REVIEW:

Gandhi assassination in film -

The detoxifying effect

Cyanide, the Kannada film based on the events that took place in the 20 days after Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, steers clear of controversial political stances.

by K. N. Venkatasubba Rao

Bilingual

The bilingual film, Kannada and Tamil, maintains a safe distance from glorifying the killing of the young, national leader. The theme concentrates on the remorseless ideological stance of Shivarasan and Shubha, the plight of Ranganath (Ranganathan in real life) and the helplessness of his wife Mridula, and the effort of the police in nabbing the killers alive.

Director A. M. R. Ramesh, a graduate from the Film and Television Institute of Tamil Nadu, delineates the dramatic events that took place in and around Bangalore for 20 days from August 1 to 20,1991. From his point of view,

Cyanide responds to three basic perspectives. Though in general it is a film on a criminal conspiracy and espionage, but for those viewers with a sense of history, it is a film based purely on the true to life incidents that lack political details. For the discerning audience it is a historical film with human insights told through an intelligent combination of the East-West narrative technique.

For Ramesh, the national tragedy turned out to be more disturbing and personal, with the arrest of Ranganathan and Mridula, who were his friends for decades. Ramesh first wanted to make a low-key criss-cross thriller to please the audience and establish himself in popular cinema.

As he began studying all the available public documents, first information reports, legal papers and news stories, pertaining to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, he realised the cultural, political and historical potential of the theme.

After interacting with the then Deputy Commissioner of police (Bangalore) Kempaiah and Inspector Murthy who had played a major role in tracking down the one-eyed Shivarasan, Shubha and their team, who were hiding in a house in the isolated Konanakunte, his cinematic canvas of the gory incident expanded further.

Personal information provided by Ranganathan and Mridula about the attitude and idiosyncrasies of the ideologically doped terrorists helped Ramesh in forming a clear vision. He was sure he could go about his film, sans political aspects.

He took seven long years to write a "complete script" illustrated with newspaper cuttings, graphics and official photographs provided by the State police. Although the intelligent screenplay, crisp and consequential dialogues and directorial abilities claim a major share of the film's excellence, it is Rathnavelu's brilliant camera work that contributes equally, in offering a novel experience to the audience.

Some of the situations and dialogues and the cinematography themselves speak on the range and depth of the theme as understood by Ramesh, Rathnavelu and the artistes who played pivotal roles. At a poignant juncture, the highly motivated Shubha, showing a cyanide capsule tied to her neck like a managalasutra, says to Mridula: "I am married, to this... " When a fellow terrorist offers sweets, Shivarasan says: "The mouths destined to chew cyanide should not taste sweets."

Fast moving shots with Shubha as an innocent teenager sleeping on her mother's lap in a serene ambience and Shivarasan enjoying his reading before he lost an eye on the battlefront come as inevitable life details of the interred history of the assassins.

Situations such as Shubha asking Mridula if she can call her "Akka," the shadow of the banana tree on the wall of the house being seen as a bad omen, and Mridula pleading with the police to somehow get the gas cylinder and stove out of the house because it's a gift given to her by her parents, are incidents that in a subtle way ease out our notions of terrorist vs. the common us.

Shubha's intense emotional reaction to the song Kannada naadina veera ramaniyaa narrating the patriotic fervour of Onake Obavva, who single-handedly killed several soldiers of the invading Hyder Ali at Chitradurga fort in the 18th Century, has been forcefully brought out in the film. She is shown raising probing questions on the human response to a set of emotional and intellectual dualities conditioned by the ethnic conflict in the neighbouring island nation - Sri Lanka. The incident is said to be a true to life one, according to filmmaker Ramesh.

For the central question: "What justification have you to kill our former Prime Minister? Do you think it was right?" Shivarasan twitches his face and quips: "I know it was wrong. I know it was wrong... "

As Ramesh entered the phase of casting, he chose Rangayana Raghu, Tara and Avinash to play Ranganath, Mridula and Kempaiah, as he had been familiar with them and confident of their potential. He struggled to find right talents to play Shivarasan and his lieutenant Shubha. He first wanted to approach Om Puri to play Shivarasan. But later decided to cast the Marathi artiste Ravi Kale.

He "pestered" Kale over the telephone discussing his body language, including having to synchronise his movements and articulation, closing an eye, and deliver his lines with a rigid and cutting intonation.

After a lot of deliberation he chose Malavika, who is now a household name through T. N. Sitaram's popular television serial Maya Mriga in which she played a radical and rebellious advocate. In Girish Kasaravalli's Grihabhanga she became a metaphor of feminine suffering and self respect. Ramesh says that he chose Malavika because of her bright, expressive eyes.

Nevertheless, he admits that Malavika's physical features do not match those of a Lankan woman's. Interestingly Malavika, who has donned an all-powerful role in her first full length Kannada cinema, does not agree with Ramesh's views.

Having heard and read about LTTE activities and Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, it was exciting to play this responsible role. It was an intense case of "parakaaya prevesha", into the role of a reticent, brooding, emotionally disturbed Shubha, who was, in a way, lost to the linear, ordinariness of everyday life. She feels that in the Onake Obavva episode there is a compelling sense of human integrity, particularly feminine integrity. But the very perception of patriotic fervour coming from contradictory points of view becomes debatable.

"I am not trying to put them on par with each other. What I'm trying to say is their commitment to a cause. For me ,Shubha is a human entity, who is both emotionally challenging and rationally debatable. I have tried my best," explains Malavika.

"Wrong... wrong and wrong". A scene in *Cyanide*: The situation is murky, tense and ironic.

A clear divide?

Ranganath, the character, is disturbed and struggling to find ways to extricate himself from the dragnet of Sri Lankan Tamil terrorists.

Shivarasan, the main character, is more disturbed not because his team is trapped, but due to some other nagging problems, which the film does not attempt to explore.

Mustering all his courage, Ranganath poses a central question to Shivarasan:

"How do you justify Rajiv Gandhi's killing?"

Director Ramesh claims that the interaction between Ranganath and Shivarasan on the central question was true to life, as his one time friend Ranganathan (in real life) told him.

It's now 15 years since the tragedy has taken place and has changed the political course of the nation.

In an interview to an English television channel, the LTTE ideologue Anton Balasinghe, spoke of his organisation's reviewed stand on the assassination in a casual and unconvincing way, couched in diplomatic parlance.

Do these on and off the screen incidents expose the dichotomy and contradictions in the terrorist organisation? Does it also raise questions about Shivarasan being portrayed as disturbed and rather frank in his confession?