After watching ‘Dharmapuri’ (a throwback to the sixties when evil landlords usurped land from the poor), ‘Vallavan’ (with Simbu proving he can do better than Chinni Jayanth in mimicking Rajnikant and Kamal Hassan and also following Vijay’s footsteps for dance — the little ape that he is) and ‘Varalaaru‘ (that glorifies the male chauvinist type and of course has Ajith’s attempt to pay tribute to ‘Netri Kann’ Rajni), I am pretty sure that Tamil Cinema is indeed is caught in a time warp.
Well, one of the reasons is probably that in Tamil Cinema, the hero is all-powerful.
The star believes and promotes himself as a Demigod. Which means that it is blasphemous for him to get abused or hit, anything he says is a punch-line, anything he does is a style-statement, a lame swagger requires a slow motion and even the stupidest poses need a circular trolley shot worshipping him.
Why have stars always tried to be Demigods?
Probably because the need for an idol/hero is deep-rooted in the Tamil psyche for centuries now. Right from the days when every little village had a giant Ayyannaar statue or their local village deity, armed with assorted weapons, the aruvals and the like, people here have been believers in idol worship.
In times of trouble, they believe the Saamy would come and save them, if they offered a small sacrifice. They believed their idol protected the good from the evil.
The need for an idol and protector is so deeply ingrained in the Tamil mind over generations, that they put anyone who they believe would come to save them, on a pedestal. They have seen kings fiercely protect their culture, erected statues for leaders who fought for their causes and even today, many believe that MGR is still alive.
For years, the man has been celebrated as the protector, the bread-winner, the hunter.
The woman has been celebrated as the protected, the bread-maker, the hunted.
The man represents the courage to protect and the woman represents the sacred chaste that needs to be protected.
These have been roles assigned to the sexes for centuries, blindly adopted by the movies too.
Literature and mythology have had a significant role to play in re-inforcing these stereotypes. Since, cinema evolved from stage and stage evolved from literature, the types sneaked into cinema right from its genesis.
Conformity and endorsements of these types has always worked with the masses. So, over the years, even if the heroine was shedding clothes, she still was essentially virgin (if raped, of course, assigned to her conqueror). Which is also probably why a married woman doesn’t sell as a heroine here.
Legend has it that they built a temple for Khushboo, when she represented the stereotype.
When she broke it (probably unintentionally) by giving an interview, asking women to practice safe sex, the same people burnt her effigies.
Thanks to mythology, our stories have always revolved around love and revenge, as Rajeev Menon once told me. That’s probably one reason our themes haven’t changed.
Also, cinema reflects the collective conscious of the society. And often, of our times, said Javed Akhtar in another interview I did.
Hence, it is a very difficult task to change role stereotypes overnight because they have been deeply ingrained in the Tamil mind for centuries together.
Also, Tamil has been a closed culture, fiercely protective of their identity and literature, refusing to allow outside influences. Extremely conservative, to say the least.
Madras, however, being the capital has been more liberal. Which is why the Madras Baasai has a flavouring of multiple cultures. Over the years, an urban sensibility has evolved with global influences, television and world cinema.
With the increasing gap between the rural and urban sensibility, the needs from cinema too changed. Cinema meant different things to different people with different sensibilities. And people from different classes.
The poor wanted a savior. The messiah of the masses. The one who is always politically correct. The hero. The star. MGR, Rajnikant or Vijay.
The elite wanted an entertainer. The artiste who was willing to explore the Navarasas. The one who is willing to break the mould for the sake of art. The actor. Sivaji Ganesan, Kamal Hassan or Vikram.
The dichotomy between being a star and an actor lies in the fact that a star is built around a type and is identified by the repetition of the type whereas actors are recognised by their versatility and the non-conformity to the type.
Which means, Superman needs to wear the same costume in every comic book. James Bond needs to say, “Bond. James Bond.” Shah Rukh Khan needs that half-smirk, the nervous stammer and his arms spread wide in film after film. Rajnikant needs to toss up the cigarette/ now biscuit. Simply, because, these are the superheroes. The matinee idols. The stars.
Every era had a demi-god/matinee idol. And also an actor known for his range of histrionics.
We had MGR and Sivaji rule the sixties to mid-seventies.
And for a while, we didn’t have anyone because these guys were on the wrong side of 50. The directors used this opportunity to flourish. Soon, we had K.Balachander, Balu Mahendra, Mahendran, Bharathirajaa.
With just the power of radical scripts, they introduced a new bunch of actors. But the thing about adulation and fan-following is that once the devotees believe they’ve spotted the messiah, they believe he’s the Chosen One. Post his 100th film, Sri Raghavendra, Rajnikant just took off with a halo over his head. He had claimed his place as the matinee idol.
Post his 100th film, RajaPaarvai, Kamal established himself as the actor. The classy performer. The successor to Sivaji.
With growing popularity, a star who rises mainly from B and C centres, slowly wins over the A centre audiences too, over a period of time.
Similarly, an actor who rises from A and B centres, slowly wins over the C centre audiences too, over a period of time.
The family and social dramas introduced by the likes of Balachander, Bharathirajaa, Mahendran and Balu Mahendra continued till the mid 80s and early 90s, that saw the birth of a distinctively city-centric urban sensibility with Mani Ratnam, employing the charisma of the star with ‘Thalapathy’ (the commander, read: the protector) after a celebrated outing with the artiste — ‘Nayakan’. (the hero, read: the actor).
The male types were reinvented, but with a touch of sophistication. Both these heroes embraced non-virgin wives in their films, legitimised to the audience as “Gangster going for prostitute” and “Gangster going for widow.” Stereotypes broken. A director had arrived.
And so had cable TV. Also, video piracy.
By the mid nineties, with soap operas (essentially of the family drama genre that directors like Visu were thriving on) catching the attention of the housewife, women monopolised the TV sets. They stopped venturing out to cinema halls.
Films began to flop. Something had to be done.
Cinema, then, got defined by the people in the halls. Men.
Specifically, men from B and C centres who did not have the video player at home.
The political system too had deteriorated.
Goondas ruled the roost. The poor needed a messiah again. The elite were too busy with satellite television and VCD players.
The need for the artiste died.
The movie-goers were largely youth. And a director like Mani Ratnam had to abort the spate of his serious films he did in the nineties (Roja, Bombay) with a lighter subject in ‘Alai Payuthey.’
The metrosexual hero arrived with the consumerist culture.
These spate of youth movies didn’t really help the poor though.
All the poor needed to see on screen, was someone who would stand up for them and beat ten people at a time. Someone who had the balls. Someone who had the Dhil.
The simple aspiring policeman had to turn into rowdy to become the hero, in a system run by the nexus of corrupt policemen and politicians.
Earlier, there was just one city. Now there were many in the state that had an urban population of teenagers and carefree youth who couldn’t spend time at home watching soap operas. What did they do for entertainment? They just chilled, checking out chicks, falling in love, following them, giving them love letters, failing in love and watching them go out with someone more urban than them.
A new type was born. The stalker. The loser. Thanks to this Ugly stereotype to add to the existing Good and Bad, the likes of Dhanush, Simbu, Ravikrishna all got a career. Selvaraghavan, as the creator of the type, had arrived.
With Rajni and Kamal on the wrong side of 50, we have once again come to that stage when directors can finally flourish.
We have a few prospects. There’s Selvaraghavan, there’s Gautham Menon, there’s Cheran, there’s Dharani and Bala. We still have Mani Ratnam.
Then why do we still have the same old plots rehashed?
Because, today, every actor who has made it big thanks to these directors now wants to be a superstar.
The star believes he’s more important than the director. The star believes that to package himself as a superhero, he needs to reinforce the stereotype.
He needs to flesh out his superhero cape, come up with a handful of mannerisms and package them to the idol-worshippers. So if any director wants his dates, the director needs to sing his praise, package him as Demigod.
The stars call the shots. The star salaries are skyrocketing, increasing production costs. The bigger the budget, the safer they play.
With no other options left, directors with genuine stories turn to producers with sons nurturing celluloid dreams.
The latest prototypes, like gangsters and stalkers, are reinvented to suit the ugly young star. A good script makes it big. The one film actor starts believing he’s the star. Shit happens.
Anybody with a script becomes a director. After one hit, the director signs three films in a row. He doesn’t have scripts. So what? No one writes scripts. He recycles his own ideas. Sample: Hari, Perarasu, K.S.Ravikumar, Sunder C, Suresh Krissna.
What can change all this?
First, a system needs to be put in place.
Everything needs to be documented. Starting from business contracts and transactions covering every single aspect of the film business.
The process of making a film must begin from paper. From a bound script. But we don’t have scriptwriters. So now, we need to create a pool of screenwriters, groom them and make them submit scripts for evaluation.
We have enough talented filmmakers. They just don’t have stories to tell. Put Dharani, Gautham, Selvaraghavan, Cheran or Selvaraghavan on a panel to shortlist scripts and review scripts on the basis of the merit of the story that has to be told rather than the star playing it. Prakash Raj is doing a damn good job. Now, I just hope he begins to make money too.
The films that are radical could use lesser-known actors and be shot on Hi Definition. Using HD, a film can today be shot for less than Rs. 5 lakh (production cost alone). Real Image has 110 theatres in Tamil Nadu that can play digital content. A digital revolution is just waiting to happen. Anyone can be a filmmaker. Which is exactly how yours truly got to be one.
So yes, a professionally run studio-system and independent films are the way out of the time-warp.
(This post is loosely based on what I prepared for my panel discussion for the seminar on Tamil Cinema organised by the Symbiosis Institute of Mass Communication. My co-panelists were Khushboo, Dharani and K.Hariharan.)
MADRAS INK. 
you do realize that your article is crap.
thanks.
Sudhish,
That was a nice article. I am pretty interested in the subject and hence wanted to write a few sentences and ask a few questions (out of ignorance). I felt that you could educate me on this a little, if you have a few minutes.
Firstly, isn’t the tamil audience sometimes referred to as a captive audience? In this light, it seems like the business minded producers go for the same type of movies once they figure out the theme that works with the masses. After kaadhal kottai, we all saw a ton of kaadhal movies (telephone love, internet love, etc) not that Agathiyan had figured out what exactly people wanted. I don’t remember that one movie that started this long season of violent movies that served as a break from the previous season’s love movies. It took Kaadhal Kondein to possibly break this genre or may be branch off into another profitable genre. I feel that these directors purely experimented inspite of realizing that something else is selling strongly. These were the lucky ones. Once they started something new that was very successful, others followed and beat it to death.
It apparently took Cheran 6-7 years to get a producer to fund Autograph, a film I regard as a masterpiece. He did have a bound script to begin with, and it turns out the ones that judged it were losers. Imagine the number of ways the movie would have suffered in the hands of somebody who didn’t look at movies as an art.
Could it be argued that movies influence the collective conscious of the society? It’ll be nice if the producers are willing to experiment with new themes, but I understand it is a business after all. I guess that’s probably why you’ve indicated that independent films are the way to go, if you need a change. Even then, won’t the distributors (or whoever that is responsible for taking the movies to the theatre ultimately) have to be willing to place a bet on such indie movies? Granted that it’s not going to happen overnight, what do you think people do about it these days? – people like yourself? I see Maniratnam as an independent film maker that strikes a nice balance between offering entertainment, new & radical themes and catering to the masses. So then, the path that he took was to establish himself firmly and then go about doing experiments with his own production company.
Regarding a movie starting off from bound scripts and going thru a panel to pick the best ones – I think it is a great idea, except I am not sure who would call the shots. Would it still be the producer? Or the actor? If so, will they still not be clouded by their needs for image or a movie that makes business with the masses? The Income-tax people do wish that every business transaction is documented, but looks like there is a whole bunch out there making movies just to convert black to white. I can’t help but think that we need people that consider movie as an effective artform rather than a business, in order for us to get out of the time warp.
hmm.. interesting. But popular cinema everywhere runs into this rut – just remember the 80’s hindi filmdom :-). That is okay – afterall, bollywood has its DDLJ, HAHK clones all the time.
The lamentable fact about Tamil movies is that there is no scope for alternate movies. Every damn movie needs to conform to stereotypes.There is just no scope for Omkara, or LRM.
For example, just saw LRM. Sunjay Dutt hardly has a role in the movie – this is the star on whose name and screen image the movie is sold and yet he steps aside and lets Arshad, Boman etc take the bigger roles and flourish.
The best actor Tamil has, Kamal, will he do that? Was thinking of LRM remake – would Kamal do it? Even if he did, would he retain the same screenplay or make his role bigger and slash others’ roles? The answer to that question tells us the exact problem of Tamil movies – even actors like Kamal make movies that revolve around them only. So, what can you expect from Ajith, Vijay et al.
That was a looooong post!! Nevertheless liked it! Yeah, these days every sucker wants to be a superstar. But as said, people like Cheran, Bala,Mani Ratnam give us quality movies. I think it is the C centre people who make the stars. The first bencher is the one who makes or breaks a star with his howls and cat calls. So I think we just cant eliminate the demigod from Tamil Cinema. We just have to ignore them hoping they eventually die a natural death (hoping), while we continue to encourage good movies with strong scripts.
Actually there is nothing wrong in having a Demigod. But the problem arises when everyone wants to become one!! High time chimpanzees like Simbu realise (as Vikram said) there is always “One Sun, One Moon, One Superstar”
Good post…. but a difference between MGR and Rajini was that both adopted different paths to endear themselves to the people. One used politics and the other style and charisma. Nowadays the younger set just wants to ape Rajini in becoming the nxt superstar, from punch dialogues to brazenly morphing his face into Rajini (a’la the chimp in Vallavan). Once in a while, a gem like “Azagiya theeyae” comes. Kudos to Prakash Raj.
Excellent analysis. Kudos!
If this can pass off as a “sociological” analysis, it surely deserves the pukes. And not just from Nilu.
anonymous:
you do realise that a question ends with a question mark, dont you?
anush:
you can spot a master filmmaker when he makes a successful film going against the wind.
that’s how we got Cheran, Bala, Dharani, Selvaraghavan to a certain extent and Gautham Menon.
Not that they broke stereotypes for the sake of breaking them, but redefined existing types in a way that was acceptable by the mass. (Which meant that Cheran had to break into a commercial element… the fight (even if unsuccessfully) before he was packed off from Kerala in Autograph).
Im not against making films for the mass. As a storyteller if you can tell your story to more people, the better for you. It is an art to reach out to more people. It is not just commerce.
So it is important for a filmmaker to understand established types, to work around them and redefine them. The stalker is just a blend of the love-sick lover type re-introduced by Kathir and other Vijay films, mixed with the pyscho-hero type defined by Kamal Hassan (Guna, Aalavandhaan).
Yes, so achieve a fine mix of existing types and your own deviation from the type, you need to flesh out your script that much more in detail. Which is why it took Cheran 400 pages for a script for Autograph.
Movies mimick society and society too mimick movies, as a lot of communication theories have already established. Which is my problem with a fine filmmaker like Selvaraghavan. I wish he was more conscious about the consequences of what he does.
For change to happen, the producers council should start a training academy of writers, have a permanent pool of writers, breed and groom them with quality inputs. Which means they need to start paying these guys too.
independent films dont thrive on actors. so they can always continue to provide films as a pure art form. the multiplexes are providing a platform.
Anything i didn’t answer?
raj:
*even actors like Kamal make movies that revolve around them only. So, what can you expect from Ajith, Vijay et al.*
that is an excellent observation.
And not just Bollywood, even mainstream hollywood is in a rut for most of the time. Like Hariharan Sir quoted some foreign critic: They were watching Star Wars in the seventies. They re still watching Star Wars.
Like i told anush, indie films hopefully wont need to depend on actors.
hari:
i didn’t say it was possible to eliminate them. Nor do I feel there is a need to. We need our matinee idols. I like watching Vijay films myself.But what I want to see is these guys aspiring for greater glory than just being superstar… I want them to aspire to be Sivaji, Kamal as well… Which is what Vikram and Surya have been doing to a certain extent. And Simbu believes he’s doing. Having said that, it will be interesting to see a more mature Simbu. Right now, he’s an indulgent kid.
Ganesh:
MGR had charisma too and Rajni used politics too. The films of matinee idols or superstars are always “political” to the extent that they are stories of one man standing up for a whole lot of the poor and the downtrodden. And they only sell because of charisma. Simbu tries hard to manufacture charisma. Which is why he fails and ends up looking like a Chimp.
anonymous:
thanks.
anonymous who pukes:
i just approved your post to give an example of how stupid criticism can get.
you dont become a critic by rubbishing something. you become one by explaining.
if its just an opinion, who cares?
One needs to distinguish between cinema as an art form and cinema as mere sensibility. In that sense, many of the directors/ actors you/most people appreciate belong to the latter category rather than the former. For example, Maniratnam is considered a master among people who are obviously more educated and believe that they can intellectualise/ have some sensitivity. However, his works only reflect his sensibility(artistic/ otherwise) and wishful thinking regarding certain subjects. His characters have characteristics of cutouts. His portrayal of women is as regressive as Visu’s, more dangerous because it is more subtle/ sophisticated. Its the same thing with many such canonised people. Rajeev Menon’s Kandukonden placed in Pallathur village is in a time-space warp of science-fiction/ fantasy. A considerable part of Indian cinema is removed from art as understanding reality at the deepest level or as consciously constructed “artificial” abstraction. It is necessary for experience to be internalised in order to emerge as art. In that sense, I would say that movies like “Karagattakkaran” are closer to real life experience of the characters. Yet, the Tamil film intelligentsia never mentions this movie or similar ones. Only when experience and creativity are interrelated can art result. In other words, creativity has to spring from ones’ own framework. This is not to say that one needs to be chauvinistic about one’s culture to be creative, but one needs to either make art in the context one has experienced or fully understood. Balu Mahendra, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Satyajit Ray,Bharathiraja in his earlier movies, etc., have achieved that. Ofcourse, one can argue that in today’s postmodern world of popular art, it is not necessary to construct cinema as art conforming to a Western framework and one can easily celebrate Bollywood and Kollywood. The greatest forms of art, universally, however have different goals and are created from a different motivation.
Remember a movie called “thiruda thirudi”??it was a huge hit despite the fact that it had a shitty script,shitty acting and pretty much shitty everything.Butit gave everyone involved everything they wanted:the producers laughed all the way to the bank, the director added a bumper hit to his CV n so did the hero; the music stayed at the top of the charts for a very long time and the audience luvd it.All bcos of jus one song which the singers sand as if they wanted to show who cud sing the loudest and the hero and heroine danced as if their legs were on fire.Others realised they cud come up with the same shit without any trouble.Who needs script,underplay,overplay,soulful music,etc to deliver a hit??Listen to the story of ur nxt door dada, add cpl of masala songs(the latest fad is a rap),hire an unshaven hero who wants to b the nxt CM,throw in cpl of gravity defyin stunts and lo!u ve the perfect recipe for a hit! And yeha, make sure u get some pretty gal to walk here n ther n hold the hero’s hand every now n then.
if this is not enuff,rope in vadivelu or vivek and in the name of caamedy, beat the hell out of them. We are “cultured” ppl who will laugh at others gettin beaten up. Some try to coat a social msg wit such things but its beyond “common man”‘s brains to decipher the message.GOD bless us!
PS:
If there was a “Ramana” amongst us, i guess the “HIT list” wud read: Perarasu, Simbu and SJ Surya(in no particular order)
I agree with Hari about making good films and eliminating the demigod.
Plus like Sudhish says, the fact that a good film can be made out of a sound script within a budget of 5-10 lakhs is pretty good news. I mean however bad a film, it should be able to gross more than that amount. Only, producers will have lesser profits than what they have now. Those who are passionate like should be willing to make this compromise for art’s sake(Prakash Raj and Maniratnam for instance). Maybe this won’t find acceptance among the masses initially. But once there is a steady flow of good small budget films made from carefully chosen scripts, this system will gradually find wider acceptance. Ultimately even the so called “C class audience” will have no choice but to watch these movies, and who knows someday they might begin to actually enjoy them and the line separating them from others will gradually fade.
where does the porn industry fit into all this
anonymous:
brilliant observation there. i agree with most of it.
Mani Ratnam and Rajeev Menon are indeed the fallouts of consumerism, and the promoters of the Bold and the Beautiful/ Fair and lovely cinema.
But since the types are so strongly engrained in the minds of the audience, it is difficult to break the mould overnight.
So which meansin his own way., even if you have to show sex or love-making, you need to show the presence of a thaali to legitimise it (as Mani does in Roja during that obnoxious song Rukumani Rukumani).
Mani Ratnam clearly does not belong to the cinema as a folk-art category of filmmakers. He’s all pop.
He’s best when he makes cinema as political communication for the masses. He is guilty of being artificial because in the process of simplifying complex issues, he does dumb it down to cater to the lowest common denominator, and if his characters are all fair and lovely, it is because he’s probably defining the aspirations of a society in the wake of consumerism.
But then, going by the cinema as art argument, it is probably his signature style as an auteur: To represent modern day aspirations and pop culture using contemporary techniques of alienation to remind the audience that it is a story, it is removed from reality, just to underline the fantasy and feel-good element in his cinema. This distancing gives him the licence to give us those fairytale endings.
And if there’s one thing that people living in troubled times look for, it is hope. And the promise that things will soon be all right.
I am not denying that films like Karagattakaran are probably more authentic to the real life experience of the people.
I agree that a creator soaked in the ethos of his land and culture would certainly provide a more credible canvas.
But, Tamil cinema is largely of the fantasy genre and it is that licence given by the genre that permits filmmakers to make things look rosy, fair and lovely.
It is not essentially regressive, it is just an assurance that life is beautiful.
Filmmakers like Bharathirajaa and even Bala use lesser alienation techniques because their films and messages require the audience to believe that the problems are real, people are human and the situations are grave and that shit happens in life.
So if Mani Ratnam is guilty of romanticising life and showing the positive side of human emotions, the likes of more realistic filmmakers are guilty of romanticising pain and the negative side of human emotions.
Art is an expression of romanticism. Like you yourself said, art in different forms has different goals.
The intention of Mani Ratnam is not to make a documentary with its heart and soul rooted in the Tamil ethos. He just wants to tell a story.
It will be nice to know who you are. Do email me at madeinmadras [at] gmail. If you are vetti and interested in writing, I could land you a pretty decent job.
If not for the Indian spellings (as opposed to American spellings), I would’ve thought this is Nilu. Actually, even if you are Nilu, do write to me. Good writers are in very good demand these days.
Vivek:
Ha ha!
But hey, if it was indeed that simple, why isnt every movie a hit?
hmmmm!
There must be some method in the madness.
Vijay:
Expecting the C audience to watch independent films is a tall order. And it will be a while before indie films made for 5 to 10 lakhs actually make it to the screen.
Old school distributors would not touch these films.
Change will happen. But slowly. Right now, we need the new crop of actors to choose good scripts. It is heartening to see Arya take up Bala’s Naan Kadavul.
Anon:
Porn caters to the basic urge of the horny. It is not classified under art, at least not yet in India.
It’s instant fast food for a large population that cannot afford sex.
What makes you think Dharani is a promising director? I’m confused.
At last someone agrees! Its a pet peeve that I keep telling everyone about and no one agrees with. Thanks for your appreciation of my writing. I am not Nilu, but have commented on his blog a couple of times. I definitely love to write, but I am not vetti:) Will think about contacting you.
Regarding the discussion, the problem is not whether Manirathnam is a pop director. It is whether he views himself as one and whether the audience views him so. It is not about happiness or sorrow also, it is the way in which his characters express happiness/sorrow as opposed to more “authentic” directors. The closest to experience for him may be “Mouna Ragam”. Pop art in all forms of art knows its scope and has no pretensions. Can the same be said of Mani Rathnam or Rajeev Menon? That’s what I meant about constructed reality. It is self-reflexive, like Warhol’s Coke can or Monroe reproductions.
The Indian condition imparts a special limitation/ potential to all its art forms- literature, music, painting, cinema, architecture, etc., Some sociologists attribute this to a schizophrenic tendency inherent in the Indian psyche due to British rule. Authenticity is the constant search- for example, the debate on which is more authentic- Indian writing in English or the multitude of vernacular literatures. R.K.Narayan and his generation speak English well, yet are totally rooted to Indian values and his writing reflects that. His writing is unself-conscious. Rushdie has to use a mix of languages to reflect authenticity in postmodern times. This is an intellectualisation I am sure most people( including me) cannot appreciate. Personally, while I can read and write Tamil, I do not read Tamil literature and cannot appreciate all Tamil music, hate Carnatic music, enjoy Floyd, Metallica, Linkin park, etc., my English reading is wide, my written English is good, my spoken English is very average, and so on. This may be a reflection of a particular alienation of my generation( am in my 30s). Mani Rathnam obviously also may have had a similar background, but do his movies reflect the experiences that he has either gone through or can understand? Whereas today there is a new generation of people upto their late twenties who can appreciate Tamil art forms like music, yet read Tamil literature in translations because they do not know Tamil, and so one. Each generation has its own mix of such socio-cultural practices and value systems. The same person who can select a beautiful saree/other traditional attire cannot select a tasteful shirt/ dress in the Western mode. This complexity is rarely a part of Indian cinema though it is recognised in other art forms. Thus Ramarajan’s choice of shirts is a more authentic social statement. Here the creation is within the frame of reference and unselfconsious. However, Manirathnam is many a time outside the particular frame of reference that he deals with, but creates for someone inside the frames, and I find the effect totally alienating. In Hindi cinema, I feel Aamir Khan is overrated because of the same types of characters he chooses to showcase what he thinks is an internalisation of character traits. Contrast this to how a yesteryear Balraj Sahni internalises his character, totally insync. Aamir Khan is totally outside the frame of reference/ context because one can almost hear/ see him thinking
When one understands the frame of reference, and is self-consious, sadly humour, satire or magic realism are the tools usually used. Thus MTV humour developed its “We are like this only” line of humour by being part of the context while making fun of it. In literature Rushdie’s “magic realism’ is a self conscious technique that is too intellectualised. Self-conscious cinema in India can never be appreciated for similar reasons. However, Vikram Seth is one of the exceptions in the way his works don’t have this alienation, even while being self-conscious. In music I found Rabbi’s “Bhulla” very good for the way it records a complexity that is also aesthetic and simple-the music, the places/ visuals, the lettering, everything worked towards a unified whole. (Some people may feel this is cliched though). Equivalents for this in cinema can easily evolve. However,it is also to do with the motive force of people who make cinema- whether it springs from wanting to express an experience, in which case the experience is important, or whether it springs from appreciation/ understanding the unity of art in all its universal forms- music, literature, painting, as well as understanding how different art forms evolve from/ describe the same reality of a particular place, in which case,a well rounded personality is required, not just watching more movies from across the world.
This is getting to be too confusing so I will stop:)
Dharani is one of the best screen writers we have seen.I doubt anyone here writes racy screenplays as him.He just keeps it on and on and on.
anon:
even if you discount his third consecutive hit (as a remake), he still gave us dhil and dhool.
cinema of the matinee idol at its best in recent times.
if you had seen the dancing in the aisles during the films, maybe you wouldnt have been as confused.
also, lets not forget that these films launched Vikram in the big league.
Suderman,
I agree it launched Vikram in a big way and people were dancing to Madhuraveeran song and all. So were people dancing to that Dhanush song and Opodu. There are other yardsticks to judge.
I heard his Bhangaram (name might be incorrect…Im not a telugu) is a disaster and he doesn’t have anything up his sleeve these days. Linguswamy is not that bad in giving fast screenplays, if you consider Run and SK.
My only grouse is, he certainly need not be mentioned along with Bala, Selvaragavan and Gowtham. They are not flawless yet they are in a better tier from Dharanis and Perarsus of Kollywood.
Suderman,
I see a good conversation is going on here. Thought will add my 2cent worth. A good movie, to be appreciated by all class of people and to be remembered by all for a very long time to come, needs to have a good mix of art, subtlety, some entertainment factors and most importantly it should be believable (i.e., close to real world). If that happens, there is no need for stars to be in that movie to succeed. A very nice example for this is the movie “Chitram Pesudhadi”. It had the right amount of everything. I am sure u would’ve watched it… if not, please do so. It is a must watch for every aspiring movie maker. But what to do? Mysskin is directing his next movie with Ravikrishna as the hero. May be money does kill art.
One thing, I missed out to mention in my last comment… when will the indian movies stop having these black & white characters? The hero will be the greatest person in the world while the villian will be the worst person. Why can’t they have grey shades? I am not denying the fact that there are few movies with grey characters. But they are very few. If we find out answers to these questions and rectify them, then I guess the movies will become close to real life and we will have good movies.
Despite being a mani fan, I couldn’t agree with you more. I notice that your argument is based on the premise that “Only when experience and creativity are interrelated can art result”. In other words, maniratnam wasn’t affected by the bombay riots and hence has to watch other world movies to imagine a riot scene. But don’t you think that inspite of him being outside his ‘frame of reference’, he attempts to keep the characters in his movies inside his own frame of reference. Could that be a process of depicting himself and his sorroundings being affected by the bombay riots. It is much more powerful than, say, Rajeev Menon’s kandukondein, in the sense that it deals with contemporary issues. It is to create an experience for the movie watcher so that money can be made. Whether maniratnam is capable of making a film within his own frame of reference applying his creativity is a question that can never be answered unless he chooses to. As sudish so well put it, maniratnam is a pop director and he will keep on making fantasy films. Atleast earlier he had characters that were grounded in reality, but he is moving away from his frame of reference there too.
One movie that strikes to me as rooted in reality in ‘Aan Paavam’, inspite of me never having been to a village. As for calling Maniratnam a master, well I do that because I have no idea what art is or want to know. I appreciate martin scorsese’s ‘The Avaitor’ as much as I appreciate his ‘Mean Streets’. Well, so you see. That’s how so called movie critics are. The line between critics and regular audience is very thin indeed.
I wonder why you didn’t pick Gautham, who is a better(worser) example for your “constructed reality” especially with his last two films. But I understand why you picked on maniratnam, after the way sudhish sucked up to him in his article(a little bit).
sudhish, you really wanted to appreciate Autograph and Cheran or it was a politically correct inclusion now that you are part of the film fraternity. I mean,w hats so great about Autograph and even worse, Thavamai…latter was a reworking of bhimsingh-sivaji type movies – only, it was worse because it didnt have sivaji 🙂
Autograph,as SP Jananathan, maker of Iyarkai and E commented recently without referring to it directly “Naan kovil-la sight adichaen. Kulathula gummi adichaen” type movie. Adhukku enna periya good cinema hype?
intellectual anonymous who wrote on constructed reality and mani ratnam:
well, the point about mani ratnam being a pop director is indeed relevant to our discussion simply because creators of pop are more of “manufacturers” (who do it for the consumption of a mass) than than the artists (who did it as an expression and an extension of their selves).
cinema is applied art in the sense that it is FOR an audience and hence it is difficult to leave the audience or the commerce out of the discussion.
I have not denied that Mani Ratnam’s cinema stems from constructed reality.
The only thing I disagreed with your first comment was that we cannot call his characters regressive because they are “cardboard cutouts”.
commercial cinema largely uses types from reality and slots them under simpler labels like: the good, the bad and the recent, “the grey” (the good bad man, or the bad good man or the good man who becomes bad cuz of system failure, or the bad man who becomes good after a thulping).
This simplification or dumbing down is only essential because for a lot of people, cinema is still about the good versus the bad.
so to make a conflict simpler and easily comprehensible by the lowest common denominator to cater to a mass, pop directors have over the years chosen to make his hero Mr.Clean and the bad guy Dr.Evil to the bone.
Mani Ratnam has attempted to change this in his own way because like I said in my answer to you, change cannot happen overnight.
Traditionally, a woman who smoked has always been seen as a vamp. (He made Amala smoke and projected it like an innocent modern day practice of college going girls, a part of his reality and experience)
Similarly, even Dharani broke a type of the “hero drinking only in trouble” by bringing alcohol into the family/house in Dhil. The heros and his friends drink in front of the hero’s sister, just to chill. (That again is a part of his reality and experience.)
Hence, though breaking a type certainly requires an understanding of reality, it may not always be necessary and can be compensated with adequate homework/research on the subject and a well fleshed out script.
Mani Ratnam, for instance, based his last outing on student politics inspired from a student leader in Osmania University who died just before he could accomplish what he wanted to.
So what he did was, he borrowed liberally from his set of experiences (which includes reading and watching international cinema, making trips to his DVD library and renting out one Amorres Peros… ;)).
What I’m saying is that constructed reality can strive to be authentic and credible reality if the maker chooses to.
So even if Mani Ratnam did borrow in terms of techniques/structure from the Spanish film, he needed to ensure that the characters spoke like they do in the real world.
Im NOT saying he succeeded but the point is that is what he attempted.
With adequate homework/detailing, a filmmaker can construct reality and make it authentic.
im might have deviated a little but to go back to your point of attacking Mani Ratnam for his “cardboard characters,” the director ‘s style of filmmaking revolves around the drama about set prototypes than real people themselves.
Hence, the character Roja, was a representative of the Indian housewife: the simple but strong-minded Indian woman. To fight and get her husband back from the arms of death. In generalising definitive traits of the simple, strong-minded Indian woman, Mani Ratnam might have arrived at a prototype, what you call a cardboard character.
Most Indian commercial filmmakers need to do this because unless the audience buys their prototype and relates to it or aspires to be it, they will not be interested in the story. Sometimes, the create the prototype to represent issues and conflicts.
Swades for example, tries to represent the heartland of India. Charanpur, the fictitious village is your picture of constructed reality. Now, the heartland of India is diverse and changes from district to district, let alone state to state.
But to tell a story on brain drain, a director, ignoring the reality of India’s diversity, had to construct a reality of a village that defined everything that was distinct about the Indian village.
Rang De Basanti, for example, tries to sum up Indian youth in terms of: One daredevil middle-class opinion leader who is indifferent to the system (DJ/Aamir), one upper class rich son of a bureaucrat disillusioned with the system because he has had a first hand experience with it at home (Karan/Siddharth), one person to represent the minorities (Aslam/Kunal Kapoor), one religious fundamentalist and right-winged student leader (Atul Kulkarni) and one idealist/patriot (Madhavan).
This gang represents the diversity of Indian youth, the idealist being the voice of their conscience.When that voice of their conscience dies, it affects them somewhere so deep, that they take it upon themselves to create change. Tell me, how would RDB work, if not for this generalisation and representation of Indian youth and be relatable different segments of youth from various classes around the country?
So, given that most characters in Indian commercial cinema are intended to epitomise a cross-section of the audience in a way that they can either relate/aspire to them, how can you call it regressive?
If not for these generalisations and prototypes, how will you get around telling your story.
Prototypes are not just about characters alone, they are about issues and situations too.
They form an integral role in constructed reality because they are devices used by the filmmaker to deliver his story to a diverse mass of audience.
It is the prototypes that define the conflict in films like ‘Bombay,’ ‘Dil Se,’ ‘Ayutha Ezhuthu’ and ‘Kannathil Muthamittal’. (Madhavan, though miscast, had to be the “cardboard” idealist to adopt the child)
If your question is whether he sees himself as a pop-filmmaker or is seen as one, I’m sure most people who give interviews saying that “all I want to do is tell a story” are only looking for more people to listen.
And hey, if you are not vetti, don’t bother mailing. I’m supposed to find some talented writers for immediate appointment (not necessarily for my paper).
Anti-Dharani Anonymous:
I credited Dharani for the re-invention of the matinee idol. Vikram was around for 18 years before Dhil and Dhool happened.
Vikram had arranged for 67 preview screenings for Sethu and had to sell his wife’s jewels. Only after the film went on to be a hit, did he arrive as an actor.
Dharani capitalised on this and made an actor into a matinee idol.
Even the talented filmmakers we have are not perfect and capable of producing turkeys.
Im glad Dharani is taking his time before signing another film like Perarasu or KS Ravikumar or Lingusamy.
Anonymous who gave his 2 cent:
Money is needed to produce art. If you want to make a film today, you either need a star (who will get you a producer) or a producer.
If you are at the mercy of the star, you have to make the film around him.
If you are the mercy of the producer, you have to make the film around his son.
So most directors try to achieve a balance between what they want to say and what the producer/actor wants and fail.
A good script can actually achieve the balance. But every scriptwriter wants to be director, whether or not he understands the medium of cinema.
also, your question on black and white prototypes has been answered in my response to the anonymous who spoke on constructive reality.
and i do not agree that cinema closer to real life alone is real cinema. Though realistic cinema is welcome, Indian cinema runs on a staple of fantasy because most people go to the movies for escape.
subhash:
i was tempted to reject your comment after your previous malicious outings. 🙂 but sucking up to me helps 😉
raj:
jhanathanan is a very talented filmmaker and Im keen to see E. The only reason I ended up watching Varalaaru was cuz I didn’t get tickets for E.
I mentioned autograph and cheran because he made 3 national-award winning films even before he made that film and he is one of the guys who makes cinema that he wants to make and also, for the way he makes them. He writes a script and if you write 400 pages detaling the film and if they show on screen, I’ll be impressed with your homework too.
I liked Autograph for the story-telling. And not the story itself.
Suderman,
Dharani did to Vikram what Gowtham did to Surya with Kakha Kakha. He helped Vikram sustain his brief impulse through Sethu. By the time Dhool was out, Vikram already had a huge blockbuster in Gemini, which even smashed Vijay’s Tamilan, who was probably considered undisputed number 1 among young actors. Between Dhool and Saamy I’d any day prefer Saamy there’s nothing so great about Dhool. A time pass flick which was just average. How many times we’ve seen a promising director loosing momentum in no time. Agathiyan was one I can remember easily. Dharani has to reestablish his career with something big! And i don’t think he’s in league of the other 3.
btw, loved you analysis on Maniratnam.
Sudhish,
Do you watch malayalam movies ? Have you seen Padmarajan’s movies ? If yes, how do you rate him ?
Thanks.
Sudhish, You don’t have to publish this if you don’t want to, I just want express my opinion and close.
I can now understand how it is necessary to have a stereotype in cinema (I am more familiar with other art forms). In fact I can understand all the more about Ratnam’s works. I am not attacking them outright, but I feel that the “almost real” quality of his works operates in a subtle manner that it is difficult to identify the stereotypes- both character and situations- as such, as readily as in other director’s works. For example- strong sense of hierarchy in a family, female characters whose decisions are made by others, villains who talk and behave so subtly and matter of fact, but are menacing/cruel, etc., – all these seem as if taken for granted reality because they have complex trappings. Yet the characters/ situations are really simple and stereotypical. In a Rajani movie or Visu movie, one takes these situations/ characters with a pinch of salt because they are easily identified as stereotypes!
Thats it from me!
Sudhish,
Do watch Virumaandi again….
I am not sure if Sudhish understands Malayalam films much. He recently rubbished ‘Perumazhakkalam’, hailing the hindi copy ‘Dor’. ‘Dor’ was a good movie, but the original was better by a mile.
anti-dharani anonymous:
i rate dharani high cuz i know him personally and im in total awe of his understanding of cinema and the people.
he has great potential.
padmarajan-query anonymous:
No I havent got a chance to watch too many Malayalam films. So I won’t be an authority on Padmarajan.
intelligent anonymous:
yes, i know what you mean. Mani Ratnam has often been criticised for this before.
virumaandi anonymous:
huh? why? where did this come from?
perumazhakaalam fan anonymous:
i’m not sure if you understand English because I did not rubbish Perumazhakaalam.
I said it was a tearjerker. I did enjoy watching it, in spite of the melodrama and the exaggerated metaphor of rain.
Dor, on the other hand, appeals to a global sensibility, which is why I liked it better than the Malayalam film. Also, it’s difficult to make a film like this in the feel-good genre. And the fact that Nagesh was able to do that speaks volumes of his control over the medium.
And yes, I do understand Malayalam (though I don’t watch too many Mal movies) and my ancestral home is in Kochi.
Suderman, I am returning to your blog after quite some time and what a way to get captivated by your article…..
Simply put…I can understand the angst you have on Tamil Cinema…and your analysis…though was for a different purpose…is really eye-opening for those, who has given a second thought to Cinema, as not just dance,romance and action….part of your analysis has been going through my mind for quite sometime, though not as articulate as yours has been. I have been harping to write good scripts for sometime now..not with the interest of making movies…but to just shell out my angst and need for good scripts….and as you see good stories are a scarcity…more of a “Do you have balls to do a new story”….
I am so happy that I hit upon this article….I will make sure that I link it up with people who are like minded…and….I am overwhelmed…when I realize that there are more number of people who care fr Cinema …..I really appreciate it….Congratulations…:-)
Hi Sudhish
I’m surprised to see Sridhar and Rudraiah missing from the discussion.
Sridhar was the man who brought the common man’s language to the big screen (though Kalaignar Mu Karunanidhi had laid the foundation for it in Parasakthi). He was an original, the man who told the stories of the middle-class — their aspirations, their loves and losses, their plans for life.
He was also an unabashed urban film-maker. His cinematic world revolved around the city and the culture it spawned (evident in the distinct lack of caste references, a characteristic of the city, and the comic relief).
His movies are textbooks in screenplay writing. His language is fluid and he probably made the most unobtrusive use of music in Tamil cinema. Also, at a time when actors tended to go overboard, he ensured a certain subtlety that’s rare even in today’s Tamil films.
Rudraiah’s Aval Appadithan is, in my opinion, among the ten best Tamil films ever made.
I find it strange and unfair that these two, along with under-rated directors like Durai (Pasi) and RC Sakthi, are overshadowed and ignored while discussing Tamil cinema.
My 2 cents.
Cool..Loved it..Am grateful you still stick with reviewing tamil movies also..Not taking the easy road and abandoning it. We need guys like you to let people see the emperor’s clothes.
Liked the fact you kept it purely analytical and stayed away from making comments based on-cinema prejudices/likings. Tamils have difficulty sticking to the point..
funny too..
I guess the population in tamil nadu is around or close to 70 million….
and its very obvious that every one has an unique liking in every aspect….
just bcoz u like a particular genre of movies.. how is it fair to call other type of movies as bad or crap?
If all movies being produced cater to your liking and needs… then wat will others do???
Though I am a regular reader of articles in your blog, I still liked the way lazy presented his point of view.After reading this one…methinks you are equally good.also found your passionate and indepth analysis of a tamil’s mindset and tamil films very pleasant…for the simple reason that…they aren’t many who write even half as good as u