked half...apart from that,I find your takes on most ambiguities logical...Nice attempt...!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. My point of view is that the ambiguous scenes in the movie are the imaginations/predictions of the journalist.As the first chapter shows,the journalist goes to the house where Raghu was staying and starts connecting the dots based on the narration of Shailesha. This one scene can be a very important pointer to the whole story.

    The journalist starts connecting each person's perspective and kind of predicts what might have happened . In a way, she is just like the audience, who keep guessing about the various possibilities and think of logical conclusions. She is not involved in the main plot, so she has not actually "seen" anything that the rest have. But,coming to know about each person's character, she sketches her own version of the things that could have unfolded and that might be the answer to some of the "unseen"(In the eyes of the rest) events too. As Ritchie keeps saying about stepping into the shoes of the other person, that's exactly what the journalist might have done. Steeping into the shoes of some of the characters and viewing the story in their perspective!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wonderful blog & good post.Its really helpful for me, awaiting for more new post. Keep Blogging!

    virtual reality in Dubai

    ReplyDelete
  18. Very half baked interpretation. Watch the movie again and try to gain better perspective

    ReplyDelete
  19. The shining thing is definitely not imaginary... As they show the name of marsellus Wallace in the piece of paper which is from pulp fiction having similar shining thing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I dont know kanada and had to watched the hindi dubbed version in youtube. Might have missed some critical dialogues, but here is my opinion,

    In my opinion, the journalist (in the movie) doesn't do justice to her profession, or the scriptwriter (of the movie).

    There was the guy who takes Balu to the boat, also was present on the boat and disposed the body of Raghu (as per Balu's story).

    Why the journalist did not interrogate him?

    Seems it was a deliberate attempt to avoid the guy.

    ReplyDelete