V3 Movie Review: A meandering tale of abuse, politics, power that leaves justice unserved

2022 has been an excellent year for women in cinema. We got to witness some well-written roles. We saw them perform action sequences, and fight their own battles. But having said that, the core of all women-led scripts was condensed to abuse of some sort, more often than not, sexual ones. Barring a few like Gatta Kusthi, Yashoda, or even Witness, it felt like a film spearheaded by women is invariably one where they are sexually abused. Why should a "woman-centric" film only be about her body, and the atrocities against her? But still... 2022 was a great year for women in cinema. And then, just a week into 2023, we have Vindhya Victim Verdict (V3). Right from the title where the rape survivor is called a 'victim' V3 makes so many mistakes that this feels like a lesser wrong. 

Director: Amudhavanan

Cast: Varalaxmi Sarathkumar, Paavana, Esther Anil, Adukaalam Naren, and others

V3 begins with a voiceover describing the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, after which it is said that the government tightened the security for women in the country. The voiceover questions if the continued cases in places like Kathua and Unnao bring forth the importance of not just punishment but solutions too. The film wastes no time in introducing the crime, followed by TV debates (which look too orchestrated even for a film) that are contrived. Nevertheless, the film starts with the missing case of Vindhya (Paavana), who is later found burnt and dead. Her sister Viji (Esther Anil) and father (Aadukalam Naren) scramble for justice, and the police take no time to narrow down five young boys as the alleged rapists and are killed in an encounter. Hints are dropped that these boys, who reside in Ambedkar Nagar, come from a marginalised community. This leads to widespread protests, questioning the police’s ethics, and the morality of encounters. As the story goes back and forth, we are introduced to former collector Sivagami (Varalaxmi Sarathkumar), who is probing the case. Here, we get a rather unnecessary but in some ways, interesting aside. Sivagami’s crisp white saree is tainted with colours like saffron, white, and green as a result of public furore. Why? We are shown a small flashback, which shows how she is facing the wrath of “mishandling” the Hindu-Muslim riots that once took place. These scenes not only lacked finesse but also warmed me up for what’s more to come.

Soon enough, we realise there is more to the encounters in V3 than what meets the eye. Although we see the parents running from pillar to post to seek justice for their lost children, the emotional impact is almost minimal. The film hardly shows their real struggle. However, one thing that the makers manage quite comfortably is their propensity for distasteful visual storytelling. For example, a scene that involves the police asking the boys to recreate the grotesque sexual assault, has them taking their time to unbuckle their belts, unzip their pants, and whatnot. It doesn't stop there. We also see the boys actually doing the act on the bare ground. Why? 

The film is also all over the place in what it wants to say. Does it want to talk about custodial torture and misuse of encounters? Does it want to talk about the sexual abuse that women are subjected to? Does it want to discuss the injustice that survivors are left with? V3 never fixes its mind and pulls itself down in the whirlpool by combining all three. It does not only stop with being all over the place but goes one step forward to visually detail the gore of rape. V3 goes on to detail the survivor running from her perpetrators, who have just stripped her completely from the waist down. Does it require blurring out her body parts, and still show her running half-naked? Is that really the only way to understand how traumatic rape can be? And to top it off, V3 does not let go of the chance to have a “speech” by the survivor to the media, which is dubbed as the one being given to society and us. And man, what comes as a shocker is the two requests she keeps forth to the government to prevent such crimes, or in her own words, the requests she keeps for her "brothers" aka rapists. Now, whether these requests, by itself, are right or wrong, is another topic to discuss, but it is just irrelevant to the film.

V3 severely suffers from inconsistent writing and fails to maintain a balance between where to use expositions and where to use visual cues. The last stretch of the monologue, which has now become a staple in the diet of “socially-politically” conscious films, is a wild ride, and it is not even remotely fun. Even Varalaxmi’s meandering presence cannot save the film which tries to be everywhere all at once. Casual name-dropping of some serious concerning issues such as casteless politics, Tamil fishermen being shot by the Sri Lankan navy, and the identity of Scheduled Tribes are peppered in the film for no reason at all. And when you least expect, comes the hidden fourth V of the film, vibacharam (prostitution). Is the film advocating to legalise prostitution for the very reason it stands against? That’s when we are reminded of the very first question the film makes; do we need punishment or solution for such crimes? But I ask, do we need movies that tell a story or merely throw convoluted ideas that serve no purpose?