Is our world totally insane where cruelty,violence,incest and murder are the only reality of our existence, not the exception?
Raman Raghav 2.0, named after that psychopath of Mumbai who killed 41 victims in the city and confessed that he had killed them because he got a call from God to murder them leaves you frozen and numb.
Are these acts of a human being? But glorying these killings as acts of God by Raghav or rather directed by God does not, I repeat, does not raise serious questions about that God sitting in heaven because this is unconvincing.
If there is anything called 'motiveless malignity' about the motivation of that immortal character called Iago in Shakespeare's 'Othello' we see it here in flesh and blood.
But it's a double whammy.The villain is by definition a villain but what about the policeman who goes through a certain training and regimentation before he gets the license to wield that gun to protect the law abiding citizens.
Raman Raghav, the serial killer of the 1960s was dubbed a psychopath for his actions which even though does not justify his brutal acts, leaves a small window of hope that he is abnormal, beyond the realm of reasoning or logic.Human nature is not like that.There are shades of black and white but mostly grey among normal humans.
But it's the bestiality of Raghavan, the smart and intelligent cop set to catch the killer that takes away whatever hope of redemption one had about the future of humanity in this Anurag Kashyap film.
His rough and callous treatment of the girls he picks up every evening for his pleasures does not appear abnormal for the kind of reputation the cops have in India or anywhere across the globe. But it is brought in sharp focus when he mentions casually about the criminal who had killed 11 victims to one of them. Without thinking almost she looks at him and says,"And what you?You have also aborted my three children." There is no answer from him, not even an abuse. It is another matter that she meets the same end and with the same iron rod that Raghav the criminal had been using to batter the heads and limbs of his victims to confuse the cops.
One can derive some consolation from the weird argument of Raghav that he was killing victims because they had hurt him in some way. His conscience (though he does not use that word, nor does anyone else) was very clear that he was not killing people in the garb of religion or politics as had been happening in Syria.
Carrying that logic to its extreme does that mean that rape is justified but not gang-rape? I am confused but so is everyone coming out of the theatre.
Then there are some typical wise-cracks from Anurag Kashyap that did not raise the hackles of the Censors, surprisingly.For instance, Raghav argues that both Mahabharat and Ramayan occurred because of women.That is PJ.
He carries the argument further to say that Ravan invented the Pushpak because of Sita.Had there been no Sita the aeroplane would not have been invented. "Whenever I see an aeroplane overhead I imagine that some Ravan was carrying a Sita somewhere." Will you give up flying after that? I am confused.
Nawazuddin Siddiqui as Raghav the rod dragging killer who can enjoy cooking chicken and having lunch after killing his sister, her husband and their seven year son whose bodies are lying in the house, proves that his villain act in 'Kick' was no fluke.
Vicky Kaushal, as the police inspector, tries to match him by his acts of cruelty for which we have not been given any convincing logic except for that brief encounter with his dominating father who not only shouts at a full-grown adult but also slaps him sharply. But Kaushal has a long way to match up in acting.
But what is most revolting and nauseating is the fact by the end of the movie it is Raghav the criminal who scores the moral (the word seems so obscene here) high as they both sit down to match their acts.
The film is totally black without any redemption.Watch it only if you are a robot, like both protagonists.