536 (Tam, Eng S/t)

Director: Ganesh Kumar
Duration: 35 min sec
Genre: Comedy
Tagline: Trapped
Synopsis: A Spoiled rich youngster's unusual trap and the consequences.

Shot on: Nikon D5000
Shooting Format: DV
Edited with: Adobe Premier Pro CS4
Approximate budget: Rs. 2000
Completed in: June 2010

Watch the Short

Editorial Review

Reviewed by Shahul Ameen
Warning: This review contains spoilers.

Screenplay

Plusses

• Overall, a superb, well crafted script.
• Has most ingredients the screenwriting gurus recommended
  for good screenplays – three specific acts and act breaks, conflict,
  surprises, reversals, and, a luxury for a short film, an excellent character
  arc.
• Though the script obeys most rules, it never becomes
  predictable or formulaic. The first act takes almost half the screen time. The
  writer has successfully identified areas that could have easily slipped to
  cliché, and invented creative and innovative alternatives. When I was
  expecting Venkat and Podusu to just board the bus, here comes the car owner
  who cannot drive. (And see the way Venkat speaks to him like a naïve villager.
  The scene is a perfect contrast to the earlier scene in which he first
  introduces himself to Dharman.)
• Some examples of brilliant screenwriting –
  1. The scene in which Venkat recognizes the first hunger
     of his life
  2. The way the 536^th rupee was dramatized
  3. Dharman’s reminder to Venkat about the differences in
     his reactions to subsequent thefts. This scene wonderfully illustrates
     Venkat’s arc.

Minuses

• While Venkat’s metamorphosis was carefully etched, we do
  not get to know why Dharman undergoes a sudden change of mind in the climax.
• Though the makers say one should not be looking for
  logics in this story, they could have easily found a better way to deprive
  Venkat of his cell phone and purse.
• Venkat’s proclamations to Ayyan and Podusu about his new
  attitude towards money were unnecessary– the change have been already conveyed
  visually through plot events.

Direction & Cinematography

Plusses

Overall, direction and cinematography were excellent. Here
are some commendable examples -

• The flashback in which the friends confront Venkat about
  the Pondicherry trip.
• The way Dharman disappears midway through his first
  conversation with Venkat. The tracking on Venkat and use of Dharman’s voice
  over were excellent choices.
• The montage of the village scenes in the morning.
• The “build up” sequence in which Venkat stands in the
  ploughed field wearing village clothes for the first time.

Minuses

• The disclaimer was unnecessary.
• The “can I believe you?” portion could have been avoided
  from the flashback (3:47).
• These shots should have been planned differently to have a more smooth cut




• The line was repeatedly crossed when Venkat and Podusu
  brainstorms a way out after the phone calls.
• Shot selections for the scene in which Podusu identifies
  Venkat’s “disease” were not up to the mark.
• Here are some shots which contained unnecessary elements
  or could have been composed better:
  
  
  
  
  
  
• SMS language is better avoided in subtitles (“ur
  parents”). Overall, the subtitles failed to convey the nuances of the Tamil
  dialogues.

Editing

Plusses

• Editing was wonderful. Visual effects and editing styles
  are usually used to create the mood in horror shorts. Here they are
  successfully used to support the comic mood and tone.
• The title graphics were fantastic, and never goes over
  board.

Minuses

• The frequent popping in of the editing studio’s ad and
  the email id are distractions from the story. (btw, is it necessary to mention
  that your mobile number is subject to change?)
• Once again, don’t let your subtitles take more than two
  lines.

Acting

• Venkat did well. He could have done better in some
  scenes, though (reactions to the loss of his watch, for e.g.)
• Ayyan should have been directed better in the over the
  shoulder shots when Podusu first takes Venkat to the shop.
• Podusu did well, but his expressions did not seem
  natural in many shots.

Sound

Songs, sound effects and music were selected and used
excellently, and supported the mood and the narrative well.

Overall, an excellent short film made from a very small
budget. The spirit and passion of the team are evident in the "making of" shots
and in the final product. Keep up the good work.

Director Bio

Ganesh Kumar is basically a IT professional and an amateur short film maker, has done 2 short films in total. He loves to make clean family entertainers with good social message. Sense of humor is his forte.

Cast and Crew Bio

The movie is made by nonprofessionals in all departments.
KB Prabu, the cinematographer, is a college student and this is his debut movie.
Abhinav Sundar Nayak, the editor, is a Viscom student. This is his third short film.
These two have spent so many days in perfecting the film and have supported the director to bring the vision in wonderful manner.
Venkat sundar, the lead actor, is an outgoing chap who made funnier moments in the shooting spot and made the character more livelier.
Guru, the cute kid acted in the movie is very lively and worked with ease.
Mohan, who portrayed the character Ayyanar, acted with ease and gave a real villager look though he has never faced the camera earlier.

Director's Statement

The name was chosen to catch the audience’s attraction and to sound apt for the main theme of the movie. The movie is made in extensive exotic locations to give the audience a colorful village experience. Though it required a lot of traveling and hard work, it was made with full fun and enjoyment, and it is reflected in the end product - a lighthearted movie.

Contact Info

Director Ganesh Kumar: ganekm@gmail.com, 9916910249
Cinematographer KB prabu: prabu.kb0@gmail.com
Editor Abhinav: abhi.alive.1989@gmail.com
Lead Actor Venkat Sundar: venkat.666guys@gmail.com

Links

• Facebook Page
• CDindia Review
• Director's interview by Short Film's Hub

Average Rating by Registered Users

Score: 0.0, Votes: 0