Spoilers ahead…
In Jigarthanda, we got a meta movie that was about moviemaking itself, and the meta-ness was underlined by the protagonist being named after the director. Kallappadam tries to go one-up – or maybe we should say four-up. The film features a quartet of protagonists, and they’re all named after the behind-the-scenes people. Actually, they are the behind-the-scenes people. They’re playing themselves.
The director, J Vadivel, portrays a struggling director. The film’s editor (Gaugin), music director (K) and cinematographer (Srirama Santhosh), too, play struggling versions of themselves. They’re friends, and they’re trying to make a movie together – and after they make that movie (which we see in flashes, as a film within the film), we get the surreal visual of a film’s behind-the-scenes crew becoming actors inside that film and staring at their names in a poster of the film-inside-that-film. I’ll give you a minute so your head can stop spinning.
The subtext in Jigarthanda was the sly “message” that the only way to make the movie you really want to make in the present Tamil-cinema scenario is to become a gangster and begin to call the shots. Kallappadam seems to say that the only way for strugglers to make a film is by literally looting a producer (Naren), the maker of C-grade (or should we say C-centre?) hits like – wait for it! – Aruvaa. He has little interest in quality A-centre projects like the one Vadivel proposes, about koothu artists. How, then, to get the film made? Kallappadam, thus, equates filmmaking to a heist – the pre-production stage corresponds to the planning stage, the shooting is like pulling off the heist, and so forth.
Suddenly the title makes sense. It’s practically a homophone for kallappanam, counterfeit money. Filmmakers, too, are swindlers. And along with money, they steal ideas too. During the heist, we are told that the safecracking move is the same one Robert De Niro executed in The Score. “There are people who steal entire movies. We’re just stealing a scene.” Now no one can accuse Vadivel of stealing from The Score. You see, he’s only using this scene to make a comment on how other people steal from Hollywood. Nice. This is called having your cake, eating it, and giving everyone an icing-topped middle finger.
Vadivel is nothing if not ambitious, but his ideas are easier to applaud than his filmmaking skills. The pace is sluggish, and the film comes to life only in the heist portions. Even here, things aren’t thought out too well. The character played by K never notices that a pen drive that he wears like a locket is missing – for days. And then they return to the scene of the crime to retrieve it. Talk about looking for a pen drive in a haystack. The low budget shows. There’s an interestingly conceived scene with two characters in conversation – the lights fade out on the listener, leaving only the speaker in sharp focus. But this sort of conceit is probably better left to the theatre.
There are interesting character quirks – K has sticky fingers; Srirama Santhosh dispenses corny philosophies; the producer is a fan of MK Thyagaraja Bhagavathar – but these traits don’t add up to much and aren’t used very well. But more fatally for the film, the leads just don’t measure up. It may be nice in a meta-ish sense to cast behind-the-scenes people, but there’s a reason actors make a living. There are things like charisma, timing, dialogue delivery, reaction shots – none of these is in evidence. Unless you want to be extremely charitable and say that this, too, is some kind of comment, on the state of actors in current Tamil cinema. I wasn’t willing to go that far.
Along the way, we get plenty of asides about the movies. My favourite was when a girl who agrees to marry the editor backs out because she thought he was an actor and she doesn’t want to marry someone whose job is to “wield a pair of scissors and trim films,” something even a tailor can do. She’s right, in a way – that’s really what most people think editors do. Hence the mind-bogglingly stupid comment we frequently run into in reviews: “The editor could have shortened the film, made it crisper.” And then we have the wannabe assistant director (Singampuli) – he’s been wanting to be an assistant director from the days of Bharathiraja. A funny montage shows him pleading for a chance with Bhagyaraj, Pandiyarajan… all the way to Bala.
The most fascinating, refreshing character is the actress Leena (Lakshmi Priya), who has no qualms about sleeping around if it gets the job done. In a scene, she’s propositioned by a leering detective, and she doesn’t flinch, she doesn’t plead – she coolly agrees. And no, the film doesn’t judge her. She is who she is. That’s why the dreadful moralistic streak at the end is surprising. It’s as if the director got cold feet about portraying producers as uncouth hoarders of black money who deserve to be looted – and we wind up with a dedication to… producers. Survival, I suppose. Who wants to antagonize the people who run the business? This cop-out is its own little meta-commentary.
KEY:
- kallappadam = a film made deceitfully
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2015 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
venkat ramanan
March 20, 2015
another metacinema…more and more postmodernism seeping into indian film narratives.
LikeLike
brangan
March 21, 2015
venkat ramanan: But have you noticed that all these meta-narratives have to do with the film industry and the efforts to make a movie? I’m getting the feeling that this isn’t an interest in post-modernism or meta cinema so much as an effort to cash in on a hit/trend.
“Jigarthanda” got a lot of acclaim plus became a hit (at least in the A centres). And I think these other films are just following suit.
I’d wait till someone makes something meta but that’s set outside the film industry before declaring that our cinema is truly going po-mo.
LikeLike
venkat ramanan
March 21, 2015
baradwaj rangan: agreed, it could well be cashing on a trend. but apart from meta, plurality of narratives or genre defying is yet to be seen. Now that i mentioned it, film Pisaasu comes to my mind. That film defies conventional horror genre, more of a tragic romance and horror, or not so?
LikeLike
brangan
March 21, 2015
venkat ramanan: Oh, agree absolutely about “Pisaasu.” Mysskin is quite an out-of-the-box thinker that way, and even his bombs like “Mugamoodi” are very interesting to analyse/dissect because of the inherent plurality in them, the constant “re-drawing” of genre boundaries.
LikeLike
Santosh Kumar T K
March 21, 2015
BR, when it comes to “visualizing” meta in cinema, I think of concentric circles with the innermost circle nesting the most obvious, closest-to-us universe that the maker is trying to create. I then wonder as to how far (or, rather how many) could a very smart director could go in drawing these circles without throwing off the audiences, or appearing Korean.
At what point does the maker settle down? Where does it become the real real ? Needless to say, this requires severe mental labor at the writing stage. I’d say labor to not make it obviously gimmicky.
But then i realize that there could be people making meta commentaries even without intending to.
Just how lucky, or rather beautiful then; two circles, or four circles! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
March 22, 2015
Got this comment on the Hindu site…
Smily
What an ignoble view: Don’t “SUPPOSE” it to be for a ‘Survival’. I look at it as an honest tribute to those concerned. Do not prick any aspiring soul struggling in the industry. Nothing can make you understand this fact better than the dark state of “Kadhal 2 Kalyanam”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ashutosh
March 22, 2015
@brangan: that got personal pretty fast.
LikeLike
bart
March 22, 2015
Kalla comment! (A meta comment about your article pointing to your own movie. Good idea but needed better writing, more subtle) 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ravi K
March 23, 2015
Brangan, one of my pet peeves is when people use the intentions or hard work behind a film as a reason to ignore or excuse the problems with it, which is what “Smily” seems to be doing. Even well-meaning films sometimes undercut themselves or otherwise end up being disappointing. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be called out on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Padhma
March 23, 2015
Totally agree Ravi K! Why do people never look upon a critique or review as pointers to improve / help film makers, I wonder!
LikeLike
Edwin William
March 24, 2015
I wonder how many directors and writers are forced/resort to copy Hollywood in order to get any work from producers. And how many real good movies are trashed because of the focus on commercial aspects that are offensive to the average Tamizh person.
LikeLike
brangan
March 24, 2015
Ravi K: “one of my pet peeves is when people use the intentions or hard work behind a film as a reason to ignore or excuse the problems with it”
I didn’t get this impression with Smily’s comment, which to me seemed more like a strong rebuke about the last few lines in the review above, where I make the point about survival in the industry.
But that said, in general, yes, I think this is an Indian or maybe even Asian trait — where we do this “pat on the back” thing. I wonder if this accounts for some of the mediocrity here, in all fields.
Padhma: Okay, at least I do not look at reviews as “pointers to improve / help film makers”… This is not social service. More like art analysis.
LikeLike
Padhma
March 24, 2015
I agree its not social service, BR. You do it as art analysis. I am, however, talking about a filmmaker’s perspective – makes sense to me to use reviews (at least from a handful of people that you respect) as pointers.For instance, when you point out certain things that were lacking / overdone, I would think film-makers would take that as a response (although of one person) to their product and if it sounds right to them, use the opportunity to do things differently the next time around.
For example, in your Linga review you had said “One question we ask of most Rajinikanth movies, as we exit them, is this: Why aren’t they better? As a star, he occupies a universe of his own, so budgetary issues can’t be the problem – you could ask for the moon and get it. With him on board, there’s going to be little trouble getting the best supporting actors, the best technicians – heck, you can hire the wizards who choreograph the stunts for the Bond movies”
If Rajini were to take something away from this, he would make a better judgement call the next time he okays a movie / director etc. I did not of course, read any other Linga review, so, I am totally in the dark about what other reviewers out there thought about it (I would think it wasn’t great, given how the movie fared). This is just an example that comes to mind right away. Of course, one might argue that Rajini or any film-maker for that matter doesn’t have to cater to one person’s (Baradwaj Rangan, for instance) likes. There are certain things which are solely individual – like you didn’t buy the way a character developed / scene was written but, I did and so on. Certain other opinions like “why etch the last few of your memories in mediocrity” are worth noting, I think. Anyway, as you said in your Yennai arindhaal comment (if I am right) – who are we Gautham menon movie watching types to judge!
LikeLike
venkat ramanan
March 24, 2015
” I wonder if this accounts for some of the mediocrity here, in all fields.”
Baradwaj Rangan: strong and pessimistic an observation, or could be the reality. I have too felt that, apart from ISRO and Indian Cricket team we have had nothing consistently worthy of being said world class. There are people who say India is a great ancient civilisation, with so many great things it did for the world. But after becoming a democratic nation have we become complacent? only reacting rather than being proactive? leave alone visionary or as you have said in some previous writing there are niche films(here worthy and not mediocre efforts) being made, but not enough to constitute a movement.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
March 25, 2015
Hate to diverge to cricket here, but Indian cricket and “world class”, that too consistently? I have to disagree, we haven’t won a test series in Aus .. ever and we have been touring that country right from 1960s and and even as recently as 2014, we get hammered whenever we are out of our comfort zone9 read home pitches). This WC2015 has been a surprise and Dhone transforms to a zen master in WC, otherwise our team is bunch of pampered kids whose sense of entitlement is dispropotionate to their achievements on field.
LikeLike
oneWithTheH
March 27, 2015
Totally unrelated comment, but had to share this 😀
NSFW!
LikeLike
brangan
March 27, 2015
oneWithTheH: That was super funny. Thanks. Surprised they didn’t do Mani Ratnam or Kamal (as director). Total LOL happened at the start of the Gautham Menon spoof.
LikeLike
oneWithTheH
March 28, 2015
Rangan,
That feet-movement capture(Mysskin style) had me in absolutely ROFL mode.
Seriously man! 😀
My take is that the directors in this video are the ones whose works have been actively discussed and deliberated on social media over the last 8-9 years, irrespective of how good or bad their movies are. They create idiosyncratic, close-to-real characters and do indulgent film making; there is a clear pattern. Also, a large number of people seem to be aware of the style of movies these movie makers churn out. You are constantly hit with memes on the internet.
Mani Ratnam/Kamal are out of vogue, I am guessing for such parodies. I don’t see a Kamal or Mani Ratnam discussed in the same vein in this period, except maybe by serious movie buffs. I mean, if you consider Mani, in the last 8 years, his tamil movies(Ravanan, Kadal) have tanked too much too quickly without any sort of social media sustenance. In that sense, I think he is trying to connect back to the young demographic(who he majorly lost touch with in this period) through ‘OK Kanmani’.
LikeLike
brangan
March 28, 2015
oneWithTheH: Oh, I agree that Kamal and Mani Ratnam are, as you say, out of vogue among the “young” set. But I saw KB in the video and thought if KB can be spoofed then so can these guys.
Reg. your statement about Mani Ratnam: ” I think he is trying to connect back to the young demographic(who he majorly lost touch with in this period)…
It’s always puzzled me that he’s considered someone who makes movies for — or “connects with” as you put it — the “young” demographic.
Consider his filmography — out of 21 films, ONLY FOUR are purely young films: “Agni Natchathiram,” “Geethanjali,” “Thiruda Thiruda,” “Alaipayuthey.” That’s LESS THAN 25% 🙂
The others have bits in them that are “young” — most famously, the Karthik portions in “Mouna Raagam” — but the films themselves are serious, adult-oriented. “Mouna Raagam” is a proper drama. As are “Pallavi Anupallavi,” “Unaru,” “Pagal Nilavu,” “Nayakan,” “Anjali” (despite the kids, very much a drama), “Thalapathi,” the so-called “terrorism trilogy” (“Roja,” “Bombay” and “Dil Se…”), “Iruvar,” “Kannathil Muthamittal,” “Yuva/Aaydha Ezhuthu,” “Guru,” “Raavanan,” and “Kadal.”
And there’s one pure melodrama: “Idhayakoil.”
Yes, many of these dramas have a youthful sensibility, but I’d say the problem isn’t with Mani Ratnam per se but with the changing audience.
Let’s leave “Raavanan” and “Kadal” out of this discussion, as those are films where he branched out and was trying something. And I am in the complete minority when it comes to liking these films — rather, finding them “interesting” in terms of an oeuvre. One of the more frustrating discussions I’ve had of late was an interview where I was trying to explain how it’s possible to not like a film in its entirety and yet find it “interesting” and keep revisiting it. They looked at me as if I was talking Greek 🙂
So let’s just take these other films, these other “dramas.” As I said, they have their “young” bits and all, but they are adult in terms of themes and issues. It’s notable that his last outright hit in Tamil is “Alaipayuthey,” which was actually about young people.
So I’m putting forth a theory. Let’s discuss if you’re game 🙂 I’m thinking maybe that today’s young audience only want films that they identify with, that shows them up on screen — hence the mind-boggling success of the execrable “Raja Rani,” which someone actually called (gulp!) a modern-day “Mouna Raagam.”
Whereas, when I was a “youth” in the 1980s/90s (allow yourself a small smile here 🙂 ), we watched all kinds of films, the KB films, the Bharathiraja films, the Balu Mahendra films, even the P Vasu films… whether or not we were up there on screen. Of course, it’s also true that we didn’t have the DVD/download options etc., so if we had to watch a film multiple times, we had to go to the theatre, and that added to the grosses. But that’s the point. Even those who weren’t necessarily movie-mad would still go to the theatre once to see the film, the family audience hadn’t yet got glued to megaserials and such.
Now, that section of the audience has stopped going to theatres. So the audience is overwhelmingly “young” and they only want “Alaipayuthey” (young and fun and identifiable) — not “Aaydha Ezhuthu” (young and serious and issue-ey).
Take Selvaraghavan too. When he puts young people up on screen as they are — “Kaadhal Kondain,” “7G” — he has hits. When he makes dramas (which still have “young” elements) — “Mayakkam Enna,” they bomb.
Whereas an “Anegan” works because it really isn’t about anything — just something that moves fast and zaps the eye (and the brain, with all those twists) every two minutes. Perfect for the ADD generation.
Maybe that explains films like “Valiyavan” — it has a very serious theme but the director does his darnedest to make it seem… not serious, i.e. “young” and fun and all that.
Okay, whip out your answer sheets. The class is now in session 🙂
PS: And let’s not get bogged down by the actual quality of the film. Lots of terrible films become hits — or at least average grossers. Whereas these films, these “non young” films, lose out after FDFS.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rahini David
March 28, 2015
BR: Shouldn’t you make this analysis a bitty rumination ? I believe there are people who don’t read comments but only posts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madhu
March 28, 2015
BR: Raja Rani’s hit is not mind boggling. When you think of our cinema in general, there aren’t much rom-com. It is one of the mian reason I liked Manmandhan Ambu (may be not ‘exactly’ a rom-com, but close), but then there was that second half and haphazard closures that made you go, “muck it” – to quote you. Where was I? Ahh, the main reason for Raja Rani being nice is the fact that the characters are extremely believable and there is no unnecessary preaching (except a dialogue or two by Santhanam who is the comedian and not taken seriously). It was fun and didn’t make you cringe at any point, and that is enough. And films like, say, Pisaasu are marketed so badly that people don’t even know when they are screened. Unless you are the type who goes to the theaters every weekend and scours for a movie to watch, it is very easy to miss them. And then, there would be all the raving reviews and you would want to watch the movie pretty badly but wouldn’t be able to. May be taking Mysskin as an example is wrong because, he is like “Bommarilu” Genelia – you either love him or hate him, there is no in-between. And another thing that always plays into this is the previous film of the director or the protaganist. I was extremely wary of watching Onaayum Aatukuttiyum (which when I did watch was beautiful, no other word for it) because of Mugamoodi. I didn’t enjoy it and felt quite let down by Mysskin, which meant not to watch the next feature until someone vouches it is good. Oh God, I keep coming back to Mysskin. The “young” crowd (which I am a part of, I think, I am really not sure what it constitutes of) are ready to take new things, otherwise SK, NKPK, Pizza or Jigathanda couldn’t have done well. The main difference between 80/90’s and today’s movies, IMO is the PR which goes behind it. And also the sheer number of movies which get released. And those days, I am sure, a movie didn’t run out of the screen in matter of 2 weeks, that by the time the good word-of-mouth goes around, it is out of the theaters and we don’t get a chance to watch it.
And with established directors, the expectation is so high that you feel betrayed even if they slip a notch or two in minimum number of scenes and when they are new, it is the reverse. As for “issue-ey”, no one likes preachy movies, which is why even “fun” movie like Idharku thaaney aasai pattai balakumara didn’t do well.
LikeLike
brangan
March 30, 2015
Madhu: I am only talking about dramas. SK, NKPK, Pizza or Jigathanda — the ones you mention — aren’t dramas. They are high on energy and very much under the umbrella of what the “youth” would like to watch.
So if Mani Ratnam made a “Pizza” and that bombed, then I’d say he’s lost it when it comes to the “youth” audience. Though my contention is really that he isn’t a “youth” director at all, given that less than 25% of his films fall in that category.
I’m just finding it a little mystifying that so many people are saying “OK Kanmani” is a “return to his roots” and so forth, because his forte is really the heavy drama. That’s the genre in which most of films lie.
LikeLike
Gradwolf
March 30, 2015
Oh it’s really the urban vs rustic here. There is no young ppl vs older matured ppl angle at all. The issue is purely related to class. People believe MR can handle Sakthi/Karthik/Meera/Arjun/Adi/Tara far better than the characters that inhabit the Kadal and Raavanan universe. And when people proclaim this they are really thinking only short term and are only talking of these two films that betrayed them of their Mani sensibilities, the problems and aspirations of their class that MR so exquisitely painted on screen. So they feel cheated. As for the other lot that was never assured of MR’s talent these two films turned out to be some sort of an alibi. They had problems with his politics right from Iruvar to Dil Se to Kannathil Muthamittal.
Today’s audience don’t want to see only them on screen necessarily. They want a more equal opportunity approach. The audience today is a little too aware. There is so much information flooding from every corner, from every class of society that at times somewhere someone is always misrepresented. Once upon a time, “Madras” may have been a difficult film to make. Not today. Long story short, the audience that enjoyed the earlier MR films may have now expanded to include audience that even at that time may not have enjoyed those films the same way. Also – idha naane solla koodadhu – nowadays everybody is a film critic….
Agree with Rahini, this needs to be a separate post. I for one definitely need to gather my thoughts a little more clearly. What you put up is a semester thesis topic. Not one answer sheet question.
LikeLike
Prasad
March 30, 2015
Hi BR,
“Whereas, when I was a “youth” in the 1980s/90s (allow yourself a small smile here 🙂 ), we watched all kinds of films, the KB films, the Bharathiraja films, the Balu Mahendra films”
Want to bring a different point here. Just a General rant on our Top(Ex 🙂 Directors specially Kollywood including Bollywood.
Why is that our noted top Directors in general (Late KB during last decade, BharathiRaja , Manirathinam and Shankar offlate) struggle with time.
We all expect them to get better with age, produce their best works with time but unfortunately the reverse happens and we feel sorry to see some fo them Struggle.I know you might not agree for including Mani but somehow I feel he also has missed the mark in the last few of his movies.
This applies to some of the Bollywood directors also. Ashutosh gave Lagaan and Swades and nothing spectacular after that. Same applies with Farhan and Rakesh Om Mehra.
This is one aspect which I see we need to learn from greats like Spielberg, Sidney Lumet, Client Eastwood and Martin Scorsese.
Martin Scorscesse gave us Hugo, Shutter Island and The wolf of Wall Street in his 70’s. Just see the variety in the genre’s.
Sidney Lumet’s last film is “Before the devil Knows you’re dead”. It’s a crime drama film which got universal acclaim. He directed this at the age of 82.
Eastwood at 82 has directed American Sniper, even though not a great movie it has an excellent premise and it’s a box office success.
When ever we bring hollywood for comparison, the defense of our folks will be is the budget. I don’t think Money/Budget is is the only difference.
Their ability to strive of excellence and come up with out of the box themes makes them stand apart.
Also interesting it to note what’s the next movies. Spielberg’s next is “Bridge of Spies” It is based on the 1960 U-2 incident, in which a lawyer named James Donovan is thrust into the center of the Cold War to negotiate.
Take for example Coen Brother’s next movie “Hail, Caesar!” the move follows Eddie Mannix a fixer working in the Hollywood film industry in the 1950s, trying to discover what happened to a cast member who vanishes during filming.
The premises and the thought process are so different.For us when it comes to “Out of the box” we end with biopics of Ambani or “Hero ” disfigured beyond recognition :).I Know there are good directors like Myskin and other’s. But my point is why our “So called” Top directors who were the best in the last decades are fading away without reinventing themselves.
To put in other words, I don’t know if Manirathinam can make another Nayagan or Shankar make another “Mudhalvan’ or a “Indian”. For some reasons I don’t see the intent to innovate and come up with genres which they not explored.
Pl let me know your thoughts.
PS: In no way am comparing Mani with Shankar.
LikeLike
brangan
March 30, 2015
Gradwolf / Prasad: Looking back at my comments, I’ve conflated 2 or 3 separate points, and when I get the time I’ll try to write something more coherent. That said:
There is no young ppl vs older matured ppl angle at all.
I disagree. For some reason, the perception among the junta is that he has a connect with the youth, and that that’s his forte. Which is why there are so many articles stressing his “return to roots” with OKK.
About the urban vs. rural you suggest, I’m not discounting that at all. Yes, he is known as an “urban” director. But then, “Raavanan” wasn’t really “rustic,” was it? It’s just a drama set in the jungle. The Vikram character wasn’t really “rustic,” in the way you’d call a Bharathiraja character rustic. Vikram is more along the lines of Manisha from “Bombay,” a rustic character “made safe” for all-centre viewing. Even “Kadal”, for that matter, though set in a village, isn’t really “rustic.”
So I get back to my point that today’s audiences have very little tolerance for non-“entertaining” viewing. (And the definition of “entertaining” has really narrowed down.) Forget Mani Ratnam. Take Vetrimaaran. “Polladhavan” was a more compromised film and a “young” film – a big hit. “Aadukalam” was more uncompromised, but also a much heavier film — not a hit.
A few films work here and there, but in general, it’s not just the directors but also the audience. I’m not saying that the audience of earlier times was greatly evolved or some such thing. But there were more numbers visiting theatres. So even if only 10% of that audience patronised a film, that was enough. Today, the attendance numbers are so low that even if the same 10% patronised a film, that just isn’t enough.
That’s why a low-key “Mouna Raagam” would not work today. “Low-key” does not sell today. But tart the same premise up as “Raja Rani” and it will work.
Which takes me to Prasad’s question.
This has been discussed many times in this space. It’s easier to Hollywood directors to be creative after a point, because their movies have all of the English-speaking world as an audience — basically the whole world. So “middle-brow” filmmakers like Eastwood, Spielberg, etc. never face the challenge of funding/distribution that our filmmakers do. They can keep doing whatever they want.
Here, filmmakers are constrained by operating largely within one state, where the maximum revenue comes from. So their flexibility varies — and when you don’t vary your product too much, I guess after a point you begin to stagnate.
There are some ways out:
(1) Hire writers who can think up fresh stuff and just concentrate on directing films. If you notice, most US filmmakers are primarily directors. But here, people don’t want to relinquish the “writer-director” tag.
(2) Make films on a really low budget. The bigger the budget, the more you have to think on terms of “will the C centre people like this? or “should we have a song here?” I don’t know what’s stopping Mani Ratnam or Kamal or Selvaraghavan from making really uncompromised films made only for the city audiences.
But then, we get to the fact of pricing. When you cannot sell tickets for more than 120 bucks, you’re screwed even in the cities. Unlike Mumbai, where multiplex tickets cost two, three times this amount.
If free-market pricing comes into play, and if we get more multiplexes, I’m willing to bet we’ll see a lot more variety from filmmakers. But as long as we are dependent mainly on single screens, I don’t see much changing.
It’s a lot of things, really — a complex web of factors.
LikeLike
brangan
March 30, 2015
To add to the above — and coming back to my point about changing audiences — note that Mani Ratnam is the last director who still has the kind of prestige that KB etc. had. A brand name across all audience segments, even if they hate his films. And even if his films flop, the next one is awaited with quite a bit of anticipation, and with sky-high expectations that make us complain about things we’d happily forgive in another director’s film.
That’s because — I think — he made his name in the 1980s, with larger audiences going to the movies, discussing them, assimilating them into the pop-culture mainstream. Had he entered the industry today, he’d have been Twittered out after his first bomb. Or struggled to mount each project.
Filmmakers today are just not given those kinds of chances.
Can you think of a post-Mani Ratnam filmmaker who’d have continued with this level of respect/ prestige/ autonomy (because he produces his own films) etc. despite the fact that his last truly big hit came with “Alaipayuthey,” which was 15 freaking years ago?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
March 30, 2015
BR: I am not too sure about a mouna raagam not working now. True, many people seem to like RR, and yes, it is a poor imitation. But even in those times, people went to see a regular revathy-mohan-Karthk triangle but got a heavy drama, and found that it worked for them. I would say the same about moondram Pirai. Bait them saying it is a youthful movie and feed them something heavy.
People seem to enjoy raja rani or engeyum eppothum, because this is all we have now. Before that I believe people enjoyed unnale unnalea.
Btw, I really enjoyed your unnalea unnalea review.
LikeLike
Karthik
March 30, 2015
I agree that the “youth” palate for “youth” movies has changed significantly since I was a “youth” (also 90s), and here is my theory. There were always two kinds of movies that we went to– if I may take the liberty to dichotomize– there were movies that drew you in, regardless of whom you were with, stationed you as a passive participant in the story, and often the experience lingered with you for a while after….and then there were movies where you sat firmly outside the screen, actively commenting on the goings on along with your buddies, and went away carrying nothing more than memories of a good social outing. Movies like Agni Natchathiram, and to a degree Alaipayuthe, fit into both categories, but more importantly the “youth” theatre goers at the time had room for both categories. VIP is the only hit “youth” movie from recent times that, I thought, belonged to both categories (at least the first half of the movie).
It appears that the (youth) audience for the first category has dwindled in the Twitt-era, and theatre going, today, is overwhelmingly just a social experience. Take a look at the hit “youth” movies today, Raja Rani, Endrendrum Punnagai, OKOK, NEPV (to some extent)– notice that they all have Santhanam. The way I see it, watching a movie with Santhanam in it, is really watching the movie….with Santhanam. Rather than a buddy of the hero, he is your wisecracking buddy, providing “witty” commentary on every event on screen.
I remember, from your book, when you asked Mani Ratnam about the Karthik portions of Mouna Raagam, he claimed that had he made the movie ten years later, he would have done away with that portion. When somebody did try to “rework” the Mouna Raagam template, they ended up going in the exact opposite direction, with two back stories in place of one. That alone shows the divergence between the perceived audience tastes then and now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nathan
March 31, 2015
If I say this once, I have said it a 100 times: Those days, we wanted to give time to good cinema. These days you want cinema to give good time to you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prasad
March 31, 2015
‘(1) Hire writers who can think up fresh stuff and just concentrate on directing films.”
“I don’t know what’s stopping Mani Ratnam or Kamal or Selvaraghavan from making really uncompromised films made only for the city audiences.”
This is exactly the point am Talking about. Why that freshness is their thought is missing.Why is that for a kamal the last genuine class film is “Virumaandi” and a genuine hit for Manitathinam is “Alaipayuthey” . It’s almost 12-15 years time.
I do agree to your points on economics (Rs.120 ticket price). I don’t think that’s the only reason preventing them from making class movies.
“Can you think of a post-Mani Ratnam filmmaker who’d have continued with this level of respect/ prestige/ autonomy (because he produces his own films) etc. despite the fact that his last truly big hit came with “Alaipayuthey,” which was 15 freaking years ago?”
Completely agreed on this point.But why do you think so? There are 2 parts to it. One, We’re(Tamil Industry) is not blessed with naturals like Vishal Bhardwaj, Anurag Kashyap, Hirani, Dibakar Bannerjee or Sriram Raghavan.
The second part is ,As you told in late eighties, he brought in that Transformation from a melodrama based movies to Urban based movies which eveyrbody can relate to whether it is Mouna Raagam, Nayakan or Agni Natchiram.
I can’t forget the first time when I saw Agni Natchiram.Completely floored by the visual appear and glamour. He is the guy who made us talk about technical aspects whether it is editing, Photography or Choreography. Amazing Transformation which did appeal to much younder audiences. I still recall people in colleges use to go gaga for “Idhyathey Thirudhey” .
Definitely he brought in the change which the youth/People wanted. His take on romance was different.The sharp and witty oneliner’s and monologues appealed instead of extended cliche dialogues.
But honestly you can take a online Opinion poll also. HE IS NOT A TOUR DE FORCE ANYMORE. That’s exactly my Point. Why is that dip I do agree the expectations are there for his movies but it has come down DRASTICALLY as per my Opinion..
Alaipayuthey was his last movie which almost had all the trademarks of him. The brilliance of having past and present shots( Very early film to adopt that) , each and every song picturized with his trademark style.
But just look at the movies after Alaipayuthey. Guru whch is a very average biopic. And coming to Kadal and Raavanan.. am not going
to the content. But can you look at the picturization of songs of these movies? There is litreally no punch. And in terms of content, he didn’t get acceptance and these movies were out rightly rejected by people. There’s a difference. Even Dil se is a flop but still he game us moments which will be remembered for long either “Chaiya song’ or the conversation between Shahrukh and Manish with doors opening /Closing…the reason by Manish get’s seizure — which is explained in the flash back she witnesses her sister being abused. Now that’s what Manirathinam Punch. The Visual Master. The way he can communicate visually bring in style and flair no Director could bring in .Iruvar another flop , each and every songs are like million dollars. We just savour those songs/moments.
But now, even in his flops unfortunately nothing to remember or linger on. But Unforturnately he is not able to reinvent and bring new things to the table which fly in the recent movies ! I know he worked on newer things in Kadal /Raavanan but it didn’t strike across.
Infact I have seen his flops more than his hits.(Iruvar/ Dil Se / Thiruda Thiruda..) But now I can’t say the same when it comes to Kadal and Raavanan.
This is not only to Manirathinam even to Shankar. Just see “I” I mean that’s the most “Humourless” movie I have seen of Shankar. Just compare Dialogues
and humour content and character’s in “Mudhalvan” E.g Manivannan’s dialogues .
But having Said that, we all wish both these directors will definitely come back and entertain us like how they did earlier.
Pl let me know your thoughts.
LikeLike
brangan
March 31, 2015
Karthik: What a superb comment, I say. Thank you.
Prasad: We’re(Tamil Industry) is not blessed with naturals like Vishal Bhardwaj, Anurag Kashyap, Hirani, Dibakar Bannerjee or Sriram Raghavan.
I think it’s more than that. I do think there is a lot of talent here, but once they get that big hit, they move on to making “hero” type films and become a very different kind of filmmaker.
I’ve mentioned this before, but no harm repeating it. An acquaintance from the industry once told me: “Look at these new filmmakers. They have no lasting power. They make one or two good films and then they lose it. Look at KB. How long he lasted.”
And that’s true. From the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s — at least that’s what I think is the period he made good stuff. But even afterwards, he had hits like “Vaaname Ellai.” He just kept going on and on and on, and there was at least a “let’s check it out” quality to his films.
Mani Ratnam is the last person, IMO, to have that across a wide audience spectrum. Where even if you’re not a fan you at least say “let’s check it out” and distributors still pick up his films, even if they have no stars, etc. So why hasn’t any filmmaker after him had that quality, that lasting power in the minds of the audience — where they say “love him or hate him, there’s something there?”
This, despite the fact that over the past few years a lot of new filmmakers have been making much more interesting films than Mani Ratnam. I wonder if people like Mysskin will have that kind of lasting power in 2025.
Alaipayuthey was his last movie which almost had all the trademarks of him.
Actually, I’m not the greatest fan of that film. For me, his best work of that period is “Kannathil…”
Regarding visual punch, there are still shots he does that no one else does. Like in “Raavanan,” we see Vikram’s head spin when he sees Aishwarya and that’s literalised by the spinning of the parisal. “Kadal” too has some great visual storytelling. The opening, with the walk towards the cross. The film is studded with visual storytelling.
But yes, his songs have become less remarkable. “Kadal” did not need songs at all — worse, the fancy picturisation really affected (yanked us out of) the main narrative.
Strangely, the kind of songs he used to make are now seen only in Bollywood. “Raabta” in “Agent Vinod.” “Alvida” in “D-Day.” This is the kind of “storytelling” Mani Ratnam used to do brilliantly at one point. For some reason, he’s given it up.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
March 31, 2015
Very interesting discussion.
W.r.t audience expectation , I think the definition of entertainment has narrowed to mean only “comedy” and as Karthik mentioned people just want to go to a movie hall , have a good laugh and share a few wise cracks. All the new age movies which are a success ( NKPK , SK, Jigithanda etc.) are a success because they offer the audience a chance to laugh. The idea that an engaging drama can be entertaining has no takers. I dare say even a Nayakan would be dismissed as too heavy and not enjoy the success it did , if released today.
So even an earnest film maker like Cheran is trying to have a Santhanam comedy track in his movies. There are unfortunately no takers for the kind of drama that he is good at (Thavamai Thavamirunthu , Autograph etc.
About MR , since he started making these pan india movies with a political background , I have grown distant from him. The politics in his movie is really naive and that puts me off. Even in those quasi-political movies , the real good portions involve the depiction of youth. In Bombay , fo instance I liked how Aravindsamy’s character rebels against his dad. Likewise , fo all the political background in Dil Se , it was a nice romantic drama. I guess thats why he is identified as a youth/romance specialist
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
March 31, 2015
Srinivas R: Can you think of the last drama that became a hit? Not youth-oriented action-dramas like “Anjaathe” or “Subramaniyapuram” but pure “traditional” dramas.
“Angadi Theru” comes to mind…
LikeLike
Madhu
March 31, 2015
Deiva thirumagal is also a drama and it was a super hit, right?
I think, the traditional drama, as you call it is passé.
Coming to the dramas with “youthful sensibilities”,
MR’s dramas: Post Kannathil Muthamittal, MR’s movies have had either the problem with casting or with the substance. He traditionally makes movies with people who are apt for his movies and Aishwarya (other than Iruvar in which she was perfect because the immaturity that she portrays is perfect for the character) in Guru, Raavanan just doesn’t fit. I am not saying his movies went for the dogs because of casting, but that is one of the key problems. Because, when it comes to him, one expects the perfect people to be cast (even though one cannot imagine Mohan acting, he was perfect for Mouna Raagam). MR is the man who can make stones act, but off late you cannot say so. Yes, Arjun and Arvind Swamy come alive in their roles in Kadal, but did we really need Thulasi and Gautam for the lead roles? When there is bad acting, it takes away a lot from the movie. I know you said, let us leave Raavanan and Kadal, but, that is like ignoring the elephant in the room, BR. The last two movies have left us, the generation which has made Alaipaayuthey into a cult with a bad taste in the mouth. I had just finished my 10th when the movie came out and Kannathil muthamittaal was the movie, which I remember that I bunked my tuitions and went to. It was sheer magic on screen, I mean, he had made Simran (who, before this had only been known for her waist twitching dances) into a beautiful mother of three who could, hold your breath, act and emote. Even had she continued to act as a heroine for another 2 decades, I don’t think anyone could have given her a better role. It is her carrier best. And then, somehow, all the further movies which he has made till date has come out either under-cooked, over-cooked, too many ingredients but nothing to sink your teeth into, too much to sink your teeth into but no spice…it’s just badly made. Yes, we understand that he is experimenting. But, it is not working out. Hence when he decides to make an Alaipaayuthey type movie, we naturally get excited.
P.S: No, we do not think Alaipaayuthey is the best movie he ever made, one has to only look at Mouna Raagam and Geetanjali and it is easy to understand that Alaipaayuthey is a mere shadow, but hey, it is a movie that we associate with our ‘youth’, don’t dis it, ok? 😀
Selvaraghavan’s dramas: This is probably the most sexist thing that I am going to say, but Selvarghavan movies are for adolescent boys. When 7G movie came out, I am sure every girl who was in the late teens would have heard the comment: “dei, ipdi dhaandaa kandukkaama povaalunga, thoratheetey irundhomnu vaiyi, madangeeduvaalunga” or some such variation of it. No, I am not kidding. And these kind of comments would invariably hint at 7G movie as a reference. This is an honest-to-God experience that we all underwent and naturally ended up hating that man. It somehow felt that he rekindled the flames of stalkers of Tamilnadu with this movie. I am not moral policing here, nor am I being arrogant so as to perceive the mind of the said director. And, I am not saying that all movies should be family-friendly (God, no!) But, it is his portrayal of the heroes as stalkers that is so nauseous. I am sure, even now, he has lesser number of women viewers than men. Which is really a pity, because Pudhupettai and even Aayirathil Oruvan are a great watch. Though there will be many disaggreeing nods for AO, it is still a different watch. So, when a Selvaraghavan movie is out, it is always treated with caution. He has a template of hero/heroine that he always follows which is not agreeable to women (I really don’t know about the men’s perspective here). In fact, when Mayakkam Enna was out and when one of my female friend came back and told me that it is TYPICAL Selvaraghavan movie, which means: there will be some form of idiocy involving “indha ponnungalley ipdi dhaan”, there will be one scene which will definitely make you queasy, so on and so forth… I didn’t even attempt to see it. If you are asking me whether he is the only director making mysonigistic heroes/movies, no. But, one doesn’t tend to take directors like Ravikumar, Perarasu or a slew of such “commercial” directors seriously. But, Selvaraghavan is a very serious filmmaker, there aren’t any commercial elements for the sake of it (except may be for some songs) in his movies. So, it is a bitter pill with him.
Bala’s dramas: He might infuse some action elements into his movies, but frankly, his films are pure drama. And after the nth movie which kills off the protaganist(s) for the sake of it, he has been branded. Because, when you make characters suffer for the sake of it, it is so annoying. But, he made Pithamagan (I am not a fan of Sethu, but that is just me in this lonely place, I know), so one expects good stuff from him. So, after Paradesi, the audience may not be waiting with bated breath for his next one, but we will definitely not ignore him.
Vasanth’s dramas: Moondru per, moondru kaadhal – enough said. He thinks that he infuses youthful sensibilities, but really BR, it is difficult to sit through his movies these days, really.
And I am not able to think of any other directors who have been making movies for some time now and dramas at that. I haven’t taken into account any one-time-wonders.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
March 31, 2015
BR, Somehow rural/non-city dramas seem to enjoy some patronage. “Kumki” which I suppose you can call a drama ( the movie didn’t work for me), was a big time hit. Also Vazhakku En was a semi-hit ( a big hit in tamil awards circuit , for what its worth). NEPV which was a wonderful drama , was liked by about 10 people I think.
Also to your other question , which among the current set of directors enjoy the same level of anticipation and respect like KB and Mani, I think Myskin , Bala and to an extent Vetrimaran enjoy that status. Even though Avan Ivan was a flop, there was a decent buzz abt Paradesi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srinivas R
March 31, 2015
BR, I haven’t watched “Madras”, would you call it a drama? then I guess thats a city based drama that enjoyed some success.
LikeLike
Rahini David
March 31, 2015
Madhu: Did you just say Alaipayuthey was your youth? BR will be off to write a tetchy post about time (or maybe not).
If you heard roadside romeos comment on 7G as a point of reference, then slightly older women heard comments on Singaravelan or Kadhalika Neramillai or some such movie depending on their age at that time. Yes, SV and KN were comedies but that does not take away the main point. Life before 7G was no bed of roses.
I was never aware that Alaipaythey was such a huge cult. Yes, I knew that Madhavan was an instant hit but that is all. Did its cult status grow over time?
LikeLike
Madhu
March 31, 2015
Rahini: I saw Alaipaayuthey as a treat after slogging away my 10th std exams. So…yeah, my youth. Of course it is cult! All you have to do is look at the memes in FB and you would know that the train sequence where Madhavan goes ‘nee azhagaa irukkannu ninaikkala..’ is a classic. And yes, it’s cult status grew over time. When it was out, we all just drooled over Madhavan and got over it, but it’s not like you had that kind of love story after Alaipaayuthey which was enjoyed by both the genders, so it became a cult later.
And no, I did not mean that 7G was the first ever or the last ever to create such mayhem. I was trying to explain, why…uhmmm, should I say women of my generation?? Anyway, why we women hated him as a director after that movie and why we handle his films with care when it comes out. And I am also trying to say that when it comes out of Selvarghavan, it is somehow ten times worse. Like I said, you tend to ignore some directors’ stuff as rubbish. But there are some directors/actors who are perceived as serious (not about the movie’s tone, rather the quality of it) film makers and when they do this, it is just way too much to forgive. For example: We do not bat an eyelid over Ravikumar’s misogynistic tendencies in Naattaamai, but when it happens in Dasavatharam, we get annoyed, because we expect Kamal to know better.
LikeLike
Prasad
March 31, 2015
Hi BR
“Strangely, the kind of songs he used to make are now seen only in Bollywood. “Raabta” in “Agent Vinod.” “Alvida” in “D-Day.” This is the kind of “storytelling” Mani Ratnam used to do brilliantly at one point. For some reason, he’s given it up.”
Absolutely agreed .He is the guy who revolutionized the picturization of songs and brought a new meaning to Tamil CInema. But seems he is losing his touch.
Interestingly the picturization of songs have gone to a different level especially in Bollywood. Especially Amit Trivedi is operating in different zone nowadays and completely unconventional. Just to quote a few examples.
“Zinda hoon” and “Shikhayetein” in Lootera is another example of usage of songs and to convey the mood/conflicts in the movie so effectively.Gone are the days with ‘Dream sequences ” and fancy locations. Am strictly talking about Vishal Bhardwaj, Anurag Kashyap, Hirani, Dibakar Bannerjee, Sriram Raghavan and Vikramaditya Motwane if I maybe add him also.
In Raj Kumar Gupta’s Aamir movie there is a song “Ha Raham’ which is picturized when Hero fights with some robbers. The song “Haara” is picturized when Hero is walking through a Buther shop in Mumbai. The positing of these songs and lyrics are so amazing it flows with the movie.
Just take for e.g “Queen” There is a song “Harjaiyaan” this songs comes when Kangana flies to Paris and it is so well Picturized. It doesn’t feel like a song the whole sequence and mood is brought so effectively.Same applies for the “Kinara ” Song in the climax.
‘Actually, I’m not the greatest fan of that film. For me, his best work of that period is “Kannathil’
I agree. “Kannathil’ is too good. The way had picturized “Vellai Pookal” is so effective and also the “Sundari”. Each and every song these use to be a something new.”Sundari” song had some camera angles which we’ve not seen before.
Completely agree with Madhu on the point of Kannathil
” It was sheer magic on screen, I mean, he had made Simran (who, before this had only been known for her waist twitching dances) into a beautiful mother of three who could, hold your breath, act and emote”
LikeLike
Karthik
April 1, 2015
brangan: Thanks!
LikeLike
niranjanmb
April 3, 2015
I was a teenager in the 90s, so yes, MR was a big deal then, and like most others, he was the only director who commanded my attention for his forthcoming releases. However, over the years, my fascination with his films has nosedived. I think his finest piece of work was Iruvar (though I had my issues with that too, I can see what he was trying to do, and in my opinion, that was the ideal material for his brand of film philosophy).
I have a theory about this, and I hope I don’t take up too much space in getting to the point.
I agree with Rangan that MR is not so much a ‘youth’ director; he is after bigger game, given his penchant for drama – the big confrontations between the prinicipal protagonist and the antagonist.
The ‘Nallavana-Kettavana’ question seems to be seems to be part of his oeuvre. This duality lends more meaning to who we see as the hero, and who becomes the villain, and that has almost been his staple for drama. But I would have loved to ask Mani this question: In the Mahabharata, does he believe that the character of Krishna embodies this spirit of Nallavan-Kettavan? My guess is that he might say yes.
And that is where my problem with his interpretation of the Nallavan-Kettavan question begins. Who is a villain? Someone who breaks the law or someone who breaks the spirit of the law? One who upholds the law or one who breaks that very law because it is unjust? Mani’s perspective on the Nallavan-Kettavan quandary has always been to split it along these lines. Thus, the ‘Keetavan’ is one who breaks the law, or is the outsider who has to fight a hostile world. Whereas his Nallavan is invariably an upholder of the law. After a while this dichotomy is bothersome because it is over-simplistic. Velu Nayakan is a smuggler, but it is all for a good cause – he is the champion of the rights of the poor of Dharavi. But it is naive to the point of indulgence when you gloss over what is being smuggled. The Deva-Surya duo indulge in ‘vettu-kuththu’ but as the Nagesh character slyly points out that is because the law enforcement is clearly incompetent. Karthik’s character in Mouna Raagam also indulges in this generic ‘adi-vodhai-vettu-kuththu’ but what exactly this is all for is a nice little mystery. Guru breaks the law because the law of the land is not farsighted enough to see that he’s enriching a nation. And Beera is a law unto himself, and so he needs to be brought down. But what exactly that entails is conveniently out of the narrative. So, for all Mani’s stressing that his characters are shades of gray, the shading is only when it comes to the law of the land, and not the spirit of justice. On that count, all his protagonists are heroes.
Iruvar in my mind is more about 2 characters who are drawn to friendship through mutual admiration, and also mutual jealousy. The Whys and the wherefores for jealousy do not need any justification. It is no wonder that Mani’s treatment here is his best. When he is canonically liberated from the need to explain why a character acts the way he does, he is able to delve into the drama of the consequences and Iruvar shines in those sequences.
Finally, though it is unfair to compare a movie with a TV series (since the latter has much more time to flesh out a character), I think the ultimate embodiment of the Nallavan-Kettavan question is the character of Walter White from ‘Breaking Bad’. At the end of the series, we do empathize with him, but not without understanding that he has done a lot of bad. And the bad in him is not about breaking the law. After all, one could imagine methamphetamine being legalized and then his activities all make him a great product deliverer. What makes him bad is that within that universe of law breaking, he breaks rules. He lacks empathy when you would want him to. He shows a streak of ruthlessness that cannot be justified by his cancer condition, or that less smart people than him have become richer and more successful. Walter White breaking bad is because the animal in him gets undone and it takes him a long while to try to redeem himself.
As an epilogue to this note, I think the right way to look at this question is to ask is someone is a kettavan-nallavan because there is the beast is all and it is the nallavan who keeps that beast in check. In that sense, the true nallavan is one who realizes that he needs to redeem himself. Unfortunately, none of Mani’s characters facing this question come out with flying colors on this count.
LikeLike