Prejudiced ?

Right from the day I watched Pithamagan (a few years ago) in Mayajaal (a multiplex in ECR road, Chennai), I've been wanting to write a full-fledged review about the film. Everytime I tried doing that, something or the other cropped up and I used to get quickly overwhelmed. I had been revamping my blogger template for the last one week(yeah, it's been more than a year since I blogged) and noticed this post titled 'Pithamagan', lying in the drafts, with no content in it. Anyway, the dust has now settled and it's way too late to go for a complete review of the film. It is beyond doubt that Pithamagan was a blockbuster; not to forget the several accolades that were showered upon the film. Bala's deft screenplay, maestro's soul stirring music, Sangeetha's mature performance, Laila's comical role, everything about the movie was well handled. Infact, this movie was one of my personal favourites too. However, certain things about the film really did irk me and I'd like to stir a few sediments out.

First of all, Pithamagan, inspite of a flawed script, convinced the common masses that it was a masterpiece. I say the script was flawed because of the justification given by director Bala, in portraying Vikram's character. Vikram behaves like an uncivilized barbarian (who does not even know how to speak) just because he was born in a graveyard and brought-up by an undertaker, and seemingly was cut off from the rest of the world -- this rationale is simply outrageous. What is even more disappointing is that it is this aspect of the movie, which is highly illogical, fetched Vikram a national award ! huh ! Though Vikram had no dialogues to speak(except to 'sing' a certain melancholic tune once in a while), he managed to win the hearts of the local masses and convinced the jury of his acting capabilities in such a way that they had no second thoughts about their judgement. I agree that Vikram had put in his heart and soul to get into the skin of this character called chittan. But honestly speaking, I feel his expressions, body language, dialogue deliveries(of course, not in Pithamagan) and the way he emotes certain scenes have been getting redundant since his first major hit, Sethu. He seems to have been too much influenced by the other characters that he had portrayed in the past. If you had watched his film Kasi, you'll understand what I mean. Especially during the emotional scenes in Pithamagan, you'll actually see the Kasi-Vikram in Chittan. If you had observed his body language in Sethu (the insane chiyaan) and Anniyan (the innocent ambi), you'll notice striking similarities between these two characters and Pithamagan's chittan - scenes where he portray's his naivety. If you're a hardcore Vikram fan, you would've stopped reading this post at the very beginning of this para. By any chance, if you're still reading (to fathom my rudeness), you'll kill me for what am about to say now -- that Vikram is not a natural actor. He has a few pre-determined acting formulae (proven ones, that worked for him and other novices) programmed within himself (which he has acquired over the years after consistent failures) that he applies to the characters given to him. And believe me, the characters he has played so far are not as varied as compared to Surya's performances after Kaakha Kaakha. What can I say about this young man, Surya? he was terrific and full of energy! After a classy performance in a serious theme like Kaakha Kaakha, Surya in Pithamagan had thrilled the audience with his sense of humour and timing as the charming trickster, shakti. That's the mark of a 'versatile' actor; Being able to portray a spectrum of emotions, each being unique in it's own way. Be it the Anbu chelvan of Kaakha Kaakha, Shakti of Pithamagan or Chinna of Perazhagan, Surya had enacted his parts with ease and grace. It was evident from the roles he performed, that he wasn't the usual stereotype actor. Want to have a glimpse of his versatility? See this video -



Acting might've been in his genes, but undoubtedly, he's one of the best things to have happened to tamil cinema. Coming back to Pithamagan, I feel it was Surya's role and the way he carried it, value-added to Vikram's character. Pithamagan, minus Surya would've been a disaster at the box office, since there wasn't anything else that was worth watching in the film, other than Vikram's occasional howls and growls.

I wonder what made the jury adjudge Vikram as the best actor. Do they give awards only to people who can cry their lungs out ? What about actors like Surya and Pasupathi(the baddie in Virumandi and Dhool) who can fit into any role given to them? Will they ever get recognised at the national level? Pasupathi did a brilliant job in Majaa(Infact, Vikram to me, seemed more like a second fiddle in that film, except for the stunt sequences) in a comical role. Surya, as the physically-challenged-yet-highly-self-confident-and-humorous chinna in Perazhagan was trend-setting! Do you think Vikram can ever make you laugh? When would the jury be able to distinguish between real talent and stereotype acting? What about comedians out there that are bubbling with talents? Will they ever get a national award? Do you think people like Nagesh, Goundamani, Vadivelu, Vivek and Kovai sarala don't deserve national awards? It's high time the panel revisited their rules and methodologies of scrutiny.

My personal opinion is that any Tom, Dick and Harry can act fairly well in 'serious scenes' involving the following -

* rolling the sleeves up and speaking a few punch dialogues before bashing the villians

* crying out loud during emotional scenes(after applying loads of glycerine) till the throat dries
up or the audience become deaf, whichever is earliest

* redden the eyes with rage

* tapping the left thigh with the left hand (or vice-versa), accompanied by a brief hop and challenging the villian

* shouting like a lunatic ("daaaai....yeeeei...", etc.) by giving a quick twist to the moustache

* behaving like a psycho serial killer, and so on...

Anyone can enact all of the above emotions and behave like a psycho; yes, even you and I. But that's not the point. We're talking about versatility, variety and class, in it's strictest sense and purest form -- like the ones that nadigar-thilagam Sivaji Ganesan and Padmashri Kamal Haasan gave us.

Just picture this in your mind -- if Surya and Vikram were to interchange their roles in Pithamagan, Surya would still have brought the best out of him to mould himself into chittan's character and also played his part convincingly. Do you think Vikram as Shakti, would've done justice to his role?

......We all love controversies, don't we ?