Who listens to Zarathustra anyways?

Diwali and the days following it saw Ra.One getting a sumptuous thulp across various internet forums. Long-time denizens of Internet need hardly be reminded that this landscape is built on the ‘shoot-first-question-later’ philosophy. Therefore even without watching the movie, I can understand that a large part of this flak might *just* be hyperbole and the movie might *just* be passable.

Wait. this is not what you think it is. This post is not about condemning the unwarranted extreme positions ‘internet’ critics assume. Nor is this a ‘rational’ counter-argument mounted to defend the common man’s right to willingly fling his disbelief into the Koovam river.

The other day I was reading this review of the film by B.Rangan and his initial point on Rajnikanth and the redundancy of Endhiran intrigued me. Why only limit this to Rajni?  Why not expand it to a broader spectrum? Will the concept of a ‘Superhero’ ever work in the milieu of what we call ‘mainstream’ Indian cinema?  Atleast in the near future, can we bring ourselves to appreciate the ‘Western’ interpretation of Superhero and the rituals it associates itself with?

I doubt it.

For our films still, unwittingly or otherwise, borrow heavily from Rama’s mythology. With Ramayana, the protagonist isn’t some normal 9-5 guy with an abnormal ‘do gooder’ itch, he embodies all that is good in men. He is Rama and it is an existential demand that he pwn badass villainy in the neighborhood while establishing/sustaining the righteous code for his successors to follow. He doesn’t need extraordinary circumstances to fulfill his destiny; he *is* the extraordinary circumstance pitted against the evil mongers (who as we know, frankly, haven’t the slightest chance in hell against him).

Extending the analogy, our traditional on-screen heroes have ‘bleached’ that gray area by their unblemished virtue of their being. To them, “upholding what is right” is not a response to an external stimulus but something that is second-nature/ingrained. In other words, where the west defines its Superheroes by “what they do”, here we see the definition shifting to “who they are”.

Secondly the logic that applies to Batman is denied to Bruce, even though they are the different manifestations of a same entity. This division of logic/ the “idam poruL Eval“ness doesn’t dictate a Rajini movie like say Baasha. Alter-egos aren’t a necessity here, a frill if the occasion demands. Third, a typical superhero  is an asocial being. He/She can only exist as an entity outside the society. What this also means is that if one takes him/her out of the current context and the character still remains homogeneous. But I highly doubt that our heroes can exist in any universe other than the ones they’ve created for themselves.

One could argue that given time and/or the right treatment we can still sell the concept of a asocial “Costumed Crusader” to our public and I’d agree. The first step would be to let the franchise decide the star and not the other way around. I mean what is the need now for someone like Salman, Shah Rukh or Rajni to hide behind a mask to pulp posteriors, when he’s been doing the same, just fine all these years without one.  The second would probably be to eliminate this ‘target audiences are kids especially’ bollock.  Once one assumes that working definition, one is only going to oversimplify the context and make it look like a joke. Why should we be forced to accept that the whole concept is juvenile and not worth the effort to invest our emotions? Just because it doesn’t happen “IRL”? Hello.

Another thing that puzzles me is this act of putting the cart before the horse. A superhero franchise, the point at which it becomes a movie, already has a sizable fan base it had collected from its run as a comic or a book. Therefore as a movie it doesn’t need to invest a lot of time explaining stuff to its audience. But here, its the movie that spawns the franchise and it straight away tries shoving info deep down the audience’s throat without giving the chance to even acclimatize themselves to the myth. Little wonder then that it opens itself to such scorn and ridicule.

Will the scene change? I don’t know. Probably it will, probably it won’t matter. But if anything, I hope that the change comes from outside the medium. Hopefully, our popculture evolves into a more potent and pertinent (lest someone should rue the loss of nativity) organism. Hopefully, our filmmakers find enough incentives to break the mold and cast aside dated-prototypes. Hopefully, the pigs will come home flying.Till then let’s keep the Lulz, shall we?

Advertisement