Telugu cinema has had a longstanding tradition of weaving narratives that resonate with middle-class values. Films like “Needi Naadi Oke Katha,” “Middle Class Melodies,” “Middle Class Abbayi (MCA),” and “The Family Star” have set a precedent in portraying relatable, everyman stories. “Janaka Aithe Ganaka,” produced by Dil Raju, continues this legacy with an ambition to honor the unsung heroes who navigate middle-class trials and tribulations. Directed by Sandeep Reddy Bandla and starring Suhas, the movie steps into the territory of courtroom drama with a promise to spotlight the breadwinners of middle-class households, but unfortunately, despite its potential, the film manages to squander the opportunity.
The film begins with promise, especially in its depiction of the interpersonal dynamics within the protagonist Prasad’s family. Suhas, who plays Prasad, is a married man employed as a salesperson with a washing machine company. Brought up in a milieu of constant compromise, Prasad and his wife decide to remain child-free due to financial insecurity, only to face unanticipated consequences. The initial scenes cleverly intertwine family relationships with satire—Prasad constantly spars with his father, Ramana, over unsuccessful real estate investments, shares a nuanced bond with his grandmother, and indulges his wife with jalebis. Prasad’s rendezvous at a bar with a lawyer friend paints a realistic slice-of-life picture.
One of the film’s standout moments is a humorous scene where Prasad elaborately justifies his choice against parenthood. The narrative loses its footing, however, when Prasad files a lawsuit against a condom manufacturer, bringing the story into a courtroom setting. This shift marks a descent from a well-crafted middle-class narrative into a medley of overused cinematic tropes, intended for humor but failing to elicit the intended response.
“Janaka Aithe Ganaka” struggles with its identity, unable to reconcile its portrayal of middle-class life with its bungled courtroom proceedings. This transition introduces poorly constructed arguments, stereotyped characters, and regrettably sidelines Prasad’s wife into a largely silent role, confined to affirmations of her husband’s decisions. The film oscillates between detached commentary on issues such as questionable condom advertising, child-rearing difficulties, and educational system flaws, lacking a cohesive narrative focus. A distasteful scene in which a judge expresses unusual interest in Prasad’s relationship with his wife and draws unwanted attention reflects poorly on the director’s objectives.
.
Throughout the court scenes, Prasad faces little genuine adversity. It’s perplexing how an ordinary middle-class individual, barely making ends meet, abruptly quits his job to pursue a court case with a novice lawyer. The characterization of the lawyers defending the condom company is inherently flawed, exacerbating the story’s weaknesses. A disconcerting generalization about abortion further complicates the narrative, introducing unnecessary controversy.
Emphasizing Prasad’s financial plight repeatedly becomes monotonous, and the film’s climax feels abrupt, marked by a sudden, unconvincing evolution of character motivations. The entry of Murli Sharma as the defense lawyer fails to inject significant energy into proceedings, with any attempts at drama appearing sporadic and unfulfilling. The David versus Goliath courtroom trope, drawing inspiration from films like Ayushmann Khurana’s “OMG 2” and “Jolly LLB,” attempts to highlight social stigmas using humor and visual metaphors, but the execution falls short, lacking sensitivity and awareness.
The casting choices further let down the film’s potential, with Suhas repeating a familiar role as an ordinary man in an extraordinary predicament. Despite his evident talent, the film offers him little room for exploration or growth. Goparaju Ramana’s portrayal of Prasad’s father—a familiar role—is underexploited, and Sangeerthana Vipin’s character, rich with potential, is reduced to the confines of household chores. Vennela Kishore’s comedic timing stands out, providing rare moments of levity, while Rajendra Prasad and Prabhas Sreenu’s performances are undermined by poorly developed characters.
On a positive note, cinematographer Sai Sriram’s vibrant palette offers a visual treat, and Vijai Bulganin’s background score enhances the narrative tone, notably through Karthik’s song “Nuvve Naku Lokam.” Despite fledgling director Sandeep Reddy Bandla’s adept handling of family and humor dynamics, the higher-stakes sequences drown under the weight of excessive ideas.
In conclusion, “Janaka Aithe Ganaka” had the makings of an insightful discourse on pressing societal themes, such as childlessness, stigma around contraception, and deceptive advertising practices. Regrettably, it remains an unfulfilled potential—a lost chance amid the rapidly evolving landscape of Telugu cinema.
“Janaka Aithe Ganaka” is now screening in theaters.
