Spoilers ahead…
Why do the men in these rural dramas bother with veshtis? This isn’t something we wondered about in the Bharathiraja movies, which narrated stories set in the deep south but were primarily about the characters, not the capital-H hero. Watching these films was like being taken on a thrilling anthropological tour, with the director as tour guide, introducing us to a way of talking, a way of doing things, a way of living. But these newer films – like M Muthaiah’s Komban – have no real use for their rural settings, which end up as mere scenery. Transpose these “narratives” to the city and there’d be no difference – except, we wouldn’t see so much underwear. The goons who end up flying into orbit, courtesy the hero’s punches, do so with their legs splayed, and with their veshtis hoicked up we seem to be looking at endless product placement for the kind of underwear we might call “rustic Bermudas.” So, again: Why bother with veshtis?
That, of course, wasn’t the question surrounding Komban until a few hours ago, when we were wondering what all the fuss was about. Even if you are for free speech, you could at least see where the Vishwaroopam controversy was coming from. A Muslim protagonist, a terrorism-oriented plot – it was incendiary stuff. Even the recently released Thilagar, which no one bothered with, could have become the target of those who say they fear caste-based violence, for the film openly exhorted the “Thevar” way. But what could have caused the apprehensions about Komban? The casual lines referring to “unga ooru kaaranga” and “saadhi vandha sandai varum”? The plot revolving around blood-spattered politics in three jillas named Vellanadu, Arasanadu and Semmanadu? The fact that the eponymous hero (Karthi) is a hothead, who misses no opportunity to get into fights?
Take the controversy away and there’s very little here – rather, the fact that a controversy was created around something this underwhelming, this undeserving is worth a controversy of its own. The story is about Komban’s prickly relationship with his father-in-law Muthaiah (an earnest Rajkiran) – Lakshmi Menon plays Komban’s wife; it’s a role that redefines the word “thankless” – and had the film concentrated on these emotional beats, we may have had something. But these portions are uninspired. Nothing is developed, shaped – everything is presented in the most obvious manner. There’s a nice stretch where Komban admits he’s made a mistake – it’s the kind of pride-swallowing thing that must have been hell for him. But instead of milking these situations, the film keeps cutting to utterly generic (and unmemorable) villains. Their names don’t matter. What they do doesn’t matter. They’re just there to give Komban excuses to flex his muscles and send more goons in bunched-up veshtis into orbit, reducing them to the deep-south version of lingerie models, the dust-caked streets their catwalk. Here’s a suggestion for a brand name: Veecharuvaa’s Secret.
KEY:
- veshti = see here
- Vishwaroopam controversy = see here
- unga ooru kaaranga = people from your village
- saadhi vandha sandai varum = where there’s caste/religion, there’s war
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.
Ram Murali
April 1, 2015
“Here’s a suggestion for a brand name: Veecharuvaa’s Secret.”
–> These sub-par movies are bringing out the best humor in you! Vali ungaluku…(for having to watch these movies) Vayatha Vali engaluku (thanks to all the laughs!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madhu
April 2, 2015
Veecharuvaa’s Secret!
Just like your writing gets all lyrical when you really, really like a movie…when a movie really, really annoys you, you become Miranda Priestly, BR.
Actually, all this deliberation over veshti and ‘rustic berumdas’, reminds me of your review on Manjappai.
I immensely enjoyed both.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nagharajabishek
April 2, 2015
@brangan Veecharuva’s Secret 😀 ❤ Touche!
LikeLike
Pranesh
April 2, 2015
Thanks. You saved me by about 3 hours 🙂
I was hoping Madras was a turning point in Karthi’s career. Clearly it’s not.
LikeLike
hari
April 2, 2015
Here’s a suggestion for a brand name: Veecharuvaa’s Secret.
LikeLike
Bala Sundara Vinayagam
April 2, 2015
I read your review after seeing the film this morning. More or less I agree with the review. It is a quite ordinary film. The theme of the film has become fashionable nowadays among directors. Such films use the same extras, sometimes lead characters too. Pala Ramasamy and other extras appeared in Madha Yanai Koottam, a film which did justice to the theme fairly well. This film is boring as all actors turned out a repetitive performances.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dinesh
April 2, 2015
Ohhh!!rangan ji I expected China China gaundar ‘s “Saagaptham” review first..
LikeLike
Jyothsna
April 2, 2015
Veecharuvaaa Secret, love it….. but i dont understand the raving the film is getting from fellow journos… as it is, i was traumatized by Veecharuvaa Secret….and am almost convinced that the U/A should have been for VS 😉
LikeLike
Ajith
April 2, 2015
Why should cities be the default settings mode of films? While films made in cities don’t need a special reason to be set in cities, why should village based films justify their setting through some special narratives?
“Watching these films was like being taken on a thrilling anthropological tour, with the director as tour guide, introducing us to a way of talking, a way of doing things, a way of living. “
— Who are these “us” you are talking about? The reviewer seems to have an expectation that films should only be made for urban dwellers.
So, hey directors! when you are not talking about “us”, please have an explanation ready on why you are showing us some rural exhibits.
LikeLike
brangan
April 2, 2015
Ajith: Why should cities be the default settings mode of films?
No one’s saying that.
While films made in cities don’t need a special reason to be set in cities, why should village based films justify their setting through some special narratives?
They needn’t. But even the ordinary village-based films earlier justified the setting in some way. These films, on the other hand, just seem to be set there for box-office “mass-star” reasons.
I have a review coming up of this film called “Thilagar” — that film, IMO, does justice to setting. In the sense, the village isn’t just scenery/wallpaper.
The reviewer seems to have an expectation that films should only be made for urban dwellers.
Nope. But I can, however, write only from my perspective, and I’m fairly certain that I’m speaking for a lot of people like me when I say “us.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ajith
April 2, 2015
brangan: Thanks for the clarifications. I have not watched the movie yet. Having watched the trailer, I hope, not to. I can imagine that this is a generic village based mass-star trash. My point is when the Ajiths, Vijays and Suriyas can come up with their generic city based mass-star trash without specific questions raised about their setting, it is perplexing that Komban’s setting is made out as a problem with the movie.
It is true that movie watching experience can be very subjective. But shouldn’t the aim of the review to be move to a more objective space? Is it fair to judge a movie based on how “we” relate to it?
LikeLike
brangan
April 2, 2015
Ajith: The point I was trying to make — and maybe it didn’t come through — is that for all its claims to be an emotional rural drama, this is nothing but the usual crap we see in city-based films from the big stars — unlike the Bharathiraja films, which were rural dramas, where you couldn’t separate the “rural” from the “drama.” They were rooted in the setting. Whereas, if this same story had been set in the city, nothing much would have changed. It’s just cosmetic.
Hence the line: “Transpose these “narratives” to the city and there’d be no difference…“
LikeLike
brangan
April 2, 2015
About your latter point, “But shouldn’t the aim of the review to be move to a more objective space? Is it fair to judge a movie based on how “we” relate to it?…
It is my contention — rather, my belief — that reviews can NEVER be objective and what gives the review its USP, its strength, is how well the critic puts forth a strongly individual (perhaps even idiosyncratic) POV, even if he is the only one with that POV.
I realise, of course, that this is not the majority opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ajith
April 2, 2015
brangan: I see the point that you were making in the review now. I agree that if the movie did claim to be an emotional “rural” drama and it came out the way it did, the onslaught for it being failing to be “rural” enough is justified.
Regarding the epistemology of film criticism, I am not qualified enough to contradict you on that. But my opinion, for what it is worth is: A film review (or any art criticism for that matter) should be able to place the film in the historical context and review its cinematic standard. Of course, the reviewer’s POV would definitely creep in because it is art not science. But if the subjective opinions are not abstracted and allowed to take an objective mode, I don’t see what the reader can gain apart from enjoying the form (like style of the prose) of the review. For instance, I thought your Yennai Arindhaal review was brilliant because it tried understanding the movie in the context of mass masala films and explored the lacunae in its cinematic standard given those constraints. I think a good review transforms an subjective feeling about a movie into an objective form so that it can enrich the reader’s cinema sensibilities and consequently his/her movie watching experience. I enjoy a lot of your reviews for precisely the same reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bart
April 2, 2015
During the pre-release controversy, Kalaipuli Thanu said after a special viewing that they felt this is another Kizhakku Cheemaiyile. They probably matched the wrong “secret” ingredient in both. They should go sniff BR’s davusars.. (iyakkunar imayam and not your creased trousers sir 😜 😀)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ram Murali
April 2, 2015
Interesting discussion here on choice of setting.
Ajith – I think this issue has been raised by BR and others for some non-rural movies as well. For instance, BR mentioned in his Anjaan review that there was no local flavor at all despite the movie being set in Mumbai.
In “Conversations with Mani Ratnam,” Ratnam mentions that the Hindi remake of Nayagan made a mistake in setting the story in Mumbai whereas in Tamil, Kamal was an outsider who made it big in Dharavi…
I remember Suhasini questioning why “Asal” had to be set in France unlike say a “47 naatkal’ which HAD to be set in a foreign land…
I feel that filmmakers should ensure that the settings do justice to the story and vice versa…even if the setting doesn’t add anything special to the story, you need to feel like you are transported to that setting, be it rural or urban…in “Mynaa” for instance, the gorgeous settings were not just serving as a wallpaper…they really added a lot to the drama…
after Bharathiraja, Cheran is a director whom I feel did full justice to the rural setting…though preachy, “Desiya Geetham” took you right to the underprivileged masses living in the rural areas…you could feel their privation deeply…
LikeLiked by 1 person
venkat ramanan
April 2, 2015
@Baradwaj Rangan. out of topic, is there any chance that you watched or will watch the recent Mohanlal flick Ennum Eppozhum, watching that movie kinda made me curious about how you might review it.
LikeLike
Conphusion
April 2, 2015
I thought this was a biopic on the sage who translated Ramayana in Tamil, but after the first half an hour, I realised it wasn’t.
LikeLike
brangan
April 2, 2015
venkat ramanan: No, but there are a couple of Mallu films in theatres now that I want to watch. “100 Days of Love” and “Oru Vadakkan Selfie” – I believe both are playing with subtitles.
LikeLike
Blasta
April 3, 2015
Just went back to see what your review of Paruthi Veeran was, this seems an attempted rehash, or is it not? Paruthi Veeran had atmosphere, lots of it, the camera jacked us from our comforting world, catapulted us to theirs, even the pigs looked kind of attractive and “so(w) in the mud” as Karthi was, Saravanan of course a revelation.
Ajith: needs head wash, or student of Class II?, AND/OR/!XOR, I thot BR quite clear.
Ajith: mmm, wrong judgement, definitely not Class II, as in this delightful if sardonic twist “I enjoy a lot of your reviews for precisely the same reason” – the gentle art of cow dung as cake.
Oh, yes, there is an apostrophe in Victoria’s Secret too, just checked it to make sure. Apostrophes, akin to shoe horns?
LikeLike
brangan
April 3, 2015
Ajith: Regarding your points:
A film review should be able to place the film in the historical context and review its cinematic standard.
I think I do end up doing this. I do bring in history. I do evaluate cinematic standards. I guess what I’m trying to say that within the subjectiveness of the whole enterprise, I try to shoot for some objectivity.
it tried understanding the movie in the context of mass masala films and explored the lacunae in its cinematic standard given those constraints.
Thank you. That was exactly what I was going for.
So what I was saying is this: Someone who did not view the film through this prism (or who did not get the fact that I was reviewing the film through this prism) might have ended up thinking differently about the review.
In this case, we — you the reader; me the writer — were in sync. There will be times when we aren’t in sync. And those times, the line in the sand regarding “objectivity” will shift.
This is a huge topic and I’ve talked a lot about this over the years.
But thanks again for the comments about the YA review. It’s a wonderful feeling when a piece gets across exactly the way it was intended.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ajith
April 3, 2015
brangan: Agreed. Thanks for the discussion!
LikeLike
Dravidian
April 4, 2015
@brangan – I was going to watch the movie to see what the fuss was all about. Thanks now – can do something better.
By the way – wonder how much of self censorship film makers will indulge in? And voluntarily remove local culture specific identifiers, for fear of stirring controversy.
LikeLike
venkat ramanan
April 4, 2015
@ Baradwaj Rangan: I agree with Ajith “Yennai Arindhaal review was brilliant because it tried understanding the movie in the context of mass masala films and explored the lacunae in its cinematic standard given those constraints.” But, i felt it was rather lenient take or “prism” through which you’ve viewed YA. For instance, I felt YA had the most dull and lackluster fight sequences compared to previous gautham film’s, even the action sequence in VTV was novel. In that aspect Kaththi had some brilliant fight sequences again in context of mass films. Similarly, you said YA used Voice Overs to break new grounds, i felt it was too much of narration and less cinematic.
A film review should be able to place the film in the historical context and review its cinematic standard.
“I think I do end up doing this. I do bring in history.”
I don’t think you do that often or you do that when it is needed, for instance as in MADRAS. If you have taken historical context and significance. A film like Kaththi which brings into a commercial mass film narrative an important aspect such as water and its consequences, not as a sub text but rather cleverly incorporating it as an integral part of the structure with a possible metaphor, showing few hours without water in the context of a worrying future. Deserves more ecocritical approach than “beneath the flab”. (Yes, we have national awards given to films on environment every year, which more or less appears to be namesake). It is all much easier to dismiss these as “social message movies”.
PS: saw “Oru Vadakkan Selfie”, don’t be persuaded by the portrait of gautham menon or possibility of meta cinema from its trailer. It’s not. 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
April 5, 2015
venkat ramanan: But, i felt it was rather lenient take or “prism” through which you’ve viewed YA.
I get your feelings about this. But as I said earlier, this is not a function of the review itself but of your experience of the film. Had you felt the same way as I did, you wouldn’t be saying things like “lenient” etc. Similarly, if you liked a film and I didn’t, then you may end up feeling I was too… finicky or whatever.
A film like Kaththi which brings into a commercial mass film narrative an important aspect such as water…
I have to disagree with you on this. I hate it when mass-hero films pretend to be about a socially relevant issue, when all they really care about is stroking the star’s ego, projecting him as a saviour.
I’m not saying that all films should be like “Thanneer Thanneer,” but if you’re going to make an issue-based film, you’ve got to find better ways of sugar-coating it than just making the issue the “villain” of a mass-hero movie.
“Kaaki Sattai” did the same thing. It pretended to get all sorts of concerned about the migrant-labourers issue, when all it wanted is just a “fresh villain” for the hero to combat.
I think this is just terrible. It trivialises the issue because it doesn’t let the audience “think” about this issue in the midst of all the other sensory pleasures that become important in this kind of film.
Hell, the series of social-issue comedy tracks that Vivek did at one point were better than what films like “Kathi” and “Kaaki Sattai” end up doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
venkatesh
April 5, 2015
BR: “Hell, the series of social-issue comedy tracks that Vivek did at one point were better than what films like “Kathi” and “Kaaki Sattai” end up doing.”
LikeLike
venkat ramanan
April 5, 2015
@Baradwaj Rangan :
Yeh, it’s subjective in sync with that. But for Kathi, i didn’t mind the “sugar coating”, felt it made a strong point. 😀 I guess, i took it as a sweet homeopathic pill rather thinking much about it’s content or of an antibiotic instead.
LikeLike
Blasta
April 7, 2015
“I hate Santhanam” my friend said when I suggested we go to Nanbenda. Having sat through it, BR, was Komban really that bad? The audience around me did not seem to think so, they sat through it without cursing, sighing or hooting.
Some of the attentiveness owes to the romance and BFF segments between the principal characters. Some due to RajKiran’s character/isation, and the murderous bull run.
If Karthi thought he was attempting another Paruthi Veeran, then the camera let him down, if not the screenplay. In PV the camera was more than a spectator, it zoomed and soared, and captured what seemed to be vignettes of villagery, there was a sophistication that Komban lacks.
Lakshmi Menon, as always, up for the job, she inhabits her space quite effortlessly. No wonder the poor thing wants to quit films, she has played multiple configurations of the same role in her entire career. Wonder why Vemal (or Shiva for that matter) does not feel the same way?
On being told that a notorious gangster was dead, the author Gore Vidal had commented that it was a good career move. Apply that to GV, his blase music and his recent attempts at acting, and it fits to a tee.
Putting the entire effort in perspective, I thought that the director should have chosen a more ambitious canvas, given the star, the budget, and what seemed to him, a story.
Given a community of mutton chops, or choppers, an election, and a fight over the fattening of a goat, there is little you can explore, if you are not an Iranian movie director. So you have segments that seem tacky and tacked on, to keep the momentum going. He does however manage to keep you seated, and that in these testing times, seems so much a positive.
LikeLike
Blasta
April 7, 2015
Ajith: Movie reviews today are about FLAVA, BR its most successful Indian exponent. If you want considered or detailed reviews better try elsewhere. Think you should watch Komban, not a bad effort. There are however moments when you feel for the poor producer.
Venkatramanan: Kaththi as pill, thought it was a headache. BR bang on. As regards his YA review, he is playing it straight. Surely one of the Universe’s great and enduring mysteries, why should Ajith have so many fans, and why so recently, and why so active, even he seems nonplussed. Is it in his stars, or is it the fate of a star, to be loved by?
LikeLike
RajaG
April 18, 2015
I gotta chance to watch Komban, it was not that bad.
I read this review earlier, thought that movie was going to be really bad and I may not bear it. But it was not like that. I agree with blasta here. The director’s effort had to be appreciated. He did not make it too sentimental film like kutti puli. There were few comedy scenes between Thambi Ramaiah and Karthi , Kovai Sarala and there were few action sequences for mass audience. I feel that it was a safe project and a much required for Karthi.
LikeLike
Murali Raghuvaran (@muraghavan)
May 17, 2015
I disagree with Venkat Ramanan’s points. Yennai Arindhaal had very good fight sequences. In the usual Tamil movie you would have goons screaming and flying into the air because of one single punch. YA’s fight sequences were much more realistic, I liked them. In Kaththi, I loved the story involving a village in need of water. Jeeva was the only person in the film who could be a good protagonist for this issue, and overall, the story was neat. That is, until Kathir came along and turned it into a total waste. No one really focused on the water issue in Kaththi. It was just used to give the main character someone to fight against.
LikeLike