Rocketry: The Nambi Effect, The Railway Men (web series), Kesari Chapter 2, Dhurandhar, Dhurandhar: The Revenge, and now G.D.N. R. Madhavan has been doing quite a few biopics or movies based on real incidents in the last few years. The authenticity of these films may be debatable, but most of them serve as a medium to inspire the current generation. The latest biographical drama film from Madhavan, is based on Gopalswamy Doraiswamy Naidu Aka G. D. Naidu Aka G.D.N, the manufacturer of the first electric motor in India and a renowned entrepreneur. Apart from playing the lead role, Madhavan was involved in developing the screenplay and also acted as one of the producers for the film. Notable actors like, Sathyaraj, Jayaram, Priyamani and Dushara Vijayan, played crucial roles in the film. The Tamil and Telugu versions of the film were released in theatres. Did Madhavan come up with yet another inspiring biographical drama film? Who is G.D.N and what is his story? Let’s figure it out with a detailed analysis.

What is it about?

Gopalaswamy Doraiswamy Naidu Aka G.D. Naidu Aka G.D.N (the young role was played by Teejay Arunasalam and the middle and elder age roles were played by R. Madhavan) in British-ruled India in the early 1900s, is a motorcycle enthusiast. How did he buy his motorcycle? How did he end up manufacturing India’s first electric motor? How did he become a successful entrepreneur? What challenges did he face during the British Raj? What challenges did he face after India gained independence in 1947? How did he overcome those challenges? Forms the rest of the story.

Performances:

R. Madhavan is excellent in the role of G.D. Naidu. As always, he delivered a very restrained and likeable performance. He looked very believable in all the getups while portraying the various stages of G.D. Naidu’s life. During the climax of the film, he came up with a very emotionally driven heart-touching performance. Teejay Arunasalam in the role of young G.D. Naidu did well. He came up with a commendable performance.

Senior actors Sathyaraj and Jayaram got crucial roles and both of them made their experience count and delivered very good performances. Priyamani in a limited role made her presence felt. Dushara Vijayan in the role of the second wife to G.D. Naidu, delivered a good performance. Vinay Rai as the antagonist did his part well. Aditi Balan in a crucial role came up with a balanced performance. She did well during a very good payoff sequence in the climax.

Technicalities:

Govind Vasantha came up with a standard template-driven score for the biopic. His songs and background score served the purpose but there’s nothing special to talk about the music in particular. Cinematographer, Aravind Kamalanathan and the art department did a good job in replicating the bygone era well. Editing by Bijith Bala was good during the first half but it could have been much better in the second half.

Positives:

1.⁠ ⁠Inspirational Story of G.D. Naidu
2.⁠ ⁠Actors Performances
3.⁠ ⁠Motivational Moments

Negatives:

1.⁠ ⁠Overtly Commercialised Screenplay
2.⁠ ⁠One-Sided Narration

Analysis:

In earlier days, people used to read about well-known personalities across the world in books, later through the internet and through other news publishing agencies in various forms(i.e., print media, electronic media, etc.). Now, we are living in a generation where people use AI agents(ChatGPT, Grok, etc.), and then there is a large section of people who consume news about famous people tbrough instagram reels and YouTube Shorts. The question is – How authentic are these sources? The authenticity depends on the political affiliation, caste, religion and various other factors of the content provider or content creator. G.D.N maybe a biopic of a renowned personality but at heart, it intends to question the credibility of the source of the information we consume daily. A book or movie or an article or an Instagram reel or a YouTube short about a famous personality, is only the perspective of the content creator. More often than not, they tend to manipulate the facts or tend to exaggerate. So, it is up to us to select the right source to consume news or information. This is exactly the point, the director, Krishnakumar Ramakumar and Madhavan, tried to convey through, G.D.N.

Gopalswamy Doraiswamy Naidu(G.D.N) is known as the ‘Edison of India’. He was a school dropout but ended up becoming the manufacturer of India’s first electric motor. He was known as a technical redesigner and is also known as one of the wealth creators of Coimbatore in the early 1900s. Not just in the industrial sector but he contributed to the growth of electrical, mechanical and agricultural sectors in India. He inspired young people during the early and mid-1900s to focus on practical learning. He also started polytechnic colleges to let students study practical engineering in two years instead of four years. The film takes us through the inspirational journey of G.D. Naidu. It talks about the innovations he came up with, the challenges he faced not just from the British-ruled government in India but also from the politicians in independent India. The then British government, a few politicians in independent India and a section of the media projected him as a Tax dodger and a traitor. But did he really evade Tax? Was he really a traitor? The director of the film engagingly addressed these questions. At quite a few places, the film makes you feel inspired and your respect for G. D. Naidu will surely go a touch higher by the end.

It may be a biopic about G.D. Naidu but it also talks about Ambalapara Krishnan, an Income Tax Officer(ITO). Through the film, the director tried to show us the integrity of both individuals. The sequence between the two at the climax makes us get very emotional and we start to appreciate the integrity and self-imposed ethics by which both of them lived their lives. ‘As an income tax officer, I did my duties with utmost honesty and sincerity and always followed the rules mentioned in the book. I may have gone against you in fulfilling my duties but deep down I always respect you for what you did for the betterment of our country’, says Ambalapara Krishnan to G.D. Naidu. ‘As you said, I would have paid the penalties imposed by the British Raj and achieved my goals but had I done that, I would have become a bad example to the future young generations who dream to become entrepreneurs’, replies an emotional G.D. Naidu. This entire sequence serves as an inspiration to all the people who dream of becoming entrepreneurs. The film has quite a few such inspirational episodes which make you feel very motivated.

On the flip side, the screenplay of the film gives a feeling of watching a commercial entertainer. Both Krishnakumar Ramakumar and Madhavan as screenplay writers seemed to have put in a conscious effort to give commercial payoffs at regular intervals. A few of those payoffs appread run off the mill and exaggerated. The entire divorce episode during the pre-climax looked over the top. And, there were quite a few episodes where the director tried to deliver ‘playing to the gallery’ moments. These episodes may work very well in commercial entertainment, but in a biographical drama, they appeared exaggerated. Another drawback of the film is its seemingly one-sided narrative. Also, just like most of the biopics, the film suffers from an inconsistent pace. Especially, the drama during the initial hour in the second half unfolds at a very leisurely pace.

Overall, the subject matter which G.D.N dealt with is very inspirational and the message it tried to convey is also commendable. However, a bit more care would have been taken to tone down the one-sided narration and commercial elements. The possibility of you liking it depends on your definition of a biopic. If you like biographical dramas which only deal with the positive side of the individual, the chances of you liking G.D.N. are very high. You may slightly get disappointed if you prefer to watch a biographical drama with balanced narration.

Bottomline – Inspirational But Overtly Commercialised

Rating – 2.5/5

Tags GDN Movie Review

This month’s LA Jazz Festival was slated to be one of the largest concerts in Los Angeles history.

With dozens of performances spread throughout every City Council district, organizers hoped the shows would draw 250,000 attendees and inaugurate the city as a home for jazz events on par with New Orleans and Montreal.

Those hopes will have to wait, as organizers announced the cancellation and postponement of the festival on Friday, including its main show Aug. 22-23 on Dockweiler Beach.

“Due to significant, unanticipated last-minute public safety and municipal costs associated with the final permitting of the On The Beach Festival, we have reached the decision to unfortunately postpone this year’s inaugural LA Jazz Festival,” organizer Martin Ludlow said in a statement to The Times. “Although this decision was an extremely difficult one to reach, our commitment to the audiences and artists participating in the festival is to have a first-class experience worthy of the great legacy of Jazz and our great city. We were encouraged by the enthusiastic support of the artists on the bill, the fans and our sponsors for this inaugural event, and we look forward to presenting all of the components of this incredible cultural opportunity for Los Angeles and the world in 2027 and beyond.”

John Legend, Janelle Monáe, Charlie Wilson, Parliament Funkadelic and Raphael Saadiq were booked to headline the main show.

“We are so grateful to all the artists — from our headliners to our musicians in the parks, many of whom went above and beyond to make this affordable to the community,” Ludlow added. “All current ticket holders for LA Jazz Festival events will be refunded in full within 30 days. We apologize deeply for this situation and vow to make this right over time.”

LA Jazz Festival was a major project for Ludlow, a former Los Angeles City Council member turned music promoter and community activist after pleading guilty to misappropriating funds in 2006.

Ludlow announced the show in a splashy speech on the steps of City Hall in February, flanked by Mayor Karen Bass and other civic leaders. “During this journey, you can only imagine there’s a lot of highs and a lot of lows,” Ludlow said then. “When you have those lows, you want a friend that really can lift you up.”

Back in February, Ludlow described the mission of LA Jazz Festival with a civil rights-inspired fervor, saying, “This festival is intended to lift up our ancestors that came to this country in bondage, terrorized, brutalized. It’s also about celebrating the end to those last bastions of Jim Crow racism, the days we were denied access to public drinking fountains, public swimming pools and public beaches. From the beginning of this journey, we’ve been very intentional about telling the narrative of that human rights struggle called Jazz.”

Jane Schoenbrun’s three narrative features comprise a fascinating trilogy about the mediated world and the identities we locate therein. “We’re All Going to the World’s Fair” (2021) sees a young girl losing herself in an occult online game. “I Saw the TV Glow” (2024) is a dreamy, metaphysical exploration of 1990s children’s television, nostalgia, fandom and trans identity.

Their latest film — and arguably their masterpiece, at least so far — is “Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma,” a sharp, playful, sexy and surprisingly warm Hollywood satire about repressed millennials who have outsourced their sexual desire to the movies. The film is a loving send-up of film nerds who’d rather intellectualize and compartmentalize than truly feel in any sort of sensual or embodied way. Packaged in a delightfully erotic and utterly phantasmagoric love letter to 1980s slasher movies, laced with themes of Lacanian psychoanalysis, and soundtracked to millennial dog whistles, it’s Schoenbrun’s battle cry to return to the “flesh and fluids” that made us in the first place.

Schoenbrun weaves the tapestry of “Camp Miasma” with familiar threads pulled from classic horror, noir and slasher movies. Hannah Einbinder plays filmmaker Kris, a “Sundance wunderkind” tasked with reviving the long-dead “Camp Miasma” horror franchise. As Billy Presley, the aging star of the “Friday the 13th”-style slasher series, Gillian Anderson is the Norma Desmond to Kris’ Joe Gillis, and their “Sunset Boulevard” is the abandoned summer camp where the film was once shot. Billy now lives there, swanning about, smoking joints, painting, serving up platters of fried chicken and watching her film on a personal print. Kris finds her there during a snowy winter storm fit for “The Shining.”

Kris speaks the language of the movies, and often only that. She references Norma Desmond outright, and rattles off facts about the stars of “Sleepaway Camp.” Her Sundance movie imagined the violence of “Psycho” from the point of view of the shower curtain. Kris seems to derive dopamine from two primary sources: movie trivia and gummy candy. She’s smart, neurotic and entirely unsatisfied in her trendy, sexually fluid polycule, which unfortunately includes a bisexual man named Thor (Aren Buchholz).

But Kris is about to have a second sexual awakening with Billy, nested within the memory of her very first, which occurred while watching Billy onscreen in “Camp Miasma.” Simultaneously, the “Camp Miasma” killer, Little Death (Jack Haven), who has a ceiling vent for a head, is emerging from the depths of the lake, summoned by the creative coital energy that Billy and Kris are generating. Imagine the surprise and dismay of all the Hollywood executives when Kris tries to explain via Zoom that Little Death is the ultimate creator here — and he has final cut.

Making a movie about making a movie means that Schoenbrun actually gets to make the cheesy ‘80s slasher movie that changed Kris’ life, with bimbos and himbos and fake blood galore. Schoenbrun respects the genre and its meta-textual ephemera: the VHS tapes, fan conventions, and even the think pieces that live on obscure blogs.

But what’s fun about Schoenbrun’s movies is that while they are deeply cerebral about the medium-specific and self-reflective ideas on display, there’s very little actual irony or rug-pulling. There’s a deep-rooted earnestness that pulls it all together. Kris’ Hollywood world is heightened, yet authentic, and so is Billy’s reality, even if the exteriors of the remote, snowy camp are made of beautiful matte paintings and miniature sets. So are the geysers of blood Little Death summons with a giant spear, though they are hilariously excessive and digitally pixelated. It’s all fake but it’s all real too, Schoenbrun seems to be saying. The film is a multilayered confection of “realness,” a mille-feuille of artifice, knowingness and films within films. The characters are simultaneously voyeurs and exhibitionists, subjects and objects, watchers and the watched.

One of the keys to this complex tone lies in the pair of performances at the center. Anderson delivers a breathy, honey-accented turn as a former screen siren, playing Billy like a Tennessee Williams heroine. But the revelation is Einbinder, who has been terrific in “Hacks” but pulls out something much deeper, and more carnal, here. She sells both the humor of her nebbish character but also the blooming emotion as she comes into herself, fully realized. Kris is funny, earnest, relatable, heartbreaking and ultimately empowered, and the film wouldn’t work without the full range of Einbinder’s performance (and one astonishing close-up).

Though Schoenbrun is playfully critical about the characters and setting, there’s also a joy and reverence throughout “Teenage Death and Sex at Camp Miasma,” which is so much more than genre exercise or knowing pastiche. The message here is to get out of our heads and into our bodies, and it’s OK if we need movies to do that. Our movies, ourselves, after all.

‘Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma’

4 stars (out of 4)

MPA rating: R (for bloody violence, gore, sexual content, graphic nudity, drug use and some language)

Running time: 1:52

How to watch: In theaters Aug. 7