Brando, Kamal and Amitabh! 
About 33 years ago, a man called Francis Ford Coppola, if one is to make an understatement, made a movie.
Fifteen years later, a man called Mani Ratnam made an entirely different movie, which TIME magazine recently put on its all-TIME best 100 movies ever, along with Coppola’s version of Mario Puzo’s best-seller. And Mani Ratnam joined Guru Dutt (for ‘Pyaasa’) and Satyajit Ray (for his Apu trilogy) as one of the only three Indian filmmakers to be featured in that list.
This month, a man known to run a parallel film-industry in Bollywood, Ram Gopal Varma officially paid his homage to the 1972 epic ‘The Godfather’ with his movie ‘Sarkar.’
Though there have been unlimited imitations or versions of Coppola’s classic, Mani Ratnam’s ‘Nayakan’ and RGV’s ‘Sarkar’ are probably the only two Indian films that stand on their own, while also paying tributes to the cult classic.
Ratnam and Varma have also shown us how a tribute does not mean a mere adaptation or a remake.
If Varma used sketches of Bal Thackeray to spice up his Subhash Nagre, Mani Ratnam based his Velu Naicker on gangster Varadarajan Mudaliar to create his all-powerful don.
Both Subhash Nagre and Velu Naicker are similar to the extent that they only do what they feel is right, without expecting anything in return, for public good. Don Corleone, to put it mildly, is just a businessman with ethics. The conservative cultural ethos of the dons, in their respective films — Italian, Tamilian and Maharashtrian, serves as an effective setting for the good old story of an all-powerful conscientious father-figure don.
Though Varma starts off with exactly the same scene as that of Coppola’s classic, (Bonasera asking Don Corleone to avenge his daughter who was raped), the maverick
filmmaker shows us how the same scene could have been directed tighter, slicker and crisper — in other words, how Varma would have directed Mario Puzo’s book.
Having done that, Varma moves on to tell us an original story, which, due to the lack of a well-etched out conflict and caricatures for villains, results in an unconvincing middle (read second Act) merely sprinkled with flashes of brilliance.
To put it simply, Sarkar is great storytelling of a weak story. A film that falls short of being a timeless classic by just two steps.
Backed with a strong script and a compelling performance by Kamal Haasan, Mani Ratnam’s version is probably the most original film made in the Godfather mould. But for the older Velu Naicker’s body language and the subtle nuances like the way he scratches his head or thrusting his jaw forward while talking, reminiscent of Brando, you would hardly get the connection. There is a reference to the Five Families in ‘Nayakan’ too but the sub-plots are very different. If not for the melodrama, considered quintessential in the Tamil cinema context, ‘Nayakan’ might have been on par with Coppola’s classic.
But what these two films have shown us, with their subtle improvements, is that Coppola’s critically acclaimed and probably over-rated version itself is not all that perfect. Staying faithful to the book was its greatest strength and its greatest weakness too.
Coppola puts his cinematic license to minimum use, refusing to tamper with the lines or the big scenes all that much. As a result the film not only incorporates the rich imagery from the book but also ends up including large chunks of text in the dialogue that could have been trimmed or done away with. The use of silence in ‘Sarkar’ and the tight narrative of ‘Nayakan’ is ample evidence of the scope for improvement in Coppola’s adaptation of the book.
MADRAS INK. 
Yet to see Sarkar…
Nayakan, as TIME noted & you said, is a good film in its own right. I am a big time Manirathnam fan. I greatly admire his frame perfect screen play. Though he is great in directly original screenplays, he is the best at improvising & dramatizing already popular stories.
Eg:
{Godfather; Nayagan}, {ET;Anjali}, {Karnan(Mahabaratha);Thalapathi}, {Sathyavan Savithri; Roja}….
Cannot call one a copycat, because I believe creativity is nothing but improvisation.
Coming into your blog after quite some time.
I have not seen Sarkar yet but going by what I hear and get to read that it is a good tribute to GodFather.
You have a very good point in saying that God Father’s biggest strength and weakness was it being religiously faithful to the original.
I think it has been rated so highly because it brought to life the God Father exactly the way it is written in the book.
So if you had read the book before you saw the film, you will most probably think of it as the best filem ver made and if you had not tead the book you might have a feeling that it’s bit over rated.
I agree. just this once.
kd
Nice post…
But, why did you miss out on mentioning Al Pacino?
Probably because Kamal/AB reprised(not exactly, but at some level) the role played by Brando?
Kinda like “not in the scope of this article”?
Hello Sudhish
first time here.
Came thro Swahilya
Nice writeup.
We hardly get that kind of movies from both Kollywood and Bollywood
its all fresh flesh flesh
Sud… “Are u good or bad?”…”I dont know, I dont know…” Wasnt that great in ‘Nayagan’? And the scene wen KH breaks the marvadi’s house… dats de MR touch, i guess… watcha say?..btw, uve interviewed MR na?..how was he… I’ve talked to him only for a brief while…was gud. Srinivas.
When people say Nayagan is a tamil copy of God Father, I hate it! And yes, as Arun says Maniratnam’s stories aren’t original most of the time. A friend pointed to a scene in Roja – heroine still angry at hero. then there is a small interaction at the end of which his finger rips the back of her blouse. normally u associate that with a sex scene. the heroine looks back at the hero. hero realises the offense to her dignity and apologises softly and sincerely. now that’s class!
I think the best part of the movie ‘The Godfather’ is ‘method-acting’
dude the citicism i ran into from the film buffs here for liking the film is unbelievable. these are hardcore filmy types, types who make films. you prolly wnt to listn to their viewpoints too. the film has an underbelly that only filmmakers can see. watch it.
me coming to chennai next weekend. any suggestions on what i can use to entertain myself apart from going to pondy?
arun:
sarkar is a decent watch if u dont go with too much of hopes. and dont expect Godfather!
sabs:
wb. where did u go? changed city?
ive read the book. but im not the types who wud want to see all of it in a movie too as long as the soul of the book remains in tact in the film. Coppola achieved that by staying faithful to some of the lines. but i believe he cudve still retained the soul by doing away with lines or shorter lines and using silence in places. in any case, there was no away he cud retain all sub plots and characters, so why not make what u have tighter?
maharajan:
yes… my story was more abt the directors and their films rather than the actors themselves. 🙂
ganesh:
fresh flesh flesh?? lol!
srinivas:
yes… that “neenga nallavara kaetavara” line kinda summed up the whole conflict in the film… awesome! Cuz Godfather, Nayakan and Sarkar did an elegant tight-ropewalk between the good and the evil.
kg:
yes, mani ratnam aint too original. wish he had a nice scriptwriter to write some kick ass scripts for him and he cud just sit back and do his job: direction… lot of people including filmmakers themselves dont seem to realise that screenplay and direction are two different departments of filmmaking.
sanchapanzo:
ok!
deez:
“underbelly only filmmakers can see”??
lol! sounds like Emperors new clothes to me!
no offense sudhish but u cant make sweeping statements saying the Godfather is overrated. You are entitled to an opinion. but first please do justify your point of view.
luv,
M
Mrinalini:
Excerpted from the post:
“But what these two films have shown us, with their subtle improvements, is that Coppola’s critically acclaimed and probably over-rated version itself is not all that perfect. Staying faithful to the book was its greatest strength and its greatest weakness too.
Coppola puts his cinematic license to minimum use, refusing to tamper with the lines or the big scenes all that much. As a result the film not only incorporates the rich imagery from the book but also ends up including large chunks of text in the dialogue that could have been trimmed or done away with. The use of silence in ‘Sarkar’ and the tight narrative of ‘Nayakan’ is ample evidence of the scope for improvement in Coppola’s adaptation of the book.”
i HAVE explained why. 🙂
cheers!
Sudhish,
Yeah , went back to my roots in terms of profession and also changed cities as I found the shift making me little more greener.
Hi Sudhish: I don’t have the stamina to read your posts. But I read the About Me of yours and should say, I liked it very much.
aage badho sudish-where are you?
Ey mams, more posts yaa. This is getting to be like reading a paper in the morn. One post a day keeps boredom at bay..
Well first time here, but an interesting post.
Normally I do not like movies which are “LOOSELY” based on books, as they don’t do justice to the book or spoil the mental imagery you have of a character…
Its like if you read Ian Fleming’s bond and then saw Mr. Brosnan, you would never associate him with the Real MC COY.
As far as FORD COPPOLA’s sticking to the book is corcerned, I like it that he curbed his desire to play around with the book… thus making a film which actually enhances the book,
I think movies should enhance the book rather then stray from the book….
As for Nayakan, I think its KH’s finest work, the way he makes expressions and silence speak volumes, is just tremendous.
CHeers
Z
I LOVED LOVED LOVED the way you’ve written this post… Hats off…
this is ramanujam…
met u at IIT remember..,any may this was one of ur best posts and also pays a rich tribute to GODFATHER!!! whom i admire a lot.
hats off 2 this one..,