Captain Miller (2024) Movie Review: Often in childhood, when I used to watch commercial Indian films on television, I would grumble at the compliance of the people in the film to subjugation by the antagonist. The performance of evil used to be so easily readable that I would declare all victims in the film complicit in their own oppression due to the lack of protest. Their wait for a messianic figure would only make me restless though I would be aware that the awaited figure is the protagonist. In my enthusiasm, I would call out to the film characters to unite and fight. I experienced this repetitively only because the nature of our films has been such, wherein the protagonist acts against the tyranny of the antagonist to rescue the masses. Evil has never occupied a complex personification in these films.
The manifestation has been inflated, exaggerated, colorful, and comic. It lacks banality, and therefore, it’s not intimidating. The preposterousness of the portrayal allowed its scrutiny by a child like me only because it isn’t hard to defeat evil when it is more individual and less institutional. When it can be destroyed with the destruction of a person. Because why would the villagers wait for a hero(s) to save them from the clutches of the villain(s) when they can simply get together and kill what troubles them? Self-defence, after all, is a great motivation.
Today, after having watched a considerable amount of cinema, particularly commercial films, I have realized the bloated commercial antagonist is only the product of an imagination that doesn’t want to confront systemic socioeconomic challenges. Such antagonists are found to tread beyond a clear line of goodness, and it’s easy to brand them as “bad” or “evil.” The moment they are accorded any truth, they begin reflecting on the system itself. And the stakes skyrocket. All of a sudden, the villain that can be bested in a mob attack can’t be killed without consequences anymore. Consequences that don’t just apply to the masses in the film but also to the protagonist.
The greater the severity of these potential consequences, the longer the oppression and the greater the vulnerability of the protagonist. In “Captain Miller,” all the aforementioned are found due to the extremely cruel nature of possible consequences. Because the fight is against a colonial force and the oppressor caste. The oppression has existed for centuries. The stakes are quite high. Any action will invite a much harsher counter. Does that stop “Captain Miller” from going against the might and ignite a mutiny? I will let the film answer the question.
“Captain Miller” is about an ex-British Indian soldier who lives the life of a nomad and kills the British. He hails from a marginalized caste group, the community which lives on the outskirts of the village, and is not allowed to visit the village’s temple. He joins an alternate-revolutionary gang of thieves that steal from the whites, especially weapons, and sell them in the black market. Captain Miller was Eesa in what seems like a previous life. Eesa used to say without hesitation that it would be the same even if the Britishers left India because we would continue to face inhumane treatment by those who consider themselves superior in the caste hierarchy.
And hence, mere freedom from the British cannot be enough. Eesa’s disillusionment from the British occupation – a force he equated to the oppressor caste Maharaja of the village – occurs due to a barbarian act that he was ordered to do as a soldier for the empire, and he is reborn as Captain Miller. The entire film is divided into five chapters, each presenting to us the mystery of the upcoming sequences and a title card that complements the tease. The structure allows the film to separate its set pieces without breaking the narrative flow.
Dhanush captures your senses as the titular character, looking both tender and menacing. Shiva Rajkumar appears in an extended cameo and proves his magnificent screen presence. But the most impressive aspect of the film remains the way in which it has been directed. It feels like a long story was disjointed and connected again to render a brief version upon which a screenplay has been developed. Despite this, the screenplay doesn’t feel unevenly paced.
Arun is aware of his inspirations, but he avoids easily identifiable recreations. Instead, he composes some magnificent frames and utilizes his directorial merit in ably blocking Dhanush. What remains underwhelming are the set pieces. The portrayals of carnage preclude finely choreographed combat sequences between two individuals. The film starts to lack the appeal of an action film and acquires more of the appeal of a war film. However, given the ideological founding of this film, such an outcome is inevitable.
As previously mentioned, the antagonists in “Captain Miller” are institutions in themselves. Any action against them can have severe consequences on social outcomes. Some of these get to feature in the film, while some are pertinent to the sequel. But the biggest of all consequences is symbolic of collective emancipation and armed resistance. And that is the finest takeaway personally: armed rebellion as a justified response to brutal oppression.
Arun Matheswaran has already established himself as a promising voice in Indian cinema. But his presence is more important due to his experiments in action cinema. There is a substantial focus on writing the stories and utilization of genre tropes while also experimenting with the structure. Arun is here to fill the void that has persisted in Indian cinema for quite a while.
![Someone To Talk To [2017]: NYAFF Review](https://www.highonfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Someone-to-Talk-to-1600x900-c-default-768x432.jpg)
