Guru : A love story

Love is welcome when it is the only thing you can live with, but it certainly does not find a place if you want to talk about business and economy.

In Guru, A.R.Rahman rocks, Rajiv Menon's camera rocks, Gulzarsaab's lyric rocks, Abhishek, Mithunda's acting rocks - but 'Guru' fails.

The story is no doubt challenging and has a wide scope for detailing which would let the people learn about journey of a businessman. Gita Piramal's books might fail to arouse the general public’s interest, (Gita Piramal : India's Business Maharajas and also one more book. I don't remember the name.) but a director's eye can surely engage them as it's about cinema. Indian 'Janata' cannot miss 'Hindi picture'. No matter what, reels are getting winded and unwinded daily in the theaters across this country and people with popcorn are madly listening to 'kya tum muzse itana pyar karate ho' or 'aaj maine tumhare liye gajjar ka halwa banaya hai'!

And I think that is where Guru stumbles. Dreamland stories are meant for viewer's two-hour entertainment. But story like Guru has a much bigger canvas. It's about individual's talent, aspirations that lead him to build a mammoth business empire. It's also about the complexities that come in its wake, because behind every great fortune there is a crime. (Courtesy: Mario Puzzo). Guru is a village guy, he is ambitious – ok, great....we are here to appreciate his struggle. But tell us HOW did he do it? HOW? 'Guru' does not tell this. It portrays Guru mainly as a man deeply in love with his wife who also does business. I simply did not understand why Aishwarya Rai is given so much of footage. I do not deny importance of a lovely wife, but I honestly feel that Reliance was made by Dhirubhai Ambani and not because Kokilaben was there in his life. I agree that there is a woman behind every successful man, but mind you, it's a 'woman', not 'wife' always. In case of razor sharp minded, ambitious businessmen, it is all the more true. (Hard, but true. Think over it!). Well, in case of TATAs, the story is altogether different. Ratanbhai is still unmarried.

Gurukant Desai (Abishek Bacchhan, good job, and close resemblance to his father in a few scenes) - a village boy leaves for Turkey on a job. Makes money there, dances with super sexy Mallkia Sherawat (a nice song - Mayya Mayya) and comes back to India with the stars in his eyes. Gets married to a village belle - Sujata (Aishwarya Rai, ok ok) dancing on Rahman's magnificent tunes. He decides to marry because he is getting the much-needed 25000 rupees (as dowry) to start a business. The couple along with bride's brother, who is Guru's partner, comes to Mumbai - sorry, Bombay. Yes, it was Bombay then.

Their life begins and so is Guru's struggle. He meets Nanaji (Mithun Chakraborty, a pleasant comeback), who runs 'Independent' - a no nonsense newspaper, befriends him and his cute niece who is unfortunately on a wheelchair. ‘Gurubhai’ grows and the battle starts with Nanaji as Nanaji finds that Guru resorts to unethical practices to earn more profit. Shyam Saxena (R.Madhavan, good with that smugness), a reporter with 'Independent', investigates into Guru's businesses. He also marries Nanaji's niece (Vidya Balan, good – but why this character was needed?).

I was eagerly waiting for the clash of titans when Nanaji goes against Guru. But nothing happened. I was expecting that Guru would come up and make his point in front of Nanaji. When there is so big a story, why it is devoid of an ideological debate? It is almost like Ayn Rand confronting Karl Marx. But 'Guru' does not show us the debate. It does not churn up your mind. It does not bring forward the key questions. In the climax, facing the enquiry commission, Gurubhai asks, 'Khada hokar baat kar sakata hoon? Ya isake liye bhi license chahiye?' I doubt how many people have actually understood this question. If they have not then it is because Gurubhai is shown as engaged mainly in singing and dancing on the birth of his kids, getting sentimental for Vidya Balan, getting nostalgic with Sujata. Why did not he talk at length about the problems faced by entrepreneurs in getting licenses for their business ventures? Why did not he bring forward the loopholes in the political system? Why did not he argue with Nanaji about need of enterprising individuals? Why did not he delve into the meaning of individual ambition juxtaposed against overall social well being? DETAILS are required. Because devil lies there. And that is why you need to cut the flab because you have two and a half hours to tell the story of meteoric and questionable rise of a businessman.

Guru could have come as a great battle. A battle within an individual mind, a battle between two rock-solid individuals, a battle between an individual and the whole socio-political system. But Guru comes as a masala flick and if it works as a masala flick, then what is the point Maniji?

Watching Guru was a gross disappointment. And my heart bleeds, because Mani Ratnam is the director.