Movie wasnt that bad. To me movie was good and watchable - some loose ends in first half... but it is a must watch just for its visuals..u can never visuals like this for time to come... but not in league of Mani's classics.
According to History Ravanan is a great Scholar, who had written Bhashyas on Rig Vedas. The Bhasyas were preserved in Karachi Museum, and Ravana had written Arka Prkasika, which talks about Pregnancy, child birth, growth of child in the womb etc.,
I am having a Xerox copy of the book, which was published in 1925 at Lahore.
I think I already posted a message in this column as Ravana Studied in Subramanya in Karnataka.
Being a Brahman of South India he was punished and killed.
Secondly I am having a doubt
Why people from south India doesn't like to visit Ayodya like they visit Tirupathy etc.,
There is definitely a great dearth in the quality of tamil films that come through today. If the movie was Ramayana adaptation, the role of hanuman was a practical joke and made so stupid!
Visuals (Sets and Aish were stunning) - End of Line as to good stuff.
For an age old plot - the screen play and script must be mobilizing - here it was a drag and even irritating at times.
Forget it ! The Rama and Ravana I have known for years may actually sue us!!!
- The cinematography was very good and the sets were done nicely (painstaking efforts) - Vikram has done a nice job and Karthik surprisingly did cuta nice cameo (he was funny and even in brief appearance made his mark well) - 2 songs were good (AR Rahman) Minus
- Suhasini - not sure what she had in mind - Vasam was poor ( we could not follow most of the verses - they were blended with some poetry or something and it was too jarring and didn't fit well for the scenes) - Scope for improvement - only very few short typical maniratnam type dialogs - you can count them.
Music - Ar Rahman's music was very nice when you listen to it separately, but for some reason, I could not enjoy it in the theater (not sure if it is the acoustics or the presentation - mix of audio visuals)
Very slow during the first half of the movie and felt like we are watching the samthing over and over again.
Vendhapunnil Vel:-
Sorry guys - could not take the following scene well:-
a) when the inspector talks to the villain's brother-in law (whose hand was already cut) and he is hanging on a rope - the treatment he meets from the inspector is the worst ever humanitarian thing you expect to a Thoothuvan (aka messenger) - which epic tells you that you can mistreat a messenger (ooops)
35 marks
Sri It's different - News, Views and Music - weekly Radio show Every Wed 6 - 9 am PST KZSU Stanford 90.1 FM www.itsdiff.com
I have had the oppurtunity to see the movie Ravana yesterday.
In Filmworld parlence, Maniratnam made an ulta of Ramayana ; he made an attempt to create a' Ravanan out of Raman' and 'a Raman out of Ravavnan', and to a large extent succeeded in creating sympathy for Ravanan also. The depiction of Rama, reminds us Saba vimochanam.
The performance of lead actors , and the cinematography are really good.The efforts they have taken to picturise is visible in each and every frame .
The pre release hype - makes us expect a great movie - and that makes a few disappointed, at the end of the show..........
Hi, "Being a Brahman of South India he was punished and killed." - This is a very racist comment which supports devision of India on geographical basis. Till now I have not convinced myself that Dravidian and north indians were of different origins. I am reading much literature on Aryan invasion theory and trying to find out what is the real truth. To me it is hard to understand that how come being from two different races, we (north and south indians) have same gods and rituals. Yes the rituals are affected with local traditions, however the base for both of the locations are similar. I will surely try to go deep into this and find the answers I am seeking. But sire, sorry to say here, that your comment did hurt me. I dnt know the reason why south indians dnt go to Ayodhya, but I tell you one thing that many north indians also dnt go to Ayodhya. Not being that it is not sacred, but the site does not have much to offer.
I will be easier to measure Hanuman's tail. One report was, it grossed 20 crores on the first day; whether in India or all over the world was not clear. In Pune alone, there were close to 350 shows per day of Ravan (Hindi) in various multiplexes and single theatres. Most of the multiplexes operate on revenue sharing basis. Of course number of shows in a day will come down after a few days. General view is Tamil version with English subtitles is better than the Hindi version. Even Amitab Bachan has (mildly!) blamed Maniratnam for unimaginative editing in Abhishek scenes, which leaves the viewers confused. Apart from screening in theatres, there are dvd, TV, and other rights which bring in lot of money. What is more relevant is retutn/investment ratio; I expect it to be more than 10. Sampath
Dear Sir, Ravana - Sangam, kappiyum, Thevaram and Divyaprabandam. - All irresepective of Saivam, Vainavam or Jainism portray him as an evil. I am posting one more today to support this. You can check the references. secondly - due to the disturbance in between - travel to north could not be taken and this is the reason lot of Kasi Viswanatha temples came to TN. There is a Rama temple in south indian style in Ayodhya. Lord Rama himself oredred a Mami to build a templeat Ayodhya.
Am I the only one or was it an Ode to Veerappan in the guise of Ramayana?
The visuals were excellent....However have only seen the Hindi version will post after Tamil
Sri
If I can stop one heart from breaking,I shall not live in vain; If I can ease one life the aching,Or cool one pain, Or help one fainting robin, Into his nest again, I shall not live in vain. Emily Dickinson
Meaning :The one who is with great people are always benefited.- Like the younger brother of the King of Lanka who became the king of Lanka by being with Rama.
A jain text calling இராமன்( Rama)as பெரியோன் (great)andindirectly refers இலங்கைக் கிழவன் (Ravana)as கீழோன். (lowly)
I havenot come across anyTamil text hailing Ravanan so far.
Right from historical age...Lankans tamils are shown under poor-lighted.
In my childhood days..I ahve heard "sevivazhi" stories telling that..Raavanan was very much a god feared person..and he came to know the greatness of rama...
It's one of the main reason why he kidnapped sita...So that atleast by that way rama will come to lanka and make his land a holy place.
Adding to that.
After the war is over when rama defeated the raavan and gave the rule to his brother..
Rama left saying that.."Karullavarai,enn peyar ulla varai,enda boomiyil amadhi nilavadhu"
Something similiar to these lines...That's the result lankans atill face problems they say..
These are as I said before Sevivazhi stories.Please don't mistake me If I hurt someone feelings.
I haven't saw the movie...But my point was winner always in the light...here rama is winner so he is in light...
But raavan is one of the greatest king of lanka and never did any cruel war against anybody and never destroyed any country as such..We can't judge him by just reading poems or history..
The one who has a good Evangelist with him always win.
Dear Saurabh, re Ayodhya : After that ugly Masjid razing in '92, I certainly don't care to go there! Plenty of other equally-sacred sites. Repercussions still felt in Godhra, GUJ of all places, 10 years later. Try Chitrakut, say, or Gaya [that's problematic, too, being in Bihar]? Does Chitrakut have any really old structures?
Which is the holiest 'RAMA' kovil in TN, do you, or anyone else, know? kathie
Couple of years ago I read that an area of MP, N of Jabalpur, worships Ravana. I still enjoy the crazy theory that Lanka was in the Murwara basin. Malathi has tried to set me straight, but I'm hard to convince. Wish I could read Skt. No good at languages. kathie
Hi Kathie, To my best knowledge, Chitrakoot does not have any temple of antiquity. Most of the shrines are recent constructions. Ayodhya also does not have any big shrine for Rama, I heard that a small temple is used for worship. Babri mosque demolition should not prohibit people to visit the place as this act was done by some people and should not harm the place. We all know that Ayodhya is metioned in Ramayana, now whether there was a temple at that site or not, I have no idea. Gaya should not have any issue because of being in Bihar. As this is a big town and many tourists visit there. There is a big Rama temple at Orccha, near Jhansi.I am not aware of Rama temples in south, however I think Rameshwaram might have some temple related to Rama.
First things first...Lanka was not Ravana's country...it was his brother Kubera's country. He, by his wickedness threw Kubera out of the land, snatched all his land, property, pushpaka vimana and what not and sent him to patala loka. He was very head strong, cruel and did lot of bad things to everyone. He lifting mount kailash is the proof for his arrogance. He was humbled by Vali and Kaarthaveeryarjuna just for his arrogance and headstrongness....we can keep on adding.
Making a hero out of him is done by 'anti rama' brigade :) there will always supporters of bad people, you know. so for bad people, ravana is definitely a hero. Ofcourse, we cant neglect that, Ravana was well learned, expert in all 64 arts etc. But knowledge without humility leads a person to ruins and he was the best example.
Every one has a brahman or is of a brahman, the term is widely mixed up with the current definition of Brahmin. Veda gyana is an internal process not a literary one as prescribed, literacy just kindles the thought that is pre-existing in each of us. Each of the genetics can be traced to a 'rishi' or who ever... as per the vedas etc. Ravan or Sooran or any such is from Brahma - same as us (technically speaking)...
Balance of force and end of era is an apparent eventuality, thats the way nature works. Ravanan was to end and Rama's to begin was a balance. How that happens is key to the story, nature will find a weak spot and manifest the hole in it for the decline - this happens to all of us - even the best, Rama or Ravana or Krishna or Raja Raja's empire dont matter, current politics etc dont matter. Thats nature at its best!
Everything ends and finding a prespective to say who is right or wrong is usually postmortem report - is highly based on socio-economic circumstances and state of mind / belief of the individual viewing it.
What ever be the case, Rama does not exist without Ravana... And Ravana was born for Rama to be born.
Most of the problem of understanding Raavan comes with poeple fixation that there is only one standard ramayana...
Valmiki ramayana he is a half brahmin- half demon but a very good ruler - more in the negative light Kamba ramayanam- ravana is given more of Anti hero role than a complete villan - making him like rajni of old times who does all the wrong but u end up liking him though Kamalahassan would be a perfect guy in the movie.. there are jain and Buddhist ramayanas where raavana is saint either jain/bhuddist. According to jain philosphy things in last birth determine ur life this time..raavana though good bcos of his pervious births sins kidnaps sita(treats her perfectly) and invites rama to end his life Bhuddist ramayanas treat ravana as the hero and rama as a Hindu oppressor Telugu folk songs have sita as the main charcater and condemns both rama and ravana for their mis deeds...
there are 3000 different versions of ramayana.....and what ever knowledge of ramayana we have is hodge podge of at lest 5-6 versions of ramayana...
One thing we got to understand is Ramayana is like Godfather movie- each person takes it and presents it in his own ways... so thats why we have naayagan sarkar devarmagan rajneeti
People had the creative freedom to make raavan as the hero or lakshman as the hero or sita as hero or hanuman
for eg CS Manoharan great stage artist made Lankeshwaran and Indrajit with villans as the heroes ....
dear kathie, such a long months gone, how are u and ur family. i have visited chitrakoor 4 years b4 and there the places they showned and told about rama seetha and laxmana were enjoyed the forest life up to 11.5 year for their 14 year forest life. there is cave in the half of the hill we have to step on 100 steps and enter in the cave in which we can wee the pointed rocks are like to fall on us but it will not the cave is like that naturely and there is a fountains calls ram another laxman the other is seethas bathing places inside some three rooms to bath it is calling guptha gothavari. there hill of ramar temple there we can go round the hill and it is calling barikkrama and on the way to parikarama in one place where lakshman climbed on a tree in near by another hill to see bharthans arriving and one place is calling janakans visit of ramseetha and another place in which barathan bend in land front of rama and cryed to come return to ayothi and in another 10 km after near hill side the manthahini river birth place we can see the athri maharishis place of stayed and ther is afountain call guptha ganga and near a place of spatik sheela calling there nearest the river where the indiras son jayanthan has fallen on the foot of rama to get appologe from rama for the eve teasing done by him on seetha the manthahinis rivers beautiful seen we can enjoy. then some so many places which we belive or not belive and the chitrakoot is the place if we go and stay there we get definetly peace of mind thanking yooooooooooo
To add to that - He was a coward. Could not face Rama - Came as a sanyasi and took away seetha.
As per Valmiki Ramayana -and all the other Tamil texts i read in this connection - protray him in a bad light. - even saiva saints like Sambandar &Appar or Jain text we saw today.
I saw somewhere that the movie 'Ravanan' is not actually based on real Ramayanam (mani rathnam himself have stated that). The movie was average, because it does not tell us any ground why 'Veera' is in the hit-list by cops? How can Karthik fly between branches in the introduction scene? Also if Prithviraaj is Rama, then it is totally illogical as he shoots Veera from back. there are manythings unanswered. Where is 'Veera's' wife in the movie (Mandothari of ramayana)?
So the movie name should not have been 'Raavanan'.... All scenes are without any weghtage in dialogue. Editing was bad.
If anyone tells 'Ravana', first thing that comes to mind is how worst that man could be. So everyone hate that name/person. So showing him as hero, no one can digest it.
The only + is cinematography and poetic explanation of few songs/scenes.
I have read a few versions, yet to see a translator for the various languages spoken (including that of Jambhavan or Hanuman or Jatayu or the one eyed demon in the sea whatever)... Even during the battle sequences :-) So either every one knew every language out there with the most apt grammatical sense or we are missing something that does not make sense. This is in context saying Raavana was Tamil Dravida and Rama was arya whatever... Both were Brahman and that is base line.
Ravana was anything but a coward. He was an ultimate warrior and a brilliant strategist also. He has lost wars and learnt from them and eventually ruled as a super power for quite a while.
On why he dons the role of Sanyasi: I am sure he knows of the curse he carries in the back of his mind. He would also know well enough about the story of ending the curse would be to end the love between Rama and Sita, there by terminating the edge that would cause his demise.
This is perfect meticulous planning I would say, coveting her and eliminating the curse. However, as we all do mistakes thinking we are great, nature finds an alternate and sets things up differently...
Best example of this could be the story of Anusuya, where she carries the jewels to give them to Sita on the event that is to happen... These jewels are the 'bread crumbs' now Ravana did not anticipate that right...
Same with Vali's kill and help of Sugreeva - how nature pans the elaborate downfall of the ultimate super power...
I really dont understand the logic. Ravan should have fought with Rama to take seetha ratehr thandiverting Rama and Lakshmana out and abduct seetha. And we call that cowerdness. If you talk about curses - 1) he took a boon that he could not be killed by devas, asuras, aksharas etc etc but missed out Nara and Vanara from the list. To add that he called Nandi a monkey and got a curse from him. That is another curse. He knew this well. 2) To reiterate theweakness - he lost to 2 people. One Vali a vanara and Karthaveeriyarjun a Nara. He knew very well that he is no match to a Nara and Vanara. 3) with regard to seeing the happenning so closely - Not fortuanate enough to remeber past births like you quote the bravery from close quarter observations.
I have explained the possibility and the reason that make logical sense. Calling a warrior of the clan who does conquer the worlds as a coward is not accurate.
I can explain the questions you posed but i think the answer is already there.
And as to bravery, its quoted by the greats - not just by me, i just did not want him to be called a coward, there is a difference you see.
Surpanaka to ravana: "If your mind feels inclind to take her as your wife, your right foot may soon be raised at this very place to conquer Rama. . . . Realizing the weakness of these people and and your own strength, let Sita of faultless limbs be taken as your wife." "Pursuing that object in mind and viewing it properly, fully weighing the merits and demerits of question and ascertaining his own strength and weakness and finally making up his mind to launch that undertaking (Sita's abducting), proceeded to his chariot shed with a resolute mind." To Maricha: "Then rid of all hindrance at their (Rama and Lakshmana chasing the deer) I shall for my part bear Sita away easily in solitude as does Rahu take away the splendour of the moon. After that , with my inner mind satisfied, I shall with ease confidently strike at Rama emaciated through abduction of his wife." Surpanaka does not advise Ravana to abduct Sita stealthily. She wants him to conquer Rama. Decision to engage in this unmanly/unaryan method is Ravana's own decision. He is not sure of his prowess. All quotes from Valmiki Ramayanam. Sampath
i too quoted 3 vesres from Kamban - about his bravery
1) By Raman Himself 2) By Vibeeshana 3) By Angadan
But his act of taking Sita when Rama was away is not fit for a person who conqured all the 3 worlds. That shows he knew well that he could not face Rama and hence did not make even the attempt he made on Vali and Karthaveerya.
Surpanaka does not advise Ravana to abduct Sita stealthily. She wants him to conquer Rama. Decision to engage in this unmanly/unaryan method is Ravana's own decision. He is not sure of his prowess. All quotes from Valmiki Ramayanam.
- Surpanaka had other plans :-) - Ravana was definitely smarter than that to take on Rama because Surpanaka said so. - Ravana's mind was clear - he wanted Sita - reasons can be a few, I also believe it could be strategic to take her and destroy Rama.
Ravana's mind must have been immensely powerful to have done the things he did.
1. A Brahman once leaves his brahminical duty - called Brahamadityar or Amadyar according to the profession they take.
2. Brahmans who continued to practise Brahmnical duties and also fought war were ridiculed - Drona, Krupa and Parasurama.
3. The confussion on Ravan is because we think that Vedas were restricted to Brahmins only. Vedas were common to all. Ved Vyasa or Valmiki are examples for this.
4. We want proof for " Madisar" in sangam litrature but when proof from Sangam is shown for Ravana - we will take up something else.
If he was a brahman, there is no need to perform rituals for 'Brahma hathi dosham'. Since he was Kshyatriya and killed a brahman, Ram had to perfom that ritual at Rameshwaram.