A COCKAMAMIE TALE
An alter ego with the same name and the same powers as the superhero? Is it surprising that “Kandasamy” is such a maddening misfire?
SEP 6, 2009 – A THOUSAND FRUSTRATING QUESTIONS swam around my throbbing head as I sat through the bewildering mess that is Kandasamy. Is there anything as baldly hypocritical as a film that lavishes untold (and unneeded) crores on exotic location shooting in Mexico, and subsequently summons up the gall to lecture us about the impoverished in India? Is there anything as ridiculous as a film that wants to have it every possible way, impressing on us images of the undulating bottom of the leading lady as well as the arched backbone of the sack-toting labourer? Is there anything as depressing as the sight of a once-promising actor mistaking puerility for populism, so drunk in his quest for acceptance as almighty mass-hero that he willingly trashes the very aspects of the charmingly low-key persona that made us embrace him in the first place?
But more to the point, wasn’t anyone associated with Kandasamy alert to the apparent paradox of making a “superhero” movie in a cinema culture where the mass-hero is already a superhero? Not that Krrish was much good, but for all the problems with that superhero fantasy, you at least saw why it seemed like a good idea, at least on paper. After Sunny Deol paled into insignificance, the mythic do-gooder played by Hrithik Roshan could have been a resurrection of sorts for the he-man hero who has all but vanished from Bollywood. But the all-in-one masala movie, as well as the archetypal all-in-one hero, is still very much a part of Tamil cinema – the hero still manages to single-handedly dispatch dozens of opponents in fights, and he is still revered as a demigod, both onscreen and off.
Close to interval point in Kandasamy, a devotee raises his arms and clasps his palms in prayer, and at the centre of the flesh-and-blood frame thus formed, the director Susi Ganesan positions his star, Vikram. Not only is this eponymous hero named after the god Murugan, not only is he shown fulfilling the wishes of devotees as if he’s god’s proxy on earth, he’s himself venerated as a god. (And towards the end, in a temple in the northern parts of the country, he appears ready to fulfill the wishes of the devotees there – he’s truly omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.) And yet, there’s a baffling attempt to demystify the workings of this superhero. We don’t question, for an instant, how Rajinikanth lifts up a leg and twirls it so fast that he whips up a tornado that flattens his opponents – that is, after all, the prerogative of the mass-hero – but here, we’re asked to buy into the deconstruction of the mass-hero.
We’re shown that Kandasamy can never be who he is without the assistance of a dozen others who operate mechanical contraptions that allow him to fly and fight. (This is literally what the Greeks called a deux ex machina – a god lowered onto the stage through machinery in order to solve the crises at hand.) This tiresome wannabe action-epic wants it both ways – on the one hand, it wants to scale its superhero down to the all-too-human size of a Batman (when we first set eyes on Kandasamy, he’s dangling behind the villain, a caped crusader attired in black), and yet, on the other hand, it cannot resist the mythologies of the superhuman mass-hero. So we get an alter ego – a CBI officer named, oddly enough, Kandasamy – who can sniff out hidden stashes of illegal money with the sixth sense of a superhuman, and who can beat up a dozen thugs even while blindfolded.
Where’s the sense if Clark Kent turned out as super-heroic as Superman? As a result, we never miss the superhero Kandasamy as he vanishes for large stretches in the second half, because the regular-hero Kandasamy takes over without breaking into a sweat. (The inevitable question, therefore, is: Why bother with the superhero at all?) And you have to wonder why, after having decided to derive from the patented Shankar formula of a “Robin Hood” do-gooder crusading against social evil, did they not emulate the template of, say, Mudhalvan (which, to my mind, is the finest film Shankar ever made). There too, we had a mild-mannered man slip into the superhero avatar of a Chief Minister in order to do good – and the story was resonant with entertainment as well as wish-fulfillment. All you wish in Kandasamy is for the interminable film to draw to a close – you don’t care about who this man is, why he’s doing the things he’s doing, how he’s going to escape the long arm of the law, and what’s going to happen to him by the end.
So many choices in the film are so jaw-droppingly ludicrous that, with a little more coherence (and, I admit, a lot more credit to auteurist ambition), the goings-on could have been read as a deliberately deconstructionist meditation on the superhero saga. We might have wondered if, with the feathered headdress and the bobbing neck, the rooster-hero was an attempt to show us how equally laughable it is to see a superhero attired as a bat or a superheroine slinking about like a cat. But we’re not meant to laugh at this Kandasamy – the comedy is entirely unintentional. The headaches, however, are intended, thanks to the ceaseless slo-mo hyper-editing and the thundering whooshes on the soundtrack. If this is masala, give me the unpretentious Silambattam any day. It wears its disreputability like a proud badge of honour, it doesn’t take itself half as seriously, and unsurprisingly, it ends up twice as much fun.
Copyright ©2009 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Mambazha Manidhan
September 6, 2009
Finally ! The review we have been waiting for. “ceaseless slo-mo hyper-editing” The whole movie looked like it had been struck by lightning.Though flashy editing techniques in Tamil Cinema have been around since Kakka Kakka, the immature manner in which the images were spliced together made it look like they are doing it for the first time.
I must admit the Mexico episode had its visual moments even if they were there for the sake of it.
baradwaj:What did you think of the fake vigilante comedy track? 😛
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
September 6, 2009
Baradwaj,
That was a great review. Wasted about Rs. 250 for this rubbish and I was in a state of shock that day. Won’t the producer, director and the actor see the movie before releasing it in the cinema halls? What is even more shocking is that this movie has been declared a hit. I have given up on tamil movies and audience after this.
LikeLike
Priti
September 6, 2009
kandasamy was terrible. the dance and the kokarako… good lord! i wanted to die of embarrassment right there.
sometimes your between reviews columns are reviews by themselves. your newspaper does have a dedicated tamil movie critic no? they allot space for the views of two critics on the same movie eh? 🙂
LikeLike
nitpicker
September 6, 2009
the greeks? isn’t deus ex machina latin?
LikeLike
nitpicker
September 6, 2009
feel free to delete these comments, btw. just wanted to clarify…maybe it was the greeks after all, but just in case… 😀
LikeLike
Padawan
September 6, 2009
Mudhalvan (which, to my mind, is the finest film Shankar ever made)? Should it not be Indian?
Thanks to word of mouth and an extended day at work(!) I managed to miss Kandasamy!
LikeLike
Arun
September 7, 2009
very true sir.. lousy movie..only saridon and crocin can make business out of a movie like this
Do read this review for kandaswamy .. funniest one i read in a longtime, it actually makes the movie worth a watch, you know http://blogeswari.blogspot.com/2009/08/kandasamy.html
LikeLike
brangan
September 7, 2009
Mambazha Manidhan: That scene with Vadivelu in jail held one big laugh for me when he began to wash his clothes 🙂
Priti: But this is *so* not a review. I haven’t even mentioned the heroine’s name 🙂
nitpicker: But it was the Greek plays that made the device popular, no? Or were there lots of Latin plays too where the gods descended onto the proscenium? 🙂
LikeLike
Deepak
September 7, 2009
Well, you certainly ripped “Kandasamy” a new one! 🙂
LikeLike
Priti
September 7, 2009
well, yes. but it wasn’t with specific reference to this between reviews piece. i am sure there were several points in your piece that overlap with the actual review, such as in the case of pokkisham perhaps. hence the doubt 😀
good lord! the telugu bits in that link are HILARIOUS!
LikeLike
Vivek Mohan
September 7, 2009
The superhero bit actually looked like it was a bit of an after thought really. The producer must have been inspired by Spiderman 3, Superman Returns, Iron Man and Dark Knight all which released in the rather long production time it took to bring this movie to the theaters.
Or maybe Sivaji beat this movie tothe theaters and they were forced to make the mass hero a super hero.
But one common complaint I have heard from almost everyone I have talked to about this move was headache! Not figuratively speaking, but real and painful headaches. Maybe it was to do with all the flashy editing. Talk about audience impact
LikeLike
Vijay
September 8, 2009
BR, it looks like I am not the only one who thinks your Between reviews pieces on Tamil films are actually like reviews. I mean, anyone who reads this piece has to clearly get by the end of it what you felt of the movie 🙂 After Vikram doo-vittufied with Sudhish Kamath for giving a thumbs down for Bheema, it might be your turn next. Watch out if your editor sends you after him 🙂
I think Vikram went South from/after Anniyan in his misguided attempt to be “Kamal and Rajni rolled into one”. Will it take a Manirathnam to get back the likable persona you are talking about? I myself have never been a big fan of him, especially when he tries to “act”. I can watch him in regular masala fare like Dhool and Saami.
LikeLike
Vijay
September 8, 2009
And how about the songs? Perfectly crafted nursery rhymes. Devi Sriprasad can give Harris Jayaraj a run for his money. No sympathy for the Golts though. Suffer through your Mani sharmas and Devi Sriprasads.
LikeLike
kamil
September 8, 2009
I dont think professionals from the Tamil filmdom are able to stomach criticism meted out on their dear products. Just came about this with Thanu and Kandasamy’s scathing review by the Hindu http://www.ndtv.com/news/blogs/super_south/raavan_in_the_making.php
Do these clowns expect people to downright surrender their consent without judging for themselves on the quality of the product. If they dont take criticism, then they should find another vocation to indulge in as it severely undermines their so called “passion towards good cinema”. I remember Gautham Menon being ostracized by a section of Tamil filmdom for being a little too forthright.
LikeLike
brangan
September 8, 2009
Vijay / Kamil: About the reaction to criticism, the big news in the journo circles here, a few days ago, was that Vikram and wife barged into the office of The Hindu and protested that Sudhish’s review was a personal attack. (He’d written something about the actor’s sexuality.) And subsequently, the paper published a “puff piece” about the film’s success as appeasement. I’m so thankful I don’t cover Kollywood 🙂
About this piece being like a review, it talks about a very specific dimension of the film — the superhero in the context of the masala movie. Had I written a review, I’d have been more inclusive of other aspects of the film.
LikeLike
brangan
September 8, 2009
nitpicker: On second thoughts, you’re right. The phrase *is* Latin after all, and I wrote “This is literally what the Greeks called a deux ex machina.” (The Greeks wouldn’t have “called” it that.) I should have written something like, “”This is literally what the Greek tragedies employed to solve the crises at the end, a deux ex machina…”
Now that we’re into serious nitpicking, though, I wonder if there’s a term that the Greeks did indeed use to describe this plot device 🙂
LikeLike
kamil
September 8, 2009
I Think this crap even beats Perarasu who id believed is on a divine mission to drag tamil cinema into the doldrums. Perarasu film with panache is Kandasamy.
LikeLike
kamil
September 8, 2009
By the way Rangan….from the T S Sudhir piece on NDTV. Do you know who the celebrated personality that Thanu alluded to is hell bent on taking this movie down? Kollywood gossip!
LikeLike
brangan
September 8, 2009
kamil: I think the review is Sudhish’s (from The Hindu), but about the “celebrated actor who Dhanu hates passionately,” is he referring to Kamal? (I think there’s no love lost between the two after “Aalavandaan.”) In any case, the film does a fine job, by itself, of damaging its “prospects at the box office.” I don’t think any external help was/is needed 🙂
LikeLike
APALA
September 9, 2009
Dear BRangan,
right on the money – your review! I really wish I can say that about the total-crap-samy which took my money – and more importantly 3:30 hours of my time, which I can never earn back.
Susi Ganesan was talking about the in-equality in India when Suhasini and himself were kissing each others butt ——– I was just so mad……. How dare these ass-holes talk like that when all that they have managed after two years was worse than human-waste!?!!!
LikeLike
raj
September 9, 2009
Ah! Innocent old Sudhish, right? And sudhish’s personal feud with vikram’s got nothing to do with his constant jibes on vikram’s sexuality, eh?
Standing up for a fellow reviewer, are we?
And you really believe that if you stayed in mumbai and took a potshot at a star’s sexuality, you won’t get a visit from the underworld, never mind the star and his wife?
Amazingly, bolly sycophants have taken this chance to brushstroke tamil movie personalities as intolerant?
Salmon khan? Aamir khan?sensitive amitap who shut out the press at his peak for a decade or more?c
Rajni, the biggest star in tollywood, who forgave manorama after a round of public profane abuse?
Kamal, who gets his back at journalists only by winning a war of words with wit?
But I guess this space has turned into bollywood bubble dwellere, who paint all shades of nobilkity on bolly and throw careless, unthinking muck at others.
Huh!
Sudhish will do well not to mix his personal vendetta using the platform given by his employers. Not long ago, he took a potshot at abbas in the review of a movie of shaam. We all know abbas walked out of your movie, sudhish.
Baradwaj, you must publsih this – if it is ok to take potshots at a star’s sexuality in a newspaper, then this is nothing to be sensitive about
LikeLike
kamil
September 9, 2009
Rangan…..Heard shruti haasan’s music debut yet??
LikeLike
Shankar
September 9, 2009
One other disturbing aspect is the fact that stars (and directors) feel compelled to do bigger and grander movies once they have given a few hits. Vikram might be on that path (though he has, in the past, balanced it with Majaa, Pithamagan etc)…similarly Surya seems to be heading down that lane. Even Mani, who makes a Kannathil or Alai Payudhe, in tamil, feels compelled to direct on a wider canvas, with multi-star, big budget films such as Yuva, Guru etc in Hindi. Why can’t he give us a smaller film, like the afore-mentioned ones, for a “Mithya”, “Oye Lucky” type market (multiplex)? It’s just not the economics alone dictating this trend…From a production perspective, There are enough examples of big, flashy producers going completely broke (Thanu, Kunjumon etc) after a few huge flops while others consistently make profits by leveraging smaller films (SuperGood etc). Even Aascar (or however else he spells it now) is relatively quiet nowadays…
PS: Susi is way over rated…
LikeLike
brangan
September 9, 2009
kamil: No, not yet 🙂
Shankar: I quite liked Majaa. Dunno why it’s got such a bad rap, in the sense that I’ve seen “hero” movies that are a million times worse.
But there’s a problem with the “Mithya” type movie here, no? There isn’t enough of a multiplex market. Where will they get their money back from? Maybe as more multiplexes come up, things might change. But even in the current scenario, I think it’s fantastic that films like “Subramaniyapuram” and “Vennila Kabaddi Kuzhu” did well on small budgets. Though these, again, are rural-based and therefore with a wider appeal than, say, a “Mithya.”
Where I’ll agree with you is that someone like Mani can do these smaller films in the Hindi market — he can take on the subjects that aren’t “viable” here, in a market sense — but is instead focusing his energies on endless mega-productions.
LikeLike
Shankar
September 10, 2009
Baddy, maybe I didn’t phrase it right. I was referring to Mani making smaller movies in Hindi (like he has done in tamil) instead of mega projects.
Also, I wasn’t pitching for multiplex subjects in tamil, just smaller films. I understand many of the recent hits were rural based, but we have had city based films that were “different” as well…”Sivappu Rojakkal”, “Vidiyum Varai Kathiru” etc. These two came to mind, but there will be other examples as well. I’m getting really tired of this super-hero stuff. There are times when I really miss the likes of Bhagyaraj. There’s zero chance that he will be mistaken for a super-hero ever!! 🙂
LikeLike
s
September 10, 2009
There was a bit of personal attack that i did think was in bad taste in sudhish’s review. that bit cant masquerade itself under a reviewer’s prerogative.
Filmmakers not ready to accept reviews is a separate battle.
LikeLike
Suderman
September 10, 2009
Hey Baddy,
Was wondering how I am getting hits from your site and I see all this discussion about personal remarks in a review.
🙂
Just thought I ll clarify a few things and contribute my two cents to this discussion.
Abbas is a good friend and we are in touch quite regularly. He’s the first person I’ve thanked in the credits of my film. Though we didnt do the film together because of creative differences, I will be ever grateful to him for helping me with my film. It’s something I will owe him for the rest of my life. I admire the guy’s passion for cinema but sometimes, it’s not the best thing for an actor when you’re directing the film. As for the potshot Raj is talking about, i think he read too much into a review.
In all my reviews, I havent spared any actor or in some cases, even the filmmaker from making such “personal” remarks.
When we worship star persona, why are eyebrows raised when we make fun of the persona?
Don’t most of us make fun of Simbu or Vijayakanth or T Rajendherr? Then, what makes some others sacred?
I believe that personality or star charisma is an important integral factor of cinema and hence, I’ve taken jibes at everyone from Vivek Oberoi (I said his last best role was in a Devanampattinam), Ranbir Kapoor (called h Sawariya a fairy’s tale) to Tobey Maguire (for being chubby) to Sarath Kumar’s shaved chest in 1977 to Shaam’s attempts to be macho by sporting moustache to Fardeen’s butt-shaped chin in Darling to Mohanlal’s figure in RGV Ki Aag to… anyway, you get the idea. I take potshots at not just actors but also filmmakers sometimes when they rip-off my fav films, and I rip them apart no holds barred.
What I write has nothing to do what they did to me or didnt do to me. I don’t even know most of the people I write about. Are these guys trying to tell me that because I have met some of them personally I should change my style?
I should also add here that I felt extremely bad when Sarath Kumar wrote back saying We are free to criticise his work but not make personal comments about his man-boobs. That, I thought, was a very valid point. I admire the guy for making his point without trying to justify how 1977 was a masterpiece.
Though I have ripped apart most of RGV’s recent films, he’s one filmmaker I have great respect for. I admire his courage. Reviews sometimes do not communicate how you much you personally admire them.
Similarly, I may not think much about Ashutosh Gowariker as a person for making a big deal about a few potshots taken at his cast but I love his films nonetheless. Sometimes, people you don’t like make good movies and people you like make bad movies. It’s outside the scope of a review to go into what you think of these guys personally unless it’s persona that we’re talking about – persona that comes out through a film.
And as far as the latest episode is concerned, Raj and S are free to read my reviews of this actor’s earlier films even when he considered me a friend (i only consider myself as a fan and critic)… Even then, I had made such remarks.
My point is that I have always been making these “personal” remarks in my blogs and reviews… and any criticism of the fact that i make such remarks is quite valid but any assumption that these remarks are a reaction to any possible fallout is absolutely baseless and false.
I have been extremely transparent about my interactions with all these stars in my blog. I maintain that my reputation as a critic a reader can trust is more important to me than any sense of ego. I do not consider myself that important a person enough to clash with stars or filmmakers with a considerable amount of experience making whatever kind of films.
I maintain I do not have a problem with any of these guys and I really can’t help it if they or their fans hate me. It’s part of what I do.
And even if I do have a problem, unless it does not pertain to the subject matter, it is quite irrelevant to the reader or the review which is why I make it a point to validate any statement I make in my review with examples.
Just to set the record straight, the “puff piece” you mentioned wasn’t obviously written by me. 🙂
But personally, I think they deserve a news report to set on record their collections if they really believe that my review cost them Rs.25 crores of business as alleged.
A review at the end of the day is just one person’s opinion and I am surprised and flattered how seriously people take this opinion.
I do believe that a review is best enjoyed by the reader when the reader has seen the film. Especially when the film is
LikeLike
Suderman
September 10, 2009
Oops, sent comment before finishing that last word.
Especially, when the film is bad.
LikeLike
Qalandar
September 11, 2009
I’m clearly in the minority* here, in that I enjoyed this film a lot: http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2009/08/kanthasaamy-tamil-2009.html
*[although, if Sify is to be believed, the film has done very well].
LikeLike
Satyam
September 11, 2009
Oh I loved this one. Liked it more than Anniyan in fact or at least the latter on an initial viewing. Vikram does have his hit though and perhaps a superhit if it holds up a bit more (check out Sify.. avoid the anti-Vikram behindwoods!). His next release is of course Raavan. So he’s back!
Your review is great as always even if I’m diametrically opposed this time around (actually I was even with Love aaj Kal!).
Here’s Qalandar on the film:
http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2009/08/kanthasaamy-tamil-2009.html
LikeLike
Satyam
September 11, 2009
The interesting thing I have detected about Kandasamy within a certain segment of the audience is just sheer annoyance at the film. This wasn’t a reaction Anniyan provoked. Even if all criticism of this film is accepted one wonders whether this is truly that extraordinary a narrative failure in an industry which provides countless examples of masala on testosterone every year. The film is in some ways ideologically rather sharper than the usual Shankar fantasies and this I suspect is part of the reason.
There is incidentally a villain here, the Hindi film actor Manoj Tiwari. who roams around in a luxury bus having group sex and otherwise resting in a bathtub (also on the bus) with flower petals (this reminded me a bit of a SRK ad and I suspect others too!). Towards the end there is documentary footage of intense poverty that seems to shame the viewer in many ways. There is the mock tribute to Ash with Vikram in drag (an extremely interesting moment for students of the ‘iconic’). The suitably middle class Shreya Saran in Sivaji becomes a bit of a liberated sexpot here. I think these examples are instructive. Anniyan was the excessive masala film that did not push the envelope in any sense. Kandasamy though has more of an edge for the kind of film it is. The other thing though is that this film is both superhero film and ‘mock’ superhero film at one and the same time.
LikeLike
Satyam
September 11, 2009
By the way check this out (for those who are unaware) for the link between Murugan and the rooster!
LikeLike
Qalandar
September 11, 2009
PS– this piece confirms once again, Baradwaj, that you are one of the few reviewers in India it is a joy to read even when one’s own experience of a movie has been diametrically opposed… I’ve always felt a good reviewer should offer a pathway/insight into the movie, and that’s what keeps this reader coming back to your work…
LikeLike
Satyam
September 11, 2009
Oops here’s the link I meant to cite earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murugan
LikeLike
Qalandar
September 12, 2009
Re: “The other thing though is that this film is both superhero film and ‘mock’ superhero film at one and the same time.”
This was indeed a fascinating aspect of the concept underlying the film, but Susi Ganeshan didn’t think it through, and thus we are left with some tantalizing glimpses, but no more…
I do think the point Baradwaj raises, of the super-hero film as a “problem” the way it is treated in Kanthasaamy, is an interesting one. I personally found the “resolution” — of a Clark Kent who is more super than Superman — to be hilarious for the reasons Baradwaj found it absurd, but I also found it to be quite in keeping with the traditions of Tamil masala (where, for instance, the vulnerability of a Bachchan in Deewar is not as much in evidence in recent decades as is the invincibility of a god)…
LikeLike
raj
October 6, 2009
Not as good as drona. Apisek Pachan is God!
Superhero padamna drona maadhiri edukkanum all time classic-a, adha vuttuttu, ntional award vaangina nadiganai ellaam pottu ipdi oru padam. Idhaiye indhila apisek pachan vechu eduthirundha critical acclaimavadhu kedaichirukkum
LikeLike
Arun
November 26, 2009
Good movie,but not as expected.vikram rockz…
LikeLike