Spoilers ahead…
At first, it appears like another lazy appropriation of a Rajinikanth film title, in accordance with Tamil cinema’s belief (or maybe desperate hope) that some of the Superstar’s luck will rub off on the film: a decent man named Dharmadurai (‘Makkal Selvan’ Vijay Sethupathi, phoning in his performance) exploited by unscrupulous brothers. But then we hear the names of these siblings. Arjunan. Beemarasu. Their mother (Raadhika Sarathkumar, doing more for the role than the role does for her) named them after the Pandavas, so they’d stay united. If only. Dharmadurai is an alcoholic. The only way the brothers can keep him in check is by locking him up. The early scenes paint Dharmadurai as a loser, and I ended up feeling sorry for the brothers who have to put up with his loutish behaviour.
But Dharmadurai is a doctor, and we’re ushered into a flashback – it’s set in Madurai Medical College, and it’s filled with cardboard characters. Like Stella (Srushti Dange), who draws a big heart in her notebook and gives it to Dharmadurai. Like Subhashini (Tamannaah), who, during the last day of college, asks Dharmadurai, “What is your next plan?” He replies, “Nee nalla irukkanum. Adha naan paakanum.” This doesn’t seem to be a college that produces doctors. It seems to be producing saints. Dharmadurai writes poems about peace for the college magazine. Subhashini, meanwhile, says she’s donating her body after she dies. Their teacher (Rajesh) changed his name from Muniyandi to Kamaraj, after the Chief Minister who implemented the midday meal scheme and provided a reason for Muniyandi’s mother to send him to school.
Is there another film industry whose directors suffer from such a chronic case of do-goodism? By all means, use the medium to address socially relevant issues, but why do our filmmakers choose dialogue as the sole means of conveying these messages? The most offensive scene comes about after Dharmadurai decides to help a transgender woman, who tells him she’s working as a watchman. “Watch-woman,” he corrects her, recognising what she wants to be seen as. This small line suggests an ocean of inclusiveness. But when he makes her an assistant in his clinic and hands over her salary, she falls at his feet. Why deify him? Why not let him be just a good… man? Dharmadurai is filled with scenes that are hammered home long after the point is made. It’s not enough that we see Subhashini and Dharmadurai in bed. The scene has to be prefaced with this admission: “We are living together.” It’s not enough that Dharmadurai, thanks to his education, speaks in English. He’s always carrying around a copy of The Hindu or The Indian Express.
And in the midst of all this literalness, all this noble-mindedness, a terrific story loses its way. Dharmadurai is the first doctor from his village, a man who has decided to follow his teacher’s advice and serve his people instead of migrating to the city and making money. The most interesting aspect of the film is the clash between these modern ideals and the pull of backward traditions. Dharmadurai’s brothers now view him as a cash cow. How dare he say he’ll marry Anbuchelvi (Aishwarya Rajesh, still looking for a part that will do more for her than she does for it) without a dowry? Is it possible to hold on to individual beliefs in a joint family? How do two people with failed relationships behind them get together and fashion a life together?
Had the director Seenu Ramasamy (who hints at his unreleased Idam Porul Yaeval in a line of dialogue) focused on just these story beats, he might have ended up with something as moving as his Neerparavai, which also dealt with alcoholism and star-crossed love. That sadly underappreciated film swept us along in a sea of emotions. Dharmadurai leaves us dry-eyed, despite much potential for drama. The early scenes are aimless, the latter ones affectless. The writing is so hurried, we barely have time to pause and react to the events surrounding Stella, Anbuchelvi, Subhashini’s monster-husband, and Dharmadurai’s laughably late discovery of the money in the bag he brought from home. These are the parts where the drama needed to be hammered home, and strangely, these are the parts where Seenu Ramasamy chooses to be subtle. Perhaps he wanted to be low-key, but sometimes that’s the same thing as uneventful.
KEY:
- dharmadurai = upholder of justice; also this film
- “Nee nalla irukkanum. Adha naan paakanum.” = I want to see you doing well.
- Idam Porul Yaeval = see here
- Neerparavai = 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.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Ram Nara
August 19, 2016
you should have mentioned about Rajesh, whose acting is superb in this film, though he comes for a short time,
LikeLike
Raj
August 19, 2016
@ BR: After reading several of your reviews I find that you seem to highlight more of what could have been done better rather than what was good about a movie.. Is it that you are more skeptical and looking for perfection or our movies are that bad? What’s your yardstick when you say somethings could have been done better? Just curious!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
balaji.v.sankar
August 20, 2016
Kanja Karuppu and MS Bhaskar ‘s performances were superb and the photography in the movie, especially Andipatti and Theni portions were fantastic! Loved the Pandiammal illam in particular.
LikeLike
Mahesh Chidambaram
August 21, 2016
I just feel we needn’t be this critical…I do agree there are a lot of do-gooders in the film but I somehow felt that could be excused. And I completely agree with you that the director could have focused on the story beats you’ve mentioned. On the whole a simple relevant story in an entertaining manner and they’ve used Vijay sethupathi very well. This film worked for me almost and I feel it’ll be a winner with the family audience..
LikeLike
hikicha
August 21, 2016
mm.. I felt there was a sense of casualness in breaking stereotypes – be it Stella drinking, transgender getting her identity, a live in relationship and I liked all of them for that Low Key.
Isn’t using HIndu/Indian express part of the character’s identity of who he is ? And the ‘Live in Relationship’ gets prominence after Rajesh ‘s advise ?
There are many ways that the director could have built an effective drama – a last son’s dilemma to breka shackles of control in family , a a betrayal drama between brothers. To me this is a varanam aayriam template without the geekiness.
-MumbaiRamki
LikeLike
brangan
August 22, 2016
Ram Nara: I didn’t think Rajesh did anything to be singled out. He was his usual Rajesh self. Yes, he was effective, but I didn’t find anything that warranted a special mention.
Raj: It’s not just me. Even when you say ‘something is not working for you’ and follow this with a list of things or reasons for this judgement, you are, essentially, highlighting “what could have been done better.”
As for “rather than what was good about a movie,” I did not find much that was good. What to do?
hikicha: As I have said many times before, there is a big difference between WHAT a film does and HOW the film does it.
For, the WHAT of Stella drinking was negated by the HOW of the situation (she’s being some silly loosu ponnu).
The WHAT of ‘transgender getting her identity’ was negated by the HOW of her closure scene, falling at his feet.
The WHAT of ‘live-in’ was negated by the HOW of it being spelled out.
So we have a lot of nice ideas, but bad writing/execution. And your response to the film will depend on whether ideas are enough for you, or if you demand some kind of ‘cinematic’ satisfaction as well.
LikeLike
Raj
August 22, 2016
@BR: Agree with the logic. But my observation is that you don’t find much that was good with many movies. My post was not related to Dharmadurai as such… Thats why I asked whether you are more skeptical and looking for perfection or our movies are that bad? I feel if a director reads your review they would probably leave with the feel “Avalavu mosamava padam eduthu irrukom”…. Is that the feel you want the creator to have after reading your review or it really doesn’t matter for you? Sorry for such vague questioning but am also confused as to what should your readers/creators get out of your reviews/observations
LikeLike
brangan
August 23, 2016
Raj: But it’s not about looking for perfection. It’s about expecting a certain standard of professionalism in the art one’s chosen. If you see my recent reviews, I liked Joker quite a bit, I called Thirunaal “nicely made,” I said Jackson Durai was “well-crafted” even if the film was a misfire,” I said Raja Mandhiri had “some scattered laughs,” I thought Oru Naal Koothu was quite good….
These films deliver on some level. If nothing else, at least some laughs. What do you do when there’s nothing in the film? When things stop at the ideating stage, and the film is pretty clueless about “transforming these ideas” first into a screenplay, and then during shooting?
While film-viewing is very much a subjective experience, evaluating these “technical” things are not subjective. You can look at a film with a message and say “okay, not bad,” and I may say “terrible.” But if a film is badly shot, badly put together, those are not subject to “opinion.” Those are hard facts.
And yes, I do expect some level of cinematic professionalism, which is why a film like Kabali is so shocking to see.
As to what the creator feels after reading a review, I have no control over that. I am not writing for him/her.
As for the reader, you should read a bunch of reviewers and decide who works for you, who doesn’t — and then continue reading the person who writes in a way that’s on your wavelength.
For instance, if you (not YOU specifically, but any reader) love message movies and if you think content (i.e. ideas) is the only thing and form is unimportant — and by form, I include screenplay, not just the camerawork etc. — then you may not agree with many of my reviews. So you may be better off reading someone else.
Because reviews aren’t social service. They are a kind of essay that amalgamates the external (what’s on screen) with the internal (what the film does to you).
Hope that clarified things a bit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
udhaysankar
August 23, 2016
Aside from the topic, you guys ought to watch this..
LikeLike
Raj
August 23, 2016
@BR Thanks for the detailed reply. Never thought my confusion would get me such a nice reply!!!! I too feel Tamil cinema is more content oriented and not form oriented. Things are slapped on your face rather than said subtle. Is it because of the wide range of audience that we are catering to? Is it because Tamil cinema roots were from stage dramas and we never evolved completely? I get that you place a lot of importance on the form and hence end up disappointed more times than not. IMO the ideating stage is pure art and at the time when a creator provides form it intersects with business. When art intersects with business things go awry!!! I still feel the ideas/content need to be strong before we apply a nice form. A pig with a lipstick is still a pig. IMO form alone can’t raise a movie.
Let’s take the scene in Indian where Kamal kills Ravi and the flashback preceding it. It is on the face and Shankar takes the hammer, bangs you and prepares you for the killing scene. He wants the audience to sympathize or even worship Kamal for his act of brutality. Is this the form you are against? How would have you prepared the audience for that scene?
As far as reviews are concerned I read after watching a movie and compare my thoughts with your thoughts. It is scary that I can fairly predict your thoughts on some movies. Though may disagree with you on some counts especially 24 and later Kabali, I enjoy your writing the form especially- at times have to think- Manushan sacrastica pesarara illa serious ah solraranu!!! For me your forum is more of an education about movie making and don’t use it to decide to watch a movie or not. IMO I don’t think anyone should use a review site to decide to watch a movie.
I wish to continue more of these dialogues with you in the future.
LikeLike
vijay
August 23, 2016
So, Dharmadurai too is off the list. who is making Dalapathi?
This form vs content discussion has been going on for 12+years I think. Innamum adhukku porumaiya badhil solra BRoda form is quite something.
Forget the form, this movie gets a big minus just for flicking Rajni’s title.
BR, can i make some money by suggesting some 100 fresh titles? Atleast some pocket change. If you know of somebody who can use some ideas on titles let me know. I’ll give them the first 25 for free. Even Mani Rathnam needs help these days in that department. OK Kanmani was such a terrible title. And the next one “kaatru veLiyidai” can be parodied as breaking wind, esp. if the film doesn’t turn out to be good. Whereas “kaadhalum kadandhu pogum” and “Iravi” were some titles that made you sit up and take notice.
Directors often describe their films as “my baby”. Well you don’t spend 6-10 months trying to get that baby out only to name him as Loose Mohan, do you?
LikeLike
brangan
August 23, 2016
vijay: Innamum adhukku porumaiya badhil solra BRoda form is quite something.
Hahaha. I keep forgetting there are still so many “early adopters” skulking around 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
August 23, 2016
Raj: A pig with a lipstick is still a pig. IMO form alone can’t raise a movie.
Two things here.
(1) Without formal elements, there is nothing in a film. If you don’t have a good screenplay (the step of ‘form’ in a movie), you don’t have a movie.
(2) But you could have a good movie even without a ‘good’ story. People keep talking about Spielberg’s Duel for this reason. There’s practically no story/content. But it’s a great film.
Personally, I love form. I love reading stylish essayists simply for the way their mastery over the medium, even if what they write about isn’t exactly new.
LikeLike
Raj
August 24, 2016
@ BR: Thanks again for the reply. Neenga bold la podum podhe am thinking endha pecha edthoda niruthiko nu solra madhiri irruku 😉 Ur form of saying Niruthu!!!!
One more question: Andha Screenplay na enna??
Great discussion one day if I direct or produce a movie I will mention thanks to BR somewhere!!!!
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 24, 2016
vijay: LOL. True, our filmmakers’ creativity can be gauged just by looking at their film titles. Why can’t they have expressive titles like ‘Naduvula Konjam Pakkatha Kaanom’? Even if they want to reuse old film titles/dialogues, why can’t they have titles like ‘Naanum Rowdydhaan’? OK Kanmani sounds more like the title of a Telugu film dubbed into Tamil. Just when I thought of relating the title with “Oh Paapa Laali” (a song from Geetanjali), I was reminded of the fact that it was meant to be a tribute to Singaravelan. 🙂
LikeLike
KayKay
August 24, 2016
“For instance, if you (not YOU specifically, but any reader) love message movies and if you think content (i.e. ideas) is the only thing and form is unimportant — and by form, I include screenplay, not just the camerawork etc. — then you may not agree with many of my reviews. So you may be better off reading someone else”
Now…THAT’S the kinda thing you need to put up right at the top of your blog, something for newbies to see before they venture further into these parts.
LikeLike
KayKay
August 24, 2016
“I too feel Tamil cinema is more content oriented and not form oriented. Things are slapped on your face rather than said subtle. Is it because of the wide range of audience that we are catering to? Is it because Tamil cinema roots were from stage dramas and we never evolved completely?”
Long have I pondered on the above.
Actually, I lie. I haven’t pondered that much on the above but it just sounds cool when I write it.
But the blatant “sermonizing” of Tamil movies coupled with it’s Sledgehammer approach to making it’s GREAT POINTS has long stupefied me, each unsubtle message of “Live Right, Do Good, Love Her, Hate Him” a lightning bolt that zaps my cranium, fries my circuits and turns off my critical receptors so all I can do is stare stupidly, zombified in a sort of semi-stupor at the horse manure I was just force-fed.
I’d like to think that this was why I largely gravitate to Multiplex-Designed Hindi and Malayalam films for my fix of Indian movies where these largely exist, like Sauron without the One Ring…as a mere Shadow and a Threat. There are undercurrents, things to sense, infer and pick up as opposed it being shoved in your face like the breasts of a desperate stripper needing the extra tips.
It smells no less rank when it crops up in Hollywood movies, albeit less frequently.
See how Spike Lee gently takes your hand and guides you through the murky waters of Race Relations in Do The Right Thing and contrast that against Paul Haggis violently yanking your arm off it’s sockets to do the same in Crash. I don’t need to elaborate which film just grows in my esteem with each passing year.
One can even tolerate these unsubtle attempts at “education” if there was a genuine sense of film-making craft behind it.
I mean, c’mon, Oliver Stone is about as unsubtle a film-maker as you can get, but Dear God, what a FILM-MAKER! What craft and skill! Where’s the equivalent of a Stone in Tamil movies?
It’s the twin assault of unsubtle writing and lack of genuine film-making chops on the part of many Tamil Film directors that kills it for me
LikeLike
MANK
August 24, 2016
*I was reminded of the fact that it was meant to be a tribute to Singaravelan
Honest Raj, ouch!. Mani rathnam paying tribute to R. V. Udayakumar, I must be in an alternate universe 🙂
*Where’s the equivalent of a Stone in Tamil movies?
Kaykay, that would be or was R.K.Selvamani, the maker of controversial political movies 🙂
And Reg:The absence of craft in tamil films, i think some of the new age directors are really good, at least in their debut movies in that. Guys like Pa Ranjith, Anand shankar, Yuvraj Bose,… showed real craft . Arimai Nambi,Irunbu Kuthirai,Thengidi, Poriyalan, etc were very well shot.
A lot of them are inspired from hollywood movies, not just the technical side of it, but also the storytelling where they move the story forward at a good pace without any subplots, comedy routines or unnecessary songs & dances.
Madras was a superbly crafted film. i particularly like to mention the pre interval sequence where Karthi and friend is attacked by assassins in the play ground. how he builds up the scene bit by bit with wide top angle shots of the location and slowly closing in on the 2 guys and suddenly as the attack happens. the following chase\fight sequence is also superbly shot and edited. that s why the lack of craft in Kabali was shocking. i wonder whether its the pressure of handling a star that lead to this.
I observe that all these big star cast films are so terribly shot even when directed by these guys who showed promising craft in their other films.. is it because the directors are forced to manipulate camera angles and movements just to prop up the star that the craft of the film suffers. i can imagine producer Thanu telling Ranjith that Rajni is doing a film after 2 years and audience would be coming to see him throughout, so we dont need your arty camera angles and takings. just put Rajni in front and center of every scene, every frame. may be that was the thinking that going on all throughout the film and particularly in that dreadful dinner sequence Brangan that you specifically mentioned as the nadir of craft in the film.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
August 24, 2016
I do hear that these established producers are especially contemptful of the new directors, ’cause they haven’t worked as assistants, and thus, haven’t learnt filmmaking the ‘right’ way
LikeLike
Aadhy
August 24, 2016
I think this disregard for form is also because a lot of tamil filmmakers take themselves too seriously, as in the ideologies they espouse. They just forget to have fun with the medium. I remember Mani Ratnam saying in BR’s book, about how he shot from moving jeeps in narrow village lanes simply because he had fun doing it. You can take up a dead serious subject and still have fun telling it to the audience. And by fun, I don’t mean thrusting jarring sketches of comedy into the content. It is a very personal kind of fun the filmmaker has to have with his form. A lot of tamil filmmakers fear that fiddling too much with the form will throw the audience off from the content, content which is mostly a manifestation of these filmmaker’s ideologies.
In Hindi you can see a gradual shift happening content-wise, from being proper stories (with conflict points) to being character-studies or events that happen around characters. This gives the filmmaker a lot of liberty to think in terms of experimenting with the narrative devices, visual styles etc. Even in a serious film like Titli, you can sense the filmmaker having fun with how he is telling it to the audience. A lot of tamil filmmakers seem to have this kind of ‘fun’ while making their first movies, but gradually lose this quality as their careers progress (ex: Sasikumar, Balaji Shakthivel, Venkat prabhu, Balaji Mohan,Ranjith etc.). Very few like Mysskin, MR, Vetrimaran, Karthik, continue to retain their form in all of their movies or got better with movies. I think it’s time our filmmakers stop getting obsessed with their content being communicated as it is, and leave it to the audience to figure out what subtext is mined inside the movie. A pig with lipstick camouflaged in a fashionable attire is still a pig, but atleast it’s WE who must figure it out that it’s a pig, rather than the pig shouting “Hey, I’m a pig and that’s how you should see me” at us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
August 24, 2016
Aadhy: Excellent comments. But let me go a step further and say that you can pay importance to form only if you know form. Most of our filmmakers are basically ideators. They can think up ideas. They can’t even form a proper screenplay around these ideas — forget shooting from jeeps 🙂
I have a theory that some art forms are “devalued” because they’re so available, so apparently do-able. Filmmaking is one. Writing is another.
I get mails all the time from somewhat known names with pieces for consideration (to use in the paper), and I’m usually appalled by what they call “writing.” Just because you can draft an email, you don’t call yourself a writer. You need a sense of architecture, a feel for drama (how to begin, how to end, how to fit in the ba-dum-dish shots)… It’s a lot of instinctual stuff.
Where am I going with this? Just because you can think up an idea and hire a camera, you can’t call yourself a filmmaker.
LikeLike
Aadhy
August 24, 2016
Haha. I agree that a lot of filmmakers don’t take even screenwriting seriously. But even if they hire screenwriters, in Tamil screenwriters are severely restricted with respect to the qualms of a hero about his image, the producer and his budget, the distributor and the movie’s reach. These factors pose a very, very big hindrance in the transformation of an idea into a script.
An actor-friend of Thiagarajan Kumararaja spoke in one of Aaranya kaandam’s recent screenings at a film school. The reason TK has not been able to make his second movie is that everyone he pitched the script to, wanted to tweak it a bit. The producers wanted to change a train into a car, the actor had asked to insert a moral justification to his actions in the script. All these crappily put-together movies are exhibits of filmmakers who lost it in the scripting stage only. A Raman Raghav in tamil would’ve had Raghav’s childhood trauma with his dad shifted to Raman’s reason for him being a killer, and Raghav rendered as pure as platinum, discarding the whole idea of killer-in-light-meets-killer-in-dark. Anyone who desperately wants to make a second movie, one who does not have the resilience of a TK, would naturally succumb to these demands, and the output looks all over the place. And oh, what do you do with the incest angle in that movie, with Tamil producers wanting to please the ‘Thaikulam’ section of audience.
LikeLike
Sharan
August 25, 2016
The so called new crop of directors who are real good in their craft are making movies completely devoid of emotions. Though movies like arima nambi, iraivi were well made i felt nothing when i moved out from the theatre. Even though i liked jigarthanda when i watched it in theatre, when i tried to watch it again at home it felt boring. I really want irumugan to succeed for vikram. After watching the trailer i dread it will be like handful of hollywood characters imported to india without any emotional connect. By knowing that dhuruvangal16 is directed by 21 year old guy i got excited and watched some of his short films in youtube and got disappointed. These new directors make movies look so logical like maths, end product appears so dry and plastic. Movies like iraivi with eight lead characters treat subject matter like a logical debate in which everyone’s view is counted. Of all the new directors that have come up i look forward to watching sethupathy movie director and ranjith, though kabali was a misfire..
I prefer anyday watching likes of gautam menons, selvaraghavans, even dharmadurais kind of movies than movies of new directors.
LikeLike
Madan
August 25, 2016
” After watching the trailer i dread it will be like handful of hollywood characters imported to india without any emotional connect. ” – This is an interesting point. There is certainly a trend afoot where our films have started imitating the tone of Hollywood films. I don’t think that is in itself a bad thing but it has to be backed up by an interesting subject. I know many hard core film buffs loved Dibakar Banerjee’s Byomkesh for how it imagined Kolkata but I saw in essence a failed whodunit where they gave it away way too early (again, in keeping, with American trends, see Monk). And all the exquisite camerawork, all the effort taken to characterise the detective falls flat if the whodunit itself is not gripping. On the other hand, I was much more prepared to forgive Kahaani even after the unsatisfactory climax because up to THAT point, it had been very engaging.
I don’t also completely buy the nadagam theory offered in the case of Tamil films that focus exclusively on the narration (and mainly through dialogue) and then in a banal manner. There have been well shot and interesting Tamil films over the years. It’s more that the audience is prepared to accept banality as long as the film is somewhat racy (even if it’s predictable). I remember in a discussion on an Ilayaraja forum I was part of, some people opined that a ghazal type song is completely unsuitable for picturisation unless the hero is shown singing on stage or in a historical setting. I mean, how about Ruke Ruke Se Kadam, prostitute listening to ghazal on the radio (or Dil Dhoondtha Hain from the same film)? So that viru-viru quality is important for Tamil viewers, for better or worse.
LikeLike
Siva
September 2, 2016
Hi BR, Watched the film yesterday and it worked on most fronts for me..Yes a bit on the face in parts. But Vijay Sethupathy, Radhika and lead ladies’ performanceswere all good(barring a slightly irritating Shrushti Danghe) film worked for me. A nicely made entertainer. Declared a super hit I hear.
LikeLike
Vsfan
November 20, 2016
Is there an actor who is totally not self conscious? Vijay Sethupathi stands out just for this reason alone.
LikeLike
Hrishi
February 16, 2017
“It’s not enough that we see Subhashini and Dharmadurai in bed. The scene has to be prefaced with this admission: “We are living together.”. A rare mistake from baradwaj. She said it to provoke her husband… And it’s a good insight to her character… No matter how well she takes it, she can’t resist digging at him. When she said it.. There was no sexual relationship with the hero.
LikeLiked by 1 person