During intermission, we were treated to promos of two from Ramu’s non-stop production line – a supernatural, Phoonk, and the third of his Bombay crime trilogy, Contract. Phoonk looks the same as Raat, Contract looks the same as Satya, Sarkar Raj looks the same as Sarkar, Nishabdh looks the same as Sarkar (maybe a tad more blue?)…

There’s no denying that Ram Gopal Verma has an original aesthetic to his filmmaking. Pick any scene from a film of his, and chances are you could guess that Ramu’s directed it. But a personal stamp does not an auteur make. My problem stems from the fact that this definitive style doesn’t necessarily contribute to the film; more often than not it ends up as an overbearing assault on our senses rather then involving the viewer deeper into the film.

Sarkar Raj is a case in point. Enough people have talked about the dizzyingly swirling camera, the obtuse angles, the relentlessly tight close-ups, and the agonizing, migraine-inducing background score. Well, I want to have my two bits too! The problem is, it all gets too much. To use them sparingly, and with good reason – whatever the reason may be – would be great. But do all of it, all through the film - with no other variation – and it ends up as a cacophony when he could have composed an opera.

A good example to make the point better is Sidney Lumet’s Twelve Angry Men. Ramu’s film – especially this one – are driven very strongly by his characters and dialogue, and in that there is some relation to Lumet’s classic. Lumet slowly heightened the tension in the movie by narrowing the shots on his characters, and almost unnoticeably getting closer and closer till you suddenly start sweating from the tension and realize how masterly subtle and yet highly effective his camerawork is. Sarkar Raj is no Twelve Angry Men, but Ramu could have taken a leaf out of this to plan his shots in a way that lend meaning to the film as a whole. To dole out close-up after close-up with no apparent motive but make the characters overtly dramatic defeats the entire purpose of building to a climax. As for the background music, he has to just see the opening credits for the other film that released this week – Aamir – to realize what a top-notch score can do to lift the film.

There are positives, if one looks through the chaos. There’s the dialogue. Sarkar was good, and the sequel is equal to the task. Some might find it verbose or ornate, and perhaps it is. But it fits in Ramu’s scheme of things, and his ability to use it and make profound reasons quickly and convincingly is creditable, especially with the kind of trash we see in the general mainstream movies. The locations and art direction are good, and this is something Ramu has been consistent with right from Satya. This is a film for actors, and actually they do get space to work their characters. Amitabh Bachchan reprises his Subhash Nagre act well. Abhishek is all glares and silence, with the occasional profound dialogue. Showy, but it comes off fairly well most of the times. Aishwarya is unfortunately just a stunning showpiece, not having much to do in a pretty half-baked role. The supporting characters are again good, especially Govind Namdeo.

The script is a big problem, unfortunately. The Enron project is a clear reference to the dam project, which forms the backdrop of the film. But this important issue is simply used to set things up in the first half, and conveniently forgotten in the second. By the time Abhishek Bachchan dies, the script runs out of steam and takes on a predictable note to the end. It’s a weak script, and all of Ramu’s showmanship cannot save it from floundering.

There is news that a third Sarkar is on it’s way, to complete yet another of Ramu’s trilogy. I sincerely hope that this time around, he chooses substance over style. It might not look like a Ramu film then, and it might be a pretty good thing for him. And for the film.