Review: Return of Hanuman
TWIST IN THE TAIL
Everyone’s favourite monkey god returns in an unexpectedly irreverent kiddie-tale with moments for adults too.
DEC 30, 2007 - SO MANY TALES HAVE BEEN BUILT AROUND the major gods and goddesses of our mythic literature that we know them as we would the lead characters from our favourite films. They are the heroes, the heroines, the protagonists of their rousing stories. But the celestial supporting cast is mostly a bit of a blur. We know, for instance, that Narada possesses an enthusiasm for gossip rivalled only by the scribes at Stardust, but little else. (Well, maybe that his neck muscles are surely the strongest in all the heavens, considering he never leaves home without strapping himself to his veena). How considerate then, that Anurag Kashyap’s Return of Hanuman leaves us with this little nugget about how Chitragupta – whose meticulous record-keeping of human actions determines one’s ascent to heaven or consignment to hell – gets his jollies: by flipping open his laptop and logging on to Menaka.com.
I wasn’t expecting to laugh out this loud during an animated feature targeted primarily at children – but there he was, this bespectacled geek, hastily shutting down his browser window as Brahma turns to him with a question. In the West, yes, nothing is sacred – not even Jesus, as the blokes at Monty Python so unforgettably demonstrated – but we’re talking here about an Indian animated film, one where Vishnu bellows, in the best masala-movie tradition, “Bahut ho gaya khilwaad,” and where Hanuman reshapes the faces at Mount Rushmore to resemble the lead characters of the Ramayana. All I could think, in between bouts of giggles, was: “Holy Sacred Cow! They wouldn’t give Paanch a censor certificate, but this they let pass unscathed?” Who knew those esteemed people on the film certification panel had a sense of humour?
You sense the ambition in Return of Hanuman right from the beginning, when a lizard scurries across what looks like a desert landscape. The camera, so to speak, looks up and sets its eyes on a vulture circling overhead, which then flies away to join its brothers (or sisters; it’s always hard to tell with these creatures) atop a hill. Then, as we crane our necks past these birds, we stumble into a panoramic scene of war: the devas on one side, the asuras on the other. With this classical progression from the general to the particular, Kashyap seems to have attempted to shoot his animated feature the way he would a regular one – with the scope and feel of real cinematography – and even with the story, he keeps nudging the envelope. Where the earlier Hanuman – to which, apparently, this film is not a sequel, despite evidence to the contrary – was a fairly reverent recounting of the events from the Ramayana, this installment cooks up a wholly fictitious brew with elements both mythic and modern. (If the older film represented the spirit of Amar Chitra Katha, you could say this one channels Tinkle.)
Hanuman is bored after eons of hanging out in the heavens, and he wants to spend some time on earth for a change. This wish granted, he is reborn as Maruti in the household of a poor pundit, who soon realises that this is no ordinary infant – this naughty child with superhuman strength. (These early portions paint Maruti as a combination of Krishna and Kal-El.) Maruti goes to school, makes friends with Minku (who’s the perennial target of the classroom bullies), and looks all set to work his way through the CBSE system and graduate with honours – when his life comes in conjunction with local bandits first, and finally with the asuras Rahu and Ketu. Did I mention that, somewhere in the middle of all this, there’s a volcano full of seething, black lava that’s some sort of metaphor for how mankind has laid waste the earth through the indiscriminate use of plastics?
The trouble with Return of Hanuman is that it impulsively veers off in various directions – old-fashioned good-versus-evil story, morality tale, environmental fable, pop-culture spoof – and this makes it appear less a coherent movie than a collage of moments. In the theatre I watched the film in, the children seemed to be having a great time, what with shots like the one where Hanuman joins a flock of birds in a formation that resembles an airplane flying alongside. (Cute payoff: The craft actually smiles.) But for grown-ups, the wink-nudge takeoffs – on Ajit, Raaj Kumar, Sholay, King Kong, Titanic, even the Hindi-movie staple of the widowed mother valiantly raising a son all by herself – become wearying after a while. Return of Hanuman loses steam considerably towards the end, but it’s hard to dislike a kiddie-pic that incorporates everyone’s wish-fulfillment fantasy of Osama bin Laden and George Bush getting their just deserts. It’s nice when a film, however fleetingly, fills our future citizens with hope.
Copyright ©2007 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
i think I should rush to catch it today, before the saffrron brigade gets offended and creates a mayhem at the theatres
Aren’t you ashamed of saying ‘Monkey God’ ? Are you a white guy ? illa, Peter thalaikku yeriduchaa. Poda Vennai, all you Englees writing columnists are self alienated buffoons. May the lord hit you on your mottai thalai with his mace.
Aditya: Hope you caught it in time, though no one’s making any noise about it.
Parota Thalaiyan: “Aren’t you ashamed…” Absolutely not.
What’s so surprising about Indian films poking fun at the gods?
Yama-Chitragupt/Narad coming down to earth is an entire sub-genre in itself.
What IS scandalous is Anurag forgetting basic mythology - Chiranjeevi Hanuman never-ever ascended to heaven. He has always been with us.
mr.parota thaliyan kadavula irrukaruara? do u really think there is god? if there is a god then why the hell is it that while some people in India/or any other third world country for that matter have to struggle on day-to-day basis to live (not eat or sleep but to live) their hell-ridden lives while u or me or any1 reading this is even fortunate enough to be at a computer and be reading this. why? how is u r life any more preious/important than an african american’s in darfur? don’t tell me its not, becoz it is damn it. where the hell is your god now? kadvula engey?
love is god : Anbe sivam (that was a good movie - go watch it if u haven’t already).anyways on a less serious note: i enjoyed reading the review keep it up.
the way this discussion is spreading out is how one should write dialogues for movies… flamboyant to say the least…
do u really think there is god?
But can we at least agree that there are monkeys?
G: “What IS scandalous is Anurag forgetting basic mythology…” Are you serious?
glass: Wow, as Gopi says, this is one intense dialogue exchange.
Jabberwock: No, no — we’re not getting into Darwinism here. Not on my watch, we’re not.
No. Just pointing out that that he violates basic story-telling principles by contradicting already established facts. Something that Doyle afficiandos spend a great deal of time worrying about.
Ah, Baradwaj, do we have to get into Darwinism to agree or find that “there are monkeys”?
On a serious note, I’m yet to catch this one. Coming from Anurag Kashyap, it’s a travesty that I haven’t watched it till now.
HI BRangan:
Was busy enjoying X-mas & New Year holidays and stayed away from movies (except for Golden Compass - I enjoyed it but it did not go very well here in US as it is perceived (the books itself) “anti-god”!! What the heck!!!)
Anyway, great to know that Anurag tried to travel into uncharted territories yet again!! Will catch it as soon as I can!! Thanks!
What IS wrong with saying “monkey god”? Hanuman IS a monkey and he IS revered as God. So… Monkey God. You keep right on saying it, Brangan - we do too!
Zero: Thalaivaa - time seems to have stopped on movielane after Bergman’s death. Whazzup? No Tamil films you’ve seen since? Or even TZP?
APALA: New Line appears to have dug itself into a hole with this one. Have you read the books though? (I haven’t.) Just curious how the adaptation aspect is.
Shyam: Be very careful, or you too might be flamed with “Are you a white guy?” type stinker
BRangan:
I have not read the books either! (Read Lord of the rings, Chronicles of Narnia … but not this one. I will check out the books sometime this summer - before the next movie gets released!). But my colleagues here told me that the film is a FAITHFUL adaptation of the book. When they were kids they were advised not to read the book, it seems!!! (Most of the churches took it offensive!)
That’s the reason it flopped here in US. But outside US, the film is doing good business (in Europe, SA etc., and it might do well in India too!). It’s low on action and more on character and plot development in this venture. Maybe once the action picks up in the next one, it might do better here and elsewhere!
I think the third film in this series is being planned to compete with third film of Narnia!! (Even the books were facing-off and the films would do the same!!). I THINK YOU WILL LIKE IT MORE THAN YOU HATE IT - That’s my prediction, if you see it!
Baradwaj,
Yeah, time flies everywhere else! And, one fine day, I realise that the last time I wrote on my blog was like almost a year ago… But, one’s film-watching shall never take a dip, come what may.
I saw TZP and really liked it. And, I concur with your critique of the film too. I didn’t even mind the pigeonholing of the characters that much, but while the first half dealt with the universal theme of alienation of a kid, the second half significantly reduces the theme to how to deal with dyslexia. The kid after all, we realise, can do well in academics, is an exceptionally talented painter, and his soch is really well above average. My question is, what if he was truly “mediocre”? The film shies away from dealing with it. And, isn’t that why the film could conveniently end with a competition which the kid wins (as in getting his due recognition) with flying colours?
Sorry for the off-topic comment, I should have actually posted this comment on the TZP post.
But, hey, I didn’t say anything about why I loved the film (TZP)! I thought there was so much to love in the film despite the shortcomings. The sensitivity with which it deals with the daily drudgery of a kid, the wonderfully evocative imagery, the singularly brilliant ‘Mera Jahan’ song montage sequence and the seamless way in which the songs are woven into the narrative in general, and so on.
Even in the straitjacketed second half, there were many things to like. In the climax, for example, it’s a superb touch when we see that Nikumbh too gives a sincere (and inspired) shot at the painting competition even as he wants Ishaan to win.
P.S. Sorry all, I promise that this is my last comment in this post.
Zero: “but while the first half dealt with the universal theme of alienation of a kid, the second half significantly reduces the theme to how to deal with dyslexia” Actually, I had a different kind of problem, that the specific addressing of ONE child gave way to a warm-fuzzy celebration of CHILDREN in general. That’s why that documentary at the end — though nicely done — felt gratuitous, along with the scenes with other children facing difficulties.
>>”Actually, I had a different kind of problem, that the specific addressing of ONE child gave way to a warm-fuzzy celebration of CHILDREN in general.”
Oh, I do concur with you about that problem. It also gets overtly didactic from there dealing with different kinds of “disabled children,” if I may say so. In a way, the didactic tone does go hand in hand with reducing the story of the protagonist to “how to deal with dyslexia.” Not to forget that the theme of *a* left-out kid giving way to a warm-fuzzy celebration of CHILDREN is in itself reductive.
>>”That’s why that documentary at the end — though nicely done — felt gratuitous, along with the scenes with other children facing difficulties.”
True.