We all have the tendency to watch a film, and then begin the task of deep analysis. Some films lend themselves beautifully to this, especially when portions of it go above the head. It’s nicer to believe there’s a reason why you did not get a scene or a plot point.
These days, even directors call for fan theories/conspiracy theories about movies, and then go on to explain threadbare what a scene actually meant. In recent times, director Selvaraghavan did something similar with NGK, a film that left quite a few members of the audience and fans of the director wondering what exactly was happening on screen. And so, he set about unravelling the plot for everyone’s understanding, tweet by tweet. He asked questions, and then retweeted the answers closest to his thought process.
As I said earlier let’s start decoding #NGK gradually.
1. At exactly which moment in the film Nanda Gopalan Kumaran becomes # NGK?
Kindly let me your answer and I will the choose the right one tomorrow. Thanks friends. pic.twitter.com/oqjbmdzkRe
— selvaraghavan (@selvaraghavan) June 14, 2019
But then, many a time, the audience also ends up reading a lot more into a film than what the director intended. Like it happened on September 16 with the Twitter handle Hidden Easter Eggs (@FilmEasterEggs) for a post on the much-loved 2007 film Ratatouille.
Using a series of screen-grabs, the user explained how they were hidden details to suggest Remy grew up in food critic Anton’s mother’s house, and how he learnt to cook watching her cook.
In ‘Ratatouille’ (2007), When Anton tastes Remy’s ratatouille, he’s reminded of his mother’s cooking. There’s a few hidden details that suggest Remy grew up in Anton’s mother’s house, learning to cook by watching Anton’s mother
(via u/kingsupreeth97) pic.twitter.com/iZQsJzVAQ3
— Hidden Easter Eggs (@FilmEasterEggs) September 15, 2019
To this, the film’s co-writer and director Brad Bird gave a more plausible explanation. One without that magic sprinkle of cinema, but laced with deep practicality. “When I took over the film we had a hellacious deadline and only 2 of the films many sets were built. Truth is we were just trying to reuse props where we could.” That’s one theory laid to rest.
Well, I’d love to confirm that we were ultra-deep thinkers and that there was a narrative behind the narrative, but…
When I took over the film we had a hellacious deadline and only 2 of the films many sets were built. Truth is we were just trying to reuse props where we could. https://t.co/yAaY0Iq3j5
— Brad Bird (@BradBirdA113) September 17, 2019
Karthik Subbaraj faced something of a deluge of fan theories when Petta, his paean to Rajinikanth, released. They attempted to find cross-references to Rajinikanth’s previous films in every other scene. Everything from the opening of gates to the number 165 on his prison uniform were analysed. To this, all he said was “Ninety per cent of what you saw was intended. The rest was incidental.”