Disappointment echoed through the halls of cinema this past Friday as the latest Kannada feature, “For Regn”, showcased a disconnect with audience expectations. Director Naveen Dwarakanath, despite harnessing a premise ripe with potential, failed to evolve the narrative into a tale worth the audience’s time. With an exhaustive duration of 140 minutes, the film stumbled in its attempt to transform the central turmoil into a compelling visual story.
Milana Nagaraj and Pruthvi Ambaar, celebrated for their resonance with contemporary moviegoers, found themselves entrapped within the confines of a tired and unoriginal storyline. A palpable lack of confidence plagued Dwarakanath’s directorial choices, as he leaned heavily on the crutches of cliches: the predictable ‘hero introduction’ song, contrived and desperately comedic scenes, an uninspired depiction of wooing, a trivial conflict magnified unnecessarily, topped off with a moralizing climax rehashing old relationship tropes.
The threadbare narrative was particularly highlighted in two underdeveloped conflicts. The story follows Ashu (Pruthvi) and Anvi (Milana), a couple clandestinely wed. Their secret unveils, and yet instead of exploring this revelation, it is swiftly swept aside as both set of parents, seemingly strict, are quickly appeased and insist upon a grandiose traditional wedding. This begs the question – where is the drama that roots itself in realism? The film sidesteps the rich theme of a couple prioritizing their bond over elaborate family expectations.
Moreover, “Regn” stumbles in its portrayal of marital life, opting instead for a lackadaisical jaunt towards an antiquated message repeatedly served up by past family dramas. This message is delivered after a melodramatic onslaught reminiscent of a TV serial, leaving the audience yearning for depth and fresher perspectives.
Even the visual allure offered by cinematographers Abhilash Kalathi and Abhishek G Kasaragod, with their aesthetically pleasing colour schemes and scenic shots, could not buoy the film from its scriptural shortcomings. Impressive cinematography can hardly compensate for a hollow script that fails to grip the viewer.
Consider the character development, or lack thereof, such as Ashu’s inexplicable career in a company renowned for dubious performance enhancers. His employment there, his actual work, and the company’s ascent to popularity remain unexplored. Similarly, Anvi’s Mangaluru roots against Ashu’s Bengaluru upbringing presented fertile ground for exploring cultural differences, yet it remains fallow and disregarded by the director.
Pruthvi and Milana, with their commendable performances, bring more to the table than the film does in return. Pruthvi convincingly embodies the role of a devoted husband, while Milana navigates through emotional complexities with an organic touch. They are bright spots in an otherwise circuitous script that disregards the audience’s expectation for a meaningful cinematic experience.
In its current status, “For Regn” is a disheartening case of missed opportunities, a work that fails to recognize its audience’s desires for genuine, relatable, and impactful storytelling. As the credits roll in cinemas, one is left with the impression that this drama, laden with untapped narrative potential, simply did not live up to its promise.
