பிசாசு - Pisasu (2014)

    Note: Spoilers ahead!                  

    ஏசு கிறிஸ்து ஒரு மனிதனாக இருந்து தெய்வத்தின் நிலைக்கு உயரும்  தருணங்கள் பைபிளில் சில  உண்டு. அதில் ஒன்று,அவரை ரோம சாம்ராஜ்ய காவலாளிகளும், யூதேயா நகர மக்களும், முள் கிரீடத்தோடு  சிலுவையில் அறைந்து  தொங்க விடும் போது வருகிறது. சிலுவை ரத்தம் சொட்ட சொட்ட தொங்கும் பொது, அவர் வானைப் பார்த்து சொல்கிறார் "பிதாவே இவர்களுக்கு மன்னியும், தாங்கள் செய்கிறது இன்னதென்று அறியாதிருக்கிறார்களே" என்று. மரண வலியில் தன் உயிர் போகும் , தருணத்தில் கூட , தன்னை கொல்பவர்களின் அறியாமைக்காக இறங்கி வேண்டும் தருணத்தில் அவர் தெய்வமாகிறார்.
                         
  தெய்வத்தின் நேர் எதிராக பைபிள் சொல்வது பிசாசு. அந்த பிசாசு என்கிற குறியீட்டை எடுத்து மிஷ்கின் சொல்லும் கதையில் வரும் பிசாசு எப்படிப் பட்டதாக இருக்கிறது ? அதற்க்கு கொஞ்சம் மாயாஜாலங்கள் தெரிகிறது, ஓர்  வீட்டுக்குள் புகைக் கூண்டில் புகுந்து வாழும் அதற்க்கு,  வெளியில் நடக்கும் அநீதிகளை பார்க்கும் திறன் இல்லை. ஆனால், அந்த அநீதிகள் தன் வீட்டுக்குள் வந்து வீட்டில் உள்ளவர்களை சீண்டும் போது, அது ருத்ர தாண்டவம் கொண்டு, தப்பு செய்யும் ஆசாமிகளை உண்டு இல்லை என்று கிழித்து தோரணம் கட்டி விடுகிறது. விட்டில் உள்ளவர்கள் மேல் அதற்க்கு நிறைய அன்பும் அக்கறையும் இருக்கிறது. ஆனால் எல்லையில்லா தனிமையும்  இருக்கிறது.சுருக்கமாக சொன்னால் அது பேரன்பும், பெருங்கோபமும் கொண்ட ஒரு தாயின் உருவம்.

              
மிஷ்கின் ஒரு பேட்டியில், நாம் அமானுஷ்யத்தை ஒன்று கடவுள் என்கிறோம் அல்லது பூதம் என்கிறோம் என்று சொல்கிறார். அது உண்மைதான். ஆனால்,பொதுவாக இந்த உலகத்திற்கு தெய்வத்தையும் பிசாசையும் பிரித்து புரிந்து கொள்ள திறனில்லை. ஏனென்றால் அது படத்தின் நாயகன் போல ஒரு கண்ணால் மட்டுமே எல்லாவற்றையும் பார்க்கிறது. நாயகன் பார்த்து பயந்து பிசாசு என்று நினைக்கும் அந்த உருவம் ஏன் தெய்வமாக இருக்கக் கூடாது என்பதே இப்படத்தின் முக்கிய புள்ளி(theme)

படத்தின் முடிவிலும் , பிசாசு தெய்வம் என்றே கதாநாயகியின் பெயர் வருகிறது. அப்படியானால்  இந்த பிசாசு எப்போது தெய்வமாக மாறுகிறது?  என்னதான் அநீதிக்கு பொங்கினாலும்,அதெல்லாம், தன் சூழலில் நடக்கும் அநீதிகள் மட்டுமே. அதெல்லாம் அதை ஒரு நல்ல தாயின் உருவமாக மட்டுமே காட்டுகிறதே தவிர தெய்வத்தின் வடிவமாக அல்ல. ஆனால், அது எப்போது தன்னை கொன்றவனை மன்னித்து, அவன் மேல் அளவில்லா அன்பு வைக்கிறதோ, அப்போதே அது தெய்வத்தின் நிலைக்கு உயர்ந்து விட்டது. கடைசியில் தன் இருப்பே அதன் தந்தைக்கும் நாயகனுக்கும் துன்பமாக மாறும்போது, தன் இருப்பையும் அழித்து காற்றோடு மறைகிறது.

              இது ஒரு குழப்பமான நிலைதான்.  இவ்வளவு அன்பான பிசாசு தெய்வம்தான், நாயகனின் தாயை தாக்கியவனை கொலை வெறியோடு தாக்குகிறது. வீட்டில் திருட வருபவன் குதத்தில் கத்தியைச்  சொருகி கதவை சாத்துகிறது, சூனிய காரியின் தலையை உலுப்பி எடுக்கிறது. ஏனென்றால், அதன் நோக்கில் அவர்களை கொல்லாமல் விட்டதே மன்னிப்புதான். ஆனால் அது நாயகனை பரி பூரணமாக மன்னிகிறதே? ஏனென்றால் அவன் அந்த மன்னிப்புக்கு தகுதியானவனாக இருக்கிறான். அவனுக்கு ஒரு நீதியுணர்ச்சி இருக்கிறது. அவன் பிச்சை எடுப்பவர்களுக்காக உயிரைக் கொடுத்து சண்டை போடுகிறான். அவனுக்கு ஒரு தந்தையின் மனம் புரிகிறது. "நமக்கு பிணம் ஆனால் அவருக்கு அது அவள் மகள்" என்று நண்பனோடு வாதிடுகிறான். இதற்கெல்லாம் மேலாக, தன தவறை உணரும் தருணத்தில் அவன் ஓடி ஒழியவில்லை, மாறாக அவன் தன் தவறுக்காக உயிரை விடவும் தயாராகிறான். இதெல்லாம் நமக்குத்தான் மிஷ்கின் காட்டுகிறார். ஆனால் பிசாசை பொருத்தவரை, அவன் எப்போது பிச்சை எடுப்பவர்களுக்காக சிறிது நேரம் வாழ்கிறான் என்று தெரிகிறதோ அப்போதே அவனை மன்னித்து அவன் மேல் காதல் கொண்டு அவன் பின்னால் வந்து விடுகிறது.

Linga (2014)

               I went to Lingaa with my entire family on the first day. What generally happens is that, if i go with my kid, i will be never able to focus on the film. Because i will be busy buying popcorn and explaining to my daughter why Vijay uncle is beating a lot of other uncles. So, i went to Linga with such mind set. I thought i will watch it again alone later without much distractions. However, to my surprise, my daughter fell asleep with in half an hour. So this time i got to watch the film completely uninterrupted.
              

            But then after coming out of the theater, i realized two things. First, i don't have to come back  and i don't want to come back. This is probably the first time i felt like this for a Super Star film. Even for Kochadaiyaan, i wanted to go back atleast for one more time. For Enthiran, i actually went back two more times. Actually now i realize that for most of the Rajini films i have gone back to theater after the first watch. I had seen Padayappa atleast four times in theater if my memory serves correct.There was only one exception to this pattern before which was Kuselan. But that was a sad excuse for a Rajini film.

             In Lingaa, Rajini again plays a double role. Infact, starting from Basha, the only film Rajini has not done a double role or almost a double role is Padayappa(ignoring kuselan). Dont believe me? here is the list:
                              Baasha -  Auto Driver/ Don
                              Muthu  -   Father/Son
                              Arunachalam - Father/Son
                              Padayappa - Padayappa(old/young)
                             (you can still consider it as two roles)
                              Baba - Baba, Babaji
                              Chandramukhi - Doctor,Vettayan Raaja
                              Sivaji  - Sivaji/MGR
                              Enthiran - Scientist/Robot
                              Kochadaiyaan - Father/Sons
                              Lingaa - Father/Son

                    In all these films, there is a pattern. There is one Rajini who is reasonably interesting and other one is a complete bad ass. Think of Sivaji. The second role is completely mesmerizing. The second Rajini comes only in the last minute but I would say that till that point, Sivaji cannot be technically considered a Rajini film at all.  The excitement which he bring in the motta boss role, is what makes you feel that it is a rajini film and you are happy that this is worth the money. Think of Enthiran. Bad Robot, takes the film to a completely new level. Think of Chandramuki. Vettayan entry in the single most badass scene in the film. I always feel that Rajini is at his best while doing a over the top role like Vettayan Raaja.

                      Linga also follows the same path.  There are two Rajinis, Father and Son. The Father Rajini, i thought is actually good and there were a few good moments. For example, in that moment when the villagers drive him out of the Dam and he says "Ellam Avan paathuppan" pointing to the sky, we get to relive the nostalgic Rajini for a few seconds. But those moments are very very few in the film. The second problem is the younger rajini whose scenes i thought were completely carelessly made. What is the with poet scene? Infact, I dont know, why there was even a younger Rajini at all in the film.

                       I would have definitely gone back for a second time, if the film had been just about Lingeshwara Raaja building a dam. This is because that premise was actually good and the role is actually suits really really well for Rajini. For a few moments, the film also touches upon the various problems we face as a country while pursuing common causes, internal politics etc etc. But those are completely washed away by the silly bomb kick. Why K.S.Ravikumar saar why?

Kaaviya Thalaivan(2014)

                
                   For some reason, the Tamil speaking internet community is not so supportive of the film Kaaviya Thalaivan. I read   Mr.Rangan's review ,vikadan review and few other reviews. To me it looked like they all missed the point. They all seem to have the same usual problem. The problem is that we dont see Tamil Cinema as an extension of  our culture. But rather we see it as a part of global cinema culture. We want too see the hollywood production values, European sensibilities and South Korean stories in our cinema.This is the reason why we could not accept Enthiran as an awesome film. We wanted to see terminator type uber-sceintific sci-fi, but what Shankar made is a Tamil Film with all kollywood sensibilities.

                 I am also a victim to this "world-cinema" syndrome. I have failed to appreciate some of our great films just because they were a little louder or there was an unnecessary song. I am trying to move away from it and in recent times i am able to see Tamil film as a Tamil film. I watched Kaaviya Thalaivan with an ever better mind set because i did not get a chance to see its trailer or listen to its songs. Writer Jeyamohan had mentioned about this film long back in his site and i always liked Vasantha Balan's world. So i simply decided to go for the film when i heard it got released. When i cam back from the film i was really really excited to read the reviews because i liked the film so much. But to my disappointment, the online reviews were not as appreciative as i was.

              So, i thought back. Why did i like this film? For starters, it is a complex film with a simple and followable narrative. To me, it was very very clear from the first fifteen minutes that the film is about the tangle between two styles of story telling and performing. First is Gomathi's style whose narrative earns for appreciation and recognition. The second is Kali's style whose narrative earns to understand psych of the charachter he is playing. This style means, he has to understand context of the charachter he is playing really really well. I thought it is well captured in the rehearsal performance where both of them play an asura. While Gomathi's performance is very loud as an attempt to reach the audience Kali's performance is more subtle. It tries to convey the psych of the asura through a variety of body language changes. A few people seemed to have criticised Siddarth's performance. But i thought his performance in this scene was clear enough.

                In fact, the central and the pivotal scene of the film comes right next to this. That is the scene were Gomathi's asks Swami, why his performance was rejected. He repeatedly tells that he has done everything religiously and rigorously. He gets two replies 1) Kali understands "Dharma" 2) Certain things cannot be taught but they have to be realized. Gomathi doesnt seem to understand this because he cannot realize what is Dharma, What happens for the next two hours is Gomathi's attempts to solve this puzzle. When he finally solves and realizes what is Dharma, it is way too late and hence the ending to the film.

               I think, for the film to make better sense, Vasantha Balan wants us to see everything in this context. If we see in that context, tt will make sense, why Swami dies when Kali curses yet he blesses Kali in death bed.  It will make sense why Kali gives a twist Arjun's charachter is Karna Moksham. When Karna dies Arjun gets pissed of with the battle and asks Krishna to stop the war. It is outstanding how Bhagawat Gita would have made more sense at the death bed of Karna. I am pretty sure i can see Thiru. Jeyamohan's hand in it. It will also make sense why Kali is a natural swedeshi but Gomathi is just a by stander commenting about swedeshi people. It will make sense why Kali says he understands what Gomathi is going through.
  
             Since it was very clear to me that the movie is about the struggle of Gomathi Nayagam Pillai, it was also very clear that the rest things like theater dramas, love stories, independence struggle all are back drops. Infact, you can pluck these two characters out put in a futuristic sci fi world and that movie would have a very similar story arc.
                 

Drishyam

               Drishyam is running in Bangalore for over a month now. The film has broken a lot of Box office records in Kerala. I saw the film last Saturday and now i can understand the hype behind it.The theater i saw it was running with a packed weekend crowd, even after a month of the release.  Drishyam works really well because it is fine blend of entertainment and good cinema. It has a slow build up and the films enters the second half, it keeps you in the edge of the seat through out.

               Also, it is not an exaggeration to say that Mohanlal carries the entire film on his shoulders. Because, the central premise of the film will make sense, if and only if George Kutty is a believable to us. He is a simple man living a simple life yet he has an outstanding ability to perceive and plan out situations. You need to play out both the faces really well. He is a romantic husband, caring protective father, strong headed family man, passionate film geek. At the same time, he is helpless and weak common man in front of authority. If the character doesn't sell, no matter how intelligently the story is conceived, the film will not be reachable to us. Lal does it in a seemingly effortless manner.
 
               As i mentioned earlier, George kutty is actually a film geek. In the beginning some one jokes at him saying one day he should make a movie of his own. So, when necessity comes ,he not only comes up with an amazingly cooked up story but also executes it perfectly.  But the difference is, it is his life, so he cannot take anything for granted. Like films, we only see glimpses of "behind the scenes" of his story and it makes sense only when it all plays together.And when we his story unfold in front of us, we are indeed stunned by it.                 But if you really see, he actually has a very shaky start for his plan. He sees the yellow Maruthi Zen and opens in without realizing it is going to trigger alarm. A grave mistake that would haunt him till the end. But, I think it is not a mistake to assume that he is shaken by this mistake and realizes he cannot leave anything unturned. This leads to his commitment to plan out everything to the smallest details like gathering bills and coaching his family.
                 
                There are two audience for the story created by George kutty. One is us, sitting outside and the other is the police. We want him to survive and the Police want him to perish. We want him to survive, not because he is the hero but because we can relate to his life. We understand the how precious is this little bubble called life. We understand the justice he is trying hard to imply. That justice is what actually touches the nerve of the audience. We are fully convinced that what he is doing is right, even though it might look wrong in eyes of the law.

                  That brings us to the most disturbing part of the film. In the very beginning, George explains to a policeman, how an ideal police station should be. He says, it should function as a place which can be approached by the common people who seek justice.  But what we see is the opposite. We see police brutality and how they function as thugs for the rich and powerful. We see that the head of Police, instead of seeking justice, uses her power for her selfish needs.

               We actually see the exact point where she crosses the line. In the beginning what she does looks justifiable, considering her son missing and all, but at one point even though she realizes that her son has done an unpardonable mistake, she decides to take it though the end. She gets obsessed and gears up to quash this nice little family. Not for the sake of justice, but for the sake of her own obsession and revenge.


                                         ***SPOILER ALERT****
                    Even more disturbing part is even after this ordeal, the police attitude remains the same. They see George as a suspect. The new inspector wows to put him in jail. We know that he will survive that puts our mind at ease.
                  But the more important thing to think about is, George is actually fine with this tag. He would rather sign in a ledger than seeking justice through the judicial process. Because if you really see, even though it is a murder, what happened is an act of defense. And there is enough evidence that can set him and his family free. Yet, he and his family decides to take things in their own hands.  Of-course, it is just a movie, but the situation is not unreal. We see this happening everyday. Day in and Day out, the girls who are the victims of assault and their families, mostly decide to stay mum.They don't have faith on that the society will support, the police will assist and the courts will get the justice done.

                     The most obvious reason is, such a disclosure would tarnish the future of a girl. This means the victims pay for something which they did not commit. This is an indication that we live in a unjust society where a victim can't seek justice, unless he or she is rich or powerful enough. The second reason is, our police and the judicial system is never people friendly. It takes a lot of power to get the attention of police and it takes an eternity to get the deserved justice. 

               As George points out in the beginning of the film, people are always afraid of the police. I dont know whether we can change the attitude of the entire society easily, but with some effort we can definitely change the attitude of our judicial system. Hopefully, films like this can open up more discussions on this topic.