Introduction
Please see the Film before reading this review because I don't want any of you to ruin your film experience by reading these stupid theories (Valid unless verified by the Director) proposed by me. I believe atleast some part of this film is inspired by some person in real life. The character seems realistic in ways I cannot describe.
There could be flaws in this film and I simply don't care because we humans are not perfect too, like our creations. I don't claim to have any expertise with films other than a fanaticism for this movie and an active and empathizing imagination.
This film is a character study very much like the Joker movie released recently. The driving point of the story is to understand how the character's mind works and ultimately what choices he made/will make in the course of story.
This film suggests that society has a bias against independence as the Policeman interrogates the journalist in a confrontational manner. And in cases like Raghavan where he would go to any lengths to preserve his freedom, Society fears this freedom. And how do we deal with lies. By telling lies to ourselves that there is nothing to fear. That's why the Journalist is curious to prove that Raghavan is not the killer because otherwise this humble and soft spoken person would be the killer which almost seems impossible for her.
The Path of the Journalist:
The Journalist in the movie truly desires freedom. Her aspiration for freedom is evident from her dressing to the ornaments (Necklace, Earrings, Bangles, Watch, Ring, and Nose Stud) she wear and the way she has kept her hair short. She refuses to be dictated by the society's way of normal. And she is a freelancer too. One cannot imagine a more liberated woman in the society hindered by nothing. But she allowed her independence to be traded for earning respect from a senior journalist. Now she is a slave to that desire. She looks Independent but is not at all Independent. As she grew more interested in Raghavan she became allowed herself to be dependent on him by signing the Book contract. Raghavan never sought anything from her. Yet she went on demanding like he owed her something.
C.K. Raghavan is a prisoner sentenced for two homicides. People feel sorry for himself that he had to spend 20 years in prison. He doesn't feel sorry for himself that he had to spend so much time. He knows that he had done those crimes and feels that he deserves that punishment and may be even more. He even may have realized that once he gets out, past could repeat itself. Therefore in his mind he belongs inside the Prison. He looks dependent inside a Prison but is truly independent. His welfare is now the State's priority and he can be pre-occupied with his life and his thought as much as he wants. No one would bother him there.
Raghavan is a Pure Intellectual. Whatever be his moral or aesthetic sense everything is grounded in reason. He can't lie because he has no reason to lie. He doesn't desire for anything but to indulge in his thinking. He is not educated in the traditional sense but is widely read. He knows about the Ashoka Stamph and the four lions. A man who has no wide knowledge about things cannot comment that as such a trivia is not often mentioned anywhere even in books. Truth is for him like that fourth lion is hidden in plain sight but exists like the truth that he is a murderer.
He repeatedly says that he didn't kill anybody. What he means may be is that it is not the act of killing that takes precedence but the act of him preserving his Freedom. He agrees about his mindset with his bar mates. He has told them indirectly that he is the one who killed. That is the limit. If he tells the truth then his freedom and independence is lost. To regain his freedom he has to kill them. Probably this is how his mind works. His celebrity status via the media Report also caused him to wander any public place without being stalked and observed by random strangers. After the incident at the bar he realizes that for him everyone is interested in only the truth which he so desperately hides.
He is most probably not a Psychopath, could be a Sociopath; But definitely suffers from some Psychotic Disorders; He is trying to Block his memories of Past as the scene from storming from Beach (throwing the peanuts in his hands in a fit of rage) suggests. His mind wanders like we see Raghavan wandering the streets and the beach and the lonely outskirts of the house he stayed. He denies the truth that he is a murder but he realizes that he can't deny the truth in the real world any longer. Only after realizing that she has undertaken a contract did he realized that the killing was inevitable. That hints that he wanted to avoid killing as much as possible.
Some could argue that he is a prisoner of the past. So if he stays in the society past would come to haunt him in one way or the other. He is a man who waits patiently for his death. He calls life as "Maranathinu munneyulla vepralam" (Chaos before Impending Death). That definition of Death suits his victims as well as everyone who choose to remain dependent on either society or their own desires.
Framing a Convincing Backstory for Raghavan:
Raghavan uses Rationality too much (more than a Healthy Individual) and therefore whatever child hood past trauma he suffered he uses Rationalization and Avoidance to hide that trauma. He is more likely an Orphan (We can see in the paper cutting shown in the movie half of a sentence which suggests that nobody knows about the familial conditions of Raghavan) and probably a hard working one too. Most likely the two women he have killed have proposed a marriage to him. Only after his first marriage did he realized the loss of independence and he killed her probably by accident or impulsively because she pressured him too much. She was also jealous or possessive of him too as the woman in the house where he was employed was too flirtatious with him and she got suspicious. After the death probably his second victim pressured him for a remarriage with her. May be he felt like she was the cause of the suspicion of his wife and he killed her too, this time deliberate. It was not just love but obsession from all three victims which could have led to their death. His enigmatic and seemingly puritanical character may have drawn each of the victims to him.
The Weird smile by Raghavan before killing the Journalist is actually an enigma. His face doesn't reflect any contempt or regret or any discernible expression. It was a smile plastered just not to allow adrenaline to take control before the victim falls on the floor. The Photos on the Wall in his prison cell are not actually facing him. But anyone who sees the room would probably notice those pictures. May be those photo are meant to be some kind of Trophies like Serial killers do. Or it is meant to serve as warning for anyone who tries to get close to him as anyone who visits him at the prison cell would notice those pictures above th head of sitting Raghavan. He appears docile in front of the Journalists. The only motivation I could think of is may be to try avoid killing her and maybe he thought she would leave him after getting tired of pushing him to write. His intellectual and rather self-sufficient nature is seen by the gestures he shows with his hands. He needs only his intellect to engage him. Again the question of where does he gets the Photos of victims is also confusing.
Camera zooms only in the conversation where Raghavan replies that he is no God. The Zooming may suggest that it is somehow the connecting thread of the movie. All the women victims of his has godly expectations of him but Ragahavan realizes that being a flawed human being with a flawed past, he can't fulfill the unnatural ambition of these woman. So he believes that a flawed being like him doesn't see committing a killing as a crime. He sees it as an inevitable choice for his freedom. It is quite ironical that to attain one kind of freedom Raghavan had to give up so much other kinds of freedom. But it also stresses that the freedom that he preserves is the most valued than the ones he has lost.
Conclusion
I don't mention the names of actors and the technicians behind the movie because instead of naming them I am honoring them by honoring their work and may be inspire atleast a handful to check out the names of those people who worked behind the scenes.
I like the film because it is simple and straight to the point. But truth underlying it is visible as well as invisible for me. Every theory I propose could be wrong and Raghavan could just be a lazy Psychopath who sees associating with humans as too cumbersome.
So what is the Munnariyippu or Warning the film's title is talking about. The Warning was the Photo of two Victims displayed in his prison cell probably. She never impartially investigated the crimes. She only met the people who may have been fooled by the people who were not aware of the darker side of Raghavan.
Please see the Film before reading this review because I don't want any of you to ruin your film experience by reading these stupid theories (Valid unless verified by the Director) proposed by me. I believe atleast some part of this film is inspired by some person in real life. The character seems realistic in ways I cannot describe.
There could be flaws in this film and I simply don't care because we humans are not perfect too, like our creations. I don't claim to have any expertise with films other than a fanaticism for this movie and an active and empathizing imagination.
This film is a character study very much like the Joker movie released recently. The driving point of the story is to understand how the character's mind works and ultimately what choices he made/will make in the course of story.
This film suggests that society has a bias against independence as the Policeman interrogates the journalist in a confrontational manner. And in cases like Raghavan where he would go to any lengths to preserve his freedom, Society fears this freedom. And how do we deal with lies. By telling lies to ourselves that there is nothing to fear. That's why the Journalist is curious to prove that Raghavan is not the killer because otherwise this humble and soft spoken person would be the killer which almost seems impossible for her.
The Path of the Journalist:
The Journalist in the movie truly desires freedom. Her aspiration for freedom is evident from her dressing to the ornaments (Necklace, Earrings, Bangles, Watch, Ring, and Nose Stud) she wear and the way she has kept her hair short. She refuses to be dictated by the society's way of normal. And she is a freelancer too. One cannot imagine a more liberated woman in the society hindered by nothing. But she allowed her independence to be traded for earning respect from a senior journalist. Now she is a slave to that desire. She looks Independent but is not at all Independent. As she grew more interested in Raghavan she became allowed herself to be dependent on him by signing the Book contract. Raghavan never sought anything from her. Yet she went on demanding like he owed her something.
C.K. Raghavan is a prisoner sentenced for two homicides. People feel sorry for himself that he had to spend 20 years in prison. He doesn't feel sorry for himself that he had to spend so much time. He knows that he had done those crimes and feels that he deserves that punishment and may be even more. He even may have realized that once he gets out, past could repeat itself. Therefore in his mind he belongs inside the Prison. He looks dependent inside a Prison but is truly independent. His welfare is now the State's priority and he can be pre-occupied with his life and his thought as much as he wants. No one would bother him there.
Raghavan is a Pure Intellectual. Whatever be his moral or aesthetic sense everything is grounded in reason. He can't lie because he has no reason to lie. He doesn't desire for anything but to indulge in his thinking. He is not educated in the traditional sense but is widely read. He knows about the Ashoka Stamph and the four lions. A man who has no wide knowledge about things cannot comment that as such a trivia is not often mentioned anywhere even in books. Truth is for him like that fourth lion is hidden in plain sight but exists like the truth that he is a murderer.
He repeatedly says that he didn't kill anybody. What he means may be is that it is not the act of killing that takes precedence but the act of him preserving his Freedom. He agrees about his mindset with his bar mates. He has told them indirectly that he is the one who killed. That is the limit. If he tells the truth then his freedom and independence is lost. To regain his freedom he has to kill them. Probably this is how his mind works. His celebrity status via the media Report also caused him to wander any public place without being stalked and observed by random strangers. After the incident at the bar he realizes that for him everyone is interested in only the truth which he so desperately hides.
He is most probably not a Psychopath, could be a Sociopath; But definitely suffers from some Psychotic Disorders; He is trying to Block his memories of Past as the scene from storming from Beach (throwing the peanuts in his hands in a fit of rage) suggests. His mind wanders like we see Raghavan wandering the streets and the beach and the lonely outskirts of the house he stayed. He denies the truth that he is a murder but he realizes that he can't deny the truth in the real world any longer. Only after realizing that she has undertaken a contract did he realized that the killing was inevitable. That hints that he wanted to avoid killing as much as possible.
Some could argue that he is a prisoner of the past. So if he stays in the society past would come to haunt him in one way or the other. He is a man who waits patiently for his death. He calls life as "Maranathinu munneyulla vepralam" (Chaos before Impending Death). That definition of Death suits his victims as well as everyone who choose to remain dependent on either society or their own desires.
Framing a Convincing Backstory for Raghavan:
Raghavan uses Rationality too much (more than a Healthy Individual) and therefore whatever child hood past trauma he suffered he uses Rationalization and Avoidance to hide that trauma. He is more likely an Orphan (We can see in the paper cutting shown in the movie half of a sentence which suggests that nobody knows about the familial conditions of Raghavan) and probably a hard working one too. Most likely the two women he have killed have proposed a marriage to him. Only after his first marriage did he realized the loss of independence and he killed her probably by accident or impulsively because she pressured him too much. She was also jealous or possessive of him too as the woman in the house where he was employed was too flirtatious with him and she got suspicious. After the death probably his second victim pressured him for a remarriage with her. May be he felt like she was the cause of the suspicion of his wife and he killed her too, this time deliberate. It was not just love but obsession from all three victims which could have led to their death. His enigmatic and seemingly puritanical character may have drawn each of the victims to him.
The Weird smile by Raghavan before killing the Journalist is actually an enigma. His face doesn't reflect any contempt or regret or any discernible expression. It was a smile plastered just not to allow adrenaline to take control before the victim falls on the floor. The Photos on the Wall in his prison cell are not actually facing him. But anyone who sees the room would probably notice those pictures. May be those photo are meant to be some kind of Trophies like Serial killers do. Or it is meant to serve as warning for anyone who tries to get close to him as anyone who visits him at the prison cell would notice those pictures above th head of sitting Raghavan. He appears docile in front of the Journalists. The only motivation I could think of is may be to try avoid killing her and maybe he thought she would leave him after getting tired of pushing him to write. His intellectual and rather self-sufficient nature is seen by the gestures he shows with his hands. He needs only his intellect to engage him. Again the question of where does he gets the Photos of victims is also confusing.
Camera zooms only in the conversation where Raghavan replies that he is no God. The Zooming may suggest that it is somehow the connecting thread of the movie. All the women victims of his has godly expectations of him but Ragahavan realizes that being a flawed human being with a flawed past, he can't fulfill the unnatural ambition of these woman. So he believes that a flawed being like him doesn't see committing a killing as a crime. He sees it as an inevitable choice for his freedom. It is quite ironical that to attain one kind of freedom Raghavan had to give up so much other kinds of freedom. But it also stresses that the freedom that he preserves is the most valued than the ones he has lost.
Conclusion
I don't mention the names of actors and the technicians behind the movie because instead of naming them I am honoring them by honoring their work and may be inspire atleast a handful to check out the names of those people who worked behind the scenes.
I like the film because it is simple and straight to the point. But truth underlying it is visible as well as invisible for me. Every theory I propose could be wrong and Raghavan could just be a lazy Psychopath who sees associating with humans as too cumbersome.
So what is the Munnariyippu or Warning the film's title is talking about. The Warning was the Photo of two Victims displayed in his prison cell probably. She never impartially investigated the crimes. She only met the people who may have been fooled by the people who were not aware of the darker side of Raghavan.