Director: K.V. Anand
When one ought to communicate through paper, he/she sometimes scribble few words (knowing that will make the point) or write in detail or go for pictorial representation. It is left to the discretion of the writer as to which form he/she should use given the content. Problem starts when the writer giving it all, tells the reader to filter what he/she wants to take: if you want photos – here they are, if you want hints – here they are, if you want long drawn explanations – here they are. Well, won’t that be a hindrance, you might ask.
Given the premise of journalism in the film KO, it is but natural for a journalist to analyze a point in every possible angle. But just because the journalist invested a lot of time in analyzing the various aspects of a single point should he/she publish it all? Won’t it hamper the flow and affect the scheme on the whole – just like how ‘he/she’ acts as a speed breaker as you read through this article. You can’t question the logic as it underlines the gender neutrality. Yet it sounds wrong as I could have stuck with any one gender for the sake of the article. That is exactly where Ko misses the mile race – you know this is not wrong yet you cant say this way of representation is good.
Cinema & in a broader sense the world today has shifted to instant gratification. One day we were cheering for the world cup victory, the next day we went gunghoo about lokpal until ipl wave hit us and tomorrow the election result as we leave behind yesterday. In this scenario it is but natural to skim over a lot of flaws & overlook for the magic that the director is trying to create over celluloid space. But should we struggle a lot to adjust to the pitch & mindset of the director, isn’t it his duty to arrest the audience – more so being a commercial director? It is not that Ko doesn’t engage you; it simultaneously drags you into the film while disturbs your attention here and there. Well we can’t always have a bed of roses devoid of thorns.
On a different note, after watching Ko one thing was pondering my mind: why was it named so? Is it because of the subject – politics - it deals with? Well that maybe the true intention. But on witnessing the daredevilry of Ashwin (Jeeva) in the film I can’t but think of a better correlation. Nevertheless it could have been named Spiderman and there wouldn’t have been any naysayer.
Comments