(by Vikram MN)
It’s movie which should have got more recognition than what it has actually got. Being a Pa. Ranjith movie it’s no surprise what the subject would be but the beauty here is how he deals with it. More than his directional features which are here and there, its his production ventures which was right on the money. Be it either ‘Pariyerum Perumal’ or ‘Irandam Ulagaporin Kadaisi Gundu’. Both are to the point and perfect. May be his big budget directional features are his idea of self-immolation so that he can budget much better features for the cause.
Vetrimaaran, in an interview said that Pa. Ranjith is a politician who makes films, meaning he has a policy to which he firmly stands and makes films according to. ‘Madras’ was a masterpiece and as far I feel, that would be his best movie in his career where both his political stand as well as carefully crafted filmmaking had come to fore. ‘Attakathi’ is excellent but now he’d not make a carefree film like that, he wants to prove a point through the film than by proving a point by a film. His next two features went from bad to worse. ‘Kabali’ had a great “searching” part. I mean few scenes where Rajni gets disappointed and returns back to his home had ‘Bicycle Thieves’ level of finesse in it. ‘Kaala’ had nothing. But like I mentioned above may be that’s his idea of being robin hood, using a star to tell his message. He of course tells his message, for which many appreciate. See how he made even the superstar to utter dialogue that only a protest would yield benefits for people and made a lady more powerful than a superstar. It’s actually a Ouroboros syndrome where Ranjith thought that he made use of Rajnikanth’s image to showcase his policy and Rajnikanth thought that he made use of a youngster to come to political powers. In the end both failed, miserably.
Comparing those with ‘Pariyerum Perumal’ and ‘Irandam Ulagaporin Kadaisi Gundu’, the latter ones feel like gems. ‘Pariyerum Perumal’ is a masterpiece, no denying that. I wouldn’t go far and say that it’s the greatest film ever made, in fact I liked ‘Ratchasan’ to it in that year. But still there is a definitive point which ‘Pariyerum Perumal’ tried to make and made it in style. The priority of the movie is to convey the message. Suppose if a certain lens for a certain type of shot had not been available, the director wouldn’t have mind it, but if certain message wasn’t able to be conveyed, that would have disappointed the director. ‘Pariyerum Perumal’ does everything possible, in the little circle it was allowed to play. ‘Ratchasan’ meanwhile was more of a cinematic experience. A fine film which people say has “flaws” but works tremendously well. These two films are compared only because it released on the same date in the same year. Otherwise it’s just baseless. But when you take a “Irandam Ulagaporin Kadaisi Gundu”, it’s a far tougher film to make, because it’s not directly camouflaged to tell the story, it tries to deal with an additional story line apart from the “message” part.
On a broad spectrum, the “gundu” in ‘Irandam Ulagaporin Kadaisi Gundu’ serves just as a MacGuffin, if taken from the angle of agenda. Of course, it bombs and people die but its more about who dies and who goes unpunished. A variety of troupes could be used, but because it’s a “gundu”, we see it with more intensity. There is a constant scare that something might happen to someone. The timer music was an excellent idea by the music director Tenma (which doesn’t irritate like ‘Tik tiktik’ BGM) who superbly scores in songs as well. Just because it’s a ticking bomb waiting to be exploded, we all see it with so much concentration. We don’t care about who is diffusing, who’s winning, who’s losing. All we care about is safety. The director so beautifully asks us, “will you root for humanity only if you have a bomb to explode”
Whether or not bombs like this exist in real world is a question that could be discussed upon some other day but how convincingly he has done it a thing to be appreciated. Kamal Hassan with all his lap top ideologies tries so hard to convince that a tsunami can be triggered by blowing cesium weapons underwater. But here with just a small intro on the bomb and a bombing, the director AthiyanAthirai puts forward his point so effectively. That’s the brilliance of his direction.
Dinesh finally feels that he has let go of ‘Cuckoo’ image. After ‘Attakathi’, this is the first film which doesn’t remind us of his acting in ‘Cuckoo’. Unfortunately, the same couldn’t be said about Anandhi, who looks like a limited actress. The rest of the actors including a repetitive yet un-hateable Munishkanth, do a fabulous job as always. It’s the troop of Ranjith and they make sure they strive together to convey a point.
What makes the film a truly special one is how local the film is. Even with a ‘Pariyerum Perumal’ the approach is global, it looked like a film which would work anywhere, like a ‘Sairat’ did, because it has templates, which each community can relate to in their region. But with ‘Irandam Ulagaporin Kadaisi Gundu’, its unapologetically local. Especially the festival in the climax, the way its given so much importance and the main point of the film gets conveyed through the song ‘Iruchi’ is like hearing the great grand finale of a Mozart concert.
The film of course has its drawbacks with an Ambi to Anniyan like graphics to show the bomb getting triggered and worse that that, the shot of bomb hitting the walls of lorry cutting to the AV shown in the peace conference and the MunishKanth dropping to bomb scene. Athiyan, who could bring great ideas to convey a point could have definitely thought about innovate ways to make those scenes but it looks like something all great series do when they want to end the season where they hurriedly want to bring closure to every character and every segment. That bug has bitten Athiyan towards the end. If you leave out these minor scuffles, the film is an experience of its own.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Naren
October 20, 2020
A romance thread that’s tangential at best doesn’t intersect with the fact that he’s in possession of a nuclear weapon.
The boss at the scrap metal shop is troubled the most by the protagonist going AWOL, having an agenda of his own for the business and uninvited outside interference as a consequence of his actions. They’re quick to get rid of the weapon but that’s the most they’ve to do with it.
A team of opportunistic capitalists seek the weapon to profit out of it. A couple of reporters try to expose that. That’s status quo with or without a bomb.
So, my question is that “gundu” serves as a McGuffin to what? What change does it trigger to claim that it has served its purpose?! The only person who is affected by its discovery and possession is the protagonist who cudn’t help but preach at some point.
The following might b dismissed as superficial but:-
1)A weapon that’s half a century old and yet no radioactive leaks that shud’ve poisoned the protagonist.
2)The size of the weapon doesn’t justify the claimed yield. U shud take a look at “Fat Boy” and “Little Boy”.
3)It’s not a time bomb, it’s not TNT to make it so unstable that it can b detonated by just dropping it. But we can chalk these things up to the ignorance of the protagonist.
4)Every nuclear nation, even if not possessing a warhead, has regular aerial reconnaissance due to the presence of nuclear power plants. So one can’t hide a weapon like this for so long. But I cud b wrong about this.
5)The first couple of images during the end credits . . . one is the infamous shot of a bunch of kids with a naked girl running – That’s from the napalm during Vietnam war. Another one is of Alan Shenu washed ashore from a boat accident of Syrian refugees trying to escape to Europe/Canada. Neither of these has anything to do with nuclear weapons nor do kids play a role in the “message” that’s supposedly conveyed in the movie. So it just seems like a plot device to evoke a sentiment/emotion.
The director is either terribly confused or is ignorant or is just making a cheap shot with all the above said imageries because none of these are intersectional at any point whatsoever. It’s all over the place.
What is the purpose of the bomb that it has supposedly served?! What is the outcome of the McGuffin plot device?!
LikeLike
Satya
October 21, 2020
‘Attakathi’ is excellent but now he’d not make a carefree film like that, he wants to prove a point through the film than by proving a point by a film.
Well, that’s why he is both unique and problematic. And definitely worth remembering. His angst, like the gods we pray to, is all-pervading. Let’s see. For now, he is a very interesting filmmaker.
LikeLike
Sai Ashwin
October 29, 2020
The only reason people have a problem with Pa. Ranjith is because of how outspoken he is regarding the society off-screen. So whenever people watch a film of his, they only see his ideology and not the craft.
Also, I disagree on the whole “how proving a point by a film”. This statement is so vague that it can be applied to any filmmaker and any film. Ex:- “Tarantino wants to prove he can make violence look beautiful and ugly at the same time”, “Nolan wants to prove you can make high concept films with huge budgets”. But when some does anything related to the society/politics, everyone have knee-jerk reactions to it and call them “someone with an agenda”.
While the seemingly “apolitical” are “agenda-free” because being for the status quo is considered normal and being against it as having an “agenda”. This kind of hypocrisy is infuriating.
Take BR himself, he says he is completely formalistic when it comes to film criticism, doesn’t mind political propaganda films yet he complains constantly about “messaging”. If the intent of the filmmaker really doesn’t matter then why care?
And Vetrimaran sounds extremely disingenuous when he calls Ranjith “a politician making films”. There is no artist who makes art only due to some kind of pure mythical artistic love. Everyone has a reason that’s personal to themselves and all equally valid. But people get all flippant and reactionary when what’s personal is also political. The only thing that matters is the art itself, not why or how they made it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Macaulay Perapulla
October 29, 2020
” yet he complains constantly about “messaging”.As a long time BRphile, allow me to take umbrage and present my line of defence, of course in a gentle manner. Feel free to ignore, if you think this dialogue doesn’t make sense.
Yes, he is formalistic in his criticism, and that’s precisely why he complains about messaging that gets shovelled in films with zero sense of understanding of the power of the medium. I mean, nothing can be more monstrously reductive than this, if one begins to understand the power of this medium.
If you want to make a powerful statement about Caste, you can make a powerful movie like Sairaat in which the form beautifully serves the director’s purpose to make a powerful statement against caste, or you can have those “karuththu masters” like Samuthirakanni give a lecture about caste, while the camera pans out to show BR Ambedkar in the frame. (Mahendi Circus did this cringeworthy pan out thing if my memory serves right) Even if you are genuinely serious about the impact of such messaging on society, It’s so plain obvious when you contrast them together.
You will feel shaken, your nerves shuddered, thinking about how we could be so monstrously wedded to old notions of caste, even in this age, when you walk out of Sairaat movie screening. I watched the movie in Hyderabad without understanding the language, and here I was, crestfallen, unable to stop thinking about the movie and what happened to those protagonists.
When you walk out of a scene like that one in Mahendi Circus, you only feel sympathetic to give some brownie points that the director is trying to tell some “karuththu” while making a commercial movie. Now, I acknowledge that this may be my experience, and someone else would prefer karuththu lecture over an impactful movie. But, fundamentally, we humans come to cinema to experience art. We want to be shaken up. We want to be evoked by what’s happening on screen. That’s what art does. Art has no other purpose other than to evoke what is happening in the screen inside. You can’t evoke fire and how it feels when it burns your skin by screaming FIRE FIRE on screen. That’s why kakka muttai or Kattradu Thamizh tells you so much more about the inequality inherent in globalization than any book written by Naomi Klein or Joseph Stiglitz does.
Let me address your point about BR’s formalistic approach to criticism. I have been thinking a lot about BR’s approach to criticism. If I were to reductively state it in one line, it would be this: “Content is subservient to form”. Needless to state, these are my observations and what I have learned from a decade of reading his blogs. BR may not necessarily endorse this line of thinking.
In the stories we tell through the art form of cinema, the content refers to what the story is all about, and the form is about how the stories are being told. A film critic focuses on form over content because, as Mcluhan says, “The Medium is the Message”. In other words, what the form reveals about the movie is far more insightful than the content which is presented inside the movie. This distinction is extremely critical, and that’s the line of trade for any critic.
There are a few fundamental axioms in BR’s approach to film criticism, which I have observed over the years reading his blogs.
1) Content is subservient to form
2) Every film maker’s distinctive visual grammar exists in a continuum.
3) Every genre form’s grammar also exists in a continuum.
Ofcourse, as the film maker evolves, his or her visual grammar also changes over time. If you read Kadal’s review or Kaatru Veliyidai,’s review BR talks about how Mani Ratnam has changed his form to be terser in his storytelling. When you read BR’s Peranbu review, he talks about how finally Ram has found his visual grammar amenable to the kind of stories he wants to tell. That intuitive sense of keenly observing the idiosyncratic visual grammar of a film maker is why BRphiles like me are BRphiles in the first place.
If you read BR’s iraivi review, he beautifully talks about why he remains Karthik Subburaj’s fan for subverting the “You Go Girl” genre form cliches. In other words, because he is tracking the continuum of a particular genre’s grammar, he is able to appreciate, when a director consciously subverts it.
Here is the most important one.
4) Focus on the tale, and not the teller and his or her intent.
Perhaps, it is the third point you are alluding to, when you say, “if the intent of the filmmaker really doesn’t matter then why care?” He cares about the power of cinema, and that’s why he prefers the form over content. He received massive backlash from his critics when he panned Madras movie, for not seeing its Dalit subtext. Although he was gracious to acknowledge his limitations, I think he was being true to his formalistic approach. The film had a generic style when it comes to the “form” vis-a-vis the “content” of the film. Perhaps, Pa. Ranjith was deliberate unlike his later movies and wanted to couch the message in a generic form template so that only insiders get it, and outsiders still see a generic saga of deceit.
Again, the idea here is to not be a defender of what BR says and does. As a layman, I am trying to understand the first principles which define his film criticism and examine them closely.
LikeLiked by 1 person