Can you pl elaborate on this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
Printable View
Can you pl elaborate on this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
Exactly. And I think this is true to an even greater extent for Bharathi Raja's vEdham pudhidhu. There's a sense of going the extra mile in these films as if to say, "oh these good people, if only they'd let go off that one last bit of 'bad habit' that is caste discrimination!" In comparison, I think the critiques of brahminism in some of Kamal's films, and to a lesser extent even Balachander's (who has always displayed a sort of twisted schizophrenic mindset when it comes to embracing liberal values), are sharper. It's perhaps understandable considering that the latter two are brahmins themselves and hence didn't have the burden of "being nice." (On Balachander though, one thing I didn't realise until late was that two of his famous films in this respect, vaRumaiyin niRam sivappu and unnAL mudiyum thambi, involved the Pillai caste and not brahmins!)Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
In Rudraveena it is a brahmin family though. In UMT they changed it to a piLLai family. Wonder why.
Which of course is because of the insider-outsider difference you mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Vedam Pudhidhu has a funny example of 'socialism of censure' - which perhaps is the 'ideal' being suggested here: The panchayath scene where the aSAri is ribbed by the thEvar, who in course of his comeback pokes the Iyer, who drags in the dalits who take a dig at the converted Christian and babel ensues.
Oh okay. Incidentally, I was wondering about the Telugu version a while back -- that it could have been a brahmin family in Telugu. Not that I've any familiarity with how an orthodox saivap piLLai household would look, but I (earlier) thought UMT's setting was clearly modeled to evoke a brahmin milieu. I don't mean to imply he was indeed being protective of brahmins, by the way, but it's a rather strange move to make (in not just one but two films).
Ha ha ha! I don't recall the scene at all. I've a poor memory of the film in general, but remember that the film's 'message' was a fizzle.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Vedam Pudhidhu ruffled some feathers. UMT was after that. So perhaps he wanted to avoid possible problems. Just speculating.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Hmm, possible. One crucial point in 'vEdham pudhidhu' and 'idhu namma ALu' is that both films have a brahmin girl fall in love with a guy outside the caste. Of course, 'idhu namma ALu' goes two steps further. The guy is from a low caste and they also marry.
Feeyaar, the man who made arangetram feared for umt?
Nevertheless, the rules on who can and cannot criticise something is funny.
So Kamal cannot criticise Brahminism because he rejected it? AvLO criticism irukkavE dhAne rejeet paNNApla? Kalyan says he should still conform and be a brahmin and raise criticism. I find this ridiculous. So, you want to set a pigeon hole for rebels, too? Ahn criticise pandravangallAm, indha undiyalla podungappa :lol:
You rebel because you have issues. Those are the issues he is highlighting. Take specific instances where you found the dig unreal or strawmanny. Instead, all that you can say is he kindals brahmins ad nauseum.
Or if I extend, suddenly it shifts to cross kaappathushunu sonnaar, perumal silai kappathudhunnu sollaliye. Those shouldn't even be relevant to discussion on his criticism of brahminism. Take one theme, illustrate with examples without dragging several unrelated threads just because together they add up to a convenient anti hindu narrative. Then we can have a meaningfl discussion
May be now we can look forward to the springing up of - Rajinikanth's / Vijay's / Surya's / KB's / MR's / BR's / etc's ideology in their respective films - threads in the hub in future:-)
Add to them some polls and the celebration is complete:-)
One thing we can definitely be certain is the impossibility of bringing up one for Sivaji "films" (while it may be possible to bring one up for his personal convictions) :-)
IMO, other than some sugar coated propaganda in MGR films (and some dEvar bakthi / animal films), there hadn't been much preaching in TF. Next to Sivaji's, the KH films are possibly the least preachy (i.e. if we leave out those without mass appeal e.g. Satyaraj / latchiya nadikar and the likes).
Actually KH donned several roles that mouthed "gounderish" statements in a polished way (the nakkal for praying before eating in Satya, for example) :-)
Looking for ideologies in his movies is obviously insulting the "true-to-the-art-kalaignan" IMHO. Ofcourse, some common threads could be seen often (me-the-kAdhal-iLavarasan, romance >1 girl per movie, insist on kiss scene etc).
Other than that, he is clearly in the polished gounder mode (i.e. holy cow slaughter).
Concern for personal safety (as highlighted by irir123 in the post that started all this discussion) is definitely there.
Being an artist and not a politician, he should not be unnecessarily picked on for that (for that matter, every politician is scared for personal safety in the country. More money is possibly invested in such "z" security stuff for politicians than BSF of the country).
If some groups whom he allegedly ridicules cannot take on him with sufficient vigor -legally / illegally etc - so as to restrain him, is it not their problem and not his? (disunity etc)