Observing and interpreting class or caste markers in the discussion of a film isn’t the same as celebrating them.
I co-wrote a screenplay some years ago, and we named the hero Rahul. We hadn’t thought about Rahul’s caste. The only thing he was, in our minds, was young – and Rahul sounded like a young name. We sent an early draft of the script around, and the first bit of advice we got was to change the protagonist’s name because it “was too Brahminical”. We were stunned. But there it was, the perception that the name sounded like it belonged to a particular caste and, therefore, that the film would not go down well with the masses.
Another incident (and there are many more): A distributor asked a filmmaker to remove scenes of the heroine (a classical singer) with a tampura because the audience would think the film was about a privileged girl – not necessarily Brahmin, but someone belonging to an educated, upper-class background. As the Rajinikanth character said of the Shobana character in Thalapathy: “Paattu paadara ponnu. Bharatanatyam aadura ponnu”. In other words, not one of the masses.
It’s probably no surprise that this perception exists in the film industry, for Tamil cinema is inextricably linked with Tamil politics, and populist politics has, over decades, vilified the Other. And because our filmmakers and mass heroes take their cue from politics (some of them seek out careers in politics), it makes sense to align with the majority. It makes sense to target the Other — in this case, the upper-middle or upper classes and the ‘higher’ castes — in films. We saw this recently in Velai Illa Pattadhari, where the villain was named Arun Subramaniam and was super-rich, sneering at the middle-class character played by Dhanush, who represented the majority, the “masses”. David needs a Goliath. The Dhanush character needs an Arun Subramaniam to vanquish. It’s all part of the wish-fulfilment fantasy. It’s why most of our heroes play characters who can’t speak English, or speak pidgin English, don’t do well in school, and often have blue-collar jobs.
As a critic, I find this interesting, since I believe that one of the jobs of cinema/ art is to hold up a mirror to society. Tamil cinema routinely showcases the interplay between the roles of the privileged and the under-privileged in society. So if Velai Illa Pattadhari is such a hit, it means that the fantasy rings true with the majority of the cinema-going public. A critic needs to talk about this. We are surrounded by caste/ class considerations, and it is inevitable that they show up in our films as well. To not have these come up during the discussion of a film is a little like expecting characters to not smoke or drink on screen, when smoking and drinking is very much a part of life outside the screen.
It is in this context that I noted in my recent review of Mani Ratnam’s O Kadhal Kanmani that the milieu portrayed was “classy” or upmarket, showing an upper-middle class hero and upper-class heroine, and that at least some of the characters seem to be playing Brahmins. This is a mere observation, a statement of fact. It neither celebrates the aspect nor says it’s wrong.
Some of the feedback the review has received, though, has left me stunned, even given the fact that we live in a culture of outrage where anything and everything is cause for taking offence. I have been accused of looking at the film through a “casteist” lens, of “stooping to the level of referring to surnames”. But as a critic, one observes all aspects of a film, and the upper-class setting is just another aspect, like cinematography, acting, or direction. Observing something isn’t the same as celebrating it.
In Tamil Nadu, there is a price cap on tickets, which makes it unviable to make niche movies that cater solely to the A centres, movies such as Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara or Wake Up Sid, so producers largely insist on making films that can sell in all markets. The audience, too, has changed over the years. O Kadhal Kanmani might not have stood out so much in the K. Balachander era, when films routinely addressed an upper-middleclass audience, which has largely shrunk. Given the very different audience that frequents cinema halls today, choosing to make a film where the I-want-to-be-rich hero talks of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg rather Tata or Birla (names more readily recognised by the masses) is interesting. It means the film is not afraid to be niche. This would be a problem if Tamil cinema always focused only on the upper classes but given the healthy representation of the underprivileged in Tamil films, it is just an interesting choice.
If there is anything I am celebrating, it isn’t the existence of a certain milieu or the choice of it for the film, but the unapologetic and pitch-perfect portrayal of it. The urbanised, upper-class protagonists are not exoticised as they are in other Tamil films, behaving in odd ways or wearing unrecognisable clothes. They are normal, instantly recognisable people. In the context of Tamil cinema, this portrayal is a big win.
Cinema exerts such an influence in the State that cinematic representation of a class or caste practically results in a form of codification, and a lot of the time, some lazy stereotypes are codified. The image of a Thevar from Madurai as someone who’s filled with bloodlust and never seen without a sickle is as problematic as the image of, say, a Tamil Brahmin from Chennai sporting a tuft and with a wife who steps out of the bath in a nine-yard Kanjivaram.
Noticing a realistic portrayal of a particular caste or class should not be problematic. Why is it legitimate to look at, say, Thevar Magan and the recent, under-appreciated Thilagar as stories of Thevars, but an expression of bias to notice the cultural markers in O Kadhal Kanmani? Why is it okay to acknowledge the Dalit angle in Madras, despite the director not making any explicit references, but a problem to notice the Carnatic music in O Kadhal Kanmani? Why is a discussion of a film or a book about the subaltern necessarily more “worthy”? Isn’t the mark of a robust film culture the presence of films about all castes, all classes, and all walks of life? Isn’t that how many of us, who only come into contact with what’s around us, see what lies beyond us?
But even if we brush aside the social connotations, it makes sense for a critic to point out things that make cinematic sense. Take The Godfather. It isn’t just the depiction of a gangster family. It is the depiction of an Italian-Catholic gangster family, and this sort of specificity adds to the film’s texturing, as in the famous baptism scene. Every community comes with its own quirks, habits and practices, and the more attuned a film is to these specifics, the more unique it becomes. It becomes less generic and more rooted. And cultural rootedness is one of the things that tell you how good a film is. In a way, films like O Kadhal Kanmani and Kalyana Samayal Sadham are as vital, as rooted as the films Bharathiraja made. Class or caste cannot be wished away simply by not being portrayed in films, or by not being mentioned in reviews.
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.
sanjana
April 23, 2015
One more thing. Aryan versus dravidians. North Indians versus dravidians.North Indians are perceived to be aryans and tamil brahmins are perceived to be aryans because of the sanskrit connect. If Rahul name is so unacceptable what about aryan name which is also incidentally the name of SRK’s son?
Compared, north Indians are not divided so deeply inspite of mandal invasion. Whats the reason?
And there is Rahul Dravid.
LikeLike
Prakash Ram
April 23, 2015
Well, as you correctly mentioned, the offensive stereotypical portrayal of brahmins in tamil cinema is purely political. I regularly watch Malayalam and Telugu movies and there are the occasional lazy stereotypes, but nothing that targets a specific caste. Also, other regional films are comfortable having protagonists who are multi-lingual (especially hindi), something that Tamil cinema rarely does, again an aftermath of Dravidian politics.
LikeLike
Vazhipokkan
April 23, 2015
“Why is it okay to acknowledge the Dalit angle in Madras, despite the director not making any explicit references”
I think you have not learnt a thing from the comments from your “Madras” review. 🙂
By explicit you mean using the word “Dalit”? Do you know how much loaded that term is, socially/politically? It is so sensitive that the censors might just cut it out. And that’s why the director made brilliant references to it (the people, milieu) in all sorts of ways in the movie. He just stopped short of using that word, that’s all. This does not make it not being explicit. Given your background, maybe you were not aware of the references. That’s fine. But don’t keep parroting that there were no explicit references.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Ravi K
April 23, 2015
This issue goes beyond cinema into the politics and culture of TN. Anti-Brahminism has long been a part of TN politics, and cinema and politics there are intertwined. I’ve only read “Cut-Outs, Caste, and Cine Stars” so if any other book/article recommendations on caste or caste in cinema would be appreciated.
Does caste come up much in Hindi cinema? I recall references to caste in Omkara, Dabangg, and Kai Po Che, but it does not seem to be such a hot-button issue. Or maybe I don’t watch enough Hindi films or have enough knowledge of the cultures in North India to notice caste markers in Hindi films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
reelorola
April 23, 2015
People don’t mind when their surgeon, lawyer or chartered accountant is a brahmin, but try accurately portraying today’s brahmins in films, all hell breaks loose.
If depicting every one from madurai as aruva wielding madmen is offensive, then portraying all brahmins as ash smeared, mantram chanting, super fair, super rich weirdos with an accent that is rooted in 1895 is equally offensive.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Bhavani
April 23, 2015
To add to the conversation, this documentary about caste in Tamil cinema was pretty thorough in telling the story of the rise of OBC caste pride in the 90s and in parallel, suppressing ‘Dalit’ perspectives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOoI4zNEOmI
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
April 23, 2015
I expected a range of responses. But this, I must say, I did not expect 🙂
“Hi Mr B read your article in Hindu today. May I ask was it a work commissioned by the newspaper or part of subliminal marketing for the movie? Just curious!”
LikeLike
hari
April 23, 2015
Ravi K, the caste factor does not come in most of the “generic” hindi movies. Where most of the protaganists will have names like Khanna/Oberoi etc. Even in hindi movies which is based out of Mumbai it is a rarity to have a lead protaganists with Maharashtrian surname. Well that is another topic of discussion 🙂
LikeLike
sanjana
April 23, 2015
In Sarfarosh aamir khan’s name was Rathod which is common for maharashtrians and rajasthanis, I think. In TZP, it was Nikhumbh. In Ghulam, he was Siddharth Marathe. I am giving this as sample. But somehow these names dont make any big difference as bollywood is consumed as a generic item.
LikeLike
Reuben
April 23, 2015
Speaking of cultural stereotypes, every other cabaret dancing character during 70s used to be named Stella. Lol…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Samantha (@samantha_389)
April 23, 2015
But Adithya Varadarajan may not even be Brahmin, he calls his sister-in-law ‘Anni’ instead of ‘Manni’. Tara Kalingarayar clearly isn’t. That leaves us with just the upper-middle class tag (West Mambalam & banking job in a way contradicts that although their Madras house does not justify).
Ganapthi Uncle & Bhavani aunty on the other hand.. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lav
April 23, 2015
brangan-ku oru ‘O’ podunga 🙂
enjoyed your analysis!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vishwa Natarajan
April 23, 2015
But on the other hand, people seem to enjoy Gautam menon’s brand of upper class films and stories.May be because he makes them slick or because he casts actors like Simbu or Ajith who already have a huge fan base. Or may be they have figured out that Gautam menon isn’t a tambrahm and Maniratnam is. I recently asked a friend of mine to watch Vasantabalan’s ‘Kaaviya thalaivan’ . But my friend refused to watch it. He said he hates actor Siddharth and I asked him why. He finally told me that he is an iyer payyan and doesn’t look like one of us and ppl like Vijay Sethupathy are the ones who represent us and they should be cast instead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raj Balakrishnan
April 23, 2015
I would like to add an old film ‘Aaha’ to this list. Not afraid to have the main protagonists as brahmins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rothrocks
April 23, 2015
Well, you cannot derive CLASS from the last name of a person. Because what you are then doing is to presume that upper caste is upper class and, by implication, lower caste is low class. All of this and more was pointed out to you in the other thread. But anyway, to repeat, caste and class are entirely different concepts. Caste in the context of Brahmins, Vaishyas etc is Indian; class is universal. You cannot carelessly interchange or hyphenate the two, especially not in a review intended for a widely read newspaper. For that tantamounts to telling lower caste people that they can never enjoy class mobility and will remain low class no matter what. Your intent may not have been malicious but it was basically a bad piece of writing. And if you have an axe to grind against the caste politics of TN, please do write an opinion piece on your blog. I am all ears. I laughed when I found that the Chetty has been removed from GN Chetty road. But mixing it up in a movie review is not the way to go.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KRV
April 23, 2015
You dont have a clue doyou
I mean when most of the people were able to see the Dalit subtext of Madras you werent and you were denying it till people went to lengths explaining that..Even now you are saying that the movie was not making explicit references..
Now most of the people know that Mani’s protagnists are predominantly “upperclass” and even if he talks about others he almost brings an “upperclass” perspective of it in his movies rather than the actuality..You are not the only person who “Saw” “upperclass” in this movie.
People are not criticings you because you pointed out the caste in the movie. And its not that people havent enjoyed movies on castes and the caste that you are talking about.People have enjoyed both thevar magan and MMKR.
But just the insensibility of your explaination saying its nice to hear such a language.. i mean who can deny kattai,sarrakku is low class, shit, f*** is such a high class usage which is so nice to hear. and then to say things like France, Steve jobs are again reference to the class and people from low class,c centers cannot understand it and relate to it..you are just clueless about the society around you
If anything Madras and this shows the complete insensivity of your social understanding
Thats all.
LikeLiked by 3 people
ar11
April 23, 2015
Baradwaj Rangan’s observation has been understood to be an act of class/caste assertion by those who associate the writer with upper caste/class due to his name. why this outrage to a mere observation? The film has clearly targeted urban class audience and BR has just stated the obvious.only sick minds are outraged by trivial issues like these.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aravindan R
April 23, 2015
Here is an interesting TED talk about prototypes in story telling. http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en
LikeLike
geetha
April 23, 2015
i am a regular follower and fan of baradwaj though a first time commentator. I read the OKK review after this post here . Read most of the comemnts (too many of them in OKK) and have this doubt both in the post and the review.
Why is there a confusion between caste and class. Upper Class in my opinion means with a good financial income/background and above abverage education and maybe more in tune with western culture (though not necessarily) .
Caste is brahmin, thevar , chettiar and other castes.
There can be many combinations of class and caste.
This movie is about upper class certainly. Why should it relate to a caste. I have a friend who is not a brahmin but is well verse with Carnatic music and is western in outlook.. Isnt that the world today. Possibly this linking in your post on OKK is what some people find disturbing.
I am a Tam-bram by the way.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JK
April 23, 2015
Never expected this from you BR … Seriously … No spoiler alert?
Now I can only think of Arul (that’s his name right?) as an upper class faux-brahmin even though his name suggests otherwise … You ruined your movie for me ( 😛 ) … BTW who is updating k2k’s wiki page with this interesting little nugget?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pravin
April 23, 2015
There is a film. There is a plot. There is a character. The character has conventions. principles. foibles. upbringing. beliefs. culture. dogmatism. pragmatism…. just like any of these, the caste or religion of the character.
It is up to viewer of the film to ignore it or continue to miss the wood for the trees.
LikeLike
Cinemakkaran
April 23, 2015
“Nothing in a film is accidental”
Don’t have enough knowledge to speak about Tamil cinema, but popular Malayalam cinema always had caste factor both behind and in front of the camera. Protagonists, especially that of mass masala films, are almost always from a particular forward privileged class. Even otherwise progressive films has a throw away line to indicate that they are from this particular class. ( Even recent examples such as : Thattathin Marayathu, Bangalore Days) . But the times they are a changin, and so called new gen film makers are ready to write characters of other castes and religion (without stating it explicitly ). In fact Dulquer must have played more characters from other religion ( again without the need to make it a cliche portrayal) in his short career than Mammooty, but those characters are set in urban space ( be it Dulquer, Fahad or Prithvi playing them) and come across more as liberals, which is also an indication of the makers behind it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Arijit
April 23, 2015
Great writeup… and a necessary one too if I may add… unfortunately our filmmakers have also added to this stereo typification by creating a brand of cinema packaged with a certain kind of characters targeted towards a certain milieu… I see this problem as pronounced in Bengali cinema where a certain kind of cinema never moves out of the confines of Kolkata (and that too only certain localities of Kolkata) whereas another kind of cinema consciously avoids those same localities…
LikeLike
Krupa Ge
April 23, 2015
I wondered if i should comment at all… But finally decided that I would. I’ve studied caste academically & otherwise and this topic interests me immensely. So, here goes. I think the problem starts with your equating caste with class. And then saying this movie is MEANT for the upper class. And then saying sarukku etc is considered ‘low class’. So if upper class = upper caste. Is it low class = low caste? It all sends a very wrong message, don’t you think, of what your idea of a so-called low caste person is? That was the problem I think. Not your mere act of noticing the caste elements. It also looks like you are saying this movie has Carnatic music and maybe a brahmin hero. So others won’t get it. The upper caste has a culture of exclusion. This observation makes it further problematic. Also, maybe distributors think about all these things – in terms of numbers and caste or class – but that perhaps you are beginning to believe what the distributors think, based on the first few paragraphs of your review, is what has upset people I think.
Mani Ratnam hinted at caste briefly and class a little bit more in this movie, but did not dwell on them. But that you did upset people I think.
Madras may be among the best movies to have come out in recent times from Tamil cinema because it said a lot by not saying things loudly. Avoiding cliches. Within censor’s many many restrictions. And for the first time, perhaps, featured that section of society as the deciders of their own destinies and treated its characters with dignity and portrayed the charisma of young people of that section intact. That it used a symbol like a wall, and its clever use of real political posters and colours etc, that carried so many subtexts, makes it worthy of many, many discussions. (It is understood that given the way caste privileges work in our society the only people that should acknowledge their status in the caste system in public are the oppressed. For social justice purposes. That is the right thing to do. An upper caste person acknowledging it in public is like saying, “Look at me. I am privileged.” It is in poor taste.) What has set off this reaction is that, in the case of OKK I think that particular angle need not have been discussed in that much detail, because in the larger scheme of things it just didn’t matter. The lead characters are not in any disadvantage because of their caste identity, at least as far as this movie is concerned. Yes they were not shown as cliches, merely saying that would have sufficed perhaps.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rahini David
April 23, 2015
Basically what I understood so far is this. A type of Koonar Urai
RISK ONE: Movie-makers and Distrubutors often worry about a movie being accepted by the masses. Most of the heroes in our movies are Paalkaaran, Autokaaran, Police Constable’s son, etc. Heroines may be upper class, but they are usually used for “put the upper class in its place” purposes. The obvious reason is that lower middle class are the ones who actually pay to view movies. Upper class has its own entertainments like partying and golfing and clubbing etc. These days they download most of the movies and so pleasing the upper class is basically unnecessary. Pleasing the lower class is of more importance. Most directors have started to directly or indirectly cater to this need. This includes “Angadi Theru/Vazhakku En” type movies and also “Kadhalan” type movies.
Lower class wants a certain type of escapist fantasy were the rich fair girls sings songs about the poor dark boy and he snubs her on behalf of all the lower class boys who wish they had such an oppurtunity. This is a template that has grown stronger with the passage of time. During the black and white era only about 40% of the movies may have had this template( roughtly ). Now this template reigns supreme. Very rarely do directors have the guts to make a movie without this template. GVM and MR are the main ones.
RISK TWO: There is a similar reason why it is difficult or risky to depict Brahmins in movies in a positive light. Many movie makers do not like to take a risk and depict the hero in such a way that the caste of the hero is ambigous but very clearly non-brahmin. Usually it is easier to show brahmins as a Avinashi or a funny Kameshwaran. To show them as a hero is very rarely done.
RISK THREE:MR seems to have taken a double risk by showing that the Hero is of upper class (this is obvious) and that the hero is upper caste (this is slightly ambigous). Also, people do not want their daughters to watch a movie about live-ins and get ideas. They do not allow FRIENDS or HIMYM in their homes. People do not mind a “Kangal Irandal” romance. This is difficult to take for our mega-serial watching folk. This increases the risk of the project even more.
In conclusion: GVM also takes the RISK ONE and may soon try his hand in RISK THREE, but he is completely uninterested in RISK TWO. But MR is the only one who takes all three risks in a single go. Ergo, Manirathnam is a Braveheart.
Also, caste and class are very different and there is no confusion about this. But the objection that distributors have against caste and class is similar. Mass-ku ithu ellam avalava pidikathu/puriyathu. So it makes sense to discuss them together in one go. It does not mean that caste and class are indistingushable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aravindan R
April 23, 2015
Oops.. I meant to say stereotypes. Not prototypes!
LikeLike
Rajesh
April 23, 2015
sneering at the middle-class character played by Dhanush, who represented the majority, the “masses”.
With my limited understand of English language (forgive me if am wrong) – you seem to mean – the middle class represent the majority (majority Indians!).
Looks like my thoughts about your view points – that you are a movie critic who represent the ‘shining Indians’ – seems to be justified. You have proved this in many of your reviews too
(you are a brilliant and clever writer of course)
Also, there seems to be an issue for the upper castes/class only when an upper caste/class character is shown as a villain. Just wondering, how difficult it is for our Muslim brotherhood to almost always watch a Muslim villain, more than 90% of times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ram Murali
April 23, 2015
KRV, you wrote, “I mean when most of the people were able to see the Dalit subtext of Madras you werent and you were denying it till people went to lengths explaining that..Even now you are saying that the movie was not making explicit references.”
I would like to understand your take on “Madras.” Because I belong to the camp of people that did NOT get the Dalit references upon first viewing. It was only after the comments and the interview given by the Director that it made sense. I think if there were inferences to be made that I missed, that’s fair game. So, from my perspective, I do think that the movie did NOT make explicit references at all. I think BR or any other writer has every right to mention that they did NOT get a certain reference. It is a testament to the openness of people like BR that they are willing to be enlightened by readers / filmmakers, etc. I don’t think there’s anything wrong in that. I have another example. I read in Kamal’s tribute to the late Rudraiya that in the opening scene of “Aval Appadithan” there is a line that goes, “Konjam left-la thalli irukanum” was a nod to leftist leanings. Would you say that was explicit? I don’t think so. I mean, if you actually got it the first time you saw the movie, then well and good. But I think interpretations of what is explicit and what is not will differ from person to person based on their exposure, experience, background, etc.
I think Geetha has given the best explanation of the issue that we are all discussing about class, caste, etc. I really liked her comment.
LikeLike
Madhu
April 23, 2015
This is what, your zillionth article to explain your stand? I salute thee, for your persistence. Somehow, people always seem to confuse your observations for your views (case in point, OKK) and your views for gospel (Kadal, Vazhakku en…) Then all the angry diatribes! Sabba, evlo adichaalum thaangareenga, neenga romba nallavar, BR!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Afridi
April 23, 2015
BR, I am most disappointed. Surely you didn’t just say there is a “healthy representation of the underprivileged in Tamil films”? How much representation of Dalits have you seen in Tamil films? Are there many portrayals of Muslims as anything other than mass murderers and criminals? Have you seen an Adivasi who doesn’t shoot crows to pass off for chicken or chase a reluctant comedian to marry?
“Why is it okay to acknowledge the Dalit angle in Madras, despite the director not making any explicit references, but a problem to notice the Carnatic music in O Kadhal Kanmani?”.
This is surely clueless of you. While it would certainly be unfair to target individual Brahmins, it is a fact that Dalits are a people who have been exploited to the hilt by the dominant people in the caste hierarchy for centuries. The education and representation of many savarnas today (for e.g. in carnatic music) is the accumulated result of denial of opportunities and the bonded labour that Dalits were put through. Even if Brahmins such as yourself may not use caste as a marker for/against people, your caste privilege has played a role in why you are a sought after popular reviewer today, as opposed to any Dalit. There is simply no comparison between representation of Brahmin culture and Dalit culture in our media and it is insensitive to draw this false equivalence.
As for the victimhood of Brahmins in Tamil films, please open your eyes to beyond your favourite Kalyanam Samayal Saadham to the lead characters in Kalyana Raman, Avvai Shanmugi, Hey Ram, Dasavatharam, Anniyan, Nala Damayanthi, Aahaa, Shree, Ghajini, Aadhavan, Jigarthanda etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sachita
April 23, 2015
Upper caste ( to be honest there are few of these in tamil nadu but only the brahmins are targeteted) != upper class. If you hadnt inter mixed the two in your review, would have definitely helped the discussion space here more.
PS: I also want to add my name to those people who absolutely didnt get the dalit context in Madras movie. To add to that, I watched the movie after reading your review and comments.
Even a minor reference to some sort of oppression in the past would have helped, but I am assuming it was box office constraints (Dalit, as a minority population would mean they also have a lesser impact on the box office?) than censor that such references had to be avoided. it is sad state of affairs.
LikeLike
karzzexped
April 23, 2015
You dont have a clue doyou
I mean when most of the people were able to see the Dalit subtext of Madras you werent and you were denying it till people went to lengths explaining that..Even now you are saying that the movie was not making explicit references..
Well, the most obvious reference to the underprivileged people’s angle would be the star symbol placed instead of the dot when the Tamil font appeared.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vikram Sonni
April 23, 2015
BR, liked what Rahini David stated…
Also, as many have commented, the commercial film has to typically have the hero as someone with whom the majority of the paying audience identifies… the same audience also needs another polar opposite/ unheroic figure either as villain or as comic relief… so… its got everything to do with the economics…. everything else is what the (re)viewer reads into it…
LikeLike
arthiviji
April 23, 2015
Awesome review and analysis. Totally agree with you.
LikeLike
Prakash Ram
April 23, 2015
Another Maniratnam movie ripe for discussion is Aaytha Ezhuthu. Was Maniratnam going for an explicit caste difference when he named his protagonists Inba, Michael Vasanth and Arjun Balakrishnan or just trying to establish a class difference …..
LikeLike
brangan
April 24, 2015
geetha: Well, of course they are different things, but in the context of this movie (and Kalyana Samayal Sadham), I felt they could be clubbed under The Other. In the sense that there were — at least as perceived by the industry — “upper class” things (Louis Vuitton bag) as well as “upper caste” things (Carnatic music), neither of which you find true representations of in the average Tamil film. So in this context, whether it’s the class stuff or the caste stuff — it’s all stuff that a distributor could claim as potentially driving the “masses” away. Hence I clubbed them as one.
Those passages in the review were written not from my POV but from the (imaginary) distributor’s POV. I was kinda hoping the humour would carry through…
LikeLiked by 1 person
cl
April 24, 2015
Afridi –
‘your caste privilege has played a role in why you are a sought after popular reviewer today, as opposed to any Dalit. ‘
Really ?? I all along thought it had something to do with his writing skills !
LikeLiked by 1 person
JPhilip
April 24, 2015
There is something that piques me a little about the MR bashing (or the likes that happens).So he chooses (being of a Brahmin family)stories that often that portray a set of characters who he can illustrate accurately i.e. from a world he possibly knows well.
Why does he or anyone who likes that world have to be apologetic?Does he prevent any other ‘caste’,’class’ or karyotype from making a movie with characters they id with ?
I am not a Brahmin or Tamil and I have grown up liking MR’s movies for various reasons including that I identify with the lifestyles of many of his characters.I don’t identify with the characters in Thevar Magan or Subramaniyapuram but will list those two as among my favourite Tam flicks.Why needlessly bring Brahmanism into every appreciation/critque of MR?
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
April 24, 2015
Only the oppressed know what oppression is. But oppressed classes are getting what was denied to them and now they are considered privileged classes. So the term privilege is relative. Now the once privileged classes feel oppressed. It is happening allover the world. A sort of poetic justice.
Class is a term which can mean anything. From good taste to snobbery. Anyone can have a good taste from any class.
Self respect movement has achieved what it wanted to achieve.Now is the time to take everyone along, try to see the good and discard the bad. An egalitarian society. Is it too distant a dream?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anon
April 24, 2015
Loved reading the article and the comments.
My 2p –
I think in this case, there has simply a problem in getting the message across, while the underlying point is that we all want the Tamil movie industry to go beyond cliches and stereotypes and just achieve better standards. I don’t think there is anything wrong in what BR’s is trying to convey per se, the crux of which, as I understand, is – “why do we struggle to broaden the cinematic milieu as far as Tamil movies are considered without any feeling of guilt or alienation.” And if that happens, it means we could/should see on screen more of say – successful Muslim or Dalit entrepreneurs (Afridi), Christian women who are perfectly happy not frequenting clubs (Reuben), Brahmins who are normal & also successful (reelorola), career oriented, jeans-wearing women who can also fit into a family perfectly well etc.. all of which exist in real life (of course vice versa characters exist too, no denying)
Ideally such a step would help movie makers woo many more type of audiences and increase footfall to theatres, but to BR’s point, in TN it apparently ends up alienating many more and so is not risked.
I think as a society we all (and yes, Brahmins included) ought to be less touchy in general. The moment we become open to healthy introspection, questioning and a good dose of harmless humor, things will start improving 🙂
Peace!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Afridi
April 24, 2015
cl: Only if you think one’s writing skills has absolutely nothing to do with one’s access to a privileged education and phoren English-speaking circle of family/friends, which hone one’s writing skills. Don’t tell me you think ‘merit’ is something that exists in a sphere impermeable to one’s background?
LikeLiked by 1 person
geethagopal2014
April 24, 2015
Baradwaj: Want to clarify I really enjoy and admire your reviews . And I totally got your humour on c centre distributor 🙂 . just wanted to give my 2 bits on this review. Carry on your good work
LikeLike
geethagopal2014
April 24, 2015
To clarify my comment (better to be clear no 🙂 ) by C centre distributor I mean catering to village/small town audience (with less “Class” aka less education, exposure to western ideas etc
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
April 24, 2015
Afridi – Background and having access to resources is important but it all finally comes down to the individual’s talent, ability and skills, IMHO. A person may come from a privileged background, but if he/she does not have the talent, then nothing can help him/her (e.g., Rahul Gandhi). Conversely, coming from a humble family will not be an impediment to the talented person (e.g., Narendra Modi).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Afridi
April 24, 2015
Raj Balakrishnan: At which point does privilege stop and talent begin? Based on the underrepresentation of Dalits in Tamil cinema, I would say lack of caste privilege plays the predominant role. Can you say that it is a lack of talent, ability and skills among Dalit individuals that hasn’t been able to help them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
April 24, 2015
Anon: Your comment rocks. Please choose a better name and comment often. Cheers.
Afridi: I completely agree with your view that our upbringing places a huge role in what is eventually termed “our talents”. Yes, BR would have been introduced to Winnie the Pooh and Alice in Wonderland when certain Dalit wordsmiths would not have it. But I do not think an English Newspaper can afford to recruit writers based on any criteria other than merit.
Yes, We as a society should take steps to make things more equal than it is. But that cannot be done by making movie-makers depict their heroes in one way or the other. Cinema should merely be the mirror of the society and depict what is already there. Once we make things more equal, that would be automaticaly be reflected in the Arts. But in our society, we are trying to do it the other way around. We are trying to bring power displays and wish fulfillment into the Arts and have started hoping that society reflects it. That is regretable.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 24, 2015
Films are mainly for entertainment unlike books. If they speak a generic, universal language, it will be enjoyed by one and all.We would like to watch reasonably good looking characters with very good acting skills and make us forget our worries for 2 hours. Nowadays we dont even want human beings, we are happy to watch animated characters and CG if they entertain us as it is more universal! Avatar and the like.I hope one day robots and machines take over from humans who always quarrel and make life miserable for all.
LikeLike
ntnnew
April 24, 2015
great write. perfectly put!!! those who want to see caste always see oly that and then put a tag and a brand and bash ’em up.
I recently read a review on okk which said it doesnt cater to lower class or middle class people!!! and movies lik polladhavan does. I enjoy both kind of movies.. then what class would I belong to?!
one should be able to enjoy movie the way it is and not dissect every aspect of it!!
LikeLike
naina
April 24, 2015
To quote from Devar Magan… “pongada poi pullai kuttingala padika vaingada..”… Vere velai illai..idhellam discuss panikittu. naansense…
LikeLike
Rahini David
April 24, 2015
Rajesh: I have seen you doubt your own English comprehension skills for the umpteenth time now. Your English just fine. I am no Grammer Amma to give you a pass mark, but you get your points across very clearly, have a reasonable vocablary and also seem to understand the topics well. Of course, you do not really see eye to eye with BR on certain things, but that is simply because you are both very different people. That happens all the time.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
April 24, 2015
Afridi – I never said that there is a lack of talent and skills among Dalits. That fact that despite the oppression, Dalits in various fields have shone through is a testimony to their talents and skills. My point was no amount of privilege can buy you success unless backed by talent and skills.
LikeLike
ThouShaltNot
April 24, 2015
The sooner BR realizes that there is nothing “innate” about his skills (it’s all just a messy byproduct of the environment created by his antecedents), the faster he will be on the road to redemption (or is it erudition?). If not, he is on the road to perdition (my ode to TR, given it is poetry month)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sangeeth Kumar
April 24, 2015
BR: I find it interesting that your detractors are less perturbed by what MR chooses to show in his movie than by what you choose to see in it.
A movie is a piece of art and, like a painting, every viewer gets something different from it.
To flay BR because he was pleasantly amused by what he saw as a Brahmin angle is idiotic and extraordinarily intolerant. If he came from a fisherman background, I am sure he would have felt the same sense of identification with a movie that dealt with a fisherman protagonist. And would have commented about it – ‘hey, look, the director showed nets on the wall and they spoke a certain dialect, what fun…’ sort of thing. This recognition of a certain milieu that you are familiar does not automatically make you casteist or classist.
Critics, whether you like it or not, will bring their own understanding to a film that will always be different from yours. You can agree with the review or disagree, but you cannot take him to task for his understanding of it. A critic’s job is not to represent YOUR views and sympathies faithfully. It is to ensure that he is honest to his job and to the film, that is all.
By noticing a certain class/ caste background in OKK, the review did not fail its job otherwise – to analyse the film, say what it did well, and where it failed. It did all of that.
The people here who are taking up cudgels for the underprivileged are attacking an absolute shadow, someone who is not even the maker of the movie but a mere purveyor of his own ‘personal’ understanding of the film. By all means, disagree with him and write a different review. Or skip the film. But why make him the recipient of all your social and political conscience, your degrees in social science, or your angst with the caste system? It seems an overreaction.
Am I also to assume that had he recognised the Brahmin angle in a film where Brahmins were shown as villainous, nobody would have called him casteist? This is childish in the extreme.
Finally, I find it ridiculous to say that it is in poor taste to acknowledge that you are a Brahmin in public. It is the worst kind of mealy-mouthed hypocrisy. You are a Brahmin. There is little you can do about it. You cannot pretend otherwise just to prove that you are ‘socially just’ or ‘politically correct’. You just have to be. And is the argument then, by extension, that movies should not have Brahmin protagonists? Would that be in poor taste as well? Or can we take a position that movies can and must be made about all sub-sections of society, regardless?
I don’t think BR was confused between caste and class – he was saying that the cues could be read as upper caste or upper class. If the protagonist had been upper caste, poor and listening to Carnatic music, BR would have noticed and commented. Or if the protagonist had been lower caste but upper class and the ‘rich, urban’ setting had been nicely drawn, BR would have noticed and commented. In this case, the movie seemed to indicate that they were upper caste and upper class. Or, at any rate, that’s what BR took away from it. Maybe others did not. So what?
And he was saying that with a niche setting, chances are the film could bomb in the B and C centres. Much as our social conscience would like to say that B centre audiences also listen to Bach, the truth is they will spit in your face if you play it there. And justifiably so. (I will too.) So he says that MR takes a certain risk with this rather uppity, urban film. And trust me, in the depths of small-town TN, the film’s theme and setting are likely to be alien to everyone, regardless of surname.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anon
April 24, 2015
Rahini –
Thank you and have always admired your cogent thoughts too.
I see your point on anonymity, though I am almost tempted to say ‘a rose by another name yada yada’ 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anon
April 24, 2015
oops… I meant ‘a rose by any other name… (tripped right there, didn’t I)
🙂
LikeLike
brangan
April 24, 2015
Got this via email…
hi baradwaj, i enjoyed your piece in today’s hindu.
at the onset let me say i have been reading your articles and essays over the years and recently bought your book as a gift fr a well known cinematographer in bombay.
that being said, i just wanted to bring up a small but not insignificant point tht has been a bee in my bonnet over the years.
and lets take the statement you make in today’s hindu as the “bee”
“”i believe that one of the jobs of cinema/art is to hold a mirror up to society”
and indian cinema has been critiqued and analysed from that lens by critics like you.
the big ticket cinemas of the great directors and actors of hindi and tamil cinema (others as well ) have all been “mirrors”, true, but do you really think money and fame is not up there on the list as a big motive of cinema? producers, directors and actors play their cards of caste, social milieu, gender roles, subjects etc etc etc primarily for the boxoffice…fr their films to become hits, to make big bucks, to become famous…because when they are successful, they go right ahead and become caricatures of the “evil upper class” they target in their stories, dont they? the mirror they hold eventually becomes the “mirror mirror on the wall”, no?
hindi and tamil cinema are full of such examples, yesterday and today.
what does that say about art then??
LikeLike
brangan
April 24, 2015
Got this via email…
Thanks for a nice article in today’s Hindu for boldly taking a stand even if it is against the grain of political correctness that pervades the media and society .
Hope you continue your good work .
LikeLike
brangan
April 24, 2015
Got this via email…
Thje author has mentioned about the contents in the films to dub them as caste indicators.
But we remember that 50 years ago the weekly film reviews from the Tamil Magazine Ananda viketan which had earned a firm place among the film goers. The reviews were being made under three famous pairs viz (1) Sekar,chander (2)Munuswamy,Manikkam (3)Meenakshi ammal and Shanmugam.
After few weeks all the fans would know about the types of the films reviewed by these pairs of people, Sekar,chander reviewed upper class films, Shanmugam,Minakshi middle class and Munuswamy,manikkam the lower class.
The class factors played a distinctive roles in the success of the films.
LikeLike
brangan
April 24, 2015
Got this via email…
Just read your article on Caste &Class in Cinema.
For a variety the article is readable..but no stuff in it really..
For eg: In Kerala, malayalam films ALL hindu characters are NAiRs ..and even the BRaHmins are only portrayed if its really necessary means if it has anything directly to do with the caste in the story. That does not mean all mallis are NAiRs!!..
It’s just a way of living. .as in NAiRs u can find lower level to upper middle class.
Here Mr.Mani Ratnam wants to tell about a well settled couples..its just a coincidence that they became BRaHmins.
ALSO ITS PATHETIC THAT YOU NEVER EVEN MENTIONED ABOUT ACTING OR TECHNICAL POiNTS in THE Film..
JUST CAN’T believe how can u write a review woth out these??.
First respect the creativity then the creator. .Seems you dnt have both..grow up..please.
LikeLike
brangan
April 24, 2015
Got this via email…
Well said, thanks.
In a state where Brahmins have been hated and ridiculed, things cannot be any different.
But the leftist, religion-hating Hindu’s publishing it is a pleasant surprise.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
April 24, 2015
YeS baraDwaJ Ranjan, grow UP PleaSE !!! .
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
April 24, 2015
Got this via email… Sharing with permission…
Dear Mr Rangan,
Greetings! Hope you are doing well.
I am Rajeev Kamineni, head of PVP Cinema.
Sending this mail to congratulate you for an excellent review on Sunday and follow up article today about OK Kanmani.
As someone who follows your reviews diligently, I wanted to get in touch with you earlier also but refrained on two occasions.
The first occasion was when you wrote—“Fly in the bonnet” an article about out movie Naan Ee. As producers of that movie, I felt it is not appropriate for me to congratulate you for that article.
The second occasion was when you wrote—“Across the Universe” an article about Irandam Ulagam again another movie produced by us.
The above two articles made a strong impression on me especially about the style and credibility of your reviewing, though both the movies had diametrically opposite results at the box office.
This time I have no baggage and I can congratulate you without any inhibitions. Both your articles about OK Kanmani were beautiful (yes I want to use that word) because they hit home many points that I have been shouting from the roof top ever since we entered into this business of movie making. It was hilarious to read about the distributor who ends up on life support!!!!
I meet such distributors regularly and there common refrain when it comes to “class” movies is that it will not cross Tambaram (Tambaram Thandaadhu sir!!!). As someone who made both good and bad movies, I realised that there is a definite undercurrent of mass/class sensibilities and I empathise with the aspiring directors who narrate scripts and painfully try to fit their creativity into narrow demands of the market place.
Of course caste is a reality in India and trying to push it under the carpet is a futile exercise. When the girl is from Coimbatore and there is a reference to Late Mr Pollachi Mahalingam and her last name is Kalingarayar, there is only one community she can belong to (I have good friends from both the families referred here), so there is no point of even trying to deny it.
Sorry to bother you with a long email—I will end with one statement that a very senior producer in Hyderabad made when I was an infant in this industry—he said class and mass doesn’t matter, all that matters is good and bad movies or to be more specific hit and flop movies. His example was that in the same year (1980) that Telugu audiences thronged to the theatres to watch NTR’s Sardar Papa Rayudu (a complete “commercial” mass entertainer), K Vishwanath’s Shankarabaranam won awards and rewards in style. Shankara Sastry and Papa Rayudu represent two different communities and their names itself reflect that.
You hit the nail on the head when you said—different stories from different perspectives need to be told and let us leave the rest to the judgement of the audience.
Hearty Congratulations!! Keep up the great work.
Thanks and Warm Regards
Rajeev Kamineni
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ravi K
April 24, 2015
Sanjana wrote: “Films are mainly for entertainment unlike books. If they speak a generic, universal language, it will be enjoyed by one and all.We would like to watch reasonably good looking characters with very good acting skills and make us forget our worries for 2 hours.”
That’s an awfully limited view of both films and books. While it’s true that films TEND to aim to provide escape for mass audiences because they’re expensive to produce, that’s not inherent to the medium. If that’s your view of cinema you are missing out on great films by people like Bergman, Tarkovsky, Ozu, etc.
And there’s plenty of escapist literature that isn’t exactly “War and Peace.”
With regards to the letter from the person who wrote “ALSO ITS PATHETIC THAT YOU NEVER EVEN MENTIONED ABOUT ACTING OR TECHNICAL POiNTS in THE Film..JUST CAN’T believe how can u write a review woth out these??.”
It seems that many readers are in that mindset that a review should just be a list of bullet points that touch on different aspects of the film in isolation, rather than a consideration of the film as a whole. No real analysis of character, theme, etc.
Maybe this is a South Indian thing. That’s how the reviews are at sites like Idlebrain (Telugu movie site). They’re broken down into sections like “screenplay,” “acting,” etc. with utterly useless comments like “Cinematography by Richard Prasad is good. Dialogues are partly good. Editing should have been better.” I didn’t make that up. That’s an actual quote from their review of “Dochay.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Krupa Ge
April 24, 2015
“You are a Brahmin. There is little you can do about it. You cannot pretend otherwise just to prove that you are ‘socially just’ or ‘politically correct’. You just have to be.”
OR… maybe it’s time to ask oneself what this imaginary identity means. If we really believe in calling ourselves a part of a caste, do we then believe in everything the caste system says? For anyone who believes in caste, and believes in using it as an identifier in life, I have no answers. I am stumped. For anyone who thinks being part of a system that marks some people out as untouchables is a good thing, I have no answers. If that makes one a mealy-mouthed hypocrite, happy to be one.
I never said “Brahmins” should not talk about their caste. Or make movies set in that milieu.I believe in freedom for artists. And for as long as we continue to use caste in our real life, it will continue to show up in our art. And I have no bones to pick with MR. He did not dwell on anything out of turn here. I agree completely that Tamil cinema does not make movies that caters to the upper classes like say a Zoya Akhtar. But in this review, I thought there was an unnecessary and perhaps ambiguous reference that seemed to be “othering” some people – C center audiences (I get the “joke” but the later reference to low class leaves one confused and angry) and I definitely thought the review was confusing upper class with upper caste. Example: “For all its mainstream trappings, this film doesn’t pander – the way some films incorporate elements to please every section of the audience. It’s very focused about who it is targeting, and at least one segment of that “who” is discernible from Aadhi’s surname – Varadarajan – and the Thyagaraja and Annamacharya compositions that pop up on the soundtrack” – these are caste clues – how are they class clues? “The dialogues, stripped clean of words like figure, kattai, sarakku and anything that’s generally considered “low-class” – that’s just what this audience likes to hear. OKK is an unapologetically upper-class movie.” – Here this is class suddenly. So you see there IS a confusion between class and caste.
Oh and I said, it is in poor taste for ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OPPRESSED to acknowledge their place in caste system in public (I cannot comment and do not give a damn about what anyone does in private) because then how do we ever end the atrocities of caste? If someone thinks caste is a harmless rosy simple thing they want to continue to talk about and use as an identifier, I bow out respectfully. I thought by now, by 2015, these things were obvious. So wrong.
And one last thing, as a friend was just telling me… If we play Bach to a B centre audience maybe they’ll spit on our face. Or maybe our Ilaiyarajas and Bharatirajas will come from these B C D E F… Z Centres and really produce so much magic than many of us can EVER imagine making having been born and raised in “A CENTERS” and that will be the real slap on our faces. Maybe… Just maybe… Who’s to know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
69kris
April 24, 2015
“The people here who are taking up cudgels for the underprivileged are attacking an absolute shadow, someone who is not even the maker of the movie but a mere purveyor of his own ‘personal’ understanding of the film. By all means, disagree with him and write a different review. Or skip the film. But why make him the recipient of all your social and political conscience, your degrees in social science, or your angst with the caste system? It seems an overreaction”
Sangeeth Kumar: Bravo! Well said. If I’d overheard you saying all this in a bar, I’d have sauntered up to you, shaken your hand and bought you a round.
The outrage here reminds me of B’s post on the PK controversy that got hijacked by some Islamophobic dick in the comments section.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
April 24, 2015
Krupa Ge: Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but the review mentions class cues AND ALSO caste cues. I don’t see why this is confusing one for the other. It isn’t as if I say I’m only talking about one — I’m saying there are definite instances of BOTH.
LikeLike
Shvetha
April 24, 2015
I did not get the Dalit references in Madras. I wasn’t even aware of them until I read the comments section in BR’s review of the movie here– I think it’s fair to say that the references were certainly not explicit. So if someone pointed them out to me, are they being casteist? (It didn’t lessen the impact the movie had on me; I enjoyed it.) I think it’s wonderful that we have a forum that allows us to share, discuss, and educate one another about opinions and perspectives that some of us may have missed/overlooked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
April 24, 2015
Ravi, most of the people who watch movies do not go for getting gyan but some good wholesome entertainment. If the message oriented films also entertain thats cherry on the ice cream. 3 Idiots had a very good message. But what made it so highly entertaining? Some good comedy. Messages have to be sugarcoated for the audience. There are some who love to watch the serious stuff and also enjoy them. Good for them. They are the reason still some good films are made without usual song and dances. I also enjoy serious drama like Ek doctor Ki maut, Shabana and Smitha’s films. And films of Hrishikesh Mukherjee and also of Bimal Roy. Happy?
LikeLike
bart
April 24, 2015
Ponga sir, poi pulla kuttingalayavadhu padikka vaikka sollunga…
LikeLike
Afridi
April 24, 2015
Rahini David – I didn’t imply that BR doesn’t deserve to be a writer for the Hindu or any other outlet. I took issue with his complete lack of awareness of his privilege as shown in this article; for equating the representation of Dalits and Brahmins; and for making the absurd statement that the underprivileged have a healthy representation in Tamil Cinema. Not to mention his claim of Brahmin underrepresentation in Tamil films when they very clearly have been positively portrayed in many.
With regards to Tamil films showing power displays and wish fulfilment; when certain sectors of our society remain excluded even from these aspirational fictional portrayals (Muslim/Dalit/Adivasi leads anyone?), I don’t see how Tamil cinema does not reflect our society in actuality.
I also don’t agree with your statement that the arts should merely be a reflection of society. The arts are very much inextricably linked with society and don’t exist outside of it just as a mirror,not unlike any other field, and that is why it is skewed against marginalised people. For there to be positive portrayals of underrepresented communities, I believe representation is vital.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Drunken Monkey
April 25, 2015
Bran,
There is this one video which left me in a void space. Didn know what to even think of the people and the discussion.
If you havent, I suggest you watch it or atleast skim through..
P.S: the conductor(uploader too) there, hates you to the core from deep within. If you are not able to find some of those posts and tweets lemme know, shall help you..😝
LikeLike
brangan
April 25, 2015
Drunken Monkey: Have seen this video, thanks. Has been posted in the comments space a number of times.
As for finding those posts/tweets, no thank you. Who people choose to hate on their own time is none of my business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
April 25, 2015
In this case, the movie seemed to indicate that they were upper caste and upper class. – Which is on the face of it a contradictory proposition. Vardarajan would have to be Srini mama’s mapillai to be both Brahmin and upper class…oh, wait, he’s actually a Chettiar! And let’s not pretend it was implied that he is upper caste but not a Brahmin; the cues pointed out by BR made it very obvious. So this brings me to another aspect which made the review (or, rather, the portion that dealt with caste/class): it appears as if B Rangan interpreted anything that is not meant for C Centre as Upper Class. The problem with that is upper class is a much more restrictive term in common usage, a category in which Brahmins usually don’t fit (they tend to be middle class). Yes, I do agree that there is nothing wrong with BR pointing it out if a film focuses on a specific segment of society; that he belongs to the same segment does not preclude him from doing so. My problem is with the muddled way in which he has expressed it. Please, BR is not some Socrates that you can expect readers to somehow arrive at the exact same inference which BR intended them to and criticise them for voicing adverse opinions. If the writing is not precise, there will be confusion and in this case, I am not surprised that there is confusion.
You are a Brahmin. There is little you can do about it. You cannot pretend otherwise just to prove that you are ‘socially just’ or ‘politically correct’. – How about we substitute the word “Untouchable” in place of Brahmin in the first sentence? Makes a hell lot of sense now, doesn’t it? If we acknowledge that caste was a source of discrimination and inequity in Indian society for years and years, then it also follows that caste today has little relevance in determining the identity of a person and those who still use caste to distinguish people are only exhibiting a regressive mindset. I have no problem if somebody wants to identify himself by his caste (as long he doesn’t think he is entitled to the attendant privileges) but nobody can be forced to identify themselves by their caste which is what you seem to be suggesting here. It has nought to do with political correctness. I have more time for Ilayaraja than Carnatic music, thank you very much. I know what I like and too bad if it doesn’t always fit Brahmin stereotypes.
As for why the traditionally oppressed classes should then seek to identify themselves by their caste to voice (perceived or real) injustice suffered by them, I shall not comment because I have very little first hand knowledge of small town India. I know Mumbai well because I live here and if there is any caste discrimination in the city, it is not overt anymore. I know that older generation Brahmins in Chennai can still sometimes speak in a condescending or derisive tone about lower castes but I don’t know if they still PRACTICE discriminatory acts, like making maid servants sit on the floor instead of the chair/couch and addressing anybody in the servant class by their occupation instead of their name. I will not jump to suggest that no case for affirmative action exists anymore for lower castes. As for who all should be the beneficiaries of affirmative action and to what extent it has got muddled by politics is an entirely different topic altogether.
LikeLike
Santosh Balakrishnan
April 25, 2015
One major difference between movies like Thevar magan / Virumaandi / Aaha (i saw one had referred to this movie in the above comments) vs OKK is the explicit nature of locating a movie in a particular environment. The explicitness in the above 3 movies clearly told the viewers which community or section of the society the movie is set and gonna explore.. hence there was no need from a viewer point of view to make assumptions or presume certain inferences…
where as with movies like OKK everything is shown hazily (may be on purpose).. name of the characters, location (metropolitan) and Carnatic music (used to be the biggest give away to refer to a particular section of the society in the past).. but none of these in the current indicates remotely anything, as people from all sections of the society are exposed to experience this life style. So in my opinion, as a viewer / reviewer linking such narratives to any class / caste is not required nor relevant anymore (but am not saying its wrong either as its the prerogative of the reviewer to say how he sees it).
LikeLike
Prasad
April 25, 2015
HI BR,
My 2 cents.
“Why is it okay to acknowledge the Dalit angle in Madras, despite the director not making any explicit references, but a problem to notice the Carnatic music in O Kadhal Kanmani?”
I completely agree with this point. But have one thought on your statement. Was thinking over if Manirathinam would’ve had any thought on what “Class: he was aiming at when he made “OK” or for discussion sake , take any Movie of Mani. Mani is one the very few directors who has intentionally avoided portraying/ glorifying any specific caste/religion in his previous movies. He has made movies for “Urban” audience take Mouna Ragam or Idyathe Thirudathe” but definitely his intention was not to target any specific class or a caste. That’s why the specific call outs of surnames in your review in the below statement is confusing if I not say controversial!!
“It’s very focused about who it is targeting, and at least one segment of that “who” is discernible from Aadhi’s surname – Varadarajan”.”
I don’t think Mani is targeting that specific to those surnames.And he has not done in any of movies if I say so.If you are comparing Urban Vs Rural I completely understand. But how can we say it is specific to a Caste community. Just look at Ok Kanamni itself. There is Marriage which happens in a Church. Just take “Maula ” song. When was a last time there was “Arabic” song picturized in a Tamil Movie over a Mosque?
Movie is celebrating diversity. Just Take Kadal. He showed the characters to another religion with different shades of characters without hurting anybody.
So my point is this, I completely agree that you’ve just observed not “Celebrated” But my point is why at all we’re having this conversation because the Director himself is not hinting aiming at “specific” class of people other than “Urban” or Multiplex audience if I generalize so.
We need not OVERENGINEER on “what will be caste composition of THAT URBAN audience” because People may interpret differently.
Your thoughts please
LikeLike
Priyangu
April 25, 2015
Just wondering why people didn’t pounce on BR when he wrote this in his “Aadhalal Kadhal Seiveer” review.
“They have to resort to subterfuge because they aren’t upper-crust kids who can go home and declare to too-busy parents that they have a boyfriend or girlfriend. These are middle-class people, the children of tuition teachers and housewives who knead dough while watching programmes on the Tamil channels.”
I like BR’s email reference to 50’s Aananda Vikatan’s classifcation of reviews into three categories: upper, middle, and lower classes. May be, Aadhalal-KS belongs to middle-class, that’s why BR was left in peace.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 25, 2015
good discussion.
LikeLike
Madhu
April 25, 2015
Madan:
You are a Brahmin. There is little you can do about it. You cannot pretend otherwise just to prove that you are ‘socially just’ or ‘politically correct’. – How about we substitute the word “Untouchable” in place of Brahmin in the first sentence? Makes a hell lot of sense now, doesn’t it? If we acknowledge that caste was a source of discrimination and inequity in Indian society for years and years, then it also follows that caste today has little relevance in determining the identity of a person and those who still use caste to distinguish people are only exhibiting a regressive mindset. I have no problem if somebody wants to identify himself by his caste (as long he doesn’t think he is entitled to the attendant privileges) but nobody can be forced to identify themselves by their caste which is what you seem to be suggesting here. It has nought to do with political correctness. I have more time for Ilayaraja than Carnatic music, thank you very much. I know what I like and too bad if it doesn’t always fit Brahmin stereotypes.
First of all, Brahmin is a caste, ‘untouchable’ is NOT a caste – it is a set of people belonging to various castes which were considered low caste. Saying you are brahmin, is not wrong, exactly as saying you are gounder, chettiyaar, paraiyar, kallar, devar, etc is not wrong. If you expect a particular privilege to go along with what is perceived as high caste, then yes, it is wrong.
LikeLike
மு.வி.நந்தினி
April 25, 2015
http://mvnandhini.com/2015/04/25/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%A9%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%8E%E0%AE%A9-%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%9F%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9F%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%95/
LikeLike
Madan
April 25, 2015
‘untouchable’ is NOT a caste – Yes, untouchable is not a caste and I did not use the names of some of the castes in the untouchable category because I’d rather not. I hope you are aware that a word like Bhangi, for instance, is often used in an extremely derogatory context but it is actually a caste. So please be my guest, we can start with that sentence again and substitute Bhangi for Brahmin. “You are a Bhangi and there’s little you can do about it.” Brilliant, so respectful indeed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
April 25, 2015
And the larger point is you, as in a figurative you to be clear, have no right to define somebody else’s identity on their behalf based solely on their caste and force it down their throat. Their disowning an identity that only derives from an archaic division of labour that is not highly relevant in the industrial world is their choice and they have every right to if they so wish. Telling them that they have no choice to be what their caste says they are sounds pretty sanctimonious. Might just trigger a fresh round of reverse ghar wapsi. I jest but this is actually one of the main reasons many low caste people fled Hinduism and perhaps rightly so, if I may.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sangeeth Kumar
April 25, 2015
First, in a truly caste-free society, there would be no hatred JUST because you are a Brahmin or Thevar or whatever. You would target hate at the system. Clearly, we are all busy hating BR here because he is from the Caste That Must Not Be Named. Nobody is saying his review sucks. They are saying his review sucks because he is of a certain caste. That itself is hugely problematic. Please remember, being ‘politically correct’ is itself just pious hypocrisy.
Yes, TamBrams can be obnoxious. Yes, let’s not forgive a system that gave some castes millennia of dominance and treated other human beings like crap. Yes, let’s rid India of this racist shit. Yes, let’s do everything we can, including reservations, protection, severe punishments (including the death penalty for Dalit atrocities).
But if it’s cool to hit an innocent old man with a ‘choti’ on his way back from a shop because he is from the Caste That Must Not Be Named, I will raise my voice. If you run down a movie or book that appears to represent the Caste That Must Not Be Named with poisonous shit and not because it was qualitatively mediocre, I will raise my voice.
Second, you have to f* ing fill forms for school and college admission about your caste, not to mention Census forms. And you are talking of an India where there are no caste identifiers? Where upper castes forge BC and OBC certificates for jobs and admissions; where the richest among the lower castes use their punch to corner caste benefits while the poorest get nothing; where votes are cast punctiliously by caste… there are no identifiers? If that’s not mealy-mouthed hypocrisy, I don’t know what is. Unless you live in an India I know not of. Do send us all visas.
Not long ago, when an idealistic, upper caste classmate wanted to leave the Caste column blank, he was not allowed to submit the form. A guy I know (from the Caste That Must Not Be Named), a huge Dalit and anti-caste activist, still identifies his wife as “Dalit” to prove god only knows what.
Somebody gimme a break… I am quitting this vituperative discussion. 69Kris, I need that drink, thank you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
April 25, 2015
Nobody is saying his review sucks. They are saying his review sucks because he is of a certain caste.
And you are talking of an India where there are no caste identifiers?
Where upper castes forge BC and OBC certificates for jobs and admissions;
I agree completely that caste should not be required to be disclosed in any govt form, ideally speaking, but there is no reason why that should define the person that you are unless you are anxious that that it should be so. I have never read of somebody getting assaulted for his choti; that is unforgivable and by all means we should raise our voice against it fearlessly. But citing that is just a strawman to deflect attention for the issue at hand, which was simply of a dubiously worded passage in a review, nothing more and nothing less.
I think this stopped being about caste a long time ago and became yet another of those tussles where a bunch of folks get hyper-defensive about any criticism levelled at BR’s reviews and in the process find themselves united irrespective of caste and creed.
LikeLike
brangan
April 26, 2015
Madan: I think this stopped being about caste a long time ago and became yet another of those tussles where a bunch of folks get hyper-defensive about any criticism levelled at BR’s reviews…
Surely this is both unfair and ungenerous.
Maybe the people who are disagreeing with you genuinely agree with the things I am saying and have their own things to say (thanks to fully functioning minds of their own) instead of just getting “hyper-defensive”.
Argue, by all means, but try not to attribute motive to something you don’t necessarily know.
If I am appearing a little sensitive here, it’s because I know what it’s like to be at the receiving end of motive-attributing. So many times, it’s been said I wrote something because of this or that reason.
But that’s par for the course, given the kind of work I do, given the kind of public space I occupy.
But let’s not do this with commenters.
Let’s fight — but let’s fight fair.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
April 26, 2015
மு.வி.நந்தினி: Regarding your post, just want to address this portion…
ஆனால் மனிரத்னம் இயக்கிய ’ஓ காதல் கண்மணி’ படத்தில் பார்ப்பனர்கள் வாழ்க்கை சித்தரிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என்கிற ஒற்றைவரியை சினிமா விமர்சகர்கள் சொல்லும்போது அது உங்களுக்குள் கொந்தளிப்பை ஏற்படுத்துகிறது.
This wasn’t a response to other reviewers. It was a response to comments to MY review…
This is what I am saying to these comments:
as a critic, one observes all aspects of a film, and the upper-class setting is just another aspect, like cinematography, acting, or direction. Observing something isn’t the same as celebrating it.
So I did the observing. Not others. And I go on to say:
If there is anything I am celebrating, it isn’t the existence of a certain milieu or the choice of it for the film, but the unapologetic and pitch-perfect portrayal of it.
Just wanted to clarify.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
April 26, 2015
Argue, by all means, but try not to attribute motive to something you don’t necessarily know. –
So if he wants to attribute motives to the criticisms made by some commenters, then he can have it right back. Two can play at the same game. It is not any more acceptable for him to say what he did than for me to insinuate that a bunch of fanboys are just getting needlessly defensive. I am glad you brought up this point because it gave me the opening to point out that he and some others crossed the line way back in the discussion. Why is not possible to just express agreements and disagreements without launching into rants and tirades?
LikeLike
krishnan
April 26, 2015
I think Baradwaj Rangan is a casteist and definitely has a problem accepting it. All of his analysis is only his defence mechanism
LikeLike
subbu
April 26, 2015
Be it Caste or Be it Class.Motive and Objective of Directors and Producers is to Reach out to the Targeted Group to Generate CASH flow in the Cash Register.This is another Vital “C” for Film makers no matter whatever the C they Take.
LikeLike
Santosh Balakrishnan
April 26, 2015
“If there is anything I am celebrating, it isn’t the existence of a certain milieu or the choice of it for the film, but the unapologetic and pitch-perfect portrayal of it”
BR.. This is what am interested in… So are you saying in OKK MR was unapologetic and was portraying his selected milieu pitch perfect? Would like to understand what gave you this impression in the movie? was it the surname and the Carnatic music influence (even this primarily shows most likely the elderly couple’s class / caste).. in fact the hero was so disinterested in the proceeding of the music show he attends with bhavani aunty.. just because the heroine sings one Carnatic song does not necessarily show her belonging to a particular section of the society right? I felt in fact MR stayed away entirely from portraying any particular class or community out of fear of backlash.. (he generally does that, just skim the surface)… if you are talking about Aaha or KSS then i entirely agree with your above view point..
Your comments?
LikeLike
Afridi
April 26, 2015
BR, any responses to the objections raised on this particular article above that you’ve written?
LikeLike
sanjana
April 26, 2015
Will this backlash make the reviewers to be more guarded in his or her reviews?
LikeLike
sanjana
April 26, 2015
I forgot about my caste long back and I am reminded of it only when I visit my native place.
This happens when we are far away for a long time and no time to think about castes or even religions and we do not particularly follow those customs and traditions.
Celebrating festivals with others with emphasis more on get togethers than the religious aspect. Enjoying local festivals and mingling with them in their celebrations.
Transferable jobs help as they bring us in contact with others who will be out of our radar if we stay in our native place or native state.
LikeLike
Tejah
April 26, 2015
I watched the movie in Telugu yesterday. I must admit, your review helped me better enjoy some of the nuances in the film – thank you BR. Interestingly, the hero’s last name in the Telugu version signifies a different caste in Telugu. Clearly, the makers were consciously adding that layer of sub-text to the hero; so it’s unfair to blame BR for picking up that nuance.
LikeLike
venkatesh
April 26, 2015
Disregarding any specific caste of anyone ., the fact that we are talking about castes in this day and age is just sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
April 26, 2015
Santosh Balakrishnan: I am talking about several things. The lack of a comedy track that’s “mass” friendly (hence the mention of Leela Samson in that context). I am talking about that “mass”-unfriendly Louis Vuitton bag. I am talking about the locations, the Zuckerberg name-dropping, the clothes. To me, all this signifies a deliberate (and IMO bold) choice to not pander and make a movie that portrays these characters accurately.
This was the case in the Siddharth-Trisha portion in “Aaydha Ezhuthu” too, but that film had a “mass”-friendly Madhavan character. For instance, that character came with a gun, and that means action/violence. He came with domestic drama (husband-wife fights) — so there’s at least something for a B/C-centre distributor to say, “Okay, let’s take a chance on this film. Because there’s something the audience may like to watch, as opposed to two privileged people who can’t make up their mind whether they want to be together.”
It’s a different thing that this assumption may be wrong. Who knows? Maybe there is a B/C audience for OKK too. I am just talking about perceived industry “wisdom”, that some things are turn-offs for that audience.
And to make a movie without the slightest heed to that is something in my book.
Afridi: I think everything that’s to be said has been said. I wish, sometimes, that that brainwave about making that C-centre distributor joke hadn’t happened. Then again, I’m glad it did. It will probably help me word things a little differently in the future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reuben
April 26, 2015
The topic of caste is always going to be a hot tinder box. It is a bit akin to the topic of Nazism in the west because the concept in both the case is, some one is “superior” to another by virtue of their birth. I absolutely agree with you BR that an observation of a certain portrayal is different from celebrating the same and a good film review should bring out these nuances.
If you allow me, I think the most problematic section of your review is:
“this film doesn’t pander – the way some films incorporate elements to please every section of the audience. It’s very focused about who it is targeting, and at least one segment of that “who” is discernible from Aadhi’s surname – Varadarajan – and the Thyagaraja and Annamacharya compositions that pop up on the soundtrack”
If I pucturise the above sentence as a venn diagram, then the “upper-class” (the who) is the set and one segment of it i.e. the brahmins are the sub-set. Logically, this translates to “all Brahmins are upper class”
I am certain your intention may not have been to mean this. But the way you have structured the sentence leaves it open to interpretation. Probably a different set of metaphors may have worked better like privileged and under privileged instead of upper and lower class.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madhu
April 26, 2015
BR: Oh you mentioned it and wrote a comment on it, great! Sorry for me being a mundrikottai, just that it grates when the disagreement is on a ‘wrong’ premise 🙂 And, there is definitely some problem in the mobile layout, I think. My comments are just not going through if I make them from my mobile.
LikeLike
Afridi
April 26, 2015
BR: What about the “healthy representation of the underprivileged in Tamil films”? Who did you have in mind here and how do you define “healthy”?
LikeLike
Santosh Balakrishnan
April 26, 2015
Hi BR, i totally agree with your above points.. i was kinda unclear about this movie representing a particular community.. but was certainly targeting a particular audience.. was also happy that he dint pander to multiple centres with a separate comedy track or unnecessary songs (item song in particular)… this is a big break away from his earlier movies like AN or even Roja / Bombay / Guru (which had an item song equivalent)… one good thing is, off late movies targeting particular audience is increasing (KSS, Thegidi, Pizza to name a few)..
regarding your C-centre distributor joke, i enjoyed it immensely cos it is so pertinent to prevailing situation in the Tamil industry..
P.S Zuckerberg may not be unknown to all… at least his product won’t be 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Santosh Balakrishnan
April 26, 2015
one correction in my earlier post.. rather than saying targeting a particular audience i would say, the movies i mentioned including OKK tried to stay honest / true to the characters / plot it was portraying… which IMO should be something in every viewers book.. hopefully.. 🙂
LikeLike
sanjana
April 27, 2015
Just a doubt. Were not MGR’s movies were for the mass audience with lovely music?
And Gemini ganeshan’s films were not that mass friendly, the way Dabangg or Kick or Enga Veettu Pillai was.
While Shivaji ganeshan pleased both. The way Bachchan pleased both mass and class.The way NTR gelled with both. And Rajkumar of Kannada films must also be mentioned along with these doyens.
LikeLike
Drunken Monkey
April 27, 2015
Bran,
Sorry man if that had come across in another way. Didn’t mean to..was just trying to make a joke.
Just wonder why there exists this set of people who are filled with so much hate and anger. There must be a rationale behind but still..
LikeLiked by 1 person
palanisamya
April 27, 2015
BR,
You cannot ask for rational thinking from religious/race/caste-biters………….They don’t look at what is there – they look for “what’s not there which should be there” according to them.
I think Mani, kinda answered the same thing here………
AV: ‘’ஆனா, நிஜ சம்பவங்களைத் தழுவியிருப்பதாலேயே, உங்க படங்கள் மேல வலுவான விமர்சனங்களும் வைக்கப்படுதே! ’’ரோஜா’வில் முஸ்லிம்களின் மனநிலையைப் புரிஞ்சுக்கலை, ‘கன்னத்தில் முத்தமிட்டால்’ ஈழப் பிரச்னையின் தீவிரம் புரியாத சினிமா, மாவோயிஸ்ட்களின் பிரச்னையை ரொமான்ட்டிசைஸ் பண்ண படம் ‘ராவணன்’னு..?”’
Mani: ”எனக்கு முஸ்லிம் பேர் இருந்து நான் ‘ரோஜா’ படம் எடுத்திருந்தா, இதே விமர்சனம் நேரெதிர் கோணத்துல இருந்து வந்திருக்கும். நான் ஒரு தனி நபர். நூறு சதவிகிதம் மதச் சார்பற்ற மனிதன். நான் சரினு நம்புறதைச் சொல்றதுல, எனக்கு எந்தக் குற்றவுணர்ச்சியும் இல்லை. ஏன்னா, எது உண்மையோ… எது நேர்மையோ… அதை மட்டும்தான் நான் சொல்வேன். என்னைப் பற்றி தப்பா நினைச்சுக்குவாங்களோனு, நான் எப்படி உண்மையைச் சொல்லாம இருக்க முடியும்?
சினிமா பண்றதைத் தவிர, எல்லா விஷயங்கள் பற்றியும் எனக்கும் ஒப்பீனியன் இருக்கு. ஆனா, என் கருத்தை அழுத்தமாப் பதிக்கிற மாதிரி, நான் தெரிஞ்சுக்கிட்ட எல்லா விஷயங்களையும் ஸ்கிரிப்ட்ல திணிக்கிற மாதிரி ஒரு சினிமாவை டிசைன் பண்ண முடியாது.
‘பிரச்னைகளின் முழுப் பின்னணி படத்துல இல்லை’னு சொல்றவங்க என்கிட்ட இருந்து ‘ஏ டு இஸட்’ அந்தப் பிரச்னையைப் பற்றி ஒரு வீடியோ கட்டுரை கேட்கிறாங்கனு நினைக்கிறேன். ஆனா, அதைப் பண்றது என் வேலை இல்லையே. நான் எந்தப் பிரச்னை குறித்தும் தீர்ப்பு எழுதவோ, தீர்வு சொல்லவோ சினிமா எடுக்கலை!”
LikeLike
brangan
April 27, 2015
Tejah: Given that you say the hero carries a caste name in the Telugu version, do you mind telling is what it signifies in that milieu? Just curious if the audience-targeting is similar to Tamil…
venkatesh: I agree. It’s not the best thing to be talking caste. But the film, IMO, kinda brings it up.
I mean, Tara could have had a generic last name like Tara Ganesan. In fact, the last name isn’t even necessary. They’re today’s kids. They could just be Aadhi and Tara.
But she’s Tara Kalingarayar and the full name is mentioned at least a couple of times. To my eyes, this is no accident, especially given that Mani Ratnam, sometimes, likes to root his protagonists in a particular milieu. Velu was a Nayakar. The Arvind Swamy character in “Bombay” was a Saiva Pillai (IIRC).
And again, pointing something out isn’t the same as celebrating it.
Afridi: What I meant was that there’s quite a bit of representation of the underprivileged in mainstream Tamil cinema. Not just films like “Vazhakku Enn…” or “Angadi Theru” or “Chennai Ungalai Anbudan Varaverkiradhu”, but also in masala movies like “Kathi” (farmers) and “Kaaki Sattai” (migrant labourers).
But when it comes to the privileged, where are the accurate portrayals? We get the outlandish portrayals in the Shankar films, or else some exotic creature who eats strawberries… (forget the name of the film now)… or else (in “Kattradhu Thamizh”) female IT workers who wear tight T-shirts to office and eat pizzas and burgers…
Santosh Balakrishnan: i was kinda unclear about this movie representing a particular community.. but was certainly targeting a particular audience…
Well, that again depends on what we see through OUR unique eyes, doesn’t it?
There’s no certainty that any caste/community is being targeted in particularly.
But to MY eyes, the hero’s surname + the fact that he’s from West Mambalam + the fact that his brother lives RIGHT ACROSS Astika Samajam (there’s a very pointed pan that pauses to let us take in that name), points in one direction. Add to that the Tanjore paintings in Ganapathy’s home, the Carnatic music…
Hence the line… at least one segment of that ‘who’ is discernible from Aadhi’s surname – Varadarajan – and the Thyagaraja and Annamacharya compositions that pop up on the soundtrack.
Not saying that they are the only segment, or that all these characters are Brahmins. Just that it’s “Brahminical”…
To others, of course, these cues may mean nothing, and that’s par for the course. I am interpreting this set of cues my way. If you interpret them differently, then I’d love to hear about that.
There’s no one fixed way to watch or read a movie.
LikeLike
brangan
April 27, 2015
🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Afridi
April 27, 2015
BR, I guess my grouse is that when many underprivileged sections of our society continue to be excluded, caricatured and/or demonised in films, I see little reason to celebrate the representation of privileged i.e. dominant groups. That’s not to say I want to see vilification, but I just felt it is presumptuous to celebrate this as any sort of victory for diversity in Tamil cinema.
LikeLike
brangan
April 27, 2015
Afridi: So who’s saying it’s a victory for diversity in Tamil cinema?
LikeLike
Afridi
April 27, 2015
BR: “Why is a discussion of a film or a book about the subaltern necessarily more “worthy”? Isn’t the mark of a robust film culture the presence of films about all castes, all classes, and all walks of life? Isn’t that how many of us, who only come into contact with what’s around us, see what lies beyond us?”
LikeLike
brangan
April 27, 2015
Afridi: “Isn’t the mark of a robust film culture the presence of films about all castes, all classes, and all walks of life?” is a general statement.
I meant it as:
If we make films about all castes, all classes, and all walks of life, then isn’t that a good thing?
You seem to have read it as:
OKK depicts this milieu accurately, so it’s a celebration of diversity.
When I say “In the context of Tamil cinema, this portrayal is a big win,” I am talking only about OKK. But the statement above was an extrapolation from this though, a more general one. It builds on this one example and says we should be doing this sort of accurate detailing in “films about all castes, all classes, and all walks of life.”
LikeLike
Afridi
April 27, 2015
BR: Actually, I read it as you say you’ve meant it. I’m just saying that there are many marginalised people whom I’d rather see have space in Tamil films before we get to a point where increased space for dominant groups is a good thing.
LikeLike
brangan
April 28, 2015
sanjana: In terms of the movie-going audience, you cannot compare the films of MGR, Sivaji etc. with those being made now. There were “classy” films (eg. the ones made by Sridhar) and “massy” films (eg. your average MGR potboiler) even then — but the AUDIENCE was not so divided. A “Nenjil Or Aalayam” (by Sridhar) was a monster hit. So was a “Maatukkaara Velan.”
Because people HAD to go to the theatre if they wanted to see a film, they went and saw all kinds of films. This was true till about the mid-1980s.
Today, OKK is being regarded as something major by the Censor Board because it deals with a live-in relationship, but in the 70s, Balachander made “Manmadha Leelai”, a movie about a priapic Kamalahasan (there may be a tautology in the last couple of words). A few years later, there was a blockbuster hit named “Kanni Paruvathile,” where Rajesh was impotent. Around the same time, there was a Sivakumar-Lakshmi film called “Avan Aval Adhu,” which was about artificial insemination. “Sigappu Rojakkal” was about sexual trauma and misogyny. And so on and so forth.
ALL OF THIS was within what’s called the “mainstream.”
Today, the scope of “mainstream” has narrowed considerably. After the advent of VCRs (and then DVDs and downloads and whatever), the theatre-going audience has completely changed. The difference between CLASS and MASS (i.e. from the “will this play to this audience” POV) is more stark. A K Balachander film made today would be the equivalent of an OKK today, an A-centre and overseas hit but with few takers elsewhere.
The fact that a tasteful (and completely inoffensive) depiction of a live-in relationship is considered, in some quarters, as so ground-breaking (and controversial in other quarters) is to me a sign of how the audiences have changed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
kans345
April 28, 2015
It is impossible to ignore the fact that casteism, be it in an urban or rural indian milieu, is still relevant socially. A film maker’s script feels more rooted only if there are subtle allusions to social realities in the story. The organic feel of a script is essential for it to to be translated into the big screen. One of the variables that determine the aesthetics of the finished product is the organic and rooted nature of the script. Mani ratnam is a film maker with an urban upbringing and in particular he is a derivative of the urban upper class. If he writes a script it is but obvious that there would be social cues in the narrative that echoes his roots. In fact the lack of this would make the plot seem contrived. Hence I just do not understand why people should get offended when such allusions in the plot are pointed out by a reviewer.
P.S: Satyajit Ray, who in my opinion is one of the greatest film maker ever, made movies such as Jalsaghar, the Calcutta trilogy and the Apu trilogy in which there are definite allusions to Bengali brahmins (one character is referred to as a ganguly in a derogatory fashion), Zamindars, and Bhaniyas. How come bengalis were not offended by such allusions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
kans345
April 28, 2015
Cinema is an art form. It would be a travesty of sorts if it is coerced to be politically correct or socially relevant. Films should be celebrated and critiqued for thier aesthetics and creative novelty. It is a pity that most of the populace spends time on analyzing a movie rather than sensing, feeling and appreciating the abstract metaphor that any art for stands for. Grow up guys.
LikeLike
ThouShaltNot
April 28, 2015
Given the hue and cry over “oppression” within the film industry as in society at large, why not institute “reservations” here as well. There ought to be quotas not just for people who play the characters, but also for the characters portrayed (oh, let us not forget the film reviewers). Outlandish as the thought might seem at first blush (or even second, third and so on), totalitarian social reengineering is not such a bad idea, if citizens can be persuaded that ends justify the means. And what better place to try this experiment than in a society where films are its DNA?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Santosh Balakrishnan
April 28, 2015
Hi BR,
“or that all these characters are Brahmins. Just that it’s “Brahminical”…”
Yeah that i agree fully.. there was certainly this brahminical flavor in the house hold of Ganapathy / Bhavani… and from my viewing i felt may be they were being shown coming from Brahmin community (as compared to that of the lead characters).. or to say i was not particularly linking this flavor to the lead couple while watching the movie.. unable to pin point why.. so i am gonna quote your line from an earlier comment (They’re today’s kids. They could just be Aadhi and Tara) as that’s the closest i could get.. 🙂
“There’s no one fixed way to watch or read a movie.”
— Oh totally.. if only one fixed way where is the fun and scope for these discussions… 🙂
LikeLike
sanjana
April 28, 2015
What about handicapped people? Are they getting healthy representation or or they made fun of? Used to get sympathy or get laughs. Especially how they depict mental hospitals and mental patients.
LikeLike
Priyangu
April 28, 2015
@ThouShaltNot, Thou shalt not give such outlandish ideas! People might really get ideas after reading your ideas. Just image OK Kanmani with a kuththu song and a tasmac scene with drunken hero just because they make an entry through reservation quota you are talking about! I don’t feel like laughing out loud, just feel like crying out loud! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blasta
April 29, 2015
From a film makers point of view, and when he is making a generic, let us say mass appeal film, he wants to play safe, he therefore tends to choose characters whose tricks and traits do not annoy any section of the audience. Or he chooses characters whose belongers’ cannot complain. Or cliched ones. If he is denied such such luxury, he simply chooses an exotic.
In Tamil movies, due to reasons of recent history, centuries old culture and low population, the Brahmin caste gets tick marked on all of these. In other languages there must be other castes/classes.
Therefore unless the director or story teller is insistent on documenting a particular milieu as in say Paruthi Veeran or Subramaniapuram there is no point, too much energy needs to be spent on detailing these characters, too much screen time required to inventorize the milieu.
In general, the director is aiming to minimize effort and trouble while maximizing the gains from exotics. He is merely being lazy, not making a cultural statement. The rain drop is a sphere not because it likes to.
In seeing the torrential downpour here, I feel that many commentators have seen woods where there stand solitary trees. Once you see it from the maker’s point of view, and that he actually wants to avoid making a point, trivial it does sound.
It is also pertinent that the upper classes, having had a lot of time and money at their disposal and over generations tend to gather culture, which results in exotic forms of art that sometimes need to be explained to be enjoyed. Art whose appreciation does give you a social leg up.
Cinema being a visual medium, these exotic and class worthy freebies, derived from supposedly lush living, works out to great advantage. That the people are themselves sparse makes this even more exotic. In contrast, North India has a larger Brahmin community, and an ever larger upper middle class, and therefore their exotic value isn’t as much as down South.
Shankar, I wonder why nobody mentioned his name here, has used this exoticity to perverse advantage in most of his films, so much that if “I” had had a Brahmin as hero, perhaps it would have done better business. More power to the Ambis!
Another example, take the household scenes in Kalavani or SMS or Komban, and contrast that with an upper class kitchen scene like in say Santosh Subramaniam or MMKR or even Pirivom Santhippom, the first two suffer from a paucity of artifact, and familiar ordinariness, while the latter, sure there are better examples, are decidedly exotic for a majority of the audience.
Whatever your Gaana and Kuthu can give, the Carnatic seems to be able to deliver and with little effort, and with social leg up thrown in for free, so veetula karuvadu than daily menu nnalum, veliya vantha Saravana Bhavan thaan. Or Pizza Hut or Svengali! Upmarket is simply easy, in addition to being desirable.
Subtext, yes can be difficult to catch, cannot blame BR, had the same problem with Subramaniapuram and even Paruthiveeran until someone explained it to me. OK when it came to Sundarapandian, I caught it at first frame. Everyone has a right to be a babe in some wood, and who are we to deny BR that luxury.
LikeLike
Blasta
April 29, 2015
Oops, forgot to mention that in the land of reviewers, given his tendency to sweet write, and quote all kinds of authorities from Adam to Adnan, while being secretly in love with Thalaivar, BR is also an exotic and therefore worth reading/discussing. Not sure about the social leg up though!
LikeLike
Blasta
April 29, 2015
Commercial Cinema is mostly social text rather than social context…
LikeLike
Afridi
April 29, 2015
For all those who believe ‘cinema is art and arts should be outside of the purview of society’, and the predictable defenders of “merit”, if Hollywood is anything to take a cue from, here is a recent politically-correct (perish the thought!) development vis-a-vis oppression and privilege:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/adam-sandler-has-finally-hit-the-limit-of-satire/391550/?utm_source=SFFB
LikeLike
Rahini David
April 29, 2015
Priyangu: “People might really get ideas after reading your ideas. ”
That’s the idea. 😀
LikeLike
kans345
April 29, 2015
Guys instead of obsessing over the political correctness of our movies or their movies, take a break and enjoy a good piece of art. Appreciating art is a far more rewarding experience than arguing about its political correctness. Let me know if you feel otherwise Mr. Rangan. Just watched a beautiful movie called “Clouds of Sils Maria”, a layered narrative set in the swiss alps. Well shot by Olivier Assayas and great acting by Binoche, and Kristen Stewart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
April 29, 2015
Afridi: I have been thinking about what you have been saying a lot and I should admit that I am not sure about where I stand with it. A few things on my mind.
1) I have been thinking about the depiction of NariKuravas and the likes in Tamil cinema and I should admit that Tamil Cinema has fallen short of depicting them in an interesting, plausible way. I got the chance to view them from a distance a few years back when my train was stuck in the outskirts of a town. I should remember that half an hour all my life, they have a lifestyle that is alien to all of us.
The foster family of Kamal’s son in Mahanadhi is the only interesting instance I am able to think of. (I think they were Kuravars, but I am not completely sure). Thalaivasal Vijay says “Kashtam ellam ungala maathiri aalungalukku thaan saamy, engalukku ellam mela vaanam, keela boomi avalo thaan”. This pretty much sums up their quaint lifestyle.
2) That said, I don’t think Filmmakers need to necessarily depict them if they don’t belong to that particular story. It is better that change comes in the real world, when everybody interacts with everybody else and aquaints themselves with a variety of other people rather than just their own kind. We can say “Look this is proof that we don’t consider them as much as we should” but we cannot say “Look, this is the reason why even now people don’t know much about them”. Filmmakers should not be given that extra burden.
3) Very often Brahmins are accused of such non-inclusive behaviour. But it is not just them that is doing so, everybody else is drawing a circle around themselves too. Only we tend to point them out as prime examples of exclusive attitude. I don’t want to quote examples but pick any “Group”, religion or caste or class wise, you will surely find non-inclusive behaviour in spades.
4) Are Hindu Temples still sticking to the “only brahmins should do this rite” thingies? If so, shouldn’t Hindu organisations rethink these rules and move towards a more inclusive atmosphere? If this is already being done, can someone please point out links about when and where these reformations started? I am just curious about this.
The last point, should not be addressed to someone called Afridi. But then again, this is actually addressed to all the readers.
LikeLike
kans345
April 29, 2015
Dear Afridi, just got to read the article in the Atlantic. Hollywood, I feel, is a place steeped in capitalist values and art always takes the back seat, therefore I would not advocate it as a moral or creative trendsetter. I agree with the argument that art should be for art sake, however I do not feel that the arts should be outside the purview of the society. Art is a means through which the society expresses itself. Hence the contents of an artistic product, however perverted they may seem, are but expression of a society’s deep seated dysfunctions. Instead of censuring the work of art, I would address the social cause that lead to such artistic expression. In the case of the Adam Sandler controversy, just as in India, there are racial and class stereotypes in the US as well. Be it American Indians on food stamps, the white trash red neck, the illegal immigrant latino or the african american who is a habitual offender are depicted in cinema as such, as that is the perception of those racial sub-sects, prevalent in the US society at large. It would be better to address the cause of this perception rather than to censure a movie that depicts it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
April 29, 2015
Two interesting posts on the topic.
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2014/politics/do-people-still-care-about-caste.html/
https://anusrini20.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/trying-to-understand-caste/
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
April 29, 2015
There are generic films and there are niche films. The former is relatively easy to make and easy to make money. If film making is a business, they will go for generic films or audience friendly films. If film making is taken as social cause without profitability concerns, niche films are made which do festival circuits and get national awards.They usually cater to gays, lesbians, underprivileged, mentally and physically challenged, victims of world wars etc.
No one can compel anyone to make a particular kind of film. That is the first step towards dictatorship. One can take the horse to the pond but cant force it to drink water from it unless it is thirsty.
LikeLike
Madhu
April 29, 2015
4) Are Hindu Temples still sticking to the “only brahmins should do this rite” thingies? If so, shouldn’t Hindu organisations rethink these rules and move towards a more inclusive atmosphere? If this is already being done, can someone please point out links about when and where these reformations started? I am just curious about this.
In general, there is a caste called Odhuvar who sing Devaram/Thiruvasagam kind of Tamil verses when there is a function / procession in the temples. This, again is primarily a caste related job. In fact, if I remember correctly, some time back there was this big news about a girl called Angayarkanni getting appointed as an odhuvar (unable to get the links for you, I see a Hindu article on it, but it is giving a remote server issue). Other than this, there was a movement sometime back to bring in more inclusiveness. But the only concrete news I read about it is this:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/pandharpur-temple-allows-female-and-nonbrahmin-male-priests/article6272617.ece
I am not sure if any temples in Tamilnadu did it, though.
Forget about bringing in other castes or women into this job. The existing priests themselves don’t get paid well. No, I am not talking about all those famous temples like Tirupati, where the devotees throng enough to supply any number of priests with good living. But, the smaller ones which come under the TNHRCE, get paid such a measly amount that they do not want their children getting into this at all. And by smaller, I am not including these fast-food temples either – you know, the ones that get built within 200 meters of each other for the heck of it. Temples like Thirumayam (I am taking this example, because it is one of the oldest temples and known only in certain circles of certain religious aspects) have only one priest who runs the whole show and it is difficult for him to run it because, he doesn’t get enough – either for himself or for the temple. He, actually has this one guy as an ‘assistant’ who is a non-brahmin and he is not Odhuvar either, but his Tamil (especially Divyaprabandham) knowledge made me want to get his autograph, really, wow! This temple was a prime example of how in adversity people just help each other and do not care about caste or any such discrimination. Of course, all this was in 2011. I have no clue about the temple right now.
So, before the inclusive atmosphere can come in, people who are already in it need regulated salary and benefits. Such temples are prime examples of lower income upper castes who get isolated and suffer quite a lot.
Another thing is, the ‘Pujaris’ for temples in villages are not Brahmins. What is that movie which ‘Vedam Pudhidhu’ Kannan made, with Navya Nair in the lead? It has this beautiful dialogue, to the effect of – Perumal and Sivan kovils are A class, Murugan, Pillayaar are B class and Maariyamman, Ayyanaar are C class: even Gods have their Classes – this is pretty much true. All these C class temples are run by non-brahmins. They have their own rules, customs, beliefs. Just as mythology is a fascinating subject, so are the auxiliary beliefs and customs that have resulted from it! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blasta
April 30, 2015
BR, think that you should close comments on this entry, or this will become even more Hydra headed.
Caste is caste, inevitable when solid, and laughable when liquidated, an artifact that rises swayambhu in any human grouping. According to the Gita, a hack job as good as any, when the castes intermingle, it will be Kali Yuga, or vice versa.
Guess they got the consonant wrong, with all that intermingling, should it not be Kali Yuga, a time of play. Ask the Bangkok visitors, what a name for a place and one so seemingly appropriate. There is a God in heaven.
And one who seems unaware of these silly rules. There never was a time when human kind was ever so equipped with technology and prosperity for supreme laziness and happiness, and yet so hampered by notions primitive?
Such idiocies are not particular to Hinduism, in other sects, other stupidities. Given the fact that heavenly maidens abound, around you and on the Net, packing off to Heaven just for the maidens seems borderline stupid, and I am being polite.
Guess caste can never be killed, but can be eroded, and made into a laughing stock, if everyone agrees to.
LikeLike
Priyangu
April 30, 2015
Rahini David: Thanks for those links. Esp, Anusrini’s post was super interesting. Ultimately religion, caste, and astrology rule our lives. Still OKK-like movies are feel-good fairy tales. As kans345 menioned, it is better to appreciate the art form of those fairy tales and just move on instead of getting into caste-class wars. Thiruda Thiruda movie dialogue is one of my favorites: “Naan oru kalaikkannoda parthen, Sir”
LikeLiked by 2 people
A
April 30, 2015
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the detractors of this article and your review of OKK have a problem with you pointing out the Brahmin characters in the movie. After all observation should not be an offence. But it was rather celebratory tone you took to it, and the assertion you made that the ‘upper caste’ are the target audience for the movie. While also ignoring that one of the lead characters (Tara) is meant to belong to the ‘upwardly mobile caste’, and is in fact the one who fits under your label of ‘upper class’. Interestingly she (a Gounder) has an appreciation for Carnatic music, while Aadi (a Brahmin) is shown to doze off during the concert. When you fail to make these observations, it makes it seem as though you are promoting one caste over the other, although that might not be your intention.
I do have a lot of issues with this particular post though. I think it would have been more appropriate to label it as “Brahmins in popular Tamil cinema” since that is the only topic you touch on anyway. If you had bothered to watch that link Bhavani posted above, you would notice that Dalits have been maligned a lot in earlier Tamil cinema, and still continue to be so. And not to mention the incorrect portrayal of Muslims and Christians in movies. It wouldn’t be as offensive if the religious and caste minorities aren’t a target audience at all for these movies. But they in fact are, and filmmakers have throwaway scenes to include them in the movies. Although it would be with the implication that they rely on the goodwill of the generous ‘middle caste’ characters. And no I don’t think that there should be a reservation quota for the portrayal of all castes in movies, as a few have sarcastically pointed above. All I’m saying is that in this day and age when we have some people moving beyond the limitations set by their caste, it would be better if filmmakers do more research into all sectors of society. Pa. Ranjith shouldn’t be the only director to celebrate the culture of Dalits, and it would be nice to see other minorities covered in a positive light too.
I wouldn’t have an issue if you made this post as a blogger. Surely it would have been annoying to watch Brahmins shown as the epitome of evil in a some movies, and you would have wanted an opportunity to point that out. But as a contributor for The Hindu, where this very article appeared on, I expected better research into actual “Caste and Class” in Tamil cinema to be made.
LikeLiked by 1 person
neena
May 8, 2015
Some time back, my editor asked me to do a story on how Tamil Nadu is apparently developing because people, according to him, have moved on from naming their kids ‘Senthil’ or ‘Rani’. They prefer ‘stylish names’ like Rahul or Ashwini. Was reminded of this utterly absurd and frustrating episode while reading your opening lines…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rm
May 19, 2015
So much for an innocuous ‘unapologetically upper caste ’ remark. I watched the movie this week and neither the movie, nor the review seems to be glorifying this particular caste in any way. To me, the carnatic music aspect here seemed fitting here, for me it seemed to resonate with the mood of the movie. I equally loved the Arabic music piece in the Allahabad scene. I think it was classical. And the “Thyagaraja and Annamacharya compositions that popped up on the soundtrack” were remixed at their bests. We all know how it would have turned out had it been pure classical. Should carnatic musicians take offence then? The protagonist, from the gaming industry, says his ambition is to make it like Steve Jobs. Beats me why the rest of us in non-gaming software industry seemingly writing drab code are not revolting against this. Would we be having all these debates and discussions about the alleged caste tint had the same review been not written by a ‘Baradwaj Rangan’. I seriously doubt it.
Get famous being talented or get famous trolling the talented seems to be the watch word these days.
LikeLike
Kitizl
June 2, 2015
Is it possible that trying to show class in a certain movie was supposed to be shown as stylish instead of directly trying to offend a certain section of the society? And by class, I do not mean it literally, I mean it in the colloquial sense, if I can say so.
I mean, that is the one manner in which we can perceive Gautam Menon’s success since most of his films don’t show overly-rich people or people in dire poverty, but just the upper middle class, and they just seem, very classy. Not rich, not poor, but classy. But if that were categorized into Brahmins and non-Brahmins, then should we resort to names like “Dors Venabili” and “Eto Demerzel” [courtesy, Foundation series, Isaac Asimov] just so that no cultural links can be made?
If a man must try and tell a story, why must people take great offence to it?
And I wasn’t really thinking when I wrote all of this. I just wrote. I felt like doing so.
LikeLiked by 1 person