7 hours ago
DNA Review: Atharvaa's Film Has Good Ideas But Suffers From Generic Execution
Last Updated:
DNA Movie Review: Director Nelson's film has a good central idea, but spends too much time on exposition.
DNA Movie Review: Director Nelson Venkatesan has a knack for unearthing interesting conflicts that naturally lend themselves to strong screenplays and good film structure. In Monster, a humanitarian is tormented by a rat—a brilliant idea that renders itself effortlessly for an off-beat and comic script. In Farhaana, a married woman from a conservative background finds herself in a fix when she gives in to her whims. With DNA, Nelson has arrived at his best idea yet: a woman with Borderline Personality Disorder insists her newborn isn't hers, casting doubts even in her mother's head.
The woman is Divya (Nimisha Sajayan). When we meet her, she is told to keep her mouth shut before her potential groom and his family. But she fails, betraying her eccentricity. Her mom slaps and berates her, saying she would never find a guy. We also meet Anand (Atharvaa). Except for the name, he doesn't have any Anand (joy) in his life. A bad breakup and the eventual suicide of his girlfriend turn him into a marijuana addict and alcoholic. He brings shame to his otherwise honourable family of scholars.
After one such embarrassment, his father curses him to rot. After days in rehabilitation, Anand becomes calm. However, his past and unsuccessful career make his father decide that he should 'settle' for Divya. Despite learning about her problems only on the wedding eve, Anand agrees to marry Divya.
They have a wonderful phase, which gets punctuated when Divya stubbornly refuses to accept that the baby she is given at the ward is the same one she was shown in the operation theatre. When everyone claims that her mental faculty is the reason behind her complaint, Anand believes her—and thus begins an investigation into the dark world of child trafficking and human sacrifice. But, as with all his previous ventures, Nelson stumbles with the execution.
DNA takes a lot of time to get down to business. While it is understandable that Nelson wants to set some background for Anand and Divya, we spend way too much time here. Also, such deliberation and reasoning to show why someone would marry a person with a mental disorder is a bit unsettling. Furthermore, Divya's mental condition doesn't serve much to the film's story except that she can notice minute and subtle details, like the difference even in newborns.
But these nuanced problems are forgivable, given that the film suffers from a lot more obvious blunders. Some of them are issues one would assume Tamil cinema has long moved past. An example is all the songs. We have a typical TASMAC breakup song and another pointless bar song with Gayathrie Shankar. The songs reminded me of the dialogue from Thug Life about feasting on a banana leaf.
Also, the prologue of the film is unnecessarily misleading. While it leaves one constantly pondering the connection between the segment and the film, it feels like a bit of cheating when things get revealed. Nelson employs such techniques to build tension, but sometimes they invoke frustration instead—like the build-up he employs in revealing Bose Venkat's character. The prolonged suspense in the case is unnecessary because it does not reveal anything significant.
Such problems get magnified when juxtaposed with all the wonderful things Nelson achieves in the film. The performances, the exploration, and the engaging police procedural make DNA a solid film—except for the misgivings that sporadically annoy. Such frustration isn't from a place of utter disappointment—DNA is still a largely engaging thriller that leaves you guessing throughout—but from a place of lamentation about a film that fell short of greatness.
First Published:
