Whenever I ask for feedback about a film from my friends, and if I sense that the film did not meet their expectations, I used to be like Kamal in Vasool
Raja,
'Nee enna solla pora nu therium, kadhaye illa nu sollapora'.
Our audience apparently
consider story to be the garbagriha
of a movie and would consider their pilgrimage a waste of time if the garbagriha is closed or invisible. So
let me ponder on the following questions. First, does the story have to be
essentially the garbagriha of a
movie? Second, if we consider the presence of a story so indispensable to a
movie, from where does our 'story obsession' come from?
To answer the first question, as far as I know, the
story may or may not be the garbagriha
of a movie. And the discretion rests solely on the film maker. Story, in other
words, can merely serve as an excuse to make a movie. The most passionate of filmmakers make
movies not only because they need money to upgrade their car from a Swift to a
City, or to move their kids to an international school from a local
matriculation, but also to realise the pleasures or pains of filmmaking. Film
makers when they double up as writers have more to undergo, which essentially
is the case with Tamil cinema. In many ways, film making might be an 'arippu'
like how Ajith calls his ‘duty’ in Yennai Arindhal. So here comes the question,
why should we audiences, reserving nearly three hours of our precious time and almost a day's salary for a movie do so only to satisfy the itch of an overweening filmmaker?
I can't answer the question
quite convincingly but I will make an attempt. The best movies we have seen, at
least most of them, have been done by only those filmmakers who have had that
itch, managed to satisfy it time and again over the years and yet preserved it
from getting healed altogether. Let us take the case of Mani Ratnam's Alaipayuthey. It was a
typical 'boy meets girl' story, they make and break and make again. Why did we,
especially our middle class conservative women fall for the charm of the film?
Was it because Shakti, so typical of our middle class womenfolk, met an Uber
cool Madhavan, fell in love and gathered guts to cheat her family only to elope
with him and face more worthy trouble? Was it some kind of a weird wish-fulfilment?
Certainly not. Look at the scene where Karthik’s (Madhavan) family meet
Shakti's for the first time.
Karthik’s father says, 'Naan peria panakaran thaan. Aana yen
pillaya ezhai maari thaan valathirken'.
Shakti's father retorts, 'Naan middle class thaan. Aana yen
ponna naan maharani maari thaan valathirken'.
This is how you write characters. A rich fellow takes pride in
being outwardly simple due to guilt. Whereas ask our fathers, who would have got us
our first PC in the third year of our college after at least two years of pestering,
how they grew us up. They would say we were born and brought up like princes.
The point I am trying to make is,
Alaipayuthey, in terms of 'story' is very fragile and easily dismissible. But
why did we make a 'hit' out of it? Look at the scene where Karthik tries to
pacify an angry Shakti. It doesn't happen in a tranquil place like where Simbu and
Trisha meet in VTV. It happens in a heavily crowded railway station like
Mambalam. So many people keep crossing the over-bridge where the hero pleads
with a reluctant heroine who wants to break altogether with him. It is a matter
of life and death. A virtual battle. He fights that out amid hordes of people
who, steeped in their own pursuits of survival, cannot keep off from
interrupting his desperate endeavours to win his life back.
If anything, you and me would have gone through the most decisive phases of our
lives only in places like these. You would have attended a telephonic interview
for a high paying job inside an MTC bus where the driver couldn't have helped
honking exactly when you were trying to retrieve an answer for a crucial question from
among the thick layers of your confused memory.
An ordinary love story, with
characters so resembling us, with episodes staged in places where we relate to,
obviously with some good music and acting becomes an instant classic among us.
So what really, is the role of the 'story'?
Now let me shift to people who
still hate Alaipayuthey, not because they hate love stories, but because I
still have not proved that it has a 'story'. There are people whom I know who
would marry their daughters to men without brains but won't watch movies which
don't have a story. Specimens like them help me to examine the unanswered
questions I have posed in the beginning of my essay. Why do we have a
'story obsession'?
Nobody in India, can deny the
fact that the first story they came across in their childhood was either from
Mahabharata or Ramayana or from other Hindu myths. Indians, just like we are
obsessed with music, are in some ways obsessed with story as well. We like
getting to know stories, admire and emulate the best characters inside them and
love drawing comparisons of our real life narrative with that of the story. But
why are Ramayana and Mahabharata alone so popular among us whereas Kalidasa's
Meghdoot or Harshacharita are not so? Given our rich heritage of classic
literature, why do we know only very few stories?
The reason is that the epics of
Mahabharata and Ramayana do not depend upon written texts. Nobody can establish
with evidence that the current version of Mahabharata that we all know is the
one that was written by Vyasa, centuries ago. The stories of our great epics
are mostly hearsay (Sevivazhi kadhaigal). Romila Thapar asserts strongly that
the original texts of the Vedas and the grand epics of India since they are
almost old by a millennium, would not have survived to this day. Every
mythological tale would have been modified either by hearsay or by the whim of
the rulers who dominated India's history at various points of time. So my point
is, stories that are hearsay alone have the potential to travel across time and
distance and survive for eternity. In other words, we Indians, like stories
only if we can listen to them or see them. Our hunger for stories does not
match our hunger for reading. If we feel like getting to know a story we always choose the easiest
mode of imbibing it - either through someone narrating it or acting it out.
This brings us to the point where we naturally expect movies, the biggest art
form of our generation, to tell long stories for us or perish altogether if
they cannot. We people want to learn a story as easily and painlessly as possible, either through a movie or a play, and impress others with our narration of it. A man who knows a
lot of stories, true or ridiculous they may sound, easily becomes the most
sought-after man in a group. This phenomenon explains easily our tendency to
spoil a film for our friends by revealing the most important twists in the story before they had had the chance of watching it. The viewer/listener, by becoming
a narrator, tries to claim credit equal to that of an author.
