SEX AND VIOLENCE, FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY
APR 27, 2008 – AS TWO RECENT RELEASES OFFER AMPLE PROOF, there are some things in Tamil cinema that will never change – the fact, for instance, that the hero isn’t a hero until he flexes his muscles. Santhosh Subramaniam and Yaaradi Nee Mohini are both what are known as “family” films, and that genre (if it can be called that) has come a long way from what families used to watch in the black-and-white era – the melodramas of P Bhimsingh, say. I can’t recall a single one of those films where Sivaji Ganesan – who moped and monologued his way through a goodish number of them – raised a hand. He’d raise his voice, yes, that lion’s roar that defined declamatory acting for an entire generation – but if he raised a hand, it was, at best, to direct a slap at a scheming co-star’s cheek (or, perhaps, a series of why-God-why blows at his own forehead), and never to have a go at a henchman’s solar plexus. But then Sivaji Ganesan, and others like him, were merely the protagonists of those films, while today, the likes of Jayam Ravi (in Santhosh Subramaniam) and Dhanush (in Yaaradi Nee Mohini) are heroes. And where there is a hero, there is, by definition, a villain, and where there is a villain, there is an angry confrontation, and where is angry confrontation, there is a fight sequence.
These fight sequences have become so mandatory, it doesn’t seem to matter if they’ve been integrated organically – or at least in a convincing manner – into the screenplay. There’s an air of “we’ve got to have some action in the film; let’s get it done with and move on” about them. In Santhosh Subramaniam, Jayam Ravi gets his date with the stunt coordinator when his girlfriend Hasini (Genelia) is harassed at her college by a bunch of rowdy students. Had our hero simply charged at them and reduced them to a heap of bruised bodies, this bit wouldn’t have grated so, but what makes things worse is the subsequent revelation that these supposed bad elements are Hasini’s friends, who didn’t mean anything by their teasing. (This is clearly some kind of college that exists only in the fantasies of horny adolescent males, where it’s entirely appropriate to comment lewdly on the delectable proportions of women-friends’ physical assets.) And in Yaaradi Nee Mohini, Dhanush gets to beat up a number of goons who turn up expressly so that Dhanush can beat them up. These men play no part in the film before this fight sequence, or after.
Ask the director why he couldn’t have dropped hints of a running conflict through the film – so that when this fight erupts we at least know that it’s been a long time coming – and he’ll probably shrug: “Well, if you can suspend your disbelief enough to accept that a single punch from the hero can result in the villain’s triple-somersaulting through the air, why should the flash point of this fight be any more convincing?” Fair enough, I guess – and by extension, I suppose you could justify the soft-core elements in these family films too, like the item number performed in Yaaradi Nee Mohini by Rahasya, who, towards the song’s end, spends some thirty seconds, all by herself, convulsing in little choreographed spasms. It’s as if the rest of the dancer-extras have packed up and left for the day, but Rahasya – alone, and in the barest of essentials – is in some sort of booty-shaking trance, so completely committed to her cause and to the moment that minor impediments like the director yelling “Cut!” are of little consequence.
The point of these observations isn’t to bemoan the state of our family films today. (Both Yaaradi Nee Mohini and Santhosh Subramaniam are fairly easy to sit through, the latter especially so.) But what’s interesting is that these fights and these sexy item numbers used to be staples of the masala movies, and they’ve gradually insinuated themselves into the family fare as well. And this is where I’d like to wonder why. Is it because Tamil audiences are incapable of accepting a film with a big-name hero and without these “commercial compromises?” Is it because humour and romance and charm and sentiment aren’t enough to carry these family films, without the additional requirement of reducing every single protagonist to a hero? Or is it because no major male star will commit to a lead role like that in Jab We Met, where Shahid Kapoor was every bit as young and in love as the characters played by Dhanush and Jayam Ravi, but was not required to participate in a gravity-defying, laws-of-physics-challenging action sequence, and (despite his excellent dancing skills) not asked to match steps with a navel-baring Rakhi Sawant?
Copyright ©2008 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Shankar
April 27, 2008
Well, it’s not just the state of present day cinema. The “item number” has always been in our cinema, one way or the other. Plus it’s not always been the purview of lesser directors. Even the great Mani (to my greatest consternation) does it regularly…”Pani Vizhum – Mouna Ragam”, “September Madham – Alai Paayudhe” to name couple. I feel the target audience has widened as well as matured, in terms of having a multiplex audience, B/C center audience (not my words) etc to give any film a legitimate shot at being profitable. The grouse of better directors has always been that the distributors (under the guise of knowing the audience pulse) refuse to touch a movie if it doesn’t involve these commercial compromises. So, I wouldn’t lay all the blame on the audience for their failure to accept movies without these compromises. These compromises reflect the state of movie making in most parts of our country where it’s as much an exploration of art as well as a purely economics oriented enterprise.
I also feel, the more you feed the audiences a certain type of movie, the more they become tuned to it (similar to music) and the formula comes to stay. Even in a state like Kerala, where discerning small films (arty as some others see it) had a great shot at success among mainstream audiences, a combination of really bad movie making aided by lesser talents (in recent times) and the influx of commercial pot-boilers from other languages, have made those audiences more in line with other parts of the country. So now the distributors there sing the same tune as others. So, to put the audiences at the crux of this issue would be a slightly myopic view, in my opinion.
LikeLike
Anonymous
April 28, 2008
Shankar: Finally done being held incommunicado, are we? 🙂 A comment from you after a long time, it seems.
About “laying all the blame on the audience,” who is? The way I see it, brangan certainly isn’t. Just like you’ve included distributors in the equation, he has included at least two other parties: the writers/directors who see it necessary to work that “additional requirement” into the movie script, and the commitment-phobic heros who consistently opt out of scripts that portray them as anything but macho. (I remember reading someone’s angst-ridden comment to that effect on a recent post here but I think brangan quickly pulled it down — and rightly so, but not before daring to give that person his two seconds of microphone time — because, yes, that comment had cuss words that were certainly not “family friendly.” 🙂 )
So, to your point, I don’t think brangan “places the audience at the crux of this issue.” In nostalgically wondering why elements that were once exclusive to the masala genre have oh-so-easily infiltrated (and perhaps corrupted) “family” films today, he tries to nudge us in the direction of an open-ended conclusion: that this is a shared blame that begs collective course correction. Of course, that’s just my two cents!
brangan: The bit about Rahasya should be enough to give me spasmodic laugh attacks for the rest of the week. 🙂
And you’re simply on a roll with semantics or what? Killing vs. murder; protagonist vs. hero…I’m tempted to blame it on “The Train,” (where you balk at the redundancy of the “Kahin chori, kahin robbery” reference by the heroine, to which Vivek Gupta responds, “..legally they are two different crimes. Chori means getting something that does not belong to you by stealth whereas robbery may also include an element of direct intimidation or threat of bodily harm,” — not to mention Aditya Pant’s Ghulam Ali ghazal quote that backs up Vivek’s theory). And voila, we have such knock-on-the-noggin the-devil’s-in-the-semantics posts these days that some of us have actually begun to think. 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
April 28, 2008
Shankar: I meant films that had young heroes, plus “humour and romance and charm and sentiment”. I didn’t want to consider films like Moondram Pirai (which had a blatant “commercial compromise” in the form of Ponmeni) or Anjaathey (with Kathazhai), because these were a hard-sell anyway, and the compromise is understandable (if not exactly desirable). I agree with a lot of what you say, but do you really think people wouldn’t watch SS or YRM without a fight or an item number?
Anon: I wasn’t consciously going for it, but yes, it does appear this has been a bit of a semantics week.
LikeLike
Sagarika
April 28, 2008
brangan: An aside. I get it now why some folks are so anti-emoticon. My comment above (anon. was a server thing; not me conciously ducking for cover), in its one-emoticon-per-para yellowy glory, looks as if someone flung 4 eggs at it (surprise, surprise!) and the yolks stuck while the whites washed off the splattered shells. Ewww. I wish there were a better way to, via words, represent tone.
LikeLike
Sridhar
April 29, 2008
Hmm … wouldn’t Mozhi fall under the category? It made no “commercial compromises” that I could see. Also, I am trying to think of any segment in Katradhu Thamizh that was forced in. And KT definitely was a movie steeped in seriousness. Also, does Shahid Kapur actually fall under the category of “major male star”?
LikeLike
Balaji
April 29, 2008
BR, wrt ur question “do you really think people wouldn’t watch SS or YRM without a fight…”, i remember a time – admittedly a long time ago – when my decision to see a movie was decided solely by the answer to the question “Fight irukka?” 🙂 Its the answer to that which made me choose ‘mangamma sabatham’ over ‘poove poochudavaa’! Viewers like that, if they exist now, may be the targets for those unnecessary fights. Tweaking ur question a wee bit, I’d ask if there’s anyone who wouldn’t see SS or YNM just because they include a fight? If the answer is ‘No’ and adding the fight can get in some new viewers, “why not?” could well be the director’s line of thinking 🙂
LikeLike
Deepauk M
April 29, 2008
There is no such thing as a sexless romance – there’s an oxymoron if ever there was one. But of course, the leading ladies in the Bhim Singh days would never openly cavort on screen. Even the present day actresses who like to stay in the family audience image trap try to keep the mini-skirt “Hips dont lie” impersonations to a minimum, providing people like Mumaith and Rahasiya an occupation. (Personally I preferred Mumaith’s Shakira impersonation in the original AMAV). I think the item number in YNM is just Selvaraghavan representing the story’s own sexual frustration. About the fights, the less said the better.
LikeLike
brangan
April 30, 2008
Sridhar: I didn’t count Mozhi because even if they’d had an item number, it would have been excusable, considering its (relatively offbeat) subject. So too KT. The piece was whether these light films — that already have so many other things to draw audiences — need these fights and songs.
Balaji: Of course. But now that you’ve grown up, you don’t look at them the same way, do you. And even in YNM, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be fights. All I’m saying is: “why he couldn’t have dropped hints of a running conflict through the film, so that when this fight erupts we at least know that it’s been a long time coming.” And Holy FSM, Mangamma Sabadham. what bad memories I have of that one. Cola Cola Coca Cola indeed. To think that Rajini ended up with the Amitabh remakes and Kamal found himself doing Mithun’s…
Deepauk M: But is sex the same as an out-of-context item number that does nothing for the “family” film?
LikeLike
Deepauk M
May 1, 2008
Brangan: I was just playing devil’s advocate. In all seriousness I agree with everythign in the article. Unlike Kevin Lomax, it seems I cant make a convincing argument unless I believe it myself :).
LikeLike
Balaji
May 1, 2008
Will we see a review of ‘kuruvi’? Btw, have u ever reviewed a Vijay film? Don’t remember seeing one on your site 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
May 1, 2008
Balaji: No review boss. I’ll probably catch it this weekend, and if there’s something that catches my eye, I’ll use it for Between Reviews. But for the record, I enjoyed Ghilli a great deal. For that matter, I doubt I’ll find the enthu for a proper review of Deca-Avatar. I’m still in shock over the music – and about the ego-massage in Ulaganayakane. I mean, “I Naa-vum unnai azhaikkum?” Give me an effing break!
LikeLike
Balaji
May 1, 2008
I seem to be one of the few who actually liked the ‘Dasavatharam’ music. On ‘Ulaganayakane…’, I too was surprised at the ego-massage, esp. in a Kamal film, but if the song were to be picturized on the American President character, that would kinda be a clever, double entendre ego-massage instead of the non-subtle, direct ego-massage we get in those Rajni and Vijay intro songs, don’t u think? 🙂
LikeLike
Sagarika
May 2, 2008
brangan: Speaking of sex and violence for the *whole* family, I can’t help but recall my nightmares from a 2004 viewing of Virumaandi (evening show) at a Chennai theater (Udayam) during a visit back home (I still can’t believe — and don’t expect anyone else to, either — that it was my first theater experience at Chennai, since leaving the city-I-grew-up-in for good in ’98; so to me, it was a big deal). Wasn’t really the violence in Virumaandi that got to me (although it obviously was a pretty (good but) violent film)…What had me sobbing spasmodically (yes, allow me to shamelessly admit that I slobbered away into my handkerchief thru the train ride back home to Tambaram from Kodambakkam, with most people watching likely assuming it was an obvious instance of spousal-argument-gone-sour) was the fact that some people had the God-given “good sense” of bringing along their 5 year olds, 3 year olds, infants even (hey, what about that 99-year-old great-grandma-with-the-weak-heart whom the family can’t wait to get rid of? won’t this be a the perfect opportunity to facilitate her “natural” passing away?…geez…what kind of people are we?), all of whom were, I’m sure, terrified (euphemism, I know) of the violence being shoved down their tender throats and that too, this close to their bedtimes. I began to lose it when, toward the last 30 minutes of the movie, I slipped my tired feet out of my shoes and they came in contact with this warm gush of fluid flowing aisle-wards, originating two seats down from where I sat…A little boy (barely four) had peed in his pants and was (at the moment I glanced his way) shaking and trying to look every which way but at the screen, while his mom (I think) sat nest to him blissfully gaping at the screen. By the time the end credits rolled, I’d completely lost it, was shaking, myself, feeling knots in my stomach, fighting back tears…it was an awful feeling, finding out firsthand what some parents these days are selfishly subjecting their kids to, the moment they pop out of the womb. Whatever happened to this thing they call ratings?
Speaking of ratings, here’s a related anecdote that dates back to 1984…a year I recall as one where big-name Chennai theaters were likely turning into their own censor boards, assigning an “A” to just about any family fare that catches their fancy. (I was not even 10 then and couldn’t obviously know to ask why.) All I know is that dad had taken us to watch Rajini’s “Thambikku entha ooru” at Devi Paradise and the guy at the gate wouldn’t let us in. It’s an “A” movie and kids are not allowed, we were told. How our faces fell! He punted us off to a smallish theater right next door called Anna (does this even exist any more?) where he said they would be a bit more “lenient” with enforcing ratings. Not wanting to disappoint the family having come all the way for a night at the movies, dad half-heartedly bought tickets to one “Vidhi” that was running next door…and what a “family fare” that movie was…I won’t even begin to talk about the assault on a child’s barely developed sensibilities that one was. (And to think what a squeaky-clean fare “Thambikku entha ooru” actually was, when I saw it several years later!). And “Holy FSM, Mangamma Sabadham. what bad memories I have of that one. Cola Cola Coca Cola..” indeed! I watched it the very next year, under very similar circumstances as the above (Sorry dad, but one would think you’d have learned a lesson from the “Vidhi” experience, no? But since you’re *my* dad and I guess I turned out OK, I’ll obviously cut you more slack than I do other peoples moms and dads…”Judge away” is the name of the game as far as the latter are concerned…). Phew, had to get that out.
LikeLike
vimal
May 5, 2008
Well, BR, if you havent watched Kuruvi, pls stay away from it. It isnt even close to any of Dharanis previous attempts.
I kno, i shudnt b tellin this, but Kuruvi is one such movie that should be watched in “Thiruttu Cd’s” !!!
LikeLike
selva
May 13, 2008
First of all, We should question Balaji on why he is asking that question. Is it coz he is a Dharani fan 🙂
Well. BR, expecting your review for Kuruvi eagerly 🙂
LikeLike