Spoilers ahead…
Sometimes, while watching a movie, I’ll end up thinking: ‘But Kamal Haasan has done this before!’ It’s possibly a couple of things. One, Kamal’s films are so unique, so ahead of their time, that they become the template for a certain kind of movie. Two, present-day filmmakers have grown up worshipping these films, and they think, “Okay, so this didn’t work then. Maybe now’s the time.”
All of which is my way of saying that Irumugan, Anand Shankar’s new film, plays out like a mashup of Vikram (a cold-hearted secret agent, a widower, is the only one who can save the universe) and Aalavandhan (the leading man in two flavours; the vanilla hero, and the cassata villain, colourful and generously sprinkled with nuts). Here, Vikram, with his penchant for making every acting job look like a stint in a Siberian prison, plays RAW agent Akilan and a pharmaceutical mad-scientist named… Love, who’s concocted a compound that, when inhaled, can transform ordinary men into Schwarzeneggerian cyborgs. Imagine the consequences if the drug fell into the hands of terrorist organisations. It’s hasta la vista to the world as we know it, baby!
Anand Shankar’s first film, Arima Nambi, was derivative too. It wasn’t cinema as much as collage art composed from a piece of this Hollywood thriller here, a scrap of that one there. But when done well, this kind of empty-calorie filmmaking can be very satisfying, the equivalent of a junk-food meal. Arima Nambi was slick, smart – it had real rhythm. None of this can be said about Irumugan, which veers between just-about-watchable and inexplicably dull.
Or maybe there is an explanation: the director was hit by the condition called bigstaritis. It’s what happens when you cast a big-name actor, and your budget shoots up, and you find you have to begin thinking about how to make your high-concept movie – filled with references to the hippocampus and (if I heard right) Succinylcholine (whose chemical formula, C14H30N2O4, makes its way into a line of dialogue) – play in Ariyalur and Vadakampatti. Enter Thambi Ramaiah, whose bumbling routine shows us what it would be like if Mr. Bean entered the world of James Bond. Enter Karunakaran, whose sole function is exposition – he plays, essentially, a fat book in a science library. Enter the songs of Harris Jayaraj, who’s second only to Tolkien in his capacity to invent new languages. In English, these terribly positioned (and terribly choreographed) numbers would be called speed-breakers.
These “compromises” are death to a Hollywood-style thriller. (What is it about films set in Malaysia that reduces promising filmmakers to shadows of their earlier selves?) And the writing is too slack, too generic to compensate. You can see the twists coming. You don’t hire the most popular actors and write them out of the story after two scenes. So no one comes to these films for nourishing drama, you say. And the early action scenes are good. Anand Shankar shoots multiple set-ups and chops the footage into quick, disorienting cuts that slash through the tedium of the typical Tamil-film action scene. But the stunts get repetitive after a point. Inhale drug. Become superhuman. Hurl opponent at wall. Rinse. Repeat.
What about Love? Vikram wears a salt-and-pepper ponytail and eyebrows shaped like McDonald’s arches. He pitches his voice low and speaks with an indistinct accent that keeps shuttling between New York and Nanganallur. Is Love gay? A transgender? There are no answers. Only hints. A raised pinkie while holding a cup of coffee. A fondness for lipstick. And this line, laying out what would happen if Akilan joined him. “Ulagathile nee raja, naan rani.” Love is too underwritten to be offensive. Why not some backstory about how he came to be this way? Without this, the character is just 70 kgs of camp. There’s a scene that sounds horrific on paper, where Love carves someone up and lets them bleed to death, but on screen, we don’t sense this sadism. We just see an actor amusing himself with swishy hand movements.
Akilan is marginally better-written. He is single-minded in his dedication to the task at hand, and one development (involving Riythvika, who seems to be getting typecast in bit parts in big-star films) brings out a side that’s almost cruel. A small salute. Big-hero movies usually steer clear of such moral ambiguity, especially when a woman’s life is in danger. As Akilan’s partner, Nitya Menen (who seems to be getting typecast in supporting parts in big-star films) manages some dignity on her way to the bank to deposit what was hopefully a fat pay cheque. Only Nayanthara escapes unscathed. The actress looks so fabulous these days (who’s her stylist?), the goodness or badness of her films is irrelevant. What the camera feels for her is true… Love.
KEY:
- irumugan = the man with two faces
- Arima Nambi = see here
- “Ulagathile nee raja, naan rani.” = You will be king. And I, queen.
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.
Rhaegar
September 8, 2016
Great to read it reviews, sir.
LikeLike
Meghnath
September 8, 2016
I wonder why Vikram tries too hard to be different… He can very well make a normal commercial movie on the lines of Dhil,Dhool and saamy.. Its almost as if he has started thinking that the audience expects vikram’s films to be “different”. The end result is this : Vikram’s movies = Sachin of the 90s !!! A good performance and the rest around him is a farcical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishna27
September 8, 2016
BR, you absolutely captured the essence of Nayan’s looks these days. She was the only good thing in a recent Venkatesh starrer. And for all the torture that Kenny puts himself through in each film, it’s more than worth giving 3 hours of our time to this fabulous actor who unfortunately seems to be making a series of bad movies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amit Joki
September 8, 2016
There are two actors who are in my eyes deserving of Kamals successor – Dhanush and Vikram.
Dhanush is excellent actor, a good singer, a good lyricist, a great producer, and is helming the directors role with Raj Kiran as the lead currently. So Dhanush is becoming an all rounder which is Kamal is.
But this doesn’t show. Neither is Dhanush consciously trying to be like Kamal.
Now we have another contender but for the Kamal who tries to do everything himself as he did in Dasavataram.
I can’t distantly remember him playing a normal role. Theiva Thirumagal, Raavan, I and now this. He seems to be wanting to prove that he is capable of doing what he’s doing.
And I guess he is getting what he wishes. I can see posts like Vikram please go to Hollywood. Kollywood doesn’t deserve you.
Or like f**k the National Awards committee. How dare they not give the National Award for the Best Actor?!??! He gave his everything, kind of thing.
He sort of has made a small fan following based on his this thing of working too hard. He has succeeded in changing the perception of what good acting is, among the Tamilians.
He wanted to do something different with masala template too. 10 Enradhukulla went out of the screens 10 enradhukulla.
Everything is too mainstream for him I guess. He is a great actor. But he needs to come out of this mentality. I would have flopped big time were it not for all those hype provided by how Vikram had to undergo weight changes, prosthetics and all that shit to end up average.
I am praying that he chooses a normal script the next time. Its high time he did
LikeLiked by 1 person
venkatesh
September 8, 2016
“The actress looks so fabulous these days (who’s her stylist?), the goodness or badness of her films is irrelevant.”
Amen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hari ohm
September 8, 2016
Is this the first time you are dragging Nanganallur into your reviews?
Happy to see you reference my place 🙂
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
September 8, 2016
And to think he did consider Papanasam for a short while…his ‘doing-the-high-end-thing’ partner was lucky…
“Enter Thambi Ramaiah, whose bumbling routine shows us what it would be like if Mr. Bean entered the world of James Bond.”
Wait, what was Johnny English then?
LikeLike
praneshp
September 8, 2016
“Only Nayanthara escapes unscathed. The actress looks so fabulous these days (who’s her stylist?), the goodness or badness of her films is irrelevant. What the camera feels for her is true… Love.”
Ok watching tomorrow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Akhilan
September 8, 2016
This is RAW Agent Akhilan here, investigating why movies where the protagonists share my first name seem to suck in BR’s eyes… 😉 (Maattrraan being the other notable one…)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jeeva P
September 8, 2016
I don’t think Anand has big staritis. It is Vikramitis. Look at Vikram’s lineup. Lingusamy came to Vikram after a surprise superhit Sandakozhi and gave the disaster Bheema. Then Susi Ganesan gave a horrible film with Vikram after his superhit Thirutupayale. Then Suseendran gave a dud Rajapattai after a series of nice movies. Then it was Vijay Milton’s turn. Now Anand Shankar. Vikram carries a lot of bad luck IMO.
LikeLike
sameoldnewbie
September 8, 2016
“Enter Thambi Ramaiah, whose bumbling routine shows us what it would be like if Mr. Bean entered the world of James Bond.”
🙂 So exactly like Johnny English then?
LikeLike
brangan
September 8, 2016
Not quite Johhny English. I’m talking about Mr. Bean in Skyfall… a comic character in a dead-serious film.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
September 8, 2016
Sorry sir, my bad
Sir, some part of me really hopes that your Onam gift for us would be the Kammatipaadam review. Sorry for being too pushy
LikeLiked by 1 person
praneshp
September 8, 2016
@amit:
“I would have flopped big time were it not for all those hype provided by how Vikram had to undergo weight changes, prosthetics and all that shit to end up average.”
Are you saying “I” didn’t flop big-time?
LikeLike
Aadhy
September 9, 2016
From being a dull place inhabited with boring mamas to finding a place in BR’s review, Nanganallur has come quite some way, lol..
BTW it looks like cross-dressing and transmutation have become synonymous with good acting nowadays. Every tamil TV show, online and social media cine-enthusiast, has been going bonkers over how Vikram transformed his body into a neanderthal in I, or the mannerisms in the Love character here. The whole marketing strategy of Remo has been revolving around Sivakarthikeyan’s cross-dressing, with words like ‘dedication’ and ‘hardwork’ being thrown around liberally. What Kamal did decades ago might have been novel then, but this gimmick is getting severly redundant and increasingly distracting now. It screams “oh look at this actor doing all this!” rather than making us invest into the character.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ravi K
September 9, 2016
The “Irumugan” aspect to this was pointless. Even if they had clumsily attempted to use the theme of duality in the film, or they were twins or something, it would have made sense, even if those have been done before. I did appreciate that there wasn’t some lengthy backstory to Love, but there should have been SOME justification for it. Remove the novelty of the double role, and Love is an unremarkable villain.
I’m not completely against actors playing multiple roles. Multiple roles and physical transformations have their value in some films, but they’re not a goal in and of themselves. At some point you wonder if you are admiring the effort more than you are enjoying the product.
LikeLike
Adithyan
September 9, 2016
All of which is my way of saying that Irumugan, Anand Shankar’s new film, plays out like a mashup of Vikram (a cold-hearted secret agent, a widower, is the only one who can save the universe)..
Even vikram was ur usual commercial movie that made lots of compromises when it comes to script( it was adaptation of sujatha’s novel of the same name)…our filmmakers have always had problems when it comes to translating a good script into a good movie. It’s time that our directors scrap the idea of including unnecessary songs, comedies and even romance for the sake of having it in our big stars films.
LikeLike
கோவி
September 9, 2016
“Love is too underwritten to be offensive. Why not some backstory about how he came to be this way? Without this, the character is just 70 kgs of camp. ”
Why do we need it? If the filmmaker added a flashback for Love somewhere into the film wouldn’t it make the film much boring than it is. A villain is a dirt that need to be cleaned up. Why bother how it come about. Many wonderful villains don’t have flashbacks.
It think they failed in characterising him enough through his action and bring out multi-dimensional traits that makes us feel the character.
LikeLike
Balaraman
September 9, 2016
I am wondering how could they imitate famous pharma company Cipla as Kipla. And Nasser wasn’t used for his full extent. Love-Vikram finds Nithya menon wearing camera watch and takes selfie too, but leaves without destroying the footage!
LikeLike
sachita
September 9, 2016
I am probably the only person to say this but dont get the fandom for Nayanthara – (ducking away from all the stones).
Had a lot of expectation from Anand Shankar after Arima nambi. That wasnt a great story but he had executed it very well. In general dont particularly care for action scenes and even I enjoyed the chase scenes in Arima Nambi.
Was planning to watch it over the weekend now I have second thoughts.
Vikramitis it is. But feel bad for him though. Very few actors can pull off Ravanan the way he did.
LikeLike
Ramnath Kamakoti
September 9, 2016
Did any of you perk up when Nayanthara takes the inhaler from Vikram… I was hoping for a Scarlett Johannsonesque fight… Silirthu poi sillaraiyellam vittu erinjen…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ragenikanth
September 9, 2016
post anniyan vikram is a disaster
LikeLike
MANK
September 9, 2016
I think it was anniyan that destroyed Vikram. Before that, he was such a relaxed performer oozing style and cool masculine sex appeal effortlessly Ina quartet of movies – Gemini,dhill,dhool and saamy – that made him a big star. Even pithamagan for which he won the national award was a natural performance
Then anniyan happened and I think that all the praise he got for the 3 different variations of the character changed his outlook towards acting and movies. Since then he has been trying to repeat the anniyan formula in film after film
I have always been perplexed by the praise he got for his anniyan performance. All 3 performances are so artificial and irritating with the portrayal of ambi being downright intolerable
LikeLiked by 6 people
udhaysankar
September 9, 2016
Whenever I look at nayan, I say this to myself. ‘I’m not ugly, I’m just poor.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
September 9, 2016
கோவி: When I say backstory, I don’t necessarily mean a flashback etc., but just some bits of story that fill out who he is, what he is. Something that helps us get into his head. Right now, he’s just…. as I said, 70 kgs of camp.
backstory: a history or background created for a fictional character in a film or television programme. eg. “At rehearsal, the actors developed backstories for their characters.”
LikeLike
sameoldnewbie
September 9, 2016
Oh right. Whilst I do have some reservations about calling Skyfall as ‘dead-serious’, I see what you mean! Lovely analogy-laden review though – enjoyed reading it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
deepak
September 9, 2016
sheer torture to watch vikram movies in theatres.. what is the value add in him playing the villan role.
LikeLike
shaviswa
September 9, 2016
@MANK – it was Anniyan that stopped me from watching any of his movies. Just could not tolerate his hamming in that film.
Thought it was because of Shankar but looks like he is repeating that with other directors too.
LikeLike
Pravin J Kalyan
September 9, 2016
lled with references to the hippocampus and (if I heard right) Succinylcholine (whose chemical formula, C14H30N2O4, makes its way into a line of dialogue) ”
In Breaking Bad sit.com they don’t get into this chemical names and when they do it in a instance or two they ensure that it is a passing reference and that itself is not important but the Story or what is going to happen next is important.
Looks like Vikram has got another unique skill set apart from fine acting – to choose bad scripts all the way and give the best in it.
LikeLike
Meghnath
September 9, 2016
To be fair with Vikram, i think the Ambi character itself was irritating and it was not Vikram who played it in an irritating manner. And since the movie was about multiple personality disorder, playing three roles didn’t look forced.
Here, they could have had a another villain and it wouldn’t have mattered one bit.
LikeLike
Ravi K
September 9, 2016
Pravin J Kalyan wrote: “In Breaking Bad sit.com they don’t get into this chemical names and when they do it in a instance or two they ensure that it is a passing reference and that itself is not important but the Story or what is going to happen next is important.”
When filmmakers do this kind of thing it is usually to make mediocre films seem intelligent. The audience really doesn’t care about the chemical name of the substance. We already know he’s a great chemist. It seems like it’s the character showing off, but it’s actually the writer showing off.
LikeLike
Ramesh
September 9, 2016
Hi Baradwaj,
Are you writing this review as a critic or as a Kamal fan? since when did kamal movies become a role model or a template for good cinema. Agreed kamal is agreat actor..honestly he looks like some sort of a film god only becos he works in a industry thats filled with the likes of ajith,vijay,simbu,surya,vikram, k.s ravikumar,shankar etc..kamal has acted in a few good movies in his long career..but how many of kamal’s ideas have been original…
Talk about misogyny in tamil movies? heres a classic from vikram
heroine: iam studying btech in iit madras
kamal: oh thats great!! so even girls have started studying these days?
heroine: What do u mean? a woman is equal to a man
kamal: is it?.Ill take my shirt off during summer. can you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ramesh
September 9, 2016
Mank,
Vikram cant act to save his life.Proof : anniyan…hiding behind makeup is not acting.. Vikram is all at sea portraying day to day emotions..
LikeLike
Amit Joki
September 9, 2016
Ramesh, I second you.
Also this kind of double roles is cheating the fans. I mean they come to see Vikram and he is covered with prosthetics.
I mean what could he emote with that acid oithuna moonji in I and this shemale in Irumugan?
In the making of Sidney Lumet Making Movies, if I remember it right Marlon Brando worked so many takes to get a lengthy unbroken shot right since the dialogue was directly linked with his personal troubles. It went on to like 45 takes for a one take artist like him.
For me, that’s the dedication that needs to standout.
An actors job is to look the part and whatever he does to get it right should go down the drain. What can he emote after looking the part is what matters.
And Vikram seems to talk about it passionately too. Like how much he has put it in efforts.
A great actor needs just his face. Everything else is secondary.
Pranesh: I meant it ended up average financially, though as a piece of cinema it did flop big time.
LikeLike
MANK
September 9, 2016
shaviswa, i am sure Shankar had a lot to do with his performance in that film, but the raves he got for that performance definitely affected his future artistic choices. The film also opened his market in other languages. More than that , the film provided a template for what his future films should be, which is A big budgeted hyperbolic film in which he will be playing a ‘different’ – read Hyperbolic character- with abnormalities, superpowers, you name it.
bheema, Kandasamy,thandavam, Raavanan,I,…all followed this template religiously. it goes without saying that they were all terrible choices.I have a feeling that he became a megalomaniac post Anniyan,
Its a pity really. because he is so much more talented than the rest of the bunch
For one, he is a very gifted performer . unlike Actors like Surya or Ajith who have a limited range and looks ill at ease in their performances , He and Vijay has the ability to execute the characters with remarkable ease . moreover when it comes to dramatic skills , he tops vijay . its too bad his career is in shambles
I was so looking forward to watching Irumugan. i had the feeling that after almost a decade of disappointments, he was due for redemption. More importantly, i loved Arimai Nambi and if ever a director was going give right direction to Vikram’s skills Anand Shankar was to be the guy. All wrong. One look at the trailer of the film and i know this was a lost cause he seems to have parted ways with the audience irreversibly.
LikeLike
கோவி
September 9, 2016
Forgive me for pushing this. I just wanted to clear things generally with relation to usage of backstory in cinema. When you say
“a back story is just some bits of story that fill out who he is, what he is…”
this has to be done either orally(a character speaks about a our guy that he is such and such.
Ex: “அந்த காலத்துல ராசா மாதிரி வாழ்ந்த மனுஷன், இன்னைக்கு தங்கச்சிக்காக எல்லாத்தையும் விட்டுக்கொடுத்துட்டு விவசாயம் பாத்துட்டு இருக்காரு” as in many of our films) or visually(flashbacks where you show the entire happening of brother leaving his fortune/honour/ for the betterment of his sister’s life). Both of them are certainly valid scene(although it is a cliche) to establish sympathy for the brother in a movie about brother-sister relationship where the brother does sacrifice after sacrifice until things worsen up and sister leaves her husband and his family to regain her brother’s honour.
But consider a villain like joker. During the course of the story, he spills out two contradicting accounts of how he got the scar on his face. That’s all we got to know about his past. We know he is unreliable and won’t expect a backstory in his case. May be the enigma of who he is adding up the engagement of the audience. All we know about him is that he is a psychopath but that is what we learn from his actions (i.e. Nobody said he is a psychopath, but we are shown he does and we infer that he is a psychopath).
“ At rehearsal, the actors developed backstories for their characters “
But don’t they develop backstories just to provide themselves with motivation for the action performed during the course of the play. All that remains in the play is just pure simple action conceived by the author that shows to us who the characters are and what they do.
I think exposition is successful only when they don’t come as an exposition(backstory/flashback). Even in the two situation discussed above, we can clearly see the superiority of the later(Joker) against the former(brother/sister).
P.S: I got to confess that i didn’t watch Irumugan till now(Planned to watch it this weekend). All I said was based on the ear-way-news(காது வழி செய்திகள்) that Love is based on Joker. May be I messed things up. In that case, please correct me. I brought this up because I strongly believe that single-dimensional characters are haunting our cinema greatly and suspect Love to be one.
LikeLike
MANK
September 9, 2016
Amit,Ramesh, Vikram is a terrific actor. You watch him in Dhool, saamy or in the initial portions of sethu- where he doesnt use any makeup or prosthetics. they showcase his intensity ,range and effortlessness.
Its not that he is a bad actor, but his approach to acting in recent years is all wrong. he has begun equating great acting with physical transformations and external gimmicks rather than internalisation. I am afraid there seems to be a section of fans and critics who seems to be cheering him on in this endeavor
LikeLiked by 2 people
vijay
September 9, 2016
Vikram needs to retire(or be retired I guess), at least from big mainstream films. We cannot continue to blame his directors forever. This time, looks like even Nayanthara’s lucky charm couldn’t save this one. His script sense, perception of acting, choice of music in his films are all in a league that is more Ajith-esque than Kamal’ish.
LikeLike
vijay
September 9, 2016
I’ll blame Pithamagan than Anniyan, if at all I need to find a scapegoat.He got a NA for the former and lots of praise. That was the movie that probably mislead him into thinking that gory physical transformation + amateurish antics = great acting. Surya was effortless in Pithamagan.
Kamal is also to blame a bit in this regard. His continued obsession with prosthetics even well into his fifties with movies like Dasavatharam wasn’t setting a good precedent for other actors. Coincidentally(or not perhaps) that prosthetics thing for Kamal also started with another Shanker film-Indian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kavin Ayyapparaj
September 9, 2016
Your review was much more entertaining than the movie itself.
LikeLike
udhaysankar
September 9, 2016
Vikram is a terrific masala hero. I could imagine how better sethupathi, Thani oruvan (he would have been the perfect foil for Aravind), sundarapandian, yennai arindhal, etc would have been if he had played the lead roles. Heck, he even made kandasamy work to an extent.
LikeLike
shaviswa
September 9, 2016
@MANK you forget to mention Thandavam!! yeeesh!
LikeLike
udhaysankar
September 9, 2016
BR, did you listen to mirzya soundtrack?? SELECT in top form.
LikeLiked by 1 person
udhaysankar
September 9, 2016
SEL f***king autocorrect.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
September 10, 2016
Two, present-day filmmakers have grown up worshipping these films, and they think, “Okay, so this didn’t work then. Maybe now’s the time.”
You do realise that he’s laid a terrible path for today’s youngsters.
Ramesh: Had Rajini been in the place of Kamal, the ‘Vikram classic’ would’ve garnered more attention here. Being a regular at this blog, I’ve often observed most of the readers complain about the fire rescue scene in Enthiran. But, the even-more-awful sequence in Indian doesn’t get the same attention as Enthiran. Maybe, it’s because of the Kamal factor?
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
September 10, 2016
he has begun equating great acting with physical transformations and external gimmicks rather than internalisation
MANK: I think more than the actors themselves, it’s the fans who think that way. Surya became an overnight sensation with films like Nanda and Perazhagan. He became a ‘mass hero’ with Ghajini and Vaaranam Aayiram.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
September 10, 2016
External gimmicks for acting started with Kamal in AS imo, it’s been downhill since then. Vikram was superb in Saamy, Dhool and Dhil, his problem is continued preference for vanity projects with empty she’ll of a script
LikeLike
Srinivas R
September 10, 2016
I meant “empty shell”, weird typo
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
September 10, 2016
Perhaps Rangan sir’s David review could have answers for some of you
LikeLike
கோவி
September 10, 2016
Also, I would love to read your take on classics such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Samouraï where exposition/backstory is practically nil for any of the characters involved.
LikeLike
Ramesh
September 10, 2016
Gimmicks like hiding behind makeup is a universal phenomenon I guess . Even the oscars are largely awarded to actors who worked hard to physically transform themselves . Yes, if there’s someone to be blamed its kamal.inspite of being a great actor kamal some how confuses donning different disguises as great acting. The Same has inspired people like vikram and surya. Can vikram cry or smile naturally. Can he do a full length comedy?. His performances in set hu and pitha magan were extremely overrated. Disfiguring completely staring is not acting. If those were great acting why did he struggle as a innocent brahmin in anniyan or his attempted comedy in a few scenes in dhool or with his madras baashai in I . Vikram is a below average actor with very limited range
LikeLiked by 4 people
SANJEEV
September 10, 2016
“For one, he is a very gifted performer . unlike Actors like Surya or Ajith who have a limited range and looks ill at ease in their performances , He and VIJAY has the ability to execute the characters with remarkable ease . moreover when it comes to dramatic skills , he tops vijay . its too bad his career is in shambles”
@ MANK : I Hope u said VIJAY SETHUPATHY AND NOT JOSEPH VIJAY
LikeLike
Ramesh
September 10, 2016
Honest raj,
True..misogyny is part of tamil cinema.. It doesn’t matter if it’s rajini or kamal.. Both are equally guilty..I know baradwaj felt rajini is more guilty becos of his reach..I would consider kamal more guilty ,because rajini doesn’t consider himself to be an intellectual and I think he is largely naive whereas kamal wants to be seen as a thinker/intellectual which unfortunately he is Not.
LikeLike
brangan
September 10, 2016
கோவி: Your Joker example is exactly what I mean by backstory, because his “being nuts” and “unreliable” is established by these “false narratives.” In the case of Guna, say, you have backstory that’s a “true narrative” when Guna talks about being chained in that temple and it explains his mind a bit (a very similar confession is made by the prostitute played by Waheeda Rahman in Ray’s Abhijaan). It isn’t just ‘sympathy’. It’s a window into a psyche. We get no windows in the case of Love. He’s just camping around. I don’t want to “feel” for him. I just want some bits of backstory that make me “get” him.
MANK: I disagree with the point about Kamal’s misogyny. That scene in Vikram is about the CHARACTER’s misogyny. The character is modeled after Bond, and remember what Judi Dench called Bond once? “A sexist, misogynistic dinosaur.” So that’s not Kamal. That’s Vikram.
In the films he has been instrumental in shaping (whether as director or producer), we almost always find a respectful attitude towards women, whether it’s the Iravati Harshe character in Hey Ram or Amala in Sathya or Sukanya in Mahandhi… And with characters he’s written (like Gautami in Nammavar, Rani in Hey Ram), he’s been single-handedly responsible in giving women sexual agency. Not the “inga konjam vaa, mama” type, said in a kozhaiyara voice, but in the sense of an adult woman who is confident about her sexuality.
Maybe pre-Nayakan — i.e. before he started making one film at a time, before he transformed into the Kamal we know today — there may be the casual, thoughtless misogyny so rampant in Tamil commercial cinema. But even then, Kamal’s films (taken together) are nowhere near Rajini’s levels of “ponnu-na adakkama irukkanum” type crap.
Ramesh: kamal wants to be seen as a thinker/intellectual which unfortunately he is Not
“Intellectual” is a more loaded term, but if Kamal is not a thinking actor/filmmaker, then who is? 🙂
LikeLiked by 6 people
Ramesh
September 10, 2016
Baradwaj : Wholly endorse your views on misogyny. My point was even though the degree of misogyny might vary, essentially all tamil movies are misogynist in some form or other. For example the marriage scene in Nayagan was chauvinistic according to me. Even though we might glorify marrying a prostitue, I don’t think the girl was even consented . He just goes to a temple and ties a knot. He doesn’t care for her preferences..yes they are no where near rajni’s..but still..
About kamal being a thinking actor/film maker… He is a great actor and tries hard in delivering good cinema.so if that qualifies as ‘thinker’..may be s..but how many of kamal’s movies have been original. I agree there’s nothing wrong in remakes ..but when more than half of somebody’s films are remakes or heavily inspired ? …in my opinion Kamal is a much better actor than a film maker..
LikeLike
brangan
September 10, 2016
Ramesh: Again, that is not Kamal. That is Velu Nayakan. He is not used to consulting people. He is used to the dictum that “naalu perukku nalladhu senjaa edhuvum thapilla.” He thinks he is “vaazhvu kuduthu-fying” to this woman. Completely valid from his POV.
LikeLike
MANK
September 10, 2016
Vijay, I think pithamagan was one of the rare cases were Surya was effortless, other wise I find him pushing hard even in masala films like Singham
Honest Raj, yes fans are a part of the problem, but I think in Vikram s case it goes beyond that. He does get a sense of entitlement or empowerment or superiority over others by doing this. I remember when I came out, he was going around making statement like no other actor in the country can go through what he put himself through for that role and so on
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
September 10, 2016
Sajeev,i meant Joseph Vijay. I do find him an effortless screen performer. Now that you say it,VJS too
Brangan, got the wrong man 😃 that was Ramesh who was making the misogyny case about the Vikram scene. I got the bond connection just fine
But your point is agreeable. Kamal has created some unique female characters in his post nayakan phases. Not only that he’s been able to get really good performances from the most unlikely actresses, sample Kiran in Anbe sivam or abhirami in virumandi
LikeLike
Vidhya (@vidhya_ls)
September 10, 2016
What bizzare logic is this … Its the character and not the actor who is misogynistic. This gives a clean chit to every actor .. Not just Kamal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aditya (Gradwolf)
September 10, 2016
It is sad the way Vikram’s career has turned but those thinking he is overrated have definitely not watched David. One of his very best, even above Sethu or Pithamagan. The Vikram in David is what we need more of. I wish Vikram gives up on his star persona (like he did in that film) and does more of the kind an Irrfan or Nawaz is doing in Bollywood. Heck! I’d give anything to see Vikram in the kind of roles even Jimmy Shergill is doing in Bollywood these days. He’ll show them. Vikram in David is like the Kamal of Sathi Leelavati or Pammal K Sammandham (and Kamal has many of those). No prosthetics or self-importance but the kind you’d see and go, “Heck, can you imagine anyone else doing that? No!”
LikeLike
Ravi K
September 10, 2016
Ramesh wrote: “Gimmicks like hiding behind makeup is a universal phenomenon I guess . Even the oscars are largely awarded to actors who worked hard to physically transform themselves .”
But in Hollywood are there actors like Kamal, Vikram, or Surya, who are constantly physically transforming themselves or playing multiple roles? The closest thing to a Hollywood equivalent is Eddie Murphy, and even he doesn’t really do those kind of roles anymore. Christian Bale has done some of those major transformation roles. With the aforementioned Tamil actors their transformations and multiple roles have worn out their welcome long ago.
LikeLike
brangan
September 10, 2016
Vidhya: It is not bizarre logic. Something that is done in one film, by one unique character, belongs to that character alone. Only when an actor’s characters are consistently shaped that way do these attributes transfer from the character to the actor’s “persona.”
Had Dhanush stalked a girl in only one film, it would be just the character he played in that film. But because his films — at least at one point — consistently portrayed this, the attribute (“stalking”) transcends the screen and rubs off onto the Dhanush “persona.”
You can attribute many things to the Kamal persona — say, on-screen masochism (his characters are always getting beaten/bashed up/spitting blood/suffering) — but misogyny is certainly not one of them.
There’s a huge difference.
LikeLiked by 3 people
கோவி
September 10, 2016
BR Ya right. Now I get what you mean. Importance of the scene in onnayum autukuttiyum where Myskkin confesses his story to the child comes to mind immediately. The entire movie is baseless without it.
BTW I just completed watching Irumugan. I think the movie also suffers from over-exposition in some places (Ex: Hitler reference), improbable possibility (Nayantara twist) and inconsistent illogicality (Love going on with SPEED without any time constraint already established).
I can’t help but compare Siddhart Abimanyu with Love where we can see different traits in former vs monopoly in later.
We can easily relate to Siddharth because we are shown rhe reason for his being what he is in the earlier scenes. He is a intelligent guy (Using any possible situation over his advantage) and powerful(Having a tight hold on CM).
His comical side a bit through the interaction with his father. His sadism through his unrepentful lust for the model (Killing her father to get her hands on her big night) He even gets the sympathy in the last scene where he gives pen drive to the hero.
Whereas in case of Love, He is a mad scientist who earns a livelihood by helping terrorist. Poor characterization though.
LikeLike
Ramesh
September 10, 2016
To an extent I agree with Baradwaj …For example when kamal consistently utters his left leaning communist/ periyarist racist slurs it’s always kamal and not the character. Because these are constant themes is most of his movies.Misogyny is not. They just come and go and off late there is no evidence of misogyny in his movies
LikeLike
Madan
September 10, 2016
Kamal also did a kind of preachy (but astonishingly far sighted, considering most Indian workplaces still don’t offer play areas where their female employees can leave their kids) guest appearance at the end of Magalir Mattum. So I broadly agree with the notion that as far as misogyny in Kamal-starrers goes, it is the character and not what Kamal himself believes and as he has gained more of a say in the proceedings, the misogyny does seem to have gone down to the point of not being there anymore.
With that said, I struggle to understand the problem with the fire rescue scene in Endhiran so tell me what am I missing here. I thought the point about the robot’s failure to understand the irrational but significant social mores we follow was well made. Surely whether we would like to uphold such mores is a different matter altogether and not related to the point being made by the filmmaker, which is simply that Chitti is a highly intelligent robot that does not have emotions.
LikeLike
Aadhy
September 10, 2016
கோவி: Nice points. It’s true that a character’s background need not be told in revelatory flashbacks or even expository dialogues, especially when it has negative shades. The enigma surrounding the character’s actions, devoid of cliched motivations, would actually make it all the more terrifying.
But that intimidation is effective only when the viewer feels that the character has a life outside the 3 hours of what is being shown to us. Otherwise it would just feel like the character is born when the movie begins and ends when a movie ends (even if it lives on in the movie). Joker may not have motivations behind his actions but you feel the dread that this guy has always been like this. The writer plants enough traits in him that we get a hang of what this crazy maniac is, was and would be (if he lived on). That is when the quirkiness stops being a gimmick and we know he IS that. Whatever he does belongs to him. He now has a life outside the writer’s draft.
Actually the character of Prithviraj in Kanaa kanden is one of the well written commercial cinema villains, I would say. You see him being a money-loving saddist, but for a while he doesn’t get at you in a way that you start rooting for that hero personally. But in this scene (link below) where the heroine asks him why he is doing all this, he starts telling something about poverty in childhood only to make a big fat joke out of it in the end. Now we know that this guy has been a greedy scum all through his life, and will continue to be a scum. Just enough background to infuse the feeling in us that this guy needs to be vanquished by the hero.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
September 10, 2016
I was in fact expecting that Bond would come for Vikram’s rescue. 🙂 But is it absolutely necessary to model the character the same way? Considering that he was the writer, he could’ve chopped off the misogynistic trait from the character, no?
Only when an actor’s characters are consistently shaped that way do these attributes transfer from the character to the actor’s “persona.”
This is purely subjective. Also, quoting your own line from a recent discussion – ‘One man’s irresponsible film is another man’s classic’. In any case, I’d only blame the filmmakers, not the actors.
For example the marriage scene in Nayagan was chauvinistic according to me. Even though we might glorify marrying a prostitue, I don’t think the girl was even consented . He just goes to a temple and ties a knot.
Ramesh: Gotta disagree; I’m with BR as far as this is concerned. Actually, he seeks her consent – he even says, “just tell if you don’t like me, I won’t disturb you further”. He goes ahead with the marriage only after getting her consent. This is not chauvinistic, IMO. Besides, you should also remember that she is not a prostitute by choice. The character probably does not even have a clue about feminism, chauvinism, et al., So, that works perfectly for me.
but if Kamal is not a thinking actor/filmmaker, then who is?
In the Indian context, RK and Guru Dutt struck a fine balance between both personae. To me, Kamal is always an actor in the first place.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
September 10, 2016
MANK: I guess it’s because of the Kamal Haasan syndrome 😛 This trend – weight changes, prosthetics – actually began with Sethu (in the second-half). Like you said earlier, he was exceptionally good in those masala films – Dhill, Gemini, Dhool and Saamy.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
September 10, 2016
Magalir Mattum is not a feminist movie, but a misandrist one – it should be quite obvious from the title itself. Kamal is probably the only ‘good’ man in the whole film.
LikeLike
Ramesh
September 10, 2016
Even though vikram was modelled after Bond, I don’t think Kamal purposefully wrote that character to be misogynistic…I am not sure if kamal would have been even aware of such things during that period…most likely he would have felt Macho
LikeLike
Madan
September 10, 2016
“Magalir Mattum is not a feminist movie, but a misandrist one” – Well, in the context of third wave feminism, it is debatable whether a difference exists between the two. But moving on…
“it should be quite obvious from the title itself” – The title, if we listen to the title track, is in fact Magalir Mattum Adimai Patta Inama Inama…so this point is not so obvious to me. About Kamal being the only good man in the film, maybe that was because the only male character with any significant screen time was the villain, a man in this case. I don’t see it as a misandrist film but as simply a quasi-comic film based on workplace harassment. And not a very good one at all either.
LikeLike
Sifter
September 10, 2016
Liked the character of ‘Love’ from what i saw in the trailer and i think Vikram is a little underrated. I may be wrong as i haven’t seen any of his films though.
Wading into the misogyny in Tamil films and specially in films that has/had Kamal or Rajini in them, I must say the earliest films I saw of theirs… Sakalakala Vallavan and Thanga Magan (in those white screens put up in our streets…made me want to puke. Yikes, the songs Kattavandi and Vaa Vaa Pakkam Vaa. Those lyrics were enough samples to scare me enough to stop watching films altogether…
It is true that the actor’s persona permeates into such story lines when it does get repetitive.
LikeLike
brangan
September 10, 2016
Sifter: It is true that the actor’s persona permeates into such story lines when it does get repetitive.
So that’s one part of it — that some of the things that we associate with an actor in real life (say, Kamal’s views on religion) seep back into the characters they play.
But I was also talking about the “persona” of the actor, which is something that gets built over time from the bits and pieces of characters they play. (So the more they keep portraying the same things, the more these things “transfer” from the character on screen to the “persona” — or perception — of the actor.)
Stars, especially, establish very strong personas over time.
eg. We may not know what Tom Hanks is like in real life, but his screen “persona” is that of someone with strong moral values and innate decency, a sort of modern-day James Stewart.
This “persona” has been built over time, from many movies, and it’s very much what the audience buys into when they see someone as a star. So if someone casts Hanks as an axe murderer tomorrow, they are casting against type, going against his “persona.”
LikeLike
Ramesh
September 10, 2016
I think Rajini’s films to a large extent just reflect the cultural beliefs or practices of the society . I don’t think he thinks too much on issues of women empowerment or misogyny..TN is largely a chauvinistic society with narrow minded views on issues of culture and women. These views are endorsed by women as well. So he sees no issues with such scenes , cos the average tamil man/woman has no problems with that. He quit smoking on screen becos he was under huge pressure. Tomorrow if the society puts on pressure on his chauvinism , he would quit doing such scenes.
So I think the society is also partly responsible. Not sure how the women in his home see the misogyny in his movies..if they view those as macho/heroic , no wonder he hasn’t learnt
LikeLike
praneshp
September 10, 2016
@Honest Raj: Nagesh was also a good man 😛 Highlight of the movie for me.
LikeLike
கோவி
September 10, 2016
Aadhy:
“The writer plants enough traits in him that we get a hang of what this crazy maniac is, was and would be (if he lived on). ”
I certainly agree with this. All we see in most of the movies is the same cliched traits of characters always told in the same cliched way. For ex: loosu ponnu trait in heroines portrayed via innocence. This shows the laziness in our writing.
We should be innovative in finding traits for our characters to be distinguished.(At least strive to be innovative in ways presenting them. RIP Sidekick friends mocking the hero, Sermon preaching Hero to prove his goodness.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sifter
September 10, 2016
BR- Agree, we may not know what they are like in real life. I was just referring to that part on misogyny, not the entire gamut of their personas. While they carefully,with due care over the years cultivate a certain image/persona that they want to be associated with for the audience, they also implicitly perpetuate this misogyny and wilfully participate in it without any care for the same audience. They don’t have to do the latter to be successful or continue to stay on top, but continue to do it or find new ways to do it.
The only thing they’ve stopped doing is removing their shirts and show of their unvested chests and taunting their women to do the same to prove their supremacy 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
sravishanker1401gmailcom
September 10, 2016
BR : “Here, Vikram, with his penchant for making every acting job look like a stint in a Siberian prison” Ha Ha very well put.
Kinda sums up Vikram’s roles nowadays.
Wish he’d come up with another Sami with all the positive vibes that came with it.
LikeLike
Ramesh
September 11, 2016
Watching vikram surya dhanush fool themselves and not achieve 10% of kamal the actor and let’s not talk writer director. thank god for kamal for doing almost everything in our heydays 70s 80s, 90s. I wonder if we will ever get another kamal again.
LikeLike
MIsha
September 11, 2016
Most of the comments here seem to be placing the blame squarely on Vikram’s shoulders. But everyone also agrees Vikram is talented and can deliver whatever is expected of him. Isn’t this then really the director’s fault ?
Coming from another direction, these double role tropes have been a popular gimmick in Tamil (Indian) cinema for a long time. The newer directors are rehashing this theme (like many others) and maybe they have typecast Vikram into this ? I know he can still refuse, but its a role and he seems to be putting in the effort (from his point of view).
Or is the contention here that its not really the double/triple role trope but Vikram’s execution of it ? Even then the director can/should be responsible. No ?
Also, do we know if directors are approaching him with Dhool, Saamy kinda roles and that he rejects them to focus on these “ham it up” roles ?
@BR “he’s been single-handedly responsible in giving women sexual agency. Not the “inga konjam vaa, mama” type, said in a kozhaiyara voice, but in the sense of an adult woman who is confident about her sexuality.”
– Awesome.
LikeLike
Ramchander Krishna (@ramctheatheist)
September 11, 2016
Another classic example of an actor in shambles is Jeeva. What happened to him after Kattradhu Thamizh? I was quite distressed to hear him say in an interview that he felt he wasted a lot of time on Kattradhu Thamizh and regrets it. It’s times like this when you’re reminded of what Hitchcock said, “Actors should be treated like cattle” and you feel like telling him, “Sokka sonna ba!”
P.S: A side effect of Irumugan has been that Kuttrame Thandanai has been kicked out of theatres in Singapore. Now I have to quietly await the DVD release.
LikeLike
Vidhya
September 11, 2016
The misogynistic dialogue from “Vikram” (the movie) can be attributed to the style of writer Sujatha who penned the story for the film. His famous lawyer-sleuths characters Ganesh-Vasanth were (perhaps) merged to shape Vikram. Where Ganesh was the respectful gentleman, Vasanth was always portrayed as misogynistic, flirty, cocky. So as a regular reader of Sujatha’s, I found that dialog repartee typical of Vasanth’ s character.
Sujatha had never been politically correct in his novels/stories – every character was almost always grey or had some irritable traits – no pristine hero or karantha-paal-vida-thooimayana heroines for him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adithyan
September 11, 2016
So VIKRAM part-2 A.K.A irumugan is like this
Vikram played the role of both kamal and sathyaraj.
Nayanthara played the role of ambika and Lissy and nithya menon played the role of dimple kapadia though far from it.. watched this movie today, wnt in with low expectations after reading many reviews about the film , i felt the movie quite tolerable. if i had watched this film without reading any reviews i don’t know what my reaction would be… And nice to see rangan coming up with the decent review (quality wise).. Your reviews these days aren’t up to the standards that you have set for yourself. In my opinion but your review for this film is better (you covered most things about this film well)..
LikeLike
Adithyan
September 11, 2016
Ramesh:” but how many of kamal’s ideas have been original…”
Well kamal’s idea of animation fight in aalavandhan WaS original i don’t think he copied tarantino it was vice versa, aboorva sagotharagal (dwarf Jamal) was his own, hey raam one of the best semi- fiction indian film was his.. It seems U don’t love/like or watching Tamil films and actors. I can tell many more about kamal but no matter what i tell you will still go on talk same things as usual.. . i don’t to have to tell or prove how great kamal is , as people around the world knows about his contribution to the Indian cinema better than you..
“Vikram cant act to save his life.Proof : anniyan…hiding behind makeup is not acting..”
Well lot of people here are saying that Vikram’s acting looked artificial in Anniyan , film like anniyan needed that kind of performance to make it as success..if u didn’t like Vikram’s performance, can you name which Indian actor would have been great in essaying multiple roles realistically in a film like anniyan ( i know you would not name any tamil actor).
“Vikram is all at sea portraying day to day emotions..”
Watch pithamagan
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rakesh
September 11, 2016
http://m.thehindu.com/features/cinema/the-elusive-harris-jayaraj-talks-about-his-love-for-architecture-his-empty-tune-bank-and-the-lamborghini-he-has-no-time-to-drive/article9094373.ece
“I compare composing for films to a mother cooking for her son. If he’s unwell, she makes him rasam”
HJ’s background score was downright annoying, a sample being during the interrogation scene where Vikram makes the guy spill out the details in 2 minutes.
LikeLike
shaviswa
September 11, 2016
@Adithyan Anniyan was a horrible film. So I don’t want to see any other actor in that role, not just Vikram.
On Kamal’s films, the dwarf Kamal made a brief presence in a movie called Punnagai Mannan. Not sure if you remember the scene at a store where Kamal entertains a kid. My guess is he got the idea from KB and then decided to make it into a complete film in AS.
I don’t like Kamal in any of his serious films. He hams his way through. OTOH he is phenomenal in comedy films. His sense of humour is brilliant and timing simply outstanding. Most of his “ideas” maybe novel but not very entertaining. I completely disliked the Aalavandhan film. I am also not a fan of Hey Ram, Mahanadhi etc. Virumandi was nauseating IMO.
Not that I don’t like any of his serious films. I liked Anbe Sivam (honestly thoroughly enjoyed Madhavan in that film).
LikeLiked by 1 person
vijay
September 11, 2016
“I was quite distressed to hear him say in an interview that he felt he wasted a lot of time on Kattradhu Thamizh and regrets it. ”
If Katradhu thamizh had become a hit, like say, Sethu or Pithamagan he would’nt have said it.
That is the only yardstick that matters in the end. Its us, the audience who get fooled time and again when an actor like him takes up a role like that, and we immediately start thinking, ‘here’s the next Kamal wannabe’. But they all end up like Suryas and Vikrams.
That way, Vijay Sethupathy hasn’t completely fallen off to the other side, which gives some hope, even if acting-wise he isn’t in the same league.
LikeLike
Iswarya
September 12, 2016
My goodness.. I’m missing all the interesting bits of conversation on this blog these days. Blame my totally killing time crunch due to the campaign work. Not even managed to update the campaign thread on this site. But lovely to see the misogyny discussion surfacing every now and then, especially when I just finished writing a Buzzfeed article on the same! And surprise, surprise, I made references to the same shirtless antics about both Kamal and Rajini!
BTW, Honest Raj: Kamal was not the only good man in MM. The old man who works as a loyal spy of the boss’s family was one. And as praneshp said, the phenomenal Nagesh!
LikeLike
Vidhya
September 12, 2016
Vikram has this uncanny ability to season his performances with flashes of brilliance here and there, that at the end of the day, only those are enough for him to be hailed as a great actor.
For eg. In Dheiva Thirumagal, after all that hamming, he nails the wistful look at his daughter in the final scenes and that eventually is what stays in the mind of the viewers. Same with Anniyan – Remo was irritating, but just see the confidence in his eyes in those two songs (kaadhal yaanai, nokia) or the final train sequence.
The way the online community came strongly in support for Vikram after I (Shankar) was trashed by critics all over – just says how his charm has worked with the cinegoers. Few have managed that – whose haters too have a softcorner for them – I can only think of Jaishankar/ Prabhu/ Karthik/ Satyaraj/ VijaySethupathi and Vikram.
Sad that such popularity (no, not talent : Dhanush is perhaps more talented here, but likeability) is put to waste.
LikeLiked by 1 person
badri123
September 12, 2016
Adhityan : “if u didn’t like Vikram’s performance, can you name which Indian actor would have been great in essaying multiple roles realistically in a film like anniyan ( i know you would not name any tamil actor).”
A younger Kamal would have eased that role. Ambi and Remo were just crass.
In Pithamagan, he was hiding behind make up and staring..
LikeLike
Rahini David
September 12, 2016
Though this discussion is interesting and heartening, I never saw the Nayakan marriage to have a misogynistic streak to it and not allowing her the agency to refuse.
In the previous scene, Velu Naiker meets her when she is returning from school and tries to make small talk. First he asks if she remembers who he is. When she avoids him, he asks “Don’t you like me? For if you don’t I will leave”. She says, “I feel like crying when I see you… No one else has ever….See? I cried”. When she cries he puts his hand on her head first, but the gesture to come closer and put her head to his chest comes from her.
I didn’t felt that he is shown to be the kind of person who doesn’t care if her consent is present or not. And the question as to whether she may possibly be a sex worker who is fine with her line of work or enjoying her work doesn’t enter here either. She is going to school and is alone when doing so. Clearly it shows that she wants to do all she can to ensure that she is able to escape her current situation.
The wedding happens on another day as they are wearing different clothes and when Janakaraj is also present. Janakaraj is not aware that a wedding is going to happen, but didn’t see anything amiss about one of the sex workers accompanying them to the temple which shows that they have met regularly and it is understood that Saranya is someone who is close to Kamal. Both Saranya and Janakaraj probably assumed that she would be a sort of exclusive mistress and that Kamal would formally marry a more respectable girl.
Only the actual gesture of making their relationship legal and binding comes as a surprise. Her consent to be his girl is already given.
To this day people don’t understand that falling in love and wanting to marry can be distinct and separate. Why is it seen amiss in an 80s movie?
P.S. We just can’t have enough of MR or Kamal or Illayaraja, no? Even completely unrelated threads change course and gravitate towards one or two of them. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
badri123
September 12, 2016
Be it Ambi, Remo or North madras ‘I’ or his attempted comedy in few scenes in dhool , he looked like a fish out of water. He is better of doing Saamy kind of masala..
He is better than AJith or vijay.. but isnt good enough to fill Kamal’s shoes..i would say he is not even in the level of Satyaraj or Prabhu who had better range.
LikeLike
venkatesh
September 12, 2016
@Rahini : you saved me a lot of typing , i was about to write almost exactly what you explained , re : Nayakan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeeva
September 12, 2016
Rangan, I accept all your views on Kamal and his treatment of women. But I want to remind you of the ‘Raja kaiya vecha’ song from Aboorva Sagodharargal. Did Kamal really have to accept the lyrics?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
September 12, 2016
praneshp & Iswarya: In that case, add ‘Kalaipuli’ S. Dhanu too. But these characters (of course, except Nagesh) largely remain unnoticed in the film.
Vikram is way ahead of somebody like Ajith (and perhaps Surya too) when it comes to comedy. Maybe, the softness in his voice is a problem? It’s both a plus and a minus – contrast the scenes from Sethu (where he first meets Abitha) and Dhool (where Reema Sen gets to know that he’s an English illiterate). When I see Kaadhalan today, it seems as if Nagma and Prabhu Deva are doing dubsmash to the performances of Saritha and Vikram. That said, he’s such a terrible singer.
LikeLike
aravindan
September 16, 2016
Watched the film. No Uppu Chappu at all. Who made Anand Shankar think that one Halena song is enough to establish the depth of Vikram and Nayan’s love. Unfortunately, we could only access the depth of Nayan’s cleavage in that song.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hari ohm
September 16, 2016
Aravindan Unfortunately?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amit Joki
September 16, 2016
I am loving these comments. Gives a lot of insight haha 😂😂😂
LikeLike
Amit Joki
September 16, 2016
Aravindan: I think you might have wanted to use the word assess. Access gives a whole new meaning to it. Each to their own, I guess.😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
aravindan
September 16, 2016
Hahaha – Hari Ohm, “enakku ponnunga na avalo pudikaadhu”
Amit Joki – hahaha.i had deep thought about access before i wrote that comment. Then i decided its visual access and left it
LikeLike
Iswarya
September 17, 2016
Adaday.. Naatla evlo kavalaigal! The last few comments deserve slow clap 😉 People are spicing up this comment space so that I can reproach myself for my now-infrequent visits here!
LikeLike
Amit Joki
September 17, 2016
Aravindan: The visual access is very revealing! 😉😁😀
LikeLike
R Balasubramanian
November 26, 2016
Dear BR
I had watched Iru Mugan only recently. A thoroughly enjoyable film. A Tamil (English film). Only few frames of Thambi Ramiah, out of line of control. A crisp thriller made on Sci-fi overtures. Not certainly overdosing verbal diarrhea of gibberish on science part. It is a pity that Vikram’s efforts are out of reckoning now-a-days. Though not as versatile as Kamal, he gives his heart and soul for the film.
I am a vivid reader of Baradwaj Rangan (national award winner- for critical analysis.) He declares he is only an analyst. So, let us get in ingrained that he is not reviewing the thousands of films he watches as part of his chore.
First, admit i don’t read any other site for movie analysis. It is his passion. A software engineer settled in US chose to come back to pursue what his cerebral tones suggested. Hats off. He is very good at it, accepted.
Of late, may be it was there ab initio. He is using too much of references of bouncer effect. In this movie analysis
“It’s hasta la vista to the world as we know it, baby!” means Good bye in the context.
“Tolkien How many would know about this philologist” A celebrity who wrote a new language for “Lord of the Rings” and few others. Insert a Trivia, this kind of new language was used in Bahubali also. It was when barbarians attacked Mahishmati.
Coming to the crux, the analysis is critical about few scientific jargons dropped during the course of screenplay. Hippocampus: and few other pharmacological references. His concern is target group in Ariyalur and Vadakampatti may not make sense of it. Some of the films are made with a targeted audience group. It is, rather naive, that BR could not perceive it or didn’t bother to recognize. The movies is a Tamil, English film, we have all desired to watch for a quite long time. This satisfies the billing exactly, except for the comedy track of thambi Ramiah.
The film may not reach B & C center. Is it not common across the globe?, Interstellar,Avtar,Source code to cite a few would have reached a very few audience. For Christopher Nolan’s movies despite having subtitles, you need guides and tutorials normally. A stark example, Ghajini is inspired by Christopher Nolan’s Memento. Ghajini is for more understandable and enjoyable.
With due apologies, Mr.BR sir, if you say movie is obscure at some points, please go through your analysis. Writers are best known for being obscure. It is not certainly reaching all. I am reasonable to presume that I have a decent vocabulary and taste for reading good writings.
I have strong feeling that you should have been under severe fatigue, when you made the analysis.
Balasubramanian
LikeLike