Tag: tamil cinema

Categories
cinema cinema:tamil

On Vivek

(1961-2021)

1999’s Unnaruge Naan Irundhal was a marker of how Kollywood comedy would be shaped, at least for the next few years. Headlined by Parthiban, who was largehearted enough to take up roles which provided room for most supporting actors of the comedic variety as yes he could vibe well with them, being a humorist himself. Unnaruge Naan Irundhal had Vadivelu, as the village drunk who Parthiban’s character encounters, the scenes between them are indicative of their partnership which would reach peak in next year’s Vetri Kodi Kattu. 

Vivek joins the party much later, as is typical how this movie could have been made- a collection of random humorous sketches and a thin story to string it all together. As a frustrated actor-director who comes to the village to make a Rambha film (yes this is the Meena-Rambha movie ) , Vivek steals a movie really did require stealing, it was after a long time when the industry made fun of itself- he covers night schedules, late coming actors, sentiment scenes and Telugu style dance steps (Paniyaram Paniyaram Paniyaram anyone?). The short time he is on screen would earn him his first Tamil Nadu State Film Award for Best Comedian. 

Let’s come back to the indicative part, while Vadivelu was excelling in the comedy situations that left him feeling like fool or left him beaten black and blue; Vivek would take up an issue and deconstruct it, even within the framework of the sketch comedy that the films that was being offered to him, allowed. Unnaruge Naan Irundhal is like a fork in the road where Vadivelu and Vivek parted. 

In the new millennium, Vivek found an immediate place as the funny friend of then up and coming youth heroes, Vijay, Ajith, Vikram and Madhavan- but the frustration in his comedy remained (recollect the Shaeey! Kadhalukku silai vekkuranga, nee elai vekkure from Minnale ) and he elevated himself to the position where he could make fun of the heroes themselves (later Vivek gave up this position to Santhanam) but never would he miss out to include issues ( as in daily travails that the youth faced- ahem of the time) like mobile phone bill, petrol prices and even boring art films (Kadhal Jothi in Eyy Nee Romba Azhaga Irukke!). He strived to not reduce himself to a meme. 

A combination of factors including the multifold ‘image’ growth of the above mentioned heroes and the game changing Winner- well, we all know what happened after that. 

It is this short period between 2000 and 2003 that Vivek shone, he would talk about enrollment in caste societies (Dum Dum Dum), brahminism ( Saami) , ills of city life (Run), advertising ( Eyy Nee Romba Azhaga Irukke- Ullam Ketkume Beer) but it never seemed like he was making a statement for the sake of it, only all round good natured humor. 

Vivek couldn’t go full on into body language adi-dhadi comedy ( he tried that too for a while when we clearly see that Vivek was Vadivelu stand-in such films) , he couldn’t go into insult comedy of his predecessors, but he found his niche in the mix of pop-culture (Mission Impossible, Indecent Proposal all found a place)- harmless imitations (mostly Kamal, Sivaji, Kalaignar and Vairamuthu), social awareness and daily irritations. Sadly this golden period, like all golden periods, only lasted for a time. 

He would do them at a bigger scale (naturally) in later Shankar films which still had the smell of early 2000s in them. 

Like all good artistes,Vivek  reinvented himself by occasionally playing against type and because comedy is the most difficult of arts, he could do everything else, the most recent of which is Vellai Pookal, a well made thriller set in Seattle- an example of how he could carry a film with relatively unknown actors.

Of course, there are many Viveks (within the screen and outside) that are worth of public adulation, it could be his mission to plant one crore saplings or his quest to further the memory of APJ Abdul Kalam in the state or in general the goodness of his twitter account. 

Many will write about those facets and rightly should, but these are where my memories begin. 

No end card for you Vivek sir , this could be just another ‘Take Diversion’ and thank you for the humor.

Categories
cinema:tamil

Naval Oru Thodarkathai

What Bama Vijayam Can Teach Us About Resisting Modernity 

When someone asked Naval Ravikant what the biggest collective challenge for people over the next ten years, he replied with “resisting modernity”. 

Naval has regularly pointed out the ills of modernity which makes us live our lives a million times in our head before we live once in real, slowly eating away our lives, making us live as celebrities, perennially depressed. 

Turns out, like most truths, Naval’s words could be found in other sources too. Naval Oru Thodarkathai is hopefully a continuous exploration of such thoughts. 

I would like to clarify, modernity is not defined only in the view of adopting technology. Modernity also encompasses growth, urbanness and competitive rat-race and celebrity culture.

Resisting modernity cannot be achieved by reverting to an earlier state. It is human tendency to assume that opposites will solve problems, as though if we go back to an earlier time, adopt then prevalent methods, our current problems will move away, oh how life was simple and how happy we all were? (rhetoric)

Question: If modernity is our biggest challenge going forward, what is it the challenge to?

Answer: Happiness. 

Right, you do not agree with my definition of modernity? 

I agree, haven’t been quite clear, let me try again. 

Cut to 1967. 

In the black and white images of K Balachander’s Bama Vijayam, I rediscovered what Naval was trying to say (or my understanding of it). 

Bama Vijayam is a story of an entire family trying to resist modernity. Naval should watch it. 

And Bama, the actress, is the personification of modernity and celebrity culture(the 1960s equivalent of it), her arrival (Vijayam- good use of the word) brings with it a lot of changes to this simple family unit headed by Ethiraj(TS Balaiah).

This simple family unit, which has three caring daughter-in-laws who are content with their modest lives, with their modest working husbands and overall believable ‘cinematic simplicity’. 

They wash together, they cook together, they play together, they work together and they laugh together. Oh what fun. 

Kannadasan also sneaks in “oh what good does a pearl do to a happy woman?” 

It’s a great way to begin a movie about a family going downhill, show them at their idealistic best, show them in a way that their goodness shines through. 

“For what use are these riches being earned?” asks one of the trio, the other replies “some for our children, the rest for the whole wide world.”

So good they are! Even in their striving lower middle class setting,they have the exact goodness that some want to return to now in 2020. The comfort of the joint family, a benign patriarch, dutiful husbands, the good memories that children bring and the principles of living within one’s means. 

Cut to now.

So good right? Why did we lose all this?

Cut to 1967

But wait, they lose it too. 

When Bama comes in, first the family unit which now consisted of three couples slowly starts to break, suddenly being a neighbour to a cinema star brings on them-the need to progress socially, they borrow, they lie, they steal, they even betray. 

Since this is a comedy, all this is played for laughs.

What we are witnessing is the scene by scene destruction of a simple happy family unit that we so yearn to return to, while facing daily life in the present. 

In effect, the problem of resisting modernity is perennial, that is my extension to Naval’s quote and it does not depend on setting or status. 

When modernity tempts, few can resist, even the most simple and happy minded. 

Hey, we never said it was going to be easy, but there is way.

Resisting modernity might be our biggest problem, because it takes away our happiness, reducing us to playing never ending status games in our local celebrity cultures(which is what Bama Vijayam is also about). How prescient! 

But this modernity fellow is like devil and will surely crop up in other disguises like virtues and resisting it is not a complete solution but only an act of delaying. 

Focussed work is really the complete solution, and those who have seen Bama Vijayam will know. Work brings freedom from comparison, contentment and time and a calm mind to chose happiness over despair. 

A return to ideal state is possible in the movies as it is guided by the mind of the screenwriter.Not so easily attained in real life where the devil is more relentless and our real minds are much more fragile to temptations. 

In reality, there is no turning back, there is only moving ahead. 

Nandri. Vanakkam.

Stay tuned for more such nonsense explorations of twitter truths and pedestrian philosophy through the lens of non threatening and non current entertainment. 

Until then, listen to this amazing song in which Kannadasan-MSV are just hitting it out of the park. 

Kavignar Kannadasan would have made an interesting and insightful twitter account, hmpf, if only.

Categories
cinema:tamil

On Visu

Was dreading this for sometime. Writer-director-actor Visu no more

His films were the first I could sense a real director’s touch, later I came to realize the confidence he had in his plots and characters as a screen and dialogue writer, no matter what criticism was kept against him. Like a mother he would defend his films till his death.

Visu had his own way to show the problems of the middle class even when KB was still making movies. (KB even produced some of Visu’s works). KB made ‘better’ movies (Visu would probably disagree), KB approached it from the head, while Visu would bring his bleeding heart. It wasn’t just sentimentality, but also with humor.

In a video on what makes a great movie, critic Mark Kermode noted that how words like sentimentality and humor where not used in the charitable sense by movie critics because movie criticism was purely treated as an intellectual enterprise. Emotions were not treated as part of the craft.

In my view Visu was most disadvantaged by this, he did not receive the appreciation for his craft, when he needed it the most.

Critics would carry KB to another generation, but Visu would be largely ignored by critics, but even more by his audience, whom he lost to either apathy or television.

Even at the earliest viewing of Kudumbam oru Kadambam I could see that Visu was not offering solutions- the movie was basically a debate on whether men should marry women who worked or women who stayed at home. The movie really stacks up arguments on both sides and the solution is left to the characters themselves- it depended on that family.

I still think this is one of the most mature ways to approach a domestic issue and by the time we come to the end I would have cried and laughed a dozen times.

Visu had made me see these characters as he had seen them or created them, I think this by itself is the greatest achievement for any creator. Visu sir, you rocked in your time.

The TV which depleted his audience did some good deeds by fate or design by repeatedly showing his movies which made it possible for me to catch it, enjoy it repeatedly. Yes they had some issues in quality, but never in confidence or the lack of color in characters.

Kudumbam Oru Kadambam.
Dowry Kalyanam
Varavu Nalla Uravu
Manal Kayiru

These are his movies that made an immense impact personally and of course he wrote Simla Special which for me is the gold standard in friendship movies in Tamil Cinema.

He would have liked to have read this perhaps, but alas I should have written earlier. Obits don’t matter to those for whom it is intended.

As an affected party (audience), the first duty towards a creator is a mere acknowledgment and I am guilty of being late and I will do more to write about his films.

Go well Visu sir. Om Shanti.

Vartuthapadala, vendapadala, kavalapadale, perumapadren to be your fan Visu Sir

Categories
cinema Verse

Aaranya Kaandam

Into the review-verse

Sishya Uvacha

Tell me about this movie, o learned one

I am eager to hear your views

Lost, I am in this deluge of reviews

Which parts should I savour? Which to shun?

Acharya Uvacha

As the sick are keenly watched by the vulture

Here you are interested in mindless pop culture

With the hope that your fleeting interest soonly dies

I’ll tell you the movie’s lows and highs


Under the premise of portraying reality

This one too keeps out all morality

While all gangsters are cool

If you are innocent, you are a fool


This convoluted story about smuggled dope

Am sorry to say, offers very little hope

Without morality, the characters go off-route

An overdose of grey, whom should I even root?


Oh Sishya, savour the cinematography of PS Vinod

To which much of this success is surely owed

But mostly movie wants to be a la mode

So after a point, even the twists look elbowed


Trust not the views of others, not even mine

God offers a balance, in the sea of time

Fear not as what is now garlanded, will be neglected

And what is now neglected, will surely be garlanded

Categories
cinema cinema:tamil

2.0: Hollow Spectacle

2point0

 

Shankar’s sci-fi sequel begins in twilight.  A wonderfully constructed suicide; it could very well be a testimony to the director himself.

 

Is the Shankar sun really setting?

 

If it is, then it really wants us all to remember the previous glory.

2.0 is an oddly stitched together film of mostly “Shankar elements”, who knows this movie can give rise to an ‘Ultimate Shankar Movie Checklist’

 

Here goes an initial draft:

Shankar’s main vigilante will want to kill people to make things right because no one listens to him- Check

He might use some ancient text/symbol/martial art to justify/aid his killing- Check

Vigilante will compete himself & previous Shankar films in devising improbable deaths- Check

Using common folk to convey the confusion about what is happening on the ground or “public pulse” shots- Check

A set piece in a stadium- Check

Amy Jackson’s ….never mind – Check

Corrupt businessmen and politicians- Check

 

Ok, yes there is a lot more which we left out including the minister’s secretary wearing safari suit (Check).

Directors tend to repeat themselves, happens all the time man.

We understand that people can run out of ideas and would very much recycle existing works; marketing has a fancy name for this called “re-purposed content”.

The beauty of such content is in making it feel like a whole new experience, in 2.0 the opposite happens and the regular stream of Shankar references also do not help.

The film reaches fantastical levels of unconvincing-ness when Akshay Kumar turns up as prosthetic Pakshirajan or bird-man who somehow has summoned the dead spirits of sparrows to take away cell phones from humans. He believes that humans+cell phones have caused the caused the sparrow deaths and they must be punished. He also believes in wearing a sweater in Thirukazhukundram (70 Km from Chennai).

Dr. Vaseegaran on the other hand believes no man is match for bird-man and summons up Chitti ( The robot from Endhiran). Yep, that’s it; very simple.

Shankar and his team of writers (including Jeyamohan who is writing the Mahabharata in modern form) have gone to the Keep It Simple School of Screenwriting.

If there is a problem, then there is an immediate solution and the protagonist knows what it really and exactly is and hence there is no real tension. Even when a gigantic metallic bird threatens to destroy the city.

Let alone the story, 2.0 refuses to engage in complexities in its science too; everything is reduced to positive and negative. This reductive science approach undertaken to cater to the breadth of the audience ends up hurting the film which after a while feels like a hollow assemblage of well rendered visual effects.

Immediate wow-factor not withstanding 2.0 also overstays its welcome, so eager it is to show us this spectacle that it forgets that the film is pretty much over before the titular 2.0 appears.

2.0 is again Rajnikanth who in the absence of good writing and an effective BGM makes those scenes work with ‘that’ trademark laugh and quips, but by this time it is difficult for humans to really feel connected for the final forty minute action display.

Very early on in the film, an engineering student falls ‘immediately’ in love over the immaculate beauty that is Nila (Amy Jackson) only to fall immediately out of love when he comes to know that Nila is in fact a humanoid robot.

Good to look at, but nothing much beyond that.

Oh wait, that’s the movie too.