Spoilers ahead…
Walking out of Idhu Kathirvelan Kadhal, I wondered if anyone attempting to make a romantic comedy these days should first be handed a DVD of Galatta Kalyanam, which, forty-five years after its release, is still unparalleled in its fabrication of comic obstacles on the way to happily-ever-after. The director of this film, SR Prabhakaran, seems to be after a similarly lighthearted romp, at the close of which Kathirvelan (Udhayanidhi Stalin) ends up with Pavithra (Nayantara). But instead of manufacturing funny situations, he settles for sometimes-funny one-liners by Santhanam (who plays Kathirvelan’s best buddy Mayilvahanan). And the rest of the narrative is filled with disposable subplots with mega-serial levels of melodrama.
One of these subplots is about Kathirvelan’s estrangement with Mayilvahanan. In another, Kathirvelan attempts to patch things up between his sister and her husband after they fight and she returns, crying, to her parents’ home. In a third subplot, we have Kathirvelan falling for Pavithra and discovering that she’s in love with a cad – he has to prevent that union (because that’s what true love is, looking out for your “figure” even if she’s expressed zero interest in you). Then there’s the long-running feud between Kathirvelan’s brother-in-law and the latter’s neighbour, who happens to be Pavithra’s father (Jayaprakash). Kathirvelan has to end this animosity if he wants to marry Pavithra.
This last subplot is all that’s needed – that’s the plot, really. It begins to play out well into the second half, and that’s when the film really perks up, with all sorts of cheerful nonsense like a mimicry artist and the ability to overhear conversations in a house across the street. In the last half-hour, we finally get something close to the romantic comedy we were promised. Why, then, the sluggish couple of hours earlier? And why the weepy lectures, from fathers and sons and sisters and brothers-in-law, about love? When, early on, Kathirvelan is given the brush-off by Pavithra, Mayilvahanan instructs him about the “cockroach theory.” However much you try to ward off the insect, it keeps coming back – and that, apparently, is how Kathirvelan should continue with his stalking persevere. One wonders if that theory isn’t applicable to the “family sentiment” that infests our films. However much you want it gone, it will probably survive a nuclear holocaust.
KEY:
* Ithu Kathirvelan Kadhal = This is Kathirvelan’s love…
* Galatta Kalyanam = See here.
* Santhanam = at-times amusing actor who adores alliteration.
* mega-serial = tear-soaked soaps where the utterance of every line is followed by reaction shots from everyone else in the cast.
* “figure” = slang for chick, who in the eyes of the Tamil-cinema hero, is hopefully modeled after the well-rounded figure 8.
* family sentiment = see “mega-serial” above.
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 
MANK
February 15, 2014
Santhanam = at-times amusing actor who adores alliteration.
* mega-serial = tear-soaked soaps where the utterance of every line is followed by reaction shots from everyone else in the cast
OMG. ROFL, Brangan, these days your keys are outdoing your reviews.
LikeLike
Afridi
February 15, 2014
Sounds very much like the plot of Stalin’s previous acting venture. Why oh why must populist movies be sexist, and unfortunately almost always end up turning out a hefty profit, and see little protest?
LikeLike
Rajeev Hari Kumar
February 15, 2014
I think a bigger problem with these films is their chiding of the heroine when she rejects his advances. I mean, the hero can stalk & harass the heroine and he’ll be labelled as “sincere”, but when the heroine rejects the hero’s advances, she’s cold-hearted. What a load of baloney.
LikeLike
Kazhaga Thondan
February 15, 2014
The cockroach example is more reminiscent of Udayanidhi’s grandpa – yevlo seruppadi vizhundhaalum – uyir pozhachi nadappaaru ….
LikeLike
sara
February 17, 2014
I had no intention to watch this garbage and reading your review has only reinforced my stance. It says a lot about our society when a powerful, wealthy person resorts to such archetypes as a success formula in films. Sure, he has artistic freedom, but I’m concerned that such misogynist & irresponsible behaviour will validate what’s already going on as something acceptable, and over time, go unquestioned. What a fall from grace for Tamil cinema from the Galatta Kalyanam days. Ok, now I’ll go back into my cave.
LikeLike
oneWithTheH
February 17, 2014
Rangan,
“mega-serial” – arumeiyaaaah(Papaiya style)!!
This “key” thing that you’ve recently incorporated is quite welcome! Kudos for digging yourself a hole(through the sub-titles post) and then climbing out of it even stronger.
I am especially glad you have chosen not to make all of them just passive translations but garnish a few with your own snooty interpretations 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
February 17, 2014
sara: It’s interesting how this misogynism and this stalking is a fairly recent thing. Can anyone think of the film that first showed a hero stalking the heroine (even if in a relatively benign sense, i.e. not in a “psycho” sense like “Guna” or “Kadhal Kondain” but in the sense of she saying no and he continuing to go after her till she says yes)?
oneWithTheH: “snooty”-ah? What saar… 😦
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 17, 2014
@BR:
“Can anyone think of the film that first showed a hero stalking the heroine (even if in a relatively benign sense,”
Hasn’t this always been there ?
LikeLike
sara
February 17, 2014
BR: Good question! I don’t have a concrete answer (my guess is some film in 80s) because — like evolutionary adaptation, it’s been slowly but surely creeping in. Every generation has to rediscover the Devadas template: Nenjil Or Alayam, Vasantha Maligai, Vazhve Maayam, etc. It started fairly innocuously with protagonists demonstrating ‘sincere love’ by refusing to marry after their failed romance leading to the glut of one-side-love stories in the 80s. And since happy endings make up for better box office collections than sad ones, some wise guy conceived of a twist in the tale where the heroine’s marriage turns out to be a failed one. And given the Tamil obsession with karpu, this disillusionment should either occur after the wedding but before they get to consummate it, or even before the wedding itself.
I understand if you’re a two-bit director looking for an easy hit and going with such a story. What disappoints me is when established stars like Rajini in Sivaji (the whole vanga pazhagalam bit was a big WTF) resort to this. I don’t buy that it was done for comic relief. Firstly, it wasn’t funny at all, and secondly “Idharkuthane aasaipattai” Vijay Sethupathi shows how a comedy on this topic is done right.
Phew, I’ll get off my soapbox now.
LikeLike
ram murali
February 18, 2014
vaazhve maayam
LikeLike
Afridi
February 18, 2014
@BR: Can’t think of the first but from the classics that I remember: Vaazhve Maayam, Singaara Velan, Thambikku Ends Ooru, Kaadhalan, to name a few. The trend has probably been around for a long time and I think it’s just becoming more obvious in recent times, partly thanks to globalisation. These films also portray a sense of ‘taming the arrogant woman’, by stalking and harassing her into eventually relenting to their charms.
LikeLike
Arjun
February 18, 2014
” mega-serial = tear-soaked soaps where the utterance of every line is followed by reaction shots from everyone else in the cast.”
Hahaha. You said it 🙂 Indha idea’va kondu vandhavan mattum kaila maatinaan.
LikeLike
brangan
February 18, 2014
sara: I too think it’s the 80s. And yes, and though “Oru Thalai Raagam” came before “Vaazhve Maayam” — if we’re talking about Girl saying no, and Boy holding on — it wasn’t really a “stalking” scenario. Shankar just moped around like a puppy that got no love. He didn’t actively go about “stalking” her.
Does anyone recall an instance of such a movie before “Vaazhve Maayam”?
Arjun: No, really 🙂 There are times I’ve found myself trapped in company watching these soaps, and you feel like slashing your wrists and giving up the ghost. Such eventlessness — maybe one development for the twenty-odd minutes of running time, with most of the time devoted to reaction shots of from the non-speakers in the room, set to jangling chords. I cannot believe people watch this — though when I voiced this opinion, I was dutifully reminded of my reaction to “Kadal” (which everyone else found unbearable), and so I had to slink away to a corner 🙂
Afridi: “Singaara Velan” classic-aa? Enna saar… 🙂
Also, ‘taming the arrogant woman’ is a different scenario, and it goes back to “The Taming of the Shrew.” We can find this in MGR films as well, like “Periya Idathu Penn” (the precursor to “Sakalakalavallavan”). Speaking of which, a great song comes to mind:
LikeLike
sara
February 18, 2014
BR: Yes, Oru Thalai Ragam Shankar was the more passive kind, along with Kilinjalgal Mohan and a long list of other heroes who were too shy to propose their love. Such scenarios served to validate the common man’s shyness when it came to expressing love & laid the groundwork to prepare the audience of what’s to come next.
Taming of the shrew is a parallel meme whose origins lie in mythology (Valli thirumanam) so it’s nothing new to Tamils. Again, it’s sad that Rajini had to rely on this crutch so often to increase his star power (Poornima in Thanga Magan, Vijayashanthi in Mannan, Srividya in Mappillai, Ramya Krishnan in Padayappa, etc.)
On a side note, ever notice that the overused comic trope in Tamil films of paying tough guys to threaten a heroine for the good guy to appear and chase them away can be traced back to Valli thirumanam? 🙂
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 18, 2014
Mm. Sorry. Aren’t stalking tropes and taming the shrew tropes different from each other even if they overlap quite often.
I believe that Rajini did the taming the shrew stuff and Kamal did the stalking stuff and then the newbies wanted to merge the overall creepyness.
LikeLike
Arjun
February 18, 2014
@BRangan,
But Kadal is just a movie. You watch it once and you are done with it. Whereas this tripe, people watch every fucking day of the week, 365 days a year. This shit rots the brain. It is a legitimate threat to the sanity of old people and housewives. I can’t believe it hasn’t been banned.
LikeLike
brangan
February 18, 2014
sara: That’s a great point about mythology.
Also LOL at your earlier point about protagonists demonstrating ‘sincere love’. I wonder if other-language cinemas have the equivalent of “naan ungala sincere-a love pannren.” Of all the adjectives you can append to love… sincere? 🙂
Rahini David: then the newbies wanted to merge the overall creepyness
Hahaha! But don’t forget Kamal’s taming-of-the-shrew acts in films like “Sakalakalavallavan,” or even “Vikram,” where he has that famous putting-women-in-their-rightful-place line. (He tells the female IIT graduate and all-round computer-whiz, “In summer, I usually take my shirt off… What about you?”)
Arjun: Forget rotting the brain. From my POV, I’m also concerned about the rot that sets in wrt their cinema-viewing or appreciation qualities. All the films these days employ serial actors, look like serials, and feel like them — cruddy production values, zero aesthetics, loud acting (with lots of gesturing)…
LikeLike
sridhar270
February 18, 2014
Would Mohan in Mouna Raagam be the stalker character performance most loved and lauded?
LikeLike
sridhar270
February 18, 2014
Oops, I obviously meant Karthik. 🙂
LikeLike
MANK
February 18, 2014
Brangan:Forget rotting the brain. From my POV, I’m also concerned about the rot that sets in wrt their cinema-viewing or appreciation qualities.
Bang on.TV viewing has totally destroyed the quality of movie appreciation all over the world.So no amount of ambiguity in characterization or narrative is tolerated anymore. People want to be spoon fed and explained every point of the way. Even though many things contributed to the the downfall of the new hollywood cinema, Francis coppola always blamed TV as one of the main reasons and how it became impossible to make a large scale movie like Apocalypse now or 2001 were the movie is totally left to the interpretation of the audience.I can see the same happen to indian cinema in the last 10 years or so. Malayalam cinema which was very much making movies on par with the new hollywood cinema in 80’s and early 90’s paid heavily for the TV influence.By the early 00’s mal. cinema had totally degenerated and almost become extinct as TV not only took away much of its audience but changed the whole perception of movie appreciation for a new generation.
LikeLike
Afridi
February 18, 2014
@BR: Mannikkavum. What I meant was, movies played on an endless loop on TV while I was growing up
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 18, 2014
BR: Will never forget those instances. Somehow taming the shrew scenes get etched in my brain forever. And I won’t forget Rajini’s instances of stalking either. But in a general way, if you plot these things in a graph or something I think Rajini got more “Mothathula Pombala Pombalaya irukkanum” and Kamal got more “Abirami, Abirami, Abirami”
And the serials, they don’t write these stuff anymore. They already have their winning formula set in stone.
http://perfectpiffle.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/the-feminine-vice/
LikeLike
Ceaser
February 18, 2014
Well Rahini’s becoming like Lord Krishna here, whenever there is stalking,misogyny in any of brangan’s posts, Rahini appears to keep the balance , yada yada hi dharmasya… 🙂
Funnily , Almost all the posts here veer into a discussion on stalking, 🙂
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 18, 2014
And does Idhayam count? I don’t know if he does anything at all to catch her attention but seems ever present.
LikeLike
Afridi
February 18, 2014
Also, perhaps you’re right about taming the shrew and stalking as courtship being different, even though they do overlap sometimes. I guess they are still part and parcel of the grand tradition of misogynism in Tamil cinema. Also, who remembers actor Arjun’s movies? His movies were often another form of misogynism where the female lead found him irresistible, and they were the ones stalking him until he relented. Sometime, he would juggle more than one female proposer cum stalker.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 18, 2014
Afridi: If you have the time to kill please go through the following link. The examples are quite amusing.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StalkingIsFunnyIfItIsFemaleAfterMale
LikeLike
sara
February 18, 2014
Afridi: personally, I see no problems with females stalking a hero because they find him irresistible… it’s a cinematic device they use to show the hero to be attractive. It can be argued likewise for the converse as well, but for the society in which we live in, where acid-throwing-for-spurned-love, and other serious crimes against women are commonplace. With such violent acts being so disproportionate against women, filmmakers need to be more responsible in how they portray the courtship. Of course there’s freedom of expression so they get to film what they want, and it’s a free country so I get to rant what I want. 🙂
LikeLike
Afridi
February 18, 2014
Sara: I disagree about one being more tolerable than the other simply because to me they’re both misogynistic. Sometimes, in the latter cases, the woman is told where to get off by the male before she is attracted to him, like in Sivakasi where Asin falls in love with and stalks Vijay till he relents, after he lectures her about modest clothing, which doesn’t spell like a healthy attraction. Endrendrum Punnagai was another colossal exercise in misogyism, where the very unlikeable male lead character has two woman wanting him for his sexist behaviour.
Also, I don’t know if cinema necessarily contributes to sexual violence and I do think freedom of expression is paramount. I see misogynstic portrayals in films as a manifestation of the general misogynism that exists in Indian society, just like the more violent manifestations of acid throwing for love etc.
LikeLike
brangan
February 18, 2014
Rahini David: I think “Idhayam” is more along the lines of the silent-suffering “Oru Thalai Raagam” style lover, not really a stalker.
sara: I see no problems with females stalking a hero because they find him irresistible…
Whether with men or women, the general action of going after someone they like even though the first answer has been “no” is — in itself — not a bad thing. I mean, that’s how many love stories are. It’s when the “stalker” aspect creeps in that things become problematic — there’s a creepiness here that’s a little hard to define.
Afridi: Endrendrum Punnagai was another colossal exercise in misogyism
Dear God, I loathed this film. I wasn’t here when it came out, and when I returned, everyone said “the Dil Chahta Hai of Tamil cinema” and all that. What a dreadful, dreadful film this turned out to be. If this and “Raja Rani” are what we’re going to get in terms of “upscale urban Tamil films,” leave me out of it, please.
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 18, 2014
“I mean, that’s how many love stories are. It’s when the “stalker” aspect creeps in that things become problematic — there’s a creepiness here that’s a little hard to define.”
– Perfect.
I have never really understood where the boundary line is and who defines it. One of the commenter here talks about the Karthik role in Mouna Raagam being creepy – was it really ?
Even Endrendum Punnagai while being a really terrible film, was it really misogynistic ? We have lots of instances where the female protagonist does not like males ., i don’t find those films being criticized. It is definitely hard to define.
LikeLike
Gradwolf
February 18, 2014
sridhar270 caught one of my go-to arguments (often in jest) regarding this stalking aspect coming up every time in almost every love story. Karthik in Mouna Raagam is definitely stalker behavior I’d say and comparable to, say, repeat offender Dhanush a la Raanjhanaa that drew much flak (Well I know the charm aspect of former is probably missing but the behavior can be compared). So why so much love for Karthik but extreme hatred for today’s stalkers?
Like BR says it is difficult to identify what’s stalker behavior and what is not. Sometimes I feel it is a very Indian thing to woo each other in this manner and depending on the individual’s aggression and the relentlessness, you’ll know where in the scale it falls. We did not exactly have a ask-a-girl-out-in-the-bar culture (umm did we?!) and most contact was made – at different levels – in way of stalking. Not legitimizing it in any way, of course.
LikeLike
sara
February 18, 2014
Afridi: The debate of whether films contribute to sexual violence is an exercise in futility & I’m not going there. In my ideal world anything goes in films and there should be no cultural policing. But you can’t deny that a stalker’s behaviour is seen as validating if films give the impression that it’s commonplace and ‘everyone does it’. Which is why I don’t think a ban would be a good idea, but I do bemoan that popular film stars resort to these archetypes to find acceptance.
BR: That’s exactly why I’m not attempting to draw the lines on where creepiness starts but talk in general terms. I feel that a woman stalking a man is escapist fantasy, just like how it’s comedy when Kovai Sarala beats up Vadivelu (because in reality it’s usually the husband who beats up the wife). A man stalking a woman could be equally funny, except for all the sexual violence going on (or a person who’s psychopathic enough to discount reality).
At the end of the day, it’s not calling for censorship, but a question of basic decency. It’s one thing for a random filmmaker to score big via cheap means but says a lot about our society when an established star does the same.
LikeLike
Afridi
February 18, 2014
Venkatesh: Endrendrum Punnagai was god-awful and misogynistic. Andrea being sexually aggressive with Jiva for the sole reason that in the first five minutes that she knows him, it’s clear that he doesn’t respect women, is astoundingly implausible. He then slaps her for doing so and continually refuses throughout the film to apologise to her, which can at best be described as hyper-inflated male ego. Trisha apparently sees something in him that none of us watching the film ever do when all he does is trash all his loved ones despite continuing to live off some of them, like his father. The back story is that he hates all women because his mother ran out on his father? We’re never even presented with her perspective and considering that the father was even quick to forgive her, she probably had good reasons to do so. Then of course, we have all the other side-track stories of Jiva’s friends portraying marriage as a universal hell where the wife is the devil. Frankly, Endrendrum Punnagai seemed like a mish-mash of all the different sexist elements of films from previous decades, which I thought we had seen the last of, put together in one film in a modern upper middle class setting.
With regards to stalking, in my opinion, if the woman tells the guy once that she’s not interested and he’s shown up a second time to profess his love, he’s stalked her. This could be harmless and she may see him in a different light, but if he’s told off the second time and he shows up again to profess, then he’s a serial stalker. It’s the woman’s prerogative to determine whether/when the stalking is charming or harmful, but the male needs to get the message and back off if it’s the latter. In reel life of course, the male lead manages to always charm the lady when he stalks her, as if her saying ‘no’ means ‘try harder, I’m yours for the taking’.
LikeLike
karthiknach
February 19, 2014
Ennendrum Punnagai was downright awful!
LikeLike
Afridi
February 19, 2014
Sara: “I do bemoan that popular film stars resort to these archetypes to find acceptance.”
Fully agree.
LikeLike
Arjun
February 19, 2014
@BR
“Forget rotting the brain. From my POV, I’m also concerned about the rot that sets in wrt their cinema-viewing or appreciation qualities. All the films these days employ serial actors, look like serials, and feel like them — cruddy production values, zero aesthetics, loud acting (with lots of gesturing)…”
Well, on the flip side, we are seeing bold attempts like Onaayum aatukuttiyum and Soodhu kavvum, But the volume of muck that passes for cinema is unacceptably high, yes. And does someone here have an idea what the watershed moment for the business of mega-serials was? Chitti? I almost wish for the days of say, Marmadesam (which once upon a time was my favourite thriller series ever *gulp* {actually it WAS pretty good/thrilling except for the ending IIRC}), Vidaadhu karuppu etc which used to air when I was growing up in the 90s. Is there anything like that at all these days?
LikeLike
Arjun
February 19, 2014
The creepiest stalking movie, though one that I love for reasons which I find myself unable to articulate was 7G Rainbow colony. Has Indian cinema, let alone Tamil cinema ever before/after seen such an irredeemable, pathologically obsessive, talentless, luckless, vulgar, sex-crazed loser play the protagonist?
LikeLike
oneWithTheH
February 19, 2014
“Endrendrum Punnagai….male lead character has two woman wanting him for his sexist behaviour.”
I disagree. Well, partially…
The lead pair getting together had little to do with the male being a misogynist and the female becoming attracted to him because of it. The movie clearly laid down some structure for their relationship – hating and enduring each other in the beginning, learning more about each other as they went along and eventually spending time together until the moment when she is forced to do the shoot. I liked the fact that this had some logical flow rather than just throw-it-in-your-face scenes with doses of wtf-yness like tamanna liking karthi in siruthai. The trisha-jiva plot was probably the only thing that really worked for me in the movie. The rest of it was subpar, I agree.
LikeLike
Jai
February 19, 2014
@ Sara
“But you can’t deny that a stalker’s behaviour is seen as validating if films give the impression that it’s commonplace and ‘everyone does it’. ”
and
Afridi : “but if he’s told off the second time and he shows up again to profess, then he’s a serial stalker. It’s the woman’s prerogative to determine whether/when the stalking is charming or harmful, but the male needs to get the message and back off if it’s the latter.”
Agree with you both on this.
I have admittedly very strong views on stalking. A member in my immediate family was stalked for a while, and though, thankfully, it was solved fairly quickly, it did give my family extremely tense moments. I get so fed up with the rationale “He was just innocently following; he didn’t try to grope her”. That’s utter crap, intimidation does not *have* to be physical only, there is a mental/ emotional dimension to such harassment as well.
At the bottom of it all, of course, is the sense that the Girl’s ‘NO’ often just means a ‘Maybe’ or a coy ‘Try again’. And all too often, onlookers conclude that the girl might have done something to ‘encourage’ such single minded ‘devotion’.
@ Gradwolf : “Sometimes I feel it is a very Indian thing to woo each other in this manner and depending on the individual’s aggression and the relentlessness, you’ll know where in the scale it falls. We did not exactly have a ask-a-girl-out-in-the-bar culture (umm did we?!) and most contact was made – at different levels – in way of stalking.”
Sorry, but I disagree with this. There is nothing ‘Indian’ or ‘Western’ or ‘Oriental’ or whatever else, with stalking. It is an abhorrent act, plain and simple, and a criminal offense, to boot. I get that you are not condoning this behavior, and I am sincerely glad about this.
But I encounter occasionally, in the offline world, a casual attitude towards stalking–viewing it on the lines of ‘boys will be boys’ kind of thing. This is something which makes me really, really angry–I feel like telling these people to please remember Priyadarshini Mattoo, whose brutal rape and murder started off with the perpetrator stalking her.
Yes, not all stalkers do something this horribly evil later. But bottom line, following a girl around is not cool, and is not Ok. I agree that a ban on stalking portrayals in cinema is not practical, or even desirable. But for God’s sake, its high time this was stopped being shown as the way the leading man ‘woos’ his heroine.
@ BR:
“It’s when the “stalker” aspect creeps in that things become problematic — there’s a creepiness here that’s a little hard to define.”
True. You might remember our discussion on the Malayalam movie Annayum Rasoolum, which you liked and I didn’t. While I agree on the natural acting, the setting and flavor of this movie overall, the aspect of Rasool stalking Anna completely ruined the film for me. I found it problematic and creepy, yes, all the more so since Anna was shown responding.
Sorry all to go on a bit in this comment, but as I said, stalking (and positive portrayals of this behavior) is something I find deeply objectionable.
Cheers…
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 19, 2014
@Afridi:
I hear your points , but “Andrea being sexually aggressive with Jiva for the sole reason that in the first five minutes that she knows him, it’s clear that he doesn’t respect women, is astoundingly implausible.”
– that’s a standard Vamp trope , a hoary tradition of Indian Cinema.
“He then slaps her for doing so and continually refuses throughout the film to apologise to her, which can at best be described as hyper-inflated male ego. ”
– Forget vamps , we have that happening to heroines (Mannan anyone). This doesn’t make a film misogynistic.
“if the woman tells the guy once that she’s not interested and he’s shown up a second time to profess his love, he’s stalked her.”
– Really ? If you watch Saturday Night Fever or any number of other films this is presented as Energetic Courtship.. By that standard every construct, trope, viewpoint can be construed as either feminist or misogynistic, that would be just wrong and dare i say it – plain boring.
In some quarters the behaviour shown in Ranjhaana was considered “badi shidat se mohabbat kartha hai yaar”, I for one, genuinely do not know where the boundary line is.
When is it creepy versus charming ? I suspect like everything else this boils down to the 3 standard requirements.
Be handsome/beautiful.
Don’t be ugly.
Look at first 2 rules.
“Endrendrum Punnagai was downright awful!” – this I definitely agree with.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 19, 2014
venkatesh: “We have that happening to heroines (Mannan anyone). This doesn’t make a film misogynistic.”
mm. It does. No exceptions for being a Rajinikanth movie.
“Be handsome/beautiful.”
I was going to say this. You bet me to it.
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 19, 2014
@Jai:
Conflating what happens in a movie to real-life sets a very dangerous precedent , following it to its logical conclusion would mean that absolutely nothing can be shown. There is such a thing as individual responsibility and plain common-sense.
LikeLike
Vijayakumar
February 19, 2014
@BR: “Forget rotting the brain. From my POV, I’m also concerned about the rot that sets in wrt their cinema-viewing or appreciation qualities. All the films these days employ serial actors, look like serials, and feel like them — cruddy production values, zero aesthetics, loud acting (with lots of gesturing)…”
Although I agree that these mega-serials might rot these people’s brains, most of the people I know who watch mega-serials seem to have different expectations from movies and serials. They go to a theater, watch a movie and they are able to distinguish between a good movie and a bad movie quite well. It is only when it comes to TV soaps that they set their standards low I guess. This is because the competition here is very low, most of them are equally bad and the audience do not have a choice. This lack of competition can be attributed to lack of good film-makers in TV. All that is required is just a couple of good series that make people who watch other serials look like fools. Gautham Menon was supposed to make a TV serial, don’t know what happened with that. We require talent like that here.
I have been to theaters in all centers and of late I am noticing that the majority sitting in the theatre seem to have a very good sense of cinema. They were laughing at the sentiment scenes in IKK. They know when a stunt scene is badly done. They know when a joke is not funny. And these are the same people who watch mega-serials all day long. I think it is their guilty pleasure. Only that I would expect more quality even if it is just my guilty pleasure. So I am not sure if watching mega-serials will affect someone’s movie appreciation qualities.
LikeLike
Jai
February 19, 2014
@ Venkatesh:
I would like to humbly (though vehemently) disagree with some of your points. I agree, at the outset, that my views on stalking as it happens in real life, or as it is portrayed in cinema, are probably going to be much more visceral than some others. The simple reason being, that I have (as explained earlier) had an immediate family member undergo this.
You say ““Conflating what happens in a movie to real-life sets a very dangerous precedent ,——–There is such a thing as individual responsibility and plain common-sense.””
I don’t agree that cinema *only* reflects society around us. That is true, definitely, but so also is the fact that cinema can shape perceptions, guide certain responses. I sincerely feel we are all deluding ourselves if we believe otherwise.
I never said the cinema should go about moralizing and preaching. To explain this better, I am *not* saying–never show stalking in movies. Nor am I saying, make documentaries all the time which only show how bad this is. I am only making this point–that there ought not to be a glorified/ positive portrayal of stalking in movies. Individual responsibility and common sense is all very fine, but can you really feel confident several misguided souls will never feel “Wow, this hero got the girl behaving this way. Let’s try it!”
You also say (about stalking portrayals in cinema)
“When is it creepy versus charming ? I suspect like everything else this boils down to the 3 standard requirements.
Be handsome/beautiful.
Don’t be ugly.
Look at first 2 rules.””
Here, I actually agree with you–and that is part of the problem I have with such cinematic versions. The male lead, who is, at least to many people a ‘heroic’ figure, one worth emulating, is shown ‘wooing’ the heroine by harassing her. And in most cases, this ‘love story’ is shown succeeding–so yes, the ‘handsome’ hero doesn’t stalk the girl after all–he merely engages in ‘energetic courtship’!!!
So let me ask you this–are you ok with such portrayals being shown? Or should there be a more responsible self regulation?
Cheers..
LikeLike
galadriel
February 19, 2014
At the bottom of it all, of course, is the sense that the Girl’s ‘NO’ often just means a ‘Maybe’ or a coy ‘Try again’.
– Apparently, this notion had been around even in Victorian England. 😉
From Mr. Collins’ proposal to Lizzie in Pride and Prejudice –
“I am not now to learn, that it is usual with young ladies to reject the addresses of the man whom they secretly mean to accept, when he first applies for their favour; and that sometimes the refusal is repeated a second or even a third time. I am therefore by no means discouraged by what you have just said, and shall hope to lead you to the altar ere long.”
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 20, 2014
@Rahini:
“I was going to say this. You bet me to it.”
If its as simple as that – then this whole discussion is moot. Isn’t it ?
LikeLike
Rajeev Hari Kumar
February 20, 2014
“They know when a joke is not funny. ”
I’m not sure about that. I mean, these are the exact same people who’ve bestowed upon Santhanam the title of “Comedy Super Star”.
LikeLike
Jai
February 20, 2014
@ Galadriel:
“Apparently, this notion had been around even in Victorian England.” (As to the Girl’s No meaning a Maybe).
Sure, that deplorable notion has been there for a while, not denying that. But where the example you quoted (Mr. Collins’ proposal to Lizzie in Pride and Prejudice) differs from some of the present movies is, Lizzie roundly refuses him again, and pretty firmly tells him she isn’t planning on accepting him ever. Mr Collins’ ego is bruised, sure, but he isn’t shown stalking Lizzie into submission.
We have enough examples from Hindi/ Tamil/ Malayalam cinema (am sure in other Indian languages too, but I only watch these 3), where the hero, after being spurned once, twice, whatever (obviously because the heroine is such a ‘snobbish, cold hearted person’!!!), thaws her by harassing her.
The latter kind of portrayal is what compounds this notion of “No meaning Maybe”, because it provides a validation and a reinforced reference point for such behavior. IMHO, anyway.
Cheers.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 20, 2014
Venkatesh: The discussion isn’t moot by a long shot. Who finds who attractive and who repulsive is basically a thing related to taste. When the guy looks irresistibly hot or exceptionally boring the decision to accept or reject a date is easier. But most guys are neither and I believe you’d all agree with that.
Also, the problem with these guys is that they want an instant deep love thing going on immediately. They are not requesting a coffee date they are instantly asking to be the soulmate. “Neenga Road cross pannurapa daily pappean Madam. Neenga enna romba disturb panniteenga. blah. blah.”
And movies are the cause. I have it from the horse’s mouth.
Guy: “Ithu ellam cinemala thaan nadakuma Madam”
Me: “Ammam”
LikeLike
galadriel
February 20, 2014
@Jai: oh, don ‘t mind me.. I was just trying to provide some comic relief.. 🙂
Heaven help the woman should Mr. Collins turn stalker.. I shudder to think of it. 😉
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 20, 2014
@Jai:
Some very good points and yes i understand it means more when someone in the immediate family has been subject to this. However, I do not believe Art of any kind can be held responsible for real-life behaviour, (why not ban “Every Breath you take” , its a song celebrating stalking) I simply do not accept that premise and censorship self or implied or expected is abhorrent to me, so to answer
“So let me ask you this–are you ok with such portrayals being shown? Or should there be a more responsible self regulation?”
The answer would be Yes and No respectively.
@Rahini :
I am not sure I understand, stalking can either be acceptable or not acceptable. If it depends on the physical appearance of the person then it becomes subjective and the principle itself is moot.
“When the guy looks irresistibly hot or exceptionally boring the decision to accept or reject a date is easier”
– see my point is , this question itself should not arise. What does it matter if a person is hot or not if the approach is deemed incorrect. We are talking about stalking here , right ?
” the problem with these guys is that they want an instant deep love thing going on immediately.”
– again like above , be it instant, considered, deep, shallow – the thought process should not involve this.
BTW, this is not gender-specific.
(Some of the old-timers here might remember cyber-stalking).
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 20, 2014
Venkatesh:
First point
It basically works like this. Good lookers are usually allowed to pester 3-4 times. Usually the No is preceeded with a smile. The girl takes it as a compliment. She only laughs it away.
In below-average lookers these concessions are usually not allowed. Even the second time around this is considered stalking. I don’t think this is fair. But I have a feeling this is how things work.
I don’t consider Arya particularly good looking or Dhanush as below average. But if you see the movies you usually see a certain pattern.
In Raja Rani, when Arya stalks the girl she likes it but doesn’t want to show it.
In V1000, when Surya stalks the girl accross borders, the girl is not threatened at all.
In VTV, she is ok with inviting him for a lunch at her grannies place though she could have pretended she doesn’t know him at all.
In Dhanush movies the girl really resists but thaws after a song.
In Rajkiran movies the girl really hates the guy but then thaws after he demonstrates some huge act of devotion.
Ditto TR.
You see the pattern?
Second Point
A guy who asks for name and says “would like to know you” is not creepy.
A guy who says “one year-a olinju ninni paateanga. Neenga romba azhagu” is very creepy.
First guy’s request may or may not be considered. And if he meets the girl a week later and asks “Have you changed your mind?” Then there is nothing wrong with that.
The second guy is not allowed this consession.
LikeLike
Jai
February 20, 2014
@ Venkatesh
“I do not believe Art of any kind can be held responsible for real-life behaviour”
I don’t know about this, dude. I have passed through phases where I have believed what you are saying now, but then have come to strongly feel that art does have an impact (maybe limited, maybe more comprehensive, but still there), on the way collective behavior is forged.
Speaking specifically of cinema, let me come back to what you earlier said in your previous comment ““Conflating what happens in a movie to real-life sets a very dangerous precedent”
This conflation happens all the time. Whether it *should* happen or not, I am unable to decide, but it does, all the same.
Tell me, why are film stars such popular brand ambassadors? Ranging from Big B to Siddharth Malhotra/ Varun Dhawan; Rekha to Deepika Padukone/ Parineeti Chopra–the reason these stars are in such demand is that we (the audience) tend to conflate their on screen personas with their virtues as ‘real life people’.
Leaving aside limited issues of brand recall, even if we take larger social issues, cinema does have an effect on ‘real life’ responses. You must have heard of the so called ‘Rang De Basanti’ effect–several articles were written about how the movie catalyzed mass outrage against the initial acquittal of Manu Sharma, in the Jessica Lal murder case.
You could read this link, if interested: http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/345/271
More recently, during the mass protests against Nirbhaya’s brutal death, again the film (RDB) was referenced as a spring board for mass civic protests.
So a movie has been judged to have such a large degree of motivational effect on audiences.
I refuse to believe that a film showing stalking in a positive light, can have *no effect* at all on anyone, can *never* give any maladjusted viewer the feeling that this technique is a ‘cool’ way of ‘getting the girl’.
In a utopian world, sure, everyone would have the required degree of common sense to disregard questionable conduct shown in films (even if the movie itself shows this positively). Alas, wasn’t it Voltaire who rightly said that common sense isn’t so common?
@ Rahini
I too, was somewhat confused by this sentence of yours ““When the guy looks irresistibly hot or exceptionally boring the decision to accept or reject a date is easier. But most guys are neither ….”””
Stalkers come in all shapes, sizes and looks–as do perpetrators of other crimes. How does that make any difference? Let’s take a scenario from this example–a girl may feel flattered, sure, with initial attention from an ‘irresistibly hot’ guy. But her answer may still be no–maybe she is already committed to someone else? Maybe she feels he is a Lothario? No should be understood as ‘NO’, however hunky the man is or thinks himself to be. Good looks ought to provide no excuse for stalking behavior.
Cheers..
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 20, 2014
Jai: In the same comment you say
“Whether it *should* happen or not, I am unable to decide, but it does, all the same.”
and then
“Good looks ought to provide no excuse for stalking behavior.”
You do understand that “What is” and “What ought to be” are mostly different from each other, right? And I am not talking about whether a good looker can stalk or not. It is whether the number of times a guy is allowed to ask before he is deemed a stalker varies depends on looks or not. It does. That is what I have noticed.
You also should know that twilight was written by a woman and has a huge female fan base. Plenty of feminists object. But fanbase never lies.
LikeLike
Jai
February 20, 2014
@ Rahini:
“”It basically works like this. Good lookers are usually allowed to pester 3-4 times. Usually the No is preceeded with a smile. The girl takes it as a compliment. She only laughs it away. In below-average lookers these concessions are usually not allowed. Even the second time around this is considered stalking.””
In cinematic portrayals, I tend to agree with you, that this is how things are *shown*. This is one of the inherent problems in films’ depictions of the protagonist’s stalking–the message seems to be ‘If you are really charming/ good looking/ persistent, the girl WILL come around sooner rather than later”.
The problem is, when such expectations are translated to real life. A good looking dude *may* have an expectation that girl cannot possibly refuse him. Being flattered by the attention, but still saying No, means ‘NO’. It still doesn’t mean ‘Maybe’. But that’s what a lot of films show the hero getting away with, unfortunately.
Cheers.
LikeLike
hari
February 20, 2014
Jai, what Rashmi is trying to say is, if the guy is “hot” or “good looking” then there is absolutely no necessity for the guy to stalk. He is going to be lapped up or will be responded to differently 🙂
Not saying this in a offensive way.
A different perspective – http://www.storypick.com/girl-prettier-romantic-date-takes-hilarious-u-turn/
LikeLike
Srini
February 20, 2014
I think the problem really is, Tamil films don’t know how to show the “falling in love” aspect imaginatively. Its always the love at first sight or stalking that leads to a man and a woman falling in love. Most normal guys , even if they fall for a girl at first sight , are likely to approach her in an unthreating way , for fear of completely killing their chances.
How about two normal people sharing common interests, meeting through common friends/sharing same college or workplace, gradually warm up to each other and fall in love. Ofcourse it has to be done in an interesting way, but our movies always resort to the tierd trope of “love at first sight” and subsequent stalking.
LikeLike
Jai
February 20, 2014
Rahini:
“”You do understand that “What is” and “What ought to be” are mostly different from each other, right?””
But of course I do, which is why I agreed on your point, that cinematic portrayals of stalking differ whether the person doing the stalking is considered conventionally ‘good looking’ or not.
But to be fair, the separate sentences you have picked from my previous comment to show a dichotomy aren’t really valid, they were separate points made on 2 separate discussions. The first was a response to Venkatesh, on a discussion whether one can conflate a movie plot to real life or not.
The second sentence was a response to you, on whether good looks form a basis in distinguishing stalking behavior.
Different questions, wouldn’t you say? 🙂
Anyway, peace. I agree with you in so far as ‘good looks’ being shown as ameliorating stalking on screen is concerned. In real life though, I do differ with you. A girl would feel flattered, sure, if the attention was from an attractive guy, but after the ‘No’ if the guy starts stalking, I don’t think it would be condoned merely because he was attractive.
I feel you are mixing up a feeling of being flattered, with an eagerness to be stalked. Don’t mean this to cause offense. Let’s just agree to disagree.
Cheers.
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 20, 2014
@Jai:
My point is a bit more subtle. I am not saying Cinema or Art does not have a real-life effect , I am saying Cinema or Art cannot be censored(self or otherwise) based on perceived affects on real-life. That to me is a very very slippery slope and irrespective of any consequence – art as it is must stand on its own.
@Rahini:
I think we have lost context here (blame the blog comment format),. in cinema , we can either condone heroes (irrespective of how they look) for their “stalkerish” portrayals or we can condemn it. I think taking a position based on how the hero looks (which is very subjective) is dis-ingenuous.
In real life , I haven’t had to stalk anyone to have an opinion about it (it always seemed like very hard work) and surprisingly don’t know anyone who has been stalked seriously (My female friends tend to dismiss it off-hand as “loose da avan”).
Additionally, I actually think physical appearance and stalking are orthogonal concerns.
Also, I am surprised no one has mentioned “Darr” as yet – the quintessential Indian stalker movie – and we all know who profited by that movie the most.
LikeLike
Jai
February 20, 2014
@ Venkatesh:
“In real life , I haven’t had to stalk anyone to have an opinion about it (it always seemed like very hard work) “”
LOL at that 🙂
As regards Darr–Oh yes, that was stalking, pure and simple. But here’s the deal–the movie showed the female lead so repulsed and traumatized by it, she actually eggs on her beau to kill this guy in the end.
Not that I found the movie great–the fact that I don’t particularly care for SRK or Juhi played a role in that, I guess–but at least, they didn’t show the female lead ‘falling for’ the stalking.
Cheers..
LikeLike
MANK
February 20, 2014
@Venkatesh: Also, I am surprised no one has mentioned “Darr”
Man finally , i was going through the comments and everybody going hammer and tongs about stalkers in movies and no mention of Darr. Now that character was the real stalker. He is shown as psychotic and disturbed.SRK became a superstar on account of a series of stalker roles he played at that time, apart from Darr, there was Anjaam, Kabhi ha kabhi naa,Ram jaane and even Baazighar to an extend. And how about DDLJ he comes all the way from london to punjab despite the fact that kajol never openly confessed her love. Now would that amount to stalking.I do have an issue with this discussion on stalking relative to films.How about the countless MGR,Rajni,Amitabh films where the heroines are seen to pursue the disinterested heroes to extend of getting slapped, whoring themselves that finally he relents . Is that stalking and does that influence the society.Has that influenced many a rich girls to pursue taxi drivers and coolies like that. There might be cases were films influence society.I know atleast 10 guys who took to smoking after they saw rajni’s smoking antics. But i also know 1000 other guys who saw the same antics and never resorted to smoking. So does the problem lie with those films or with those 10 people.Speaking broadly of art How does one define the madness in love of Majnu or Ranjha.i am sure movies like Ranjhana and others were inspired by that kind of blind love and was not putting across some stalkers POV. Do their behavior amount to stalking.Is that something to be condemned as well .Then how about all those murders , killing and violence that are potrayed as sheer fun in film after film. . Cinema is a larger than life medium and whatever thats put on that big screen is unreal and amplified. So Lets accept the lie thats cinema and get on with it.I dont believe in any form of censorship on art.We cannot be selective about censorship and say that is to be avoided in art and that should not be.Otherwise we will have more M.F. Hussein’s driven out of this country. More Kamal Haasan tormented just for making a film about terrorism.
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 21, 2014
Hari: You got my name wrong but my point right. Jai is just doing it the other way around.
Jai: You didn’t really get my point. But that is alright.
Venkatesh: “Additionally, I actually think physical appearance and stalking are orthogonal concerns.”
They are. I am talking here about wooing (or whatever they call it these days). In other words, do we cut good-lookers(male/female) too much slack? I have a feeling we(male & female) do.
Ceasar: Isn’t the person who just won’t things be called Naradhar or something?
LikeLike
Jai
February 21, 2014
@ Rahini:
“Hari: You got my name wrong but my point right. Jai is just doing it the other way around.”
Apologies, Madam 😉 Any misinterpretation is unintentional, I assure you…
Jokes apart, if I may be indulged for a bit, I would like to explain what I found different in Hari’s view on your comment, and the way you have explained your point (as I saw it, at least).
Hari is saying “if the guy is “hot” or “good looking” then there is absolutely no necessity for the guy to stalk. He is going to be lapped up or will be responded to differently ”
Here, I mostly agree, albeit with a few reservations. The main reservation being, that there is no necessity for anyone to stalk–good looking or not, successful in wooing or not.
But otherwise, the fact that those of us who fit the template of ‘good looking’ succeed more in romantic pursuits–this is a fact, unfair perhaps, but part of the human condition. Why only in romance, empirical studies have shown that people who are considered attractive, fare better in professional job evaluations, even in fields where appearance has no correlation with job competence.
For crying out loud, infants have been shown to react more favorably to photos of adults with symmetric facial features. So a certain bias towards ‘attractive’ people is hard wired into our DNA.
But, with all due respect, your point went beyond this. You weren’t just talking about whether a handsome guy stands a greater chance of being accepted, you were saying “It is whether the number of times a guy is allowed to ask before he is deemed a stalker varies depends on looks or not. It does.”
Meaning (at least to me) that *even after* an attractive guy’s proposal is refused by the girl, there is a certain degree of slack given to his ‘stalkerish’ behavior, before branding him a stalker.
Here is where I differ from you, at least as things happen in the offline/ real world. In cinema, Yes, I think I already agreed that this how things are *shown*–which is part of the problem I have with movie depictions of stalking.
As far as I see it, in the real world, once the girl says No, stalker behavior is considered disturbing. I am not talking here, about the girl feeling flattered initially with the attention. Nor am I talking about her possibly natural urge to consider favorably, the proposal from an attractive guy.
What I am saying is, *once the ‘NO’ has been communicated*, I really don’t feel a girl would feel any less threatened, just because the stalker was good looking.
Anyway, that’s my view. You are entitled to yours, so if you still feel I haven’t got your point, then let’s just call it quits.
@ Hari–well met again, pal, after the discussion on the Kutcheri thread, I guess? (If you are the same Hari, that is) 😉
Cheers…
LikeLike
Rahini David
February 21, 2014
Jai: If a girl who considers me a confidante tells me something like this.
“Rahini, You know Hot Guy ABC from the next building. He asked me out on a date yesterday and I refused he again asked this morning and I refused again. Just thought I’d let you know” and then smiles lightly.
And Later says.
“Rahini, You know that ugly guy xyz from opposite building. He asked me for my phone number. I am so scared. I think I am in for trouble”
Then I start thinking a bit. On how fair we are to the non-hotties. This may also apply to fluency in English or some such criteria.
I do believe the girl can choose the guy she prefers based on looks or whatever whim that suits her. It is her life, her time and her relationships. Both guys had approached her based on her looks then why shouldn’t she do the same?
But I do believe that some men are labeled creeps without ample reason to be branded that. And I do believe that some men are *not* labeled creeps even inspite of overwhelming proof that they are.
LikeLike
hari
February 21, 2014
@Rahini, my bad. In fact every time I read your name, I always read it as Rashmi Dravid. Such is the impact of fast reading, need to fix it.
@Jai, yep the same Hari.
LikeLike
venkatesh
February 21, 2014
@Rahini:
Your last reply to Jai – thats just life and its the way its meant to be. There is nothing anyone can do about it – sadly.
And this is not an isolated instance:
LikeLike