This is my English translation of an article “ஒளிக்குத் தப்பிய வாழ்க்கை” (The Life that escaped Light) by Mr Chellappa
published in Kalachuvadu Magazine (Cinema special issue) in January 2014. This
is the 1st English
translation in Tamil Prose Series.
Recently I stumbled upon an article on Tamil cinema
published in Kalachuvadu magazine in 2014. It indeed offered me a conciliatory
answer why Tamil film industry is still not able to march towards producing
movies that are capable of attracting the attention of world cinema. Though I
have some reservations about some of the views of the author, I thought of
bringing it in English, putting aside my inclination to write a critique on
it.
….
It has been 82 years since the first Tamil Talkie,
Kalidas (31.10.1931) was released. More than hundred movies are being produced
in Tamil Nadu every year. The experience of watching movies has almost become a
part of Diwali and Pongal celebrations and celebrations alike. It is an
accepted fact that majority of television channels will not be able to produce
special programmes in the absence of motion pictures and the people who are
associated with it. Every year, on Independence Day and Republic Day, we can
indeed watch attractive movie stars giving interviews on majority of television
channels describing their experience. Even if they had contributed something of
any sort even in one movie, the questions will be aimed at them as if there
were lot many things for the Tamil society to know from that silver screen
personality. However, still we are not in a position to show proudly even one
original Tamil movie which encompasses visual language and social
understanding. What is the reason for this gap?
It is true that K. Subramaniyan, S. Balachandar, Sridhar,
Bharathiraja, Mahendran, Deveraj mohan, Balumahendra, Bala, Vetrimaaran and
others like them have wiped off this insult with the best of their efforts.
Films like Thiyagaboomi (Land of sacrifice), Andha
naal (That day), Kizhakke Pokum Rayil (The Train that
goes to East), Unnaippol Oruvan (The one like You) by
Jayakandhan, Sittukkuruvi (Sparrow), Aval appadiththaan (She
is like that), Udhirippookkal (Scattered Flowers), Veedu (House), Mahanadhi (Big
River), Sedhu , Adukalam (Play Ground), Aranya
Kaandam are being produced in Tamil in different stages of period. But
it is a bitter truth that we are still lagging behind in producing films
blossoming with rich artistic experience by touching the entire dimensions of
social complexities through the usage of all possibilities of cinematic
language. On the other hand, it is equally true that the artistes well versed
in film technology, visual language and utilisation of the possibilities of
cinema are also coming up from time to time. In spite of this, why is a sort of
continuous dryness prevailing? The articles on early Tamil cinema show that the
Tamil film industry had been perennially infected by this dryness.
Tamil cinema which has become an integral part of Tamils’
lives unfortunately still stands aloof in portraying Tamils’ lives. Still there
is a continuous dullness prevalent in the making of serious cinema portraying
deeper inner complexities and inner feelings. Even movies like Metti (Toe
ring) which discussed the intense inner feelings at some superior intellectual
level are being produced far less in number. What indeed makes us more
surprised than ever is the fact that the movies made on themes like national
independence, patriotism were actually produced before independence and social
movies were produced when the cinema at once became talkies. We are unable to
point fingers at one particular section of society for not making socially
conscious movies as much the quantum of impact as social movies had on society.
Just like the people associated with cinema, it is also a truth that the people
who watch and criticise it are also equally responsible for this inadequacy of
creative energy. It is indeed a social tragedy that the movies which fill the
gaps between life and onscreen portrayal are not at all in making. Taste for good
cinema is something that was not nurtured in big level in Tamil. There is no
dearth of problems at all in the lives of modern Tamils toiling at various
corners of society. Politico social and economic changes like post colonialism,
national independence, societal strains, rule of Dravidian parties,
globalization, scams of financial institutions, the impact of software industry
and liberation struggle of Tamil Eelam are continuously being witnessed in
Tamil society. Where ever we turn our attention to modern urban life, the
problems faced by ordinary citizens who have been caught in innumerable
livelihood issues scratch our conscience. Despite having problems that are
hitting the bottom of one’s conscience, it is unfortunate that only the so
called entertainment cinema still dominates the scene. Sometimes it makes one
suspicious on whether the directors who copy foreign movies without any tinge
of inhibition and brings them into Tamil are really conscious of our
society.
We can easily count the film makers who could understand
cinema that possesses possibilities of bringing powerful social change and
could handle them with appreciable visual effect. In kizhakke pokum
rayil (1978) the barber Maruthu will remove his slipper immediately
and then talk after seeing a person belonging to a dominant caste. Film maker
Bharathiraja silently indicates in this movie that a particular caste has been
kept in a most backward condition in society and the people belonging to that
caste are not in a position to raise their voice against this oppression. Any
person wanting social civility will get angry after seeing such social tragedy.
It is important for an artiste to try his level best to remove the caste and
religion based social anomalies in his works.
Despite the fact that cinema is a visual medium,
dialogues still play an important role in Tamil movies. In a recently released
movie, Onaayum aattukkuttiyum ( A wolf and a Goat) (2013),
director Mishkin would describe the gist of the story, summary of the story in
an important visual through plain dialogues. The manner with which it was
received is still standing as a testimony that we have still not come out of
the influence of dialogues. The fact that Mishkin is one director in Tamil who
approaches movies through visuals and this particular movie is also one that is
moved with visuals is indeed an oxymoron. The space in which the story moves
and the circumstances in which incidents occur do not have any identity of
Tamil movies. Many scenes in the movie have been set like that of modern
theatrical scenes and a something of a film displayed on screen. As it does not
have any element in it for being called a Tamil movie, Onaayum
Aattukkuttiyum failed to evoke the feeling of attachment.
Story is the spine of a movie; screenplay is its heart;
if music is its blood, the one who gives life to it, is its director. A
director should have a complete penchant for movie related genres such as
light, music, editing, stage setting, dance and stunts. An understanding on how
to capture incidents in camera, how to bring them on screen alive through
visuals, what is the meaning of images on screen, what is the impact it causes
on viewers’ mind is essential for a director. Apart from these, a close watch on
the history of society in which we live, its culture, its traditions and the
changes occurring in the society is also important. If only all these combine
together, a movie will become an artistic experience. Compendium of articles on
cinema shows that film critics have been insisting this particular aspect ever
since the beginning.
After the arrival and success of K. Pakiyaraj and T.
Rajender, it has become an unwritten rule that the directors should also know
how to write stories as well. This could also be one of the reasons why movies
of intense realistic nature were not produced in Tamil. Without understanding
the richness of Tamil literature, this new genre of directors started writing
stories on their own. Those who went from Tamil literature to cinema got their
individuality incinerated by the flame of entertainment Tamil cinema. The one
like Jeyakandan and Poomani are exceptions. Hence the origin of the spring that
could have been the emerging point of movies capable of walking towards a
meaningful path with realistic experience with rich storytelling and innovative
visual language has got completely clogged-up.
Some of the present day directors who understood the
language of cinema especially like Bala, tried to utilise the literary figures
duly giving them importance just because of their sheer willingness to utilise
the richness of Tamil literature in their movies. After having started from the
plains of modern Tamil literature and reached wider Tamil audience through
Ananda vikadan weekly, even the contribution to Tamil cinema by people like S.
Ramakrishnan and Jeyamohan is not something noteworthy. Precisely only because
of this reason, Jeya Mohan could write dialogues for a “realistic” movie like “Sindhu
Samaveli” (Sindhu plains) directed by Samy claiming to have been
influenced by a Russian story and explicitly brought to the public the
“beautiful relationship” between a father in law and his daughter in law in the
absence of the son-cum-husband. These modern Tamil writers could not contribute
even as much as Sujatha and Balakumaran have done to Tamil movies.
Only under the spell of some adolescent fantasy, the
works of Director Maniratnam, who entered Tamil cinema in the middle of
eighties and could somehow manage an exclusive place for himself, could be
approached. He had constructed his own version of themes he handled with a mere
superficial touch, moulded in a specific manner without any in-depth
understanding about them. Maniratnam who gave more emphasis on aesthetics of
visuals stands pathetically aside without being able to get into the depths of
feelings. We are able to show him as a wrong role model for upcoming directors
who just want to copy foreign movies and bring them into Tamil as such. When we
understood that his Mouna Raagam (Silent Raga), released
during late eighties and captivated the hearts of youth-Ashokamithran wrote
about the absurdity of this movie in one of his articles-was nothing but K.
Pakiraj’s Andha Ezhu Naatkal (Those seven days) and the
screenplay of his Alaipaayudhe (Mind Wavering) was the
technique used by K. Pakiyaraj in his Mouna keedhangal (Silent
songs), the hallucination about him that had accosted us vanished. Another
director who was equally celebrated like him was Shankar. Movies like Gentleman,
Indhiyan (Indian), Anniyan (Alien) and Mudhalvan (First
one/ Chief Man) directed by him superficially chopped off the leaves without
even trying to understand the roots of social complexities they tried to bring
for debate. The politics placed by the director in front of us through these
movies that handled issues like reservation and bribery is indeed very
dangerous. These movies celebrated for their visual aesthetics are no way
better than the movies like Sakalakalaa Vallavan (Expert in
all fields- Jack of all trade sort) and Murattu Kalai (Untamed
Bull) that are being called ‘black spots’ in the history of Tamil movies. We
should also remember at this juncture that the movies Engeyo Ketta
Kural (Voice heard somewhere) and Puvanaa Oru Kelvikkuri (Puvana
is a question mark) directed by S.P. Muthuraman.
The new generation directors who entered Tamil film
industry after 2000 having Maniratnam and Shankar as their mentors were unable
to produce disciplined cinema. Those who must have guided them had already gone
astray. The world movies these new generation directors watch in international
film festivals and DVDs give them new leash of zeal. At the same time the
sequence of scenes that has knit Tamil movies together was superficial one. The
big difference witnessed between these two actually confused these directors.
The opportunity for them to understand the clarity of producing meaningful
cinema was thus absent.
Complexities pertaining to culture and tradition in
Tamils’ lives are light-heartedly shown in Tamil movies. Tasmac culture
witnessed in present day Tamil society has virtually torn all the pleasant
familial fabrics of family life into pieces. But in Tamil movies, the desks at
these Tasmac shops are being used by our heroes only to share either his
happiness or sorrows along with his friends. A movie released in 2012 “Madhupanakkadai”
(Wine shop) capitalised the tiny opportunity offered to it, tried to portray
the plurality of drinking related issues and received commendable critical
acclaim too. However, we can only remember this movie as a mere extension of a
short film. Only when portrayals on contemporary issues are mixed with artfully
gifted visual language, a complete art of cinema will blossom. When technical
knowledge, aesthetics of visuals and the appeal of indigenousness undertakes
their journey separately, we are left with movies void of perfection like Kadal
(Sea) , Ammavin Kaippesi (Mother’s Mobile phone), Paradhesi (Ascetic), Onnayum
Attukkutiyum. In spite of this, our new generation directors have the
responsibility of speaking out the issues we face in day to day life. Instead
of placing their attention on indigenous literatures and contemporary lives,
their attention revolves around foreign movies. It is a simple fact that
reading enriches visual language and unleashes new frontiers of imagination.
But our new generation directors unfortunately believe that their creative
energy and imaginative skills will improve only by watching world movies.
Even though Bala’s Sethu handled love in
its background and the techniques of an entertainer cinema very carefully, Bala
seemed to have understood the language of cinema. What he gave after creating a
hope that he could make serious movies depicting the culture of our land and
traditions was a complete disappointment. His leanings towards Hindutwa
ideology prevented him from reaching heights. While he could depict the
livelihood issues of marginalised people brilliantly through visuals, he failed
to create an impact which Jeyakanthan did through his writings. The movies
followed thereafter, simply showed him as an anarchist without any social
understanding. When he attempted to show the tragic lives of tea estate
labourers with complete devotion, he fulfilled his work, however, with
imperfection. That was why Paradhesi could only see the
heights it wanted to reach. Had he relinquished his personal whims and fancies
while fully depicting the tragedy laden lives of tea estate labourers, it would
have been a visual documentary and a crafty experience on how a persecuted
society was decimated for the sake of upper class pleasures. Who is to be
blamed for this?
In April 2013, director Bharathiraja gave an interview to
London Deepam. He insisted that an artiste should act with the concern for
the society. He denied that the films were being made as per the expectations
of people. After getting the people habituated to cheap art, it is unfair to
blame them that they only like such entertainers, he criticised. It is wrong to
make such movies, and the public watch such movies only because they come to
theatres, he observed. He had expressed his displeasure on drowning the public
in celluloid intoxication by simply blaming them.
Even the movie Annakkodi (2013) directed
by Bharathiraja could not create considerable impact despite it depicts love in
different light and oppression of dominant caste. Its title Annakkodiyum
Kodiveeranum was approved for release only after the name of the lower
caste youth was removed from it. It is not possible to emerge as a civilization
if we keep on hiding the invisible hands of caste strangulating the throats of
our society. If Bharathiraja had made this movie when the creative energy in
Tamil film industry was at its peak, its impact would have possibly been
different.
It was possible for a Brahmin boy to ask a question “You
very often utter Balu Thevar...Balu Thevar. Balu is your name. Is thevar a
degree you received (from a university)?” in Vedham Pudhithu (Vedhas
are anew) (1983). Is it possible for a boy belonging to any oppressed class to
raise such a question on screen? Are there any directors amongst us who have
the guts to set a scene like this? Only when a director emerges with courage,
understanding and concern for his society, the art of cinema will rise with its
intensity and speak about the societal complexities impartially. Tamil movies
will be discussed in world arena. Leaving it aside, it would be childish to
praise the actors ‘Oscar Nayagan’ (Oscar hero), Ulaga
Nayagan (World Hero) and flatter the directors “Thennagaththu
Satyajit Ray (South Indian Satyajit Ray)
Santhakumar who directed Mouna guru (Silent
Guru) (2011), Nalan kumarasamy (Soothu Kavvum) (scheme would descend) ,
Raam (Katradhu Thamizh) (what learnt was Tamil) , vetrimaran (Aadukalam)
(Playground) are some of the very few offering hope. However, it is still
questionable whether movies portraying our identity and the culture of our land
will ever be produced. There have been three movies that depicted the lives of
fisher folk. Both Neerparavai (Water bird)(2012) and Mariyaan (
The one never dies) (2013) were made even without basic understanding of
fishermen’s lives. The life of fishermen which is torn by Srilankan Navy and
the problems faced by them in their daily life were not adequately recorded on
screen in those movies. The immortal song by Vali in Padakotti (Boat
rider) movie had registered the turbulent lives of fishermen better than these
movies. Not courageous enough to watch the movie Kadal. Impartial
reviews have shown that it is just a superficial flick.
......
...... ......... ........... ............. ........... .......
Both the directors and critics should believe that a work
of art should get sharpened by criticism instead of getting them blunt. Only
criticisms and works of art are important and not critics and artistes. Whether
the light house is essential for a ship or not, the light of the light house
will always emit light.
Courtesy- Kalachuvadu Magazine
Translated into English by K. Saravanan
