Radically Progressive in Laaga Chunari Mein Daag…

October 13th, 2007

The bourgeois representatives of the ‘new’ post-90s urban India tend to be rather intolerant of any perspective that questions their complacency and ‘India Shining’ myth. The BJP in the last general elections also made the mistake of concluding that this segment of the population was the entire electorate and were therefore in for a rather rude shock when various Left orientations did well. A similar plight was the fate of Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh somewhat earlier when he also erred in believing that a ’shining’ Hyderabad could somehow gloss over the existential crises of starving farmers in the rest of the state.

Much has changed in both urban and rural India since the economic reforms of the 90s. The social, political and economic dynamics are too complex to take in with a single stroke but there are at any rate ‘many’ Indias operating at different speeds. This ought not to be surprising. In the messianic framework of global capitalism what is never allowed for is ‘difference’. Ironically it is precisely ‘capital’ that is quite extraordinary in terms of adjusting to ‘difference’ and normalizing these strands, often in very violent ways. But the ’story’ of globalization is only ever peddled as one of ‘progress’ and ‘liberation’. But for ‘who’? And for ‘what’? The freedom to ‘consume’ is not necessarily true freedom. These different ’speeds’ and dynamics of ‘modernity’ are visible all over the planet. ‘Modernity’ (which might just be another name for ‘Westernization’ or ‘Americanization’ or more profoundly a ‘globalization’ that is simply an ‘effect’ of ‘colonialism’) is highly varied; it does not at any rate operate only along an index of consumption.

Pradeep Sarkar has taken on the rather interesting and incredibly thankless task (given the current dispensation on these matters) of showing up a mirror to the violence of urban bourgeois society. To his even greater credit he handles the critique in very direct ways. It is amusing to see his film being tagged with the ‘regressive’ label. His is one of the most ‘progressive’ films in a very long time and the opposite tag it is getting in the media is either a sign of obtuseness or ideological polemics. What was commonplace in the cinema of the 90s by way of Yashraj and Karan Johar (and in fact even elsewhere for the most part) was truly regressive. This was however lapped up as the ‘progressive’ whereas the true critique is rejected as being archaic. Not surprisingly the Karan Johar films coddled the bourgeois classes and helped nurture their complacency in cultural terms (among others). Any ideology does not exactly liked being questioned!

Sarkar’s Laaga Chunari Mein Daag does the opposite. It imagines an ‘other’ India of small towns and small town aspirations and of the collision that sometimes comes about when one world encroaches on the other. It is a study of how alienating bourgeois codes might be to the self-aware, it is also a reflection on how the ‘mediatized’ global might create the illusion of sameness and ‘nearness’ among different societal segments and obfuscate entirely the deep divides.

For a multiplex audience in contemporary India this ‘other’ India (and there is not only one ‘other’, there are many) is what is constantly being ‘wished’ away. The cinema of the 90s again helped foster this blindness. The political realities of caste and religion, ethnicity and race, language, economics, anything that might not correspond to ‘urban bourgeois desire’ was effaced. Below the surface the most conservative (and reactionary) positions were advanced and this was what truly appealed to the target audiences. It is therefore a rude shock for the very same to learn that in the heart of their imagined ‘renaissance’ there is still sexism, gender bias, sexual politics, economic exploitation and so forth thriving rather remarkably. It is an even greater tremor for the same to be shown how violent and hypocritical their cherished system is. That there are ‘escort’ girls operating in the highest echelons of this new corporate India is surely not debatable, that there are women who arrive every single day in a city like Bombay from smaller, more insular environments like Varanasi and get exploited in all sorts of ways, not least sexually, that the very same women because of the very same bourgeois codes find themselves with very limited choices in life beyond a point is also hardly a revolutionary idea. This happens all over the world. This is a rather common portrait of the supposedly most ‘feminist’ societies on the planet and it is also the same in India. ‘Prostitution’ is not just about an economically lower class streetwalker. It is also about women coming from far more privileged backgrounds but somehow ending up in glorified versions of the same trade. A film industry in any society of the world is often a conduit to precisely such ‘prostitution’ for women who do not quite make it. Similarly corporate environments from the US to India operate with high levels of sexual harassment and exploitation. The ’secret’ that bourgeois audiences find incredibly hard to fathom is not just that this happens but that many of the women in these equations are not necessarily ‘victims’.

The old masala movies were greatly comforting in this sense. The fallen woman who would either get seduced and left to die (and often ended up dying after all the calumny heaped on her!), or get raped by the worst specimen of humanity, or even the courtesan who would be able to freely practice her ‘dance’ without really being forced to sell her body. Sexual exploitation in such a world was always the ‘exception’, most ‘nice girls’ did not end up in this way, and most ‘nice boys’ did not do the exploiting. Even otherwise the world where this happened seemed to be often safely removed from the cultural orbit of the ‘ruling classes’. It always happened ’somewhere out there’. Much as today the same audiences are horrified to learn about caste wars in Bihar or UP and therefore enjoy their representations as ‘heart of darkness’ places in cinema, in identical ways they were always happy with those earlier tropes that seemed to operate at a distance from their experience.

The road to the ‘high class escort’ is never presented as an inevitability in Laaga Chunari Mein Daag. It is, somewhat boldy, presented as possibility, and an entirely plausible one within the framework of the narrative. The radical move here is precisely not that Rani Mukerjee had no choice but that she did in some ways and most women in her position also do. Rani’s character in the film does not have an overdetermined fate in this context. Sarkar knows this and therefore in the climactic moments of the film there is really no apologia from the female protagonist. She has through the course of the film suffered remarkable pain but she has not really considered herself a victim. She defends her choice as a ‘necessary’ one in some ways but refuses to ‘justify’ it. There is a great difference. The Rani character makes a choice at a certain point in time which is not the only choice she could have made. She is always aware of this. The critics have misread this point quite profoundly. In an older cinema such a theme would always involve no individual autonomy, here it does. Before calling such a narrative ‘unrealistic’ one must ask oneself this: how do so many women become ‘escort girls’ in the first place when clearly it is a requirement of their profession that they belong to somewhat more elevated strata of society and thereby be able to function in a world where presumably a ‘low class hooker’ would not be acceptable? It is this level of autonomy that Sarkar confers on the main character that is the film’s most interesting move. The film opens up a space for the authentic representation of a ‘choice’ or the same for the proper understanding of a social phenomenon. Sarkar does not treat Rani as a victim very much. He treats her as a woman who always makes strong choices in life, some of which are more socially determined than others (this is surely true for anyone in any society), but ultimately are her ‘own’.

But Sarkar goes beyond this. This film is not just an essay in individuality or feminism (though it is certainly both) but also a sharp critique of bourgeois mores and an equally acerbic one of an urban upwardly mobile India that would shut its eyes to any and everything not consonant with its world-view. One of the most interesting characters in the film is the mother played by Jaya Bachchan who goes through enormous grief upon learning that her daughter has been somehow pushed into making this sort of choice because of pressures exerted by the family but who is also willing to along with it beyond a certain point, not by reveling in the economic advantages offered by such a ‘deal’ but by making a miserable compromise with her lot in life. Similarly her husband, Kher, who is unaware of this development till the very end nevertheless castigates himself when the truth is revealed for having been an irresponsible, self-pitying husband and father, and not doing enough to alleviate the family troubles and in fact also calls his wife (in another significant moment) the ‘mother’ and ‘father’ of the family. There have been comparable moments earlier in the film when Kher rues not having a ’son’ and Rani Mukerjee feels the responsibility to become such a ’son’.

When the sister played by Konkona Sen Sharma learns the truth somewhat earlier than her father she, in a surprising move, apologizes to the sister for having been co-responsible with her parents of producing this situation or for never bothering to find out the source of the ‘funds’ because of her satiety in the same.

In a somewhat related way the employer who first propositions Rani Mukerjee sits in his office with a very nice picture of his wife and child facing him. It is obvious that he does this sort of thing rather regularly. He represents a very urbane and genteel kind of yuppie even if he has acted in enormous bad faith. But Rani’s more permanent employer really seems to be a ‘nice guy’ whenever he makes his appearance in the film and Rani shares a somewhat comfortable relationship with him. In fact the film juxtaposes the two characters here. Rani rejects the first ‘yuppie’ precisely because he has cheated her, by changing his mind after he’s made her submit to his will, by offering her money instead of the employment he promises earlier. She rejects him completely and rejects the money that he offers as well. She does not in a way ‘prostitute’ herself to him. She does so in the second instance and onwards where the decision has really been her ‘own’.

In a lighter though significantly parallel scene that connects with the social critique point I am trying to make Kunal Kapoor mocks Konkona Sen Sharma for not being familiar with the ‘modern Indian woman (the photograph of a model is the subject of the discussion). Konkona retorts by showing him a news story where a truly liberated woman hailing from a small town is practising gynecology. The question is this: is the model who represents a global ’stereotype’ of her profession more of a ‘liberated’ and ‘modern’ Indian or is it the example in Konkona’s news story?

Sarkar meanwhile is also alert to the attraction the superbazaars of cinema and pop culture represent for small town residents. A comparable ‘history’ was captured in Bunty aur Babli along more masala lines and here also there are enough windows offered into this ethos. The two sisters are obsessed with Shahrukh Khan’s house! When a film crew lands up at their residence to arrange a filming they are ecstatic.

But the film does not in turn offer stereotypes on either side. Much as there is much that is objectionable in the imagined ‘liberation’ of the new India, much as there are characters that represent the violence of the new dispensation, there is also equivalent violence on the other side. The parents are indicted by the director in the ways already mentioned but a close relative and his son are also nasty customers in this ‘family’ racket, constantly waiting to grab some money, whichever way it comes. The son here eventually starts extorting money from Rani once he learns about her trade on the threat of exposing her in her home town. Again Abhishek is the truly progressive lawyer also operating in the same corporate environment. A friend who keeps helping Rani in the film and who tries to dissuade her from taking up ‘prostitution’ very much represents a ‘new generation’ character. There are other examples either way but in any case there are no easy dichotomies in the film.

Sarkar in the final analysis has made a very progressive work that unfortunately does not match the self-image of many of his audiences. Moreover he also does offer any easy platitudes to the other side either. The film is perfectly placed, not melodramatic in the least, and there are series of wonderful performances here.

One of the greatest strengths of the film is the wonderful visual texture Sarkar gives it. It is hard to think of the last film that so lovingly and authentically conjured up a ‘real’ Indian of the quotidian. Sarkar is really in his element when the film operates in Varanasi but there are some fine Bombay shots here as well. And of course there is that attention to the little detail that is again a thing of the past in most of contemporary Hindi cinema. When was the last time one saw a girl missing a bus in Bombay? And there is fine lighting throughout, again especially in the Varanasi shots.

Does he take some cinematic liberties nonetheless? Yes and this is simply another definition of cinema. The truth being offered here is far greater than any imagined demands of realism. The film offers a powerful social critique twinned with a properly feminist story. Sadly both do not suit the contemporary mood of the purveyors in these matters.

Yashraj have strangely turned rather progressive with this current batch of films and ironically the very system they helped foster is working against them with a film like Laaga Chunari Mein Daag. The recent Chak De India espoused some classic liberal positions that did not disturb multiplex ‘complacency’ in the least. Nonetheless the film was still progressive since an ‘easy liberalism’ is still better than the alternatives! Also the upcoming Aaja Nachle also seems to be targeting the new cultural chauvinism on daily display in many parts of the country and the attempt to ‘police’ both art and entertainment. One must only hope for the success of these films for the project to continue. Chak De India has been a huge success, Laaga Chunari Mein Daag looks to be a total failure, one wishes better things for Aaja Nachle.

(I have polemically reacted against many of the reviewers on this film but I always except fine voices like Baradwaj Rangan or our very own Abzee here, with whom I nevertheless have a difference of opinion, but who also continue to enlighten me irrespective of agreement or disagreement in any context)

There Are 124 Responses So Far. »

Comment by zero on 13 October 2007:

I haven’t watched the film yet, but I’ve to say, I expect(ed) a total stinker here. I’ll get back to your antithetical write-up after I see the film…

But have you seen Arangetram, the K. Balachander film? Without going into the film’s intrinsic merits as a story or film (I don’t think much of the film myself), I must say that film was a seething critique on the bourgeois mores too.
The interesting parallel here is that many “foreign” critics actually consider K. Balachander to have made “morality tales reinforcing middle class conservatism” — I am quoting from the book, Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, when he’s known for doing the exact opposite, usually to the extent of being obsessive, in Tamilnadu!

Comment by jayshah on 13 October 2007:

Thanks for this review Satyam. I must admit I need to read it again to digest it

Comment by satyam on 13 October 2007:

Zero: I did think of a few Balachander films when writing this piece, specially Aval Oru Thodharkathai, which I revisited some months back. Arangetram is certainly as good an example though bolder perhaps with the whole Brahmin angle. Perhaps less conservative in some ways than some other works of his. I should revisit this one too. On that entry in Encylopedia of Indian Cinema (which I have as well if this is the Indiana U publication) I am partially agreed. As I said before in another context I do think that Balachander is fundamentally conservative but nonetheless a social critic. Again Arangetram does the job better than many other films in this context. I’m not sure though if an indictment of Brahmanism might not be his way of ‘protecting’ the castes in the middle! Leaving this aside the critique of middle class mores is always there in Balachander but there is also another move (I am thinking of Avargal) where the alternatives are also radically deconstructed. In any case there is critique but not always an alternative to what’s prevalent. I think that his social critiques in this sense might work better from a perspective of gender politics than the entire class as such.

Comment by satyam on 13 October 2007:

Thanks Jay. I might be watching Bhool Bhulaiya on Sun. I should have seen the Malayalam original here and the Tamil remake and was about to preen my chest on having seen all three versions with BB (when I do see it) but then I learned that there was also either a Kannada or a Telugu remake! In any case I will revisit Chandramukhi which I remember well and Manchitrathazhu which I remember not so well.

In the Malayalam film Mohanlal makes an entrance after about half the film. In the Tamil Rajni is there throughout. Akshay said that his namesake makes his entry 45 min into the film here.

As for the last part belonging to Vidya that’s the way it is with this tale. In the Malayalam version Shobhana was electric in that final dance. Chandramukhi wasn’t as good in this respect but nevertheless a fine moment, specially with the song there (Raa Raa). I’m looking forward to how its done here.

I do find it interesting that this subject has suddenly become one of the most remade ones in Indian film history!

Comment by satyam on 13 October 2007:

Typo there.. I meant to say I ‘have’ seen the Malayalam original not ’should have’.

Comment by satyam on 13 October 2007:

And Zero I’d love to hear your thoughts after you see the film.

Sarkar though was apparently most inspired by the Marathi Doghi. Perhaps Abzee could comment on this.

Comment by zero on 13 October 2007:

Well, I deplore the way K. Balachander usually “opts” to offer his scathing critique on bourgeois mores (it’s nothing short of ’scathing’ in most cases!) by giving a truly wild story, which just refuses to be sensitive to the characters (the protagonist included!), having no regard whatsoever about how real world works and real people work. That is to say, the plot and characters are there so that a critique could be offered.

That said, I definitely disagree with the notion that he’s fundamentally conservative. He’s unabashedly moralistic (another reason why I dislike his films), but his moralising is mostly at complete loggerheads with the conservative. I must also say, there’s nothing sacred to him. He attacked one “holy cow” after another with cold cynicism in his films, showing respect only to the “social-moral.”

About alternatives, he’s someone who made way too many films ovies offering different “resolutions” in different phases of his careers. Often, it’s a wild twist of fate (again, something I hate!) that destroys the “alternative” for the protagonist. Like in Arangetram. But, in Avargal (I think it’s better than Arangetram, yet I have many reservations), I must admit he uses the same loss-of-alternative plot point to demonstrate something somewhat significant. And also, he has offered many alternatives in other films of his — what he considers a “positive ending.” As he said in one of his interviews, for him, “marriage is not the be all and end all.”

Comment by rks on 13 October 2007:

I haven’t seen the movie so won’t comment on later part of post.

I have following problems with the post.
1. 1990’s cinema of KJO, Yashraj could be termed as superficial but not regressive. Like your point in essay that there are different strata in society, and there is a section of soceity which wants to see that type of movie, How does that become regressive? IMO BJP example was bad choice. If looking at poll data, who are the people who didn’t vote for BJP? City people - who benefitted most from shining India. BJP did good in rural areas.

2. “It is therefore a rude shock for the very same to learn that in the heart of their imagined ‘renaissance’ there is still sexism, gender bias, sexual politics, economic exploitation and so forth thriving rather remarkably.”
There is incongruency of views among different strata of society and city people have problem with that but this doesn’t make any one of them more correct.
3. Varanasi is a very hip and happening place :). I have been to places which are 100 times more rural or far from any city style of living.

Comment by zero on 13 October 2007:

If you don’t mind my jumping to the older context here, Bharathiraaja simply lacks the intellect to handle social commentaries. The movie I often pick in this context is the goddawful Pudhumai Penn, where he displays this so amply. I think I’ve asked you about this before, I am not sure if you’ve watched this film now.

The way he represents women liberation in the film is not just ridiculous but also absolutely offensive. Now, this is one film that made me rethink about the worth of Balachander’s women-centric films.

P.S.:- I watched Pudhumai Penn yesterday (not for the first time, of course) on television, and hence the diatribe.

Comment by rks on 13 October 2007:

Satyam: BTW good commentry. If you don’t mind, I suggest you to bring down the level of language a little bit. There would be few people who would be able to understand whole post in one read.

Comment by zero on 13 October 2007:

Re: “I’m not sure though if an indictment of Brahmanism might not be his way of ‘protecting’ the castes in the middle!”

Quite amusing you said that. One of the reasons why indictment of Brahminism (rather overrepresented in Tamil cinema, for obvious reasons) was common in Tamil films is that some progressively thinking Brahmins made such films. Their critique of Brahminism is self-conscious (and self-critical in the communital sense) and hence more pronounced. Balachander is one of the foremost in this respect.
Of course, the Dravidian movement instilled a lot of anti-brahminism and all that, but when it cames to films (excepting films that were penned by the Dravidian party bigwigs), whenever reasonably serious, “non-brahmin” filmmakers (like Bharathiraaja, Bhagyaraj) touched upon brahminism, they were conspicuously soft, often treating brahmins as “the god-fearing, good samaritans who can’t let go off that one bad habit of caste discrimination!”

Anyway, let me not digress further in this post…

Comment by Elvis on 13 October 2007:

Wow Stayam.A radically contrarian view,elegantly put forth.Have yet to see the movie.So cant really comment,dissent or consent.But admire the fact that you avoid the trap of hitting on what is perceived to be a sitting duck.Its always an out to go gaga over a CDI and come down heavy on LCMD.If anyone else attempted what you did,might come across unconvincing.But you have expressed the contrary view point quite forcefully and cogently and would be hard to dismiss offhand.
Suddenly ,am more curious about the movie I was earlier prepared to dismiss.

Comment by Achilles on 13 October 2007:

this just the’progressive’ campaign for LCMD as expected from the abhi fanatic!

Yes JBJ is a cult movie which no one understood … n LCMD is a radically progressive movie!

Amen.

but at the same points its exhilarating to see spineless brainless satyam chelas endorsing such biased stupidity.

Comment by Elvis on 13 October 2007:

Hmmmmm.Why dont you surprise me with a less predictable and if possible (search deep in the recesses of your heart) a touch classy response?.I am sure you are capable of something more than venomous and unprovoked insults.

Comment by rohitkarnbatra on 13 October 2007:

I agree Elvis. I am closing this thread if another smartass remark like that comes (not closing now because of the nature of the other discussions) along.

Comment by Achilles on 13 October 2007:

alrite - but closing the thread wont solve any purpose nor will it be a suitable solution … on the other hand it will restrain members to discuss the ‘radical progressiveness’ of LCMD … that will be unfair on them.

so why not BAN me instead?

Comment by akshay shah on 13 October 2007:

Haven’t seen the movie yet, so cannot comment, but this is a wonderfully insightful post as always Satyam! Passionately written and offers some great food for thought..

A.Shah

Comment by sandy on 14 October 2007:

I haven’t seen Laaga…but appreciate Satyam’s effort here in making a superb case for the film.

Many points are very perceptive here..esp on Rani and the ‘autonomous choices’ she makes from time to time and the lack of guilt about her actions.

Like Elvis says, once reviews come out saying that it is ‘regressive’ ‘hypocritical’ and so on, we tend to keep on bashing the film, without giving it a chance.
Obviously, I can only take a call after I’ve seen it.

Comment by sandy on 14 October 2007:

Hey, but it just occured to me…going by the other reviews, everyone seems to think that Sarkar has offered a mere skeleton of a prostitute’s life and has hardly added any depth or dimension to Rani’s character…
I hope you are not misreading this ’superficial portrayal’ as Rani’s nonchallance about the choices she makes.

Comment by FloydRulez on 14 October 2007:

Great write-up this. Although I haven’t seen the film yet.

On KB, I disagree as usual. He has always been overtly contrived with his representation. On that note, do watch the recent film *ing Parthiban, “Ammuvagiya naan”. Would like to know your thoughts about it. I’m glad Zero made that point about Bharathiraja’s black and white, one-sided take (especially in Pudhumai Penn). Now imagine someone like Mahendran, whose works shows more sensitivity to the darkest of characters who are flawed inherently, especially Vijayan in UP, and his indictment with respect to his misogynistic nature, and the female characters often represent their psyche naturally without cinematic touches. To further digress about feminist films, check out “Veedu”, which is neither apologetic nor sympathetic about the bourgeois woman struggle (not a sex worker but). Somewhere here, IR’s BGM plays a major role. While KB and BR often opt for a heavily apologetic or slanted notes in their films, as against Mahendran or Balu Mahendra.

Comment by zero on 14 October 2007:

FloydRulez,
KB contrives one wild twist after another in his stories, but do you mean to say that he contrived fundamentally conservative endings? (There are instances where one can sense last-minute cop-outs for various reasons, like in Arangetram.) It’s only in the later part of his career, he seems to have overtly opted conservative endings, like in another superdud, Pudhu Pudhu Arthangal.

KB’s films have never been truly feminist, but it’s the unimaginable twists that he puts in his stories so that he can heavy-handedly make a point (which by itself is not that rewarding) that’s even more offending to me.

Bharathiraaja, on the other hand, simply botches up the idea of progressiveness, advocating simplistic morals and at times unwittingly establishing archaic values. Like in Pudhumai Penn, the whole film about women liberation revolves around the “chastity” of its female protagonist. Now, KB won’t make such a film!

Comment by goodfella on 14 October 2007:

Excellent Devil’s Advocate stance here, Satyam. I haven’t seen the film and don’t plan on doing so until the DVD release, (and even then I’m not sure I’ll be in a hurry) but the important thing to glean from your piece is that the film does offer multiple readings and the baggage of bad reviews (however persistent in this case) shouldn’t inform our own individual reading of a given film.

Comment by Elvis on 14 October 2007:

Sandy,
This is one film thats begging for your view point.Do not mean in a sexist way but certainly a female take on this subject would certainly be very welcome.So,lets have your review once you have seen it.Somehow have a feeling you are going to like a touch more than most reviewers.

Comment by Qalandar on 14 October 2007:

Re: “IMO BJP example was bad choice. If looking at poll data, who are the people who didn’t vote for BJP? City people - who benefitted most from shining India. BJP did good in rural areas.”

I am not sure if this is true; I remember reading that urban, educated people were disproportionately likely to vote for the NDA in 2004 than for the UPA, and that there was a correlation between income and support for the NDA.

In general, there have been studies showing that the BJP’s support base tends to be better educated and wealthier than that for (e.g.) the Congress, and certainly than for the BSP or Samajwadi. In fact every major opinion poll predicted an NDA victory in 2004, presumably because their sampling was skewed towards the urban areas, or perhaps certain demographics were overrepresented. In fact it’s fascinating that (as I read in a survey a few years ago) among Indian voters Hindu BJP voters tend to be LESS religious than Hindu Congress or other party voters (Gujarat is an exception to this trend according to that survey, and there is a neater correlation there), which is of course counter to the stereotype.

Aside: one theory is also that the various opinion polls actually hurt the NDA; because (it has been suggested) many voters didn’t bother voting for the NDA because they were confident that the NDA would win anyway). I’m a bit skeptical as to whether this occurred on any large enough scale to make a difference.

Comment by Elvis on 14 October 2007:

2004 election results were a mystery.Not that my heart bleeds for BJP.But it certainly does for Bajpayee whom I respect tremendosuly.

Comment by FloydRulez on 14 October 2007:

Zero,

To further substantiate, Imagine “Sindhu Bhairavi” or “Kalki”, where the male protagonist commits adultery with the so-called feminist caricatures, in Suhasini and Sruthi respectively (so much with KB’s craze for the “S” actresses, Sripriya, Sridevi, Sujatha, Saritha, Srividya). The worst part being carriage of a child, while both the film sounds an apologetic “paavam” note for the wives of the men. As if ‘maternalism’ is mandatory, and the lack of it is a “sin” for women. What the heck? Yes, In a KB style, he makes it up with some regressive standbys like Suhasini and Sruthi and a lame moralistic lesson to the male characters at expense of their chastity, and serenity. In a way, it’s always been the same with Aval oru Thodarkathai, and Manathil Uruthi Vendum. Enough sacrificial, masochistic, and regressive values. I wonder why we call this man a feminist!

BR on the other hand, while advocating simplistic morals, does it in the most melodramatic way which appeared trite and hard to imbue. This is true even with this other social commentaries, “Vedham Pudhithu”, “Alaigal Oivathilai” - films which had boldness but bad execution and approach.

Compared to these two important filmmakers, I far prefer Bhagyaraj! His satirical-meets-sensitivity style is not that offensive.

Comment by FloydRulez on 14 October 2007:

On a more surprising note: “Virumandi” is one of the mysteriously feminist works I have seen from TFI.

Comment by satyam on 14 October 2007:

Thanks for all the comments everyone. I will get back to many of these later as I am in between things at the moment but much to chew on here. Some especially rich analogies by Zero and Floydrules. By the way I haven’t seen that Bharthiraja or that Parthiban film either.

Comment by satyam on 14 October 2007:

Sandy, I agree that it would be especially nice to get your take here. I don’t think I’ve read superficiality as nonchalance. For one I don’t consider it nonchalance and moreoever there’s enough in the film to point to the overall critique that Sarkar engages in. I could accept that perhaps Rani’s role is in some ways a cipher here around which the overall bourgeois critique is constructed. But this also makes my ‘feminist’ point and perhaps in an even stronger way.

Comment by satyam on 14 October 2007:

Rks: Superficiality is another matter altogether but I do find much of Yashraj and Johar regressive in the 90s. I see this cinema as actually passing off a reactionary politics in the guise of the ‘traditional’. But I will comment on this later at length, possibly in a separate post.

Comment by satyam on 14 October 2007:

Elvis: You are as always being especially kind. I promise to go to you if I ever have heart problems! So far it’s just the brain that is diseased!

Comment by satyam on 14 October 2007:

Floydrulez: Another interesting example there with Virumaandi. This Tamil discussion I will really have to get back to later. But I am always grateful for such informed responses. Thanks. And thanks to Zero in turn on this.

Comment by Qalandar on 14 October 2007:

Satyam: Once I heard that abhishek did not have a UJ-level role here, I was about to scrap plans to watch this…but your brilliant piece (how insightful I’ll have to wait to watch the movie before I can comment) has convinced me otherwise. This is one of your most detailed, comprehensive reviews yet, and you appear to marshall a good deal of evidence for your thoughts here. A formidable piece for sure.

In particular these lines stood out:

“The radical move here is precisely not that Rani Mukerjee had no choice but that she did in some ways and most women in her position also do. Rani’s character in the film does not have an overdetermined fate in this context. Sarkar knows this and therefore in the climactic moments of the film there is really no apologia from the female protagonist. She has through the course of the film suffered remarkable pain but she has not really considered herself a victim. She defends her choice as a ‘necessary’ one in some ways but refuses to ‘justify’ it.”

Based on this reading, Laga Chunari Mein Daagh might have the most unique take on prostitution in Hindi popular cinema.

Comment by sandy on 14 October 2007:

“2004 election results were a mystery.Not that my heart bleeds for BJP.”

The way i saw it, the mandate was clearly divided and there really wasn’t much to choose betwen Congress or BJP, except for the fact that the latter alienated all their coilision members under the misplaced belief that they would win with a thumping majority on their own. Sonia and Congress, on the other hand, treaded with caution, added on valuable allies and even patched up with difficult yet potential victors like Jaya Lalita and Mayawati.

The ‘India shining’ campaign was probably the least important cause of their defeat in my view.

Elvis: I’m willing to see Laaga… if Saytam offers to pay.

Comment by Qalandar on 14 October 2007:

I would agree that Shining India campaign didn’t cause much, but given that people in rural areas tended slightly in favor of UPA, and that people with lower incomes tended more than slightly toward UPA, it’s possible that the “Shining India” campaign struck segments of the electorate as in poor taste, or as demonstrating the extent to which the government was out of touch with the people (I don’t conclude that this was or was not a fair view, merely that it might well have been a widely held one)…

Comment by FloydRulez on 14 October 2007:

Satyam,

Sure bro. Also not to sound totally against KB, he is effective at times. “Nizhal nijamaagiradu” is one film which I have a weakness for. (it *s another set of “S” actresses, Shoba, one of the rarest of natural talents, and Sumithra )

On “Virumandi”, I am sure it needs a more informed write-up. I will just state what I infer a little later.

Comment by jeegs on 14 October 2007:

on the 2004 election BJP and Congress nearly got same seats but it was actually Wrong selection of parties in individual states .

Nda had AIDMK which was facing anti-incumbency in TN while TDP was facing IT in Andhra pradesh .

LEft was given votes against congress in kerala and West bengal but then they joined them .

Again Vajpayee wearing a green paghdi didnt go down well with gujaratis and they got only 12 out of 21 seats.

Comment by Qalandar on 14 October 2007:

Vajpayee wearing a green pagdi was silly; BJP didn’t get any more votes from Muslims, despite having all manner of clerics on stage with Vajpayee, and probably alienated some in the core constituency for the party. In fact I know some Muslim Indians who were quite offended by Vajpayee continually stressing to Muslim audiences that he had improved relations with Pakistan (the implication being that somehow Muslim Indian = Pakistani, etc. etc.), because it confirmed their view that even when it’s trying to be nice the BJP isn’t that accepting of Muslim Indians

That election campaign seemed to have been run and managed by chumps with marketing degrees and laptops rather than people who knew a darn thing about Indian politics.

Remember, in the end the Congress and BJP ended up with same # of seats, but that only shows how lame the Congress is: all the pre-election media polls were showing a big big increase for the BJP’s seats as compared to the last parliament…

Comment by jeegs on 14 October 2007:

yeah Actually the opinion polls made NDA complacent and they were not agreesive in Campaign.

Comment by FloydRulez on 14 October 2007:

Virumandi has its own sense/purpose of feminism, and specifically nihilism of ‘marriage’. The latter is not noted, the film has every single pair breaking up. And, the relationships gives out the stronger purpose of women. Let’s dissect with conclusive evidences/examples. First, Virumandi/Sandiyar who is basically guarded by his ‘Appatha’, and after her demise, he is once again helpless good-for-nothing boor. Then comes Annalaktchumi to his life, who becomes the ‘fulcrum’. In fact, her death results in the whole fiasco, and ends the knavish plans of Kothala thevar(let’s shortly refer as KT) played by Pasupathy, also her death results in the end of the relationship with Sandiyar and the shockingly short one arranged by KT with kottachaamy(KT’s hand), who ties the knot - the pointlessness here is with his death in Sandiyar’s hands due to Annalaktchumi’s death - This is more mythological in character. The grotesque imagery of hanging herself with Sorimuthu ‘the bull’, which is again nurtured by Annalaktchumi. This triggers Sandiyar to massacre almost everyone. Especially kottachamy (technically a short time ‘widower’ by the customs). Also to note that KT is an epitome of evil, his wife however is more responsible, and a typical village woman. She has concern for the kids education when KT refuses to send ‘em to school. Also in a flash of brilliance, we see KT’s mirror image along with his family in the other side of the window, the rods appear as if they are bound by forces. Consequently, we see Annalaktchumi in rage, she drops a water pot on Virumandi, and picks up a fight. Then Virumandi catches her throat, and chokes her like a boor he is. And, when Kottachaamy lies, he chases him and forces him to choke out the truth. He even leaves a cut in the forehead, a mark in line with thala vidhi that represents fate - this also signifies the men who work under KT, who all are to face the violent death in the end (in a “Ran” like battle which is a more bloody and royal family feud ever captured on canvass) In this very sequence, we see the ‘real’ VIrumandi on one half and the other half with the mirror imagery of a lawyer and police (who are both corrupt officials, again the reflection plays a part here) Then Kothalathevar who is behind ‘em eventually shows his reflected face representing the ‘false’ image, while the truth is behind the rods with Virumandi/Sandiyar’s own image. Check it out,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1rExTCRneI

Then comes the kondaraasu, the panchayat guy. Who is again killed in the scheme of things (courtesy: Kothalathevar) But his wife survives, but unfortunately looses her sanity. Another relationship/marriage which ends. Note that the woman lives.

Then Nallama Naicker has his Bedhamma in his mother. She even comes to the panchayat with the veechu aruval and warns to cut off the head of those who oppose/disrespect her son. Of course, I haven’t been in a panchayat, but this is in line with the hard willed village woman I have often heard of, through anecdotes from different parts of TN. She’s almost like the Appatha to Naicker. While Appatha slaps Virumandi and treats him like a kid. Of course, Naicker being more shrewd, is treated with more respect by his mother. Moreover, the Naickers behavior and the telugu here matches the ‘mix’ of taminess to right proportions. When Virumandi is under refuge in Naicker’s house. With Evuriya? followed by Okkuti ledhu. And one has to look at her ingenious trick to send the cops (headed by Peykaman) away, while Virumandi escapes. This also shows the clever Woman. Again, the Naicker’s death in the end means another end of marriage. His wife lives..

One should notice that no women/lady here is killed by the men, except for Appatha with a natural death and Annalaktchumi(who is no pushover) takes her life voluntarily, and triggers the whole mishap, which enforces the power/importance of ‘woman’ in a truly epic way. Again, the domestic violence that we witness is shocking. With KT kicking Annalaktchumi (and Virumandi who also abuses her), her death results in a lesson learnt to these men in a befitting way. Not to forget the reporter Rohini, who is again a widow because her father killed her husband, who is hanged. She lives. Note that Rohini, Kondaraasu’s wife, KT’s wife, Bedhaama, Naicker’s wife - all of ‘em end up as widows. All of ‘em survive in the long feud. All of ‘em have a powerful significance. Even in the end, Rohini is the last one to speak, and her co-worker is dead. Further testifying Kamal’s implication. Another being Gandhimathi’s character whose husband has left her, she leads a single life. She is the only ‘true’ witness in the case. All this and more visual cues often stakes a claim. Especially the “Vasantha maligai” poster/mention, Virumandi and Annalaktchumi leave from Gandhmimathi’s shop (also note that a similar character comes in “Thevar magan”, which is also played by Gandhimathi in an older age, where she is again dead, in all probability it could be her character) “Vasantha maligai” is a film on one of the tragic fall of a relationship on celluloid. It’s iconic so to speak of. Hence, the nihilism or pointlessness of a marriage is one of the mysterious implications that Kamal cleverly spins and twines. A masterpiece in my reading..

Comment by FloydRulez on 14 October 2007:

Damn, I didn’t close the tag after “veechu aruval”. I wish I could edit it..

Comment by Tuenkens on 14 October 2007:

Congress won many seats because of its intelligent choice of candidates. BJP paid for the sins of its partners in Maharashtra, AP, TN, and its own follies in Gujarat and UP. And how can we discount the hugely successful contact rallies by Sonia Gandhi. Also, I think Sonia Gandhi does not get much credit for the incredible work she has done in reviving the Congress from the pit it was in during the Sitaram Kesri days. And yes BJP’s over aggressiveness on Sonia’s nationality, or ex-nationality, didn’t help matters either. This is another example of the point made out by satyam where we get swayed by the views of a selected urban population, which may not necessarily be the the majority view.

Coming to this review, I think YRF should indeed get this widely published. I am sure they will get a lot many people interested. I had decided to give this movie a skip, but now I am very interested.

Comment by satyam on 14 October 2007:

Again some superb comments here. I will get back to these in good time.

I am only going to say for now that the pressure’s on me as at least two people here seem to have changed their minds somewhat about the film! Guys, I am offering a refund if you don’t like the film. Sincerely!

Comment by satyam on 14 October 2007:

Sandy: I’ll pay for your ticket! I’ll pay for another viewing of CDI too if you’re interested! You have only to ask!

Comment by Rocky on 14 October 2007:

I’ll pay for another viewing of CDI too
ya, not much outflow there, as it is Tax Free !!!!LOL

Comment by Rocky on 14 October 2007:

BJPlost mainly because RSS and the majority of its Karyakartas had pulled their hands away from BJP, as the BJP leaders(speciallysecond tier leaders like mahajan ) were so drunk in power thatthey had little time for these aam karyakartas.
I know for a fact that at many place they did not even come to check names in the voter lists which these people never used to fail to do in previous elections.
These things are not covered by the media and these made up excuses, which ofcourse thes BJP leader will not deny.
Remember how Karl Rove knew that the key to win election is to get the voters out and that can only be done by dedicated Volunteeers.

Comment by Rocky on 14 October 2007:

Congress and the left won the elections kind of like the way Bush stole the election from Gore.
Aaaj kee taarikh mein, all the infrastructure projects are totally stalled, Babu raj is back on etc.

lage raho Commie bhai….

Comment by Rocky on 14 October 2007:

Satyam, the movie foe whatever agena it has, if at the end of day is not able to enetertain the people, it will not run and it is not right to then blame the faliure on the people.

I can see Jaya, Rani , Kher and Konkana crying their guts out in the movie and making it a Crying Fest.
kaun Idd ke mubarak mauke par yeh dekhna chayega???

got to go, bahut daaant pad rahi hai, peeche se.
Good night!!

Comment by Qalandar on 14 October 2007:

Re: “These things are not covered by the media and these made up excuses…”

Rocky: which excuses are you referring to here?

btw, you raise a good point about the RSS’ lack of enthusiasm and the fact that the BJP vote-base was not energized; I agree with that as one of the contributing factors.

Comment by rks on 14 October 2007:

Q: Reasons for NDA defeat could be anything (IMO over estimation), But I am very sure when analysis was done BJP did better in rural areas than metros (which was suppose to get maximum benefit of development done during their regime).

I am busy currently but I will try to pull some articles.

Comment by rks on 14 October 2007:

Indian psephologists are never correct.

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

FloydRulez,
Oh, I most definitely concur with you about Balachander’s pseudo-feminism. My question to you was whether you disagree with the reading of Balachander films as “morality tales reinforcing middle class conservatism,” since you mentioned in your first comment that you disagree with Satyam (on Balachander)…

Interestingly, in one of his interviews last year (with who else but Baradwaj!) said some things that surprised me. One, being someone who restlessly criticize Balachander’s pseudo-feminism myself, I was surprised to hear him say that it was a matter of convenience that he made heroine-oriented subjects!
Two, how frankly he admits that he likes to shock his audience. To me, that’s what he does in his films. Just shock the audience by challenging their bourgeois mores etc.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

Zero,

Yes, he reinstates such conservative values. Especially with his clever and deft approach with one instinctive twist after another, he swayed around with similar concepts for the most part (with different permutations). Of course, there were exceptions. In any case, his films were much different to his peers. And, thanks for the interview. As one would expect of Baradwaj, just brilliant! And, I liked the fact that Baradway calls it ‘women-centric’ films and not the generic ‘feminist’ label that gets attached to KB efforts.

Also,
check this out Looking forward to your thoughts. I generally carried a misconception about feminism in Kamal films, but I get thoughts about his older films too, “Alavandhaan”, and “Hey! Ram”. When rants about ‘misogynistic’ approach surfaced, I thought he was way too smart for it. More about that later…

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

FloydRulez,
Well, I won’t go as far to say he reinstates conservative values at all. Which is why I disagreed with Satyam that his films were fundamentally conservative. In fact, he singlehandedly turned non-conservative stories into a full-blown formula in Tamil films resulting in innumerable number of tedious and tiresome films (many of which were his own!).
I’ve absolutely no fondness for his non-conservative premises or endings, but showing women walk out of marriages (in multiple films), a conservative brahmin girl becoming a prostitute or an upper-class brahmin guy becoming a barber to suit his needs are certainly not out of trying to be conservative! As far as the endings of the films go, there were as many positively alternative endings as the no-way-out, coldly cynical endings (and even in the latter, he stages it as an ultimate tragedy!).

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

And, yes, I also loved the way Baradway called them “women-centric films” in that interview. In fact, when I referred to KB’s films as “women-centric films” earlier in this thread, I was adopting his usage (as I was revisiting the interview, then). Otherwise, I generally refer to them as pseudo-feminist films. Now, I’ve to correct myself, not only because it’s less jeering, but also because I doubt if KB even intended it to be feminist.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

When I said ‘reinstate’, I meant about the promise of progressive values in KB’s films, but in entirety, he sticks onto ‘conservative’ values at the end of the day, often in an offensive unattractive way…

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

Zero,

I used to be a KB fan not so long ago. But in time, as I revisit his films, and dissect ‘em, it’s problematic and repulsive with hackneyed themes. Of all his social commentaries, I liked “Varumayin niram sivappu”, and “Nizhal nijamaagiradu” for different reasons. And, his comedies were much better, I wish he sticked to that. Even his dramatic works with Nagesh were comparatively digestible. The later efforts like “Punnagai mannan”, “Duet”, “Unnal mudiyum thambi” were disappointing. I couldn’t sit through “Parathale…”, just hated the first hour or so.

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

FloydRulez,
If you’re saying that his films were not bold enough to offer a plausible, sensitive and intellectually stimulating “resolution,” I completely agree. I don’t think much of his intellect or deftness in handling the issues he apparently did. And, as I’ve note before, the twists of fate he comes up to screw up their lives are so very offensive.

His stories have mostly been about various twists of fate in his protagonist’s life so that the protagonist is in a total fix, and show how he/she comes out of that and there’s a resolution or no resolution at the end. But, when there’s no resolution, it’s not subversive at all (as in establishing conservative values), he unreservedly rebukes at the society for not letting him/her/them live!

Outside premises and resolutions, there are non-conservative bits thrown all over his films (in very much a showoff-ish manner!). No director of even today’s generation talks freely about premarital sex, extramarital sex as he did (so much that he’s widely called a pervert for this). There are many conservative archetypes that he dismissed — barrage of single women in his films, men and women in multiple relationships.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

“His stories have mostly been about various twists of fate in his protagonist’s life so that the protagonist is in a total fix, and show how he/she comes out of that and there’s a resolution or no resolution at the end. But, when there’s no resolution, it’s not subversive at all (as in establishing conservative values), he unreservedly rebukes at the society for not letting him/her/them live!”

This is true, this is where even his superior works like “Varumayin niram sivappu” fails.

“Outside premises and resolutions, there are non-conservative bits thrown all over his films (in very much a showoff-ish manner!). No director of even today’s generation talks freely about premarital sex, extramarital sex as he did (so much that he’s widely called a pervert for this). There are many conservative archetypes that he dismissed — barrage of single women in his films, men and women in multiple relationships.”

Yes, Agreed. But almost always, these characters were to live a sacrificial life, and the masochism/regressive stance in the end would always be too hard to take. And there’s a theory that such a stance is more ‘progressive’, which is not convincing at all.

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

Well, FloydRulez, I’ve been a KB-basher all my life! The exaggerated premises (exaggerated is an understatement!), stagey framing, over-the-top dialogue etc.
That said, his comedies have been mostly refreshing though (not just the verbal humour, but the biting wit and sarcasm). The intelligence and irreverence that runs through in his films (even if in a showoff-ish manner) are the elements that make some of his films watchable (to varying degrees). This is probably the only reason why I prefer him to Bharathiraaja.

And, I noticed your point about Bhagyaraj. Completely agree. It’s often unnoticed, I’ve always found his female characters to be so refreshing and real. I consider him much superior to his mentor Bharathiraaja, and his sensitivity towards the characters far precede his concern for ideological stances. It’s only when he also succumbed to message-delivery system, he made really poor films.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

The single-biggest drawback is his unabashed ‘judgmental’ take, which is enough to write him off.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

Bhagyaraj doesn’t take himself seriously like KB does. He has this satrical spoofy romance/commentary at times like in “Suvar illada chithirangal” or even “Anda 7 natkal”, with a strong penchant for values/thinking of the lower bro, and he often explores their psyche perfectly, without any preponed pretensions. The purity in such efforts were likable..

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

Re: “Yes, Agreed. But almost always, these characters were to live a sacrificial life, and the masochism/regressive stance in the end would always be too hard to take.”

FloydRulez,
It’s masochistic for sure, but I am not sure why one would call it regressive. In fact, these people in his films could have been made to live a normal life (in which case, their nobleness won’t be as pronounced), but KB wants to give them a halo and make them gods. In fact, his films are most offensive to the everyman to whom he moralises with his stories and takes a holier-than-thou stance towards the end.

Re: “And there’s a theory that such a stance is more ‘progressive’, which is not convincing at all.”

Well, well, what can I say? Insensivity and extreme indulgence aside, it’s only laughable. On that note, this extreme indulgence in poor taste is not restricted to his socially conscious films. Even in Punnagai Mannan, he kills the couple just for the heck of it! (Also, I am reminded of Kaakha Kaakha ending here where Jyothika is killed so that Surya could look like a martyr!)

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

The usual soft stance towards KB is that he wearied off and made terrible films in the later part of his career. But, leave aside post-Sindhu Bhairavi or anything, I find him extremely problematic even in what’s usually thought of as his golden age, the ’70s.
One can see he had a wide range of influences from Ghatak to Hrishikesh Mukherjee, from Thi. Janakiraman to Jayakanthan, but he almost always made infinitely inferior films.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

” a holier-than-thou stance ”

Oh, couldn’t term that better. But it also comes with ‘regressive’ stance in the way some of his characters end up. Like Sulakshana back with Sivakumar, Sithara back with her spouse, Geetha back with Raghuman, etc - Although ‘masochism’ is more like it, with the way majority of his characters operate.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

“Thi. Janakiraman to Jayakanthan”

Oh, I need to read their stuff. I’m sure you could give us a pointer, your favorites please

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

I wonder why Kamal regards KB as high as he does. Even Mani for that matter. These two filmmakers have single-handedly changed the way the films should be made.

As an aside: What do you think of “Marupadiyum”?
It’s a decent work. Quintessential Balu Mahendra..

Comment by beldevere on 15 October 2007:

floyd/zero - great discussion. never looked at the finer points as you guys have but as i read your stuff - i said ‘i agree’ many times over

on KB isnt it true that in the last decade or so - he has shifted his focus to the tv audiences. i think he has made some enormously successful tv serials and i know that my parents generation is hooked onto these serials like anything. i personally havent watched any of them - but from what i hear there are lot of woman centric themes there - regressive or not - i wouldnt know

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

FloydRulez,
As I had noted earlier, Pudhu Pudhu Arthangal is more of an exception or a later development (is that why he calls it a “new[er] meaning” considering how boringly self-referential he is?), to be fair to the gentleman. Even here, you can see that he cares zilch about the passing extramarital affair when they reunite. But, about Sulakshana, would it not be so out-of-place if she walks out of the marriage? Hasn’t KB given enough of fantasy endings already?

Anyway, it’s ironic that I am at the end of defending KB, somewhere I’ve never been before. Of course, the point of discussion is not significant to his prestige, because, to my mind, conservatism or not, most of his films were terrible.

I’m no expert in Tamil literature, but I thought his creation of bold new woman owes to some literary works of his times (there are some literary references too in his films). works of Jayakanthan (Sila Nerangalil Sila Manidhargal which Jeyakanthan adapted to screen so brilliantly to create a masterpiece, has the woman-left-to-herself sort of denouement) and Thi. Janakiraman (the central protagonist of his Marappasu chooses to become a “naattiyakkaari” so that she can live her life the way she wants to). In spite of the inspirations, the undercurrents that there are to these works are to found nowhere in KB’s works.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

Beldevere,

True. In fact, that did a lot of good to soap operas (with his radical themes offering a change of feel) and KB himself (the ability to sell himself to women directly). Especially his “kai alavu manasu” is a cult hit. I haven’t seen it. But from what I hear, it’s a typical KB fare.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

Thanks man. Meanwhile, I googled and here I am.

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

Beldevere,
True. I’ve heard KB fans lament about how his serials are not a patch on his films. But, I haven’t watched any of them.

One of the earliest serials from KB that I remember watching in the early 90s is Rayil Sneham. I don’t remember anything except that it was about two strangers, a widower and a rape-victim(?), who happen to share the same house, eventually fall in love without a marriage.

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

On Kamal regarding KB highly, I think it’s primarily guru-sishyan equation. That said, I think Kamal learnt quite a few things from KB (his praise seems earnest to me), but he was shrewd enough to take them and reshape them the way he sees fit. That is to say, may be, Kamal does owe quite a bit to his mentor apart from the perspective of lineage. Interestingly, Bharathiraaja to my mind, in spite of being influenced by the new wave realism of Malayalam, Kannada and Bengali films, imbibed all the bad things of Balachander, like the tedious symbolisms and exaggerated aesthetics.

I clearly remember one interview in The Hindu in which he was asked why some great directors like Balachander and Bharathiraaja didn’t age well. He said something to this effect: I don’t know. I don’t understand it. My favourite director Kurosawa didn’t age. Why, our own Mani Ratnam never aged. The second part is a treasured moment for me for two reasons: one, to have heard Kamal give a great compliment to his peer, Mani Ratnam. Two, that has always been my point about why Mani Ratnam is a great director, and his predecessors — leave aside KB and BR, even Mahendran — weren’t as much.)

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

I could understand why Mani regards Mahendran that high, but Kamal has not much in common with his predecessors. I assume they helped in avoiding the bad things.

No doubt that both Mani and Kamal have highest of regards for each other. I remember the Anbudan program, when Mani said that he envies Kamal for having an added advantage (he labels it ‘unfair’), that was a moment to be treasured and cherished as well. I love the fact that both their styles varies as much as Ray and Ghatak in parallel cinema(not to forget the rapport the pair share)!

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

“the tedious symbolisms”

The rose-touching-rose? Or the flock of birds in the air? Or what?

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

Yes, Mahendran is a truly worthy predecessor to Mani. Kamal is a one-off for all practical purposes.

And, of course, I thought of mentioning about Mani talking about Kamal’s “unfair advantage” in Anbudan TV show, but then I didn’t want to sound like a senile old man talking about the same things over and over again (as if I’ve not been doing that), as I had referred to it some days ago in one of those Kamal threads!

Balu Mahendra would have also been right up there in my books if he had made more films in his comfort zone. His Veedu and Sandhya Raagam are masterpieces, but he didn’t make many original films at all. Marupadiyum was a really good film, as were were Moondram Pirai and Sathi Leelavathi. It shows a real woman and how she walks out. (Archana and Pasi Sathya of Veedu were also strong women characters who live strongly, with the system and not deriding it all the time.) But, again, Marupadiyum was a remake of Mahesh Bhatt’s sensitive Arth.

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

Yeah, a flock of birds and sea becoming standstill (rather likable; spoofed with fondness in Chennai 600028!), a maangottai (mango seed) becoming a mango plant, surreal sequences in which objects of interest fly are thrown high in air (spoofed in Mozhi) and what not. It can also be unwittingly vulgar sometimes like intercutting a man splitting open a tender coconut with another man trying to advance towards a woman.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

I love “Veedu” (Even that wasn’t original?) It’s a simple narrative but with a strong undercurrent of bourgeois struggle and the realism of real estate (which is true even today). Haven’t seen “Sandhiya Raagam”, I assume it featured Bhagavathar again. Can’t forget his turn in “Veedu” with his morning chores of carnatic songs, and his walk. And the immense joy of a kid in the newly constructed house! And, I haven’t seen “Pasi”, and I wonder what happened to the director, Durai, he made “Kadhal sadugudu” for christ’s sake! Another film that Rangan mentions in one his articles, C.N. Annadurai’s “Velaikkaari” is a film that I couldn’t track with much success. DVDs/VCDs/tapes you name it!

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

Veedu has to be an original film, I’ll be damned if it isn’t. But, anyway, it’s such a simple story and it’s the treatment that mattered. Chokkalinga Bhagavathar gave two of the greatest performances in Tamil cinema in these two twin-films. Yes, the How To Name It? sequence in Veedu is so beautiful. So are many other sequences — the one where he talks to Banuchander about Archana. Not to mention that he’s the lead protagonist in Sandhya Raagam. One just has to see what Balu Mahendra does with the actor, and how beautifully a simple frame, a close-up of a man’s face could be rendered…

The Durai (Oli Pirandhadhu, Thunai) who made Pasi in is not the Durai (Mugavari, Thotti Jaya) who made Kaadhal Sadugudu!

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

“The Durai (Oli Pirandhadhu, Thunai) who made Pasi in is not the Durai (Mugavari, Thotti Jaya) who made Kaadhal Sadugudu!”

uh-Oh, I was wondering how it could be the same guy from what I heard of “Pasi”. BTW have you seen Pasi Durai’s works? Any idea on where I could get ‘em?

Yes, “Veedu” has the maestro composing the best BGM in TFI (and that’s no exaggeration). Also features Balu Mahendra’s style of using music in place of some dialogues (I mean, they are muted). (which Mani follows in “Iruvar” most notably) The first “How to name it?” sequence was followed by some other WCM fusion track with Archana and co. searching for a suitable and affordable rental place. Or is it played during the rainy phase of construction? That was special from what I remember!

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

Not that Durai didn’t make mediocre films. He made a lot of films (Neeya is also his film, I think), of which I’ve seen a few like Oli Pirandhadhu, Thunai etc., mostly caught on television. I’ve a VCD copy of Pasi, which should be his best film and has the most authentic portrayal of Chennai slums; it’s a good film, but no great shakes. Shobha’s performance is brilliant though.

Durai’s IMDB profile.

Comment by goodfella on 15 October 2007:

If Veedu isn’t an original film, I would be deeply upset (my favorite Tamil movie outside of Iruvar, as I’ve said before) and would be even more interested to see the source material that it’s purportedly based on.

This is a fantastic discussion, btw. I agree on “How to Name it” which is such a wrenching, beautiful little sequence in a film full of these moments. Nice dialog, Floyd and Zero.

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

This is a remarkably rich and enlightening exchange between Zero and Floydrulez. Also an interesting political discussion embedded here in the thread. Too late in the day for me to comment at length on either one but I will just extract some earlier (and relevant) comments on Balachander and Bharthiraja:

“Zero: I never disagreed with the statement on Rathnam. Can’t remember what ‘context’ I was surprised in because I have always believed this. In fact someone once suggested this to me (and I agree) that Rathnam is possibly the most influential director in Indian film annals (commercial). No other single director is as responsible for changing the course of an entire industry as Rathnam is.

Leaving this aside I think you underrate Bharthirahja. Many aspects of contemporary Tamil cinema also bear his mark (Paruthiveeran is itself one!). I remember that moment in Parthiban Kanavu when in a discussion of their favorite directors the conservative Sneha chooses Bharthiraj and Srikanth but of course opts for Rathnam. This has been the central split of Tamil cinema over the past two decades. Rathnam has totally redefined everything but since the 90s Bharthiraja (in an industry less sustained by the Rajni/Kamal duo) has also made a comeback and I would argue that many films from Autograph to Paruthiveeran reveal his trace.

Also unlike Balachander he was politically far more interesting. The former never made more than (for the most part) bourgeois institutional tear jerkers with some films pf political protest thrown in (where again it was the same bourgeois set of values that was priviliged in a different way). Bharthiraja though did more than anyone else to give a voice to the lumpen masses in an urban sense or their equivalent on the rural scene. To put it another way the authentic ‘non-sanitized’, ‘non-urban/normative’ Tamilian shows up in his films for the first time. Before this there was the urban gentrified hero playing the villager or the urban ‘proletariat’ or what have you.

This was also true in Hindi cinema. But Hindi cinema never quite indulged in this enormous change. For one the non-urban has never been authentically represented in this tradition. Today it’s even worse than it was was in masala cinema because you have the ‘heart of darkness’ representations of Bihar and UP revealing how ideologically overdetermined this move is. On the other hand the urban other is usually the ethnic Marathi! This latter representation is much different from the former of course as the ethnic Marathi can be read far more positively, for all the obvious reasons.

In any case things are different in Tamil cinema where even in very commercial films we see characters ‘coded’ by way of dialect et al. Not that there isn’t stereotyping here but far more of the ‘pie’ is nonetheless authentically represented than would otherwise be the case. I can’t remember the study where the author stated that in Tamil cinema ’standard’ Tamil is what the central characters represent while ‘non-standard dialects’ are what the other, often ‘low’ characters do. I don’t believe this is as true in today’s scene where post-Bharthiraja a lot of the central characters fall exactly in the second set and in fact the whole equation gets reversed.

Again where Rathnam comes in is that he gives anyone operating in Bharthiraja’s wake today his aesthetic legacy. And this has been the only tenable one, as can again be seen in Paruthiveeran. Not that everyone is specifically shooting films like Rathnam but that everyone is using a visual film grammar that owes everything to Rathnam’s revolution.

By the way this is also true for Hindi cinema which first started noticing and borrowing from Tamil cinema towards the late 80s, post Nayagan I would say (the most influential Tamil film even in this regard and perhaps what we see today in Tamil cinema with the Bharthiraj legacy is also the Nayagan inflection at every turn). Can one imagine RGV in Telugu without Rathnam and consequently RGV in Hindi? so on and so forth.

Rathnam is the seminal figure but Bharthiraja is nonetheless crucial. Rathnam himself has said that he’s learnt from the older director (this is obvious in Idhaya Kovil or Pagal Nilavu). He’s talked about Balachander too but I honestly cannot see any Balachander in Rathnam (mouna Ragam is far far from Balachander!), an idea that Suhasini once confirmed by implying (weirdly) that Rathnam did not have Balachander’s sense of character or his understanding of human psychology.”

“true Zero. Even in Mouna Raagam he gives a lot more to the ‘woman’ here than would normally be the case in this kind of story, in both Tamil and Hindi cinema. Revathy’s character is allowed her entire space and isn’t just a ‘brat’ the way her counterparts always inevitably were in such situations elsewhere in commercial cinema.

Suhasini once commented (incidentally I disagree with most of her judgments) that Balachander was more of a woman’s director than Rathnam. I don’t believe that’s right and there is evidence to the contrary throughout Rathnam’s career. In any case Balachander’s ’strong women’ nonetheless worked within the acceptable bourgeois boundaries, the director was a sociologist sympathizing with these characters in many ways but he wasn’t necessarily questioning the entire social fabric (this kind of more revolutionary move is evident in his work only when he’s dealing with male protagonists).

Rathnam on the other hand truly creates ’strong’ women who often subvert the male characters of his films in important ways. I see evidence of this just about everywhere and most recently in Guru where Ash’s nuanced character hasn’t eben much commented on.”

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

Satyam,
You really have to see Pudhumai Penn to see how regressive Bharathiraaja gets in handling the theme of women empowerment. As I said earlier in this thread, it is one film that made me rethink about the worth of Balachander’s women-centric films, whatever there is in them…

Even in his other films like Vedham Pudhidhu and Alaigal Oyvadhillai which are better than Pudhumai Penn, his treatment is way too simplistic to say the least.

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

“I clearly remember one interview in The Hindu in which he was asked why some great directors like Balachander and Bharathiraaja didn’t age well. He said something to this effect: I don’t know. I don’t understand it. My favourite director Kurosawa didn’t age. Why, our own Mani Ratnam never aged. The second part is a treasured moment for me for two reasons: one, to have heard Kamal give a great compliment to his peer, Mani Ratnam. Two, that has always been my point about why Mani Ratnam is a great director, and his predecessors — leave aside KB and BR, even Mahendran — weren’t as much.”

I can possibly agree that those earlier two directors have aged in many ways. But the answer is again Rathnam who in my view renders all of prior Tamil cinema ‘obsolete’ for current sensibilities. I do believe though that much as Mouna Raagam is deservedly a classic it also seems a bit dated at present. It isn’t as obvious today that this was once in many ways a radical film with respect to Tamil film traditions. A Nayagan does not have this problem let alone Rathnam’s later films. Of course we are also in the orbit of his 90s work but I think that one key difference here is that the earlier work seemed more revolutionary when juxtaposed with genre norms in earlier Tamil cinema. Later on though Rathnam moved away from this ‘historical’ burden in his ‘mature’ work (for better or worse). I think the classic example here is Iruvar, a film which seems to be seeped in Tamil political history and pop culture and so on . It seems to be ultimate ode to the language, the greatest homage to the cinematic history, and yet this film is not really about the ‘film tradition’ the way films like Mouna Raagam and Agni Nathchathiram are.

To put it another way Rathnam’s earlier films (with the grand exception of Nayagan) are often about the ‘represented’ Tamil tradition and are subversive exactly to this degree. The later films however are about his own more original readings where he is not simply content to be a ‘commentator’. The most precise analogy here is perhaps the one Alaipayuthey offers with Mouna Raagam. The former is great to the extent that one can conjure up the tradition in one’s mind. Otherwise it is a fine film that appears a bit dated after everything that has followed. Alaipayuthey on the other hand ‘updates’ Mouna Raagam for sure but is far more occupied with a sparkling verbal flair and ironic handling of the characters to create the ’subversion’. This film to my mind stands much better on its own. The love story here requires less of a dependence on cultural acclimatization (certainly in the cinematic sense) and is really a kind of Shakespearean effort where a love story is often also a linguistic comedy. Of course Rathnam spoils things at the end in some ways with a more trite plot development but that’s a different matter.

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

On a final note, here is 3-part (1, 2, 3) take on Balachander that I stumbled upon some months ago. The author’s reading of his films is spot-on, and I agree with almost everything there; except on the merit of these films (!) and the appropriateness of the severe criticism on a humanistic basis (which I find most appropriate for KB’s films). He makes many valid points like how his films are designed with the sole idea of offering social commentaries etc.

Sidenote:- Even before stumbling upon this post, I’ve passingly read about the critique that Balachander’s films are “morality tales reinforcing middle-class conservatism,” in some books on Indian films, but it’s this post from where I picked the reference when I noted about the Balachander parallel in relation to LCMD.

Comment by zero on 15 October 2007:

Satyam,
Just as a clarification, it’s Kamal Haasan who said in response that when asked about how these directors aged. (And, even he said that he doesn’t understand the notion!) I don’t think I will be able to draw even a reasonably clear line where those two directors started degenerating. My point was rather that Mani Ratnam didn’t come close to facing this kind of remark (from any quarters) over two decades now.

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

Zero: I don’t disagree that I often do have similar problems with Bharthiraja as well and Alaigal Oyivadhilai isn’t a bad example in this context. But I think that it is sometimes hard for us who are naturally ‘post-Rathnam’ to appreciate how much those earlier directors were subverting things within the tradition they received. Which is why I do give Balachander credit for many of his moves but my criticism here, if you will, is a more meta one — that the social frame itself remains intact. But in the best films of Rathnam or Kamal this is not the case.

Leaving aside Balachander and Bharthiraja let’s take the example of the much cherished Moondram Pirai. I have a great weakness for this film but the representation of the female here is nonetheless problematic. ‘Woman’ here exerts attraction either as the ‘childlike’ Sridevi or the woman who is really a girl to whom Kamal is then both father and potential lover or else as Silk Smita who is an ‘Amazon woman’ ready to seduce at every turn and who is truly the ‘nymphomaniac’ if ever there was one! The twist at the end seems tragic and yet this is also the shattering of the ‘male fantasy’ of the film. The woman ‘grows up’ and in a welcome move finds the ‘man’ to be ‘mad’. The tables are turned even if Kamal represents the trope of the rejected and driven to madness lover and is therefore very different from the ‘girl’ Sridevi is for most of the film. I find this film to be deeply troubling on ‘feminist’ grounds. This doesn’t take way from the film’s ‘newness’ on many other levels.

I should add in another vein that many of Kamal’s classic films have hints of misogyny to them that are often partly the result of Kamal’s own persona. I have brought this charge against Mammootty far more forcefully in the past. Within the very same subject Mammootty can seem far more misogynistic than Mohanlal. To be more specific in one vein ‘female sexuality’ is often staged in Kamal films as a question and ‘woman’ is something the characters come to terms with in difficult ways. One might notice this in a Punnagi Mannan or in a later Hey Raam. And there are other examples. Incidentally on this sort of ‘feminist’ point I generally find Bachchan, Rajni, Mohanlal far less problematic though the last of these has occasionally been let down by the script in this context (one things of Priyan’s Midhunam,a film I otherwise like).

All of this is just by way of an example to suggest that there are many important films in the tradition that are ‘new’ or ‘radical’ for subverting the history but not necessarily for being as revolutionary otherwise. I just suggested that Mouna Raagam is an example of such a film though unlike some of the other works I’ve mentioned here I don’t find it ‘objectionable’ in any serious way on any of the above mentioned grounds.

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

Zero: Yes I did understand that Kamal remark.

Thanks for that long piece on Balachander. Many valuable points made here. Incidentally I have that very book he starts off referring to.

Comment by Aarkayne on 15 October 2007:

Satyam : I have not read your post in its entirety yet(lack of time and not inclination might i add) and oh god, too much as already been said about the movie. So here’s getting out my 2 cents worth before I forget.

LCMD is a dignified attempt to approach talking about a subject not many of us are really touched by. Us is the audience at large. Also in these modern times you would think that such a subject is regressive, but it really is not. And though i was all set to hate the movie, i was pleasantly surprised by the end result. I am still a bit disappointed that Sarkar for the sake of commercial reasons chooses to end the conflict not too honestly(imo only) but I guess the commercial parameters made it that much more difficult for him to do it. ******Spoiler Alert***********. I would have preferred a tragic end to the story and that may have raised the film a couple of notches higher. It left me with a sense of a lot of could have beens. The acting incidentally is first rate by everyone including AB jr. in his short appearance. Overall it begins boldly but ends a trifle superficially just as Sandy said. There it is. My 2 penny opera.

Comment by Aarohi on 15 October 2007:

Aarkayne: First Satyam’s and now your comments indicate that LCMD is not half as bad as everyone is saying it is. Seems worth a dekko.

Comment by Aarkayne on 15 October 2007:

Aarohi: It certainly is worth one at least. As an aside, audiences have always not had the patience to read good literature. In the space of indian films, it becomes that much more important for film makers to treat the medium as not just a means of entertainment but a means of bringing good literature to the masses. Though LCMD was inspired by DOGHI (and I dont know if that was based on a book or not) it seemed like it was excellent material for one. The film, had it been treated as such could have really scaled heights. That will remain my lasting disappointment with it. The craftsmenship however is extremely efficient and there are no gripes in the visual departments whatsoever. It is a decent film overall.

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

Aarkayne: I earlier somehow missed your brief comments on LCMD, thankfully Aarohi made that comment above.

I think you are completely on the money and I too agree that your suggestion on the climax would have been more appropriate. That is the only moment that exceeds the bounds of plausibility. But as you also said Sarkar is perhaps respecting some commercial parameters here (of course this is still Yashraj!). It would have made for a truer and stronger film though had there not been the happy ending. Perhaps an even stronger feminist point could have been made in some ways. And yet I do not mind the kind of ‘hope’ offered at the end here given the kind of subject even if it is far too ‘easy’ and ’superficial’.

Are you familiar with Doghi?

Comment by jeegs on 15 October 2007:

LCMd is actually quite ok and dont think so plot at all is regressive let alone other jobs even in bollywood this Casting couch issues has always been there.

Aakaryane agree the climax went too smoothly IMO but still one cannot blame Sarkar here on ending. If Rani would have been not accepted Film would have lost even the 50% chances of being a success.

Comment by Aarkayne on 15 October 2007:

Satyam:”Are you familiar with Doghi?”

I am not unfortunately.

Comment by sandy on 15 October 2007:

“I’ll pay for your ticket! I’ll pay for another viewing of CDI too if you’re interested! You have only to ask!”

Satyam, and for the peach ice tea and popcorn as well, thanks!

Seriously though, most of my friends who were keen on Laaga..backed out at the last minute and suddenly wanted to see Bhool Bhulaiya. One of them watched it and said she loved it.
On Laaga…, people at least who i know have gotten the impression that it’s regressive and our in-house film critic Deepa Gahlot gave it a scathing review. I’ll find it and put it up for another female perspective.

Comment by Tango on 15 October 2007:

Good Night Sandy ji

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

Sandy: I am unfortunately not at all a fan of Deepa Gahlot. Actually before the film released I suspected that this wouldn’t be a film the critics would like much as watching CDI the reviews are not at all surprising. To be honest I also suspected LCMD of being the sort of film that would be truly regressive but it turned out to be just the opposite. Of course I find it a bit amusing that critics have found a film to be regressive for the first time ever! No one seemed to mind when in KKHH Kajol as tomboy is not at all attractive to SRK and becomes so only when she becomes more of a ‘woman’ (in the traditional sense) in the second half! Wasn’t is regressive to represent the kind of patriarchy that Johar did in K3G where Bachchan makes all the decisions and SRK also makes the crucial ones for his wife? Yes there is that Jaya moment at the end but LCMD has a lot more of those. Wasn’t is ultra regressive in Mohabbatein to show everything happen between two males and the ghost of a woman simply there to enable things?! KANK was actually much better in this respect. It’s not only Karan Johar’s work but these have been among the most accepted films and have usually turned out to be among the most regressive ones.

The point is that on the one hand (as I’ve pointed out here) this film does not serve the self-image of the ‘ruling classes’ in any sense. If you don’t get it it’s a throwback to the past, if you get it it’s a severe critique of your mores!

But there is a whole chorus of ‘regressive’ on this film which I am a bit skeptical about. Could it really be that Indian critics have wholesale suddenly become interested in the politics of a film?!

Comment by rks on 15 October 2007:

Q: here are the links to what I said earlier that BJP did comparatively better in rural areas than cities (opposite of popular perception).

Link1 - Research Paper

Link2
“The interesting thing is that the BJP won massively in the rural areas of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, which have some of the poorest rural populations in the country — so much for the rural versus urban mandate.”

Information

analysis

Cartoon at page-bottom

Comment by Qalandar on 15 October 2007:

Interesting rks — the material I had read indicated the opposite (I note that the rediff link you provided — by a pro-BJP writer –itself appears to be arguing against a generally held view that there was a rural-urban split in the UPA’s favor; not that that proves anything per se, but still).

I am generally of the view that sweeping generalizations must be highly provisional in India, where the diversity is what it is, where even underlying data is often disputed, and where the combination of a large number of political parties means that one can win with 35% of the vote. It is hard to read too much as far as trends are concerned with this sort of situation. But it’s standard politics to claim a mandate whether or not the case is a good one: Bush acted after 2000 as if he had a mandate! BJP and Congress both claim mandates ofr Hindutva and secularism even if the sharp rise in onion prices brings a government low.

Comment by Mr. Bond on 15 October 2007:

“No one seemed to mind when in KKHH Kajol as tomboy is not at all attractive to SRK and becomes so only when she becomes more of a ‘woman’ (in the traditional sense) in the second half! Wasn’t is regressive to represent the kind of patriarchy that Johar did in K3G where Bachchan makes all the decisions and SRK also makes the crucial ones for his wife? Yes there is that Jaya moment at the end but LCMD has a lot more of those. Wasn’t is ultra regressive in Mohabbatein to show everything happen between two males and the ghost of a woman simply there to enable things?!”

Satyam: those are definitely valid points.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

Interesting reading of “Moondram pirai”, Satyam. This did occur to me, but in the consequent view, it’s conclusive that Silk Smitha is not just another ‘Amazon woman’ or ‘nymphomaniac’. On the contrary, She’s not satisfied with a man twice her age. Even after the intercourse with her husband (trust Balu mahendra to be transparent here), she looks out with despair and frowns with displeasure. And, add to it the fact that Poornam (Silk Smitha’s husband) who often leaves her alone for months in the small town near “Ootacamund” in the massive mansion, she’s closer to Kamal as he works for Poornam in the school. Her sexual fantasies and her approach to Kamal, followed by his refusal. He reasons that he is loyal to Poornam, and couldn’t do it. Her ‘intent’ however is to have a physical ‘intimacy’, the ‘adultery’ is backed by a reason, although it doesn’t support the cause in an ethical sense.

Now to the film’s opening (After Sridevi’s accident, etc), Kamal’s urge to have ’sex’ is minimal, but he is just another (shy) young man. The fact that he is an orphan here adds more dimension here. Because, he wouldn’t be inclined in a moralistic way like most men do. But his lack of self-assurance is visible, he needs a YG.Mahendran to escort so to speak of, and literally pushed to it. With Gandhimathi in the whorehouse (Kamal’s films often revolve around whorehouse, this repeats in “Simla special” and much later with “Nayagan”, then with “Guna”, where he grows up in a whorehouse, and his mother is a pimp, then “Mahanadhi”, etc), Kamal picks the innocent girl in the back, who happens to be Sridevi. Unlike the way Kamal’s characters are often disoriented and challenged due to various factors, be it Social (Mahanadhi), Psychological (Guna), Political (Hey! Ram) etc - Here it’s purely “incidental”. And, note that the title here refers to the day when a rare lunar crescent appears for a brief moment on the clear sky on rarest of days, you’re just lucky if you could spot it, and it’s too brief that it leaves you with exuberance of the silver curvature. This Poetic title is handpicked for the same reason of ‘incidental’ or the ‘coincidental’. Kamal’s(Cheenu’s) brief stint with Sridevi(Viji) signifies “Moondram pirai”. So, for a man who is timid sexually (from the evidences) picks an innocent girl, and when he about her problem (again he is not sure whether it’s autism or amnesia), he sympathizes with her state, he instinctively decides to take her as he is an orphan himself (Assuming that she would be one too). Even when Gandhimathi says that she is to relieve Sridevi eventually, he still takes her with him (of course lying in the process).

Balu mahendra has different events in the film to bring out the psyche of Kamal. When he finds Sridevi with torn clothes, he gets enraged- because her ‘chastity’ was explored by another guy at the expense of her ‘innocence’? Or the ‘rape’ is despicable in any case. He lashes out against the guy with animal aggression, denoting his possession. In another event, he buys her a saree, and asks her to wear it. In a hazed state that follows, he imagines Sridevi walking lasciviously, and he is mesmerized. But once he wakes from the surreal sequence, he wakes up to see Sridevi all rugged up. He realizes how her ‘innocence’ couldn’t help the cause of a more meaningful(read physical) relationship but a nurturing one (like you said, a ‘fatherly’ care). Kamal tries to do the ‘monkey act’ after he catches a road side show, with a monkey doing tricks when its master calls out to do for his ‘wife’. There we see the ‘lover’ in him.

Another motif here is the ‘Dog’. Subramani, the dog that Sridevi accidentally picks has no ‘tie up’ in any sense, with freedom and innocence. In Silk Smitha’s mansion, Balu mahendra cleverly places a statue-model of a pair of dogs in an awkward pose which is much in line with Silk Smitha’s infatuation and desperation. We also see a well bred Pomeranian that Silk Smitha controls. This represents Cheenu in regard to these two women, he could be at ease with Sridevi (as with “Poongatre” song), but he could never be a slave to Silk Smitha (this is also evident from her dream fantasies in “ponmeni uruguthe” - this is later mocked by Balu mahendra himself in Veedu, when a small kid requests Bagavadhar to sing that song instead of carnatic songs!) While Cheenu picks the ‘innocence’ to lewdness, he realizes the necessity to cure Sridevi. As ‘fate’ would have it, she eventually recovers, and with turn of events, ‘moondram pirai’ comes to end. (just when Kamal goes out to the station, we see a stray dog, a metaphor of Kamal’s final state)

Moreover, I would like to believe that Kamal doesn’t end up insane. It’s an instinctive reaction with a whimper like Sridevi, but he picks himself up, and walks upto the bench in the platform. I personally don’t buy the supposed obscurity in the ending, because Sridevi is/was his fantasy, like a crescent on a barren sky (the title!) The loss did affect him, but doesn’t push him to ‘madness’. In any case, this is a phase or event, and it’s merely incidental and inconsequent in a macroscopic view.

That said, I do agree about the ‘misogynism’ that seemingly surfaces at different instances in Kamal’s films (due to the characters themselves but not his persona, as one would know, he is more inclined to be romancing around), but that shouldn’t take away the finer aspects and commentary that runs in the undercurrent, which has a substantial cause for feminism in many cases. In some cases, blatant ‘empowerment’ (one such example has to be his own produced and written, “Magalir mattum”).

And, Rajini is not a serious case to be dealt with, if he is read in that paradigm, it would only be more problematic and purely offensive. From “Padayappa” to “Mannan”, Rajini is known for his chauvinism, and his stereotyped female characters with a propagandist purpose. The films best embellishes the regressive values that one could think of. Not to forget the ’sexist’ dialogues. That is why, it’s always better to plead guilty while cherishing Rajini flicks..

Comment by Qalandar on 15 October 2007:

Comment by jayshah on 15 October 2007:

Qalander ‘.’

profound set of thoughts yet again !

Comment by Elvis on 15 October 2007:

Bowled over Q by the sheer lucidity and clarity of your writing in the post above! You have the art of saying a lot without saying anything!

Comment by jayshah on 15 October 2007:

So right Elvis. I am amazed at how Qalander manages to say so much without saying so little.

Q you should put that up in a new post LOL !

Comment by Elvis on 15 October 2007:

I should stop now as I have exceeded by ’silliness’ quota of the day.Lest Satyam get mad.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

The digression shouldn’t take anything away from Satyam’s fine piece. Thats what Q’s ‘.’ here signifies, I believe.

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

Elvis: LOL! I see that comment is going to haunt me! But you shouldn’t stop. Your exchanges with Jay in a lighter vein are among the best features of this forum.

Comment by Elvis on 15 October 2007:

So much can be read in ‘.’
May be that was Q’s take on Theory of Relativity or ‘Q’uantum physics or Supplyside economics or something.

Comment by jayshah on 15 October 2007:

LOL Elvis. How many are we allowed ? Are we allowed some overflow from others who don’t get involved ? i.e. can I steal the 3 silly comments Q is allowed and use them myself.

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

Elvis,

That’s Q’s quote of the day. Sheer class yet again…

Comment by Elvis on 15 October 2007:

Jay,
I am going to use Satyam’s unused quota for last two-three years.

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

Floydrulez: Much to chew on in your response and there’s a lot I agree with. My comment though goes more to the choices made in Moondram Pirai on many different levels. For example Silk Smita would not seem to be the best candidate to sell any idea of progressiveness with respect to sexuality unless one wants to get into a discussion of pornographic ethics here (and I am not being sarcastic; for example depending on what ‘feminism’ one uses traditional pornography is either very degrading for women or on the other hand liberating to the extent that female ‘pleasure’ is ’staged’ here with men being only the instruments, pun intended!) And about the older man angle here, I’m glad you brought this up as it makes my earlier point about the woman being a ‘little girl’ who excites male interest to a great degree. I don’t disagree with your points, I am responding to some ‘tropes’ or ‘types’ as I see them in the film. And this goes to the larger point of Balachander often being ‘progressive’ or at least a ’social critic’ in many films of his but not disturbing the overall frame. On Kamal I think one could certainly make a ‘feminist’ case for many of his films but one could equally be troubled by common themes that emerge. And I certainly see his persona as ‘contributing’ to the dynamic in many of his films much as I see Mammootty’s persona as being ‘responsible’ in even more profound ways. In any case there is a ‘meta’ level to the criticism. One might wonder why so many ’suffering women’ inhabit Balachander’s films. Is he trying to portray their lot and critique their social conditions or is he also trying to set the codes for ‘feminine behavior’ in a changing environment? I think it’s a little bit of both.

On Rajni you are as always more than a little reductive. I think your reading always presupposes a bourgeois framework. Are the women in Rajni’s quintessential films really worse off than those in Balachander’s works? I have my doubts. I think Rathnam understood much of what I am alluding to here. In Thalapathy it’s Mammoothy who has the far more regressive attitude with respect to gender, not Rajni.

But again a fine response all in all. I could agree with everything and not really consider it opposed to my set of points.

Comment by jayshah on 15 October 2007:

Lol Elvis…you got there before I could. No worries, I will take Q’s. I need an endless supply otherwise Satyam will tell me off.

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

“I am going to use Satyam’s unused quota for last two-three years.”

You guys have really deconstructed me today! LOL!

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

Ok guys I take back everything I said! I have enough comeuppance here!

Comment by FloydRulez on 15 October 2007:

“unless one wants to get into a discussion of pornographic ethics here”

I agree. But we are matured enough to handle in an ethical way, without getting ’sexist’ and ‘blasphemous’. Of course, this is not a worst case in any sense, comparing to the foreign cinema that we are exposed to. Let’s end there.

“On Rajni you are as always more than a little reductive. I think your reading always presupposes a bourgeois framework.”

No Satyam. Do you mean to say they are not conformist to Bourgeois mores and regressive values? I’m actually against it, which is anything but against such a framework.

“Are the women in Rajni’s quintessential films really worse off than those in Balachander’s works? I have my doubts.”

In both the cases, I’m underwhelmed.

Comment by jayshah on 15 October 2007:

Satyam taking words back ??? Whats going on here ! I can’t believe my eyes !

Comment by satyam on 15 October 2007:

Jay: you and Rajen can pat yourselves on the back for shaming me into submission!

Some other members here might want to read this as a textbook lesson of how one can be deconstructed with humor and wit and subversion without resorting to insult and ridicule!

Hopefully Jay and Rajen will be pleased enough with this last statement and have mercy on me!

Comment by jayshah on 15 October 2007:

I think Rajen is patting a patient on his (or her) back as we speak !

Comment by Elvis on 15 October 2007:

Satyam,
Jao, mauf kiya!

Comment by rks on 15 October 2007:

Q:”I am generally of the view that sweeping generalizations ……..”

Completely agree.

Pingback by The Laaga Chunari Mein Daag Reaction « IndieQuill on 16 October 2007:

[...] so, it seems from the reviews (I haven’t seen it yet, might just wait for the DVD), this one naysayer to the [...]

Post a Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.