Thoughts on Vakeel Saab - A "Truce" between Feminism and Pawanism

Vakeel Saab – A “Truce” between Feminism and Pawanism.

Let’s do some simple math on the anatomy of Vakeel Saab and Pink. I’m sure many of the PSPK diehard fans will not even be reading this review after a headline like that. A few sensible audiences would also quit reading this after the first sentence – because, comparing 2 movies, a remake and an original, is like comparing apples and oranges. Whilst watching Vakeel Saab, it never positively felt like a remake, though it sure did feel like a rework.

Coming back to Anatomy.

By Anatomy I mean in the simplest of terms – the runtime. Forgive my diction, as I have just come out watching a Courtroom drama, where such diction is specific and purposeful. The runtime of Pink is 130 mins, whereas the runtime of Vakeel Saab is 155mins – which means by simple math means that Venu Sriram, the Re-Worker and Director has added extra 25 mins of content, around 12.5 mins for each half. Having those extra minutes as the Crowning for King PSPK is fair enough, or rather, just. But Venu Sriram has a different idea(s).

Ideas which are enough to spearhead the entire purpose of the movie into a Crescendo of Mass Celebration, for provoking a Fan Fest at the Theatre. I’m not going to spoil these ideas for you, but rather compare the purpose of this film with the original – Pink (Available on Hotstar, Prime Video, Netflix). 

The Women, played by Nivetha Thomas, Anjali and Ananya Nagalla, are introduced first (with Maguva Maguva playing)  as middle-class breadwinners and independent mindset personas, like in the original, but each from different strata, just to bring a multifaceted representation of today’s working-class youth. Now, Pink has its writing spot on, with the 3 women being from different communities, each of them having an individual turmoil but a collective goal – Survival. Survival for the family, wellbeing, job and also Survival from the Society, Stigma and everlasting suspicion. This Survival is misunderstood, as Venu has given all 3, the same shape.  They even have the same shots -  Gloomy Faces in a pensive state having a closeup onto their face. Why not? Because it’s after all Pawan Kalyan needs distinct shots.

I remember few trivia from the release of Pink, that Amitabh Bachchan, a star mightier than all insisted on having his name credited after the first 3 female leads as an act of pushing forward the idea of feminism. Vakeel Saab, is on the other extreme, starting with a heavy bgm for the screen to be lit as “Power Star” Pawan Kalyan, even before the title itself is revealed. Also, Kudos to the people who designed the thoughtful opening credits, that was a very unique way of pushing forward the theme of courtroom drama by placing the IPC Section behind the title graphic.

Pawan Kalyan, as a hero, takes around 5-10 mins for an introduction fight, the elevation and space created by Venu Sriram for Pawan Kalyan’s Political Orations. Kudos to Venu for creating such space, throughout the movie. He sure does have some grip on his artistry. The issues with script begin when it views the same story from a different lens, a lens where Pawan Kalyan doesn’t stop as a hero, but grows huger into a Saviour. Of course, Amitabh Bachchan saves the day for the 3 women in the original, but here the saving is from the point of view of a Fan-Director-Re-worker, who wants his Hero to take more light than the Women or at the least the issue which the subject is dealing with.

We get Pawan Kalyan as a student (really for his age?) activist of Osmania University (maybe George Reddy influence is still lingering), gets admission for Masters' in Delhi University (maybe Ninnu Kori influence is also still lingering) in Nuclear Physics (this became too much).  The flashback with this level of inconvincible facts was unnecessary. He rejects his Masters' offer after a melodramatic Common man’s suicide after the unavailability of justice and joins Law in the same Osmania University, and enter- “Vakeel Saab – Satyadev Konidela”. This flashback again is with an attempted rousing narration from a character artist (I hate to use this word) who also has another purpose - refilling the handy-liquor bottle with more booze, so that Vakeel Saab remains stable (Why so? Cause Shruthi Hassan ….). All this to make the 2 women understand he was once an astounded Lawyer and is worthy of taking up this case, as well as a comeback ( as a lawyer? Or as a mass hero?).

Finally, we get an interval bang with Vakeel Saab taking up the case and fighting for the girls. Pink also took almost the entire first half for its characters to enter the courtroom. The messaging of Pink was never limited to courtroom scenes, it was also from the slowly agonizing and shaking scenes that lead up to the same as we lend our feelings to those women. Here, it was a disjointed feeling resulting from a best of both worlds attempt from Venu Sriram – he tries to gain sympathy, but also tries to elevate his hero by increasing his screen time. The first 75 mins have passed.

Also Read : When it Comes to New Age Cinema 

The Second Half of Vakeel Saab is slightly better as it gets more oozing drama from the original. Again, Venu Sriram tampers this by completely neglecting few subtle touches which Shoojith Sircar got right. Prakash Raj as Lawyer Nanda is like the corporate villain we encounter frequently but only to fight with the hero in the courtroom. He does what? – Argue! Shout! Baselessly Question!  And Pawan Kalyan’s way of dealing with the case is also no different.

This over-dramatization mainly was due to the long, sequential interrogating scenes of Pink being haphazardly cut short and sequenced like one highlight conversation after another between Nanda and Vakeel Saab. When the Public Prosecutor in Pink was questioning Manipuri, Virginity and tagging them as Concubines, it was like thorns piercing our thinking while watching Pink. It goes the same when Defence Lawyer states about taking the hands out of the pocket, Superwoman and most importantly “ A Girl’s Safety Manual”. All of these, are lost in the drivel of loud, impassioned arguments and irritating proceedings - a recall to Badri-Nanda heated conversation 20 yrs ago.

One of the interesting moments which was explored was when Nanda asks in the break to Vakeel Saab – “ Malli Vasthav Anukoledu!!”, hints at the past relationship between these 2. It should’ve been extended like maybe they both were colleagues? Sr-Jr in Law? Contenders in University? this would’ve organically generated the hype when Vakeel Saab Objects, kicks a chair, breaks a table or even a chair handle while Nanda Questions his clients.  

The women themselves don’t act better. Their performances are methodically approached to replicate the actions of the three women of Pink. They’re not bad, but they are just so spottable of their recollection-then-action performance. The flexibility is lost. It feels rigid that they try to enact like how in the original it was done.

Thaman’s music lacks understanding of the movie it is getting scored to. Don’t get me wrong, Satyameva Jayathe and Kadhulu Kadhulu are rousing enough, manageable to be frank. But his talk of the town, bgm, oft-quoted for the adrenaline rush it brings to the onscreen sequence, is just not needed all the time. The silence in the courtroom from Pink, where only the location sounds, are also just barely heard, makes us feel eery. Vakeel Saab has this completely blanketed by a plethora of orchestral Thaman-Esque violins, which just stretch like an extended Alapana. It feels obviously histrionic, even when the drama happening actually isn’t that obvious.

Even from the cinematography POV, the same scenes which are stripped off from any natural orangish light and filled with cold blue artificial light made the convicts and sometimes the lawyers too feel caged by this case. In contrast, PS Vinod completely basks up the set with bright light, hence the sore, shady nature is lost. PS Vinod is no doubt a brilliant cinematographer, his pre-interval fight scene picturization is terrific (it reminded me of the tightly shot Khushi fight scenes where he flaunts his Martial arts), but few scenes were too appealing than they should be.

Prawin Pudi’s edit is also not up to the mark. The decision to hindsight the core emotional states of 3 women in montages, left nothing for the women’s arcs to flourish. Complaining about why he didn’t cut the flashback is just out of question, and this exact thing made an irrevocable loss to the film’s connection. All hail Pacing issues! As the next 80 minutes has passed.

Revisiting Indian Cinema of 10's (A Sunday Digest) - Perception of Filmmaking

All this mishap can solely be attributed (as a viewer who knows something about filmmaking) to the Re-worker, Director – Venu Sriram. I’ll end my opinion on a higher note by sharing another trivia from Pink - The film was screen specially for Rajasthan Police and Rastrapathi Bhavan for increasing awareness on Women dignity and rights. Vakeel Saab is being screened, amidst a deadly Covid Second wave, to please the mass audience, especially PSPK fans for his comeback. The target audience is clearly evident in both movies. There’s a famous saying “ It’s not about where you take inspiration from, it’s always about where you take it to” and Venu Sriram has taken it to a different, much-degraded state.

This is not to say that Venu Sriram’s version is not right, the craziness was just not appealing to me at a tolerable level. I am aware of the fact that people might have a polar opposite opinion to mine, that this is actually the only way to make the messaging more appealing to the masses. This is just another opposing perspective, and I rest my case(study) here.