Spoilers ahead…
Dear Karthik Subbaraj,
Congratulations on yet another interesting movie, and for resisting the impulse to name this one, too, after a food item. Iraivi is an unusual feminist film, in the sense that it’s seen entirely through the prism of sympathetic male characters. Your men aren’t monsters who drink or cheat on their wives or subject them to torture. They do these things, yes, but… differently. Arul (SJ Surya) drinks, but only to drown out his sense of failure – he’s a director and his film is in the cans, being held hostage by a sadistic producer. Michael (Vijay Sethupathi) has sex with Malarvizhi (Pooja Devariya), and he continues to lust after her after his marriage to Ponni (Anjali) – I love that all your women have names that suggest classical heroines, including Arul’s wife Yazhini (Kamalini Mukherjee) – but it’s a marriage he committed to in a hurry and he still hasn’t reconciled himself to it. He’s being a bastard, certainly, but he’s not a one-note villain. And the torture they inflict isn’t the stubbing-a-cigarette-into-the-wife’s-bare-arm variety. It’s more mental than physical.
So we get women who are collateral damage – and I include Arul’s comatose mother (Vadivukkarasi), and the nurse who’s not allowed to do her duty – of men being men. They’re being babies, really. Yazhini tells Arul that he should get on with his life, write another story, make another movie. He says it’s like her trying to have another child while still pregnant with their daughter. (Yes, all these men end up with girl children.) He’s a wallower – but maybe all artists are. You like to do that, don’t you Karthik? Even in a film like this, you deliver a commentary about filmmaking and the artist. Why, even Arul’s father is a sculptor, and though we never see him ill-treating his wife (thank you for sparing us the clichés of raised hands and raised voices), we’re informed that he’s responsible for her state. His son’s following the father’s footsteps. Maybe you’re trying to say that the wives of obsessed artists are doomed to become collateral damage. Your films make us think, Karthik, so thank you for that.
All your stories have at their centre a filmmaker, or at least (in the case of your first film, Pizza) a storyteller. And through them, we seem to hear your voice. “Works of art should not be in places where they are not respected.” “Namma padam pesanum, naama pesa koodadhu.” You compare masala movies to a massage with a happy ending. (I laughed, but please don’t judge me when I say I rather like massages with happy endings – I refer to masala movies, of course.) We even get a line of dialogue about Dolby Atmos. (What will the B/C-centre audience make of this, Karthik? But then you don’t really give a shit, do you? More power to you.) And you like your insider jokes. That crass, egoistic producer who does not care about art – he reminded me of the crass producer from your earlier film, Jigarthanda. You like Rajinikanth too. You referenced Thillu Mullu in Pizza, Thalapathi in Jigarthanda, and now you have Arul singing Malayala karayoram, Michael singing Oorai therinjikitten.
Or is that more of an Ilayaraja homage? You like to keep the audience guessing, right? When the Bobby Simha character in Jigarthanda said he was a Shankar-Ganesh fan, it appeared that you were mocking the endless Ilayaraja nods in Tamil cinema, but here you are, doffing your hat to the maestro. “Raja Raja dhaan.” Arul says this… twice. (By the way, which is that nightclub which plays Maanguyile poonguyile? Do let us know.) And the reuse of Unnai thaane – first in a scene between Michael and Malarvizhi; later in a scene between Michael and Ponni – is the kind of Easter egg we come to your films for. Let me list some others, though I’ll probably need to watch the film a second (or third) time to get them all. The name of the bachelors’ quarters is Ambal Mansion – it goes with your theme and title. I didn’t get the bit about the windmills (something connected to the gust of wind that makes the row of cycles fall over in the first scene?), or why you showcased the book of Shanta Shishunala Sharif’s poems. (I confess. I Googled up that name. I can’t remember the last time a Tamil film made me Google something up. Madras, maybe.) And despite your note at the beginning that Iraivi is inspired by the works of K Balachander (he made female-centric films, but I don’t know if I’d call them feminist films), this is really more of an ode to Mani Ratnam, isn’t it? Specifically, Aayidha Ezhuthu. The three men, one of them – the impulsive one – named Michael. The film starting out as Arul’s story, then becoming Michael’s story, and finally Jagan’s (Bobby Simha) story. The finale with the woman on the train. Plus, the arc of the Madhavan-Meera Jasmine plot was essentially about being easily misled (in the case of the man) and becoming collateral damage (in the case of the woman.) And yes, the rain. All that rain. As though the skies were weeping for these women.
Am I digressing, Karthik? If I am, I’m just following your style, which is the opposite of simple and linear. As a result, I find your films longer than they need to be. (You may feel the same about my reviews.) For instance, I did not care for the scene in the nightclub where a director is felicitated. I realise it was there as a last straw for Yazhini, but it felt redundant. But I suppose they couldn’t be any other way, because you like these shaggy-dog stories that you then embellish with novelistic detail. I love the way you introduce your characters, the time you take with them. Our films lay out characters and their relationship to each other the minute we set eyes on them, but you make us wait to know how Arul is related to Jagan and where Michael fits in and so on. And when it appeared that a semblance of a plot was kicking in (something about Arul needing money to buy back his film), I dug out my phone and checked: it was a whole hour into the movie. Borrowing an image from Malarvizhi’s profession (oh wait, she’s an artist too; she’s literally an artist), it’s like daubs of paint slowly forming a bigger picture.
And you really like an expansive canvas. Not only does the crass producer have a brother, you also bring in his wife later on, to conclude a deal he began making. These segments practically form a mini-movie, with another woman left reeling by the actions of her man. Your films have this… density. They’re packed – with characters, with complications, with information doled out in bits and pieces. (A character says, “Un kitta onnu sollanum.” And instead of hearing what he has to say, we cut to someone else.) Take the scene where Michael asks Arul for money he is owed. You just need to get Michael to Arul’s antiques shop, so the next part of the plot can be staged. Arul could have told Michael to collect the money at the shop. Instead, this is what we get. Arul tells Michael to wait for a week, when he can get the 50 lakhs he is owed. Michael says he wants only 10 lakhs. Arul says he has only 8 lakhs, he’ll give the remainder later. Michael goes to Arul’s father, in the hospital. He has only 5 lakhs. And he directs Michael to the shop, to get the remaining 3 lakhs. Your signature intercutting adds to this texture, Karthik. Shots of Michael and Arul’s father in the hospital are intercut with shots of Arul hunting for booze. Shots of Michael and Jagan outside a courtroom are intercut with shots of Arul being consoled by his father. Happenings are stretched and meshed the way they would be in real life, and not compacted according to the page-per-minute requirement of screenplay-writing textbooks.
I could never predict where the film was going (win!), what these people were going to do (again, win!) –though I must admit I found this to be the weakest of your “twists.” The subplot about stealing sculptures, too, I found rather conceit-y, something half-heartedly cooked up to fit with the title and the theme, rather than something plausible, something these people would do. When Michael, here, commits murder, with a hammer, I went, “This mild-mannered chap? Really?” But then, even in Jigarthanda, I wasn’t quite convinced that the characters would do the things they did. They seemed to be puppets of a screenplay rather than credible human beings, whose actions evolve organically from who they are (or at least, who they seem to be).
But even if I am not convinced by the overall trajectory of your characters, I love how fleshed-out they are on a moment-to-moment basis. I loved the scene where Arul barges into Yazhini’s house, after their separation, on the day of her engagement to someone else. In a lesser film, she would have asked him to get out, and he’d have dug his heels in, and she’d have cooled down and… But here, she rushes straight into his arms. And you make us see why. She was frustrated, fed up with him. But she’s also confused. Was she hasty in abandoning this man? Should she move on with another man? Does she even need a man? With just this one scene, you’ve compensated for the underwritten heroine of Jigarthanda. The story arc may be Arul’s, but Yazhini registers as a fully formed character. Similarly, Michael’s arc allows for the delineation of Ponni and Malarvizhi, and through Jagan, we get glimpses of his mother, and possibly of all womanhood as viewed by a compassionate man. And then you say that women don’t need even this compassionate man (poor chap!), that they have to emancipate themselves instead of looking for a penis-wielding emancipator. What delicious irony, given that you begin the film with women talking about marriage, tying themselves to a man!
Or not, in the case of Malarvizhi, who is easily the film’s most interesting character. Her husband is dead, and she doesn’t want love anymore – only sex. When Michael buys her a diamond necklace, she gives it back to him – she can buy her own trinkets, thank you very much. But the character feels shoe-horned into the film, Karthik. I felt betrayed – and I bet she did too – that after a point, she was used simply as a plot device to get Michael and Ponni together, and also to illustrate Michael’s (who is now standing in for all of mankind) hypocrisy. I felt she deserved more. And yet, I appreciated your generosity in fleshing her out like all the others, without judging her. She gets to be the rare woman in Tamil cinema who dumps the man, and the way she lets go of Michael is echoed in the way Arul lets go of Yazhini, with a heavy heart and some playacting. A side effect of the Malarvizhi subplot is the reassurance that Vijay Sethupathi is still interested in making cinema, rather than just massy entertainers targeted at the box office.
Ponni gets a better deal (and Anjali is terrific, raw and expressive in a way she has never been). In a great scene – rather, a set of book-ending scenes – Michael tells Ponni that he was forced to marry her, and she’s going to have to “adjust” to this if she wants to be with him. Much later, she throws the “adjust” word back on his bearded face when he asks her if she slept with someone else. In a different kind of movie, we’d be invited to see this symmetry, stand up and applaud. But you’re too subtle for that, Karthik. Iraivi is your subtlest film. Which is why I winced at the melodramatic lines about men and women, most of which came towards the end. Aan, using the long-sounding vowel, versus penn, with the shorter one – for such a visual filmmaker (this is another outstandingly shot film, less showy than Jigarthanda and probably richer for that), do you really need the crutch of linguistic special effects from another era of filmmaking? Also, when the rest of your film is so allusive, isn’t there another way you can explain the twist without having a character resort to such an inelegant information dump?
And why is it that your films come together more in the head than in the heart? Why are they easier to admire than love wholeheartedly? I used to think it was because your characters are essentially deceitful, self-serving and unsympathetic, so though we were invested in what they did, we didn’t really warm up to them. But here, you have Ponni and Yazhini and Malarvizhi – and they’re still remote. But perhaps this is bound to happen when there are so many people, so many strands, when we don’t follow one person’s simplistic “you go, girl” journey like we do in, say, 36 Vayadhinile? But when the parts are so well-crafted, we don’t complain as much about their sum not adding up to a satisfying whole. I am sure that you will, one day, make that wholly satisfying film, but for now, thank you for these parts. Thank you for the ambition. I felt there were too many songs (some good work by Santhosh Narayanan), but thank you for ensuring that they don’t break character, the way songs usually do when a character speaking in his or her voice suddenly segues into the playback singer’s voice. Thank you for giving us SJ Surya, the actor – I never dreamed he had such a capacity to hold a scene, to hold the screen. Thank you for continuing not to sell out. Thank you for trying to do so much, even if not all of it needed to have been tried. And thank you for making me fight with myself, for not making it easy to decide if you’ve made a “good” film or a merely “okay” film. For now, Iraivi is a fascinating film, and that’s enough.
Sincerely, etc.
KEY:
- iraivi = goddess
- Pizza = see here
- “Namma padam pesanum, naama pesa koodadhu.” = We shouldn’t talk about our film. It should speak for itself.
- Jigarthanda = see here
- “Raja Raja dhaan.” = (Ilaya)Raja is (Ilaya)Raja, the best
- Madras = see here
- Aayidha Ezhuthu = see here
- “Un kitta onnu sollanum” = I have to tell you something.
- Aan/ penn = man/woman
- 36 Vayadhinile = see here
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2016 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
thulasidasan17
June 3, 2016
Thank you for this beautifully etched love letter, Mr. Rangan. I could read and watch the review and film over and over again.
P.S. Did you also notice how the Iraivi statues were a parable/metaphor or a personification of the females themselves? Men like Arul, Michael and Jagan only need those statues for two reasons; money for the first and second time. The third time was for lust (Jagan’s lust, particularly). The exact reasons why men need women (or, Iraivi statues) according to the film’s themes – for money and lust.
And the rain. The rain which symbolises liberation according to Yazhini. Yet it was the urban Yazhini that decides to remain sheltered from the rain in the end, and it was the rural Ponni that seeks and attained liberation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ganesh
June 3, 2016
Man, you seem to be super-fascinated by the movie & the movie-making. That’s so clear from this review! A letter of appreciation as a review! That’s almost a first from you, isn’t it? So, Maniratnam wasn’t wrong at all when he mentioned that karthik subbaraj is one film-maker that he admires today! And, it’s so heatening to see his consistency in delivering top quality cinema. I haven’t watched the movie yet since it’s not releasing in this part of the world, but this one surely seems like something with a very fresh cinematic treatment, going by most of the reviews.
LikeLike
Anonymous
June 3, 2016
Why do critics always find “allusive”, ambiguous and open-ended films to be good cinema?
LikeLike
MANK
June 3, 2016
Brangan, this is your most brilliant, expansive , in depth tamil film review since Jigarthanda IMHO. to all the thank yous that you have given KS in the last para of your piece, we the readers would like to add one more. thank you KS for making films that brings out the best in Baradwaj Rangan ,the film critic and writer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Padhma
June 3, 2016
That is a pretty quick turnout, BR! And, what is really fascinating to me is the letter you’ve composed! I can see how awed you are and probably aren’t still able to completely wrap your head around it. And maybe none of us can, with just one watch (which, I haven’t even yet).
Also, if I may nitpick, the last but two sentence has a typo – “even if not all of it needed to have been tried” – has “if” instead of “of”
LikeLiked by 1 person
apala
June 3, 2016
BR-ji, what a way to write a review! Letter to the director, nice, awesome nice! 🙂 I hope to catch it here sometime next week, but I am already tuned to the film because of the review! The best and the worst films bring the best out of you! Here’s a proof! Thanks!!
LikeLike
Amit Joki
June 3, 2016
Dear Karthick,
If you are reading this, you better be very very very talented to get this kind of review at just your third feature film.
I know what BR would have been through, throughout your film. He might have had many a mental and aesthatic masturbations in his head and it shows.
The way he has dissected, only few films have the honor to be have so many good things going for it, that BR turns becomes a curious kid watching something for the first time and anxiously describing it to his mom, breathlessly.
Here I can only imagine his discontent of having to have limited his keys presses though what he has already described is more than usual, and that sir, is your biggest achievement.
Finally, I knew you were a damn good director, having seen Pizza and Jigarthanda and Iraivi just strenthens the fact, for me and for people like me with similar interests.
I am only too curious to know what you would come up with Dhanush. Dhanush-KS combo better be up to the mark that BR writes a para or two more, each increasing para signifying your growth multifolds.
Sincerely,
Amit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
udhaysankar
June 3, 2016
C’mon brangan. You said in the Jigarthanda thread that we need to recognize the problems with the film with honesty to respect the ambitions of a honest filmmaker. I feel you haven’t done that here.
The film had lots of problems with writing. At first the tone was comical and serious. After the interval it goes all emotional on us with graceless twists that needn’t be there.
At first I thought their entire family was reasonably middle class with a slight tinge of aggression attached to Micheal and jagan. They seem too soft to commit a crime, let alone murder someone. The only plausibility for murder is if sj soorya looses his cool drunk and frustrated and does something. That doesn’t happen and Michael’s reason for committing murder is passed off with a single line( mandayila surrunu eriduchu.. That’s it??). Surely someone who has the guts to commit murder in a momentous decision should not be a lower-middle class man. He isn’t a hardcore gangster either.
Almost every character had their set of trajectory problems.
Kamlini Mukherjee’s fed up with her husband. She decides to go away from him. She even convinces herself to marry another guy. Yet, when sj Soorya comes up to her during the engagement she hugs him and says ‘you are the problem?’. Why did she hug him? . She doesn’t know for sure if he’s clean again.
Jagan’s character is extremely filmy and has dramatic changes in characters without the due information. Why did he feel bad that those women around him were being mistreated by men?. He just says that he does during a conversation. But, that’s not enough. For someone who tries to betray his close friend and yet have high principles or morale with respect to women, he is too complex to be explained within few dialogues or scenes. They have to be etched out.
And finally did the story need all the blood and gore?. At times it strives to maintain the authenticity wrt characters, yet the plot dynamics go in the opposite direction.
Sj Soorya has the best arc of all the characters. Yet, his is also problematic. One can understand why he wants to murder the producer. But, why did he have to murder Micheal. And that too when things were going good. The reason for his fury, that his brother was murder is strong. Yet that doesn’t warrant that he has it in him to commit a murder. The explanation was that males are instinctually and emotionally driven.
Almost every character in the movie should have a screentime of more than 1.5 hours for the story to work in the plot level.
But, I felt that his direction rescued the film from all the these problems. The Last time I realized that a simple scene of a guy drinking can be highly immersive was in dev-d. His use of slow-motion and choice of music have an obvious Tarantinoistic tinge. But, was that needed for the story in hand?. The filmmaking skill all but makes the story seem like it has more to it than it seems.
My ultimate say is that, though it is highly rewarding in a moment to moment basis, things fall apart when we look at the bigger picture. He is a terrific director, yeah. But his writing needs to improve and match his level of directorial prowess, for him to achieve his own ambitions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ragenikanth
June 3, 2016
wonderfully written piece
LikeLike
Jetlagged
June 3, 2016
Why do I get a selva raghavan in the making feel here?
LikeLike
Vikram s
June 3, 2016
BR, very expansive…if I may point out one small correction… It’s Santa (as in sant tukaram) Shishunala Sharif….not Shanta…
LikeLike
brangan
June 3, 2016
Vikram S: Thanks. 🙂
LikeLike
Raj
June 3, 2016
Can I read this review before watching the movie? Will it any way reveal sub plots or give away traits of the characters? Highly tempted to read but also very skeptical.. I was hoping to watch the movie without any information about the movie..Someone help please!!!
LikeLike
Amit Joki
June 3, 2016
Jetlagged: Selvaraghavan himself is still in the making, so that would be too fast a comparison.
LikeLiked by 1 person
apala
June 3, 2016
@Amit Joki: Yeah! Selva and Bala both started off with love stories and look where Bala went and where Selva got stuck (in love!). Maybe if the under-rated but brilliant “ayirathil oruvan” succeeded hugely, he would have moved to different Genre! Lost chance on our part, I guess!
LikeLike
NARENDIRAN S
June 4, 2016
He made a direct Rajini reference too..”sonna vaaka kaapathala na nama thalaivar fans ey illa”
LikeLike
chunder
June 4, 2016
You have to note that the “Raja Raja dhaan” line is uttered by SJ Suryah, who is an unapologetic Rahman fan
Also, SJ Suryah apologizing to Radha Ravi (who is infamously foul mouthed IRL) for uttering a cuss word was another meta tongue in cheek moment
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaga jaga
June 4, 2016
Contrary to everyone showering praises on it, I did not at all enjoy this director’s movie Pizza. The details in it were immaculate. But the bigger picture felt so contrived. So much contrived that it felt stupid. And hastily executed as if the director intentionally wanted to be smarter than his audience – that I felt was immature of the director.
Next I loved Jigarthanda. The so-called twist in it was significantly more organic than that in Pizza. I felt the director had indeed come of age. Both the details and the bigger picture aspects were brilliant.
Iraivi thus set the bar higher. But again while all the details in it are outstanding, the bigger picture is really shabbily depicted – I opine that the same thing has been pointed out by Bharadwaj Rangan, but for whatever reason he is sugercoating it. So much that it feels like all the criticism is totally hidden amidst a barrage of oh-you-are-a-blessing-to-tamil-cinema type fawning.
I wish the director in future stops obsessing about attempting to make movies whose ending nobody could guess. In this venture he creates so much of a farcical situation in his movies that the audience is utterly confused.
Now most people never appreciate what they understand. You present a confusing argument that sounds high-brow. They’ll buy it assuming it’s super intellectual and beyond them. This phenomenon explains the popularity of the director.
His movies Pizza and Iraivi are thus over-hyped and under-cooked.
I’ll present some more examples on top of what B. Rangan has pointed out in a subsequent post to make my case explicitly.
LikeLike
praneshp
June 4, 2016
@apala: True, but that movie deserved to fail, as did Irandam Ulagam.
LikeLike
aravindan
June 4, 2016
Braddy boy, is this your longest review after Kadal?. I love it when you are in love
LikeLiked by 1 person
doctorhari
June 4, 2016
Terrific review BR. Though I can appreciate the issues you have raised with the film, I’m also thanking god for not having the kind of analytical brain as yours. For my simple tastes, this movie was an awe-inspiring epic. And I needed that climax pronouncement by S. J. Surya too, as a kind of wrap up of the events before. (But yes, he could have stopped with the first line alone.)
LikeLike
balu
June 4, 2016
With karthik Subbaraj’s history of twists and his tweet yesterday about not to reveal the plots, around 2/3 of the movie I was hoping that Pooja and Anjali/Kamaline would (somehow) realize they are gay and the film would end sort of like first half of blue is the warmest color movie 🙂 Alas ! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
June 4, 2016
I was blown away by that wonderful Op – ed piece on Tanmay Bhat and even before I could get over its awesomeness you come up with this absolutely remarkable write – up! How do you do it BR? Respect!
As for Iraivi, it must be said that I came away impressed. I also agree that Karthik Subburaj is a better director than a writer. For instance it bothered me that Michael came to know the truth about Jagan from his partners in crime. How on earth would they know about his forbidden love when the guy prefers to confide only in his comatose mother? Sometimes he is so focused on the twist in the tale that he forgets to lavish the same attention on the finer points of the tale itself.
Even so it is easy to forgive the guy for lapses simply on account of the richness of his ideas, sheer guts and know-how he demonstrates while plying his craft. And let us not forget the superlative performances from the entire cast especially Vijay Sethupathi (I did not buy Siddharth’s metamorphosis in Jigarthanda whereas VS sold it here), Simha and Anjali.
Loved his treatment of the ladies from Vadivukarasi to Malar. Sheer poetry not to mention unbelievably ballsy! Not even Gautam Menon or Mani Ratnam have managed a similar feat over the course of their illustrious careers. If KS is so good when he is making mistakes can you imagine what it will be like when he finally gets down to make the ‘wholly satisfying’ films he is capable of making? I can’t wait!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dinesh Babu Naidu (@mdineshbabu)
June 4, 2016
Lol! We all know you were seeing “stubbing a cigarette into the wife’s bare bottom variety!” 😀
LikeLike
hikicha
June 4, 2016
MalarVizhi – I think the design was intentional. As the other two women, don’t get into the rain for fear of getting drenched, she is no different from them. She cannot get into a relationship, for fear of physically losing someone( although she longs for it which is evident when she cried) and hence she chooses to be wet with tears .
-MumbaiRamki
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 4, 2016
So many people ask me why I write such spoilerific reviews — in the sense that even if I don’t give away the ending and suchlike, I discuss details that you may want to discover for yourself.
So there are two things here:
A film’s release window is a few weeks. After that, the shorter reviews are useless. Most people have either seen the film or know about it. And then, only this kind of involved review is of use (at least to those who are intererested in cinema). Along with the discussion in the comments section.
I know i don’t have to explain this to the regulars here, but got quite a few messages yesterday about this and thought I’d put out a note.
LikeLiked by 8 people
Jaga_Jaga
June 4, 2016
Contrary to the lavish praises heaped on it, I found this director’s “Pizza” to be a mediocre movie. The details in it were immaculate. But the bigger picture was indeed very crappy. The so-called twist in it was so contrived that it was almost stupid. And, on top of it, with the objective that nobody should second guess the twist, the director very hastily executed the plot. Much was lost in this haste, and it somehow felt that a lot of immaturity was on display by the director, whose sole objective, it appeared was to somehow look smarter than his audience.
The same director’s Jigarthanda was a revelation. It was a much better piece of work than “Pizza”. The story flowed naturally, the twists were enjoyable, and everything seemed so organic. The coming-of-age of a superlative director. Or so I thought.
In Iravi, the director has gone back to his bad habits of artificially orchestrated twists, to the extent that they were unbelievable. As always, each scene on its own was crafted with aplomb. But the sum of it all was a totally wasted product. Leaving more questions, than answers in your mind. Utterly confusing, with stretched logic, which is for the most part largely unbelievable and inconsistent with the narration theme adopted by the director.
Typically, it is human tendency to take it lightly, and for granted whatever is made clear. But if you confuse them, a lot of people fall for it, and assume there must be something super-intellectual about the whole phenomenon. This in my opinion, explains most of the craze for this director. If somehow he would come out of his obsession to attempt to make movies whose plot can’t be second-guessed at all, he would be a much better director. Multi-layered narration is fine, non-linear sequences are fine, meta-references throughout the movies are also entirely fine; but what is not fine is intentionally introducing complexity just for the cheap feeling that, “aah see, you were never able to guess where this is going”.
BR does bring this point in his reviews. But all this criticism is lost in a barrage of oh-you’re-a-blessing-to-tamil-cinema type fawning. Wonder why BR wasn’t more direct in his review – which he is for the most part.
Overall, just like Pizza, Iraivi too, is vastly over-hyped and under–cooked.
LikeLiked by 2 people
babu
June 4, 2016
I think he put the windmill shot just to see what critics say in the reviews 😛 Like the painting comedy in the recent film ‘Thozha’ 😉
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
June 4, 2016
It’s like her trying to have another child while still pregnant with their daughter.
This line gives me an impression that KS is of the Ananthu/Rudhraiah mould!
On a related note, how do you compare Iraivi with Aval Appadithaan (in terms of their feminist themes)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 4, 2016
Haha 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
vikrammervyn
June 4, 2016
I loved your review… I think you should read mine right over here
LikeLike
Kay
June 4, 2016
I think the shots of windmills are shown to implicate that the scene is taking place in Kanyakumari!
LikeLike
Kay
June 4, 2016
BR, speaking of Bechdel test, came across this really cool article which analyses the gender parity in English movies. How do you think Indian movies would fare if subjected to a similar analysis?
http://polygraph.cool/films/
LikeLiked by 1 person
udhaysankar
June 4, 2016
Jaja Jaga: “But if you confuse them, a lot of people fall for it, and assume there must be something super-intellectual about the whole phenomenon. This in my opinion, explains most of the craze for this director.”
Lol. This would apply to nolan more than any other filmmaker. Edit two perfectly normal sequences in a non-linear method to induce tension, make the characters speak some exposition that the audience won’t understand, or worse make the characters speak some philosophical dialogues. Done. You have a legendary director with infinite number of internet fans deciphering every one of his frames and trying to find a hidden conceit in every scene.
LikeLike
Yuvaraj Jeyasankar
June 4, 2016
One more reference… SJ Suryah’s film was named ‘1705’ (MAY 17… reference to the Sri Lankan army atrocities against Tamils (esp. women). Also I think he wants to point out.. how a movie made with that theme can never get released here easily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amit Joki
June 4, 2016
Praneshp: Really? Irundaam Ulagam, yes. Aayirathil Oruvan? Seriously? That was some of the boldest films beautifully crafted too.
LikeLike
Dominic Yuvan
June 4, 2016
This letter is the reflection of a responsible critic… This film may not have been wholly satisfying.. but it it important that we appreciate the makers so that they keep making good movies.
LikeLike
nosinz
June 4, 2016
“I am sure that you will, one day, make that wholly satisfying film, but for now, thank you for these parts.”
thats exactly how i felt….
LikeLike
Karthick
June 4, 2016
Liked your ‘fans love letter to the creator’ review. It’s better to put it in this format when u are so engaged in the product and the creator. But why try to find easter eggs all the time? I know its fun but there could be a BGM song or props that may not have a connection (like in real life) to the characters or story. Also drawing parallels to other films characters, story, format…is a bit of stretch. The filmmaker does not want u to think of Aayitha ezhuthu when u are watching his movie. This is a movie and it works or doesnt work in its own space.
IMHO.
LikeLike
nosinz
June 4, 2016
puppets of a screenplay
LikeLike
SR
June 4, 2016
Some disjointed thoughts on the movie and your review, sir.
“…through Jagan, we get glimpses of his mother, and possibly of all womanhood as viewed by a compassionate man.”
But isn’t that the greatest violence of all, the zenith of the male gaze? He presumes to know what women need, and how he’s the saviour who would love all the abuse out of their system. That whole scene, with the silent mother figure, and the Messiah-male character who presumes that his act will equal wrongs, had a huge Psycho vibe for me. It would have been really interesting had his character intersected with Malarvizhi’s somewhere in the film.The whole fluffiness of the movie really came together for me at this point. These would-be liberation champions and ‘nice guys’, who assume that their love and attention is all that women need, are perhaps the worst of the lot. Astonishing to see this in a Tamil film, and for that I’ll give Karthik Subbaraj huge credit.
Also, in his list of female-relatives-who-were-oppressed, did his brother’s wife (Yazhini) feature? Or was that a pointed omission?
The suffering-wives-of-artistes trope could very well be a potshot at the film industry itself, where the tales of women married to fiery personalities are well documented.
What did you think of ‘Cheenu’ Mohan’s character and performance? I thought he held the movie together, almost as a narrator figure, and his performance, especially towards the end was terrific.
Also, most of the Ponni-Michael story was a play on the Kannagi plot, yes? The idols-lying-idle-in-forgotten-temples-but-worshipped-by-white-men-elsewhere line seemed too provocative, given the Kannagi background. Ponni then becomes Kannagi, but now wooed by another man in the absence of her husband’s care and attention. It’s still lust, it’s still the male gaze. Her desires don’t matter. She’s still a ‘pathini’, because like she says, that’s her fate, thalai-ezhuthu. In the light of this, her final stepping-out-in-the rain felt to that extent huge. She is not only throwing off the male gaze, but practically rewriting her own fate.
Btw, did we ever learn what happened to that two-headed Wayanad temple goddess idol?
Did you think there was an element of class difference in Ponni’s / Yazhini’s arcs towards the end? Ponni clearly belongs to a demographic that’s economically and socially marginalized (Christians from Kanyakumari). Yet she steps out into the rain, despite knowing that it would drench her. Yazhini doesn’t. I wonder why.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vivekanandan Saravanan
June 4, 2016
So I finally caught up with Iraivi, and I loved the film to the core.
I don’t know if it was just coincidence, but just last week I was in the mood for some Scorsese, and I caught up with some of his best works including Goodfellas.
Seeing Iraivi today, I had a feeling Karthik meant this film as an ode not just to KB and BM but to Scorsese as well. Of course I come equipped with artillery to back my statement 😛
The emotional quotient in Iraivi seemed inspired by Goodfellas in numerous ways.
Take for example how the story revolves around three eccentric men – Jagan, Micheal and Arul (Henry, Tommy and Jimmy) and how Tommy’s impulse (die bastard!!) is blended in all three characters; in fact it is this impulse which sets up the riveting second half. But these similarities are the ones which are noticeable on the surface, digging deeper it becomes obvious that the female characters have traits similar to that of Karen (Henry’s wife). The confusion and frustration that Scorsese beautifully portrayed with Karen’s arc is starkly visible in both Yazhini and Ponni. Moreover the leads in both films end up in jail and return to see their daughters all grown up. Heists in both films act as preambles for the madness that follows. In Goodfellas it was Jimmy’s insecurity which led to the decimation of his accomplices, and in Iraivi, it is Jagan’s ambition which sets up chaos which again leads to internal decimation. In both the films there is only one survivor (out of the three leads) at the end after the chaos ends, and they both end up in places they despise – Arul in jail, and Henry in a witness protection centre. (the addictions are also identical).
I wouldn’t have cared for all of these similarities had Karthik not used Martin’s font and animation in his trailer, but as a matter of fact he has!
So movie buffs in the comments section, and Mr.Rangan, please do clarify if these similarities are just too far fetched or have I made a discovery worth appreciation?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Joshua Michael
June 4, 2016
Hi BR,
As usual an outstanding review. Adding on to the accolades to KS, did anyone notice the photos that were hanging in the room Arul goes to show his gun to Malar? It had The Godfather, Seven Samurai amongst others. Clearly his inspirations.
On top of that, one of my personal favorite scenes had to be when Michael comes back to meet Ponni to ask whether she had slept with Jagan – just when she was about to burst out in an emotion, it rains and she runs out to take the clothes that were hanging. Proving the point of women taking decisions after rationalising (something Arul preaches at the end)
I also loved the scene where Arul curses infront of Radha Ravi (of all people) and apologizes. The cheekyness of someone apologizing to someone who is known for cursing. Brilliant KS.
And Karthik is possibly the only young director that can preach about “Un padam pesanum, Nee pessa kodathe” and still getaway with it. Such is his credentials.
LikeLike
Sri
June 4, 2016
Another reference that no one else seems to have pointed out. Arul was listening to a song from Inside Llewyn Davis while on the bathtub, which is another movie about the struggles faced by an egoistic, self-centered bastard with little regards for the woman in his life, in the field of arts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ramchander Krishna (@ramctheatheist)
June 4, 2016
Hi Rangan! I’m surprised by the coincidence that I was thinking of starting my Iraivi review too with a “Dear Karthik Subbaraj” 🙂 Now thanks to you I had to write it a different way.
I like your reviews for that aspect. Writing a review after reading yours is like being an assistant to Sherlock Holmes. When presented with a crime scene, Holmes enters with a swish of his coat and gives you a complete summary of everything without missing a detail and without batting an eyelid. And then I have to scratch my head with a pencil, holding a small notepad in my other hand, and then really think hard to come up with something that Holmes might have missed. I simply love doing that exercise!
And so in my review I’ve talked about how Karthik Subbaraj too has an addiction similar to SJ Suryah’s Arul in Iraivi and how Iraivi fails to achieve what it sets out to do.
LikeLike
brangan
June 4, 2016
(1) I don’t know why this has come across as a love letter. I thought it was just a letter.
(2) A long review doesn’t automatically equate to “great movie.” It just means the film has give me a lot to chew on, think about. I think my last para pretty much says what I feel about this film, that I am fighting with myself over its great parts and its okay parts and haven’t yet nailed a solid decision.
(3) Like regular readers of this blog know, I love films that reach for the sky and then fail on some levels — I prefer these films to small, timid films that succeed on limited terms.
(4) I genuinely feel this is a better movie than Jigarthanda, though the latter is more “entertaining.” The direction is so much better, the camerawork too.
(5) Not saying something in the same kind of tone as what you expect is not the same as sugar-coating. The parts of the film that I love are more than the parts that did not work (eg. the convoluted Karaunakaran bits, the AA guru similar to the acting guru in Jigarthanda) — hence the positive tone of the review.
“But then, even in Jigarthanda, I wasn’t quite convinced that the characters would do the things they did. They seemed to be puppets of a screenplay rather than credible human beings, whose actions evolve organically from who they are (or at least, who they seem to be).”
Doesn’t sound like sugarcoating to me.
(6) Iraivi and Aval Appadithan = apples and oranges.
(7) Thanks for the 1705 clarification. Didn’t know SJ Surya had something like that in mind.
(8) “The filmmaker does not want u to think of Aayitha ezhuthu when u are watching his movie.”
Did the filmmaker tell you this? 🙂
(9) Regarding “zenith of the male gaze,” I don’t know if we should be using traditional gender-studies concepts like “male gaze” wrt to this film (though I realise that any film can be read in any fashion, using tools from any discipline). Within the constraints of mainstream Tamil cinema, KS has made a feminist film. He’s made the audience and the market believe that it’s the story of 3 heroes, and slowly pulled the rug from under everyone’s feet by handing over the ending to the women. Would Germaine Greer call this a feminist film? Probably not. But I would, given the traditional Tamil model of the K Balachandar kind of “feminism,” where he casts females and makes us think we’re watching a “feminist” film and then rubs his hands in glee as he pushes these women off a cliff.
(10) I did think of the Kannagi outline, especially given that (1) Bobby Simha brings up Kannagi, and (2) Madhavi/Malarvizhi “renounces” Kovalan/Michael and become almost nun-like after separating from him (the strange men turns out to be a computer repair man). But with Kannagi/Ponni, the difference in the ending was too startling — she was literally reimagined. But yes, the film can be read as a what-if take on her story, as Ramchander Krishna has done in detail below.
“And the ending with Anjali’s outstretched hand, is similar once again to Kannagi’s outstretched hand with the anklet.” – is a brilliant reading.
(11) “just when she was about to burst out in an emotion, it rains and she runs out to take the clothes that were hanging. Proving the point of women taking decisions after rationalising”
I thought this showed how wedded she was to housework even in this heated a situation, how “programmed” she’d become thanks to patriarchal notions of “women’s work”
(12) Enjoyed the Scorsese reading 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
June 4, 2016
did anyone notice the photos that were hanging in the room Arul goes to show his gun to Malar? It had The Godfather, Seven Samurai amongst others. Clearly his inspirations.*
Yeah and there were posters of scarface and pyaasa too. scarface and godfather was cited in Jigarthanda also – in the scene where the producer throws the dvds at sidharth to watch them to learn how to make gangster movies. i would say that the introduction scene of Arul is very similar to Pacino’s introduction in Scarface where he is sitting and talking with people around him and the camera keeps revolving around him
Another reference is where we see Arul is being consoled by his wife and the shot is framed within a poster of pyaasa – the story of another drunken defeated artist
LikeLike
Krish
June 4, 2016
Karthik Subbaraj seems to have an opinion on several things and is not afraid to show it in his movie. And to make it reach to a wider audience he always pseudo-naturally infuses artificial elements (for eg, songs, so-called humor, karunakaran’s role in this movie). For me Iraivi is a solid and great 1.5 hour movie after cutting the crap.
Speaking from commercial point of view these seem necessary as well to get back the money. I wish he choses the so-called European style art-film/festival film as the next genre he wishes to explore. Would love to see a solid, less than 2-crore-budget-film exclusively keeping film festivals in mind from Karthik Subburaj. Would be great to see his take on that genre.
LikeLike
udhaysankar
June 4, 2016
Regarding the film being feminist : was it really?. Kamlini’s character is note able to completely let go of arul and the reason for it is because she loves him, after all that he had made him go through.
Anjali’s character too has a similar relationship with Micheal and is able to let go of him only after his death.
But, pooja’s character is far more feminist than both the above. She has the guts to say that she just wanted Micheal for sex and nothing else. That she doesn’t have any feelings towards him. She does all this without fearing the hostility from the traditional kannagi-worshipping society around her. Now, that’s a bold feminist character. But, she doesn’t have any more space.
But, I loved the fact that all the women in the film are independent. They could chose easily to live without their spouses, except that they chose not to do so, till the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 4, 2016
udhaysankar: Feminism is not necessarily something extreme and fiery — like advocacy or bra-burning. It can even be something muted, like questioning (and bringing to fore) inequalities, prescribed gender roles, etc.
LikeLiked by 3 people
MANK
June 4, 2016
Brangan, wholeheartedly agreed with points 1,2 and 3 of your comment. yes this a very ambitious, complex film . yes its always great to have an ambitious film that aims high and falls short rather than a film with limited ambitions. and i dont know honestly whether this is good film or a bad film.there is a great deal of cinematic craftsmanship on display and great things to chew on as you said. but one thing i can say right off the bat is that i did not enjoy it as much as jigarthnda, which means that its not very entertaining and that posed a big problem in watching this film. As you said , the characters in jigarthanda was also puppets of screenplay rather than possessing consistent behavior patterns., but the fact that the film was so entertaining brushed aside much of the those problems, when one is watching the film at least, but it definitely affected my viewing experience here.much of the problems has already been pointed out by Udhayashankar and Ramachander Krishna and i dont want tot repeat them. just say that the inconsistencies in the characterization rankles, the development of the plot of and the unevenness of the tone distracts the hell out of the movie. i returned very disappointed from the film . i am still a great fan of KS. his filmmaking is still of a high caliber , i am just a disappointed fan thats all. i expected KS to make a masterpiece after JT, unfortunately this wasn’t it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 4, 2016
Oh, the other kinda-sorta Kannagi connection. Kovalan/Michael ends up in jail… rather, ends up arrested. Though this time with a trial 😀
And MANK, I suspect this will outlive Jigarthanda. It’s much more densely packed and will reward repeated viewings, unlike Pizza or Jigarthanda.
LikeLike
Krish
June 5, 2016
The 1705 movie is clearly about the tamil-srilankans situation. Kali Venkat mentions about this in the bar as well – something like will be serupadi to all who do politics in the name of tamil unarchi etc…Also there is a dialogue in Jigarthanda – Nan cover panradhu arasiyal and eelam; Rendum onu dhan. Both kind of same I guess.
Also, its funny that SJ Suriya refers to his father-in-law as ara-mandayan. That charater is Karthik Subbaraj’s real life father 🙂 Also Kamalini’s friend is Karthik’s wife in real-life, if I am not wrong.
LikeLike
Varun
June 5, 2016
This is a pretty outdated movie that boasts itself speaking about feminity..Its not a matured attempt at all by the director but the writing and execution is Ok. and why i say that? I read most of them saying that they never know where the movie is heading..But going from the title of the movie and promotions, I pretty much know where it all goes and the director did not dissappoint. Why Michael goes to Jail? Why Jagan loves Ponni? Why Michael hits Jagan? Why Arul (Spoiler) Michael? All leads to one thing..Ponni embraces Freedom and Some character should Point fingers at men..and say..”You dont need men(more accurately “Ivanunge”) for happiness”..So What If Someone take a movie named “Iraivan” and have a Role reversals in the story and in the end can a woman say “You dont need “ivalunge” for happiness” Then it will be seen anti-feminism. I am not understating the problem women face..I am just against amateurish and immatured Take on this sensitive subject…Each era has its own issues and as time moves, the society and the people in it faces new problems and challenges. The woman of todays Age faces different set of problems and Iraivi does not even comes close to looking at those. Personally, the movie “Marupadiyum” was a honest, matured and genuine attempt than this and I really do miss genuine flim makers Like Balu Mahendra now and how honest they were in their attempts
LikeLiked by 4 people
balu
June 5, 2016
I am surprised people are praising SJS so much and forgot about VJS. I guess VJS emoted the feeling of guilt perfectly in a long time in tamil cinema. Also, I wonder why Karthik subburaj CID Rita some much (used in both Jigarthanda and Iraivi) 😛
LikeLike
pranesh
June 5, 2016
I guess Karthik Subbaraj anticipated some may feel the movie is lengthy and kept the fight scene where Vijay Sethupathi asks the gang leader to wait for 30-minutes before having the face-off 🙂 And finally, Vijay Sethupathi and their group come after 1 hour and then there is a song as well 🙂 This was probably indication that movie is going to be a bit lengthy and there are going to be songs 🙂
LikeLike
Krishna
June 5, 2016
Fitting write up about a deserving movie.
I just loved this movie. It is many years since Aval Appadithan that a movie makes you think about feminism in the manner it did. There are so many scenes that have been thought out well and executed. There is simply too much depth.
Vijay Sethupathi walks out of jail and expects his wife and child to be present. This is a typical male attitude to assume that his wife and children are his property and right. What did he do to deserve them? This is precisely the crux of Anjali & Simha mini-plot.
It is my belief that good movies fall into two broad categories.
One with great screenplay, smooth presentation gliding over the movie and a having some good scenes to remember.
The second variety is actually producing a brilliant string necklace by putting together gem beads. This movie belongs to the second variety. So many scenes have been strung together. Some may find it a bit loose like any string necklace. It is definitely one’s own perspective that defines whether the necklace fit well and also looked good.
LikeLike
Bharath Vijayakumar
June 5, 2016
How is Yazhini able to go ahead with second marriage plans without getting a divorce? Or is it like the engagement would go on and then before marriage she assumes she would be granted divorce?
LikeLike
guru
June 5, 2016
One thing i realized after watching the movie, “thaevidiya” is a “kaarana peyar”. “Thaevai + udayaval”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaga_Jaga
June 5, 2016
Everythong, I mean everything else can wait. I need to ask this to “Guru”. Isn’t Tevadiya, Tevar adiyaval? And not tevai udayaval??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Guru
June 5, 2016
I don’t know.. i just felt it when seeing the scene, where VS’s chithapa talks, to malar, and says, “Un thevai ku”, and gives a stress on “thevai”.. 😀 my interpretation..
LikeLike
Jaga_Jaga
June 5, 2016
@Guru – Aah! Got it. Most likely Tamil grammar however doesn’t agree with your interpretation. Tevar (not the caste), but as used in old tamil refers to “ungal” in modern tamil. “adiyaal” means”pani puriyum pen”. So tevar + adiyaal = Tevdiyaal in pure tamizh = tevidya in the slang. In fact, Tevai + Udayaal = Tevaiudayaal, not Tevdiyaal.
Someone from the family of Tolkaapiar (or even otherwise with a good grasp of Tamizh grammar) can please correct me if I am wrong.
@Udayashankar – Your point about Nolan making a mountain out of a molehill, reminds of how some IIT JEE Math problems were set.
For instance, take the case where the LHS = some very crappy and difficult expression. RHS = 2. Simple and elegant. And the question would be to prove that LHS = RHS. Conventionally we are trained to start from the LHS, do stuff, then equate it to RHS, to finally write LHS=RHS, hence proved.
But the perverted question-maker would have started with 2, written two as a complicated expression, manipulate that further, and so on, to eventually get to the expression given in LHS. In other words, if you start with RHS, and using some intuition get to the expression at LHS, i.e, prove that RHS=LHS, you can easily solve the problem. But the conventional approach of starting with LHS will make sure, you’ll end up splitting your hair (if you have some that is, else you might want to pluck someone else’s!).
This is the same trick these so-called esoteric film-makers employ to make us feel like “aah god, what a stud(or studette) he/she is”! When in reality they’re just toying with us, just because they’re the makers and we mere poor watchers
@BRangan – Fair point about sugarcoating. And writing it in the tone you feel. However, I feel that you’re so much more direct in your criticism of some movies over others. And herein (maybe because you genuinely like it) I contend that your criticisms are pretty veiled. For example, every sentence harping about some element missing in the movie is always compensated by two/three sentences (unjustifiably – in my opinion) praising how good a movie this is (which is not in my opinion – more so after seeing it twice!).
LikeLike
Amit Joki
June 5, 2016
I just love comments. Where else can I see one discussing the etymology of Thevidiya (aka Thaevidiya), in a thread relating mostly to feminism. Ironical haha 😀
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
June 5, 2016
Meanwhile Charu Nivedita thinks “Anjali (who marries Sethupathy) is modelled on Damayanti, or Nalayani.”
http://newsable.asianetnews.tv/home-page/iraivi-charu-nivedita-review
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lokesh
June 5, 2016
Big fan of your writing … long time lurker … just a quick observation worth mentioning ….
Towards the end of the movie, the city-bred, IT employed, reasonably sophisticated Yazhini chose not to get drenched in the rain and advises thus to her daughter too .. on the other hand, the village raised, simple minded, homemaker (I assume) Ponni decides to go out in the rain with her daughter. Fine touch by KS, I thought.
LikeLike
Prem
June 5, 2016
Kuppa Padam $#@!
LikeLike
udhaysankar
June 5, 2016
Jaga Jaga: You are right with respect to the origins of the word Thevadiya. Regarding JEE, please don’t talk any further. Preparing for that and giving it are one of the most traumatic experiences of my life.
LikeLike
praneshp
June 6, 2016
@amit joki: you are not allowed to use/hear words like that yet. But you can in a year or so when you are 18.
About why I dislike Aayirathil Oruvan, despite some fantastic scenes/concepts: It failed to hold me for 3 hours. It had many typical Selva meanderings, and they aren’t as good as Karthik Subburaj’s. My fault to put it in the same bucket as Irandam Ulagam, which was utter trash.
@brangan: I’m surprised you liked the songs. I felt they were terrible and could’ve just been cut out (except the Christian wedding song and the Bhang song, I guessed Michael was going to die from the lyrics. It said something like “The cost of your sins is death”.)
Pretty sure Michael killing the producer is what Karthik wants to do to the Jigarthanda producer.
Also, my reading of the end was that Yazhini chose to get married again. Despite saying “I don’t want to be a template” at the beginning, she does end up being one? Ponni says she wants to be married, etc, but she’s the one that gets drenched.
LikeLike
praneshp
June 6, 2016
@amit joki: s/dislike/think-it-deserved-to-fail/
LikeLike
Maru
June 6, 2016
Wonderful review, brangan. There’s so much here to appreciate although I’m not sure how this is a feminist film — or at least anymore a feminist film than KB’s films were. To my mind it was right out of the KB mold; in fact at least one of KB’s women-centric films I wager would pass the Bechdel Test. 😉 That the film ended with the stories of the women hardly seems to prove the point. If anything the question of whether the women ought to go all-in into the downpour book-ended the film. The “twist” if one can call it that was that the film started out giving us the impression that Yazhini was the agentic one while Ponni seemed resigned to her fate whereas it ended with Ponni reaching out to be drenched while Yazhini with her social and economic advantages held back. I don’t know that Subbaraj was making a larger point here but it made for an interesting set of scenes.
I’ll confess that I am a little confused about what exactly is being defined as feminist – to women like me it’s simply that women are looking for an equal playing field, the ability to make unfettered choices (good or bad) just as men seem to do – NOT to be put on pedestal, not to be held up as goddesses and certainly not to be portrayed as the “superior” sex ( stronger, more patient, more tolerant, wiser and such like). That in fact would be a trap, the moment deification begins or when it is a matter of something encoded in our DNA then all of the structural issues (usually defined by men) that hold women back get washed away. From that standpoint I’m not sure this film is feminist at all although it certainly is sympathetic to women, apologetic about their plight, seems to want to make reparation, exhorts them to rise and shine. The last expository speech by Arul and the anthemic song bringing up the end certainly point to that. I wish the film had ended without the dialog that men will be men because unlike women they don’t know better or the one that has Arul falling on his sword to release Yazhini from his clutches (although it’s not clear that he does in fact succeed). In the end it’s not clear that any of the women have agency, except perhaps for Malar but even she had to fall on her sword to release from Michael from her clutches. I was disappointed by that, couldn’t even one female character have been uncompromising in character – or is that simply not in the female DNA? eye roll
Fortunately for me, I went into the movie cold – or at least only as someone who enjoyed Subbaraj’s films and hence was excited about his next. I enjoyed the film very much – it was much less gimmicky, much deeper in its character explorations, and far more complex than Jigarthanda – and I liked Jigarthanda a lot! I certainly didn’t think of it as a feminist film and as the tale unfolded the hat tip to KB, Mahendran and Balu Mahendra made sense. I thought it worked for a lot of reasons outlined in Brangan’s review but none of them had to do with feminism. 😀 Needless to say, I’m looking forward to Subbaraj’s next.
@Ramchander Krishna: Terrific superimposition of kannagi’s story in this contemporary narrative. Given that Subbaraj explicitly encourages that imagination, your version of it was neat!
LikeLiked by 13 people
Rahini David
June 6, 2016
Maru: in fact at least one of KB’s women-centric films I wager would pass the Bechdel Test.
You can wager higher than that. They do.
However, I never understood why Bechdel Test is considered so important. Sure I could do with a little bit of named female characters who talk to each other apart from about men, but this has become so restrictive, IMO.
BR: People consider this a love letter as there are only 3 types of letters these days. Love Letters, Leave Letters and Petitions. BTW, how is it that you haven’t been asked to interview Karthik yet? I would have thought that both the paper and the director himself would have thought of it as a good idea.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Aditya (Gradwolf)
June 6, 2016
Why the older/newer comments segregation? Too many clicks.
LikeLike
brangan
June 6, 2016
SPOILERS AHEAD
To just take a random definition of feminism (here’s one from Wikipedia): “Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women.”
For me, as a Tamil film viewer, the fact that a story is about men but ends more concerned about the women is some sort of feminism. There’s “equality” in their presence in the story — if not equality in terms of screen time, then certainly in terms of them driving a lot of the story.
And consider this:
The man who loved his wife but loved his art more — he ends up in jail.
The man who convinced himself to “accept” his wife only after his fuck-buddy kicked him in the balls — he ends up dead.
Best of all, the man who thought he was emancipating women, who took upon himself to be their liberator — he ends up dead.
Who survives?
The woman who no longer needs to be confused whether or not to live with the artist.
The woman who only wants men for sex, not love.
The woman who’s free to go make her own life, one which may or may not have another man — the only certainty is that it has another woman, her daughter.
So given the constraints of mainstream Tamil cinema, this feels feminist to me.
And yes, I agree with Rahini. The Bechdel test has become some sort of RULE. I don’t see why it always has to be applied as a benchmark.
LikeLiked by 9 people
MANK
June 6, 2016
Rahini, i feel the same about Bechdel test. the intentions of the concept are pretty noble the test is needed to highlight when women are reduced to stereotypes or don’t feature at all.but i have a problem with making it sole criteria for judging the equality of female characters in a film or rather the quality of film itself . take a film like Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero dark thirty, it is a film directed by a women and starring a women as the lead protagonist. you wont get better than this for women in current hollywood. but all they do throughout the film is talk about a man – in this case Bin Laden no less. so by bechdel test standards the film would be considered a failure.And Oh yes KB’s films will pass the bechdel test with flying colors for sure.
i am quite surprised that Brangan considers this a feminist film superior to the ones made by KB.how about Avargal,Achamillai Achamillai, hell even sindhu bhairavi. i didnt find the characterization of any of the female characters in this film superior or equal to the ones by KB.May be the characterization of ponni.her character follows an interesting arc. . the most interesting female character was of Malar, but KS has no interest in developing her character he merely uses her as window dressing to the would be feminist epic he seems to be making. the moment she splits with Michael , she seems to fall in to a sexless state .
LikeLiked by 4 people
blurb
June 6, 2016
In my very humble opinion, the youtube link about bechdel test is mistaken. The logic of the test seems misunderstood.
The BECHDEL TEST requires ATLEAST ONE scene satisfying conditions 1, 2 and 3 (look up Wikipedia). Or even on bechdeltest.com. In fact, there are several examples cited on the site… movies where women talk about men quite heavily. There just needs to be ONE scene where they don’t.
What the youtube link does is give an examples of a few scenes that DOESN’T satisfy 1, 2 and 3. It’s still inconclusive from the youtube link.
I think that’s why the test is important. It asks just for ONE scene where they don’t talk about men. That’s being generous.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bharathi
June 6, 2016
For the mentioned Raja Sir part heres my pov,
By the way, which is that nightclub which plays Maanguyile poonguyile? Do let us know.
Why not? Here in Bangalore many pubs play kannada songs…going by song nature..still many slow melody songs are played in many pubs for dancing / partying
When the Bobby Simha character in Jigarthanda said he was a Shankar-Ganesh fan, it appeared that you were mocking the endless Ilayaraja nods in Tamil cinema..
Yes I also had such a though…he could have mentioned as ARR fan instead that would have been more apt..even the song came in 80s (I guess actor siddharth had a little role in this particular script) ..
The man sj surya whose earlier movie Isai seemed to be a direct inspiration story sort of IR-ARR concept now has to say Raaja Raajathan from his own mouth…that simply stamps the only musical king is Raja
LikeLike
blurb
June 6, 2016
SEX AND THE CITY, the movie, passes the BECHDEL TEST.
http://bechdeltest.com/view/747/sex_and_the_city/
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
June 6, 2016
Jaga_Jaga: It’s ‘Devar Adigalar’ (lit. God’s servant) – the Sanskrit equivalent is Devadasi. ‘Adiyaal’ is the colloquial equivalent of henchman I suppose. 🙂
LikeLike
Maru
June 6, 2016
Hmmm…. Brangan, when you use feminism so specifically in the context of Tamil Cinema it’s hard to argue broadly so I’ll let that bit pass.
As for the rest, sure – bad things happen to the men who make bad choices (including devaluing and mistreating their women) and the women are the last ones standing despite having lost the loves of their lives. BTW, whatever the narrative he uses to justify his actions, Jagan was never an emancipator of women. He came off as creepy, obsessed and in lust with Ponni, she never got a choice in her so called “liberation”. Wasn’t that the famed Subbaraj twist? Anyway, the point is the women didn’t get to where they did independent of the actions of the men controlling their fates and it wasn’t clear to me at the end that would change in the future. That doesn’t seem feminist to me – deliverance depends on karma, no Kannagi finish this. If the argument is that is the best that Tamil mainstream cinema can do, I have no place to go with this. 😀
My Bechdel Test ref was tongue in cheek as I assumed was the video you posted Brangan.
@Rahini: I agree the Bechdel Test is overused but as long as it isn’t the only metric it can be useful to assess the centrality of women in a story
LikeLiked by 5 people
arunpjr
June 6, 2016
Expect the plot twist which i felt fell flat. loved the movie. Especially S.J surya and of course Karthik Suburaj subtexts spread throughout the movie. How Yazhilini and Ponni introductions where through the dialogues it feels as if Yazhilini is the ideal feminist while ponni isn’t and how towards the end its actually reversed.
Loved your review by the way. Takes some serious writing to have such a long review and also make it interesting. Cheers1
LikeLike
Ram
June 6, 2016
//Which is why I winced at the melodramatic lines about men and women, most of which came towards the end. Aan, using the long-sounding vowel, versus penn, with the shorter one – for such a visual filmmaker (this is another outstandingly shot film, less showy than Jigarthanda and probably richer for that), do you really need the crutch of linguistic special effects from another era of filmmaking? Also, when the rest of your film is so allusive, isn’t there another way you can explain the twist without having a character resort to such an inelegant information dump?//
On the contrary, above snippet nailed it for me. The way SJ Surya deliver those dialogues added a soft but gruesome blow.
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 6, 2016
blurb: Can you point out a scene where the movie does pass the test? I haven’t watched and am just curious. And SATC will pass the test in every single episode. After all, they have plenty of discussions about shoes.
Maru: As long as it isn’t the only metric it can be useful to assess the centrality of women in a story
But having a metric itself is restrictive, no? And I am not saying that you are judging this movie based on the test. There seems to be a trend to judge movies based on this test. I do think it is rather illuminating to realise that most movies do not. Take any Rom-Com you enjoy. Seems to be about two people, a man and a woman. But whereas the man seems to have named friends who say “Machi, open the bottle”, we have nameless female friends who never go beyong saying “Avan unna thaan paakuraan di”.
But targeting individual movies (rather than the industry) does seem unfair. Usually.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Nitin Sundar (@knittins)
June 6, 2016
My goodness.. What a terrible review that Niveditha has written!
LikeLiked by 1 person
dpacsaml
June 6, 2016
Not sure if somebody pointed this out, but the song that plays in the background when S.J Surya is drinking in his bathtub at home, is ‘500 Miles from Home’.
Interesting choice of song I thought. This film deserves multiple viewings. There’s just so much to take in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ram
June 6, 2016
@NitinSunda – Yes, I haven’t read his books. Thankfully. Going by his Iraivi review, I think he must be equally bad like his review.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Siva
June 6, 2016
First of all my salute to BR on one of the best written reviews. Not sure how this man is able to capture so many details in a single watch of such a complex movie like IRAIVI. Coming to the movie. Fantabulous. Karthik Subbaraj the Legend has arrived n established. What a movie. Standing ovation at Mayajaal after the show yesterday evening. Stupendous story telling, fantabulous performances from lead cast. What you get is a captivating cinema like iraivi. Sjs n vijay Seth rocked. Anjali was brilliant.
LikeLike
hikicha
June 6, 2016
Excellent conversations !
@udhayshankar
“That doesn’t happen and Michael’s reason for committing murder is passed off with a single line( mandayila surrunu eriduchu.. That’s it??)”
—-Same reason why after a love failure , Kamal Hassan goes in for revenge in Aboorva Sagothargal . Mind has the habit of transposing, re-purposing anger and that’s perfectly logical .
“”Yet, when sj Soorya comes up to her during the engagement she hugs him and says ‘you are the problem?’. Why did she hug him?”
—Because she is still the lady who prefers to stay indoors than get drenched. The existing marriage is the ‘indoor’ here .
@SR
“But isn’t that the greatest violence of all, the zenith of the male gaze?.He presumes to know what women need, and how he’s the saviour who would love all the abuse out of their system. That whole scene, with the silent mother figure…
“
Ah , Enna oru observation. Brilliant , Im Stunned 🙂
“Also, most of the Ponni-Michael story was a play on the Kannagi plot, yes?”
I think holistically yes – Kannagi burns the city – and something happens to both the men who try to cheat women ( Producer , Michael) . Producer – If the film was Sj suryah’s baby , then ‘producer’ is the male . But @ramctheatheist had a better view 🙂
@ramctheatheist – Excellent Write up – Whats ur tumblr link?
( And why the stereotype that serious movie reviewers should be atheists ? Just Kidding bro)
LikeLiked by 1 person
blurb
June 6, 2016
Rahini David: Havent seen it either.
The contention was for having come to a “verdict” from a small set of released clippings. The youtube video’s not sufficient.
LikeLike
Amit Joki
June 6, 2016
Praneshp: Whoa I never intended to use it neither did I. I will take it in the right sense, but really whats with this, its okay if you use it over 18 years of age and not if you are below?
I know its a derogatory word and none should be using it ideally or has the constitution amended a new draft for freedom of expression/speech?
And this comment, I see, in the wake of 89 cuts advised by the CBFC to Udta Punjab.
But yeah, I won’t be using it even after I am 18+
But sometimes I do regret of having lost my online anonymous virginity by having made myself come out.
Regarding your second comment with several / bars being used, I didn’t get that one.
Yes my problem was with you calling it utter trash but now that you have clarified cheers!
LikeLike
Amit Joki
June 6, 2016
And yeah, Karthick Subbaraj has got red card from the Producers Council as they allege that he has portrayed them in bad light.
Talk about freedom of expression. Ah wait, lets not talk for heck’s sake cause big boys will clamp us down otherwise.
LikeLike
udhaysankar
June 7, 2016
BR: ‘The man who loved his wife but loved his art more — he ends up in jail.
The man who convinced himself to “accept” his wife only after his fuck-buddy kicked him in the balls — he ends up dead.
Best of all, the man who thought he was emancipating women, who took upon himself to be their liberator — he ends up dead’
Arul does end up in jail. But the role of his wife having any part in his self-destruction is nil. The same would have happened if he had been single.
Micheal ends up in jail and is dead. That again has nothing to do with anjali’s character. He gets jailed and ends up being dead, because of his ‘heat of the moment’ decisions’. It wouldn’t have made a difference if he had been single and unmarried, cause he never listens to his wife.
So, both their ends are predetermined irrespective of the women or men around them.
But, in the receiving end of all this negativity aren’t just women. Radha Ravi,chitappa of micheal suffer too.
Micheal’s life could have been saved if he had listened to his chitappa. Arul could have avoided jail if he had listened to chittappa. Both these men don’t mind if their actions affect their closed ones irrespective of their gender.
All the characters around those three men get to live irrespective of their gender.
How is it a feminist film based on these counts?
Hypthetically, if these men had a brother like figure respectively who function the same roles of their wives, will the movie be called a feminist one then?.
How come the mere presence of three women and more than average screen-time given to them make a movie feminist??
LikeLike
praneshp
June 7, 2016
@Amit Joki: Heh, I was just joking. There is nothing more effective than a few Tamil cuss words to let off steam. Swearing in English has never had the same effect for me.
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 7, 2016
blurb: True, The BECHDEL TEST requires ATLEAST ONE scene satisfying conditions and this movie does not have even one scene. That is what the video is highlighting. I am pretty sure that the person who made that youtube video applied the rule properly after watching the movie. If not, I am sure at least one commenter would have pointed out the scene where the movie passes the test.
LikeLike
hari ohm
June 7, 2016
Agree with Udhayashankar. Not sure why this movie is called as a feminist movie.
I was put off by dialogues in the movie which wanted to emphasize that it is a feminist movie, I didn’t buy it.
To me it is a very well made movie about three guys who do stuff without considering about the impact that their actions will cause to their near and dear ones.
LikeLike
Amit Joki
June 7, 2016
PRaneshp: aaargh please do let me know when you are joking from next time haha.
But still censorship is disgusting. Udta Punjab could have been taken with Vijay and would have got U certificate in Tamilnadu though. But instead of viewing the film in awe when Shahid acts like a maniac, I would have broken into a laughter and that would be too heavy a risk Anurag would take I guess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sachita
June 7, 2016
I havent watched the movie. I loved Jigarthanda on multiple viewings.
But something about this review and comments space makes me not to watch it. Not sure if KB’s 70s movie was a true reflection but when people are referring to it for a movie made in 2016, it is super scary.
The following sort of confirms my fears about the movie.
http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/iraivi-film-about-women-who-bear-everything-and-put-anything-44493
LikeLiked by 1 person
hari
June 8, 2016
I see many talking about ‘twist’ and how they din like. I guess that’s because there is no twist at all. Is it the mistake of a film-maker that the audience come in with a preconceived notion and get disappointed ?? 🙂
ps – I am not supporting the film in anyway. Just found this whole twist-no-twist thing funny !
LikeLike
Harish S
June 8, 2016
@hariom & @udhay: I agree with you two. this shouldn’t be narrowed down to a feminist movie – I would have preferred this to be a cause & effect type film. But then we are still in India and Indian women are known to be more patient – so we can’t run away from the gender defining attributes even if want to. But as BR states the forced dialogues kind of ruins the unclassified nature of the film into what it is known to be now.
LikeLike
udhaysankar
June 8, 2016
Regarding that “mazhaila ninaylaama” scene, did it signify that women want to let go of the husbands who don’t deserve them, yet they don’t want to as in the reluctance to make themselves wet. What does it signify anologically? . I could understand Iraivi questions the traditional kannagai type of behavior expected by men with women, but very few scenes are dedicated to anjali trying to be the anti-kannagi that karthik wants her to be.
LikeLike
udhaysankar
June 8, 2016
And why did pooja’s character cry when Micheal left her house that night?. If he was just an guy she had sex with, she shouldn’t have cried.
LikeLike
Harish S
June 8, 2016
@udhay: Pooja crying is equivalent to Jessie crying IMO. Both severely doing disservice to the character. Yet I can understand why both makers wanted to have it. They want to underline for the less-interested audience that there is some amount of confusion in the mind.
LikeLike
brangan
June 8, 2016
udhaysankar: If he was just an guy she had sex with, she shouldn’t have cried.
I’m assuming you are very young? 🙂
Relationships and emotions are very complex, contradictory things. You may formulate something in your head as “friends with benefits and nothing else.” You may even keep repeating this to your partner (but more for your own sake, so that YOU don’t forget this.) But this doesn’t mean the heart is going to follow the same rules.
When Michael leaves, she knows she’s never going to see him again. It’s highly probable that one would feel sad at such a time.
So too the Kamalini character. She may have hated being with Arul. She may have thought she wanted to move on. But the sheer relief she experienced when Arul walked in during her engagement is another wonderful complex/contradictory emotion, the kind you get in novels but rarely in cinema.
Both Pooja and Kamalini have two options — the known devil or an unknown future. Some emotion towards the former is entirely in place.
LikeLiked by 15 people
SivaM
June 9, 2016
@BR, awesome review. It seems karthik had given so much to chew on for you. I restricted myself from reading your review till I watch the film because I wanted to watch the film without knowing the plot or the characters. At last, I got a chance to watch the movie day before yesterday but could not get a chance to write a comment until today.
Following things came to my mind when I read your review, in fact I read it twice before writing my comment.
1) Your review is so exhaustive, that shows how much you love these kind of movies from regular massages 🙂
2) Karthik is another director that you admire after Mani Ratnam for his unique style in chosing the subject and characters. In fact many of us do.
3) Interested to know how much time you had spent before penning this review thinking about each character and their reactions to situations in the film.
I don’t want to bore you with many things, so I am coming directly to the point, there are so many unnecessary scenes as you had pointed out which made this film lengthier and also made many people to lose the central point Karthik wanted to convey. It would have been better if he had the repeating scenes in the bar and scenes before first song etc. As they marketed that this film is concentrated more on female characters rather than heroes, I did not see it on the screen. It is always the men who occupied the screen, the women characters are like passing clouds. Anjali had done a great job, I wish she would get more such roles to prove as an actress rather than doing crappy comdey massage movies.
Last but not least, I did not enjoy this film as much as I enjoyed the Jigarthanda or Pizza. I wish Karthik choses a better subject for his next and give some entertainment 🙂
LikeLike
udhaysankar
June 9, 2016
BR : I am young, and have never been in a complex relationship. So, I just couldn’t wrap my head around those scenes. It seems plausible outside the movie, and feels like a character is switching gears without slowing down or speeding up inside the movie. I don’t know how to put it into words. That’s the closest I could come to describe that.
LikeLike
hari ohm
June 9, 2016
BR super. No matter how much you think that he is there only to fuck, somewhere feelings as well creep in. Superah sonneenga boss.
Regarding Anjali, I felt she did an awesome job in Kattradhu Tamizh as well.
Good interview of KS with Madha here –
https://t.co/dul37B8f3u
LikeLike
brangan
June 9, 2016
I have a question about the Balachander and Mahendran dedication at the film’s beginning. Is is just a general homage to their kind of cinema, or are there very specific references?
For instance, I can vaguely see the Pooja Devariya character as an extension of the protagonist of Kalki and also some other free-thinking KB women. And maybe one can see Ashwini’s character as Vijayan’s long-suffering wife in Uthiri Pookkal as a template for Kamalini.
But I really didn’t see the sensibility of these filmmakers in this film, and I was curious about this homage. In the sense that KS approaches things from a distinctly male POV and he doesn’t make the men monsters.
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
sathya
June 9, 2016
@brangan – It was a general homage to their kind of films, not to the sensibility of those filmmakers in particular. It was more of re-visiting the themes that were more prevalent in the 1970s and 80s, but have vanished over the years.
LikeLike
aravindan
June 9, 2016
rangan your link on the notes on pizza lead me to this gold –
do u think this movement has sustained?
LikeLike
baytacosmico
June 10, 2016
I noticed at least a couple of overt references to KB. First in that very KB-style visual metaphor of prison shirt falling off drying line right before Michael is released. And the second is when he pauses over the pottu/மை smudges next to the mirror – direct reference to Oru Veedu Iru Vaasal.
LikeLike
Aadhi
June 10, 2016
Iraivi seems to be a homage to KB in the sense that the female characters are strong without spewing feminism explicitly. The scene where Ponni asks Michael ” Idha keka unaku enada arugadha irku?” reminded me of a scene in Arangetram. Lalitha is slapped by a guy who sleeps with her. After he gets to know she is from a conservative family, he asks her “unaku vekama ila?”. she throws the same question back at him and slaps him back. Both scenes convey male hypocrisy without resorting to any “aambala pombala” dialogue.
And this strength in the female develops over the narrative. Lalitha/Ponni are shown to be naive, giggly ( prameela’s iconic spitlaugh) who seem to be happy with whatever life was giving them. They end up discovering themselves through adverse situations. Ponni already starts showing some flair when Michael returns from jail. But she’s still putting up with him because that’s what 20-odd years of cultural policing had taught her. She walking out then, or letting Jagan know that she also likes him would have been terribly out of place. Similarly Lalitha does become strong in doing what she choses to do, but she still hates doing this because of 20-odd years of ‘moral ethics’ she had been taught. I know both are completely different films, with diametrically opposite endings, but couldnt help notice these similarities.
The nuances in the other two female characters are beautifully explained by Mr.Rangan in his reply to Udhaysankar. I’m not getting into this feminist debate but am really amused by how certain commenters are making a big deal out of the Bechdel test. I mean there are films populated with female characters which do pass the Bechdel test, but are not feminist in anyway ( Ex: Snegithiye, Peraanmai). These movies have women who do things that will NOT be frowned upon by any man who thinks, ” Wait a minute, how can she do that?”. Whereas Iraivi has loads of such scenes, where women do things on which the seetha-worshipping society definitely would take a hypocritical stance. I think this is already someone trying to bring in some sort of equality, or atleast question the double standards.
The biggest rug pulling stunt KS tried to do with this movie is concealing some strong underlying statements, with attempts to showcase the men (2 of them) as egoistic, uncaring animals. Imagine this, will our audience (atleast majority across A, B, C,..Z) accept if they come to know that the film is actually hinting at Ponni letting go of Michael and starting a new life with the man she seemed to like? I don’t think so. In fact this is the whole underlying theme of the movie. Karthik Subbaraj, a short filmmaker himself, seems to have deeply inspired by another short film by Sujoy ghosh, ‘Ahalya’. Here, he attempts to reimagine Silapathikaram, by posing a what-if question to the audience. How would you react if kannagi, coming to know of Kovalan’s affair and his disinterest in this marriage, decides to have an affair of her own. Jagan asks this question once, hinting at the undertone of this movie. But KS is a smart filmmaker. He knows the audience’s reaction will be the same as the students and professor in the class : Ridicule. So what does KS do ? He tries to bring some sort of justification so that he can pass this off into the audience without raising eyebrows. But he can’t make his men one-note evil villains. They are not even blatant MCPs. They are just egoistic, self-obsessed losers, something that the majority of movie-going male audience would not find offensive, and would not have problem in agreeing with. The beauty of the movie is that the “Aan nedil pen kuril” dialogue is actually a commercial compromise he has done, to balance out the strong theme of the movie which may seem to many like borderline adultery. What a touch (searching for the right word….irony?) to have a male bashing dialogue as a commercial compromise, in these times.
The characters are all intriguing, with plenty of shades and nuances. I wish to get more into the head of Jagan. Why is he doing this ? Is it because of his supposedly feminist ideals? Why is he attracted to Ponni? If he wants to GIVE her freedom, isn’t he also being benevolently sexist? Why does Ponni like him ? I wish these things were dealt with more time and space in the film. What a movie THAT would have been. I neither cared for the heist scenes nor the scenes where Arul is getting sloshed and is venting out (though extremely well performed). These looked like filler material, though there is a fluidity to his filmmaking with one leading to the other.
I know this is getting long, and that it clearly shows my liking for this director. But take this scene, where the Arul, Yazhini and their respective dads discuss divorce. He could have shown the kid waking up to any kind of noise, but no amount of inhouse-generated noise would overpower the loudness of 4 people arguing on the topic of divorce. And this kid, having been used to witnessing quarrels quite often would’t wake up to that. But she wakes up to a superior external source like a train horn ( he even shows the train passing), and we immediately know both parents are on the same page. And THEY realise that they are on the same page, with respect to an external disturbance whereas they would have never realised this from an inhouse/quarrel generated noise.
Over and out.
LikeLiked by 6 people
brangan
June 10, 2016
aravindan: I don’t know. What we’ve seen isn’t so much of a movement (because it’s still just a handful of guys) as a phenomenal increase in the number of films being made. Every Friday sees 4-5 releases, many of which vanish after 3 days. So digital cameras have made it easier to make and release films, but if you consider quality or ambition, it’s not really become a movement. The same thing happened with what I labelled the CineMadurai films. A few bursts of creativity, but died down before becoming a movement.
LikeLike
Pato
June 10, 2016
Atleast there is hope as filmmakers like karthick subburaj,nalan kumraswamy,ranjith,Arun kumar etc are making films that are interesting and different to the usual movies we get to watch.Hope many more short filmmakers like vijay Kumar establish themselves in the industry and this movement becomes real.
LikeLike
harish ram
June 10, 2016
a new hidden messages in Iraivi is getting unearthed every other day – today Director Ram is saying the movie by S J Surya in the film is May 17 – the last day of sri lanka civil war. Can someone tell me in which scene this info is conveyed?
LikeLike
Nari
June 10, 2016
Harish Ram: It is conveyed in the scene where the producer gives a press statement that his brother is going to take over the movie. Also in the interval block at the producer’s office there are posters of the movie MAY 17 which you can see in the background
LikeLike
sai16vicky
June 10, 2016
@BR – To me, all the three dedications made sense.
Sujatha – “Iraivi” is loosely based on his novel “Jannal Malar”, where the husband returns from jail only to discover that his wife has become a sex worker to make ends meet and the resulting drama that ensues. Found this – https://www.facebook.com/notes/vinay-kumaar/a-lesson-i-learnt-from-jannal-malar-a-tamil-novel-by-sujatha/10151052004976014/.
Balu Mahendra – Friends with benefits! Extramarital lust! Betrayal! Misogyny! All of this is there in “Iraivi” yet it isn’t about any of these. This list of taboos reminds me of my favorite BM movie “Moondram Pirai”, which again had its own list like this and wasn’t about any of this.
K. Balachander – Let me enumerate a list of KBisms in “Iraivi”:
1. Michael’s prison release shown by a uniform falling down. (As mentioned by many others.)
2. The scene where Simhaa talks about gaining respect for statues than locking them up and in fact hinting at his perspective about women.
3. The songs, which were present only to advance the story or add a new shade to the character.
4. The whole “drenching in the rain” bit. It reminds of the “file” and “life” conversations in “Iru Kodugal”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nisha
June 11, 2016
Reading the blog and the comments, I can’t help but wonder what KS would think after reading these comments: “Idhulam namba padathula irundhadha !?!” 🙂 I agree that once art is put out anyone can interpret in any way. But I just want to know what the original artist thought about it when he created it !
ps: I remember in Viswaroopam, there was some scene with Rahul Bose,where a bird flew in the foreground or something and Sudhish Kamath made a elaborate argument justifying what it signifies. Then when he met Rahul Bose in person and Rahul Bose told “what bird ? Where did it fly?” or something like that 🙂 I am not able to find the exactly story to link it here !
LikeLike
Bharath Vijayakumar
June 11, 2016
@Nisha : I think it was with reference to Rahul Bose feeding the pigeons
http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/art-or-accident/article4442607.ece
Funnily enough, I found myself in his shoes this week after dissecting Kamal Haasan’s Vishwaroopam where I got into reading maybe a little too much than intended.
Last weekend, I happened to meet Rahul Bose, who played Omar Qureshi, the one-eyed villain of the film, and told him how I liked the metaphor in the shot where he, the jihadi leader, fed a pigeon filth from his mouth. And I was quite surprised when he said: “That’s not even in the script. Mr. Haasan said, ‘I just want you sitting here’. He didn’t tell me what to do. It was not even something we decided at the last (moment)… I just did something. I didn’t even think about it.”
Of course, it can be argued that even the actor probably didn’t get the entirety of the filmmaker’s vision but for the sake of argument, let’s assume he’s right. What if everything in the film was just a happy accident and none of the metaphors was intended by the filmmaker! Does that make the film any less interesting?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raj
June 12, 2016
At the end of the movie is Anjali’s character the only one who is liberated as she goes out to drench in the rain.. There is a reference to it in the movie when Kamalini tells her friend the difference between freedom and liberty with reference to wanting to and actually drenching in rain… All other characters are still inside and watching the rain.. Kamalini even asks her daugther to come back in… Is this reference because all the other women in the movie are still in the hold of men – Kamalini – her Father and probably a new spouse, Vadivukarasi- with Radha Ravi..Pooja- still in need of men for sex?
KS is easily the best director in town based on form[not just the new age directors]. LIke BR mentioned Iraivi is much richer due to subtlety.. We would have very easily mistaken Bobby’s rants in his college as a disinterested student trying to take few jabs at the professor but even those instances are used in his character building…
Iraivi one of the best in my recent memory!!!! Hope KS directs SS someday and give a new dimension to SS!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 12, 2016
LikeLiked by 2 people
Karthik
June 12, 2016
KB, BM and specifically Tarantino. When the men start crossing each other death seemed so ordinary it didn’t hit me with any emotion. All men dead and under the context of feminism the violence men perpetrate and undergo seemed so simple,they behave and believe aggression as everyday life considering themselves and their acts as just and I saw all the men exhibiting it in some form. It seemed that the tolerance level of men was kept very low just because its a feminist film. Hitting at each other does not necessarily arise from male ego and it alone. Maybe a better reason for the absence of level mindedness could have been given. I loved the movie it’s better than the most but feminist film is an overstatement. An alpha male movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
aquasanju
June 12, 2016
So whatever thoughts i had about KS as a new age film maker with progressive views on feminism or inclusiveness has been shattered with this remark – “அழகா இருந்தா பத்தாது. அறிவு வேண்டும்”…where he seems to suggest that the compere in question during Iraivi music launch should be happy that Radha Ravi did not abuse her!!!…Fuck you Karthik, if this is what you have understood of feminism….
a cursory look at the circumstances, where a non-descript “female” compere is harassed for not mentioning Radha Ravi’s name, a male veteran actor, can give you the power structures at play and how twisted neutrality or neutral stand looks like under such circumstances…
Have not seen the movie yet, but can make a mental sketch of KS, a pretentious film maker, who has marketed his movie well as a feminist one and conning the audience
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
June 13, 2016
aquasanju: You don’t have to be a feminist to make such films. KB, Mahendran, Balu Mahendra and Mani Ratnam – none of these filmmakers declared themselves as feminists. ‘Good’ men can make ‘bad’ films, and vice-versa holds true as well!
Goundamani style la sollanumna – vedhaikkravana paakatheenga, velayura nilatha parunga. 🙂
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 13, 2016
BR: The video review is a great improvement on the previous videos. You look so much ease doing this now.
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 13, 2016
Honest Raj: Feminists are not people who ‘declare’ themselves as feminists. It is like tall people who don’t have to ‘declare’ themselves as tall people. You are a feminist if you notice chauvinism around you and don’t like it much.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
June 13, 2016
Rahini David: My point isn’t about who is an ideal feminist, but about ‘good’/’bad’ men vs ‘good’/’bad’ films. Male chauvinist filmmakers can make feminist films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ThouShaltNot
June 13, 2016
Radha Ravi is a brilliant actor. That said, off screen,he is also a walking, talking embarrassment. RR is not given to mealy-mouthed circumlocutions and is blunt to the bone. This won’t be the first time he has said something despicable about someone on or off stage, nor is it going to be the last time. The one who bore the brunt this time happened to be a lady. I think it is not fair to fault KS or bring in feminism into the picture for KS’s remarks. He had to either shun a superb acting talent or rope him in for the movie and then do the delicate dance when RR opens his mouth off screen (i.e. criticize without also incurring the man’s wrath, as he did here).
LikeLiked by 1 person
aquasanju
June 13, 2016
Honest Raj: It is actually a facepalm moment…sir did you notice that you are contradicting yourself…if you think KB except for Oru Veedu, Iru Vaasal, Mani Ratnam have made feminist movies, i am sorry you need to revisit what feminism is…feminism is such an all encompassing social movement, that it is sweeping the way we look at our own (i mean a male’s view of life and the world), that it is rewriting history, politics…in effect the entire narrative…in OK Kanmani, MR had a golden opportunity to look into live in relationship in new light…instead he makes Nitya Menen feel apologetic to choose live in relationship…while no such compulsions exist for Dulqur Salman…
Will you accept that one need not be a director to direct a film?
LikeLiked by 2 people
pato
June 13, 2016
aquasanju:What KS said was right that Radha Ravi would have scolded irrespective of whether the anchor was male or female. Radha ravi is infamous for such controversial comments.KS was helpless as he can’t afford any bad publicity for his film just a week before release.It’s impossible to make a character sketch of a person based on a 4 minute interview.All he wanted to do was mellow down the problem.
LikeLike
aquasanju
June 14, 2016
Pato: //KS was helpless as he can’t afford any bad publicity for his film just a week before release// that is an admission that he values his commerce over his core values (no pun intended)…then why this apologia for KS…there is only one or two (Aval Appadithaan, Oru Veedu Iru Vaasal) truly feminist movies till date in Tamil Film industry…just trying to connect this dialogue of Sripriya “Avan yenna thevidiyannu sonna kooda paravailla, avan yenna sisternnu sollittan avanoda appa kitta”! with the frail defence of MR for why he needed a back story or semblance of it for Nithya Menen to accept live-in relationships!
Rudrayya was unapologetic about his heroine’s openness about sexuality, although her vulnerabilities is rooted in her troubled childhood…can any “modern” directors of 2016 write such dialogues even in their first draft?
Women and their sexuality has often been suppressed under the overwhelmingly patriarchal notions of morality in Tamil Films….KS should know that he is a product of post 1990 liberalisation and not a product of socialist society with hindu rate of growth of 60s which groomed KB kinda movies…the world around him has progressed so much that his moral self indignation of his male characters comes across as mansplaining and not progressive!
Again Fuck You Karthik…you were a faux lighthouse for the fans who wanted to see a progressive light flickering at the shore of sanity…but alas!!
we need to wait a little longer to get a replacement of Rudrayya!!
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
June 14, 2016
aquasanju: Nowhere did I label KB, Mahendran, BM, and MR as feminist filmmakers. In fact, I hate most of KB’s women for the matter that such characters hardly exist in reality. Gautam Menon films have ‘strong’ women characters. Does it make him a feminist filmmaker? Take Bala on the other hand. His women are just the opposite of GVM’s. Does it make him a misogynistic filmmaker? I brought up those names because KS has dedicated this film to those men. All that I want to say is, we shouldn’t gauge an artist’s work based on their off-screen persona. Some 10 years back, Kamal had opined that he doesn’t believe in marriages. And, now he does a Pothy’s advert for thirumana pattu. Now, would you stop purchasing their products just because they are endorsed by Kamal?
Yes, not everyone who makes films is a director!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raj
June 14, 2016
KS did acknowledge the fact that Radha Ravi said nasty things towards the girl. All he said was that if it was a male it could have been worse… I think he handled the question very well and undermines an important point that no one should take advantage of their gender to push their point across.
LikeLike
Prasanna
June 14, 2016
The number 7(sani, probably) kept repeating.
1. The family had two vehicles with the number 4777. One 7 each for appa, arul and michael. The vehicle they use in Kerala bears the number 4697.
2. Michael’s prison number is 247.
3. While standing outside the producer’s house and arguing whether arul should plead for forgiveness, the tree in the background has 7 on it.
4. The movie in the movie is 17-05 and when arul, jagan meet michael in Kerala it is 17-08-2015.
5. Michael and Ponni are seated in seats with nos. 70 and 71 in the climax.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raj
June 14, 2016
BR- Why no mention about the movie 17/05 – directed by Arul? The date is of utmost importance in Eelam politics as it signifies the date when thousands of Srilankan Tamils were killed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War
KS always has pointers in his movies about the Eelam war and in this movie it goes a notch higher. Arul’s side kick also questions the intentions of other film makers who claim as Tamil saviors. That scene showcases the anger within KS about his film industry only using the plight of Eelam Tamil people to their advantage and haven’t contributed in that space.
I think KS would earn quite a few enemies in the industry before he makes it big!!!
Other references to Eelam by KS – Jigarthanda – The scene where Siddarth asks his journalist uncle about what he covers and he replies Eelam and then politics- Siddarth replies “Rendum onnum dhan”
KS’s short film -Kaatchi Pizhai
His submission for the finals of Nalaya Iyakunnar -Neer..
Won’t be surprised if he directs a full length feature film on this content…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Zero
June 14, 2016
aquasanju,
Did Karthik Subbaraj even say “அழகா இருந்தா பத்தாது. அறிவு வேண்டும்” in that video? Just watched it and if anything he has displayed a sort of integrity that’s not at all commonplace. I agree that he’s trying to be evenhanded (and perhaps the issue was indeed such) but my remark is about the honest tone. He’s openly expressing his reservations about Radha Ravi’s medai nagarigam and more importantly doesn’t dismiss her at all (as an insignificant part/incident in the whole event, etc.), even says he’s sorry for what happened and specifically addresses to the lady (and only then adds Radha Ravi as well).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Zero
June 14, 2016
Btw, just to clarify, was wondering if the quote was from Radha Ravi’s speech and saw just a bit from his audio launch speech, understand that he was the one who said that. Didn’t see the full thing. In any case, if it needed a bigger condemnation and KS didn’t do it, absolutely reasonable to call it out. I don’t mean to defend Karthik Subbaraj at all, just found the tone of his response genuinely surprising.
LikeLike
Harish S
June 14, 2016
@aquasanju: I can’t comprehend how you came to this conclusion. KS’ line of thought seems clear and neutral to me at least in terms of gender. I hope you won’t say being gender neutral isn’t enough; one has to revere women as god.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
June 14, 2016
aquasanju: //that is an admission that he values his commerce over his core values//
What’s wrong with it? Filmmaking is still viewed as a business, at least in Tamil Nadu. Even a highly-revered filmmaker like Mani Ratnam gives top priority for commerce. Rudraiah belongs to the league of Ritwik Ghatak and John Abraham. We all know what happened to these activists.
LikeLike
aquasanju
June 14, 2016
//What’s wrong with it? Filmmaking is still viewed as a business, at least in Tamil Nadu// then why label his pretensions as feminist? oru kozhappamma irukku ungolada apologia!!
if you think he would have gone as worse if there was a male MC is an attempt at hypothetical situations to sound his (RR) despicable behaviour as “less damaging”…i think his male ego got wounded because a female MC did not mention his name…
i think men’s use of their privilege and power structures is so rampant, one fails to notice them as against feeble attempts of women to sound reasonable…even now, a divorced male is not stigmatised as compared to a female…now don’t say that misogyny and patriarchal structures has no role here….
Kamal Hassan is a very weak example when it comes to social justice issues like reservation or women’s empowerment…much of his movies like panchatantram, sati leelavati was a sophisticated plot structure of the tv serial story template…at the end of the day, it is the woman who has to be blamed for making a male astray or ditch his spouse…
No i don’t think KH or Rajni can be quoted even remotely as examples for feminism or social justice or anything related to progressive thoughts!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
June 14, 2016
Aquasanju:
then why label his pretensions as feminist? Because the incident did not happen because she was a woman but because RR has an abnormally fragile ego. Male or Female had nothing to do with this.
KathikS felt “he would have gone as worse if there was a male MC is an attempt at hypothetical situations”. You feel “i think his male ego got wounded because a female MC did not mention his name”. It is basically your thought versus KarthikS’s thought, right? KS directed a movie with RR and is more likely to know about RR’s temper than you do and I am assuming you don’t know RR personally.
one fails to notice them as against feeble attempts of women to sound reasonable What feeble attempts to sound reasonable? Are you talking about the compere? Why be feeble if you are sounding reasonable?
even now, a divorced male is not stigmatized as compared to a female Yes, but this should not be conflated with a topic like this. Which is the point KS made and I agree with him there.
now don’t say that misogyny and patriarchal structures has no role here Where? In India? Or Film Industry? Or that particular incident?
No i don’t think KH or Rajni can be quoted even remotely as examples for feminism or social justice or anything related to progressive thoughts! What does Rajini (or Kamal )have to do this RR issue anyway?
Kamal Hassan is a very weak example when it comes to social justice issues like reservation or women’s empowerment…much of his movies like panchatantram, sati leelavati was a sophisticated plot structure of the tv serial story template…at the end of the day, it is the woman who has to be blamed for making a male astray or ditch his spouse…
Was Simran or any of the other 4 wives blamed in panchatantram? Was Kalpana blamed in sati leelavati? Where? When? Yes, Kalpana is adviced to glam up by an old lady but that is not the solution to this problem and this point is made within the universe of the movie itself.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
June 14, 2016
//then why label his pretensions as feminist? oru kozhappamma irukku ungolada apologia!!//
When/Where?
Btw, I just saw the video. As pointed out by others, it has nothing to do with the compere being a woman. A while ago, RR called S. Ve. Shekhar as ‘eethara paya’. So, why make this a ‘feminist’ issue?
LikeLike
Sifter
June 14, 2016
Very interesting review and conversations. I see that majority of men consider this movie as a fantastic feminist subversive movie while most women (going by their names here) and a few men are like ‘feminist my arse! It’s just same old shite given in a new attractive, bold bottle.’
LikeLike
Raj
June 14, 2016
Funny that the conversation has moved from movie opinion to individual’s character evaluation!!! Wish we start questioning the character of all the corporate leaders/politicians- would pave way for a better society!!!
LikeLike
harish ram
June 14, 2016
just to put fuel to fire – look what KS says about people with different ideology making a film in complete contrast to that
LikeLike
sanjay kumar k
June 15, 2016
//What does Rajini (or Kamal )have to do this RR issue anyway?//
because honest raj had this to say “Some 10 years back, Kamal had opined that he doesn’t believe in marriages. And, now he does a Pothy’s advert for thirumana pattu. Now, would you stop purchasing their products just because they are endorsed by Kamal?”
// Because the incident did not happen because she was a woman but because RR has an abnormally fragile ego. Male or Female had nothing to do with this.//
Might be, but i am concerned that a person with such shallow understanding of feminism could have made a movie remotely delving into feminism…it is like saying Trump may be an bigoted asshole, but his speeches are inclusive and intelligent!! Some cognitive dissonance i think
//It is basically your thought versus KarthikS’s thought, right? KS directed a movie with RR and is more likely to know about RR’s temper than you do and I am assuming you don’t know RR personally.//
To draw an analogy even if it is tangential to the debate…a famous person who is also a PM of our country remarked once that a congress politician’s GF is worth Rs 50 crores! Now i don’t know about that person nor have i met him, but i still think that he is not misogynist, despite making such a statement or Sanjay Nirupam congress MP made a similar derogatory remark against Smriti Irani…i give the benefit to these “gentlemen”, since i “do not know them”
//What feeble attempts to sound reasonable? Are you talking about the compere? Why be feeble if you are sounding reasonable?//
That was made drawing the power structures under which a man operates in a deeply patriarchal world that we live in…i think under the given circumstances or under any given circumstances making sexist remark or racist remark is inadmissible in a civilised forum…have you seen such tantrums shown by a veteran actresses? Any slightly “deviant” stand by a woman against patriarchal structures will make her isolated…Kushboo comes to mind immediately, although the point she made was her opinion based on facts and in an interview…contrast the situations to understand the patriarchy at play
//now don’t say that misogyny and patriarchal structures has no role here Where? In India? Or Film Industry? Or that particular incident?//
Already explained…the larger world i am talking about. Tamil film industry has not qualified itself as an exception to this rule…
//Was Simran or any of the other 4 wives blamed in panchatantram? Was Kalpana blamed in sati leelavati? Where? When? Yes, Kalpana is adviced to glam up by an old lady but that is not the solution to this problem and this point is made within the universe of the movie itself.//
My gOD! how can you miss the cinematic contrivances that KSR used in that film in the narrative…Simran was made to look much more than a “loosu ponnu” who could not understand the “circumstances” that KH finds himself landed into…the rest of the friend’s wife blame the other woman to KH’s family ruination even if it was mistakenly pointed at Simran…
Sati Leelavati too blames Heera for all the turmoil, not to mention the fat shaming of Kalpana…While Arvind is “forgiven” for his innuendoes, poor Heera is reconciled with an “understanding” BF in Raaja
I may be mistaken about KS, but every time someone says that women play the victim card, i definitely smell a rat there regards their feminist stand or sensibilities
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
June 15, 2016
aquasanju/sanjay kumar k: You’re blatantly cherry-picking and twisting my responses. I brought up the Kamal analogy just to explain my stance on ‘good’/’bad’ men Vs ‘good’/’bad’ films. This is not even remotely connected with the RR issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
M A H
June 15, 2016
I think this website made a good analysis of the film
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 16, 2016
While Arvind is “forgiven” for his innuendoes, poor Heera is reconciled with an “understanding” BF in Raaja.
OMG. Forgive me, Sanjay. Your chauvinism shines through. You seem to have a very shallow understanding of feminism yourself. Anyway Feminism vs. Misogyny is not a black or white issue. So if you think you are a feminist, you probably are in spite of your obviously patriarchal mindset.
LikeLike
apala
June 16, 2016
Just had a chance to catch the film………..well, I think it’s an okey-ish film at the best. Definitely not a “feminist” film. It had handful of moments and some good dialogues. But it did not strike me or affect me as a complete film. It left a lot to be desired. I think Karthik should “see” Rudraiah’s “Aval Appadithan” few times.
This is one of those rare occasions where I am not agreeing with you BR-sir! I guess that’s okay – each see their own rainbow! For me it looked like the women in this movie are treated so regressively – not by the men in the movie but by Karthik.
LikeLike
apala
June 16, 2016
Meanwhile, I will revisit Karthi’s Jigarthanda few times and enjoy! (Hey, may be he should continue to name films with food items!).
LikeLike
Harish S
June 17, 2016
@Rahini: I think it will be inline with the broad context of this post, if you could elaborate your take on how things ‘conveniently’ ended in Sathi Leelavathi (via a feminism angle, if required).
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 17, 2016
Harish, there is a lot to elaborate. I will make a post out of it. Sathileelavathy is a rather complicated movie.
Ashamed to say that I have not watched Iraivi yet. I can see it is a must-see, even if not a classic.
LikeLike
aquasanju
June 18, 2016
//OMG. Forgive me, Sanjay. Your chauvinism shines through. You seem to have a very shallow understanding of feminism yourself. Anyway Feminism vs. Misogyny is not a black or white issue. So if you think you are a feminist, you probably are in spite of your obviously patriarchal mindset.//
Forgive me Rahini, what did you find wrong in my comments of the troubled handling of Heera in SL, that you found patriarchal undercurrents in my comments…you could not find anything wrong with rest of my retort and picked up on this one…accusing without providing reasons is “shooting from hip” and does not help anyone involved in the debate..again i am mighty careful that i do not appropriate feminism as a male, which is plain mansplaining! i am an ally of feminism and would like to describe myself as a feminist under WIP (work in progress)
Moreover the entire thing is not about my personality deconstruction, but about a person who is exposing his misogyny in the inserted interview but some still think that he can direct a feminist movie or at best try to give him the benefit of doubt? to me that IS cognitive dissonance!
PS: i am interested to know where i went wrong about the Heera’s characterisation in SL…nothing excites me more that others finding my mistakes!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neena
June 18, 2016
@apala: I second that. I watched the movie after reading all the ‘is it a feminist movie?’ articles – and I was like, really? It’s a different matter that the movie (and the sequences within – like some never ending fractal) is unduly long and preachy. That has nothing to do with how it treats its women, of course. But, much of the movie’s feminism is within its male characters’ monologues. I actually wish KS had made the movie without this so called ‘feminist’ angle – then it might have been an interesting take on toxic male friendship/loyalty.
For instance, we didn’t need Arul explaining at the end why men are basically vermin or something like that. We didn’t need Jagan explaining his motive over and over, and we certainly didn’t need Vadivukkarasi persuading us to see the plight of women by staying in a coma all through the film. Or rather, we didn’t need that situation explained by various characters at various times in the movie. It might have been a much more interesting contrivance to just have the whole family visiting the hospital every now and then and making their plans beside a comatose woman, but not really explain to us that they were now guilty of mistreating her in her younger years.
I don’t know if KS ever actually claimed it was a ‘feminist’ movie – but clearly, the preachiness of the movie makes it seem like one. And the blurb does claim ‘sila woMENgalin kadhai’ – which one would hope is a sly reminder that even when films try to be about women, they really tend to be about men and this is one such film too. But, a character in the film helpfully explains that ‘women’ is really just ‘woe-men’ : people who put up with men’s woes.
Not essentialising men or women would be the first rule of feminism (or a good film – in my opinion – simply because that’s what real life is like.).
Unless the whole thing is a satire on the male saviour complex and the male approach to women only in relation to their own selves, this film should have made no claims to have anything to do with gender roles, men or women. BR shouldn’t have called it a ‘feminist’ film. It subverts nothing – it only repeats the same old deification of suffering women. If it is a satire, it’s a badly done one.
ps: I haven’t watched this video where KS is apparently being misogynist or not. But, to me, that’s beside the point – because there is so much to be critical of in the movie itself.
@Rahini: am eager to hear your views on Sathileelavathy too. It had its own problems, yes – and I wasn’t sure Heera needed to be ‘accepted’ by her boyfriend at the end. But, it never jarred the way Iraivi does and seemed to depict just a reality that seemed quite familiar and organic.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rahini David
June 19, 2016
Aquasanju: My take on extra marital relationships and how they are perceived and colored by the viewer is discussed in the following post. Let us discuss this after you read it.
Neena: I didn’t conflate sathi leelavathy with Sindhu Bairavi as sathi leelavathy is a rather complicated movie in its own right and deserves its own post. But due to lack of time, I think we can start discussing all ema stories like marupadiyum there. I will write a short comment on sathileelavathy on Monday. Tq.
LikeLike
Neena
June 21, 2016
@Rahini: have posted on the comments section of your blog…
LikeLike
ashwin
June 24, 2016
@brangan – A minor Nit: I don’t think the producer was ‘sadistic’. A nit about the movie itself: The Malarvizhi/Michael storyline maybe new to tamil cinema, but it is not isnt it…. I cringed at the way Malarvizhi’s character was almost rounded up and made palatable to tamil audience. I am sure there were better ways of projecting the character out and to still make sense in the grand scheme of things. I suppose this really was captured by your comment about the stunted character development of Malarvizhi. Ponni’s character was the most logical for me given her confines.
I happened to read your edited review at first and it felt very incomplete. Thanks!
LikeLike
Neena
June 24, 2016
Read somewhere that this is a take on Silappadhikaram – Ponni (Kannagi) doesn’t burn Madurai (Arul’s family) when her husband is killed; but chooses to liberate herself. I don’t know if the Pandiya mannan is reported to have had a troubled relationship with his wife :p
LikeLike
Kevin M Stephen
July 1, 2016
My thoughts on Iraivi.Please share your opinions
https://www.facebook.com/notes/kevin-m-stephen/%E0%B4%87%E0%B4%B0%E0%B5%88%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%A6%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%A4/1292784667399675
LikeLike
Kevin M Stephen
July 1, 2016
Jigarthanda was a loud film, but discussed some subtle things (a meta movie about moviemaking itself.).
Iraivi is Karthik Subbaraj’s subtlest film ,but discussing some loud matters , deeper in its character explorations, far more complex and much richer due to subtlety.
LikeLike
venky
July 3, 2016
இறைவி படம் பார்த்தேன். என்னை மிகவும் பாதித்தது. இன்றைய பெண் இறைவியாய் படும் அவலத்தை நுன்னியமாக சித்தரித்த கார்த்திக் அவர்களின் கலைப்பயணத்தைப் பார்த்து மனம் பூரித்தடைந்தேன்.
யார் இந்த இறைவி? நம் எல்லோருடைய வீட்டிலும் இருக்கிறாள். அழகே உறுவான அவளை ரசிக்கிறோம் அவளால் வீடு இல்லமாய் மாறுகிறது. குடும்பம் குதுகூலமாய் மலர்கிறது. அப்படிப்பட்ட இறைவியின் மதிப்பு நமக்கு புரிகிறதா? அவளின் அருமை தெரியாமல் அவளை ஒவ்வொரு வீட்டின் பூஜை அறைக்குள் அடைத்து விட்டோமோ?
ஆணாதிக்கத்தை அடித்தளமாய் கொண்டுள்ள நம் சமூகத்தில் இறைவி படும் அல்லல்கள் தான் எத்தனை? இதை பொறுக்காமல் வீட்டின் இறைவி வெளியே சென்றால் என்ன வாகும்? இந்த கேள்வியை இந்த படம் மிகவும் அழகாய் கேட்கிறது. மீண்டும் ஒரு முறை பார்க்கத்தூண்டுகிறது. சிந்தனையில் மனத்தை ஆழ்த்துகிறது
LikeLike
venky
July 3, 2016
I saw “Iraivi” yesterday, and I am sorry to join the conversation so late. I am interested in this question posted by one commenter here. “Why do critics always find “allusive”, ambiguous and open-ended films to be good cinema?”
In the case of “Iraivi”, given the subject of “Relationships”, it definitely seemed like a logical, aesthetic choice to focus on the subtlety we so relished in the movie. Whereas, in the case of “Udta Punjab”, the director-writer duo ( as they told in an interview) deliberately felt the need to go “didactic” through the voice of Preet ( Kareena), given the gravity of the subject ( a “live wire” issue happening now, as we speak).
We too saw this film’s equivalent with Jagan ( Bobby) who becomes the voice of the film, espousing the philosophy which the movie carried (far more lightly than UP, perhaps) on its shoulders.
While you seemed to be comfortable with Bobby’s character in the movie, reading your Udta Punjab review, I felt you were perhaps uncomfortable by Kareena’s all-white PSA’ish character. How do you reconcile this?
I understand instinctively the affinity a critic would have for “allusive” movies, as they offer tremendous amount of readings, tempting a curious, inveterate cine buff like you and everyone else here to unpack and dissect the movie in as many colours the kaleidoscopic mind could allow the movie’s rich, vibrant images to play with.
What I am keen to understand from you BR is: Do you see “allusiveness” as a matter of the subject the movie is dealing with? Or do you hold “allusiveness” as a true-north for any movie which likes to connote itself with the sacred word “Art”?
LikeLike
Pato
July 5, 2016
http://m.indiaglitz.com/yennamma-ippadi-panreengalema-lakshmi-ramakrishnan-slams-vijay-sethuapthi-iraivi-tamil-news-162488.html
I have heard many people slamming this movie as very bad movie.Feeling sad for Karthik subburaj as he has made a movie like iraivi and getting chided by many but a guy like Atlee makes movie like theri and gets praises from everyone for making it and on top of all that theri has become one of the highest grossing blockbusters in Tamil cinema.
LikeLike
udhaysankar
July 17, 2016
This is what KS wanted to portray in the movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pato
July 18, 2016
Kartick subbaraj’s detailed interview on iraivi:
http://www.iflickz.com/2016/07/making-sense-of-iraivi-the-karthik-subbaraj-interview.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
niranjanmb
August 7, 2016
I finally saw the movie last night, and here are some of my thoughts on the movie. I haven’t sifted through all the comments here, so if some of my thoughts have already been expressed, then I apologize for the repetition.
I thought this movie was more of an anti-masculine movie in the following sense.
What do we understand by the words Masculine, Manliness, Machismo and so on? It suggests aggression, a show of strength (mostly physical) and to an extent, a degree of ruthlessness in carrying out a deed. To me, Iraivi focuses on the(se) traits of masculinity, and describes/comments/warns against the follies and disastrous consequences of actions, particularly the collateral damage on people who are dependent on them (physically or emotionally), that are provoked by a sense of masculinity. When people (mostly men, anyway) act on their sense of masculinity, they leave behind a trail of destruction, and the ones who are mostly affected by it are their women.
And seen through that lens, the actions of all the men, and their attributing it to a rise in temperature within their heads, makes perfect sense, for that is exactly the attribute of masculinity that Karthik Subbaraj seems to be after; the SJ Suryah character never resorts to his ‘manliness’ when he is sloshed. It had to be a teetotaler that went the distance eventually, but by the time he realizes what he has done, he is himself a victim of his own manliness, as are all the other men whose actions cause all the sequences in the story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Innocent Blood
August 13, 2016
One of the better (if not the best) Tamil films of 2016 😊👍🏻
LikeLike
abvankenabi
August 21, 2016
“Sincerely, etc”. I laughed.
LikeLike
blurb
October 21, 2016
Caught up with Iraivi this past weekend. It needs a second viewing to really sink in.
But at the outset, it seems to be more about men’s liberation than women’s. I felt it primarily dealt with society’s expectations for men to conform to norms ascribed to the masculine gender.
As much as women are trapped with having to conform female norms, so are men. When asked: “what do men need to do to conform to male norms?”, the answer inevitably (amongst others) is violence, pursuit of status, primacy of work e.t.c.
I saw each of the male characters struggling to conform to these norms while actually wanting to break out. Michael’s obsession with Ponni’s chastity – that’s pursuing status. He cannot be husband to someone who slept around. Even Micheal’s initial proposal to Malar – she is his object of desire. So, she exclusively needs to be his. He gets pissed when he sees another man, and never returns to her thereafter.
And the last scene when Arul talks to Yazhini on the phone. That’s what convinced me that it is more about men’s liberation than women’s. He wants to be forgiving. He only wishes he could. But he can’t. Because he is a man – and he isn’t supposed to be forgiving and sensitive.
Also – it does pass the Bechdel test. Last scene: Yazhini and her daughter talk about getting wet in the rain.
LikeLiked by 4 people
billa
October 21, 2016
blurb : Thanks for such a fresh perspective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ram
October 22, 2016
I finally got to watch Iraivi yesterday. What A Movie!!
This movie was the rare one that had both a dramatic storyline that KB would have been proud of, and the sort of detailed characterization that KB, J Mahendran and Balu Mahendra were masters of. All 3 of them would have loved this one.
In some ways, I thought the plot was Shakespeare-level and reminded me of Othello, in its plot, characterization and many twists and turns.
Also there were a few plot points that this movie shared with/got inspired by Corlito’s Way:
Similarly, Bobby Simha’s character is marginally similar to Sean Penn’s deceitful friend character.
Vijay S/Pacino feels indebted to his friend(s) for getting him out of jail
Vijay S/Pacino wants to settle down to a clean life with his wife
Vijay S/Pacino’s wife/girlfriend doesnt like his friend, and opens his eyes to how deceitful the friend is – all in just one quick sequence of scenes
Vijay S/Pacino is egged on by his friend to do one last job, and reluctantly agrees, hiding the details from his wife and lying to her instead
Bobby Simha/Sean Penn has one deceitful trick up his sleeve on the last job, which backfires fatally for him and Vijay S/Pacino.
Vijay S/Pacino collect their cash just before leaving, get noticed by the villain(s) and are chased all the way to the train station. In both movies, the character gets killed just as the train is about to leave.
Having said that, the plot is still original and has enough differences from Carlito’s way. Clearly the best movie I’ve seen in some time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Badrinath narayanan
October 31, 2018
I saw this movie only recently and came here for BR’s take and I have got to say I agree with what is being put up here. About people feeling this movie to be less feminist than what they expected i.e. the you go girl movies, I think KS had made it clear many times this isnt a film of that sorts through his interviews.
LikeLike
procrastinatrix
November 5, 2019
I hope folks read/respond to comments on older reviews. Thanks for your detailed review. For a cultural outsider and newcomer to S. Indian movies, the references to other movies, authors, musicians, and real world themes or events in your reviews provide helpful signposts to the things we have likely missed.
I thoroughly enjoyed Pizza, so decided to watch Iraivi. I’ve watched it a couple of times over the last week, and it is really sticking with me. It’s just so well put together. I kept hoping against hope that the men would stop making impulsive decisions and taking actions that introduced chaos and destruction into their own lives and the lives of the women who love them, but alas, no. The “men=impulsive, passionate, and violent” and “women=noble, longsuffering, and comforting” contrast is pretty heavy handed, but I found each character believable in their own right.
I think that Pooja loves Michael, but she’s just not willing to give up the freedom she’s found since her husband’s death. Which makes her, I think, in Karthik Subbaraj’s eyes, smarter or better-off than the other two female leads. I found Bobby’s Jagan credible. He hates what the men he loves have done to the women he loves, and generally how men treat women, but he hasn’t been able to escape male socialization and thinking like a man (taking decisions about Anjali’s future without consulting her for example). And I think he knows that, so has some self-loathing too.
The biggest mystery to me, perhaps because I am such a VSP fan, is Michael. You mention that it seems unlikely for such a “mild mannered chap” to turn violent on a dime. I honestly think he might be a sociopath. I think his character and scenes were done in such a way to leave that possibility open. Is he really mild-mannered or is it that we don’t really see him challenged much except by Pooja? He may not love Pooja’s character, just want to bring her closer under his control. He only cares about Anjali’s character after she is pregnant, carrying an extension of him. Both times he kills he absolutely could have walked away without killing. The conscience-tinged drug induced dream argues against him being a sociopath, but the dead-eyed way VSP plays the murder scenes argues for it. What do you think?
The tone of Iraivi, the feelings and thoughts evoked while watching, and lingering after, reminded me so much of those evoked by Jane Campion movies/series like In the Cut or Top of the Lake. The fatal but understandable attraction of hetero women to men, and the violence and chaos women live with as a result. And the terrible consequences for men of being unable to see women as fully human. Is that a silly comparison? I wonder what Jane or Karthik would think of each other’s work.
I’m on the fence like many others about whether this is a feminist film or a film that blames women for their own oppression. The notes another commenter posted above by KS about Iraivi may indicate the latter. Those stupid women, always looking for a savior with a penis, instead of saving themselves (disregarding that women who try to free themselves from societies expectations or from abusive family situations are often punished economically, mentally, and physically). However, it’s a very good film, and I’ll certainly watch again and recommend to others. Thanks for reading, sorry so long!
LikeLike