Q1) What is your view in this topic? Where do you think FW is faltering in giving us solid villains.
I think the villain is an integral part of any episode and has a major role in the overall impact the episode has on the audience. I think that portraying the role of a frightening and stone-cold villain that the audience hates is a really hard job and not something which everyone can pull off, so it needs to be looked into very carefully and have both the casting and writing done properly. I'm not sure which of these departments FW is faltering at, but either due to poor casting or a below average job on the side of the writers (or both), it's been a long time since we've had a remarkable villain in CID. I'm not just talking about the villains being average, some of them do things so stupid and unrealistic that in real life, they wouldn't last long against any security constable outside a mall, let alone eluding the CID. The sense of dread, slyness and sheer cold determination of a villain we've had in the Golden Age criminals has largely been missing here.
Q2) Do you think have gone from bad to worse as far as Villains in CID are concerned ??Worse is an understatement. To emphasize this a bit, I'd like to mention the "average" criminal we saw back in the 2001-2004 episodes. How about that abusive husband who CID manages to stop just in time from killing his family? (can't remember the episode name, sorry). Or those drug-trafficking scumbags who attack Abhijeet in "Undercover Cop"? Or the Ravi Kumar guy who takes undue advantage of his former employee and eludes CID with a slimy ease? I don't think any of these would qualify to be called an International Don, and yet each and every one of them was more intimidating than the so-called "International Don" Herpes Dongaru we saw in the AC series.
Ab Don ji ka hi ye haal hai, to sochiye ki aam criminal kaisa hoga. I think there are some very important qualities of a villain that always need to be kept in mind when sketching out the character. This is
vital in order to create a convincing antagonist. I'll list these in the answer to the fourth question.
Q3) What impression did the promo give you of HD ?? Did HD live upto your expectations ??Quite honestly, the promo was truly well made and, ironically, equally misleading. The person portraying HD in the promo had a cold, icy demeanor and calm/rational sense of determination to carry out what he wants, which are important qualities of a crime lord. The promo gave the impression that we were about to see the Moriarty of CID - a cunning, well-connected and highly elusive villain who would rise up to give CID a really hard challenge and prove to be called their arch-nemesis. And with proper writing, this goal wasn't very hard to achieve because Mahesh sir is a great actor and very capable of it IMO.
The HD we got in the final episode was not even eligible to be called the leader of a gang of bhais in the local blue-collar bar, let alone a villain. His characterization was about as scary as a jackrabbit and he showed as much slyness as a part-time pickpocket. What kind of evil villain openly kills his own followers in their midst and leaves his real enemies alive and to chance? It's not a long-term survival strategy. Not to mention that these Dons never operate alone; big sharks always swim with other big sharks and indulge in favour swapping. We saw this in the promo where HD contacts a Don in Shanghai, but this wasn't even mentioned in the actual series. And for the aptness in action he showed in the final AC episode, this guy would've been dead at the hands of any teenage mugger from a bad area. HD was truly a letdown because of poor writing and characterization, and a major missed opportunity.
Q4) What about Criminals during normal cases, how do you think they are being characterized ?? Like I said before,
jab International Don HD
saab ka hi ye haal hai, it's not hard to imagine what the "average" criminal is going to be like. Not only do they make the worst and most suicidal mistakes and show a really poor sense of planning, but the scene of a seemingly decent middle-aged man or young college student suddenly pulling out a revolver and "transforming" into a villain is positively hilarious.
I think the qualities required for a convincing, challenging and threatening villain I mentioned above are largely missing from these criminals we've been seeing recently. Here are a few examples I'd like to mention -
Here are some I can think of -
a) Selfishness. On first read this might appear like something ordinary, but actually this a VERY important characterstic of a villain. The basic funda of this point is, "my need is greater than yours". Meaning the villain is ready to go to any length to obtain what he wants, even if it means killing someone. The mindset arising from such a determination is subtly visible in the vibes the person gives off, and this should be hinted at both in the script and by the actor.
b) There should be a clear distinction between an amateur criminal and a professional villain. In other words, a
nausikiya criminal will make mistakes which the pro will not. A good example is the servant in the "Clue In The Ashes" episode forgetting to dispose of the shoes after making the false footprints. But the pros know exactly how to elude the police, remove evidence and clues, lie to the cops, threaten or bribe witnesses, spread false trails and misleading clues, keep their allies from babbling the truth, etc - because they are experienced and know exactly how to do it. And yet, on the show we see some amateurs do some professional-quality work (before making equally stupid mistakes too) and the pros behaving like amateurs (like HD). This unevenness makes the villain in question unconvincing.
c) The villain should be believable. Even an amateur doesn't resort to using risky and unreliable methods like a poisoned cricket ball or javelin to commit murder, which are very unlikely to work and will also draw suspicion to them. And staying at the scene of crime after committing the deed, unless absolutely necessary, is suicidal. The criminals want to do their job in the quickest, easiest and most reliable/risk-free way possible. Here, too, the distinction between amateurs and pros applies. We need smart criminals with a sharp brain who give tough challenges to CID.
Also, it is simply beyond most normal and civilized people to commit horrendous acts like mutilating a body without hesitation. Even if they do, they would be psychologically affected and it will be clearly visible in their behaviour (something that isn't going to be hidden from the sharp eyes of our trio!). And yet exactly the opposite is being shown in the newer episodes. It doesn't help that a lot of the actors being cast as villains do a pretty poor job too.
5) Who has been the best and worst Villain in CID so far and why? Which actor rose above the script and created a better Villain purely on performance?
I'd say that the best performance as a villain has been by none other than our own Aditya sir, as Paresh in "Stolen Gun" and the impostor Abhijeet (Rocky) in Beherupiya. His stone-cold performance and fierce responses to his opponents (and a perfect performance of the sympathetic side of the former) have been really unparalleled so far. Rahil Azam as Nakul comes next, who did a great job as the sly, sarcastic and taunting son of ACP sir, the latter finally being forced to shoot him. Other favourites are the cannibal from "Man Eater" (can't remember his name), Aman Verma's character from "Return Of The Jewel Thief", and the guy who plays Robin in "CID at ransom".
As for worst, the list is too long. I guess either our new HD saab or the Don from "Don's Final Revenge" take the cake. 😉
Edited by DemonStar - 15 years ago
3