Loki’s ‘signature’?

Srinath Lalgudi wrote a counter to my review of COOLIE here:

https://baradwajrangan.wordpress.com/2025/08/17/readers-write-in-842-are-we-drinking-sand-in-tamil-cinema/

In the piece and comments that followed, I replied to one particular point. Srinath asked: “Did it being a superstar movie make LK choose not to write a proper emotional arc between Deva and his estranged daughter?“

This was my take:

This is a Loki signature. Even in VIKRAM, we get the “information” that Kalidas is the son and Kamal is the father — but that’s it. Another filmmaker might have milked the “Kalidas found Kamal in some destitute home” angle and milked it, or written an arc around it. But Loki chooses to tease us and leave hints about his characters and their motivations.

I loved the way he treated the father / daughter angle here — brutally mechanical and “efficient”, with only a touch of drama at the end. That is all this film needed IMO, and yes, I like that it keeps me guessing about their backstories. Just like I was guessing how Vikram had a child if a pregnant Ambika was shot dead in the original Vikram.

I understand this may not work for everyone, but this is not a screenplay issue. It is a storytelling choice.

Now, avan responded to my comment with…

avan: As for “Loki’s signature” – I doubt even Lowkey had this level of faith in the movie

So this post is essentially to say how I see Lokesh Kanagaraj…

A “signature” is not always a conscious thing. Loki worships Tarantino, who – in turn – worshipped Godard during his PULP FICTION phase. Remember what QT said: “one aspect of Godard that I found very liberating—movies commenting on themselves, movies and movie history”

Now, Tarantino CONSCIOUSLY chose to do that, playing games wit the audience. In other words – unlike, say, a Spielberg or a Nolan – he CONSCIOUSLY chose to be a postmodern filmmaker and wink at the audience.

Loosely speaking, what is postmodernism? There’s imitation or recycling of earlier films. There’s intertextuality (i.e. referencing other films). So on and so forth…

Now, I choose to think that Loki has imbibed this from QT, which means his DNA (even if uninentionally) goes back to Godard. Rathnakumar told me this in an interview: “Loki imagines a character from a movie and his screenwriting process is playing what-if games with it.” Now this is pure postmodernism, even if Loki does not even know what postmodernism is. Combine this postmodern-wink quality with a love for Hollywood B-movies and you get a kind of film that we usually don’t see in Tamil cinema.

Again, I am not “defending”. I am “explaining” my POV.

So when Srinath says: Rajashekar or Kaleesha’s role getting some much needed depth

I get that this is what Srinath wants, but I don’t see Kaleesha’s role needing “depth” or even an arc at all. He is an “item”, like Pooja Hegde. He is there to bring out whistles at one particular moment — and of course, he plays a bigger part in Deva’s backstory, we get that foreshadowing about “someone” being in that particular room, etc., and after his “item” appearance in that fight, he gets a slightly bigger role.

So who is Kaleesha, really? How did he and Deva meet? How did they become friends? Now, these are not “arcs” that interest Loki at all. Or even if he is interested, it may be in a sequel. In his head, he has kinda-sorta put all this backstory together, and we get only the present with “hint” of the de-aged past.

So when you say you are expecting “catharsis” and “emotional consistency” and so forth, I do not see Loki films as even capable of going there. He is a game-player. That is why that whole “oh the cruel villain is stamping on my daughter’s jimikki” shtick did not land for me. Loki is not that kind of old-style Tamil-melodrama guy. He is the guy who will reduce a marriage to a game, where Vijay happily lies to Trisha and (at the end) we get “Naan pollathavan” and a secret exchange of eyes between father and son.

Now, immediately, someone is going to reduce my POV to “BR is comparing Loki to Godard” — no, not at all. I am talking about influence, conscious or unconscious.

Why do the best Mani Ratnam films provide that emotional catharsis? Because he is the love child of Kurosawa/Lean (in terms of form) and Balachander (in terms of content). And those filmmakers WERE emotional.

But Loki = QT + Stallone / Schwarzenegger / Chuck Norris films. Intentionally or not, he fuses the Hollywood B-movie with QT’s postmodern sensibility, where you laugh at someone dying by a flamethrower instead of getting horrified.

IMO, Loki did not get that balance right in LEO, but here (IMO) he does. Is COOLIE some kind of great, misunderstood masterpiece? No. But I do think it is a pure Loki work, where he has managed to do where his sensibility takes him without being overawed / overwhelmed by Rajini’s star-wattage. He has balanced Superstar with his own interests perfectly.

All IMO – again, this is not defending Loki – just explaining how I see him. Because a critic’s job is not just to criticise films but also to understand them (even if the film ends up not working for you).

Fin 🙂

PS: I want to thank my readers (past and present) for continuing to engage with cinema through long posts and comments, even if many of these posts and comments are mainly for the bigger films. Seriously grateful that we have been able to keep this blog going for some twenty-plus years.