-
Veerapandiya Kattabomman. A film that fetched NT an International Award at Cairo. The first time any Indian actor was lauded at an international arena. This is a snap scene by NT standards. He has a screen presence of roughly 1 minute. But just observe him. A. Karunanidhi comes in and warns Sivaji about the impending danger w.r.t Ettappan's betrayal and Bannerman coming with an army.
AK: Ettappan uLavu koorinAn...
NT is having his eyes closed. But he opens it and glances sideways from his right eyes with just a lift of the eyebrow to convey it to us exactly as "Ettappan" is uttered. Shot zooms in. He is praying to the Lord when this unexpected news reaches him. He is coming out of his worship with a "Muruga" and goes on contemplatively philosophizing about the yins and the yangs of life. He contemplates till he speaks about Ettappan after which a disappointed "pch" escapes him at Ettappan's betrayal (the way he "pch"s is immensely likable). The man is naturally disappointed. But he prepares himself for what is to happen and braving the betrayal, he screams instructions to A. Karunanidhi and inspires everyone around. The camera zooms out as though afraid of his wrath. Such is the screen presence. The screams of "VetrivEl VeeravEl" even rouses me in my chair as he inspires his Maravar koottam (Kallar, Maravar and Agamudaiyaar of the Mukkulam, precisely coming in Thevar Magan as he, as Periya Thevar, talks a couple of hundred years on about what happened a century and a half later from Kattabomman's time as this "KaattumiraaNdi paya koottam took the vElkambs and aruvaas and went VetrivEl VeeravEl as Subas Chandra Bose called". Essentially the same actor. But what a range from Kattabomman to Thevar!) What is more is, he is able to convey a meditative calm which transforms itself to a calm disappointment which leads to disappointed anger which morphs itself to the necessary righteous rage. All inside 1 minute noteworthy Kattabomman was of Andhra descent and might have spoken a TirunelvEli Tamil smattered with Telugu for all we know. But this is an actor's interpretation of a braveheart. And what an interpretation it is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGo6fJM3WgY
-
It is the famed 'Thiruvilayadal' scene with Nakeerar.
A little bit of background. The film showcases it the way we know. Sivan comes as a poet, challenges Nakeerar's assumption of mistake in the poem, argues, tips over, rages, burns Nakeerar, retrieves him from the பொற்றாமரை குளம், blesses him for being true to his passion to Tamil, takes leave and Dharumi enjoys the spoils. However, there is another interpretation of this from Paranjothi's Thiruvilayadar PurANam, often discussed by Cho in his Hindu Maha Samudram. Nakeerar objected to the poem. The topic is dicey (women's hair's fragrance being natural or artificial at the end of the day is subjective and unless one undertakes a ludicrous study of women across the globe before and after wearing fragrant stuff, one can't be sure even today). So here, going by the வீரியம் of the poetry, it was fair of the King to reward Dharumi, assuming he wrote it. What mattered was it was a wonderful poem with some beautiful உவமை and the thought behind that, answering the King's question from the point of the view of the poet, should have sufficed. Again this is subjective and people can disagree. But Nakeerar objecting to the பொருள் was more out of ego (pride in being the best and the head of the தமிழ் திருச்சபை) is an import from Paranjothi and an interesting point of view. Arguable but entirely possible. The Lord willed to play with the pride of the poet to also tip him to the extreme. I shall come to this later. So in this backdrop, the film does not happen to underline the ego of the poet prominently (would be silly to show him scheming in his mind out of pride and I'm glad they left it open ended). It is more a true debate that ends with the Lord testing him and seeing and blessing his passion to the language on the surface. The deeper import could be that the poet's pride was burnt. A poet whose pride did not submit even upon knowing that the Supreme one was before him ought to be burnt is the logic. That this was disguised as passion toward the language was the greatest trick Paranjothi ever played. Like the poem in this story, this also ends up subjectively open ended.
So how does our acting genius portray this?
A blistering entry throwing Dharumi to the court and asking with brute irreverence about the guy who said the poem was wrong. Takes the stage, goes to the center having got the King's point that he needs to respect the person and asks if that guy is a notch above the King (because the King bats for Nakeerar when the other poet, Sivaji, questions Nakeerar's judgement. Important to note that the King is on Nakeerar's side and not exactly neutral). Nakeerar takes stage and says it was he who rejected the poem because it was wrong (he only says பழுதுள்ள பாட்டு and not he thought it was a பழுதுள்ள பாட்டு. To Nakeerar, this aint subjective. He claims the poem is objectively wrong). Our man, summa eLLi nagayAdarar Nakeerara. King is shocked even in his response and shows great deference while stating Nakeerar's name. But Sivan, in my eyes, is pricking at Nakeerar's pride. The next statement is a direct attack at Nakeerar's ஆணவம். This is the only spot where the scene comes close to directly mentioning the pride of the head poet. That it could be swept under the carpet of another poet's hurt is the masterstroke. But it is worth noting that the other poet is the Lord himself and NT is outstanding with his indignation.
Nakeerar is composed. He questions about the source of the poem, the very obvious question for the எதிர் கட்சி, for what ought to be Dharumi's poem is seeing blistering indignation from elsewhere. Our poet states the truth. Nakeerar harps on questioning the reason for sending Dharumi. For a moment, Nagesh's wit about "பரிசு குடுத்தா வாங்கிட்டு வரேன், வேற எதாவது குடுத்தா?" seems to be the surmise in Nakeerar's eyes, for our poet, a human in their eyes, would only look like a coward. Our poet dismisses it. Nakeerar harps on it again stating that a poet doesn't need to lie instead of touching the subject that lead this argument, the poem. The super ego is flared Smile "எல்லாம் எமக்குத் தெரியும்!" roars our poet. Indeed, the only person allowed such a super ego can be the Lord himself. This sequence in my view is an extremely intricate study of an ego clash. As Nakeerar follows it up with questioning our poet's ஆளுமை, watch NT. He is shaking. Shaking with rage. Boy what presence there! So Nakeerar asks his right to question the poem even if our man may know everything. Our man sneers in sarcasm that Keeran (no respect there either Smile ) is challenging him. Even as the King is trying to calm them down (the same guy who till now was nearly revering Nakeerar tries to calm both down, when the anger is from our side only Laughing the King is evidently taken aback at the level of சீற்றம் and the poor guy tries to be the diplomat). NT is still shaking, more prominently in fact from a longer shot! Our man asks the King to take a back seat. From now on, it's Nakeerar vs Our poet. Yay!
As our man asks where the mistake was, watch Nakeerar say "சொல்லில் குற்றம் இல்லை, இருந்தாலும் அது மன்னிக்க படலாம்." Really buddy?lol! (for a poet to make a mistake in the spelling/grammar is unthinkable and he says that can be pardoned) and as if everything depended on that, he says gravely, "பொருளில் தான் குற்றம் இருக்கிறது." Asked to render the poem, our poet does it so with bombast. Asked the meaning, our poet follows up with equal bombast and a sense of righteous indignation in his tone. Nakeerar asks its import. The shot zooms close to NT. NT for a moment seems to forget the verbal war and seems to indulge and enjoy the poetry and its import and we can see his face relax for a wee bit! He goes back to his older indignant tone as he says "...எழுதி இருக்கிறேன்", as though coming back to reality again. Micro moments of excellence.
What follows ups the ante. Our poet concludes by stating his interpretation with "இது தான் எமது தீர்ப்பு." He does doesn't say "இது தான் தீர்ப்பு" Smile Nakeerar disagrees. Our man turns the other way in fury. Watch the heave from NT in a 'take' just as Nakeerar refutes our man's theory. The argument continues, albeit in a generic manner with our poet asking if high class women suffer the fate Nakeerar ascribes to. Nakeerar responds in the affirmative. The argument is generic and as our man asks if Saraswati who speaks through Nakeerar's tongue also suffers the fate he ascribes to, Nakeerar says why Saraswati, "... அன்னை மலைமகள், உமையவள்! அவளுக்கும் இதே கதி தான்!" Watch the incredible nuance which Mohan Ram and P_R point to. NT just moves his right foot a little backward in an extremely subtle 'take' exactly at மலைமகள் as though taken aback at "his wife" being brought into the act. There, the supposedly overacting Sivaji stands back and laughs at the world that calls him thus. That is the tipping point. Our man rages and as Nakeerar swears on his Tamil poetry, our poet bursts into Sivan. First tipping point: his wife was brought in. Next tipping point: Tamil itself was brought in and sworn upon. We see that being followed by Nakeerar still holding his ground despite knowing who was on the other side. Popular version: he was fighting by what he thought was right. Underdog and more fascinating possibility: the great poet was clinging on to his pride even after knowing it was the Lord on the other end. What chance did Dharumi stand? (possible that Nakeerar was miffed that Dharumi was willing to sell his poetry. But even there, is it not the pride of a poet at display? Also possibly, could it not have been the misplaced pride of a poet which sees a poem more superior (coming from the Lord that is) than what he could possibly compose? Just a possibility. And that pride stands even as it realizes it is Lord on the other hand).
So as the Lord pours scorn and asks if he, the poet that makes ends meet by cutting into other's intelligence, is worthy of poking into the Lord's poem. What follows is the ultimate tipping point. "...சங்கரனார்க்கேது குலம்? ...சங்கை அறிந்துண்டு வாழ்வோம், அரனே உன் போல் இரந்துண்டு வாழ்வதில்லை." The poet after bringing in the wife and swearing on Tamil, pricks back at the super ego Smile and gets back for his ego being pricked. KABOOM! He is burnt and as things turn on their heads and the King is petrified, the Lord disappears, reappears, cools everyone down and goes back ending this stupendous sequence. Dharumi is given his prize. Bottomline was Lord burnt the excessive pride in Nakeerar. Yes, pride in a creator, poet, artiste is justified, but not in front of a superior ஆளுமை where humility is required. That gets under the garb of what we see on screen and is given an outstanding color by NT with screen presence, only he fossible bombast and the many nuances. Woah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjZ9ZCOXxPo
PS: This did appear nearly a decade earlier in 'Naan Petra Selvam', written by APN, as a stage drama where Nakeerar and Sivan are both done by Sivaji (film la single role dhaan but the makers winking their eyes here on the audience in an intelligent manner). Coming in 1956, Sivaji was more interested in Nakeerar and that showed. Nearly a decade later, both APN and Sivaji raised the stakes and what awesomeness we get on screen!
-
CRITICISM & REALIZATION LATER
Post plum on Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:46 am
Talking about yatramozhi, I observed this yesterday:
Wow! What an endorsement! And saying this, the grand old man of Malayalam cinema actually falls at NT's feet. I bet Prathap Pothen didnt write that moment.
I actually have seen Mallu brothers making fun of NT as theatric while Thilagan and Lal are the natural actors.
This is as grand a statement as any that these two could make to make it clear who was the real emperor of acting.
So today I got first-hand proof of the impact this movie had on a mallu sister with the attitude I pointed above :
Some Random Mallu Sister with NT-mocking attitude once upon a time wrote:
I have always been wary of watching Sivaji Ganesan on screen. My introduction to the thespian came through watching him on Oliyum Oliyum, the Tamil version of Chitrahaar. A corpulent man, jowls quivering with emotion and eyes red with anger, whose dialogue delivery was more a declamation than speech was not very enthralling. When Sivaji Ganesan thundered, yenna da? even the heavens trembled. And of course, there was the slight Malayali snobbishness – our actors were better than their actors
And then she saw Oru Yatramozhi...
And then, some time in 1997, I got to watch a Malayalam film called Oru Yaathramozhi. I was blown away by the pathos the Nadigar Thilakam brought to his role as a man who meets his only son as an adult, develops a close relationship with him; not knowing that the son is on the lookout to kill the father who abandoned his mother and him.
It was a revelation. I began to understand just why the veteran actor commanded the respect that he did.
-
Post Joe on Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:30 am A FLASHBACK !
During our christmas trip to india this time , few casually asked my 7 years old son "who is your favourite actor?" ..expecting Vijay , Ajith , Surya ..But my son was firm "Shivaji Ganesan" LOL ..They stunned and looked at me and say "புள்ளையையும் கெடுத்துட்டியா? " Laughing ..But i had to tell the truth ..I didn't impose anything .. That is just one movie made the trick ..when Karnan was released in Singapore last year .. He wanted to come with me ,but I told him that It is old movie ..3 hours and full of old songs which you don't know ..sure you will be bored .. He asked me what is the story .. One thing he is very much interested in Rama , krishna cartoons and He likes Krishna more than Jesus ..lol ..I told him it is Mahabaratha ..oh..then he was adamant to join me ..then i brought him .. first 30 mins i was restless afraid that he might asked "Appa ..veetukku polama?" anytime ,but he was keen watching ,, every 10 mins I used ask "How is it? are you ok? " He said "I am OK appa" .. after intervel ..i myself mingled with movie ..during the climax ..when Karnan fell down and dying ..I just look at him .. Thaarai thaaraiya kaneer vadiyuthu Laughing
When movie ends he said "I didn't know that Krishna is such a bad guy" lol ..while returning home he truely said "Now I know why you always telling sivaji ganesan ..sivaji ganesan" Smile ..After that , he watched karnan atleast 5 times in youtube ,even once 2 days before ..
-
-
-
The Stylist Forever
The Tamil chevalier leaves behind him a kaleidoscope of characters and emotions
Kamal Haasan on Sivaji Ganesan
Sivaji saab is the genetic code embedded in every Tamil actor. Even if we try to be independent, the dna imprint remains. For 48 years, Tamils have been under the spell of Sivaji. He had a large heart—that was his medical problem too. We had almost given up on him in 1993 when the doctors gave him just two years. We took him to France, did everything we could. He survived his heart ailment for 15 years. But for his ill-health, he would have been active even in the last four years.
Sivaji was style personified—he would not take it off like a shirt. He slept in style; woke up in style; came to work in style. He was style. He was the trendsetter. And I'm proud to be his descendant.
My association with him dates back to my childhood. I was about four years old when we met in the studios. Once, he even said how I might have sat on his lap more than his children. He would always be in the studios then. I was the vidushak who would be made to recite Sivaji sir's dialogues on the sets.
-
Contd....
Sivakumar, a fellow-actor, and I used to have sessions where we competed over narrating his dialogues. We would compete over who remembered more. That's the kind of effect he has. Even for the present generation, Sivaji is the man. Upcoming artists are told, "Become an actor like Sivaji." Even for my children, he is the ultimate.
As for criticism that Sivaji overacted or was loud, why don't these westernised critics look at Akira Kurosawa's films? We have a certain style that is rooted here. We have either actors or non-actors. The Japanese never compromised to suit European tastes and I respect them. So much so that Hollywood went on to adapt/remake Japanese films. This is part of an Asian aesthetic. Sivaji too has to be translated for a western audience.
For that matter, even the early Chaplin was "loud". And so were Hollywood stars of the early black-and-white era. We are more willing to learn and try hard to appreciate an Elvis Presley but not our own icons. If Elvis spawned a thousand clones in the West, so did Sivaji here. He is our Elvis. He is the King.
-
Contd....
Now, an Indian funeral is itself so different—there's so much emotion, so many tears, such drama. A European funeral is such a contrast. There's great restraint. Even the sorrow is muted. Sivaji's acting is as much a part of our culture. But see how Sivaji in Thevar Magan turns a new leaf. Here, the actor steps out of his era. And Thevar Magan was my kind of salute to a doyen.
Personally, I can't be critical of Sivaji sir. I have been so close to him and such an admirer, I cannot be alive to his faults, if any. I lose my critical faculties. He's been a goading force, other than a guiding force. I am utterly biased about him and there's no scholar left in me. Sivaji has been such a challenge that it makes an actor ask himself, "What's the use of being born after him?" With Sivaji, you touch base.
The only thing Sivaji perhaps regretted was that he was not well-read like me. He lacked the vocabulary, he felt. That was his modesty. "I'm just a school dropout," he once said at a function. On the other hand, I have the dubious distinction of having uttered dialogues, even reciting poetry, in Telugu, Malayalam and other tongues. But I cannot read any of these languages. Whereas Sivaji was the master when it came to Tamil. Nobody could match up to him. Once, when I was a child actor, I could not pronounce arisi (Tamil for rice) correctly and he would intone it like me and make fun. He was the master of Tamil diction.
-
Contd...
As a politician, Sivaji failed. He was too straightforward. He never asked for favours, and was not clever or even wise in politics. Sivaji behaved like a king even in politics. I differed with Sivaji's political beliefs, but that would not in any way lessen my regard for him. And whatever their political differences, Karunanidhi and Sivaji made for a great artistic duo. (Karunanidhi scripted Sivaji's debut film Parasakthi and many more.) If one was the mind, the other was the voice.
The irony is Sivaji gave me an opportunity to rehearse the death scene in real life. After Thevar Magan, where we did a death scene, I received news from Singapore that he had passed away during a function there. I was so shaken and went through such emotions, and I was only a happy fool the next morning to realise that the news was wrong. But this time it was for real.
(The writer is a renowned actor and filmmaker)
