Between Reviews: From Verse to Words
FROM VERSE TO WORDS
“Unnaippol Oruvan” plays down the poetry of “A Wednesday,” but its muscular prose is effective in its own way.
OCT 4, 2009 – THERE’S A THROWAWAY SENSE OF inconsequence about the title A Wednesday. All it denotes is a day of the week, a day in the middle of the workweek, a day like any other – and the film develops its power from how this day, ever so gradually, turns out unlike any other. This Wednesday, at first, is as anonymous, as common, as the character played by Naseeruddin Shah, and as his true colours are revealed, as his uncommonness is unmasked, this unremarkable Wednesday too begins to assume uncommon proportions. The Tamil version, on the other hand, has little use for such quotidian poetry. Its title is all muscular prose – Unnaippol Oruvan, someone like you! There’s nothing throwaway about this title, which is calculated to grab the audience by the collar and shake it out of its apathy (towards meaningful regional cinema, one could argue, as much as the issues of terrorism tackled in the film).
Another aspect of the two films lends itself to a similar poetry-prose consideration, and that’s the revelation, towards the end, that gives the audience a sliver of insight into the motivations of the protagonist. We’ve already been informed, by this point, about the reasons for this man’s actions, but there’s still something missing. As much as larger political and social concerns are valid (and valuable) from a moviegoing standpoint, the audience still seeks a primal personal connection – the lit fuse, so to speak, that causes the smouldering pile of faraway issues to explode inches away from our face. When Naseeruddin Shah speaks of this personal connection, it’s a delicate abstraction, a gossamer-light flashback about a young man in a train who was about to get married and whose dreams (and, indeed, life) went up in flames due to the actions of terrorists.
In the Tamil version, this scene transforms into an actor’s showcase in tight close-up. The narration is no longer about an anonymous man in an anonymous train – it’s now about a pregnant woman who was stripped and whose womb was violated in full view of an uncaring public. There’s nothing poetic about this stretch except, possibly, the remarkable control that Kamal Hassan brings to this scene as an actor. The incident is intended to descend on your head like a sledgehammer wielded by a champion muscleman – and that it certainly does. You wince as you’re meant to. Where, in the Hindi version, the ghastliness was glazed with poetry, the Tamil scene-equivalent taunts our sensitivity with the naked brutality of a newspaper headline. It’s all prose, burly prose.
When a film is remade, there is the inevitable sense of déjà vu that clouds the remake – but even if the larger intent of the story and the scenarios remains intact (and therefore predictable), there are smaller decisions that are fascinating to parse. What interested me most in the translation of A Wednesday to Unnaippol Oruvan was this transformation of subtle poetry to sensationalistic prose, and because a film critic wouldn’t be a film critic if he didn’t overreach for meaning, I was also intrigued by how this transformation informs the definition of multiplex cinema – and by extension, the multiplex audience – in the context of films made in Hindi versus Tamil (and other regional languages).
A Wednesday is the kind of movie made for the Hindi multiplex audience, which is a very small subset of the audience that watches Hindi movies in general. (The fact that a film is viewed in a multiplex doesn’t automatically mean it’s a “multiplex film.”) As the recent mega-success of Wanted has proved – and that’s as far away from a “multiplex film” as you can possibly get – audiences all over the country delight in action-comedy, or to put it slightly differently, the promise of “entertainment.” So it’s ridiculous to think of all viewers of Hindi cinema as sophisticated lovers of poetry – it’s really just small pockets of adventurous movie-watchers (Hindi-speaking and otherwise) across the metros. (And this is true the world over. Even in America, say, it’s the big, noisy action blockbuster or the date-friendly romantic comedy – in other words, the fuss-free “entertainer” – that plays equally well from coast to coast. Something like There Will Be Blood will always be of interest only to a niche audience.)
After all, it’s not as if a film like Mithya – another instance of poetry on screen – commandeered “House Full” signs across Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. It just made a bit of noise in cities like Bombay and Delhi and Bangalore. So whenever I’m asked why the poetry of Mithya cannot be replicated in Tamil, I venture that it’s primarily a matter of economics. The real reason a film like A Wednesday is successful – both financially, and (more importantly) in terms of being crafted with a vision that’s not simply “entertainment” oriented – is because these pockets of metro-audiences do not mind paying multiplex ticket prices for an engagingly offbeat movie. The disproportionate price of tickets (as compared to the single screens) makes these movies viable, and as, in Tamil Nadu, there is still some sort of government-imposed price-control in the theatres (even the multiplexes), the system does not allow an alternate film culture to flourish.
Given these realities, it’s all the more reason to celebrate something like Unnaippol Oruvan, which is an urban-multiplex movie in the truest sense – without a whiff of the lumpen that characterises the typical offbeat Tamil film (and makes it more palatable to audiences across the state). When we think of movies that broke the mould in recent Tamil cinema, we think of Subramaniyapuram or Vennila Kabaddi Kuzhu or Naan Kadavul or Pasanga, all strong films but still dependent on a combination of various formulaic elements to reach out to broad sections of the audience. Unnaippol Oruvan, on the other hand, has proved that it is possible to make an offbeat film that’s niche in its concerns and yet universal in its implications and acceptance (going by early box-office reports).
But would the film have been just as successful had it not left behind the poetry of the original and crossed over into the realm of hard-hitting prose? I don’t know. Perhaps, with the story being a tough sell, it made sense to be more direct, more in-your-face, so as to play better with audiences across the state (as opposed to a “sophisticated” audience in a handful of Chennai multiplexes; after all, if the numbers of poetry lovers are limited across the length and breadth of the country, what sense does it make to chase them across the length and breadth of a state?). Of course, I’m just speculating. After all, we have had gentle poets like Mahendran and Balu Mahendra, who, at one point, made extremely successful films while hewing to their subtle sensibilities. But perhaps that audience doesn’t exist anymore – and, really, when the prose proves as effectual as poetry, why complain?
Copyright ©2009 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
How could you write “Bombay”? Please apologize to you know who!
Naseeruddin Shah is a true genius whereas Kamal Hassan is a much hyped actor who needs at least another 10 lives to reach Naseer’s level. I am glad that they remade A Wednesday. Now people can observer the difference between a genius and an average actor with bloated ego.
BR, the last para seems incomplete. “Unnaippol Oruvan, on the other hand, has proved that it is possible to make an offbeat film that�%8″.
Or is it some problem in my pc?!
Kiruba: Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve fixed it.
A couple of things –
1. Did Kamal’s wife say something like “In sa Allah” and Kamal reply “Yeah”? If yes, haven’t they lost the essence of “People associate a religion with the name and hence I won’t mention the name”?
2. Didn’t Kamal appear supremely confident and in control of the situation – that reflected he being “Thalaivan Irukkiran” rather than a Common man. And I had a big problem with that, whereas NS played it with the fraility of a common man.
3. What the hell was the telescope/gun doing with Kamal?
4. And it is no comparision, but I am not sure what happened to the last talk by Kamal, while it had all the brutality that made me wince, something was not right. Was it the removal of “I am doing all this for my own reasons, not for any one else” which was the whole point – he is not a messiah, but again, just a Common Man?
Anon: (1) Yeah, when he says he should hopefully (or “God willing”) be back by 7, she says Insh’allah. I couldn’t make up my mind whether this was just clever banter or an actual pointer to his religion. Somehow, I don’t think it’s the latter.
(2) Why do you buy into the generalisation all common men are “frail?” Maybe some of them are “supremely confident” studmuffins with sexy beards…
I liked the fact that he was in control. Just because he’s playing the exact same role that Naseer played doesn’t mean he has to play it the exact same way, no?
It was a decent remake on the whole, but any idea why Kamal appears on all TV channels as if he conceived the movie? He seems to forget it’s not original.
The arm chair psychologist in me says he craves for attention so much that he seems glad to receive it in any form — whether it be for his “original” movies or otherwise.
“all strong films but still dependent on a combination of various formulaic elements to reach out to broad sections of the audience. Unnaippol Oruvan, on the other hand, has proved that it is possible to make an offbeat film that’s niche in its concerns and yet universal in its implications and acceptance ”
I only wish that such an effort had come out of an original screenplay.
Kamal’s list of inspired/remade films is a long one starting from the 90s:
Magalir mattum
Tenali
Kurudhipunal
avvai shanmughi(and chachi 420)
Vasool raja
anbe sivam(the initial portions inspired from Planes,Trains and automobiles)
and now this.
For someone who supposedly belts out screenplays during shoot breaks, the lack of original material is disconcerting
Of course not, but somehow, I did not like that. And, just because I mentioned couple of points, did you just reply to the first two
BTW, the above comment was mine, not sure why it read as Anon.
Dear BR,
Thanks a lot for reviewing UPO!
Well, I can’t say whether it’s poetry to prose or not – but I think Kamal made it a little strong in-your-face presentation knowing the Tamil audience and also as the south – TN in particular – do not have that much problem with terrorist attacks (unlike Mumbai), he had to make it bold rather than beautiful, I guess!
But like you said, it worked wonderfully for me too. There are people questioning about his look of confidence, english usage before revealing he is a common man, having a gun etc., – but I could see the reasoning for all of that (not going to list them again as many places/people have argues with that!). But one thing I can not understand people arguing about the character’s religion! Is not that awful? Terrorist is a terrorist – why attach him with any particular religion? He is an angry indian who wants to do something about those terrorists who have no respect for life!
Sara: But that seems to be a common affliction across all film industries. When Bollywood remakes something from Tamil or Telugu, you rarely hear the original version being discussed. (There’s one recent movie where it was particularly galling. I think it was a remake of a Malayalam film. Forget which one.) And vice versa. Maybe there’s a clause in the promotional contract that demands this
vijay: Well, I’m not against remaking as such, but as Sara notes above, it is a bit odd (in interviews and such) when he takes ownership of the remake to the extent that you think it all came from inside his head. But in general, remaking a film is not as easy as it looks, and UPO is an example of a good remake.
ABHI: But it’s not a review
I don’t think he takes ownership. It’s the Tamil TV channels that constantly jalra adichify and nakkify singing his praises all the time. Coupled with the festive season and his 50th year in film industry, everyone just wants to cash in on his appearance maybe. And he’ll obviously be glad to do it as it’s publicity for the movie with perfect timing.
Adithya: Speaking of jalra, have you been seeing the 50th-year celebration programmes? OMG! Yes, the man has achieved a great deal, but you have to wade through 10 minutes of “he is great, he is great” bhajans to get a real nugget. I wish I had a TIVO equivalent, where I could record these programmes and fast-forward to only the interesting parts.
Hi Baradwaj,
Hurriedly got hold of a ‘thiruttu CD’ of Unnaipol Oruvan just to be ready for your piece on that film. Was a bit disappointed that you did not go in-depth into the film – but I understand that this is not a full-fledged review. I agree with you on the fact that the size of the tamil market is so small that experimental stuff cannot be tried there. (But how did Kaakha Kaakha and Vettaiyaadu Velaiyadu manage to be so successful) Everything has to be loud, there is no place for subtlety in Tamil, or for that matter south films. IMHO, UPO was definitely loud, much louder than the original. Mohan Lal was a major letdown. I couldn’t help comparing with his performance in ‘Company’, he was so world class there, he was like a poor man’s version of Prakash raj/Nasser (not Shah) here. Anupam Kher was super cool and sophisticated in the Hindi version, Mohan Lal was theatrical. Come on, this guy is capable, as he proved in ‘Company’ and ‘Iruvar’, don’t know what happened here. Kamal Hassan appeared overconfident and gave a typical self-conscious performance. Again no comparison with Naseerudin Shah (I guess this settles the debate as to who is the better actor). Shah was so believable, Kamal appeared so fake. Less said about the terrorists, the better. Only the guy who played Arif (the police officer) and Santhana Barathy were natural. UPO was not bad but A Wednesday was far better.
@Anon, Kamal’s wife in the movie says ‘enna Insha Allah madiriya?’ IMHO, that sounds like banter to me. Quite a few people who live or who have lived in the GCC countries may know that ‘Insha Allah’ is used like ‘Paarkalam’ by the Arabs. I probably think that Kamal, in the movie, is a former NRI, who had lived in the Gulf earlier – that explains the usage of that phrase and also the fact that he is pissed of with the system.
Not that the common man cant be a studmuffin but a muffin who can weild a telescope,buy tomatoes,caress tears with gun(what a contrved image) and reel rambo accented dialogues…braather thats a lot to take!!
and yes remakes need not follow teh origina but one needs to retain teh basic sensibility which this film failed to do.The challenge is to retain the essence and play it to any audience..tamil,multiplex..etc
and the silence on lals performance speaks volumes!!!-best left unsaid,no?!
and were you the common man at teh movie,popcorn in tow busy scroibbling away…!!
cheers
The entire Jalra Program is now available on Youtube. So it was good to be able to skip all the Jalra, the Kamal KPN Bus crap and get to the real juicy nuggets some of which were provided by Chandra Haasan, Delhi Ganesh, Ravi.K.Chandran etc.
Wife asks him what time will he be back home and he says 7 o’ clock. As an afterthought he says ‘mudinja’. For which she replies, ‘insha allavah?’. This is just a small trick to make the audience believe that he is indeed an islamic terrorist.
In the Hindi version, they made this possible by another scene which was even more effective. When the police makes a presentation on the terrorist, they mention about a Mastermind, whom nobody has seen. They say even his family members do not know that he is a terrorist. They show a photo, a close up of his eye, and it looks similar to that of Nasseer. This was very effective and I am not sure why it got deleted in Tamil.
BR: The article was great but you had preempted what you were going to say in another column’s comments. This took away some excitement while reading the post, much like UPO!! But was an interesting read nevertheless. In your face narrative was definitely a conscious decision taking the commercial aspects into consideration. I am perplexed when people take this so seriously and start saying that it has affected the film!! Comon, he has not included a couple of fights, item numbers and comedy track. Another thing that I noticed is that people trashing Lal. Obviously, he understood the brief given to him and therefore has acted in line with the narrative. Same goes for Lakshmi and Ganesh Venkatraman. Just compare the interrogation scene in Hindi and Tamil!! Technically, the film was much superior to Hindi. Sound and Camera work was fantastic. I really liked the BGM by Shruti. In the Hindi version, there were many scenes where I was uncomfortable with the BGM.
As far as Kamal’s performance is concerned, I was not too happy in the first viewing. And the problem was completely with me as I had carried Nasseer’s performance with me when I went to watch UPO. But on second viewing, I thought that Kamal’s approach was remarkable. He played it completely different from that of Nasseer.
And as a Kamal fan, I used to get irritated when time anad again, he was blamed for focussing too much on himself and not sharing screen space with any of his other co-actors. UPO is once again a proof that this perception is only a perception and not a fact. But I guess that ‘Hate-Kamal-Hassan-he-is-the-worst-actor-in-the-world-we-should-be-ashamed-of-him’ comments will anyway continue!
And someone has pointed out that he must be a ex-NRI. I also think so (not necessarily from Gulf countries, though). This explains a lot of things, his technical wizadry, his usage of English, his accent and his monetary background. (Remember he has purchased all these things including RDX, and it must have cost him some money!).
Another inetesting aspect, look at the photo that is published in this page. Behind Kamal, there are snaps of 3 terrorists only. The fourth, whatever-Lala, played by Santhana Bharathi isn’t there. Surely there is some back story to that!!!
BR: Yep, I’ve been following them and yeah, the “he is great” etc etc are constantly on repeat mode. Now there is a finale to that program with speeches by every stalwart in Tamil and Malayalam cinema and I wonder if there is going to be any novelty there for being a two day telecast.
@BR
1.That Malayalam movie you were talking about that wasn’t talked about – Were you talking about Perumazhakkalam? Dor (Nagesh Kukunoor) was around the same story.
2.Even in A Wednesday, there are enough hints to suggest that Naseer is, in fact, a Muslim. The heat of his conversation bears marks of chaste Urdu, the kind of Hindustani that has not survived Nehru’s demise and the Doordarshanofying of original Hindustani(I refer, of course, to changing words like zaroorat into avashyakta(hat tip to Chandrahas Choudhary)).
NS uses language like mazhab,and qaum, and I genuinely did feel that this was Neeraj Pandey’s way of hinting that the worst victims of terror may well be those on whose purported behalf it is waged.
And yes, I think Kamal certainly chose to keep it, he in fact blunted it by the “Inshallah” reference – though I feel closer to speculation when I say this.
But keeping his political views in mind, I don’t think it unreasonable that it would have been a personal touch.
And the beard. There’s a scene in the movie where the officer in the station describes Kamal to the commissioner: He talks of a beard, and then goes into a charade as he describes it; it almost seems like ” You know, that carefully cut turkish beard”.
It did seem to be that , in spite of the carefully built anonymity, there was a direction that was,(if extremely subtely) suggested.
Raj Balakrishnan: “I agree with you on the fact that the size of the tamil market is so small that experimental stuff cannot be tried there” — Slight disagreement there. I’m not saying experimental stuff *cannot* be tried, or that there’s no place at all for subtlety; just that it’s got to be camouflaged within more comforting/familiar elements. Speaking of Kamal’s films, “Virumandi” had a lot of experimentation, but within the context of a “rural story,” “revenge drama” and so on.
BTW, “Kaakha Kaakha” and “vettaiyaadu” are experimental? Hmm… I’m not sure we share the same definition for experimentation.
That NRI angle is interesting. I hadn’t thought of that. Thanks.
Krishna: Ah, “Perumazhakkalam” — yes, thank you.
Nice piece baradwaj – vashishtar vaayaala…:-)
Nice piece, would have loved it if it was a full fledged review. Kollywood is just going the bollywood way in promoting movies, and thats why we see Kamal appearing in tv channels so much. As much there has been jalras all the way through, it is indeed always very interesting to hear his interviews…BR did you catch the talk show in vijay tv with audience and the talk show with the 4 directors (mysskin, cheran, ameer and lingusamy).. there were quiet interesting…
Btw my usual reminder for hey ram review
Hey BR, all said and done.But u could have mentioned atleast a word on Lal in the movie.The commisioner character in the movie had a lot more scope than it had in the original.
You seems to think that the movie was all but just a one-man affair.This was evident way before d movie released that whenever u talk of the movie all u were speaking nd seemed excited was about kamal alone while all others who had a good bit of knowledge on cinema were more excited on the coming together of 2 legends in Indian cinema. Sure its Kamal who is the reason behind the movie and he plays the pivotal character.But kamal himself decided to gave ample space nd scope for Lal too.
Now i think i have found myself a clue on why you missed to mention him.Maybe because you thought he would work as some sort of exception on the general picture you were trying to portray. ie, maybe you thought his character or rather his perfomance was more of a lesson on poetry (or subtlety) than it was about a hard hitting prose and that would work as a contradiction within the piece,so you omitted.Fine
You know i’m a GREAT fan of Kamal’s who always looks forward to hear something about his next project.I also has great respect and deep admiration towards Lal through some of the movies i had seen of him.So this made me look out for this movie most.
I got to read in someplaces where they say Lal well overshadoed Kamal while in few others like in this it seems to suggest it was Kamal show all the way.
But i feel both these greats had played it brilliantly (although they were faaar frm their bests) enough. As you said it was truly intriguing to ponder on the molecular differences between the original and this remake. You said how the common man of NS transformed into a bit more sophisticated CM who is much more confident of his actions through kamal.
While on the other hand we had a Kher’s cop character who was confident nd agressive in his moves,had a direct hand into the proceedings hollywood style. Whereas compare that to Lal’s character who thinks he is just a glorified officer who is willing to do his duty.He has to fight the administration, the political on one hand before he can really get into the proceedings much like the real Indian system works.At points we could sense the tiredness,pain or dejection he feels.
They were all really intriguing.
(Also the dialogues were sharp though there was a bit of artificiality in it esp in some of the initial sequences).
Like Anand said,i think this movie is ample proof to say that Kamal is a perfectionist but never some-sort-of self-indulgionist as some people wants him to be.He has played as just one among the ensembled caste and deliverd a fine movie true to the original yet capable of standing in its own legs.
(hmm..that was quite a long comment
vishal: One of the luxuries of these “Between Reviews” pieces is that I don’t have to consider each and every aspect of the film(s) under discussion — I can just pick the angle I want to talk about. That’s the only “reason” there’s nothing about Lal. It didn’t interest me to do yet another variation on “the coming together of the titans.”
Baradwaj, yeah I used the word ‘experimental’ incorrectly in the case of Kaakha Kaakha and Vettaiyaadu. What I meant was the sensibilities were so unlike Tamil cinema. I liked the natural conversational style dialogues, subdued performances from the cast and absence of any heavy-duty melodrama in these films. I guess only Gautham Menon makes these kind of films in Tamil (in an urban context). And yes Virumaandi, I forgot thanks.
by having turned the dish from poetry to prose(attempted) have they truely stuck to the on-your face political & vigilante drama that we see in most tamil movies involving cops… i guess no. if we were to look into the prose angle there were so much poetry here too. i feel without planning to stick to any particular style they just did minor changes what they call suitability to the native. but i guess we still haven’t evolved into sticking to a particular genre(quoted from kamal’s words) and he himself is not able to do it completely and what we see in a poor balancing act between class and mass(only if you wanna see in class(or what ever the demarcation is) wise perspective)… but the movie worked for me while watching as we dont sit in the theatre analysing(and we shouldn’t!!) what genre or style this movie is leading to – just be happy if the flow and the events keeps you engaged most of the time.
and my example for poor class(?) attempt is the commissioner offering beer to his soldiers-uh the way mohanlal says that was looking so wannabe-unlike the genuine offer made by anupam kher.
I think its ridiculous to compare Nasserudin Shah and Kamal.. like some of the people @ comments have,
Niche Vs Mass?
Kamal binds most of us together, he has the ‘highest common factor’ (Mathematically Speaking!) aura about him
all of us surely relate to something in him…
Mass always wins by sheer number of votes!
That doesnt mean Niche’s importance is any weaker for its evolved and influential too..
so let not compare them. they only add joy to our mundane lives, No?
For the most part, I liked the movie. I agree with one of the posters about the portrayal of the common man by Kamalhassan vs Nasseruddin Shah. The portrayal by Nasseruddin Shah as a meeker common man was in line with his wailing about the travails of common man in general whereas Kamalhassan’s portrayal of a muscular common man didnt quite gell. Maybe that is the reason why Unnaipol Oruvan had a line about people forgetting bomb blasts in other cities. Unnaipol Oruvan looked like more like common man having fun with gizmos and getting his 15 minutes of fame whereas A wednesday came across as more righteous. One thing I did notice with Unnaipol Oruvan was that they fixed the issue with the wife of the inspector. In A wednesday, the wife goes to her mother’s home where she can watch her husband giving interviews about the bombs on TV(there is a higher probability). In Unnaipol Oruvan, the wife is on the train with very infrequent access to TV when it stops at major train stations. While the chain of command issue was longer in tamil version than in Hindi, both of them neglected the economic impact of mobilizing this much law enforcement in short notice. Is it only me who noticed that both movies begrudgingly showed respect towards working women (the reporter and chief secretary characters) while putting stay at home women on a pedestal (wife of the inspector and common man himself) ?
btw, how come no one has raised their for Dr.Vijay after seeing this movie? … semma kalai …lol
oh i missed the word *voice – oh the unintentional mistake which symbolically shows no voice for the hunter
Dear BR:
I had a chance to watch those interviews on Vijay TV and Kalaigner TV (thanks to web!) – Kamal did talk about “A Wednesday” a lot – He infact said that he embraced “A Wednesday” as he loved what he saw and presented it in his own way.
Also, why he should be talking about A Wednesday when he is promoting UPO? He bought the rights and made a movie in Tamil and he should only be trying to sell that product, right?!! In that scale, he gave the original more than enough attention – in my opinion.
letter to the paper, which was published under the caption “Poor remake”
[The article] made interesting reading. However, the author could have mentioned a word or two on the portrayal of a frustrated IT-knowledged common man by Naseeruddin Shah in the Hindi original “A Wednesday,” which though played well by Kamal Haasan in the remake, the same was done with an over-educated touch with free use of English dialogues, due to which the remake could not reach the B and C class audiences both in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.
– R Sekar
Visakhapatnam
another one…
Dear Rangan
Ur writeup on Unnai pol oruvan is the best one I have ever read from u. Congrats.
jeevi.