Naadodigal

A Balachandar type narrative introduction does not set the tone of the story. Just like the title, the introductory scenes too are misleading. One expects the three lead characters’ plight of faltering career ambitions to unfold into a story like 80s weltschmerz quasi-communist flicks such as Nizhalgal or Varumayin Niram Sigappu. Also, the lead actor Sasikumar’s dark tale Subramaniapuram fresh in mind, one expects a similar brooding or serious story. Surprisingly, Naadodigal is actually an action packed story about three close friends trying to help one of their friends unite with his girl. With some expected and unexpected twists later, the tale ends with a heavy, culturally flawed, yet convenient propaganda about love, friendship, and society.

What strikes instantly about Naanodigal is the dramatised and poorly inspected acting. Almost every performer, save Nallamma (Ananya), acts self-consciously much to the discomfort of the viewer. The problem lies mainly with the director’s possible lack of attention to details. The errors are much easier to notice in the initial scenes when the story doesn’t pick up pace.

By the time you’re willing to overlook that, Naadodigal tells a really interesting story in a totally unexpected angle. That’s primarily the strength of the film, which covers up for the most other sore points, especially the acting. About Sasikumar, except his deep and phlegmatic gaze – which worked well in Subramaniapuram and still does – everything else he does seems like what we have seen in Doordharshan plays from the eighties. Some really clichéd elements too adorn the screen. Sample 1: how do you get a girl to fall in love with you? You threaten her that you’ll throw yourself into the sea. And when she refuses? Of course you jump. Sample 2: when you narrate your sad story of failing love, your friends are supposed to stand upon a hillock at different directions in deeply introspecting poses!

With all these, it is still difficult to be critical to Naadodigal beyond a point. There is something, something, perhaps the story, or the interesting twist, or even the lengthy climactic advice doled to the next generation lovers! Or perhaps one has a soft corner for Sasikumar that’s clouding the judgment. Or may be such things really happen in rural Tamil Nadu, so such counselling is needed, and hence this film itself is needed.

But then one final question to the director: The movie was very interesting and even hilarious at times Mr Samudirakani. But what is your point?

And what is with the title?

Two Great Films, One Simple Message

Dasavatharam and Vaaranam Ayiram, two of the biggest films of 2008 were the toast of the Vijay awards, an award function that is being designed, promoted and conducted like an Oscar of Tamil films. Kamal Hassan bagged every important acting award, understandably considering that he donned almost every possible character that is seen in the film. And other technical awards went to Vaaranam Ayiram, the film that was made by the director for his own personal consumption, which means not meant for general public but decided nevertheless to release it, considering the fact that he could make some money on the bargain.

Such scathing remarks on the two films require explanation: Especially when entire Tamil Nadu seems to have gone berserk over them.



First Vaaranam Ayiram: A few questions: What is the relevance of the title with respect to the story? The mother character’s recital of the Andal’s verse in the end remains a mere tokenism and even evoked an unintended laughter. Next: What is the profession of the father, the pivotal character around whom the story is supposed to revolve (but actually revolves around the son)? Why was he struggling to pay for his son’s education? What was his contribution to his son emotionally, intellectually, or even financially? What is the relevance of the lengthy rescue operation in the 'climax' with respect to the story? How does the lengthy detailing of the son’s second romance establish his affection towards his father? There are more questions but it is too tiring to list them out. Tiring for both the writer as well as the reader. If you want a good film about fatherhood, try Thavamai Thavamirundu.



One phrase used by the review in The Outlook magazine sums up Dasavatharam: ‘Prosthetic Torture.’ If anything additional is needed another review by this blogger should help. If neither does, try watching the DVD next time with a condition that you will not fast forward any part!

That these two films received such rave reviews from the media as well as industry is a matter of wondrous speculation. On second thoughts, it’s not because, rooted in sycophancy, the industry is long learned to worship false gods. It’s not just with the industry but a cultural phenomenon because as a society, we graze around superficially and hence lack credible knowledge. We worship Karunanidhi as the Tamil icon when not many critically know the depth of his Tamil knowledge. If you're curious, it's actually very poor.

Besides, there’s a general lack of self-esteem that prevents people from criticising established icons. For instance, what is your achievement in life that you set out to criticise Dasavatharam? This means that unless you act in hundred films, direct a few, and win some awards, you are not eligible to launch scathing attack on something which you believe genuinely inferior.

That reviewing is an independent activity removed of any past achievements of an artist has to be understood. That reviewing is neither an obsequious ode nor a supercilous criticism has to be established. That reviewing is not ‘Hollywood is the best and Indian films are the worst’ attitude should be conveyed through a genuine approach. Finally, reviewing is nothing but the honest record of an audience’s movie watching experience, of an audience who knows a thing or two about movies, of an audience who has grown sick of online reviews.

Hence this blog.