Bad is Good?

Good Bad Ugly (Tamil; 2025)

Story and Direction: Adhik Ravichandran

https://in.bookmyshow.com/movies/chennai/good-bad-ugly/ET00431346

I remember watching a movie on TV back in the day, under the watchful eyes of Amma. I remember it was a MGR starring Tamil movie. In one of his stereotypical roles, he, the do-gooder who fought against the evil zamindar, goes to jail at the movie's end for killing the villain. In the last scene, he returns home just to be feted with praise, showers of flower petals, and salutations. Amma was quick to interject. "What rubbish! He went to jail, and people are celebrating!"

I thought, "… but Gandhi and Nehru also went to jail, and you have a statue of them in the house and tell us stories of how we should emulate them." Thanks to my better judgment, I decided to keep my opinions to myself. 

That was how most Tamil movies used to be. The protagonist was the epitome of goodness. He was usually the exemplary one-dimensional character expected to set the mould for how one should love their life. He would indirectly propagate the virtues of being a teetotaller, speaking the truth, being honest and respecting the elders. The resolution at the show's end would teach the audience that goodness always triumphs over evil. Of course, we know MGR went into a successful political career and remains in the Tamil Nadu psyche.

So that was the time when movies tried to teach good virtues. It was then. Around the late 1970s or early 1980s, circa the launch of Kamal Hassan-starred 'Nayagan' and later Rajnikanth's 'Thalapathy', it suddenly became hip to be bad. 

Now, by default, the movie that hit big time at the box office would preach all the antithesis of what their predecessors of the Golden Era of Tamil cinema advocated. Just look at the typical blockbuster these days. It is cool to be a gangster, jobless, showing disrespect to parents, loafing around, getting drunk, indulging in pre- and extramarital trysts and eloping with one's jobless partner against all odds. 

In 'Good Bad Ugly', an unashamed reference to Clint Eastwood's successful spaghetti western, we see a repentant big-time gangster who is behind bars, drawn into his old world of thuggery and violence when his teenage son is kidnapped.

The whole movie is indulgence for Ajith Kumar's ardent fans. The outing is especially heartwarming for his fans. Ajith, also called 'Thala' (Leader), was recently conferred 'Padma Bushan', the third highest civilian award the Government of India gave for his philanthropic work. This film also celebrates his 30-plus illustrious years in Tamil cinema. Hints of his previous roles and innuendos of dialogues from his last outings are glaring in the face for his ardent fans to identify and savour. In short, it is a feel-good movie for his fans and does not contribute in any way to the upliftment of society. 

Darkkey and AK

This is quite diametrical to what MGR was seen to be spreading. We know his messages were political, but at least he told children not to steal or be sleepy heads and reminded them that the truth will always prevail. 

Malaysia's input is also evident in this movie. Darkkey, a Malaysian Indian artist involved in the local Tamil music scene for the past 30 years, appears in a cameo role. He renders his brand of music called Sambarock in the high-decibel song, 'Puli Puli'.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

It is a jungle in there

Sorgavaasal (Heaven's Gate, Tamil; 2024)

Director: Siddharth Vishwanath 

Youtube clip

The one thing that man is granted in this life is free will and the freedom to act at his discretion (within the confines of social mores and the boundaries of the law). Therefore, when someone commits a crime that is deemed an affront to society's wellbeing, he is stripped of this privilege. Confined in isolation, it is believed that he will reflect on his waywardness and be spurred to make amends. 

The reality, sadly, is not so clear-cut. We know of many innocent people incarcerated for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, doomed for life for crimes they did not commit. Then there are those who make jail their second home, moving in and out for petty crimes. I suppose imprisonment was no hindrance to the continuation of their daytime trades. Not to mention those who wear their jail sentences like badges of honour and the select few who still exert influence and control over activities outside the confines of their four walls. Who says they are missing the luxuries they left behind after their conviction? They continue receiving the salutations and the honours they were conferred as if they were wrongly convicted. It is as if the entire pillar of law and order is wrong. 

We all know how Charles Sobhraj, the Bikini Killer, wielded significant influence in Tihar Jail in Delhi that he could even hold his birthday party. He arranged for sedative-laced laddus to poison the guards and execute his escape. Closer to home, rumours abound regarding a certain ex-PM receiving special deliveries of Kajang Satay and full access to his Armani suits for his numerous court appearances. The jail sentence does not hinder the man from occasionally updating his Twitter handle. What could be more bizarre than a prisoner masterminding an assassination thousands of miles away, as in the case of Lawrence Bishnoi and the killing of Khalistani supporter Hardeep Singh Nijjar? Bishnoi, through his extensive international connections while sitting in Sabarmati Jail in Ahmedabad, is accused by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of colluding with the Indian government to eliminate the Khalistani troublemaker. 

Let's not forget the innumerable small-time crooks who graduate to bigger crimes after receiving invaluable coaching from fellow inmates. Jails seem to be not correctional facilities but rather a conduit for producing more anarchy, like a bacteriophage injecting its wisdom into an empty shell to produce more young, lethal viruses. Taxpayers seem to be paying for all the crooks to be concentrated in one locale so that all the bigwig crooks can streamline their expertise into creating the mother of all mayhems.

The film is loosely based on the 1999 riots at Chennai Central Prison, one of India's oldest prisons, which was built by the British in 1837. The jail was closed in 2006, and its inmates were relocated to Puzhal Central Prison. Notable figures who were imprisoned here include Subhas Chandra Bose, Tamil Nadu Chief Ministers Anna Durai, Karunanidhi, Jayalalithaa, and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran.

Boxer Vadivelu

The 1999 riot involved a criminal named Boxer Vadivelu, who had the support of the AAIDMK. He seemingly brought his thuggish behaviour into the prison and instigated a gangland showdown. The riot escalated to such a degree that the riot police were called in. They were forced to respond with violence and live ammunition, resulting in the deaths of ten people, including a prison official. The film begins after the riot, with a solitary member of the enquiry panel attempting to determine the causes that led to the confrontation. Through a series of interviews with various inmates and prison staff, we receive a comprehensive view of the prison dynamics and the events leading up to the riot. Similar to Rashomon's narrative style, we obtain slightly differing and contradictory accounts of what actually transpired from various witnesses. 

https://mywordsnthoughts.com/boxer-vadivelu-the-memorable-real-life-character-siga-in-sorgavaasal/

P.S. A memorable quote:

"There are only two paths in life: either kneel down in Heaven or be the King in Hell."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Gory historic details or gore fest?

Razakar: The Silent Genocide Of Hyderabad (Telegu, 2024)

Director: Yata Satyanarayana

In her last major speech before her disposition, Sheikh Hasina accused those who opposed her rule in Bangladesh of being Razakars. The opposition took offence to this term and soon widespread mob throughout the land. Of course, it is not that that single incident brought down an elected government but a culmination of joblessness and unjust reservations for a select population group. In the Bengali psyche, Razakar is a pejorative term meaning traitor or Judas. It was first used during the 1971 Pakistan Civil War. The paramilitary group who were against the then-East Pakistani leader, Majibur Rehman, were pro-West Pakistan. After establishing independence in Bangladesh, Razakars were disbanded, and many ran off to Pakistan.

Around the time of Indian independence, turmoil brewed in the princely state of Hyderabad, which had been a province deputed by the Mughals from 1794. The rule of Nizam commenced since. That vast state of Hyderabad covered Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and parts of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. In total, seven Nizams ruled Hyderabad. Barring the rule of the sixth Nizam, Nizam Mahbub Ali Khan, their rule saw much discontent, oppression and restricted liberty. Even before the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, in 1857, 1000 members of rebelling tribal members were hung unceremoniously on a banyan tree. In the present state of Telangana, there was a kingdom named Gond. Some British soldiers trespassed on their land and destroyed public property. The Gond members killed them. The British retaliated by hanging the leader Ramji Gond and others on a tree immortalised as the 'thousand skull tree'. 

Other hardships the people endured were high taxes, forced conversion and the inability to use their preferred languages. Before this, Telegu, Marathi, Tamil and Kannada were freely spoken. Then came the use of Persian and Urdu. 

When the British decided to pack up and leave, the 562 Indian states could join Pakistan or India or stay alone. Hyderabad initially wanted to be part of Pakistan. Imagine the logistics of having a landlocked independent state with the ideology of the enemy, i.e. Pakistan. The last Nizam gave Jinnah an audience, but his demeanour cheesed off the Nizam. Upon taking his seat, Jinnah sat with one leg crossed against the other and smoked a cigar. That, remarked the offended Nizam, was the end of their discussion. The Nizam vowed to stand alone, promising to develop Hyderabad to Turkistan, the apt replacement for the once splendid Ottoman Empire.

This much is known. India wanted Hyderabad to be part of India after two large chunks of land were given to Pakistan, but states made a deal with India-Pakistan. The Standstill Agreement in November 1947 gave the princely states a year to decide which side to opt for.

What happened within Hyderabad State is debatable. Though many of the gory stories that come out are denied by many journalists and historians, many swear of the atrocities that bordered on genocide that they had to endure. At the end of the day, it is a Muslim-Hindu issue. The deniers insist it was humanly impossible for a ragtag squad of Razakars to create so much damage. They blame the communists who were also trying to put footage into the state. It was a chaotic time. Peasants were rebelling, and landowners wanted to hold onto their lands. 

Hyderabad had a population of 15% Muslims, who ruled the majority Hindus. The ruling class also included Pathans, Arabs, and other foreign administrators. The frugal Nizam was, at that time, the wealthiest man on Earth, with diamonds and other priceless minerals under his thumb. When the Nizam wanted to remain independent, his yeoman, Qasim Razvi, the leader of a quasi-political party, clandestinely recruited radical volunteers to uphold Islam and prevent the fall to the control of the Hindu Rashtra. Razakar is an Arabic word meaning volunteer. 

Meanwhile, with his vast coffers, the Nizam procured surrender German weapons from the victors of WW2. Rifles and automatic guns were flown in via Pakistan with the help of arms dealers. One such person was Frederick Sidney Cotton, who was supposed to transport Qasim Rizvi out of Hyderabad when the Nizam fell, but Cotton left him behind.

 Sadar Patel was the leading man behind the liberation of the people of Hyderabad. 75 years later, the correct nomenclature for this exercise is still debated: whether it was a liberation of the state or the integration of the State into the rest of India. Nehru and Patel tried to dissolve the tension amicably through negotiations. K M Munshi was sent as a negotiator. When all talks failed, and the cry of the people of Hyderabad reached screeching levels, Patel and the Indian Army with the airforce moved into Hyderabad under what was called 'Police Action' in Operation Polo, disobeying the Standstill Agreement. Hyderabad was annexed into the Indian Dominion on 17th September 1948.

Qasim Risvi was charged with sedition and was imprisoned till 1957. He left for Karachi after his release and died a pauper in 1970. The Nizam was not charged but was given a ceremonial post till his date.

This movie created a lot of controversies before its release. The filmmakers were accused of distorting history. The atrocities were magnified, and some of the violence committed by the upper-class Hindus, moneylenders, landowners and communists was assumed to have been done by Razakars. There were half-truths and blatant lies. The Nizam is said to have aided Hindu concerns and temples. It seemed that the Communists did fight against the Razakars, but they were not credited in the movie. Some intellectuals label it as Hindutva propaganda. The Hanging Tree incident is a fight against the British but somehow lumped here as the Nizam's doing. It turned out to be a gore fest with little cinematic value or compelling storytelling.

(P.S. Qasim Razvi's party remains a legitimate political party. From Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen MIM, it is now known as All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, AIMIM. It is a formidable opposition party that regularly churns out Islam and Muslim-related issues. After Rizvi, the party's helm was passed to Abdul Wahid Owaisi, the current leader's grandfather.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The bottomline of a fall!

Garudan (Vishnu's mythical bird, Tamil; 2024)
Director: R.S. Durai Senthilkumar

We all start life from the bottom of the shelf. We hope to one day be among the window displays and the envy of others. Invariably, he suddenly becomes philosophical once one reaches the top shelf or the window panel. He downplays his initial avarice as materialism, saying that real success is service to mankind and such. He goes on a rant that one can buy a mattress but cannot buy sleep, and he can build a house but not a home. 

Do not be surprised to learn that, behind the scenes, his rapaciousness to usurp wealth still lingers. To this end, he may use his influence, his followers' aloofness, and blind faithfulness to his advantage. Just like how the East India Company and ancient Indian Merchants held the government of the day at ransom, these successful individuals may choose the path of greed.

Just when he thinks he just got everything under his thumb, has his 'i's dotted and 't's crossed, invariably, three things will lead to his fall. That would be land, women and wealth (Mann, Penn, Pon). Sometimes, religion would initiate his downfall, especially when he uses religion to deify himself. With the advent of modern media, before long, his bluff may have been bared open. The hawk of time will be marauding high above us to keep track of our deeds and misdeeds to balance the chit in this life or the next. 

This film is a typical Tamil village drama in which lawlessness and abuse of power are the order of the day. A corrupt minister makes an elaborate plan to usurp a large chunk of land, a family ancestral land donated to a temple. The minister tries to kill the trustee and bribe the closest relative to get the land transferred clandestinely. 

The trustee, an elderly grandma, adopts three boys who grow up tooth and nail, supporting each other. Little trouble starts brewing within the family, and the baddies take the opportunity to fan the embers until it turns into a bloodbath.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

google.com, pub-8936739298367050, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

Have Gun Will Travel?

Dead for a Dollar (2022)
Director: Walter Hill

These days, one of the things that parents fear when they drop their kids at school is not that they fall or get hurt but that a mad kid might go on a shooting spree with a semiautomatic gun. 

The debate on gun control will appear occasionally after every massive shooting, which is quite often; it dies as quickly as it escalates. Arguments like 'guns don't kill people, people do!' are not unheard of. Using archaic laws at a time when white men tamed the lawless Wild West, they justified their fights to bear arms for defence. Of course, it was for offence when the leaders of the initial thirteen states decided to expand their hegemony westwards. 

The Second Amendment of the Constitution support gun possession for defence but not with assault rifles and M16s. Repeated studies worldwide, including experiences in the UK and Australia, have unequivocally shown tight gun laws and stringent control reduce gun violence. In the USA, these results are not reproducible as different states advocate different levels of control. A flea market selling guns, rifles and assault weapons in a supermarket is accepted as the norm in some states. Going to a gun fair is more like a social event. Free movement between states makes any legislation laughable. The latest figure for gun ownership in the UK is 5.03 guns per 100 people compared to 120 guns for 100 Americans! 

The political will is, of course, wanting. When gun lobbyists are on the payrolls of most Presidential candidates, who wants to eat the hands that feed them?

Now, another idea has been put forward on why everyone, including the bench, is dragging their feet in putting a full stop to this tragedy. After growing up, generations after generations, with a staple diet of a good Western as a wholesome evening entertainment, Americans have been hardwired to perceive gun possession as a birthright. The fastest draw has no reason to face the law as the showdown (as in OK Corral) was fair and square, facing man to man. 

Imagine constantly being fed with the potpourri of strong, tall White men enforcing the realm of the white men's law in the land they infiltrated and justifying it with gunpowder. 'Gunsmoke', 'High Chapparal', 'The Virginian', 'Rawhide' and 'The Rifle Man' all went on for umpteenth seasons and are still viewed on dedicated Western channels and YouTube. The premise of most stories is that white men march west for a better life for their families. Their noble intention is marred with vicious savages who are hell-bent on causing misery. It does not matter that the natives were merely defending their abodes and way of life. The barrel of the gun is a justified manner to mete out justice. There is no moral ambiguity. Balance is preserved when the Cowboys get their way. 

Over the years, perhaps after watching the devastations that came with the Vietnam War, moviemakers started making fewer Western movies. 

This movie is different. A Western, no doubt, but trying to be as politically correct as possible. To counter the throb often associated with Westerns, the idea of machoism, white supremacy and male toxicity, the story has a strong female character; often, ladies are mere eye candy in this genre. Two African-American actors play essential roles. Cowboys are shown to have moral judgment, after all.

An 'honest' bounty hunter, Max Borlund, is hired by a wealthy businessman to apprehend his wife, who had allegedly eloped with an African-American army deserter. Riding with a black soldier, Max finally catches up with the pair in Mexico but deals with Mexican bandits. Meanwhile, one of Max's foes has a score to settle. It's a straightforward movie with a predictable storyline. 2.75/5.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

We all hear voices!

Maaveeran (2023)

Written & Directed by Madonne Ashwin 

"I am not doing it; it is the voice in my head. It is telling me all the time to do things. I am sorry!" says the hero. 

"You are telling me someone is telling you things," says the crooked badass politician as he slid the throat of his political manager. "This guy (pointing to dead man) has been nagging for 22 years. Don't do this, do this, not like that..."

That pretty much gave a perspective to the message hidden behind the movie's story. 

We are inundated with commands all the time. As toddlers, voices told us to watch our steps, be careful. As school children, we were warned not to forget to finish our homework. As teenagers, we got an earful for lazing around. Then we were told to get our lives together. Yet another forewarning that we are marrying the wrong person, and it goes on. Not to forget the inner voice that keeps harassing us that we would be punished for wilfully doing something 'against our conscience'. 

Then we sometimes must listen to both sides of equally compelling arguments to make a final decision. It takes work. 

Remember the other (they say better) half who constantly reminds you that we are forgetting this and failing that and are not good enough. As if the constant voices from your mother are not gruelling enough, in adulthood, we have to deal with our spouses, bosses and contemporaries. This and that, and the inner soul tickles every now and then. The constant battle between your heart and brain is quite deafening. 

Still, we are all left lonely. 

So, when somebody without form just appears out of the blue to talk to us, gives direction on what to do and goes to the extent of predicting what will happen next in your life, would it not be a welcomed godsend? Sadly, most people do not think so. We want agency over our lives. We rather experience life, the thrills, the spills, the falls, warts and all.  

This 2023 movie is a sci-fi Tamil comedy. It is interesting that these days, a family-fare movie can be so violent and still be accepted as normal. Violence is mainstream, and a machete or knife is always lying around. Pacifism is no longer a virtue. It no longer brings back the status quo. One must fight to claim and reclaim what is his. This is the new Hindu teaching, which was proposed by Subash Chandra Bose when he opposed Gandhi's Satyagraha and established INA. Godse justified Gandhi's assassination by suggesting that nature is violent and that there must be cataclysmic violent events for change to happen.

Sathya, an unassuming young man, is a cartoonist contributing to a local newspaper. He likes to keep his nose clean from controversies after seeing his father fight the unwinnable war against the establishment and losing his life. Unlike the character in his cartoon, who fights for justice, Sathya likes to avoid confrontations.

When his family is relocated to a shoddy low-cost apartment built by corrupt politicians, the dwellers of the flats fight back. Sathya tries to pacify everyone. 

After a lot of family melodrama about his cowardice, Sathya attempts suicide. He escapes death but somehow hears the character of his cartoon, Maaveeran, speaking and guiding him to bash up and defeat the politicians and his goons. An entertaining movie.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.