Is Mysskin an auteur (however loosely the term applies in the context of commercial Tamil cinema), a compulsive creator scratching at recurrent itches? Or is he simply a mainstream moviemaker with a firm sense of craft and a fondness for fetishes? Mugamoodi is not likely to resolve this question, though it does function as a furthering of those fetishes. No recent filmmaker has made, in so short a while, such a distinctive body of work with such a determinedly eccentric visual style. We may begin, for instance, with the colour yellow, featured not just in the item songs but also in the frequent use of auto-rickshaws in Mysskin’s cinema. (His first film, Chitiram Pesuthadi, even had a character, the one played by ‘Gaana’ Ulaganathan, whose backstory hinged on the colour. And let’s not forget the “manja selai” line in the item song in Yuddham Sei.) Mugamoodi breaks away from this trend – but raise your hands if you thought, as I did, that if Mysskin made a superhero movie, the costume would come in some shade of yellow.
Then there are the handicapped characters ( the heroine’s blind aunt in Chitiram Pesuthadi, the one-armed friend in Anjaathey, the hunchback in Mugamoodi), the fight sequence where the lone hero faces a number of thugs who come at him one by one or in pairs (we saw this in Anjaathey and Yudhdham Sei), a father gunned down in front of a distraught son (Anjaathey, Yuddham Sei), characters who often speak in English (the heroine in Chitiram Pesuthadi, the higher-up cops in Anjaathey and Yudhdham Sei), crimes involving abducted girls and women cracked by protagonists with little time for romance or a personal life (Anjaathey and Yudhdham Sei), the penchant for the prurient (the father caught visiting a prostitute in Chitiram Pesuthadi, the Peeping Tom villain in Anjaathey, the lecherous old men in Yudhdham Sei), the ties between an older brother and a younger sister (Anjaathey and Yudhdham Sei), those supporting characters in black sunglasses (the blind aunt in Chitiram Pesuthadi, the old aide of the villainous gang in Yudhdham Sei, the blind tipplers in a bar in Mugamoodi), and, memorably, all those shots of disembodied torsos and legs.
Mysskin’s fetishes go beyond the surface, beyond – say – the eastern iconography. (In Mugamoodi, a dragon puppet is designed for some Chinese embassy, and a Buddha statue sits on the terrace of a household. The film itself is dedicated to Bruce Lee.) There are, for instance, those hypnotic long shots that foreshadow dread – when the boxes with dismembered limbs are discovered in Yuddham Sei, or in the opening scene of Mugamoodi, where a garbage-pickup truck stops by a trash can. (The payoff will arrive later.) There’s the allusion to philosophy (even in its lighter forms) – in the symbolic book, Man’s Search for Meaning, that the searching protagonist gifts the troubled youth at the end of Yuddham Sei, or at the entrance to the workshop of the hero’s grandfather (Girish Karnad) in Mugamoodi, where we see the Socratic maxim “Know thyself.” (The aimless hero asks his grandfather what he should be. The latter replies, “Unnaiye kettukko.” Know thyself.) And there’s a dysfunctional father-son dynamic here like the one in Anjaathey, where the disappointed father never thought that the son would amount to anything.
We are used to filmmakers succumbing to a fetish or two – whether it’s the Hitchcock cameo or Shankar’s painted vehicles in his songs – but few, if any, have rounded up such a formidable roster of must-haves. Do these hint at mere superstition, like a lucky pen we’d take along for an examination? I think not. I think there’s something more, something deeper. But this shallow superhero movie is not the place to go looking for answers. A filmmaker cannot always be making the movies we want him to make, and just because we have a certain image of Mysskin, certain expectations from him after three very solid films (for a number of reasons, I exclude Nandalala from the list), he is not obliged to meet them. But however much someone wants to stretch, there’s baggage that he carries along with him, and watching Mugamoodi –with its mix of the Mysskin of old, the quasi-philosopher, and the newly minted Mysskin here, the let’s-give-people-a-good-time entertainer – is to see someone struggle mightily to tell a story he thinks we want to see when the story he wants to tell is really something else.
Firstly, let’s examine the need for a superhero in Tamil cinema, where we’re used to the most ordinary of heroes beating up scores of villains and bringing them down. These heroes are derived from our myths, whose protagonists were endowed with divine powers, and who were incarnated on earth to vanquish evil. What used to be done with a quiverful of arrows or a serrated discus, according to legend, is now accomplished with flying legs and fists – but the underlying conceit is the same. This kind of conceit is prevalent in Eastern pop culture (we find the one-versus-many fight sequences in the kung fu epics too), but not so much in the West, where ordinary mortals, in order to begin fighting crime, need to be bitten by a radioactive spider or equipped with hi-tech gadgetry. It’s only after these transformations do we exclaim “a hero is born,” whereas, here, we know a hero is born the instant he is delivered from the womb.
Secondly, a superhero makes sense only in the context of a supervillain. Rama was put on this earth to dispatch Ravana, who was wreaking havoc on sages and demigods and men. An awesome embodiment of good, to be birthed, needs an awesome embodiment of evil. The evil, in Mugamoodi, comes in the form of a gang of masked safecrackers (talk about “mugamoodi kollaikaarargal”), who rob and kill, and to stop them, you think your garden-variety cop-hero would be enough. Safecrackers are the kind of criminals a superhero tests his nascent powers on, as he’s learning to wield them, before moving on to the real villains. There’s something fascinating about the way the head of the gang (Naren, who seems to reside in Dracula’s lair) is sheathed in a creepy mask – it suggests something far more disturbing about him, like the Joker, that he’s not just someone who’s after locked-up gold and stacks of rupee notes. But the character is hardly developed, just as the inventor played by Girish Karnad amounts to nothing. He’s depicted as some sort of electronics whiz, designing robots, and he outfits his grandson in a superhero suit with gizmos that are hardly used.
Even the superhero conceit is barely touched upon in the film’s first half, which is filled with the usual hero-heroine (Jiiva-Pooja Hegde) business. (She thinks he’s a rowdy, he pursues her, and so on – you may want to be alerted about the presence of heart-shaped balloons, in a Mysskin movie yet!) One school of thought maintains that these things are necessary for a Tamil audience because they are used to certain things (and, like Mysskin, they need their must-haves too) and progress – if we are to call it that – can only come in small increments. But on the other hand, when the Tamil-dubbed versions of Hollywood superhero films are such huge hits, are we still to uphold the sanctity of Alpine duets? (The one in Mugamoodi is as much a mood-killer as the heroine’s dream song in Anjaathey.) Why not shape the heroine’s character in ways through which we feel about her plight (and root for her union with the hero) by the film’s end, when she is held captive by the villain? Instead, we get “cute scenes,” like the one where the heroine sees the hero relieve himself on the street, in costume.
The one interesting idea Mysskin has is to show that the hero – named Anand, but he prefers to go by Lee (as in Bruce) – initially slips into a superhero costume in playfulness. He is hiding his identity in a way, like all superheroes do, but for a slightly different reason – because the girl he’s fallen for thinks he’s a rowdy and doesn’t want anything to do with him. And then, when his friend is killed, he ends up becoming a real hero. This is the sort of story that SP Muthuraman told briskly in Paayum Puli (also filled with martial arts, following the craze unleashed by the release of films like The 36th Chamber of Shaolin), where Rajinikanth’s sister was killed and he went after the villains responsible. Mysskin’s artiness comes in the way. His deliberately showy effects, his offbeat rhythms, and the way he stages scenes at the midpoint between reality and artifice – like how Jiiva is framed, early on, frozen in a doorway, posing like a model for a Renaissance-era painter or sculptor, or how Naren camps it up at the end – come in the way of this very ordinary story, which just needed a hack with a vigorous temperament.
A hack more attuned to the story (instead of the auteur-like showiness in the telling) may have avoided the scene of the dying friend sprawled out on the road in the midst of fallen flowers (reminding us of the dead youth in Anjaathey, whose spot on the street was similarly commemorated with rose petals), and he may have simply concentrated on showcasing a superhero. By the end, the villain mocks the hero as “Thamizhnaattin superhero,” and we’re shown that ordinary citizens will give up their lives to help him. But all he’s done, up to that point, is catch a thief and accidentally save an Assistant Commissioner (Nasser) from being fatally shot. And yes, after he gets his shiny new suit, he does ward off a deadly attack in a hospital, but even there his heroism is (deliberately?) diminished. A doctor and (I presume) a resident see the superhero for the first time. There is no shock. There isn’t even much wonder. He asks her dryly, “Batman?” She replies, “Illa doctor, idhu vera yaaro.” It’s as if the city is teeming with superheroes and this is just – yawn! – another one.
I enjoyed the futuristic world the film seems to be set in, with thieves wielding the latest gadgets, and even the police divisions seem to be all computerised. And the film’s finest scene – we may label it the Mysskin moment – is a fight between the hero’s mentor and the villain, which feels like the showdown between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader, with the end left hanging. It’s showy touches like these that draw some of us to Mysskin’s movies – along with the bar song (last seen in Anjaathey). Unlike other filmmakers, Mysskin populates his bar not just with backup dancers but with blind men and drunk women and little people and a Socrates-spouting egghead and a sort-of godman (preaching in front of a picture of Rajinikanth) and several sales-executive types and an aged violinist who picks up a refrain from Annakiliye unnai theduthey. This single song has more character (and more audience-pleasing showmanship) than anything else in Mugamoodi, where it’s Mysskin who seems to be wearing a mask.
Copyright ©2012 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Praveen
September 3, 2012
LikeLike
Rohit Ramachandran
September 3, 2012
Great review.
LikeLike
B o o.
September 3, 2012
Oh my god! There should be a limit to how many sets of parenthesis one uses in a movie review! Thala suthudhu! All I expected from the movie was that it does nt turn out to be another kandasami so phew!
LikeLike
vijay
September 3, 2012
“Is Mysskin an auteur (however loosely the term applies in the context of commercial Tamil cinema), a compulsive creator scratching at recurrent itches? Or is he simply a mainstream moviemaker with a firm sense of craft and a fondness for fetishes? ”
or is he just an overrated gimmick-lover who THINKS he is an auteur? Lets not miss the obvious question
“is to see someone struggle mightily to tell a story he thinks we want to see when the story he wants to tell is really something else.
”
why do you make excuses for him? Maybe this is really the story he wanted to tell and he just sucks at it ?
You made this excuse earlier for the second half of Yudhdham Sei and atleast there it is a bit easier to digest, since he might have gotten cold feet about how to untie the knots.But here, he ventured into it right from the beginning, knowing he wanted to make a commercial superhero entertainer. He lacks conviction in his vision or maybe he doesnt have much of a vision at all.
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
September 3, 2012
Sir, Kandasami must be re-evaluated as a modern cult classic. I mean, miao miao poona is worth the price of admission alone. And in pambara kannale we have the unmatched cinematic feat of a pole dance in a transparent bus across the streets of Chennai with a suitably engaged villain, climax be damned!
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
September 3, 2012
And why is Nandalala exempt from this discussion? Because it is a Kikujiro ripoff?
LikeLike
Utkal Ranjan Mohanty
September 3, 2012
I chose to catch this over Ek Tha Tiger on a whim, like I often do so that I can have the pleasure of enjoying a film without prior expectation, not burdened with other people’s opinion. . I have not seen any of Mysskin’s earlier films. So what did I think? Well I could spot an auteur’s signature at many sequences. My hopes soared at the bar song, which alone was the price of the ticket and when the old man started playing the violin it gave me the high which I go to movie theaters for. But the subsequent portions of the film were largely flat until the real Moogamudi with the high-tech costumes makes his appearance. The villain with the grotesque mask had a lot of possibilities that were not developed.
There were many good inventions like the hunchback playing guitar for the Christmas carol singing. Among the bad ones, the one that tops is the Girish Karnad character in Sherlock Holmes costume. The climactic fight scene had many beautiful visual moments. It had grandeur, it had visual sweep, it had narrative energy, it had philosophical resonance. But it did not add up toa gteat film because the script was so much underdeveloped.
I don’t understand why they cannot follow the Hollywood practice and let a tram of scriptwriter work and rework on a basic script until it reaches its full potential. Films like Mani Ratnam’s Yuva or Ravan could have benefited so much from that kind of a process. So could Imtiaz Ali’s Rockstar. And certainly this one.
All they had to do is this:
Build up the villain’s character more fully. Give him bigger evil deeds to indulge in.
Build the Girish Karnad’s character more credibly.
Make the transformation from the Moogamudi with fancy dress costume to the one with high-tech gadgetry more dramatic. Give the Mogamudi greater evil acts to fight.
Make the heroine more central to the narrative. Create some interesting moments along their romantic involvement.
Then the auteur’s touches would shine brighter .
But in the end I am glad I saw this over ETT, which I know would have given me no surprises, no moments of any artsitic accomplishment. This one had quite a few of both.
LikeLike
dheepthamohan
September 3, 2012
I would have been happy (and appreciating his attempt) if Mysskin had come out with the remake of ‘Batman, superman or spider man’. But he has only copied or allowed his team to copy; the title font, the background music theme at the credit rolls, even that shot right after Narain (with his mask on) cuts the first victim to death with his axe – the comic book sequence showing as if the movie is from a comic series. That makes Mysskin sad. I don’t know how else to put it. The movie was totally ceasing my mind, I didn’t know what I was doing sitting through it.
LikeLike
Vasisht Das
September 3, 2012
of course, what would we all do without such earth-shattering one line solutions from self-serious uncles on how to improve screenplays / movies / the neutrino-anomaly experiment at the CERN particle accelerator.
(Apropos the aforementioned proposal, let us nominate the same thesis for the “Letter to Editor” of the week award.)
more jocularly, am surprised that dr.rangan did not evoke shankar’s really clever indianization of the vigilante-as-superheo formulae in Anniyan, probably the smartest adaptation of the genre in india so far.
LikeLike
Utkal Ranjan Mohanty
September 3, 2012
Vashisht: “of course, what would we all do without such earth-shattering one line solutions” That is the whole point. When you try to make a film on a one point script idea, you get various dgrees of Joker, Ravan or Moogamudi. That is why I am suggesting script doctors and script re-writers. My one-line suggestions were for the areas where reworking could was necessary. They are not the solutions. Solutions don’t come that easy. It’s hard work my friend.
LikeLike
Kalyana Shankar
September 3, 2012
Sir, when we can expect Neethane En Ponvasantham music review? Please reply
LikeLike
Ashwin
September 3, 2012
Am sorry this is unrelated to the post but was curious to know whether you would be reviewing the music of nee dhaane yen ponvasantham?
LikeLike
venkatesh
September 4, 2012
Govardhan : I am with you on the Miao miao front – that definitely is worth the price of admission .
LikeLike
Rohit Ramachandran
September 4, 2012
Yeah, hated both Yudham Sei and this because of self-indulgence and self-glorification. Especially Yudham Sei.
LikeLike
strickland
September 4, 2012
Sincerely hope this movie’s average faring disables Mysskin from harboring any further superhuman aspirations. He is much better sticking to ‘human’.
But it is intriguing to find out how much hate Mysskin inspires among people, for him. While no one picks on AL Vijay for making an I am Sam (hell, he even gets appreciated for it), Mysskin is repeatedly and caustically criticized for what I thought was taking the tree branch of Kikujiro and growing a clump of new leaves on it.
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
September 4, 2012
Uncle, that’s exactly what Vashisht-anna was telling you. You’ve missed the sarcasm as usual. Bravo.
LikeLike
Vasisht Das
September 4, 2012
whatever you say wise one, as long as you stop repeatedly molesting the title as Moogamudi.
calling it Mugamoodi which is closer to tamizh also seems like “hard work”, uncleji ?
LikeLike
Karthi
September 4, 2012
///for a number of reasons, I exclude Nandalala from the list/////
Why?why?why?
LikeLike
Anuja
September 5, 2012
I agree with Vijay. You seem to be inclined to forgive Mysskin for the travesty that is Mugamoodi. Chithiram Pesuthadi and Anjathey were fine efforts from the director who had the potential to be an auteur and then Nandalala came along and he wound up with a serious case of the yips. Early onset was evident in Yuddham Sei where he started off with a strong premise and allowed it all to unravel. And with Mugamoodi he has shown that his condition has accelerated.
How else can you explain this hopeless cinematic mess? What is the point of dedicating the film to Bruce Lee when you clearly can’t be bothered to do some basic research on Kung fu? Surely the ‘final form’ cannot be taught in a coupla hours? And that Kung Fu master was miscast and his moves were laughable. Narain and Jiiva could have trained harder to make the fight sequences seem authentic especially the former, Jaden Smith did a far better job in The Karate Kid.
Mysskin seems to have forgotten that he is making a superhero flick and has delivered a hopeless morass of ineptitude to his hapless audience.
LikeLike
Utkal Ranjan Mohanty
September 5, 2012
I agree with the negatives pointed out by Anuja and they are quite inexcusable really. But I stand by the positives as well. Which is the real Mysskin and in which direction he is going? Time will tell.
LikeLike
Karikala Cholan
September 5, 2012
The few moments when “Annakili” was played on the violin was enough for me. Ilayaraja just refuses to unentangle from my life even if I want to move on. God!
LikeLike
brangan
September 6, 2012
Govardhan Giridass / Karthi: Reg. “And why is Nandalala exempt from this discussion?” — um, because to me it’s not exactly a “Mysskin movie.” It’s a one-off.
Vasisht Das: Anniyan… smart? If you say so 🙂 BTW, tried to look up my review from the Easyjournal days and couldn’t find it. Does anyone know what happened to the site?
strickland: Yeah, I too don’t get the hate that some people have for certain filmmakers and music directors. Like Harris Jayaraj, for instance. He is looked at with nothing but contempt, but he’s given a few really good numbers. Of course, the ratio of good to recycled crap is low, and maybe he’s more a disposable-pop-music kinda guy. But still I don’t get the active, venom-spewing hate he inspires 🙂
Anuja: Did my last line still leave you with the impression that I “forgave” Mysskin? Hmmm….
LikeLike
ss122
September 6, 2012
nice review. in my opinion, mugamoodi is just like batman begins, but not on par with it. may be mugamoodi-2 will/may be good
LikeLike
Rohan
September 7, 2012
Amazing how much people are willing to “hate” Mysskin already, and suggest he is ripping off. The old sense of insecurity (he is Indian, he *cant* really be good) methinks.
LikeLike
JPhilip
September 8, 2012
A muscled deliquent fancies a lass above his league and figures a faux transformation will help.He adopts an over the top costume to catch her attention ,but is a witness to a martial arts trained set of thieves . Their lives collide, a few people die ,some old wounds reopened ,he realises he must tighten his boot laces and learns a trick to make the smarmy thief tumble from a swing .
Not much of a story,if I was UTV(the producers) listening to it for the first time ,but certainly many deft touches by Mysskin to make it a small class apart . Also from the BO figures ,rather a good money spinner .UTV now producing a Mallu flick (Husbands in Goa) :guess they see something in the blindingly new slapstick story- an Abbas Mustanish story of cheating husbands hoodwinking their wives – we don’t ….
LikeLike
seethu (@seethu)
October 8, 2012
brangan, here’s your anniyan review… nothing gets deleted from the internets 😉 http://web.archive.org/web/20050628014314/http://brangan.easyjournal.com/
LikeLike