Game Changer: Evolution Conundrum

Star Cast: Ram Charan, Kiara Advani, Anjali, Samuthirakhani, SJ.Suryah, Srikanth, Sunil, Naveen Chandra, and Jayaram 
Music Composed by Thaman S 
Story by Karthik Subbaraj 
Screenplay by Vivek Velumurugan 
Dialogues by Sai Madhav Burra 
Edited by Shameer Muhammed Ruben 
Directed by Shankar 

There’s no grand mythology or intricate plot to unravel here, this is a pure fan outburst. If you simply want to know how the movie is – It’s awful. But if you’re curious about the reasons behind this assessment, then buckle up and read ahead for a detailed breakdown.

Heads Up: Spoilers That May Shift Your Perspective

Gear up for a point-by-point breakdown… like an exam…

1. An IPS officer becoming an IAS officer Logic: First of all, if you want to be useful for society and be an IAS officer, even if you get an IPS posting, you wouldn’t go for training. You only get six attempts to clear, and IPS training and posting would take up 2-3 years.

Let’s not consider logic: Whether you are an IPS or an IAS, your sincerity towards people matters. If you think only an IAS officer can achieve a particular change with powers, then there should be a stronger reason for a hero who is already a powerful IPS officer to change his course, not just his girlfriend’s wish. If a girlfriend’s wish is important, wasting precious screentime for the IPS to IAS transition could have been easily avoided. Shankar lets his arrogance show here as he wanted to depict Ram Charan in an IPS costume in the intro scene. (At least that’s how it feels).

2. Goats theory – Koparap – Konda Devara – Flashback:

Shankar as a director used some interesting ideas to convey characters and their key emotions. Ram Nandan is not a stand-out among goats or humans with a herd mentality. He is different and unique, but these goats cannot tolerate him. His anger slowly became tangible as he struggled to understand the root cause – Koparap presents this in the best way. Konda Devara – tribals have been the most affected people in urbanization. Their way of living has been crushed, and it is important for us to understand how it is important to co-exist rather than let another disaster like the Aral Sea happen. (Google it—a big chapter can’t explain at length here)

Flashback – Even though there is a rush to move to the next scene, Appanna’s turmoil with his stammer has been brought out excellently. These ideas are the best from Shankar, even in a movie that doesn’t live up to any sort of his standards. Still, problems do exist, and big ones at that.

Side B of b) Where does the problem lie: An in-form Shankar would have delivered knock-out punch scenes like he did in Aparichitudu / Anniyan, where Sada’s “flawed self” is still portrayed as wrong and not spared from wrath, revealing the real reason behind the protagonist’s multiple personalities and his plea to punish him as a “wrong person”. Here, we get a stitched-together random scene without any organic flow. It is almost like you know what’s going to happen, so let’s jump to the next. These good ideas never grow on you to reflect. Rather, you’re left wondering about how much the “DHOP” song would’ve cost, or about the VFX in big scenes. A confident filmmaker or a clueless one won’t depend on cuts to please you, they go for the scene and sequence to play out fully. A confident one excels and a clueless one—should I say it out loud? Shankar appears to have become both in this film.

For example: As a confident filmmaker (or an over-confident one), he showcased great belief in giving Anjali a nervous issue that left her head turned to the side. Walking sideways also means being stuck looking back, but not forward. We can say that her perspective and worldview got stuck in that zone and on that night. This may seem like an over-analyzed view, but it works. Why Sunil? When you have a main, and emotional core character having an issue, you don’t give the same in an exaggerated fashion to a comic character. This is cluelessness…

Because God cannot speak, he speaks through angels [Exodus 4:10-17; 7:1] – our belief system. So, Appanna found an angel to voice out for him. Nice. Why does Appanna trust the angel too much even when he knows the devil lies in the power? A confident filmmaker will tell you the Angel won God’s trust, a clueless one argues God can make mistakes. Shankar just ended up doing both.

I can give you one more example: A Chief Electoral Officer can impose the election code, and the CM has to obey it. Breaking or damaging any sort of public property, especially electoral property, comes under direct violation of the law. A CM candidate, if involved directly in such an activity, will get disqualified immediately. Then, how can he fight publicly? A confident filmmaker will keep it a hidden fight behind closed doors, like in Oke Okkadu’s climax, but a clueless one tells you to not come to a commercial film if you cannot shut your brain. At least, he would give a reason like every government servant being bought out by the CM.

During elections, every party gives money – an open secret. Still, only one party wins in that constituency, which means people take money but vote according to their preference only. What about that? Ok, let’s not get too much into such “bright ideas”. A confident filmmaker would have told you, I saw my hero as a background player – an IAS officer, but not a person who wishes to take all the power. The hero’s father wanted justice and his voice to be heard crystal clearly but not power. Why shouldn’t the hero be an IAS officer rather than a politician? A cluelessly confident one would give you a mixed fruit juice ending like in Game Changer. It just goes against your own logic, you said an IAS runs the system and a politician corrupts it. So, the hero should be an IAS who brings politicians in line, right?

All this tells you that belief in other aspects of filmmaking has made Shankar more and more short-sighted.

Also Read: 2.0 ~ An Gargantuan size VFX black hole 

3. Exaggerated Camera Movements – Grandeur:

Yes, technical brilliance should be considered for any scene and film. But Mocobot and Flow cam don’t appeal to every scene. Mani Ratnam did use Mocobot and Flow cam for PS-1 [2022] pre-interval scene, and the intro scene of Chiyaan Vikram, but those shots were used to convey his character’s restlessness. In the second part, you don’t see much use of such techniques, and even in gravely important confrontational scenes, you never see him using them. Shankar used Flow cam for confrontational scenes and Mocobot for every high-frame walk or slow-motion capture. It just feels like the director wants you to feel restless for liking his films over the years. Exaggerated camera usage just jars your eyes and experience of watching any scene.

Coming to Grandeur: SS Rajamouli did use 3500 junior artists for an introduction scene of Ram Charan in RRR [2022], and huge VFX for Jr. NTR’s one. But you can see the purpose behind those sequences. He did fall into his own trap of only bringing an interesting idea to the screen in the second half without a real purpose. Still, he did not just go for it because he could. He did try to find at least some sense to proceedings with grand vision. Earlier, Rajamouli was not like that. Driven by ideas, he used to plan huge frames to showcase his “vision” without any regard to the necessity of the scene. Shankar used to be the opposite. He showcased grandeur in songs and never let his scenes show grandeur just for the sake of it. In Anniyan / Aparichitudu [2005], the protagonist belongs to a normal middle-class family and he did not try to go for grandeur there. In Robo / Enthiran [2010], he did showcase grandness for the sake of it in Sana [Aishwarya Rai]’s portions but he did not let Rajinikanth, playing Vaseegar, be Rajini. Now, Shankar has started depending on grandeur from I. In Game Changer, he did not even have regard for the purpose in the present portions while he still maintained some amount of truthfulness in flashback portions. It is hard to swallow that a person who wanted a purpose to grandeur started completely disregarding it, falling prey to his tendencies to overdo.

4. Disregard for Story World Logic: 

Real-world logic doesn’t apply to cinema world logic, but a hero cannot be just a hero because he has to be. Shankar is the first one to tell us that in his commercial extravaganzas. In Sivaji [2007], even if it was Rajinikanth, the man surrenders to real-world difficulties before choosing his own route. In Gentleman [1993], a man’s path was established to us beforehand and asked us to understand him. In a candy floss-like Jeans [1998], we got to see the reason behind the unrealistic expectation of a father and a lover’s desperation to fulfill it, with strong repercussions. In Mudhalvan / Oke Okkadu [1999] and Indian / Bharateeyudu [1996], you understand the protagonist’s basic nature of being truthful to their beliefs. A person’s basic nature doesn’t change, yet in this Game Changer, it seems to be disregarded at will. Why is Ram Nandan so angry and insistent on fighting for justice, even though he knows that if a case is registered, he won’t be eligible to be a civil servant? Even after discovering his backstory and learning that his mother is alive, he remains indifferent and doesn’t treat her any better or with any special regard. If Anjali could take such a huge step as a mother, then what was her basic nature before her husband got killed? She wants to help others, and both Appanna and she just dedicated themselves to others’ well-being. What did provoke them? Srikanth did regret playing poli-tricks, but what was his basic nature? Did he ever do good to people to be so beloved?

When you rush to just showcase high frames of a hero walking in cool frames and make a film that feels “Dope,” all you’re left with is “DHOP.” Interesting ideas can never make a film. Every actor did their best to be true to Shankar’s vision, and he still has the conviction to get the best performances out of them. But he lacks the self-control and discipline that he once excelled at in narrating a story. Maybe he is out of challenges to convince people. Then he should move on to bigger ideas and inventiveness for stories, but not rehash his own stories. See, many people have used his ideas to bring their own version of similar stories. If I could feel Atlee with Jawan [2023] made better sense with electoral boxes or EVMs scene than Shankar, just understand the level of disregard for purpose that has seeped into the great man’s making and thought process.

Also Read: Indian 2 / Bharateeyudu 2: ‘Old’en Principles 

In Conclusion, I was terrified with the Indian 2 experience as I could sense that the filmmaker whom I regard as a Guru, needs a reality check from the world that once danced to his tunes. But with Game Changer, I understood that the reality check started confusing him about how to adapt to the evolution. He was worried about losing all his reputation and desperately tried to save Game Changer with fast cuts and edits. Now, he just needs to relax and enjoy films so that the passion that once made him great might find him again within. When you think you’re the absolute best in every way, you cannot see the drawbacks and at that point, you either retire or try to enjoy the films that once provoked you to become what you are. When you begin to pick yourself apart about the mistakes you committed in your “previous bests” then you can reflect upon them and reignite passion. The problem is that when you evolve to a higher level, it is hard to learn from lower levels , but learning from them can only help if you don’t “think” that you already did. It is similar to how a human thinks it is belittling to learn from an animal, it is the same feeling. Being an all-powerful storyteller, you can choose any path to voice yourself out , but just like Appanna, if you don’t screen yourself, your Game too will change so drastically that you end up blaming yourself for walking sideways rather than forward.

Theatrical Trailer: