Amitabh Bachchan’s Don and Mohanlal’s Chithram, 2 Iconic films of the 2 most beloved superstars as well as the greatest actors of the country celebrate their 40th and 30th anniversary respectively this year. Here is a look back
Amitabh Bachchan and Mohanlal made their debut in movies almost a decade apart. Bachchan in 1969 with K.A. Abbass’ Saat Hindustani and Lal with Manjil virinja pookkal in 1980. Bachchan’s was a supporting part while Lal was the villain. Not an auspicious beginning for aspiring movie stars. Neither of them were what could be considered conventionally good looking. Both of them would start out in the shadow of the reigning superstars of the industry and wouldn’t be considered as contenders for the top slot by any stretch of imagination. But, Within a decade of making their debut , they would attain preeminence in their respective film industries. It would be a slow climb for both as they go through a similar iteration of villainous parts, supporting parts, second hero roles, Hero roles and star hero roles that would cement their position as not just the doyens of their industry, but the kind of star heroes who have never graced the screen before and would most probably never grace the screen again , both in terms of causing a significant shift in the nature of heroism portrayed as well as change in cinematic zeitgeist.
Up until the emergence of Bachchan, the hindi film hero was predominantly the romantic hero. There would be darker shades too, but his main image will be that of the squeaky clean morally upright character in love stories or socials. Bachchan’s star making roles in Zanjeer and Deewaar would be a big change in showing the hero as a morally ambiguous angry young man who has no scruples in killing or indulging in what could be perceived as immoral acts so that justice would prevail. His image will change again by the end of 70’s when he will become a kind of all rounder , a one-man variety entertainment all to himself ,who was competent enough to portray every emotion that an actor is capable of.
1978 can be called a dream year for Bachchan. All his films, about half a dozen of them, released that year became super hits, an extraordinary achievement. Not only that, his films like Dewaar and Sholay which had been released as early as 1975 were still running in several parts of the country. In short 1978 is the year that made Bachchan the unassailable Megastar. Don was not his biggest film that year. There was Muqaddar ka sikandar, Trishul and so on that were far more successful and in many ways greater films, but Don represents the epitome of Bachchan as a versatile and widely appealing screen performer. If one has to show a film of Bachchan’s to explain his pan Indian appeal and his lengthy stint as an all conquering megastar, then this is the perfect example
Don has Amitabh in dual roles. the first is that of the cool sophisticated international smuggler named Don. The second character is that of Vijay, a rustic immigrant to the big city from the shores of Ganges – ganga kinare wala chora – as the famous song from the film testifies. The main plot of the film deals with Vijay being hired by the cops to impersonate his lookalike Don , who is dead , for breaking his criminal empire. This mixing of western cool and the salt-of-the-Indian-soil earthiness would become not only the USP of the film, but also of the Bachchan persona.
The film is also a very interesting meta exercise and can be considered self referential on many different levels.,on the nature of filmmaking as well was with the real self of Bachchan. Amitabh himself is a guy from the shores of ganges, (he is from allahabad), Bachchan’s real life persona is closer to that of the cool, discreet , sophisticated Don than the more extroverted rustic vijay, Which presents an interesting contrast in the screen characters. The film would be copied across time and languages , with different actors playing the title character, but never with the same success, underlying the importance of Bachchan’s presence\performance in the success of the film
Mohanlal had a slow and steady climb to the top . From 1980 to 1986, he stayed under the shadows of all the reigning stars, first it was prem Nazeer, then the more macho guys like Sukumaran , soman , Ratheesh etc and finally under Mammootty who by 1984 thereabouts became the top star of the industry. Mohanlal by then had graduated to the level of parallel hero. He did almost 40 odd films with Mammootty at the time in an array of wide ranging films , but always in a subservient capacity to Mammootty
This would change drastically by the end of 1986. Lal who had till then shown very limited glimpses of his promise as an actor , suddenly burst out as a multifaceted talent showing a yen for mixing comedy , romance , pathos and action effortlessly in new brand of cinema made by a completely new generation of filmmakers. The new form of hero will be a middle-class character, devoid of any super hero qualities struggling to get through his life in films where his travails are treated in a humorous fashion . Actor\screenwriter Sreenivasan, who in collaboration with directors like Sathyan anthikkad will be the chief architect of these films. His success was so extraordinary that for a moment there he completely eclipsed Mammootty – very similar to what Bachchan had done to then reigning superstar Rajesh Khanna – who at that period around 1987 appeared to be on his way out of the industry. It speaks volumes of Mammootty’s tenacity and talents as an actor , that he could make a comeback from that position enough to be counted as a star and actor in the same breath as Lal , even though Lal would be the best actor and biggest star of the industry from that point on.
Mohanlal-priyadarshan combo is like the Bachchan- Manmohan desai combo of hindi films. except that Priyan’s films were not masala films. With the exception of a few, they were mainly in the romantic musical comedy genre , but with plots that are so illogical and unreal that would have made Desai proud. Chithram is the zenith of the Lal -Priyan combo, both for how effectively entertaining the film turned out in relation to the dubious illogical story line of the film, Priyan’s skill as a filmmaker to use the tools of our mainstream cinema to gloss over the flaws in the story and presenting an engaging narrative and Lal’s multifaceted skills as a screen performer to pull off scenes that vary from extreme comedy to extreme pathos in a character, which if performed by any other actor would have been easily laughed off the screen
Like Don, this film is again about recruiting a person to act out a different character. Vishnu, Lal’s character, first appear in the film as a vagrant and an unscrupulous thief, Vishnu, it seems is dire need of 10000 rs, and is willing to do anything to get it quickly. He is convinced by Kaimal played by Nedumudi venu to act as the husband – for a daily salary – of Kalyani (played) by Renjini. Renjini was ditched at the altar by her boyfriend, now she needs to pass off somebody as her husband in front of her father who is come visiting from America for a couple of weeks. Vishnu would be paid a daily wage of 1000 Rs for 10 days .
Kalyani and Vishnu hate each other in the beginning , but would come to fall in love as the story progresses, but in a final act twist, it is revealed that Vishnu is a convict , condemned to be hanged for his wife’s death. He had escaped from prison so that he can get the money required to conduct his child’s operation.The film ends in tragedy , with Lal being taken away by his jailor to be hanged with the love story between Vishnu and kalyani remaining unrequited
Pretty much like Don, this too is sort of a meta movie. As the title Chithram , which means picture, is an ode to motion pictures itself and the story being something that can take place only in movies. The genius of the film is that irrespective of its wildly changing tone – the film starting out as a hilarious comedy ending in tear jerking tragedy – to the glaring inconsistencies in the characterization of the protagonist Vishnu- , the audience never pauses to ponder about these questions during the film. By judiciously mixing comedy , great music and an assortment of great supporting casting in colorful roles, Priyan creates a narrative whose pace never flags. But the real star of the show is undoubtedly Mohanlal, without whom this film is impossible to imagine as he pulls of scenes of high comedy as seen in the above clips, or the more emotional ones as seen below , not to mention his performances in the song sequences, in his trademark subtle naturalistic style. The film has him in peak form as a screen actor\performer. Chitram turned out be the biggest hit up until that time in Malayalam cinema, with the film running for almost 366 days in a single theater and spawning several imitations but no equals
Post Don and Chitram, the careers of both superstars will go on to greater heights , while the quality of their output will remain in flux. Bachchan, after a lengthy stint as a leading star hero, now a septuagenarian , has successfully reinvented himself as a character actor who is still going strong when he is about to complete 50 years in the industry.
Mohanlal remains the numero uno star of Malayalam cinema , and as prolific as ever. Doing almost 4 or 5 films every year , even at this age of 58, still setting records at the box office, even though the quality of his output as an actor has diminished considerably. But these 2 films that celebrates their 40th and 30th anniversaries respectively will forever remain as a signpost to the towering legacy of these two great superstar actors.
This post was written by Maneesh Krishnan A.K.A MANK
Viswanathan C
June 13, 2018
Excellent read, Mank. I fear that Lalettan fans might have a couple of things to say about this statement “… but always in a subservient capacity to Mammootty”. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
vinjk
June 13, 2018
Excellent post! I wish someone wrote about Mammootty as well. Sure, in terms of talent, he is not upto the mark set by Mohanlal but is still phenomenal and also, there are areas where he exceeds Lal.
Sorry, though i have watched and enjoyed many Amitabh Bachchan movies, I don’t have that emotional connect to his characters or movies. So no comments to make about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
June 13, 2018
Interesting writeup. Don is also my favourite film. Mohanlal is a class by himself.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 13, 2018
MANK, aniyaa… even though Lal would be the best actor and biggest star of the industry from that point on.
Njammade Mammukke-ne ingane thaazhthi kalanjallo?! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
June 13, 2018
thank you all 🙂
Viswanathan C, that was before his superstardom, so may be the fans will forgive me
Anu chechi , jeevichu pokkotte chehchi enthina veruthe parayumayi irangunnathu 🙂
I hope to write something about Mammookka. i am a great fan of his. He has his own strengths and is even better than Lal in certain strength genres of his like Oru vadakkan veeragadha or Aavanazhi or the more recent Munnariyippu
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srinivas R
June 13, 2018
“even though Lal would be the best actor and biggest star of the industry from that point on” – given everyone is hot headed these days, i fully expect that this will become a major point of discussion in this comments section
LikeLike
brangan
June 13, 2018
Ah, finally, MANK shows his true colours as:
(1) a misogynist (so many lines devoted to heroes, barely any to heroines),
(2) a classist (note the deliberate use of the words like “meta” and “zenith,” which are calculated to drive away the lay reader),
(3) a closet accountant (the incessant use of numbers like 2, 40, 30, 1975), and
(4) a true hater of Kajal Agarwal (not one mention of her)!
LikeLiked by 15 people
MANK
June 13, 2018
Srinivas R, god forbid 🙂 Now i wish i hadn’t written it.
LikeLike
MANK
June 13, 2018
ada ponga Brangan saar 🙂 that was LOL . You are still smarting from the ‘treatment’ you got, now you are taking it out on others. ah! the perils of being baradwaj rangan 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Rahul
June 13, 2018
BR, I hope you are not going to leave this blog.
MANK, really nice write up. Would look up Chitram today. By the way , I have seen Devasuram and though I liked it and MohanLal’s acting in it, for me, in this movie there were not many memorable moments, acting wise. Perhaps I will be able to appreciate it more when I am more accustomed to his style of acting.
Regarding Don, I think all Amitabh’s movies had good writing in those days. But Don did not just have strongly written characters, it had a thrill a minute , making it perfect for the MTV generation with low attention span. I think it stands out in his oeuvre because of that.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
June 13, 2018
Jokes aside, what a wonderful write up. Your passion for cinema always shines through. If you have watched any of those recent movies that BR missed, you should write a review. I think I will quite enjoy reading it.
LikeLike
brangan
June 13, 2018
Rahul: BR, I hope you are not going to leave this blog.
I’m thinking about it, actually 😂😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
sai16vicky
June 13, 2018
@MANK — Thank you so much for talking about Chithram. It is a movie that I have seen, seen and continue to see even today. It is a great example that well-made masala movies stand the litmus test of time. As a shameless plug, I (incidentally) wrote about Chithram this year as well
http://www.mokkapadam.com/index.php/english/chithram-the-last-vacation/
I find it quite interesting that both our takes on the movie touch upon very similar aspects though you are definitely a much better writer 🙂
LikeLike
sanjana
June 13, 2018
Hope you dont leave just because of a few who are not even regular here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vivek narain
June 13, 2018
Don is a remake of Chinatown with some of the same stars like Helen and Shetty. While helen is gorgeous in earlier version and shammi kapoor in best form with the classic bar bar dekho, it was the Caponesque Mike of chinatown that gives a glimpse of vintage hollywood, when he tells madan puri to fetch the red towel instead of white because he likes everything colored, it describes the quintessential debonair SK at his best. Amitabh in Don is poised and cynical with his histrionics but that’s about all, nothing reminiscent of outclassing hollywood. And amitabh of today sounds and looks like a hyena, in his rustic ad clips.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sudhir
June 13, 2018
This was a fascinating read..never saw this parallel between these two..could have avoided putting down Mammootty though 🤐
LikeLike
MANK
June 13, 2018
Brangan saar, Now i know how does it feel to be at the receiving end of outrage for things i never intended 🙂
pleez, i never put down Mammootty, never will. i like him too much for that
what is stated there was a plain fact with regards to the career trajectory of Mohanlal. this is something that directors like fazil, sibi malayil and Sathyan anthikkad etc – who have worked with both of them multiple times – says comparing their acting skills in admiration for Mammootty , that its amazing that Mammootty who has very few tricks up his sleeve would stand shoulder to shoulder with a sakalakalavallavan like Mohanlal for almost 40 years now. I had written a lot more about it , but had to cut it down because it became too long. Guess ill have to write a post on Mammookka to clear my views on him 🙂
LikeLike
Madan
June 13, 2018
Not a huge fan of Don film and haven’t watched that Mohanlal but was a very interesting read. Didn’t realise that Mohanlal too had dethroned Mamooty the way Amitabh had ousted Rajesh Khanna. Speaking of a potential Mamooty fan attack on this thread, ardent Rajesh Khanna fans will argue strenuously that RK in fact had plenty of hits in the 80s (which is true) and never ceded his no.1 spot to AB. I asked my father once about it (because I hadn’t even heard of some of those 80s hits of RK) and he said they were mostly forgotbusters even by 80s standards (considering AB acted in such awesome films as Namak Halal or Mr Natwarlal in the 80s).
LikeLike
MANK
June 13, 2018
Rahul, yes this is more a light hearted role without too many of those big actorly moments as in devasuram. But I guess that’s where an actor’s true worth lies, turning something ordinary into something super special. Devasuram is a great character with a greater character arc
Srinivas, thanks. Maybe I would 😀
Saivicky, I liked your write-up. I wanted to write about the music and that superb drunken scene, contrasting it with the drunken scenes of bachchan . But again it got long. So I just put the clip there and thought that would discuss in the comments section
LikeLiked by 1 person
bala
June 13, 2018
BR’s state now 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shankar
June 13, 2018
MANK, liked your article. I’m a fan of both M(s), and do acknowledge that Lal is regarded as the biggest star generally but in reality, in my view, they were equals both in terms of box office and popularity. Even during the times of Lal’s ascent as well as later, Mammootty was regularly dishing out hit after hit, commercial as well as artistic….Koodevide, Thaniyavarthanam, Yathra, Nirakkoottu, Vadakkan Veeragatha, New Delhi, Aavanazhi, Anantaram, Vidheyan, Mathilukal, CBI Diary Kurippu, 1921, Adharvam, Nair Saab, Mrigaya, Iyer the Great, Amaram….and so many more.
I love Lal and consummate ease with which he acts…he is amazing, no doubt. But I do challenge that Mammootty ever went away or had comebacks and such…he has always been around and the variety of what he has delivered is truly astounding. He fully deserves to be spoken in the same breath as Lal and Amitabh!
LikeLike
brangan
June 13, 2018
Looking at Shankar’s list, I just remembered Ponthan Maada, which (years and years ago) I couldn’t stop giggling through because Naseeruddin Shah was speaking Malayalam. I have to watch it again with my serious face on…
LikeLike
Shankar
June 13, 2018
@MANK, and please don’t view what I wrote as a lash back from a Mammootty fan. I love both of them and can easily put a similar list of Lal films. The overriding fact for my reply is that I grew up in those times and have seen the frenzy associated with both of them, equally. They were truly the equivalent of Rajini/Kamal in Tamil cinema. It is hard to say that one dethroned the other…they both had their audiences and successes. I do agree with your assessment of what happened up north. AB did dethrone RK and for well over a decade, had nobody who could be spoken as an equal, despite Dharam paaji, Shashi and Vinod Khanna who were all around then. In a way, maybe the central premise of this article is flawed, though their respective trajectories may have had parallels.
@BR, please…don’t disturb! 🙂
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 13, 2018
@Shankar, hear hear! (MANK, 😜)
LikeLike
MANK
June 14, 2018
Shankar sir, there was a period between 86 and 87 when mammootty had about 13 or flops in a row. He himself had confessed that he felt he couldn’t continue with this profession. But then thaniyavarthanam released and then the long delayed new Delhi also came along and became superhit and his career was resurrected. . Those days the fortunes of actors used to change so drastically. In 86 mohanlal was playing supporting role to mammootty in vartha, just a few months later mohanlal was playing a bigger role than mammootty in adimakal udamakal
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
June 14, 2018
Mohanlal s skills are in born while mammootty has acquired his over a period of time. He is someone who is fully aware of his weakness and worked hard to improve his skills. Mohanlal has stagnated as an actor post millennium doing some really bad movies, while mammootty has consistently improved himself to an extend that he finally conquered comedy, which was his biggest nemesis and the main edge mohanlal had over him. So by 2005-2006, they were pretty much on an equal footing as actors. But that dream period between 86 and 95 that mohanlal had was something else. I like him in almost every film he did and I would put him on par with any great international actor on the basis of his work, just so versatile And effortless
BTW it was great to see you Shankar sir after some time. Just the other day I was wondering where you and all other regular commenters had gone. Glad that you liked my post
LikeLiked by 2 people
MANK
June 14, 2018
Madan, yeah supposedly Rajesh Khanna made a comeback in the 80s with avatar and souten. But good luck watching them today 😁
LikeLike
Honest Raj
June 14, 2018
It’s time to bid goodbye to this blog — Sincerely, a Ratna Pathak Shah fan
LikeLiked by 2 people
vinjk
June 14, 2018
@MANK “I guess that’s where an actor’s true worth lies, turning something ordinary into something super special”
Totally agree with you here. I think this is where Mammootty lacked. Leave ordinary script or direction, he couldn’t play well an ordinary person with no special qualities or needs. Mohanlal could turn an everyday person into a relatable and empathizable person and win the audience heart.
LikeLike
brangan
June 14, 2018
Vinjk: Regarding the “playing normal characters,” Mammootty is Rajini to Mohanlal’s Kamal. His screen presence is very commanding, so he has to do a little more to “make himself ordinary.” Whereas actors like Kamal, Mohanlal, Naseer have “softer” screen presences, less commanding. So the relatability to “ordinary” characers is more.
So while acting talent is definitely one way to evaluate actors, their physicality is also very important in making us “buy” the part. I have done a video essay on Mullum Malarum, and it’s stunning to see Rajini’s sheer physicality im every frame. That he is able to transcend that and play an “ordinary” man is the testament to his acting.
PS: The above is not to be read in a “who is better” sense, but more along the lines of what different actors bring to the table. Just saying.
LikeLiked by 5 people
sanjana
June 14, 2018
While romantic films ruled with Rajendra Kumar, Dharmendra etc. Rajesh Khanna brought something more than mere romance. Bawarchi, Anand for example. And he got some of the best songs to sing and dance to which added tremendously to the flavour of his films.
Sanjeev Kumar is more in Mohanlal’s territory.
The best part of Bachchan was his first spell after his failures. Afterwards he turned into another person, a dadaji. Just like we think seeing ourselves in mirror as to how we looked when we were in college and how different we are now. So we have two or three Bachchans. Young, middleaged and old. What more can one ask for?
I feel Mammootty has more swag and style along with acting talent to easily sway any audience. That is the first part to gain currency and then acting comes to boost the image further.
Bollywood welcomed romantic Kamal more than gritty Rajani. After EK Duuje Ke Liye, there was a wave for him which he failed to capitalise doing stupid hindi films like Sanam teri Kasam that came his way. With Saagar he re-established as a force to reckon with but again could not follow it up.
LikeLike
Shankar
June 14, 2018
@MANK, great to “talk” with you too, I’ve been reading but not commenting much.
“Mohanlal s skills are in born while mammootty has acquired his over a period of time. He is someone who is fully aware of his weakness and worked hard to improve his skills. Mohanlal has stagnated as an actor post millennium doing some really bad movies, while mammootty has consistently improved himself to an extend that he finally conquered comedy, which was his biggest nemesis and the main edge mohanlal had over him.” This feels like a lot of “thinnai” talk, we can have a more nuanced discussion! 😄 I do agree that it took a long time before Mammootty could do comedy. The fact is Lal is a natural actor, someone who can get into the role with very less prep and excel whereas Mammootty is perhaps more of a method actor but that alone doesn’t make one less than the other. A year of flops in a 40 year career also doesn’t do it, in my opinion. And the period you mention 86-95 is perhaps one of the finest in Mamootty’s career…just look the list I mentioned above, coincidentally they are all from that period!😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
vinjk
June 14, 2018
@brangan Thanks for that perspective. I had never considered the physicality aspect of actors other than their looks.
Just to add to my previous point about elavating something ordinary to something special, one aspect I liked about Mammootty’s acting, which I don’t feel that much with Mohanlal, was his ability to make me cry. The movie could be just okay, but the slight tremble in his voice, his eyes could make my eyes wet!
I remember in the movie ‘Best Actor’, which was just an ok movie, there was one scene where Mammootty is asking for chance in a movie. It was just a small scene…Oh man! I just wanted to pull him out of the misery and the insult he was facing. 😀 The movie went downhill from then on.
Kazhcha, Thaniyavarthanam, Amaram, Vatsalyam, Yathra, even one scene in Hitler, the last scenes in Vadakan Veeragatha, many many many more…
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
June 14, 2018
Shankar sir, mohanlals range during that period was chitram.kilukkam and thalavattom one the one extreme and sadayam, bharatham and kireedam on the other and everything in between. Now if any other actor had a bigger range than this, I don’t know him. Of course mammootty had a great time too because that was a golden age for Malayalam cinema. But his characters where in the thaniyavarthanam,vadakkan veeragadha,vidheyan mode. All very serious roles. Of course he was brilliant in them. But just that mohanlal was operating on a different level at the time. Anyway guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.it was nice talking to you 😀
LikeLike
Sreehari Nair
June 14, 2018
//Mohanlal’s skills are in born while Mammootty has acquired his over a period of time. //
Hasn’t Fazil said this before? Or was it Ganesh Kumar? Haven’t all those goddamn Blog Sites that came up in the 2000s (with cries of the order of, “What do you know about our Lalettan?”) brought this thing up over and over again?
The fact of the matter is, effortless, graceful, or spontaneous, Mohanlal’s great performances are drawn very strongly from his unconscious. (And his unconscious is a dark place that lets in all human weaknesses, inconsistencies, lust, blood lust, and bad behaviour without censoring them.)
This is also what makes his ‘techne’ so difficult to analyse — and because Lal himself is so verbally inchoate, he may just be better analysed by those who’re denied his kind of talent but have other gifts. (To use a David Foster Wallace theory).
As I see it, it’s also because Mohanlal plays so much from the edge of his unconscious that he has a higher chance of giving a poor performance when compared to Mammootty — who has fewer bad performances, and is often very good in movies that are terrible. Mohanlal can pull a movie down with him OR raise it to a level of eerie brilliance. In something like Manichitrathazhu, his performance is literally a dare: a degree that way and it could seem extremely hammy. But he played that dare then, and doesn’t quite do it now.
If I maybe allowed some fanciness, there’s a Right Wing-ness that has crept into his way of living, and which stops him from reaching out to the unknown more often. That almost pre-verbal method of approaching a role: it isn’t quite there now.
But, hey, we have Fahad Faasil. And he’s a blessing!
Two moments that stand out:
a) In Manichitrathazhu, Dr Sunny comes down the stairs wearing a sweat-soaked shirt, and Nakulan starts pestering him with “Where’s Ganga, Sunny?” And Sunny says “Vaa Nokkam”, his teeth clenched, the words almost coming out from the side of his mouth. You just can’t ‘direct’ that kind of a moment; you can only hope to be capture it, when it happens.
b) In Vellanakalude Naadu, during the song Paaduvan Ormakalil — and I love this — he loses his umbrella, and as he collects it back from Shobhana, the file-folder slips out of his grasp and he holds it. You can write that kind of moment, say in a novel, but to create something like that in front of a camera and with a large crew watching, that requires a commitment to the moment that’s equivalent to transcendental meditation
from 3:40 onward.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aman
June 14, 2018
Bachchan had the swag as Don and the film had great one lines and music. Other than that it’s not that good. Why the film is called Don, if the hero is Vijay and Don dies even before midway. Climax with all that somersault with the diary and all was unintentionally funny. Remake was better at least in this regard. it was about Don, than some Vijay. Liked the remake more.
And as for Mohanlal, he is the biggest malayalam star ever. Mammootty is better in certain aspects as far as acting is concerned. As for the fans, both can come after you anyway you speak about them. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
LikeLike
sanjana
June 14, 2018
Rajesh Khanna’s Sachcha Jhootha had somewhat similar storyline like Don and it was a big hit with memorable songs as usual.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 14, 2018
<here was a period between 86 and 87 when mammootty had about 13 or flops in a row. He himself had confessed that he felt he couldn’t continue with this profession.
MANK, wasn’t that the time he took a sabbatical? I remember reading in one interview (or article – I do not recall now) that he took a break upon his wife’s advice. And that both New Delhi (which was his ‘comeback’ film) and Thaniyavarthanam were scripts that she had recommended to him.
Frankly, I will blame Priyadarshan for having brought Mohanlal down. While their earlier collaborations were relatively okay, their later ones were pathetic. Priyan spoilt the actor in Mohanlal – the ‘chammal type of ‘acting’ that he had Lal do in his films, the valicha humour – I always felt embarrassed for Lal in those films.
That said, I think both these actors have different strengths, and I really don’t get the ‘one is better than the other’ arguments. (I have felt the same with the Rafi-Kishore fights.) Why reduce their talent to a competition? I feel immensely proud that Malayalam cinema gave both of them a chance to shine at the same time. Along with stellar talent like Thilakan, Sukumari, Nedumudi Venu, Gopi, and a host of other ‘character’ actors. To me, that really was our strength – the fact that even in Mohanlal-Mammootty ‘star’ vehicles, our cinema had a space for strong performances from our supporting actors.
I like both of them – at their peak, they were a joy to watch in any film. At this point, I’m not sure I don’t dislike both of them intensely – what a criminal waste of talent! They are both in a position where they can have scripts written for them, instead of trying to chase an elusive youth. What’s happening to them is what happened to Amitabh in the 90s – the acting with younger and younger heroines, the desperate attempt to remain relevant as ‘hero’. Bachchan reinvented himself – and how! I wish Mammootty and Mohanlal would do so, too.
Looking forward to your article on Mammootty as well.
(p.s. Sadayam is one film I have never been able to bring myself to revisit, as is Thaniyavarthanam.)
LikeLike
Purple Sky
June 14, 2018
BR sir: if you are thinking of leaving anything that should be Twitter. After all snap judgements are a norm there and commentators of the blog have only expressed bewilderment that you had to defend yourself to this extent!
LikeLike
MANK
June 14, 2018
sreehari nair, the right wing thing was always there with him. he has always been a spiritual person. but the main issue is more health and life style related imo . after the first accident he had on the sets of cheppu, he has had a series of health issues. he had the issue with his throat in mid 90’s and his voice changed. he became overweight and so lost a lot of his physical dexterity. And today he leads a much more complex lifestyle, with all these fan clubs and a lot more of these yes men and soothsayers, he is now fully into film production and other businesses , a lot of the focus that was there on craft has shifted to all these superficial things. he has lost his instincts for acting and he being an instinctual performer , it has done a lot of damage. Mammootty being a meticulous actor does not have the problem, because he always had a routine and he meticulously follows that
LikeLike
MANK
June 14, 2018
Aman, the film is about Don. It’s Vijays attempt at being Don.hence the title. I agree it’s technically crude and climax is LoL, that again reemphasizes the importance of bachchan, bachchan does all the heavy lifting in differentiating the 2 characters and their world’s – the swag and style of Don contraste to the rustic innocence of Vijay- as opposed to the remake where the production design and cinematography does the work. SRK was a complete disaster in both roles
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 14, 2018
It’s time to bid goodbye to this blog — Sincerely, a Shah Rukh Khan fan
LikeLike
MANK
June 14, 2018
Anu, the priyadarsan Lal combo was really New and fun in the beginning, but it went bad as time went by priyadarsan went out of ideas and became fully dependent on Lal to save the film. Even vandanam, which was their follow up to chitram was a terrible film
As for pitting then against each other, i didn’t intend to do that, it just came out organically while profiling Lal’s career. Because I do believe Lal has or had a wider range as an actor than mammootty. Of course mammootty has his strengths. Mohanlal can never pull off a vadakkan veeragadha vidheyan or New Delhi as well as mammootty
Yes I am very disappointed with their selection of roles these days , trying to look younger than they are. It’s mainly due to the vicious fan club culture which is now worse than the Tamil film industry and it’s almost like Telugu now,by bringing cast and religion into it.
LikeLike
MANK
June 14, 2018
. It’s time to bid goodbye to this blog — Sincerely, a Shah Rukh Khan fan
Ha ha, so that song we are hearing in the background is
Kar chale hum fida jaano than saathiyo ab
tumhare hawale watan saathiyo
Aapjaao Brangan Saar, we’ll take care of the blog😁
LikeLike
brangan
June 14, 2018
LikeLike
Aman
June 14, 2018
@MANK Vijay doesn’t want to become a don, he is still the good guy helping the police. I would have bought the film if he loses his identity and actually become a don or else they should have named the film Vijay or something.
Incidentally Mohanlal acted in malayalam remake of Don named ‘Shobaraj’ which was terrible. I can’t believe you failed to mention it in this.
Regarding Priyan and Mohanlal combo, their films got increasingly terrible and can’t stand Priyadarshan’s blatant savarna nair glorification. But having said that he had great sense for staging comedy and is generally used to be good at sound of the film too. But he still can’t let go off his biases and UC glorification even in a 2016 film like Oppam. In fact it is stupid to expect him to do away with those tropes.
LikeLike
sanjana
June 15, 2018
Without BR the blog will be body without soul.
LikeLike
Mank fan
June 15, 2018
Yay Mank chetta is back. Great read. Chetta is slowly turning into BR, not only is the process similar but also the choice of words/tropes used. Here’s a song for you chetta.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
June 15, 2018
Aman, yes that was a big miss. I was determined not to talk anyother film except these 2 films, so i missed out on mentioning shobraj.
The UC thing is somewhat unbearable in some of the priyadarsan films. I feel that a lot of it is casual, like the scene in chandralekha where hero is considered virtuous because he’s a Nair
A lot like the casual sexism and misogyny that’s there in his films. I know a lot of it is reflection of it’s times, but watching a film like midhunam which puts all the blame on the wife for the marriage going wrong is hard to accept today
Sanjana, body without soul? Like a lot of films made today right?😁
Fan, thanks for the song, but hope I stay myself 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aman
June 15, 2018
@MANK Even in a 2016 film like Oppam he is doing all the UC glorification, making random person call mohanlal ‘thambra’ and talking about pedigree of two UC families. These are just remarks, he in association with T Damodaran spread even poisonous stuff about reservation ruining UC families and Dalit as an oppressor. All those films came out post ‘Mandal Commission’ had those stuff in malayalam films. Not just in Priyan ones.
LikeLike
Sutheesh Kumar
June 17, 2018
Superstar padathile vara side characters also bask in his glory. Aana suriyan irundhaan thaan velichame. Atha marakkaadhinge.
LikeLike
Alexy
June 18, 2018
Excellent write up MANK. Saying you are so talented, might sound redundant, but indeed you are.
Speaking of Mohanlal, you’ re absolutely right. By the end of 1986, especially by the time Rajavinte Makan and Thalavattam turned superhits, Lal became the numero uno star in malayalam cinema and continues to be until this day (though there was relatively a slight dip in the 2000s where the film qualities were generally terrible).
And with regards to acting chops too, while everyone will have their own preferences, generally there is little doubt that Lal is easily the best (even in the industry itself virtually almost every director and actor who worked with them both, testifies so). Lal is the sachin to mammoty’s ganguly. Both great players. One sheer class and flamboyancy, the other grit and hardwork. And somewhat incomparable, though if one is compelled to, the former clearly leads the latter.
Mammooty’s biggest strength (and weakness sometimes) is that his acting is many a times theatrical and dramatic. So in the hands of a great dramatic scriptwriter like MT, this method becomes a big asset whereas in many other films it ruins the film or atleast make him seem a miscast. But Lal during his peak (86-95) never had this problem. He could fit in any role, lift it on his own and make it a masterclass.
(Reg. Sreehari’s otherwise excellent comment above, I didn’t get what you meant by lal’s higher risk of poor performance, it’s always the other way around. I guess you meant post-2000, which may be true to some extent, but still it’s the idiocy of the movie that pulls him also down with it, never the other way. Even in 2000s, in every worthwhile movie that he acted, he has given a good performance if not a great one in something like ‘Bhramaram’.)
To compare and study Mammooty at best to Lal at best, Amaram and Pavitram respectively would be a great choice. Though overall very different movies, both have an overarching similarity in the daughter/sister from a very rural background moving away from her father/brother archetype and both are very emotional movies. Mammooty plays it in a theatrical fashion which is excellent, but then watch Mohanlal in Pavitram. You won’t believe the man is just acting!
And one more thing usually said is great actors usually propel the ones acting with them too to greater levels. You get so many unforgettable combination scenes for Mohanlal with other legends. Lal-jagathi, lal- thilakan, lal-nedumudi, lal-innocent, lal-srinivasan, lal-revathi, etc etc combinations are amongst their very best and is still talked about which is something extremely rare for mamooty, if at all.
LikeLike
Alexy
June 18, 2018
*sry a typo – “overarching” (not “overreaching”) – in above comment
LikeLike
MANK
June 18, 2018
Thanks alexy, your analysis of mohanlal and mammootty is pretty much accurate. Another aspect of mammootty is his easiness with adopting vernacular accents as seen in amaram which gives that additional authenticity to his performance even if his performance is too theatrical as you mentioned.
Regarding mohanlal bringing down a film with his performance, I think devadoothan is an example. It’s a well crafted film with some of the usual horror cliches, but mohanlals performance was completely wrong and it hurt the film badly. But that was that period post 2000 when narasimhams and ravanaprabhus were running amok.
LikeLike
Aman
June 18, 2018
Comparing Mammootty to Ganguly! What an insult. I hope fan army isn’t coming after you Alexy. Ganguly was an average player, who had a couple of good performances, and a mediocre captain. Mammootty on the other hand has a flamboyant persona and had so many great performances. And Ganguly was never known for hard work, so the comparison can be with Dravid, but then again Dravid wasn’t flamboyant like Mammootty.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
June 18, 2018
@Aman, I think Ganguly fans are sharpening their knives for you 🙂
LikeLike
Honest Raj
June 18, 2018
Ganguly was a natural talent. Perhaps, Mohanlal’s Lara to Mammooty’s Tendulkar?
LikeLike
Aman
June 18, 2018
@Srinivas R All 3 of them are probably busy watching the football world cup.
LikeLike
Sreehari
June 18, 2018
//Mammooty’s biggest strength (and weakness sometimes) is that his acting is many a times theatrical and dramatic//
How’s being theatrical or dramatic really a sin? (This same gun has been pointed at Kamal Hassan in a bid to not give him his due) . Don’t think overacting is a sin either — false acting is. Orson Welles — among his many brilliant assessments — once said that Cagney almost always overacted. But it wasn’t hamming, it was never ‘false acting’.
If being theatrical can give you an Amaram (which, for my money, is a performance Lal can never touch; and will always be the definitive Mammootty performance for me, as opposed to say a Vadakkan Veeragatha), I don’t think we should be complaining.
LikeLike
MANK
June 18, 2018
Ha ha haaa, films and cricket are truly our twin obsessions
Mammootty is a combination of Ganguly and Dravid. A mixture of flamboyance, meticulousness and hard work. Mohanlal is very much Tendulkar, who was not the player he was in the last decade or so of his career, but still manage to score runs and remain the top player of the team
A more appropriate analogy is mammootty as Nadal- flamboyance and hard work- and mohanlal as Federer – natural talent and subtle poetry
LikeLike
MANK
June 18, 2018
Sreehari, I agree Lal cannot match him in amaram, but why is it the definitive mammootty performance, as opposed to OVV , which I believe is his definitive performance. I can’t think of any actor who has that deadly combination of towering physicality, that powerful voice and sheer theatricality to pull off the dialogues and the mixture of broadness and nuance that’s there in MTs writing.
LikeLike
Sreehari
June 18, 2018
MANK, I really believe in OVV, the love that that performance gets is majorly owed to those final sequences — the build-up leading to the fight and the speech — basically the whole ‘time for that grand performance’ bit.
If you are being truly objective, you will notice that he’s not really all that effective in those sequences where he’s accused of treachery and then flees and then comes up against a series of cascading tragedies. A lot of those problems are, in my view, erased by that grand flourish at the end.
Amaram, on the other hand, there’s not one false note. And to play at that heightened pitch, all along, and yet manage that distinction.
LikeLike
Alexy
June 24, 2018
Nice to see some discussions happened on the matter, but couldn’t join in due to lack of time. 🙂
Hi Aman, Ganguly was a great player i’d say (though not among the greatest). He had his own great strengths, great moments, great passion, some amazing achievements, etc which is why i related him to Mammooty whose career was also on vaguely similar lines.
(And imo Federer, Nadal parallel by MANK is interesting, but Fed-Nadal are a bit too close in their talents to draw a similar parallel between Lal-Mam since here Lal is very clearly ahead talentwise, though Mam has his own strengths on screen esp. physicality n voice. Btw, i love both Fedex n Nadal, but the latter is an inch more fav to me).
And sreehari (assuming u were the same one who made that wonderful observation on Vellanakalude naadu and manichitratazhu), i didn’t use theatrical (or melodramatic) kind of performances of Mammooty in a negative way at all. Only said that for some kind of roles, scripts and situations it’s excellent, but in some other kind of movies, it can ruin the perfo/film also. And i counted Amaram as one of the best of Mammooty performances where he was the best person suited for the role.
And ofcourse seeing the unbelievable range of roles played by Mohanlal, i’ d think he could put to perfection virtually any role during his prime. But i guess he’d have played a role such as Amaram very differently. Maybe somewhat like in Pavitram, which for me, is an equally great (if not greater) performance (and lot more a subtle/natural kind).
This is a song from Pavitram. One of the most beautiful song (and picturisation) ever in Malayalam. And checkout Lal’s expression at 3:18. Gem!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YMRQse9STlk
LikeLike
MANK
June 25, 2018
Mammootty’s OVV performance may have it flaws , but still its the ultimate Mammootty character and performance for me which cannot be done by anybody else. The character in amaram could have been played by nedumudi venu or murali for that matter. its not an exclusive Mammootty character that way
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
June 25, 2018
And just wanted to make another point about the bachchan – mohanlal juxtaposition. both of them are very famous and equally adept at doing drunken scenes. their styles are different . Bachchan’s is very theatrical and choreographed while Lal’s is more natural and realistic, owing mainly to the nature of the films they were doing
Compare this famous drunken scene from hum where Bachcan throws around the word gandi naali ka kheeda ,
And here is the Lal classic scene from No20 madras mail , where he is killing it oppositte Mammootty , see how he throws around the word disturbance.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 25, 2018
Bachchan’s is very theatrical and choreographed
Vaar pe vaar kar rahe ho… bhooloongi nahin 🙂
LikeLike
MANK
June 25, 2018
Anu, ha ha haaa, this is just the beginning, aage aage dekhiye hota hai kya 🙂
LikeLike
Sreehari
July 19, 2018
Ok, MANK-ettan’s reply, reh gaya the dekhne….
//Mammootty’s OVV performance may have it flaws//
MANK, Ente ponnu sahodhara, the whole bit about how Chandhu has been handed out a raw deal in the Vadakkan ballads is the ‘Centerpiece’ of MT’s subversion. If that whole arc of him being unfairly judged and his internalization of that complex was half-assed, you don’t call the performance ‘flawed,’ you call it a ‘wrong performance.’
The Centerpiece of that performance is missing.
Imagine Travis Bickle being called a performance with flaws ‘because while everything else was tip-top, De Niro just couldn’t convey the emptiness of his character very well. ‘ Yours is that kind of a judgment.
Looking into a camera and spouting 20 lines of the order of, “Oh I am this great, grand, but unfairly treated warrior’ is gravy when compared to the thing Mammootty has not portrayed well there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
doesitmatter
August 1, 2018
“It speaks volumes of Mammootty’s tenacity and talents as an actor , that he could make a comeback from that position enough to be counted as a star and actor in the same breath as Lal , even though Lal would be the best actor and biggest star of the industry from that point on”
Not sure who wrote this (MANK or brangan), but this is bunk. This is not a settled matter at all – and to write as though it is takes away from the seriousness and purpose of what seems to be intended as a deeply reflective and fair assessment of two great artists.
LikeLike
The Crustacean
August 26, 2019
Actors need to play to the script, and also to the gallery.
Mohanlal surely shines in the latter, saying that however does not take the gloss of what were some superlative performances that he has delivered over the years. As MANK points out, there was a time when the market was his to dominate.
Mammooty is that actor who tries hard, to balance the need for being the star, and the actor, he is the product of a time when that was the norm.
By the time Mohanlal came to center stage that phase was almost gone.
And by the time he had matured as an actor, almost ten years, he had honed his craft to a certain kind of perfection, everything that he did seemed so effortless that Mammooty began to look like a lesser actor and some kind of hack. The truth being that, in a classical sense, and despite the machinations inherent to National award nominations, Mammooty is a pretty competent actor, with a repertoire all his own.
What is forgotten in the otherwise excellent write up is a sense of the demographics that made these stars.
The rise of the lumpen was a common element across the Indian cinema of Amitabh’s time
There had been cinema with these elements before but they were played by actors who came off as middle class or upper, and were sensed of as unreal. With Amitabh, he kind of killed the artifice that was inherent to playing the lumpen, he made it his own.
There is a parallel here, the Rajnikanth phenomenon, and much later, the Dhanush phenomenon, in both cases these actors seemed natural inhabitants to that subaltern universe. So when these actors take on sophisticated roles, they come across as lesser stars.
Rajni and Amitabh playing rich is so unreal that they have need to make jokes on themselves. Dhanush fortunately has not reached that status yet, and will probably never.
By the time Mohanlal rose to prominence, the lumpen trend in Malayalam cinema had already been done to death, stars from Sukumaran to Ratheesh had ridden that wave, and it had slowly lapsed into farce and NSFW stuff.
From that genre’s death rose the new Malayalam cinema, kinder, more middle class, saddled with characters without much to do, and nothing they could do about it, a reflection of the economic and employment stasis of that time.
Mohanlal rode that wave to completion, but for that wave, he would have stayed villain or minor hero, albeit a memorable one, another Amol Palekar or Pratap Pothen or Sarath Babu.
This demographic cycling seems to be common, and across industries, the rise of the Khans was essentially the return of the bourgeois, and then the Bhojpuri element comes back with a bang, first represented by a swaggering Salman, and then those middling tributes to Madurai movies.
Now that Bhojpuri movies have an audience of their own, mainstream Hindi movies can begin to afford to stay the course but for that occasional tip of that hat to the lumpen, not that they are any less entertaining.
PS1: This is no racist rant, just a pointer that demographics does matter, and that it cycles, and that as audience we reflect both the zeitgeist, and are reflected upon by it.
And the understanding that our stars are a product of that zeitgeist too.
Which means that under a different zeitgeist, different stars would have risen and that this is irrespective of their acting chops. Given a different one, the stars it made would be different too, irrespective of their acting chops. If in doubt, remember Ratheesh.
PS2: It is not intended to be a reflection of the kind of stories that are pursued, stories by themselves are independent entities, they are either good, bad, or middling, irrespective of class or period.
PS3: In Tamil the man most affected by these demographic shifts seems to be Kamal. He can come across as patronizingly insufferable when he plays those Western kind of roles, and as close to clownish when he plays the lumpen. That he has plied his trade under the most trying circumstances is a tribute to his craft and dedication.
It was not only Kamal, but a host of other capable actors too, in Tamil, who did not meet the Annan Thambi lookalike requirement and had either to bow out, or play second fiddle to those who met this reverse racist requirement.
PS4: Though names have been quoted, this is no reflection on the actors themselves, but an appraisal of the environment they found themselves in, and had to ply their craft in.
PS5: Priyadarshan did try a lot of things, but the project where his inherent zaniness and essentially humane humor hit the golden mean was Chitram, in which there may be much to fault, but little not to love.
LikeLike