KALYANA SAMAYAL SAADHAM

AN ‘IMPOTENT’ AND FAILED MARRAIGE-KALYANA SAMAYAL SAADHAM

I would like to state very clearly that this column of mine will be a complete critical assessment and examination of a film. It will be my opinion as a viewer and a film maker and need not necessarily concur with anyone else’s view point especially with that of the director or producer of the film in question.

‘The one who has dared to enter the world of cinema should be fully aware that he has to face the harsh reality of the game - Criticism. It should not deter him but spur him on to make better films if not the best!’ Successful stars of today like Rajini, Kamal, Ajith, Vijay & Suryaa etc have always faced criticism and conquered it. With these few lines of wisdom I would now like to share with you my experience in watching director R.S.Prassanna’s  ‘K.S.S’.

Let me start with the films back story: - The film has been produced by Arun Vaidhyanathan and Ananth Govindan. The shooting commenced sometime in the month of January 2013. Prassana and Lekha Washington are the lead and the film has a number of seasoned stars like Delhi Ganesh, Kathadi Ramamoorthy, Neelu, Crazy Mohan, Uma Iyer etc. 

The story, backdrop and setting (Screen play) The story is initially about a boy and a girl who are too lazy to fall in love ask their respective set of parents to choose a life partner. Then it moves on to address a deeper and serious problem of impotency. The director then reveals that the elixir to cure impotency ‘de-stressing’. Then in the second half he moves on to the actual ‘Kalyanam’ and tries to explain as to how the rituals in a Tamil Brahmin marriage can put an awful lot of strain on the bride and groom. Look honestly the ‘Sangeeth’ function was totally out of place in a middle class Brahmin wedding unless it happens to be a cross culture wedding. The director could have at least supported this feature by having one or two friends of the bride or the groom from the north of India. Or like what Radha Mohan did in his film ‘Abhiyum Nanum’. It would have then worked .

I always believe in the dictum that a subject for short film most often than not fails as a feature film. This is one such classic example. The title suggests that the film is based on a big Tamil ‘Tambaram’ wedding and you go with the expectation of watching the complexities of an arranged marriage with a large dose of humour quotient. The various rituals in a Tamil Brahmin weddings which normally play out to become serious situations to the actual players the ‘penn aathuva’ (the girls side) and the ‘payan aathuva’ (the boys side) should have been transformed into humorous moments to the viewers. Here R.S.Prassana tries his very best to weave a story towards that but finally ends up weaving the emperor’s clothes which is nothing! His screen play basically fails short on all fronts humour, sentiment, heroism, sacrifice, love and even sex! Crazy Mohan who plays a minor role in this film would have been of even great value as a dialogue writer. The director leaves a plethora of clues in the initial stages like the hero does not fancy kids (impotency), the suggestion by the elder to have the wedding in the village (subsequent cancelation of the wedding in the city) , the dog picking up the yes or no paper ( marriage rituals are stressful) etc. When dealing with a serious and a very private subject like impotency humorously ( the woody Allen way) one should have two things in mind 1) The niche audience you will be catering to and 2) avoid straying into uncharted waters and thereby losing your way. The director starts by defining the main characters but nowhere in the first half does he even indicate that the hero is stressed or even vaguely prone to stress barring the forced nail biting scene. He could have at least used his friends to highlight this factor. Secondly Lekha shown as a spirited, bubbly girl somehow fails to characterize the type to meekly agree for an arranged marriage. The first half is used to 1) characterize the players and 2) to emphasize that in arranged marriages two people start of as friends and then fall in love. All the other characters come and go but fail to add any strength or any kind of tangible to the plot barring Delhi Ganesh who plays his part as only a seasoned artiste can. The second half lacks the excitement of a Tamil Brahmin wedding and the subsequent climax lacks depth and looks contrived. In fact the lighted boat looks like a scene from a retro film.

I really wish the director had used the first half solely to showcase a Tamil Brahmin wedding with a large dose of humour. Most of humorous dialogues in the film have a sexual connotation laced with double meanings. The director probably had a double take in mind, the younger audience and a way to circumvent the censor cut. He failed on both counts. The film would have been better served if Crazy Mohan had been asked to pen the dialogues who would have reveled in it. The director in my opinion would have also been better served if he had revealed the fact of impotency after the wedding. This would have brought out the emotions of the two main leads, their respective parents, friends and relatives in all seriousness. I would like to go now to the next part of my review:-

Acting: - I was really disappointed in the performances of most of the actors barring Lekha Washington and Delhi Ganesh who stood out. Prasanna was adequate but his chemistry with Lekha a tad bit wanting. I felt that the rest come and go from time to time. They lacked depth and most of them seemed to be unaware of the total script and left very little impression on the viewer. In fact most of them over acted instead of reacting. Let me now move on to the technicians:-

Technicians:- Krishnan Vasant’s Camera work was adequate. In fact the script talks about lush greenery and picturesque and rustic landscape but it was absent in the film. To be fair to the editor Sathyaraj there was very little scope to showcase his art.  Somehow the western costumes suited Lekha better than saris.

Music:-  The music director and the director or both appear to be fans of a number of music directors. The numbers sounded like a repeat of the following 1) Theemthanaa – Rhythm 2) Inum Ennai Ena Seya Pogirai – Singara Velan. 3) There Mere Beech Mei – Ek Duje Ke Liye and 4) Poove Vey Pesum Bodhu – 12 B.  If I am wrong please let me know! (Please pardon my Tanglish)

 Finally to sum it all up:-

Left right & Centre:-

Rather than voicing my opinion I decided to turn to the person on my left and he answered “Bore Sir!” Why? “I watched the trailer and thought it would be a funny Rom Com. The trailer was misleading!”  I turned to my right ‘ It’s like a tele- film. Very slow’! I did not seek the reaction of the man in front of me. Why? Believe me I had my reasons!

Pro: - A brave attempt to touch upon the Subject of Impotency - a fairly untouched subject in Tamil cinema.

Con: - A marriage I would rather not attend leave alone taste the ‘Samayal’!

Bottom Line:-  Kalyana Samayal Sadhaam, Adhu Enge Pocho Kanom!

Until next time,

Director Haricharan

Chennai

12/12/2013