For a filmmaker who prides himself on realism, treating technical precision as expendable in the pursuit of a good story is not artistic freedom; it is a convenient excuse for a shortcoming that audiences have every right to question. And when the same criticism keeps coming up, shouldn't the filmmaker be willing to address it rather than dismiss it?National Award-winning Tamil filmmaker Vetri Maaran recently had a rather 'arrogant' response to a question about lip-sync issues in his films at IFP Festival Season 16 on October 24.
The Asuran director, who was the guest speaker for a masterclass titled 'Making of a Modern Auteur' on Day 1 of the festival, spoke about his approach to cinema, character development, world-building and filmmaking. However, it was his response to persistent criticism of his films that caught attention.During a quick-fire question-and-answer session, an audience member raised the issue of lip-sync in Vetri Maaran’s films, where the dialogue delivered on screen does not always match the dubbed audio.
It is a criticism that has followed the filmmaker, particularly with films such as Asuran and Viduthalai. Vetri Maaran had a dismissive response, directing his answer at his team while making his priorities clear."Everybody asks me about lip sync, and I have only one answer.
Not to you all, to my team, I ask them 'Do you want sync or story?' I choose story. If you want sync, you have sync, and you can keep sync.
I want story,” he said. The response might have drawn a laugh, but it raises a question worth taking seriously: why should storytelling and technical precision be treated as opposing priorities?
Is a compelling narrative enough to excuse technical inconsistencies that can distract audiences from it? And when a filmmaker as acclaimed as Maaran repeatedly faces questions about aspects of his craft, is a dismissive response really the best way to address them?After all, audiences are not asking him to choose between a good story and perfect lip-sync.
They are asking why they cannot have both.A storyteller's strengths, a filmmaker's blind spots There is little doubt about Vetri Maaran's storytelling abilities. Aadukalam, Visaranai, Asuran and Vada Chennai have established him as one of Tamil cinema's distinctive voices.
His cinema has consistently explored caste hierarchies, systemic oppression and the lives of marginalised communities, using layered characters and raw realism to examine the power structures that shape society.His preference for lived-in settings and unconventional characterisation has helped distinguish his films from more formulaic commercial cinema. But does the strength of his storytelling place the rest of his filmmaking beyond scrutiny?
If anything, shouldn't the realism that makes his films compelling make technical inconsistencies harder to ignore?When a filmmaker works so hard to make his world believable, every detail contributes to that illusion. The performances, the setting, the dialogue and the sound must work together.
When the words spoken do not match the actor's lip movements, the audience is pulled out of that world. It might be a small distraction for some, but it is still a distraction.
And if the intention is to immerse viewers in a believable world, why should that be considered an acceptable trade-off?Discussions among viewers have flagged perceived dubbing and lip-sync issues in Asuran, particularly in some opening and flashback sequences. Similar concerns about audio layering and dubbing have surfaced in discussions about Vada Chennai.If storytelling is the priority, every element of the filmmaking should contribute to it.
A compelling script cannot automatically compensate for inconsistent audio, just as a powerful performance cannot always overcome technical shortcomings. The question is not whether the story matters more than a perfectly synchronised line of dialogue.
It is whether one needs to come at the expense of the other.When the director's vision comes at a costVetri Maaran's response becomes more telling when considered alongside his comments about his filmmaking process. At the festival, he admitted that he does not follow a fixed method and continues to edit his films even after their release."Someone asked me about my process.
I don't have any process. I just try to be myself and try to stick to what I do.
I like to edit, and sometimes, even after films are released, I keep editing,” he said.For a filmmaker, instinct can be an asset. But cinema is not made on instinct alone.
Pre-production involves planning schedules, assessing locations, coordinating departments, anticipating risks and budgeting for contingencies. These are not administrative formalities that can be brushed aside in the pursuit of art.
They are fundamental to filmmaking.Vetri Maaran's admission raises a question beyond his creative choices: how much importance does he give to planning a production before the cameras start rolling? And once shooting begins, do technical and production departments receive the same consideration as the more visible aspects of filmmaking, such as performances and cinematography?There is, of course, no single process that every filmmaker must follow.
Some of the most memorable films have emerged from instinct, improvisation and changes made along the way. But there is a difference between allowing a film to evolve and leaving aspects of its execution unresolved.
At what point does creative flexibility become a problem that could have been anticipated or addressed earlier?A director's process may be unconventional. The finished film, however, still has to work for the audience.The Viduthalai exampleThe making of Viduthalai offers a pertinent example of the production challenges associated with Vetri Maaran's approach.
What was initially planned as a small film with a reported budget of Rs 4.5 crore and a shooting schedule of around 35 days eventually became a two-part project. The first part alone reportedly cost around Rs 60 crore.Vetri Maaran himself described how quickly the original plan unravelled during the 2023 Film Companion Director’s Roundtable.
He said that after visiting the location, he realised he could shoot only 10 per cent of the film in the first 20 days. By then, 70 per cent of the budget had already been exhausted.The challenges reportedly continued with Viduthalai Part 2, with the production spending around 100 days trying to capture natural mist for the climax.
Vetri Maaran eventually realised that waiting for the right conditions could take years, and the team turned to CGI instead.The example raises legitimate questions about planning and contingencies. If a natural effect can ultimately be achieved through visual effects, could that possibility have been considered earlier?
Could the production have avoided some of the prolonged wait and expense with a different plan? And when a project grows so substantially beyond its original scope, what does that tell us about the importance of anticipating the demands of the film?These questions do not take away from the ambition behind Viduthalai.
Nor do they suggest that a filmmaker should abandon a creative vision simply because it is difficult to execute. But ambition also demands practical decisions.
If the pursuit of a particular visual requires a production to spend months waiting for the right conditions, it is fair to ask whether the result justifies the cost.The same principle applies to technical details such as lip-sync. If so much effort goes into getting the right face, landscape and frame, why should the same rigour not extend to dialogue and sound?Story over sync: A false choice?Vetri Maaran has said that he continues to edit his films even after their release.
His response on lip-sync also suggests that, when forced to choose, he would rather preserve the story than ensure that the dialogue matches an actor's lip movements. But these choices do not exist in isolation.The question is not whether Vetri Maaran should be allowed to make changes in the editing room.
It is whether repeated inconsistencies in the finished product should be dismissed as the price of prioritising the story. If getting the right face, landscape and frame matters enough to justify such effort, why should getting the sound right be treated as a lesser priority?
At what point does a creative choice become a technical shortcoming that needs to be addressed? And how many times can the same shortcoming reappear in a film before it stops being an incidental flaw and becomes a legitimate concern about the filmmaking process?A film is not just a visual that has been captured.
It is an amalgamation of performances, cinematography, editing, sound design, dubbing, music and countless other departments working together. The story lays the foundation, and the screenplay is the building.
But a compelling blueprint means little if the execution leaves too many cracks.Vetri Maaran's storytelling deserves to be taken seriously. The technical aspects of his films deserve the same level of attention from him.
Choosing story over sync might make for a witty response on stage, but it is a false choice in filmmaking. Story and craft are not competing priorities; they are the pillars that hold a film together.And this is precisely why the filmmaker's response deserves more scrutiny than a passing laugh.
A question about lip-sync is not an attack on his storytelling, nor does it diminish his contribution to Tamil cinema. It is a question about the finished product, something every filmmaker must be prepared to answer.Most people who have watched Vetri Maaran's films and questioned his lip sync never got an answer from the filmmaker.
After all, his response on stage was "meant for his team, not the audience." But if audiences are the ones experiencing the distraction, shouldn't their concerns matter too?The story matters more than the sync to Vetri Maaran. But why should audiences have to choose?
A filmmaker of his stature should know that neither a good story nor a good excuse can make a mismatched voice disappear.- Ends