The first scene of Vikraman’s Ninaithathu Yaaro – the title comes from the Ilayaraja hit from Paattukku Oru Thalaivan, which plays intermittently in the form of a ring tone –is enough to make you want to give up on the movie. It’s a beach. A woman runs across the sand, and a man – her lover, presumably – follows. The camera drops to gaze at the imprints left by her feet, and the man exclaims, in that dulcet tone often employed by declaimers of really bad verse, that… even the waves don’t have the heart to erase these marks. Almost as if sensing our dismay at all this antiquated poetry, the director switches track to show five youngsters – three men, two women – who live together and who’ve all been spurned in love. In a touch borrowed from K Balachander, a blackboard hangs over the gate outside their home, and it bears, each day, a new anti-love slogan. Vikraman wants us to know that he’s hip and clued in to what today’s generation is like – almost desperately so. In a sense, Ninaithathu Yaaro is what Pudhu Vasantham – this director’s first film – might have been today, with iPods, laptops, YouTube uploads, and, most importantly, home deliveries consisting of KFC burgers and Domino’s pizza, without which, we all know, no depiction of “urban life” in Tamil cinema is complete.
But slowly, we see that the track involving these five youngsters is just a (clumsy) framing device, and that the main story is about the man and woman (Rejith Menon, Nimisha Suresh)on that beach. And that’s quite a solid story, one where a married woman returns to her dejected former lover and helps him find his footing in life. Gossipy neighbours point fingers, her father is outraged – but she doesn’t react, and she doesn’t mope. In these times of comedies that have no narrative thrust, it’s a relief to have people and situations to care about. But soon the veneer of modernity is stripped away. The woman – the modern woman – who’s walked out on her husband, refers to herself as a vaazhavatti, a term I haven’t heard in Tamil cinema for about a decade now. And we’re told that her husband hasn’t touched her in the six months they were together, thus leaving her “pure” enough to be reclaimed by her former lover. What’s left of this tale is undone by simplistic storytelling, an earnest, overemphatic style, and some ugly moralising. The peanut gallery in the theatre went berserk pointing and laughing.
An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2014 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Anuja
February 1, 2014
Why? Why? Why? Vaazhavatti? A husband not touching his wife leaving her ‘intact’ and pure for her former lover? I am going to puke!
What is it with men and their ridiculous obsession with unbroken hymens? Ordinarily I’d just sneer and leave it at that but its hard to ignore such draconian fundas given the fact that sex traffickers are usually on the prowl for girls aged 11 to 14. Why? Because perverted males like em young and ‘pure’. Bloody chauvinist pigs!
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 1, 2014
@Anuja:
On the other hand as BR reports – “The peanut gallery in the theatre went berserk pointing and laughing.” – at least thats a sign of progress.
LikeLike
auroravampiris
February 2, 2014
After having trolled dozens of message boards on the internets as a feminist superhero, I’m convinced that the whole idea of unbroken hymens is inextricably connected with the idea of masculinity how it’s intricately connected with “satistisfaction” of the women in bed. Penis insecurity or some such. And measuring up to past lovers.
You can read all about it in my 500-page treatise – “Men are so weird. Why are WOMEN the inscrutable ones anyway?”
LikeLike
Anuja
February 2, 2014
I am not so sure Venkatesh… I still remember the time I watched Vijay’s Sivakasi… There was thunderous applause for the scene where he upbraids Asin for wearing a ‘bra and jetty’. Its depressing but it appears that for every guy with an iota of sense there are thousands out there who are embracing their Neanderthal roots with a vengeance. And what’s worse is that women are worse.
LikeLike
Pranesh
February 2, 2014
Did you get to see the Boologam or Brahman trailers? Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 2, 2014
Rangan: Thank you for telling this story. Now this movie supersedes even “Aval Varuvala” as my Exhibit B. Though Dharmathin Thalaivan is still my favourite Exhibit. 😀
Poor Vikraman. He tries his best doesn’t he?
” in that dulcet tone often employed by declaimers of really bad verse”.
Ha ha ha. I wanted to say that in Vairamuthu’s post itself and decided to not taint it. 😉
LikeLike
brangan
February 2, 2014
Pranesh: Nope. Neither was show. Though they keep showing the trailer of this film called “Vaanavarayan Vallavarayan.”
Rahini David: What? Did that sound like a dulcet-voiced piece? Come on, it wasn’t that bad 🙂
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 2, 2014
Good god!, hell hath no fury as women stereotyped! 🙂 . And vikraman, does he still make movies 🙂
BTW isnt dharmathin thalaivan a remake of kasme vaade . why blame the poor tamil directors when we had a classic like pakeezah where the heroine inspite of being a prostitute remains chaste all throughout, try beating that 🙂
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 2, 2014
@Anuja
I hear you. I have this fantasy where a heroine does the “Naan Avanillai” role and walks out as a winner. I would put good money to watch/sponsor that movie. On the other hand, there are green shoots at least in Hindi cinema where female chastity is not a thing – case in point my favourite of last year , Shuddh Desi Romance.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 2, 2014
Rangan: No. On the dulcet voiced radio jockeys who recite bad poetry @10 p.m. 😛
Ceaser: Is that so? Looks every woman other than a rape victim is a virgin in movies. Weird.
LikeLike
Aditya Raghavan
February 2, 2014
Regarding directors becoming irrelevant –
BR always wondered why someone like Scorsese or Clint Eastwood could make relevant films which are in sync from 70’s to 2013 and still retain their identity but our own auteurs like Balachander or Bharathiraja falter and make irrelevant stuff. Example Poi by KB and Kangalal Kaidhu Sei. What’s your take ?
LikeLike
Aditya Raghavan
February 2, 2014
by bharathi raja.
LikeLike
vpjaiganesh
February 3, 2014
Appo thaayamma mary karandha paala vida suthamaanava evaLum thamil naattula illainnu inga pesara naalu paeru proof panniyaachaa? Appidiye CMtta solli oru GO poda sollirunga. Beasant nagar cafe coffee dayla kooda ippdi oru malethattu conversashun kaettadhilla. Ssabba.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
February 3, 2014
vpjaiganesh: why are you trolling here man? and why is women’s sexuality more pristine when the man talks about it, but not when the woman is comfortable? do you understand that in India most of the kids of either sex (more than 50% are raped by their uncles,fathers,grandfathers)…going by your yard stick half of our tamil women have lost their virginity at childhood itself
also when you talk about melthattu accusation it sounds so much like reverse snobbery of tamil elite…who are neither progressive nor have understood the tamil history but take a high moral ground nonetheless…
it is disconcerting that no one worth their integrity will ever say this : “whatever be the position that dalit takes, his/her primary duty is to clean the toilets!”…but no one even bats an eyelid when someone says this :”whatever be the position that woman takes, her primary duty is to serve her husband/in laws!”
now start justifying the latter as culture, i will accept that you have not forgotten your neanderthal roots!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rajesh
February 3, 2014
Its quite funny, as some of us were just talking about this filmy virgin stuff on other post.
@Anuja – it is a big question, which cannot be restrained to these blog pages, I am afraid. If I didn’t had to work for my food, shelter, parents et all, I would have loved to register for an Anthropology study.
From what I have read, observed and talked – all thanks to my wife’s ongoing research, I feel
– whatever modernity and bla bla we talk about, vast vast majority of our men would love to have a virgin as their wife, or somebody who is not experienced at all in sex.(its ok to lose the hymen by sports etc, you see)
– all this modernity and bla bla, ends at one point – feminine sexuality, this is the only point left important in our ‘great’ culture, rest all kind of modernisation is fine.
– In films, the fact that 99.99% of the scripts are written by men , keeps on repeating these cliches, either she is untouched or she was raped or cheated. All other ways of making a woman modern, ends right behind this point.
– Men seem to be afraid about getting compared with other sex experiences of their partner.
– Or they are too lazy and do not want to work more than in the safe spectrum of 5 – 10 minutes.
– With an inexperienced girl, who haven’t had any idea about orgasm, brought up in the classic Indian way (caged out of anything to do with sex), they have more chances of impressing her, or making her believe the result of his little hard work is what it is all about
We are glad to stick to that Colonial 19th Century morals, forced on us, as our great tradition. (Of course, vast majority do not realise this that most of our present day morals are thanks to our Colonial past)
Interestingly the divorce numbers are going up, and from my experience (5 divorces around my near and dear in the last 3 years and I spoke to all in detail), for 4/5 of these divorces, the real reason was sex. The reasons made out for the public was all different though, mostly blaming the girl. I am glad our young women too are realising the importance of sex in marriage life and they are not going to bear any lazy stupid man like before.
I am hoping, there will be a time when our men realise that it is only better for them that a girl is more experienced in sex and then that will reflect in our female characters too.
LikeLike
Rajesh
February 3, 2014
@Anuja – I am sorry I dont have any idea why they go for children in the red streets, Its an all together different topic.
LikeLike
brangan
February 4, 2014
Ceaser: The “Pakeezah” example isn’t valid. Not all kothewalis were prostitutes. Some were like geishas — primarily song/dance/entertainment people (though they could also indulge in prostitution, if they wanted to). So it’s not surprising that she was “pure”, which is what “Pakeezah” means.
Aditya Raghavan: I think one of the reasons is that the directors there usually ask other people to work on scripts and concentrate mainly on direction (though they will certainly shape the script as they want) — and so the element of repetition isn’t there to this extent. Here, when you write plus direct, you say all you want to say in ten years and then you don’t grow.
Another reason could be that the effort they take for each and every shot/scene is truly enormous, whereas a lot of filmmakers here aren’t really “visual” filmmakers, and when you rely on scenes/dialogue to tell your story, you burn out faster.
vpjaiganesh: Talk about completely missing the point. This is not to say that there are no “pure” women in Tamil Nadu, but the artificial ways in which directors ensure the “purity” of the woman who the hero ends up with (even if she was married earlier etc.)
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 4, 2014
Brangan,Dude , the point is that the heroine in pakeezah does indulge in prostitution. Remember that scene where she is bought by the nawab, kamal kapoor and he is about to ‘invade’ her , when a herd of elephants(no less! :-))attack their boat and save her virginity.Me thinks there were few more instances were such miracles happen to protect her, cant remember them all :-).But this i know,She is kept pure and pristine until she gets married in the end.Maybe the whole film and the character was meant to be taken figuratively or something 🙂 , but the fact remains that filmmakers went to such an extend to keep her purity intact.
LikeLike
brangan
February 4, 2014
Ceaser: Oh, I’m not saying that the film doesn’t feature this plot point. All I’m saying is that this is a slightly different kind of film from the ones where someone is married and kept a virgin for the sake of the hero. Here, she is primarily a singer/dancer, and she *can” be expected to be “pure.” It’s not outside the realm of possibility because, like geishas, not every kothewali was a prostitute. Whereas had she been married and then the film kept contriving situations to keep her “pure,” that would have been a slightly taller tale.
Of course, as I said, we have to remember that all these films were made in an older, more innocent time — and so we can choose to look at them as remnants of a certain kind of mindset. But when the same kind of thing is passed off today, in a “modern” film, it’s somewhat galling.
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 4, 2014
all these films were made in an older, more innocent time — and so we can choose to look at them as remnants of a certain kind of mindset. But when the same kind of thing is passed off today, in a “modern” film, it’s somewhat galling.
Yup , may be u got a point there,and me thinks those days censors were also pretty strict.so couldnt be all makers’ fault.But Rahini was pointing at DT as her prime exhibit which i know was a remake of kasme vaade, which was made in 70’s , same as pakeezah, so i pointed it out as a better exhibit.What could be more ridiculous than trying to keep a prostitute chaste all throughout a movie . 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
February 4, 2014
Ceaser: Arre, I keep telling you… she’s not a “prostitute” in that sense. She’s a naachne-gaanewali 🙂
LikeLike
auroravampiris
February 4, 2014
What I say here may be controversial, but I think humans are INCLINED, by instinct, to treasure loyalty and fidelity in their partners, especially the monogamous ones. Primarily for evolutionary reasons – we tend to treasure our children and instinctively feel affection for them because they carry roughly one-half of our own genes.
Thus, for men, the primary concern is that the child is theirs. This manifests itself as an instinctual desire for fidelity. Fidelity, however, is a perception – that is informed by cultural norms. According to our cultural norms, a woman that is not chaste, isn’t capable of fidelity. Marry that with male insecurity and boom goes the dynamite.
Which is why I hate humanity. Because human beings tend to think their humanity must be prized – the truth is, it takes a great amount of training and education to overcome instinctual biases. Such the ones above. Bah.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 5, 2014
Ceaser: It may be about my own personal prejudice. But within my own brain, the reason I get more offended by DT than any other movie with the virginity clause is this. It may be really true that our audience don’t want to watch a movie with a practicing prostitute as its heroine and this may have been professional suicide for the director to show the story as you said. Maybe the time wasn’t ripe. Hence, Geisha.
But DT if it didn’t have the clause and showed the hero-heroine as a couple still would have been a acceptable one. Read this. “A couple have been married for only 2-3 weeks. Just back from honeymoon. Hitmen kill husband. Husband’s brother takes it upon himself to convince his Bhabhi to get married and find love again. She first resists the idea and then accepts.” There is no damn dissonance here in my opinion. Just a perfectly lovable storyline tainted by it’s insistence on virginity.
Of course I would like to know story in which a professional call girl gives up her career and finds truelove. That is another story altogether.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 5, 2014
All: Forgive me for doing a Mohanty here. Won’t happen again
AuroraVampiris: Male Birds/Mammals do have this insecurity. Apparently it is because the fertilisation happens inside the female’s body and thereby we have nothing but her word for it that the baby is his. Male lions kill any cub by the female that is not sired by them and each species has it’s own way to deal with this. A bit of selfishness is usually taken for granted.
Traditionally most female mammals give 2 hoots about the partner’s fidelity. But human’s have sufficient pair-bonding to ensure that human females have the sexual jealousy hormones too. This is too huge a topic to tackle here.
But natural instinct is not everything for any animal. We know that some birds are tricked to incubating rubric’s cubes that apparently don’t even resemble eggs by a long shot. Goslings may mistake you for their mother and will follow you everywhere if you are around when the eggs hatch. These are nature’s shortcuts. “Small objects around me are eggs” thinks the bird. “That big thing that moves is my mom” thinks the gosling.
This happens in humans too. Naturally found Sweet is good for the human body. But we overdo it with our Milk Sweets. Naturally found fat is good for us too and not the fatty food in that store near you. The inclination we have towards what’s bad for us is just overdoing what is essentially good for us.
Liking a woman with a good nimble figure and liking a bit of naivety in a woman may make reasonable sense for the reasons you told. But the female body which we seem to adore in sculptures or in Barbie are essentially overdoing a basically good thing. Over-emphasis on virginity is also similar.
Points here are taken from the following books.
Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins
Naked Ape – Desmond Morris
How the mind works – Steven Pinker
Telltale Brain – Ramachandran
I hope all this makes sense to you.
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 5, 2014
Brangan, ok ok… BABA nachne ganewali khush , khush :-), uff, never thought u to be so refined about it 🙂
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 5, 2014
Aurora, hope to god that u are human (unlike what ur name suggests) and your hatred for humanity is not on account of that 🙂
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 5, 2014
BTW sorta agree with ur POV, except one on humanity, we gotta prize our humanity, othrwz what difference btwn us and animals.
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 5, 2014
Rahini, respect ur views on DT . i am no big fan either.and some really revelatory points about male birds\mammals as well.Glad to know we are not alone 🙂
BTW
Selfish Gene Naked Ape
How the mind works Telltale Brain OMG , u do get around dont u 🙂
LikeLike
Rajeev Hari Kumar
February 5, 2014
@Ceaser – “othrwz what difference btwn us and animals.”
Well, technically, we’re animals as well, albeit highly intelligent & sophisticated ones.
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 5, 2014
This whole discussion is surreal – were we not supposed to just chat about movies here ?
LikeLike
KayKay
February 5, 2014
“This whole discussion is surreal – were we not supposed to just chat about movies here ?”
And isn’t this one of the reasons why we luuuuuuuurve this blog?
LikeLike
auroravampiris
February 5, 2014
Rahini David: You are my noble twin!
No seriously, I’ve read all of the books apart from the Ramachandran one. I’d also like to add The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, which is an even more intriguing bit.
And you struck the crux of the issue here – we believe what is natural is good. When it isn’t meant to be – evolution is an insidious mechanism that has compelled us to BELIEVE what is natural is good. It isn’t – what is natural is merely there because in the messy process of evolution, those traits won out.
However, I’d like t contend that male mammals do feel a significant amount of emotion close to what we’d call jealousy. Alpha chimpanzees have been known to beat, sometimes to death, an males that are KNOWN to copulate with female chimpanzees close to the mating period. As such, chimpanzee pairs have to “elope” to escape the gaze of the alpha male (and curiously, male chimpanzees usually “tempt” females into eloping via gifts of meat etc. so that they can… uh… get laid). Of course, there have been a few rare incidents where alpha chimpanzees have been beaten to death by lesser males acting in concert. It’s similar with gorilla.
However, gibbons, I believe show different, more monogamous mating instincts. Basically, where females are more “involved” with a child’s birth, they’re jealously guarded by mates. In species, such as gibbons, where both males and females are equally involved in a child’s birth, species tend to be more monogamous.
And in some rare cases, where MALES are more involved in child birth (such as wadepipers, where the male incubates the eggs and is more involved than the female), the females are more territorial and frequently fight over males and ensure that access to “their” male is restricted.
So… yeah. All bad behavior in humans is instinctual. Bah. Humanity.
Ceasar: I gave up my ability to see the sun a long time ago. Now, I wander the Earth, marveling at the folly of lesser beings.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 6, 2014
Ceaser: Thank you. Some of those writers write way better than most of our novelists and make use of very good metaphors to get their complicated thoughts across. Especially in the Indian scene, I find that our novelists over-simplify their prose to the extent that there is no flavour at all. Hence my choice of books have been changing over the years.
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 6, 2014
Aurora, Gotta take your word for that gal
Rahini, Good observation about the novelists , More power to u .
And let the evolutionary thesis here continue. Its more fun than the films we are discussing here
LikeLike
Aditya
February 6, 2014
@venkatesh Surely the success of a movie – and the literature around it – relies on stirring conversations that go well beyond the movie 🙂
@Anuja, Rahini: This whole idea of purity is a huge can of worms, with roots in biology, sociology and many other ‘logys’. But as for why we still have movies that stress this purity thing and make the plot climax all over it (pun intended :P), it’s because we’re in the midst of change. India doesn’t have a new mindset. *Some* people in *some* urban cities in India have a new mindset.
During any change of moral values & norms, everybody gets angry. Either they evangelically support the change, or they feel angry & threatened by it. So there’s a lot of money to be made by being for or against the stance, because that segment of the audience fiercely relates to it. It’s only once the change is completed that your retro pro-purity movie will become a relic of the past.
LikeLike
brangan
February 6, 2014
Rahini David: But thanks for picking up on that phrase. I’m really happy with it, and it made writing this review worthwhile for me. People sometimes ask me if watching all these bad films doesn’t want to make me give up this job — but it’s the opposite really. Sometimes, a bad movie can spur you to… a phrase like that 🙂
venkatesh: Are you serious? We only chat about movies here? 🙂
Ceaser: This isn’t about being “refined.” Had the film been “Mausam” and had the character there been shown to be a virgin, then that would have been laughable. All I’m saying is that in “Pakeezah,” the sexual angle isn’t really all that surprising. It’s the whole randi-versus-tawaif difference.
LikeLike
Aditya
February 6, 2014
@BR As the much feared critic in Ratatouille put it, “negative criticism… is fun to write and to read”. That entire excerpt from his review in the movie was a great bit of writing (You can see it here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382932/quotes). Pity they named him Anton Ego. You don’t need to be that heavy handed when you can write sublimely funny & revealing dialogue.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 6, 2014
auroravampiris: Fancy finding my noble twin in a Vikraman Thread. 😉
Re: “Men are so weird. Why are WOMEN the inscrutable ones anyway?”
You said it man.
Thank you for the book recommendation.
Aditya: Yeah that is right. But it would be nice if we as a society put on our running shoes and jogged along. And thanks for reminding me of Ratatouille.
BR: “Sometimes, a bad movie can spur you to… a phrase like that”.
Apparently a bad movie can also introduce Amala. So bring on the bad movies I say.
All: What is all this sudden positive energy around here? Where did the trolls go?
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 7, 2014
Brangan,randi-versus-tawaif difference , aha, thats more like u 🙂 now we’re talking. Sorta get the gist of what u r tryin to say here, something like tawaif being a more sophisticated profession than a prostitute. But i have seen umrao jaan , where also the heroine is a tawaif, and she does indulge in sexual prostitution. So i sorta thought that all tawaifs are like that , singers ,dancers and bed mates (all in one). .and whatever i have read and heard about tawaifs were pretty much in sync with that thought .(i am pretty young and impressionable u know 🙂 Didnt know there were different castes among them too 🙂 But if u give ur word , then i would accept that.So i’ll agree that meena kumari plays a non randi tawaif.Must say that sharmila tagore was one gutsy actress to portray something like that at the time in mausam,eventhough well balanced by the good traditional girl double role, Guess another stereotype of the times,An unvirtous bad girl needs to be balanced by the virtuous virginal good girl. may be we can have an article about that as well.
And gotta say this, its only on Brangan’s site that some terrible movies become such big hits 🙂 So venkatesh , dude dont deny them their only shot at success.I wonder what the makers of this film would think if they knew that their film lead to a discussion on mating habits of simians 🙂
for a lazy fella like me this one turned out to be a really long post . Ouch! the noble twin sisters here are a true inspiration… 🙂
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 7, 2014
Ceaser: Thanks again. But isn’t AuroraVampiris a guy?
AuroraVampiris: Thanks about the wadepipers. I knew that such bird species existed. But didn’t quite catch the name when Attenborough said it. I’ve been looking for it for ages.
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
February 7, 2014
@Rahini: “Forgive me for doing a Mohanty here”!
Brilliant. Will the real Mohanty please stand up, please stand up.
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 8, 2014
@Govardhan:
Please no.
@BR:
Usually there is a smattering, inkling, weird link to cinema – i honestly didnt expect mating habits of simians and sociology and such like to make an appearance on this page. It is surreal.
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 8, 2014
With Tawaifs, there were classes and distinctions among them; as in those tawaifs coming from more affluent establishments or kotha’s were often cultured women, well versed in poetry, accomplished kathak dancers etc, but even in that category, they still offered sexual services. It this case, though, it wasn’t a free for all. Such tawaifs usually had one wealthy patron, who contributed to the establishment, and to whom that tawaif entertained and offered exclusive sexual services. E.g. In ‘Pakeezah’ Sahibjaan is sold off to the seriously creepy Nawab of Panipat…and nature does seem to intervene in preventing him from having his way with her, as in you have that elephant stampede and then she wanders into Salim’s tent… there’s a sense of predestination to it. However, here I don’t think it’s just a question of keeping the heroine ”in tact” kind of thing for the hero; While Sahibjaan undergoes humiliation (the market scene where she is identified by a passer-by) and terrible internal conflict (the marriage scene), I think the creator of the film also wanted Sahibjaan to ultimately have a happy ending and not to have to experience the worst of it.
I wonder how real courtesans/prostitutes must have responded to the film. I think they must have either loved or hated it. The film is deeply compassionate towards women in their trade; it damns both the institution as a dehumanising and degrading one, and figures representing corruption and decadence such as the nawab, and the contractor who in an earlier scene makes unwanted advances towards Sahibjaan. Yet Sahibjaan never had to experience the worst indignities associated with the profession, successful sexual coercion and violence (something they probably experienced very frequently). She runs into Salim, who does what the vast majority of men, even today, would not have the guts to do. In the Meena Kumari biography you reviewed in an earlier post, Vinod Mehta quotes what one prostitute said in response to viewing the film “Sahibjaan, apni qismat hume ek din ke liye de do/ Sahibjaan, give us your good fortune for one day”. Some of them may have identified with Sahibjaan viewing her story as representing hope, and some of them may have hated her because she got so lucky at the end. Anyways, I’ve veered somewhat off-topic, but your comments section brought these thoughts to mind.
LikeLike
brangan
February 8, 2014
Silverambrosia: There are two things at work in “Pakeezah.” One, the subtle difference of what a tawaif does. (This may not be really the case in real life, but at least in the movies, we know that there’s a difference between what a tawaif is expected to do and what a “randi” is expected to do.) So it’s not terribly disconcerting that Sahibjaan doesn’t have sex.
Two, the film’s very conceit — deriving from that “pure” title — is that this is the story of a “pure” woman. In other words, this is the story of a woman, who despite being a tawaif, managed to stay “pure”. It’s not some random narrative decision bunged in just so that audiences won’t balk, but part of the film’s very fabric. So this aspect of this film doesn’t bother me at all.
Rahini David: Where did the trolls go?
Be careful what you wish for, is all I will say — before retreating to write the review for yet another movie that annoyingly keeps referencing Ilayaraja hits 🙂
LikeLike
MANK
February 8, 2014
Silverambrosia:I wonder how real courtesans/prostitutes must have responded to the film
There is a story that when 2 prominent critics of the time finished watching pakeezah, one
remarked to the other that Kamal Amrohi is a very decent man.When asked why ? the other remarked that KA must have never visited a real Kotha. 🙂
I do agree with the metaphorism of the title of pakeezah, which is meant to stand for the fact, a women inspite of being a tawaif , can still remain pure which is what the film hopes to convey. Its just a romantic fantasy , a world completely removed from the real one , its not to be taken realistically at all.
LikeLike
brangan
February 8, 2014
Just got a mail that kinda chided me about the comment above. Normally, I wouldn’t bother replying, but the person who wrote in is a friend and he felt hurt, so I want to clarify that the trolls part of the statement had nothing to do with the latter part of the statement.
What I meant to say was:
“Be careful what you wish for.”
That’s all. And the rest of the statement was just me excusing myself to write the review of Pulivaal, which is another film which randomly uses Raja’s music. (I mean, there’s some random trolling-type comments happening in the “Dhoom” review, or hasn’t anyone noticed? Why would I single out Raja fans as trolls?)
I thought the em dash made it clear that the two halves were unconnected thoughts. Maybe it didn’t. Anyway…
One of the most consistently humbling things about writing — whether comments or a review — is how differently people can read/interpret what you write. I got two emails blasting me for praising Vairamuthu when the piece wasn’t even about him but was just using his award as a peg for musings about lyrics.
I hope it’s clear from the review — which will be up this evening, as always — that my problem isn’t with Raja’s music (I find it strange having to defend my love for his music after all this time) but with filmmakers using this as lazy shorthand in their films.
To expand on a point my friend raised, most of the time IMO this has nothing to do with the director’s “love” for Raja’s music. Yes, Gautham Menon’s characters are young lads who grew up in the 80s and their love for Raja songs is expressed organically, almost like a subplot. It’s 100% true that a boy of that time might have sung “Neethane en ponvasantham” in a culturals competition. And even in “Pannaiyaarum Padminiyum” when a tea stall radio plays “Then poove poove vaa,” it feels right.
But most other filmmakers are just out to highlight random jokes with Raja’s music. It was funny when Vivek spoofed “Mudhal Mariyadhai” in “Parthiban Kanavu” and maybe for a few films after that. But now, almost a decade later, this has become such a tired cliche. I am only coming at this from a cinematic point of view, hardly from a music POV.
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 8, 2014
Aha,Brangan now u r facing the music 🙂 . i too for a moment thought that by trolls , you meant raja fans as you cmmts looked so linked. As for dhoom3 thread, its always been a lost cause 🙂 U didnt help either by never intervening in there.wonder why?
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 8, 2014
@BR:
Now thats coincidence , I just finished seeing the original of Pulivaal.
LikeLike
brangan
February 8, 2014
Ceaser: No music, boss 🙂
But it’s curious that you too read that line the same way. How do you read the em dash, BTW? Just curious…
See this:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/mad-dash/
Here are examples from the first para in this review that show how the em dashes have been used according to each of the categories mentioned here — (1) as a pause, (2) as a parenthetical use, or (3) to bung in a disjointed thought.
(1) as a pause: Vikraman wants us to know that he’s hip and clued in to what today’s generation is like – almost desperately so.
(2) as a parenthetical use: the director switches track to show five youngsters – three men, two women – who live together
(3) to bung in a disjointed thought: The first scene of Vikraman’s Ninaithathu Yaaro – the title comes from the Ilayaraja hit from Paattukku Oru Thalaivan, which plays intermittently in the form of a ring tone – is enough to make you want to give up on the movie.
Is that how you read these lines?
As an aside, I know I shouldn’t use so many em dashes, but these reviews are written in a hurry, so they’re not as clean as I’d like them to be.
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 8, 2014
Brangan, uff how do i put it, its just the whole feel man. the dash – is always a complicated thing, Ask me ,i had to rewrite and resubmit many a projects bcoz of the bloody dash, replace em with colons,spaces….
your sentence:
Be careful what you wish for, is all I will say — before retreating to write the review for yet another movie that annoyingly keeps referencing Ilayaraja hits
all of it came together, u see. the immediate instinct is to relate both of em togther, especially in cmmts section, u reading em on the fly unlike a lengthy article which lets you sorta sink it in.Also the 3rd instance of – is not very commonly used. atleast i havent come across that much.
, if u had just put it like without dashes and seperated with a line space
Be careful what you wish for, is all I will say
before retreating to write the review for yet another movie that annoyingly keeps referencing Ilayaraja hits
or may be more clearer like this:
Be careful what you wish for, is all I will say
[now i am (now let me retreat) ,…..] retreating to write the review for yet another movie that annoyingly keeps referencing Ilayaraja hits
I am no expert on language(nowhere near u, i’ll humbly admit 🙂 ), the above instances are completely my instincts, as i have already told u, i am young and impressionable 🙂 pls bear with me .
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 8, 2014
Is em-dash an actual word or just made up by BR ?
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 8, 2014
Brangan: I know that tawaifs also danced and entertained, and that their occupation wasn’t confined to just providing instant sexual gratification. However, they did also provide sexual services (albeit more exclusively). That was also a part of their job. Sahibjaan is sold to the Nawab of Panipat, and he takes her on his pleasure cruise. The film’s title ‘Pakeezah’ is not simply adverting to the fact that she hasn’t been physically used. It is also adverting to a state of mind: even a common prostitute, who has slept with many men and has no learning or skills like tawaifs can still be ‘Pakeezah’; in that they can aspire to something higher, want to get out of the predicament they are in, and nurture dreams of an alternate future. For most of them their occupation was not a choice. They may have, like Sahibjaan, been born into prostitution, with it being very difficult to get out of it and escape the vicious cycle, or they may have gravitated towards it through terrible circumstances with their being not many alternatives for women then (The film is most likely set pre-1947), As one academic puts it, Schweta Sachdev Jha, a central theme of the film is the “inherent purity of the tawaif” irrespective of what she has been subjected to, and how debasing her individual circumstances are.
MANK: I agree that the film is a highly aestheticised vision of the life of a tawaif, and that men like Salim are one in a million. Something like that happening in real life would be extremely rare. That doesn’t mean that aspects of the film, and of Sahibjaan’s experience cannot resonate with real tawaifs and prostitutes, or even members of the audience coming from a particular cultural milieu. Several scenes, particularly the domestic scenes at Salim’s home where he confronts the family patriarch, actually seem very real. The film’s authentic representation of the sensibilities, manners and culture of a particular strata of North Indian Muslim society in a particular era, does confer a sense of reality on what otherwise would be regarded as quite a fanciful tale. Ultimately, you come out of the film thinking about characters, and their actions, and are invested in them to a much higher degree than what a mere ‘fantasy’ would warrant.
LikeLike
Madan
February 9, 2014
brangan – Your point was pretty clear both in the opening sentence of your review and in that comment. Don’t worry. People just like to get offended on the net. I sincerely believe this, having often times received brickbats while writing on cricket. Those who respond irately without taking the time to digest what is written should ask themselves how would they like it if they were similarly misunderstood and had to deal with the ‘music’.
LikeLike
MANK
February 9, 2014
@Silverambrosia
Yeah its true, the characters , the behavior and and the ambience have been rendered pretty realistically. But that’s Kamal amrohi’s style. A mixture of fantasy and realism. Yeah sometimes it could be misconstrued as it seems that some people have.Just check out an article on Amrohi below
http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/RzayBUl2pB14xFcYp2svoN/Kamal-Amrohi.html
@Madan
Yeah its easy to get offended on the net, but you have to understand that the written word doesnt travel as well as the spoken one, Also it depends on a lot of things of the reader, the educational qualifications, the mood he is currently in, his IQ levels…etc may all contribute to how he is responding to written statement. So one cant off the cuff dismiss them as some of the concerns they express could be genuine and may be a clarification from the writer’s part would satisfy them. Of course the real trolls can never be satisfied and you can find them out very easily.
LikeLike
Madan
February 9, 2014
MANK: I agree that things can get lost in translation when it comes to written communication. All the more reason why we should learn to read a bit slow on the net, take the time to understand before reacting and then also take some time before we type out the response. Maybe in the process we realise that what was written wasn’t so offensive after all. The easiest thing to do is to snap and yell at the other person. Which by the way is also the easiest way to discredit yourself and alienate people. It is also not necessarily very hard to seek a clarification politely on what the writer meant instead of choosing to insult his/her intelligence right off. On confirmation if one feels that the writer’s intent is indeed malicious, by all means rant. Information may well travel at the speed of light on the internet but perhaps it takes a little more time to read, comprehend and organise our thoughts and frame a response. If we take that into account, we can have a healthy amount of dissent and disagreement in discussions without redlining the temperature.
And…what I don’t want is for people to heighten political correctness to even greater levels to avoid offending people. Not only will it make for boring writing, it does not guarantee that people won’t be offended!
And while we are on that, a very funny and very relevant video.
LikeLike
Madan
February 9, 2014
These days if I read something that pisses me off, before switching on keyboard warrior mode, I read it again, slowing my pace right down (I am a chronic speed reader, like most bookworms). That allows me the chance to make sure that this is a battle I want to fight. Because when you get into a fight with somebody who actually said something that corresponds to your views, it can be very embarrassing and maybe you lost yourself a potential friend. Have done that on many occasions before and learnt the hard way from arguments I could have avoided. Not that I don’t have arguments at all anymore but these are ones I chose, not ones I got sucked into before I realised what was happening.
LikeLike
MANK
February 9, 2014
@Madan
All are relevant points. Its good that the offended person\persons in this case send a direct email msg to Brangan rather than raving and ranting through the thread. so we dont know who was the offended party .So guess a major embarrassment is avoided
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 9, 2014
MANK: I am familiar with that article. What were you referring to when talking about things being misconstrued?
LikeLike
MANK
February 9, 2014
@Silverambrosia
Oh , things could be misconstrued as reality.People could totally miss the point that its all fantasy. You see he goes to such extend to achieve the authenticity in the behavior of his characters, the ambiance , the sensibilities, the culture especially the music and i guess thats what the people take away the most from a film. If you watch the film closely you could see that the characters are so broadly drawn ,metaphorical ,mythical in nature almost befitting to be in epics, but they are made to behave like much of us do in our households as you pointed out.So the audience might take them for real and would totally miss the bigger picture that the film is trying to achieve.I dont think much of the scenes in the film need to be taken literally at all, its more than evident in the highly esoteric poetic dialogue that the actors speak in the film.I mean who speaks like that in real life right?.
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
February 10, 2014
By that token almost anything and everything we see on the screen is ‘fantasy’. A filmaker or author does not have to replicate exactly what he has seen and observed in order for his work to be considered sufficiently ‘realistic’ or a serious contribution to literature or cinema. Many fictional works or stories still ring true to the viewer/reader because they contain a kernel of truth or reflect thoughts and sentiments that echo what we have ourselves have thought or felt at some stage of our lives. Even if the particular text does not reflect our individual experience, a good film/novel can make us understand someone else’s reality at an intuitive level. Moreover, the imagination is a faculty which can, and often should, be exercised in developing the author/director’s vision and conveying it to the audience. One also shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that there are extraordinary stories and extraordinary individuals within our midst, and the fact that a character doesn’t behave conventionally, or that he/she takes a step requiring exceptional courage, does not relegate his/her actions and experience to the realm of fantasy.
I agree that some of the characters in ‘Pakeezah’ can be deemed to be representive of particular archetypes, for example, Salim represents a chivalric ideal, but that does not take away from his individuality as a character. When Sahibjaan runs away from the marriage ceremony crying ‘No! No!’, he is wounded and bewildered. He misunderstands her, and then engages in an act which is unbecoming of him: he writes her a letter announcing his marriage to another woman and asks her to perform a mujra on this occasion (something which she will obviously be hurt by). I don’t think Kamal Amrohi intended his characters to be viewed exclusively as metaphors, to the extent that their individuality is negated.
Regarding the language, ‘Pakeezah’ employs simple Urdu, as spoken in the cultural milieu Amrohi came from. While it is quite elegant in parts, there is nothing ‘high falutin’ about it. The characters speak naturally in consonance with their environment. The style of the language is wholly distinct from, for example, the ornate, strongly persianised Urdu employed in historicals such Mughal-e-Azam. E.g. The line from ‘Pakeezah’ that became famous was ‘Aapke paon dekhe. Bahut haseen hai. Inhe zameen pe mat utariyega, maile hojayenge’. It is heavily metaphorical, but the words themselves are simple and not difficult to understand.
LikeLike