Category Archives: Etc.

Engaged, Then Drifting Away: Watching Dude in the OTT Age

image by author and ChatGPT

I watched Dude on Netflix, got fully pulled in, and then slowly drifted away. The first half felt fresh and familiar; the second half drowned in twists and moral weight. This is less a review and more a look at what Dude reveals about where mainstream South Indian cinema stands in the OTT age.


I watched Dude on Netflix and realised my own reaction mirrored the film’s treatment of its characters — I leaned in, got involved, and then slowly drifted away.

For a good stretch, I was engaged. The energy felt contemporary, the situations recognisable, the performances easy to invest in. And then the film started doing what a lot of mainstream South Indian cinema does when it runs out of discipline but still wants an emotional high:

  • inconsistent characterisation,
  • unnecessary twists,
  • a dragging second half,
  • and a slightly helpless attempt to force a denouement before the runtime expires.

This post is less a formal “review” and more a reflection: why did Dude hook me initially and then lose me, and what does that say about where our cinema is right now?


Where Dude Worked for Me

To be fair, Dude gets several things right in the first half.

  • The world feels familiar. The college/youth environment, the conversations, the casual banter — this is not the old template of cardboard classmates waiting for a hero entry. It feels closer to the people you actually know.
  • Pradeep Ranganathan’s presence helps. He has that “I’ve met this guy in real life” quality. As a slightly confused, overthinking protagonist, he fits the part without trying too hard to be a “mass hero.”
  • The humour is loose, not forced. The film doesn’t rely only on punch dialogues. There are stretches where the interactions feel like natural extensions of how urban youth talk today.
  • The music is sticky. You can see why the songs travelled independently. They carry mood, they add momentum, and they are clearly engineered for a reel-first world.

At this stage, I was perfectly willing to accept the usual commercial liberties.

Mainstream South Indian cinema has always had an unwritten deal with the audience:

You give me energy and emotion; I’ll forgive your shortcuts with logic, probability, and geography.

For a while, Dude honours that contract.


Where It Started Losing Me

The slip happens when the film tries to scale up from “relatable youth rom-com” to “heavy social drama” — and wants to cover love, guilt, abortion, family honour and redemption in the same breath.

That’s when the cracks start to show.

1. Characterisation that bends to the plot

I don’t mind a story taking liberties with events. But I do mind when it takes liberties with core motivations.

Several key decisions in the second half feel like this:

  • A character behaves in one way in a scene, and almost the opposite way a little later, without enough inner transition.
  • Pivotal choices feel less like “this is who they are” and more like “this is what the screenplay needs right now.”

This is where I felt the inconsistent characterisation most strongly.
It’s as if the film updates its people like software patches: “From this point onwards, this character will now behave like X.”

When the stakes are low and the tone is light, audiences forgive this.
But once the story moves into serious territory, it stops feeling like masala and starts feeling like emotional laziness.


2. Twists that dilute, not deepen

Commercial South Indian cinema loves escalation. The standard ladder is: small problem → bigger problem → massive problem → only-our-hero-can-fix-it resolution.

When done well, this creates that “whistle and clap” experience.

In Dude, the escalations started to resemble a staircase that never quite reaches a landing:

  • Secret relationship
  • Consequences of that relationship
  • Family pressure and moral panic
  • High-stakes decisions
  • Rescue attempts, staged and real
  • Fresh resets and new beginnings

By themselves, none of these elements are new. We’ve seen them across decades.

The problem is how quickly they stack up and how little time is spent letting any one of them truly sink in. After a point, I found myself no longer asking “Why are they doing this?” and only tracking “Okay, what next?”

That’s not engagement; that’s survival.


3. Runtime vs. emotional bandwidth

There is a specific late-second-half sensation which many of us recognise now: you can feel the film is running out of time, but it still has too many unresolved threads.

That’s exactly how Dude felt in its final portions:

  • Scenes that needed silence and processing are rushed.
  • Scenes that could have been handled in a couple of beats are stretched out for extra drama.
  • The ending feels less like the natural consequence of everything and more like a set of fixes assembled under deadline.

This is where I sensed the “helpless effort to push things towards a denouement” most clearly. The film doesn’t so much land as scramble to a halt.


The Mainstream South Indian “Liberties” – And Why They’re Not Enough Anymore

To be clear, none of this is unique to Dude. It is operating within a well-established grammar.

Mainstream South Indian cinema has traditionally thrived on:

  • Big emotional spikes rather than consistent arcs
  • Convenient coincidences and plot armour
  • Song placements as shortcuts for developing relationships
  • Tonal shifting — comedy, melodrama, social message and “hero moments” in the same film

By these standards, Dude actually delivers:

  • It has high-energy moments.
  • It attempts to touch on socially loaded themes.
  • It offers enough drama to make a single-theatre audience feel they “got their money’s worth.”
  • The box office response shows it connected commercially.

So why did I, and many like me, feel engaged initially and then drift away?

I suspect the answer lies not only in the film, but in how our viewing habits have evolved.


When OTT Discipline Meets Theatrical Liberty

Most of us who watch Dude on Netflix are straddling two worlds:

  1. We grew up on mainstream South Indian cinema, with all its liberties and excesses.
  2. We now binge finely crafted shows and films from everywhere, where character consistency and structural discipline are much tighter.

That creates a new internal benchmark, even if we don’t consciously articulate it.

When a film looks and sounds contemporary, and positions itself close to our lives:

  • We stop accepting soap-opera logic so easily.
  • We expect serious themes like guilt, abortion, or honour to be treated with more nuance.
  • We notice when characters are moved like chess pieces instead of behaving like people.

It’s not that we have suddenly become “anti-masala.”
We still enjoy heightened emotion and big moments.

But:

The emotional math has to add up.
The liberties can no longer hide thin writing.

In that sense, Dude feels like a transition product of its time — ambitious in intent, familiar in craft, and caught between two audience expectations.


My Simple Test While Watching

Lately, I unconsciously apply one simple test to films like this:

Do I care more about the people than about the plot?

  • In the first half of Dude, I cared about the people.
  • Somewhere in the second half, that shifted. I caught myself watching the plot, not the characters.

Once that happens, every twist feels like a trick, and every liberty feels like a shortcut.

That, for me, is the real missed opportunity of Dude.
Not that it is “bad” — it clearly works for many viewers — but that it had enough going for it to be much more than a mixed experience.


Key Takeaways (for me)

  • Liberties are acceptable; dishonesty isn’t.
    I can accept cinematic exaggeration, but not when character motivations bend carelessly to fit a twist.
  • More twists ≠ more engagement.
    Emotional investment comes from depth, not volume. When everything is high-stakes, nothing truly feels high-stakes.
  • Our viewing baseline has changed quietly.
    OTT exposure has made audiences more sensitive to inconsistency, even when we still enjoy big, commercial cinema.
  • Dude reflects a larger shift.
    It’s one of many recent films trying to combine instant gratification with “serious” themes, but without always doing the structural hard work that the newer audience silently expects.

Where to Watch

At the time of writing, Dude is available to stream on Netflix.

It’s worth a watch if you’re curious about where mainstream South Indian cinema currently stands — halfway between old masala instincts and new OTT expectations.
The interesting part is not just whether you like it, but when you start to drift away… or if you do at all.


The Godfather’s Machinations: An Ancient Indian Playbook for Power

image by author and google ai Studio (gemini-2.5-pro and nano banana)

The age-old Indian strategic doctrine of Sama, Dana, Bheda, and Danda—the four-fold approach to achieving one’s objectives—finds a striking, albeit darker, parallel in the reasoning and methods of Mario Puzo’s iconic character, Don Vito Corleone, and his successor, Michael, in “The Godfather.” This ancient quartet of diplomatic and political maneuvering, originating from texts like Kautilya’s Arthashastra, outlines a sequential and calculated path to influence and control, a path the Corleone family navigates with chilling precision. Both philosophies fundamentally operate from a position of strength, where the availability of these four options is in itself a testament to power. The absence of these choices reveals a stark reality for those in weaker positions.

The Four Upayas: A Corleone Correlation

The four Upayas, or strategies, are traditionally employed in a successive manner, starting with the most peaceful and escalating to the most severe. The world of “The Godfather,” while brutal, is not devoid of this nuanced progression.

Sama (Conciliation and Persuasion): This is the art of gentle persuasion, reasoning, and diplomacy. Don Vito Corleone, contrary to the stereotypical image of a mob boss, often resorts to Sama as his initial approach. He is a man who prefers to “reason with people” and believes that “lawyers with their briefcases can steal more than a hundred men with guns.” His initial interactions with those who seek his help are often calm and deliberative. For instance, when the undertaker Amerigo Bonasera comes to him seeking vengeance for the assault on his daughter, Vito doesn’t immediately resort to violence. Instead, he engages in a dialogue, albeit one that subtly asserts his power and Bonasera’s lack of respect in the past. He persuades Bonasera to accept his form of justice, thereby indebting him to the Corleone family. Similarly, his dealings with the other Mafia families are often marked by attempts at negotiation and finding mutually beneficial arrangements, as seen in the initial discussions about the narcotics trade.

Dana (Gifts and Concessions): When persuasion alone is insufficient, the offer of a gift, a bribe, or a concession comes into play. In the Corleone’s world, this is the classic “offer he can’t refuse.” This isn’t just a threat; it’s often a transaction that benefits the other party, at least on the surface. When Don Corleone wants Johnny Fontane to get the lead role in a movie, his consigliere, Tom Hagen, is first sent to the studio head, Jack Woltz, with offers of friendship and solutions to his union problems. This is an attempt at a mutually beneficial arrangement. The “gift” is the Corleone family’s powerful assistance. The refusal of this “gift” then leads to a more forceful approach. The very act of doing “favors” for people is a form of Dana, creating a web of obligations that strengthens the Don’s power.

Bheda (Creating Division and Dissension): This strategy involves sowing discord and creating rifts among opponents to weaken them from within. The intricate power plays and betrayals within the Five Families of New York are a testament to the effective use of Bheda. After the attempt on his father’s life, Michael Corleone masterfully employs this tactic. He identifies the traitors within his own family and among the rival families. The famous baptism scene, where Michael orchestrates the simultaneous assassination of the heads of the other families while he stands as godfather to his nephew, is the ultimate act of Bheda. He exploits their moments of vulnerability and their internal conflicts to eliminate them all in one swift move. This also includes turning rival factions against each other, a classic maneuver to maintain dominance.

Danda (Force and Punishment): The final and most extreme measure is the use of force, punishment, and violence. This is the option of last resort when all other methods have failed. The Corleone family, despite their preference for more subtle tactics, never shies away from Danda when necessary. The horse’s head in Jack Woltz’s bed is a terrifying application of Danda after Dana was rejected. The murders of Virgil “The Turk” Sollozzo and the corrupt police captain McCluskey by Michael are acts of Danda to protect the family’s interests when negotiations and appeals to reason have failed. The ultimate message is that the Corleone family has the capacity and the will to inflict severe punishment on those who stand in their way.

The Foundation of Strength and the Peril of Limited Options

The ability to sequentially employ Sama, Dana, Bheda, and Danda is a clear indication of a position of strength. Having these four options at hand means possessing the resources, intelligence, and power to choose the most appropriate and effective means to an end. Don Corleone’s influence is built on a foundation of wealth, political connections, and a loyal army of capos and soldiers. This allows him the luxury of starting with diplomacy and escalating only when necessary. His power is what makes his “reasonable” arguments persuasive and his “gifts” enticing.

Conversely, a lack of these options signifies weakness. A ruler in ancient India who could not offer concessions (Dana) or did not have the intelligence network to create division (Bheda) would be at a significant disadvantage. Their only recourse might be premature and potentially disastrous conflict (Danda), or complete submission.

In the world of “The Godfather,” weakness is a death sentence. Characters who lack the foresight, the strength, or the options to navigate the treacherous landscape are quickly eliminated. Sonny Corleone, despite his loyalty and passion, is too impulsive and lacks the strategic patience to effectively use the four Upayas. His public outburst of anger at Sollozzo is a sign of weakness that is later exploited. Fredo Corleone’s weakness and lack of intelligence make him a liability, ultimately leading to his tragic end.

When the Corleone family is in a position of perceived weakness, such as after the assassination attempt on Vito, their options become limited. They are forced to rely more heavily on Bheda and Danda to survive and re-establish their dominance. Michael’s swift and brutal actions are a direct response to the family’s vulnerability.

In conclusion, the strategic philosophy of Sama, Dana, Bheda, and Danda provides a compelling framework for understanding the methodical and calculated approach to power employed by Mario Puzo’s Godfather. The Corleone family’s success is not merely a product of brute force, but of a sophisticated understanding of human nature and the strategic application of a range of tactics, from peaceful negotiation to ruthless violence. This approach, however, is a luxury afforded by a position of immense strength. For those without the power to choose their means, the world is a far more dangerous and limited place, a reality that both the ancient strategists and the modern dons understood all too well.