Is cinema merely a reflection of society or does it reinforce the existing beliefs of a society?
This is the question left lingering in my mind after reading ‘Thamizh Cinema – Punaivil Iyangum Samoogam’ (Society living in Fiction). Stalin Rajangam’s book is an interesting collection of essays about Tamil cinema, its many layers and the effects it has on Tamil society.
How is cinema perceived in our society? Stalin Rajangam uses cinema posters, banners and interactions with common folk and fans alike to understand how cinema is perceived by people. The problem with this approach is obvious immediately. It is anecdotal and the inference cannot be applied to the entire community. Still, the book gives a picture of the kind of effect cinema can have on our society. For example, when the movie ‘Bharathi Kannamma’ released, posters cropped up with the message: “Cheran veetu pondatti, Thevan veetu vaippaatti” (loosely translating to “Cheran’s wife is Thevan’s mistress”). This was to protest against showing a Thevar caste heroine in love with a Dalit hero – a perceived threat to strict caste structures. But is this the perception of a small, fringe group or is it more widespread than that?
The fascinating part of the book is the author’s observations of subtle caste and political references in Tamil films. Is he reading too much into unintentional depictions? Maybe, but the layers in these narration can only be picked up by someone who has a very good understanding of local culture and politics. For example, the 2004 ‘Kadhal’ movie opens with Muthuramalinga Thevar statue in the background and ends under a Periyar statue. The statues are not necessarily mere backgrounds here. The presence of Muthuramalinga Thevar statue underlines the dominant caste of the area where the story takes place. The Periyar statue reiterates the popular political propaganda – the role of Dravidian movement against the caste system.
But are these references problematic? The problem Stalin Rajangam sees in these depictions is that they are one sided. Mostly favouring the dominant caste. While the heroine’s family and their background has been portrayed faithfully, her lover’s character, in spite of being the protagonist, is shown in a generic fashion. This is in a realistic movie like ‘Kadhal’. It is indeed difficult to know the intentions of the director, but Rajangam wonders if characters like these are deliberately generalised to avoid pushback from dominant communities. This push back could also affect the sellability of the movie resulting in movie makers playing it safe. There is no doubt that the realistic representation of the culture and practices make for a better movie watching experience. But the one sided nature of it could be viewed as glorification and justification of the practices of these singled out communities.
Stalin Rajangam traces back this pattern of highlighting the lifestyle and culture of one particular caste, usually the dominant one, to the “Mann Vasanai” movement of the 80s Tamil Cinema. The period when village centric movies started portraying village life realistically, beginning with Bharathiraja’s ‘Mann Vasanai’. A realistic village movie requires a faithful portrayal of village culture, festivals and other celebrations. In Tamil Nadu’s villages, these power positions are usually held by the dominant caste. So a realistic village movie intentionally or unintentionally becomes a portrayal of the values and practices of the dominant caste. Alongside this fine attention to detail, a mere generic depiction of other characters, especially the oppressed ones, makes these movies almost an ethnography of the dominant caste.
In his view, these realistic village cinemas seldom questioned the social structure and value system they portrayed. Even in the movies that appear to be progressive, the enquiry is limited and is operated within a framework. The lowest castes questioning the middle castes is almost missing. In Bharathiraja’s ‘Muthal Mariyathai’, the Thevar protagonist Sivaji Ganesan magnanimously marries his marumagan(nephew) to a woman from a lower caste. On the other hand, in almost every scene when her father meets Sivaji, he falls down at his feet. While the movie tries to be progressive at one level, at another level it still shows the Arunthathiyar father falling at the feet of a Thevar. In the same movie, the protagonist marries a transgressed woman to protect their caste and family pride, but never accepts her as his wife because of her past. While the former scene portrays the caste hierarchy, the latter shows a need to maintain Kula Gouravam (Caste Honour).
In rare scenarios when this social structure and values are questioned, Rajangam points out that the opposition is from an outsider who does not belong to the village. In ‘Muthal Mariyathai’ it is Radha’s character Kuyil, an outsider of this village, who questions Sivaji’s casteism. This questioning is progressive but it also upholds the village structure where people from within do not challenge the prevailing authority and values. In another Bharathiraja movie, ‘Vedham Puthithu’, the progressiveness is in the form of questioning Brahmin values by the middle castes. In addition to be trying to progressive, this narration also shows the middle caste in a good light, as the opposers of caste division. This is a popular theme of the Periyar movement and its political successor – The Dravidian Parties. Now contrast this with the famous scene from the same movie where Balu Thevar is confronted about his caste surname. Here the character is a Brahmin. While Brahminism is questioned by a group considered to be oppressed by them i.e the middle castes, the middle castes authority is not questioned by the group considered to be oppressed by them i.e. Dalits. Instead it is questioned by someone above their social stratum. The movie here again implies who can and cannot challenge the social hierarchy. Rajangam agrees that a lower caste character asking this question may not fit in this narration. But elsewhere in the book, he also argues that the flow of the story is in the hands of the makers. Even in movies based on real events, the creators have the space to decide what to show and how to show.
He correlates these one sided village movies with the increase in arrival of the new directors and producers from southern Tamil Nadu where these castes dominate. The success of these movies resulted in more such realistic village movies sometimes even from directors and producers not belonging to these castes. Kamal Hassan’s ‘Thevar Magan’ and the subsequent ‘Virumandi’ are examples for this. He points out to posters implying Kamal Hassan, a Brahmin by birth, as one among the Thevars after the release of these movies. The trend that started in ‘Mann Vasanai’ keeps continuing and is reflected even in the 2012 ‘Sundarapandian’. Comparing this with Rajini’s characters, he writes that he hasn’t seen the actor associated to specific caste groups. He believes that the Super Star status of Rajini might have prevented him associating to a particular caste group (Rajini’s first collaboration with Pa.Ranjit is yet to release when this book came out).
Stalin Rajangam agrees that a movie has to work within the framework of a story. So the narration has its limitations. But he wonders if the non-representation of Dalits in these movies is intentional. Either due to the caste pride of these makers or in the fear of market failure. It is in this background, the portrayals of Dalit life in Pa.Ranjit’s ‘Attakathi’ and his subsequent movies gains significance.
Even while criticising the limitations of these realistic village movies, the author recognises the importance of fine filmmaking with realistic portrayals. He associates the low impact of the 2013 film ‘Gouravam’ with this. Lack of depth in characters and unrealistic portrayals didn’t help the movie in spite of voicing against casteism. Here he makes another interesting observation about the approach taken by ‘Varuthapadatha Valibar Sangam’. Instead of taking a serious stance against Honour Killing and caste pride, the movie uses satire.
Apart from the depiction of caste in Tamil Cinema, the book includes an essay on Vadivelu’s characters, a very short essay on how Ilaiyaraja hypothetically and inadvertently contributed to the anti-Hindi movement and the depiction of Tamil identity in ‘7aum Arivu’. All of them make an interesting read, in particular the commentary on the portrayal of Bodhidharma in ‘7aum Arivu’.
What worked for me in the book is the fine observations and the tracing of caste portrayals in Tamil cinema. The part I found difficult to believe was, some of the intentions attributed to the creators. In ‘Kadhal’ the author believes there is a deliberate attempt to show the heroine is virgin even after she ran away with her lover. This allows her to get remarried without bringing dishonour to their caste pride. I find some of these assumptions too far fetched. The other problem with the book is it requires some serious editing including verifying the release years and character names of the movies listed. The editing will make the book easier to read and help convey the points succinctly.
In spite of these limitations I believe this is an important book on Tamil cinema. I wish this book opens up a conversation leading to further analysis about Tamil cinema’s social and political layers, and the effect it has on society.
To write this post, I speed watched ‘Mudhal Mariyathai’. While I was looking for the references made by the author, another scene took me by surprise. Towards the end of the movie, hearing his relatives plotting against Kuyil, Sivaji, the protagonist, utters a dialogue in anger. “Naan Maaplai ah irukka virumbala da, Manushanaa irukka virumbren” (I prefer to be a human rather than your son-in-law) and continues “Irukka edam kuduthaa kidaikka rendu aadu kekra eena saathi paiyan naan illa. Suthamaana Thevan” (I am not like the low caste people who keep asking for more when offered a place to stay. I am an unadulterated Thevan). This scene made me wonder the place for such a dialogue in this movie. If there is anything that I took away from this book, it is this – a more conscious enquiry on what a movie says and why.
About Stalin Rajangam:
Stalin Rajangam is an Assistant Professor in the American College, Madurai. The first time I came to know about Stalin Rajangam was during the Jallikattu protest when he wrote about casteism in Jallikattu. But it was through writer Jeyamohan’s blog that I got introduced to his works. Among other works, he has also authored a book on the Tamil Nadu Dalit Movement titled ‘Ezutaak Kilavi – Vazhi Marikkum Varalatru Anubavangal’.
(by Eswarprasath Jayaraman)
bart
May 27, 2019
Well written Eswarprasath…
In this internet era, most of these references and hints (direct or indirect) will be immediately be picked up and spread by the netizens. But in 80s and early 90s, we watched most movies with an innocence without reading much between the lines or taking too much out of the explicit dialogues even.. Only the offended would’ve felt bad but their voices would’ve been lost unheard by most. These books help in recording those voices.
LikeLiked by 2 people
rmahalik
May 27, 2019
Well articulated Eswarprasath. Thanks for the reference. I have read somewhere else about Kaadhal movie portrayal of caste but first time hearing about Mudhal Maiyadhai. Of course when I watched it I was third year college student and wouldn’t have noticed due to lack of awareness plus my movie watching was superficial. Anniyan and gentleman are other movies that come to mind where you can see stereotypes of caste portrayal.
We may need to come with a test similar to Bechtel test to rate caste portrayal in our movies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eswar
May 28, 2019
Thank you both.
@bart yes, the internet has made it easier to understand these references now. Just couple of weeks back a similar discussion happened in Devarattam movie review’s comments section. The documentary that Varsha Ganesh had shared in that thread also has Stalin Rajangam, the author of this book, talking on this topic.
@rmahalik, I too thought about Bechdel test’s equivalent of Caste portrayals in movies. Might be an interesting exercise 🙂
LikeLike
Macaulay Perapulla
May 28, 2019
Lovely post Eswar. One more Jeyamohan regular + BR space regular here 🙂 I met Stalin Rajangam at Vishnupuram Awards and heard him speak. He has a solid understanding of the dalit politics and I found the clarity of his thoughts very refreshing. Perhaps, we should start tamil blog section here in Reader’s column. BR.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Isai
May 28, 2019
“Anniyan and gentleman are other movies that come to mind where you can see stereotypes of caste portrayal.”
I am not sure how Anniyan is a stereotype. It would be nice if someone can elaborate a bit. There is a difference between authentically portraying a milieu that you are familiar with and stereotyping/ eulogising a community. I think Anniyan was more of the former.
LikeLike
Varsha Ganesh
May 28, 2019
Very nice article Eswar. I didn’t know Stalin had written a book on this topic. Thanks for summarizing it for us. I’m eager to read it now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
May 29, 2019
@Macaulay Perapulla 👋. Thanks. Wow. Vishnupuram Awards must have been wonderful. I have only read about the event.
Thanks @Varsha Ganesh. I hope you will enjoy the book. I forgot to add a link, to purchase the book, in the original post. Here it is if you would like to buy it online.
https://www.udumalai.com/tamil-cinima.htm
His essays are also published in Kalachuvadu magazine. The November, 2018 edition has his review of ‘Pariyerum Perumal’. I am keen to read what he has to say about this movie.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
May 29, 2019
Eswar: And thanks so much for the book. The kindess of my readers overwhelms me at times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kay
May 29, 2019
Excellently written, Eswar. I’m very eager to read the book now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Varsha
May 29, 2019
I find it hard to agree completely with Stalin Rajangam on Mudhal Mariyadhai. I have not read his book, and am only going by what is mentioned in this article. I agree with the author that Malaichami(Sivaji Ganesan) has, till Kuyil’s admonition, a high sense of caste and family pride. But when it comes to the relationship between Malaichami and his wife Ponnatha, it is not as simple as a husband not accepting a woman as his wife because of her past. Of course, it does start more or less that way. In the scene where Ponnatha curses her father for marrying her off to Malaichami and ruining her life, Malaichami talks of his decision to marry her, pointing out his great respect for his uncle being the sole reason(“My uncle’s Kudumba gouravam”, Malaichami says, not Kula gouravam) and his anger at her for her adulterous behaviour leading to his uncle touching his feet, making him abstain from wearing slippers throughout his life. He goes on to say that he thought of her as a slipper and hence never talked to her or slept with her. One can imagine how their married life would have started. All this is fine. But my point is that Ponnatha, even after she did a grave mistake, does not seem to have had even an iota of remorse in all the 20 years of her married life. This is shown in the very first flashback scene at the beginning that has her serving food to her husband(and how! Yuck!) and her reaction on seeing that she has accidentally thrown waste water on him. Malaichami’s facial expression, as he comes out of the house and sees nature in all her beauty, says it all! It’s as if so far he was with a succubus in a prison, and now is on parole! And just before he comes out, he murmurs “Naai vaale nimuthave mudiyaadhu!”(She will never change!). Ponnatha is not just a transgressed woman, but also a cruel, haughty and selfish dame. This, in my view, more than her one-time adultery, is the primary reason for their twenty odd years of a troublesome marriage.
I could not see Sengodan falling at Malaichami’s feet as an Arunthathiyar falling at the feet of a Thevar. As he explains to Kuyil, Sengodan has a great admiration and respect for Malaichami that goes far beyond any caste feeling. As far as I can remember, we are not shown Sengodan falling at any other Thevar’s feet in the film. And there is an interesting statement he makes to Kuyil just before explaining Malaichami’s backstory to her. He says “Vayasula chinnadhaa poote! Ille, un kaal le vizhundhu sollipoduven en manasule irukkura vishayathe!” (Unfortunately, you are younger than me! Otherwise I would fall at your feet and speak my mind to you!). This statement of his does not prove anything, but is very much suggestive! Also, Malaichami, after his nephew’s marriage to Sevuli, sees Sengodan more or less as an equal(though he casually allows him to fall at his feet). This is established in another progressive scene in the movie, where Sengodan demands(not pleads!) justice from Malaichami for his daughter’s murder. Malaichami too reciprocates justly by turning over the culprit to the police, unmindful of his caste/family pride or his foster-daughter’s life.
Lastly, coming to the dialogue “Irukka edam kuduthaa kidaikka rendu aadu kekra eena saathi paiyan naan illa. Suthamaana Thevan”, here, it pays to give attention to whom these words are addressed. It is not addressed to someone in an oppressed caste. Malaichami says this to his own blood relatives. Here, “eena saathi” refers to none other than his relatives. They do exactly as he describes what “eena saathi” people do. I am not claiming Malaichami has completely let go of his caste identity. It’s still there. But I cannot imagine him uttering these words to a group of oppressed caste people, even in anger. And that makes all the difference!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
May 30, 2019
I saw MM a great many years ago and so it is no wonder that I missed much of the caste-related lines . I agree with Varsha that Ponnatha’s subsequent behavour that is the reason why they weren’t a happy couple. All the very same, what I felt when I saw this movie is that it was a very black and very white movie.
Why is Ponnatha that bad a person? What sense does that make? A girl is in her late teens, she gets pregnant, the concerned man disappears and another man marries her because he respects her dad and so she vows to hate her husband and treat him with as much indignity as she can muster for the rest of her life?
To me it seemed like the following were the reasons. This is a story of an EMA
1) wife character was shown as so black only to show the husband’s character as so white.
2) wife character was shown as so black only to show the other woman’s character as so white.
3) to include a “if you were never husband and wife, then it is not even an EMA” clause.
I found MM a enjoyable movie to watch. But it never added up in my mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isai
May 30, 2019
“Irukka edam kuduthaa kidaikka rendu aadu kekra eena saathi paiyan naan illa. Suthamaana Thevan”
Remove the word saathi and the sentence ‘Suthamaana Thevan’ and the meaning would remain the same. So, why did the director choose to have these dialogues then?
Regarding Sengodan falling at Malaichami’s feet, I don’t know of a SINGLE tamil movie where a tamil character identified as a non dalit is shown as falling at the feet of a dalit, irrespective of the reason. Even Ranjit won’t dare. Till such things happen, I will see scenes like Sengodan falling at Malaichami’s feet as a reinforcement of the dominant caste’s superiority and justifications like Malaichami’s statement of ‘eena jathi’ as referring to his relatives (instead of dalits) as wishful thinking.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kay
May 30, 2019
What is EMA? Tried searching online but found many different explanations. 😬
LikeLike
brangan
May 30, 2019
Enga Maari Aatha
LikeLiked by 5 people
Rahini David
May 30, 2019
“Extra Marital Affair”
I thought it will be easy to guess in context of mudhal mariyathai.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
May 30, 2019
Rahini David: NRTTM
“Neenga Romba Thaan Too Much”
I thought it will be easy to guess in context of your comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Varsha
May 30, 2019
Rahini David: The answers to the questions you ask warrant a sneak peek into the couple’s earlier years, which this movie does not talk much about. But I was able to form an opinion, vaguely supported by a couple of dialogues in the film, as to why Ponnatha is the woman she is. In my view, she comes across as a very proud person, right from her teen years. As a result, in high contrast to her father, she sees her marriage to this Malaichami whose wealth is simply ten goats and a goatherd stick as a punishment rather than a safety from society. For her, Malaichami can never be her equal in any manner. She starts her married life with this anger, which, coupled with her natural pride and haughtiness, only makes matters worse as the years roll by, presenting us with the Ponnatha we see. Reconcilation is not something she is even capable of understanding. We also see her treating everyone below her in social status with contempt. Hence, one can only conclude that her behaviour must have alienated her more and more from Malaichami with time.
Isai: If you remove the word saathi and the phrase “Suthamaana Thevan” from the dialogue, then you have mutilated a part of the Malaichami characterisation. Malaichami is a fairly casteist person, and, as I have said, even after Kuyil’s admonition, he has not fully let go of his caste identity. But then, he also comes across as a just individual. Whenever there is a conflict within himself with respect to justice and caste, justice has the upper hand in his actions. That is why I can’t imagine him voicing the same statement in front of dalits. So the dialogue, as it is, is consistent with Malaichami’s characterisation and it is not my wishful thinking to interpret it as I have.
In the same vein, Sengodan falling at Malaichami’s feet, from Malaichami’s point of view, is indeed casteist. The point I was trying to make was that Sengodan’s attitude regarding the act is intriguing, to say the least! Indeed, there are a bunch of characters in Mudhal Mariyadhai I would have loved to see more of, with Sengodan topping the list! And this has nothing to do with all other tamil movies or any movie for that matter. For instance, I am in total agreement with Stalin Rajangam about the point he makes about a brahmin questioning Balu thevar about his caste pride in Vedham Pudhidhu instead of a dalit. But I could not see Sengodan as simply an oppressed guy falling at a thevar’s feet. There are layers to his character. He gives the impression of being at least moderately defiant when compared to others in that village milieu. That, in an ’80’s tamil film, is, in my view, a significant improvement. That subsequent films, even by the same director, did not build significantly on this is a topic for another discussion.
LikeLike
e221
May 30, 2019
First of all Excellent Write-up. I have not read the book. But how many of the pre-1980’s mainstream movies talked about caste. Please correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think so there was any direct reference to the social hierarchy based on Caste. Its only Bharathirajaa and later Bhagyaraj who bought this social taboo to the mainstream. I guess the comparison between Pa. Ranjith and Bharathiraja are not only unfair but it seems does not seem to take into account the obvious the two different timelines. The spread of education, awareness, technology, etc is started to get to fruition only from the early 1990s. So the filmmakers have to make movies for a large group of audience who are not only uneducated but also not fully socially aware. Ranjith had the advantage of having a completely different set of audiences.
Of course, Devar Magan is a move that glorifies caste and a one where the antagonist character is excellently written and portrayed. In the current environment, anyone who sees what Nassars speaks will support his ideology. I guess there was another movie called “Simha Raasi” which supposed to be an anti-caste movie but because of poor writing, Sided with the Villain.
Idhu Namma Azhu was a movie from a dominant caste filmmaker but was more open and genuine in its portrayal and addressing of the caste problem. Mudhal Maryiyadhi is a revolutionary movie. A person from Dominant caste falls in love with a Radhas(Seller of fish – Her makeup was good and her appearance speaks for itself). That’s a revelation by itself for its time.
To me, the one person who really represented the downtrodden well is Goundamani through his comedy. But that’s an entirely different topic altogether.
LikeLike
Eswar
May 31, 2019
@varsha thanks for the detailed comment.
I would like to add couple of things that I noticed in the movie. I only speed-watched the movie, so it’s likely that I have missed scenes and dialogues.
If I remember correctly, there is not much backstory to Sivaji’s and Ponnatha’s early married life. The first scene in the flashback shows Ponnatha rudely serving food. But there are no scenes referring to their early married life or even Ponnatha’s early life. Agree that she is shown as cruel and money minded. But there is nothing in the movie to infer if this was her nature always or if she became this person as a result of a forced marriage and a husband who hasn’t accepted her. Since her transgression is the only thing we know about their past, it seems reasonable to base that as a reason for Shivaji not treating her as his wife. @Rahini David’s explanation with Extra Marital Affair angle also seems very plausible.
Agree that Sengodan is not shown as falling at anyone else feet. But then Sengodan doesn’t have screen space or interaction with anyone else. There is that scene with Kuyil and her father. But they are outsiders and they themselves don’t live in the village. Though Shivaji handovers his son-in-law to the police, the reason he gives to his grandson for doing this is, not only because he killed Sengodan’s daughter but he is also worried that he might kill his daughter and grandson and put an end to his progeny.
Regarding the ‘Enna Saathi’ dialogue, as @Isai pointed out, I still think it’s unwarranted in the context of the movie. If ‘Eena Saathi’ means low caste and if there already exists a low caste in the social structure, then the dialogue does not give much room for ambiguity. Yes, the character speaks to his own caste people, but the movie speaks to everyone.
LikeLike
Varsha
May 31, 2019
Eswar: Did you read my second comment? I have clarified on some of the points you have raised and have agreed with you on some others.
LikeLike
Varsha
May 31, 2019
Eswar: And yes, his explanation to his grandson cites his need to safeguard his own but, in this context, also note how quickly he changes his mind after kuyil admonishes him. There are no personal interests there. A purely casteist person would have been harder to convince.
LikeLike
Isai
May 31, 2019
“Yes, the character speaks to his own caste people, but the movie speaks to everyone.”
That was succinct. Thanks Eswar.
Varsha, I remember we had a discussion in STM thread regarding PP movie.
There also we had a similar disagreement about a dialogue. My POV is that movies influence people (especially the 12-25 age group) and hence a dialogue that sends a wrong signal to the viewer is problematic even if it is consistent with the character and the situation in the movie.
Again, in my POV, the ‘eena saathi’ & some other dialogues in this movie send a wrong signal because by adding casteism as a trait to an otherwise just person, the director (perhaps inadvertently) has made casteism more palatable (like Thor’s vanity).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Varsha
May 31, 2019
Yes, Isai. I too remember the arguments we both put forth then. I do agree with you that if tamil movies involving caste in their screenplays keep on churning similar, one-sided kind of situations and characters, then it sends a wrong message to society, which is precisely why I did not raise any objection to the other movies like kaadhal and vedham pudhidhu. The points Stalin Rajangam raises about those films don’t disturb the isolationist’s perspective i.e., seeing a film as the narration of a story without the burden of social issues. The two viewpoints can co-exist. You can enjoy Kaadhal as a romantic tragedy and also point out that bharath’s character could have been depicted to better reflect the specificities of an oppressed caste. But messing with a dialogue or questioning the behaviour of a character in the name of social concern questions the very existence of a film which is otherwise enjoyable. The problem is not that Mudhal Mariyadhai has characters like Malaichami and Sengodan. The problem is that tamil cinema in general has only, at least in as much as I have seen, characters like these in narrations involving caste.
LikeLike
Eswar
June 1, 2019
Hi @varsha. I posted my comment before your second comment got published. So didn’t get to read your comment then.
I do find Sengodan’s character intriguing. Though he keeps falling at Shivaji’s feet in most scenes, in the scene where he comes to inform Shivaji that his daughter and Shivaji’s marumagan had ran away, he doesn’t fall at Shivaji’s feet. Also, as you pointed out, Sengodan does not exactly beg for justice. He asks for it, if not demands. But the other scenes in the movie do not match up with this. He is the only character in the movie who displays excessive reverence/subservience to Shivaji, while the rest of the characters are shown as either talking normally or even being playful. Sengodan is also the only person who talks about Shivaji in great respect. Even the very first scene for Sengodan with Shivaji shows Sengodan plucking a thorn from Shivaji’s foot. Does this characterisation imply that Sengodan can talk in an upright fashion when he had been wronged, but otherwise there is a certain way to behave with Shivaji’s character?
Regarding the point about how Shivaji changes his mind quickly, there is also a subtle caste framework here. I believe Men Marrying-down (Hypogamy) their caste status, is not seen as taboo as Women marrying down. Both the accepted relationship shown in Mudhal Mariyathai, Shivaji with Kuyil and his marumagan with Sengodan’s daughter, are Men in a Hypogamy relationship. If Shivaji had a marumagal instead and married her to a lower caste Sengodan’s son then that would have implied Shivaji’s character is not casteist. Though the movie appears to be revolutionary, like @e221 said, the movie only operates within an existing social/caste framework. A framework where women is the honour bearer of a family and in turn the family’s caste. Any transgression, especially Hypogamy, by a caste women results in family losing its honour – Ponnatha is the example. In a way Shivaji marumagan’s relationship with Sengodan’s daughter is only a mirror image of Ponnatha’s pre-married relationship. But they get different treatment. Because, even if you are a caste men, it’s still okay to marry-down with a lower caste women. Shivaji’s relationship with Kuyil also falls within the same rule. So even though the movie appears to be revolutionary, but subtly, it only follows the social rules.
@e221 – Thanks. Agree that Pa. Ranjith is a product of his time. But his significance is not in comparison with Bharathiraja’s era but in his choice to portray a group that’s not shown enough even today.
LikeLike
e221
June 1, 2019
@Eswar – Yes. That choice is because of the era itself. In a decade, We could see tamil movies with LGBT characters(we have already started seeing this) as mainstream characters and we cannot really fault the old directors for not portraying them because maybe the society was not ready for such kind of movies.
Also, I don’t agree with the kind of movies Ranjith is making now. Madras and Attakathi are exceptions because they feel organic. All the other movies of Ranjith sounds like propaganda. Even though the intentions are good and true, there are real dangers in sounding like a propagandist because then you will never reach the other side.
You cannot build bridges or make a dialogue without making a few compromises along the way. That’s simply common sense. What Ranjith fails to understand is he misunderstands for making compromises to the dilution of his message. If he follows this path, his works will be ignored by the rest of the people and that’s should not be the case because i do believe Ranjith as an honest filmmaker when compared to filmmakers like Muthiah.
Also “it’s still okay to marry-down with lower caste women.”..It’s not Ok at all. It’s ok to have a sexual relationship but not to the level of getting married. That was never accepted even for a man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Varsha
June 1, 2019
“Does this characterisation imply that Sengodan can talk in an upright fashion when he had been wronged, but otherwise there is a certain way to behave with Shivaji’s character?”
I don’t think so. Wronged or not, Sengodan is one of the very few characters who understands Malaichami(Kuyil is another) and hence goes out of the way to respect him. The caste feeling could be embedded in his behaviour(its hard to be sure since the film does not explore him much!), but, even then, it does not stop there.
“I believe Men Marrying-down (Hypogamy) their caste status, is not seen as taboo as Women marrying down. Both the accepted relationship shown in Mudhal Mariyathai, Shivaji with Kuyil and his marumagan with Sengodan’s daughter, are Men in a Hypogamy relationship. If Shivaji had a marumagal instead and married her to a lower caste Sengodan’s son then that would have implied Shivaji’s character is not casteist. Though the movie appears to be revolutionary, like @e221 said, the movie only operates within an existing social/caste framework. A framework where women is the honour bearer of a family and in turn the family’s caste. Any transgression, especially Hypogamy, by a caste women results in family losing its honour – Ponnatha is the example.”
There is no doubt. Hypogamy with women marrying down is indeed more taboo than the other way round in society. But hypogamy is not even stated in Mudhal Mariyadhai, much less explored. Ponnatha cannot be cited as an example. It is consistent with Malaichami’s character that if transgression was the only problem with Ponnatha, then the couple would have reconciled and the Kuyil episode would never have happened. Throughout the film, except for the backstory of the couple, the highlight of Ponnatha’s character is her haughtiness, not her transgression. It is to Malaichami’s credit that he does not spill the beans even after years of torture. Of course, he has his family pride to think of, but I think an unjust casteist person would have succumbed after 20 long years, if not sooner.
Your comments, in this regard, seem more appropriate for Vedham Pudhidhu, where hypogamy is shown in the Vaidehi-Sankarapandi love story. It is worthy of note that, while in Mudhal Mariyadhai, the Sevuli-Sellakannu pair are at least allowed to marry(but not consummate their marriage), whereas Sankarapandi dies a bachelor. In both cases, it is the oppressed caste person who dies. But even here, as I said before, the lack of an opposing point of view over a diaspora of tamil movies is the real issue, not the mere existence of a film like Vedham Pudhidhu.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
June 2, 2019
@e221. Yes. The choice is definitely because of the era. I think it’s Director Ram who said, Pariyerum Perumal could not have been made few years back. Said that, the likes of Mari Selvaraj, Pa.Ranjit get kudos because they took the baton when the opportunity came, while the veterans who are still active in this era and other newcomers didn’t. This comment is more of an observation. I and not accusing them for not making such movies.
I also came across comments similar to yours about Pa.Ranjit’s last two movies. His politics appears to be messing up with the elements that existed in Attakathi and Madras.
@Varsha. A backstory about the relationship between Sengodan and Malaichamy, and early married years of Malaichami and Ponnatha would have made things lot clearer. Sengodan doesn’t say how he knew, what he knew about Malaichami and Ponnatha. Similarly Malaichamy doesn’t explain anywhere why he never lived with Ponnatha. The only time he talks to Ponnatha about this, he says something like “did I ever share bed with you?” and continues how her behaviour had made her father fall at his feet. So I am not sure if Malaichamy would have accepted Ponnatha even if she had been a nicer woman. That she had affected her family’s gauravam would have probably still distanced him from her.
LikeLike
Varsha
June 3, 2019
Eswar: I came to the conclusion that Malaichamy would have accepted Ponnatha if she had been nice to him based on his relationship with her daughter(his foster-daughter). The daughter is a symbol and the direct product of Ponnatha’s transgression. If Malaichami had given so much importance to that, then he could never have accepted her daughter as his. But he clearly says, “Un mavale en mavalaa nenachu paasam korayaame valarthuttu varen”(I brought up your daughter with as much love and affection as if she were mine). In my view, a man who gives so much importance to a woman’s transgression as to hate her throughout their married life for that one reason alone cannot behave as he does with the daughter. But yes, I reiterate that more details into these characters surely would have been interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
June 5, 2019
Varsha: Your point about Malaichamy’s daughter is convincing. From that view it does seem probable that Malaichamy would have accepted Ponnatha if she had been reasonable with him.
LikeLike
Varsha
June 5, 2019
Thanks, Eswar.
LikeLiked by 1 person