Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Iruvar Film Review


The film Iruvar is a staple within Tamil cinema. Not only is it grounded in the lives of two major politicians in the area, but the film was also executed very well. It is one of those rare films where everything fits together and ultimately forms a masterpiece. Although there were some pitfalls with the dancing scenes and the roles of women throughout the film, the overall movie was very effective in the way in which it portrayed the two main characters, Anandan and Tamizhselvan, and the complexities of their lives and relationship to each other.

Anandan is exhaustively shown in the beginning as an emerging talent in the acting world. His boyish face, heavy set, and charismatic personality all add to his persona of a more simple minded and seemingly innocent man, even though he is shown as somewhat of a womanizer, easily falling in and out of love with three different women throughout the film. His confidence grows throughout the film and he eventually learns how to control the emotions of crowds and focus their attention on himself. The roof scene where Anandan has just become popular from his starring role as a movie hero portrays his awe at the amount of people present to see him. It is Tamizhselvan who grabs Anadan's hand and raises it for him. After this moment, Anandan is shown with growing confidence and achieves a swagger that is uniquely his own. However, without Tamizhselvan's help as both the writer of Anandan's roles and person to physically raise of Anandan's hand, Anandan might not have achieved superstar status.

Entirely different in his personality, Tamizhselvan is a passionate writer and commands the attention of anyone around him. He lures people in with his words instead of his charisma, and his convictions in politics are so strong that he is willing to die for them. (The scene were he shouts for political reform and lays down on the train tracks to show his commitment is a prime example of his conviction.) There are scenes where he recites monologues and poetic language to convey his feelings for a significant other or the situation at hand. The way in which he treats women is proactive, by actively searching for the woman he wants to marry, and progressive.

The portrayal of both these characters was superb, but Anandan gained the favor of the audience more than Tamizhselvan. Aandan's character was acted well throughout the entire movie, whereas Tamizhselvan's character really only came out at the very end in his monologue. Not only was Anandan's physical character more childlike, and therefore associated with innocence, but his personality was also more subtle in its dimensions. The love scene immediately following the wedding scene is a prime example of this difference. Anandan is shown playfully flirting with his wife, whereas Tamizhselvan almost violently forces her to challenge her dismissive role. The audience relates easily with Anandan, rather than Tamizhselvan, because of his perceived innocence.

While the two main roles in this film were excellent in their character development and complexity, the women in this film were marginalized and highly sexualized. All of the dancing scenes contained very provocative dance moves and were usually close to some kind of body of water, symbolizing sexual acts. The first music video in particular was rather surprising, as the scene cut abruptly to Anandan's wife, Pushpa, dancing in a tube top and in a river, completely soaked. In the midst of this music video, there were also a couple of scenes that depicted Pushpa having water poured on her, zooming in on her face.

The roles fulfilled by women were also not emphasized anywhere in the movie. The appearance of a female character would last for roughly a minute or two, before the focus was then shifted to one of the two main characters. They did not have any brilliant lines or strokes of genius throughout the film, and their presence sometimes seemed irrelevant to the overall plot line.

Stylistically, the film was impressive. The camera angles employed throughout the film allowed the audience to view certain situations through a specific lens. In the beginning of the movie when the two characters are shown in their budding friendship, the camera stays close and positions the audience as almost a third friend. A specific scene of Anandan and Tamizhselvan attending a political rally towards the beginning of the film shows the rally from their point of view, focusing on the speaker when they were watching him, and later panning the audience when Anandan and Tamizhselvan looked behind them. Later when each character is shown making speeches in various rallies, the emphasis was placed on the showing the main character in the middle and from all angles.

The use of the zoom either created distance between the characters or portrayed closeness. The distance and closeness not only effects the characters in the film, but also the audience as well. When Anandan and Tamizhselvan are shown admiring each other and acting in unison, they are either touching or very close together. The camera as well is close to both of the characters, making it hard to see the background. Juxtaposed to these scenes is when Anandan visits Tamizhselvan in his new position of Chief Minister. In this particular scene, the characters are separated by a large desk and never touch. After Anandan is denied a position as a minister, the camera zooms out to show the depth and emptiness of the room, signifying the change in their relationship.

Comparison of both of the characters is also strengthened by the way in which the scenes are put together. The constant back and forth between Anandan and Tamizhselvan's lives forces the audience to directly compare their lives. An example of this is the wedding scene, where certain aspects of the ceremony are juxtaposed between the two characters. The use of this technique not only provides a direct comparison, but it also interchangeably links the characters and portrays the amount of overlap in their lives.

Another key element to the film was the effective use of music and sounds at appropriate times. The music videos were widely varied, containing traditional Tamil music and jazz numbers. The variety of the dances was mainly added in to capture the attention of the audience. They also add to the masala of the film as a whole, depicting love scenes and fighting scenes. (Although the majority of these musical numbers were about love and contained Anandan.)

The soundtrack accompanying the movie was excellently picked and paired with specific scenes. When Anandan walks into the movie set for the first time, he is overcome with a sense of wonder and excitement, which the background music portrays with an exact accuracy. The type of music paired with the specific scene adds to the emotional state of not only the actor on screen, but also the audience. By depicting Anandan triumphantly sitting on the throne while the music slowly builds and then swells to reveal Anandan fighting the air with the sword he just picked up portrays the emotions of the character, which ultimately allows the audience to experience the same feelings as well. By effectively using the background tracks in this way, the audience becomes emotionally invested in the movie, which blurs the line between the film being entirely fictional or realistic.

Overall, the film is highly successful because it is a combination of the development of the characters, camera angles, and music. Each scene depicts an aspect of all three of these factors working together. While the film does not give adequate space for female roles or representations, the portrayal of the complex relationship between Anandan and Tamzhselvan is believably depicted. Iruvar is a super film that deserves to stay a classic in Tamil cinema.

4 comments:

  1. I agree with the critique that, generally, the female characters in the film are less than dynamic. This seems to be a theme that has come up again, and again. As usual, I was drawn to one particular scene, when Tamizhselvan spends his first private moments with his new bride. This particular moment in the film was extremely brief but, also extremely complicated. Tamizhselvanseemed to have somewhat good intentions. His words, at least, spoke passionately of equality while her body language, and actions in reaction seemed timid and unsure. I was not sure how to react to this. His voice said one thing, equality but body language and tone sounded patriarchal and domineering. This is the first time that I have seen gender equality encouraged in a film and I have to admit I was not surprised by its presentation. I wonder if this too is a trend. The trend being "equality" coming a patriarchal figure who enforces it instead of it actually coming into existence. Almost like caste not existing anymore, gender inequality also simply disappearing. I would hardly say that not supporting your wife in labor means that you see her as your equal. I will be interested to see what discussions of gender bring in other films.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While I appreciate Liza's commentary on the technical aspects of the film, this critique fails to comment on the central them of the film- the role cinema plays in Indian politics. In this film, Anandan starts as an extra, a nobody, who has so little chance of becoming an actor (or a politician, however he has not reached interest in politics yet). It is not until he meets Tamizhselvan that be becomes a successful actor. The role of Tamizhselvan as both a movie writer and political writer parallels the role of Anandan being both an actor and a politician. However, since writing for cinema is seen as shallow and unrealistic, and writing for politics is supposedly high class and sophisticated, Tamizhselvan does not seem experienced or adequate to write for politics. However, this raises the question- how does writing for cinema differ than writing for politics? In India, where so many politicians were once highly successful actors or actresses, their popularity and ability to recite speeches helps in their campaigns. In this matter, the role of Tamizhselvan is crucial to the plot- he is the one who allows for Anandan to become a great speaker. Without this skill, Anandan would not be able to become a speaker or a politician.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Liza argues that the film's success lies in its accurate depiction of the two characters, their lives, and their relationship, and that the movie's weaknesses are its dancing scenes and its treatment of women.

    Liza says the actors did a really good job, but the guy who played Anandan was better. She doesn't go into much detail about the portrayal of characters, though but rather goes discusses character development and depiction, directorial choices as well as screenplay dictated aspects of the film.

    I agree with Liza's appraisal of the film's treatment of women. She says that women in the film, while they have very small (insignificant?) roles, are marginalized and highly sexualized. Liza gives the example of the song and danc scenes, but assumes that her reader will agree with her judgment about the sexuality of these scenes. I wish she had gone into more detail about why she feels these scenes are inappropriate (if that is what she feels) rather than "surprising."

    I like how Liza discussed directorial choices as well as the acting and the story. Her analysis of camera angles, scene juxtaposition, soundtrack, and genre is well supported and convincing.

    Liza's analysis does a good job addressing many aspects of the film, especially the stylistic aspects. I wish Liza had said more about the true-story aspect of the film, though, and its implications, if any, on the community.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Liza’s critique was very thoughtful and I agree with most of her points, particularly in her analysis to the portrayal of women. I too was disappointed in the sexualization of women. Liza brought up an interesting point about the time length of the frames of the women. I had not equated the 2 minute shots of women with their portrayal, but it’s an excellent point and makes a lot of sense to me. I too appreciated the character development of Anandan, but I was never emotionally invested in the success of Anandan nor Tamizhselvan. As an American and a believer in the righteousness of democracy, neither character seemed to be after power for the right reasons. I also became frustrated with the emotional relationship between Anadan and Tamizhselvan. From my interpretation, Tamizhselvan “groomed” Anadan to be active in the party, and as Liza noted – was also responsible for his building confidence. In many was, Tamizhselvan had only himself to blame for the rise of Anadan.

    Liza also did not mention (perhaps because it is stating the obvious) how revealing the film was of actual Tamil Nadu politics. I think Mani Ratnam took a leap of faith with this film and it worked. Overall, it was a powerful film and I hope the musical numbers did not distract the Indian audiences’ attention from the powerful messages of politics, friendship and power.

    ReplyDelete