Spoilers ahead…
The place is Panimalai. The subject is talk. A young man hesitates to tell a woman that he loves her. A father screams at his son, who’s splayed out in front of the TV instead of looking for a job. Arvind (the genial Dulquer Salman), a door-to-door salesman with a fondness for monochrome sweaters, needs to speak in order to make a living – and so does the anchor of a TV channel (Balaji Mohan, the director). Meanwhile, Anjana (Nazriya Nazim), still coming to terms with her father’s marriage to Vidya (a glowing Madhoo, who seems to have retreated into a cryogenic chamber post Roja), sulks in silence.
As he proved in Kadhalil Sodhappuvadhu Yeppadi, Mohan has a terrific ear for light humour. Panimalai, a hill station, is described as “Switzerland-oda chitti ponnu.”And RJ Balaji has a rollicking cameo that recalls his real-life travails with the film fraternity. But in Vaayai Moodi Pesavum, Mohan has his eyes on a bit of satire as well, as he unleashes a disease named Dumb Flu, which results in the loss of speech. And then, as if he expended all his imagination in dreaming up this brilliant conceit, he fills the rest of his film with clichés: the girl who has issues with her stepmom, the boy falling for a girl who has a boyfriend, the gruff old man who’s estranged from his son, the portly best friend from Kadhalil Sodhappuvadhu Yeppadi who struggles to connect with women, and, especially, the boyfriend who’s so joyless and controlling that we wonder why this girl bothers with him. Has this character ever worked in the movies? Why waste precious screen time on someone who is clearly going to be sidelined by the hero by the end? These trite developments are further compromised by the trite dialogue. When not thinking of jokes, Mohan’s lines are depressingly functional. There’s no zing.
This is not to say that Mohan is a lazy filmmaker. He may, in fact, be the opposite. Throughout the film, we get the sense of the envelope being pushed. Anjana’s school-going stepbrother keeps asking for notepads, and finally we see why. It says something about a writer-filmmaker when even the minor characters are given character arcs. As for Arvind, the product he sells, an adhesive named Mr. Fix-It, becomes shorthand for his character as well – he’s always trying to patch things up in broken situations and relationships. But something’s off in the first half, which is amiable but a little dull. Mohan is a tasteful filmmaker who doesn’t oversell a moment. Arvind’s generousness in the case of the orphanage where he was raised isn’t allowed to sink into sentimentality. When the person who runs the orphanage refuses his money, he impishly stuffs the cash in a child’s hands and flees. This is the kind of thing Mani Ratnam would have done in the 1980s. But this tastefulness, when combined with a lack of event, results in a lot of pleasant but pointless scenes where we feel the director is just trying to pad up the running time. It’s as if he decided to save the Dumb Flu portions for the post-interval stretch – and that’s fine. We could use more scenes with Arvind and Anjana, Anjana and her father and her stepmother, Arvind and the orphanage. Instead, we are repeatedly shunted off to one of two long-running subplots, the first about an actor (‘Nuclear Star’ Bhoomesh, played by John Vijay) and an angry bunch of drunks protesting against the negative portrayal of alcoholics in one of his films, and the second about a self-serving politician named Sundaralingam (Pandiarajan). The situations are funny the first couple of times – the YouTube mashup with Sundaralingam is an instant classic – and then they quickly turn tiresome. There’s too much waffling around.
It’s in the second half, after the Dumb Flu epidemic strikes, that the film really takes off. Something happens to the people of Panimalai – and then, everything that seemed like a cliché earlier becomes fresh and funny again. I found the background score very strident when something gentle and whimsical (like the score in Barfi!) might have been appropriate – though the cheesy Priyasakhi refrain that plays over a comic-romantic track is priceless. But otherwise, we see how ambitious the filmmaking is, and how a smart filmmaker can imbue even a “light entertainer” with a strong sensibility. The gags keep coming, and the satire becomes more pointed, as in the brilliant scene with Sundaralingam that skewers the stock answers that are a fixture at media interactions. Even here, though, I wondered if Mohan couldn’t have pushed for a little more outrageousness. He seems happy to coast along in the “pleasant” zone. I felt he could have done more with his premise. Towards the end, when things revert to normalcy, the film slows down again, with scenes that don’t seem necessary, but I don’t want to be too hard on a film that places its faith on its script rather than on stars, and goes where most Tamil filmmakers don’t even dream of going. And did I detect a bit of self-commentary? Vidya is a writer whose first novel was well-received, and whose second one failed to connect with the public. Arvind tells her that he actually like the second novel better. If this is a case of a director who’s making his second film ensuring that he gives himself a pat on the back even if no else does, you have to applaud the cheek.
KEY:
* Vaayai Moodi Pesavum = Shut your mouth and speak
* a terrific ear for light humour = see here
* Switzerland-oda chitti ponnu = Switzerland’s niece
* Mani Ratnam would have done in the 1980s = see here
* YouTube mashup with Sundaralingam = see here
* the score in Barfi! = see here
Copyright ©2014 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Iswarya
May 3, 2014
Missed your review of this movie a lot last week. Btw, a small nitpicking issue with your key: isn’t ‘chitti ponnu’ a cousin, rather than niece? Or maybe you decided not to be too literal in order to sound funnier?
LikeLike
Dinesh R
May 3, 2014
A very nice review, as usual. 80s maniratnam analogy was brilliant… it was very evident in the film…
The alcoholics – fan duel though was funny in a couple of occasion, majority of those sequences were contrived, trite and even vulgar… that was set just to make-up for the time…
I particularly did not like the ending where it becomes hunky-dory over a set of conversations… especially the madhoo confrontation which seemed stupid when her husband realized his mistake all of a sudden…
However, loved the moved as a whole… may be because it was fresh… also, had a pleasing set of protagonists..
LikeLike
Aravindan
May 3, 2014
*SPOILERS*
I really liked the bit த.நா.கூ.ச. (sounded like தங்கள் நா கூசா..)
>>but I don’t want to be too hard on a film that places its faith on its script rather than on stars, and goes where most Tamil filmmakers don’t even dream of going>>
I wanted to, as well. But, terrible film. I was expecting things will look up at least after the ban – how he is going to use it to resolve the conflicts – but the idea was simply reduced to two groups showing each other banners and placards.
there is flu in town, he likes talking and if that’s not a conflict enough – he is a salesman. and if that’s not enough, he must be an aspiring RJ. and she needs to be someone whom எப்பவாச்சும் ரொம்பப் பேசி பாத்திருக்கீங்களா? and she can’t express herself to her boy friend. and to the step-mom. step-mom and dad have no time to talk. a couple who always talk (at the same time), a couple who doesn’t talk to anyone, a guy who can’t talk what he thinks, two parties that won’t negotiate and so on. no time to detail any of these. take an idea and beat it to death. after a while, I could only sadly read the news ticker – மேக்கப் போடாத நடிகரை கண்ட நிருபர் மருத்துவமனையில் அனுமதி.
And Vidya is a Sahitya Akademi award winner, we are asked to believe – okay, I will try to – but her novel is called முதல் எழுச்சி. Long time since something screamed cliche *that* loud.
LikeLike
Kiruba
May 3, 2014
Oh how I miss watching this in Tamil! But having watched once, I am not convinced I’ll watch the Tamil version even if it releases here.
BTW, do you mean Priyasakhi from Gopura Vaasaliley? And is this for the track between Arjunan and the nurse? I don’t know if there was an equivalent refrain used in malayalam. Just another instance of how you’ll always miss something even if you know the language.
LikeLike
brangan
May 3, 2014
Iswarya: Yeah, was going for a feel thing rather than a literal translation. Maybe I should change it…
Dinesh R: I didn’t find it vulgar, but it was dragging after a point. IMO that entire track could have been ditched in favour of more scenes between the main characters. That would have made the Arvind-Anjana-Vidya story a lot more convincing.
Aravindan: Okay, I agree that this wasn’t great or anything, but… terrible? Come on, saar 🙂
See, the problem lies in the fact that not enough time is spent on the main characters, which is a very strange decision the director has made. But based on his two films so far, I see him as a someone who’s happy to make these lightweight, shallow entertainers — as I said in my review, he seems happy to coast along in the ‘pleasant’ zone. So those things didn’t bother me so much.
Still, LOL at your aadhangam about the book’s title 🙂
Kiruba: No, not that song. Just a random refrain that sounds all “senti”, in a spoofy way. It was hilarious.
LikeLike
Girish Balakrishnan
May 4, 2014
Hi BR, your absentia over the last weekend meant that I caught it before reading your review. Just did not work for me. The plot line, in any case, had wafer-thin credibility and the side-stories seemed contrived (did not help either that they made the movie insufferably lengthy) and led you to expect the, well, expected! Though must say that the young boy’s fetish for notepads is revealed with a lovely surprise and for your having highlighted it in the review.
Having watched Dulquer acquit himself effortlessly in Malayalam (Ustad Hotel comes to mind), I was quite nonplussed that he chose this rather silly enterprise to launch himself in Tamil. I hope we can get to see more of him in Tamil essaying roles that help him showcase his acting chops.
LikeLike
oneWithTheH
May 4, 2014
I liked the premise of the movie. Initially Dulquer says with confidence – “pesi theeka mudiyadha vishayam nu edhuvume illa”. But the movie later proves that’s necessarily not the case. It’s a marked departure from the usual know-it-all lord-labakudas protagonist we see in tamil movies.
Did Madhubala overdo her i-found-the-true-potential-of-my-child expressions? Somebody sitting behind me was discussing it when I was feeling the same too. Maybe some underplay was required there. But then again it’s hard to tell if Madhubala is a “good” actor from what I’ve seen of her. Apart for Roja/Gentleman, which had some capable directors, I don’t recall anything extra-ordinary from her.
The conflict resolutions came off as being too easy and corny – Vinu Chakravarthy sub-plot, Madhubala’s writing, the step mother-daughter part. Balaji Mohan had the same problem in KSY where the Suresh and his wife conflict had a childish resolution as well.
LikeLike
brangan
May 4, 2014
Girish Balakrishnan: The plot line, in any case, had wafer-thin credibility
But this is not in the least a “credible” plot, no? It’s more a fantasy-like what-if. I agree it’s not a deep film, but I didn’t find it silly either.
oneWithTheH: Balaji Mohan had the same problem in KSY where the Suresh and his wife conflict had a childish resolution as well
I think it’s because he doesn’t want his films to get too heavy. He probably wants to stay in that pleasant/breezy zone and let the audience have an okayish time than risk serious emotions.
LikeLike
Vijayakumar
May 5, 2014
‘Su Su Sunderalingam Sir’ was hilarious as you had mentioned 😀 And so was the ‘Priyasakhi’ bit!
I did not find the movie to be great either, but it worked for me as a light-hearted entertainer. I think it is one of the most original and daring attempts in recent times. And Balaji Mohan seems to know what he is doing. Deciding to go with his idea of making a (almost) silent movie in the second half is an accomplishment in itself. And he seems to be quite adamant with his pacing of the movie as well. This is a confident filmmaker in action. And regarding the self-referencing you claim to have detected, it just looks like a coincidence to me 😀
LikeLike
Drunken Monkey
May 5, 2014
@BR: I felt the same with regard to the suresh-wife kind of portions. It’s ok to be light than getting shallow deep. Thinking back Balaji is on lines of Radha Mohan except for the sentimentality & melodrama(thank god!).
If only Balaji had milked more out of the nazriya-dulquer-madhu-orphanage part of the script, this could have easily been another Mozhi[not bcoz of ‘dumb’ factor;)] and mozhi might have aged better if it was handled as lightly as this. Balaji is definitely better at humour. Prakashraj’s fake laugh throughout Mozhi is uuuff!(Not that I mozhi)
LikeLike
aandthirtyeights
May 6, 2014
Such a wacky premise – a small town where people aren’t allowed to talk – needed more crackling treatment. The movie had to be much, much more energetic for it to work. It wasn’t. Also, the speech-less stretches did not have the same warmth as Pushpak. Of course, Dulquer is no Kamal and Nazriya is no Amala.
The other deal-breaker for me was the atrocious editing – the first song popped out of nowhere and led nowhere. There were continuity jumps all over the place. Scenes ended abruptly (like that last one just before the credits) or lingered for much too long (many scenes with the drunk people).
And yeah, really, they should leave the controlling boyfriend alone. Dil Chahta Hai was the last word on that character.
LikeLike
Aditya Raghavan
May 7, 2014
Balaji Mohan and Ayan Mukerji share a lot of similarities. Their films are breezy feel good entertainers and then a complex conflict resolved salpiya 😛 But they are darn good at the feel good parts which is a skill nevertheless.
LikeLike
Satish Selvam
May 9, 2014
BR … some of these movies are to be enjoyed for what they are..
I agree it is not a “complete” movie per-se … there are some flaws here and there. I went in with an expectation of being entertained, and I was. And I believe it is a wonderful debut for Sean Roldan, who has done a v.good job with the songs & bgm.
Is it because you need to “review” films, your take is slightly different from what it could/would have been if you were not “reviewing” films? 😉
Every day, I keep checking your site for your reviews/posts … and I agree with most of them. I guess I liked VMP too much, which irked me into my 1st comment on your site!! 😀
On a different note: Santosh Narayanan & Sean Roldan ..seem to be associated with this “new wave of tamizh cinema” which started with Pizza..continuing on to Mundasupatti, Sathuranga Vettai and of course Jigarthanda!!
Note: Just going through the comments on your “2 states” post ..semma kizhi review 😉
LikeLike
brangan
May 9, 2014
Vijayakumar: And regarding the self-referencing you claim to have detected, it just looks like a coincidence to me
What claim? I made no claim. A claim is something concrete. I made a speculation. “did I detect…” “If this is a case…” This is just wondering aloud.
Satish Selvam: “Is it because you need to “review” films, your take is slightly different from what it could/would have been if you were not “reviewing” films?”
Not at all. This suggests that my responses to the film — as expressed in the review — aren’t honest responses, but those that came about because I want to be seen as a “professional reviewer” or some such thing. I was always like this, long long before the thought of reviewing entered my head 🙂
some of these movies are to be enjoyed for what they are..
But that could be said of everything no? A Vijay movie is to be enjoyed for what it is. A Ramarajan movie is to be enjoyed for what it is. Why bother to have expectations and standards then? Why not simply surrender to every film? 🙂
LikeLike
Afridi
May 10, 2014
I thought the film took the dumb flu too seriously. If it really needed it as a device to move the plot, it could have just turned out that the flu was a hoax, or the viewers could have been kept guessing right throughout as to whether there really was such a flu. The film would have been more effective as a satire then.
Also, have anyone else noticed a surge in the popularisation of drinking in films over the last year? Not that there’s anything wrong with it per se, but I just wonder if there is any reason for this frequency: whether it’s almost every time Sivakarthikeyan has girl troubles, the umpteenth Gana Bala song, or even the funny monologue in the police station in the somewhat kid-friendly ‘Goli Soda’.
LikeLike