Over the last 6-7 years Tamizh cinema was witness to the advent of what was later termed as the Madurai films. They were all not set in Madurai but were ushered in by a set of marquee films set in the city. There were even debates that the genre is too vast and the name given – Madurai – is wrong and inaccurate. But Karthik Subbaraj wants to shake this up. He was clearly fascinated by some of these films. He wants to make a Madurai film that he could call his own. At first glance and looking at his first film – the impressive Pizza – you’d rather slot him under the city or to narrow it down further, Chennai crop of filmmakers. Would he really be able to do justice to a Madurai film where he is more of an outsider? So what can Subbaraj do? He tracks the story of an aspiring city based director who goes to Madurai to write a story. And of course the director’s name is Karthik.

That’s just the beginning. It’s the beginning of a morbidly funny fantasy adventure gangster satire. How many genres can you count? Madurai isn’t even included in that. It’s the story of a gangster, an ambitious filmmaker, of redemption, a spoof/parody (he even makes fun of the Raaja influence in the Madurai films) and of a woman scorned. That’s Subbaraj’s modest mission statement. He wants to mix genres and see what comes out. Much like the rollicking sequence involving sambar mixed with blood, a policeman and a dead body propped in front of the television. If it wasn’t so funny, you’d twitch at the horror of it all. And Subbaraj accomplishes it sequence after sequence. His major achievement is making us buy into the ridiculousness. For the most part. There are no nice guys in the film. Subbaraj’s writing is so infectious that we aren’t nice guys either. We laugh at blood oozing out of a blade attack. And this is just so that a character asks as a matter of fact after listening to a gangster’s anecdote, how can blood burst out like that, as if he’s watching a Tarantino film for the first time and is baffled by the gratuitous violence. We laugh at the hilarious reworking of a Sholay sequence gone wrong. We laugh as they take a break from torturing a man to recharge the camera battery. What has he turned us into! The other such superlative stretch of events marks one of the greatest usage of that uniquely Indian device – pre-intermission scene. There is a planted microphone, an ambulance, a titanic sexual fantasy and a trap for a mole as everyone gets their rug pulled from under them (I wonder if a character here is named Sekar because of the now famous cult line – from a much loved quasi-Madurai film –  that can be applied here too – “sethan da sekaru!” And trust me I haven’t spoiled it for you. That’s how layered this is). The whole sequence establishes why Jigarthanda is a director’s film and Subbaraj is one of the best we’ve got at the moment.

Talking of moles, there was a recent New Yorker article by David Denby about John le Carré’s best novel. It talks about the espionage master’s A Perfect Spy which while being le Carré’s perfect novel was also autobiographical. Quoting from the article,

At the beginning of “A Perfect Spy,” Magnus suddenly and silently disappears, retreating from Vienna to a tiny English boarding house near the sea. He wants to write—about his life, his career as a spy, his loyalties and betrayals. He wants to make an accounting for himself and for his splendid teen-age son, Tom. Now, as far as I know, le Carré has never been called an experimental or modernist writer. (It’s very unlikely that Susan Sontag would have been interested in him.) But “A Perfect Spy” is actually a meta-fiction. It’s about a man writing his life—in effect, writing a novel—and the text that Magnus produces is frequently coy and unreliable, which makes the complexities of the book staggering. There are overlapping tales, stories within stories, ricocheting versions of Magnus’s career. Le Carré doesn’t just stick to Magnus Pym’s discourse; he offers the point of view of Jack Brotherhood and of Pym’s staunch and frightened wife, Mary, both of them trying to find the missing man while worrying through their memories of him. Jaunty and comprehensive, le Carré jumps around in time, recounting Magnus’s life as son, lover, husband, embassy social lion, and spy.

Most of all, as son. Magnus wants to finally unload his obsession with his father Richard (Rick) Pym, a swindler, liar, scoundrel, and enchanting son of a bitch; a Falstaff who does genuine harm. Rick screws people, and they almost always come back to him. He’s where the action is, right up to the end of his life, and Magnus adored and imitated him, becoming not a criminal but a professional con man and teller of tales, an agent. Like Rick, he betrays everyone, which is why he’s “perfect.”

There is something on those lines at work in Jigarthanda. It is so obviously autobiographical but in a very speculative manner. What’s filmmaking if not spying, that honorable form of voyeurism. It is observing and reporting on lives of others. Karthik wants to go through with his objective at all costs. He will betray anybody to achieve that goal and who has he learned that from? His subject. The perfect gangster feeds the perfect filmmaker. There is a lot of meditation on filmmaking and the process behind it and arty vs commercial considerations. There is a lot of loud thinking going on in the film that may not be audible in first listen (the aforementioned bafflement at gratuitous violence is one such example). Karthik goes for audacious white elephant art and ends up making an equally audacious termite art. That’s probably Subbaraj’s point really, a realization that they are two sides of the same coin and you cannot toss it and make it stand on its edge. You have to make a choice. So where does Jigarthanda stand?

Aaranya Kandam was a far superior feature mainly thanks to Thiaagarajan Kumararaja’s tight grip on the medium, storytelling and his choice. There was neatness from start to finish in AK. There is a jadedness to the final parts of Jigarthanda when we get only vignettes and a hastiness in tying things together. There are unconvincing transformations and out of character reactions. Yet, Jigarthanda seems to have received universal applause while AK remains only a cult favorite within a closed circle. So is the problem with us? Is that the choice that Subbaraj has made? Singeetam Srinvasa Rao once during a public talk said and I paraphrase, “The masses will enjoy a movie that will be appreciated by the classes 20 years later.” You can find a lot of flaws in that statement but there could be some truth in the corner. Even the final scene of Jigarthanda, while making sense doesn’t sit well with the larger picture. There is evidence for it early in the film. Karthik calls the gang kaatumarandinga like the outsider he is but ends up joining them or actually becoming them (A hat tip to another major Tamizh film in a film full of hat tips to Tamizh films). But it is not seamless when we finally see it happening. We leave thoroughly entertained but with more questions than answers. But maybe that’s by design and part of the charm.


4 thoughts on “Jigarthanda

  1. Watched, read and responding. Enjoyed the first half. Second half worked in bits but not entirely. The problem to me was in the tone. First builds up Sethu’s character as grisly and does a great job of it. The second reduces him to a clown that negates whatever first half did. There were people who said maybe the lust for stardom got the better of him that it even made a terrifying character mortgage his X-factor. Plausible. But not entirely convincing in tone. The film’s soul seemingly changed and it was jarring. To make it worse for me, the humor with Muthu, the acting coach, didn’t work except for the Sankar Ganes bit. It was tough when the entire theater seemed to be in splits. I was not :\

    Some were suggesting he was ‘trying to mix genres and maybe this was the way to go about it’; I’m not too sure. The Azhuguni Kumar part felt like Kadhayannu Tharam redux. Not that I’m complaining but just saying this might have been tried before in Indian cinema and some of the praise felt over the board. Of course, you really can’t hold the film against that. And the tonal shift felt like Manmadhan Ambu redux. Again, not pointing an accusing finger. Just that the tonal inconsistency didn’t work for me with MA. It didn’t work here. But when I did catch the last 40 mins of MA by chance one day, I loved it. The sum of the parts > whole in MA. I don’t know if that will happen here and maybe a rewatch of the second half alone would tell me.

    But coming back to Jigar, the character shift in Sidharth didn’t work too. Sidharth was a guy that hated Sethu minutes before the uyir pichai in the film. Sure, the transition from hate -> uyir pichai -> “imbibing Sethu in his soul” would have happened over a few months in the timeline of the film but the audiences aren’t allowed to buy into that :) Compared to this, the audience were allowed to buy into Simha’s deliverance gradually towards the end. Also, Simha’s Paasamalar scene (superbly realized) was brilliant. I mean it was a routine screenplay blind spot that becomes apparent only when it is being apparent. That it played simultaneously with Sidharth’s descent into a gangsta filmmaker that didn’t work felt schizophrenic, for the want of a better word.

    Maybe like you say, it’s part of the design and fun. But not sure I entirely buy this :) I mean, the main characters, Sidharth and Simha. Kadasila ottave illa. Also, the romantic stretches, though it did serve its purpose in the screenplay and the heroine’s character was offbeat, felt contrived in execution.

    On the positives, other than the ones you’ve mentioned (the Kaattumirandipayaga was a nice catch. Didn’t strike me), the pulp elements in the first 100 mins really stood superbly. There’s always a mystery about Simha’s life and his ascent to the top of the nether world. We get snippets from everyone around him (him almost being killed to escaping) but never from him. And when he finally does, we get to view it through Sidharth’s lenses and with Vijay Sethupathi in action. Awesome pulp. The dark humor about having killed 48 and the 2 escaping what would have been a half century was “almost” Tarantino in soul.

    So yes, strangely not an entirely satisfying film. But cannot just dismiss it either. A classic case of a what-could-have-been for me.


  2. @Drunkenmunk,

    I may just be a little lenient with the second half but it is true that the film aimed really high and fell short on many levels. I was surprised because while Pizza was a unique effort, I honestly did not expect the tightness of direction Subbaraj showed in the first half at all. It was quite brilliant and a huge jump in respect for him. Now I can’t wait for his third feature thanks to about 3/4th of the film. Like you say, I am not sure if there is evidence for Siddharth going the gangster way but the film surely portends it. Is that enough? I don’t think so either. It just did not blend with the rest of the film.

    The teaching portions were very funny, I’ll admit I laughed out loud myself but I totally understand about the tonal inconsistency with everything that came earlier. Just that it didn’t hamper my enjoyment of the film but when I think about it after walking out, it makes the film lesser and therefore one of those what-could-have-been. But glad that it is doing well though.


  3. // I am not sure if there is evidence for Siddharth going the gangster way but the film surely portends it. Is that enough? I don’t think so either. It just did not blend with the rest of the film.//

    Exactly! Also, Sethu was a man who fell in love with Kayal in the course of the film. For him to “just” accept Soundar’s wife and leave Kayal to Sidharth did not feel consistent either, though it can be swept under his reformation. Lack of intellectual rigor in the writing perhaps? A little harsh of me to say that maybe. But like you do say, I wouldn’t care so much had the first half not been so promising. So yes, Karthik Subbaraj has kinda won in the fact that he’s made us discuss this to the extent we have, across the board.


  4. I think too little happened in the first half, which is why it was great. And too much in the second half, which is why nothing made sense. It was like the film had a superb core, but the writers didn’t know where to stop the twists and how far to take the premise.

    As a character said in Crimes and Misdemeanors (although he’s viewed as a buffoon), “If it bends, it’s funny. If it breaks, it ain’t.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s