Aham Brahmasmi - God Delusion? (Thoughts on Naan Kadavul)
(Picture Source: Galatta.com)What happens when a man who thinks he is God is asked to play God by a blind beggar girl towards whom God doesn't even throw a sideward glance? This forms the crux of Bala's "Naan Kadavul".
Spoilers ahead: I will be talking about some scenes from the movie. So if you haven't watched the movie yet, watch it and then continue reading.
This is a very different movie for Tamil cinema. Not because it shows the plight of beggars or physically handicapped people but for a very different reason. That is what I want to examine through this post. Staying within the ambit of commercial cinema, Bala differs from it by not using some of the age old tools and techniques and in the process creates a refreshingly different movie.
So let's start. What is this movie about? Good question. Let me answer in the negative first. It is not about beggars and their plight, it is not about physically and mentally handicapped people, it is not about society's apathy towards them. It is a question about God which has been asked perennially, “Where is God?” This question continues to be asked again and again in the face of man’s cruelty to fellow human beings. It is also a question about faith. How do you believe in God or religion when your suffering never ends? And when you don’t even have a notional control over your destiny? When you are a slave with no hope for freedom? This forms the crux of Bala’s movie. People think he resolved this question. I think he didn’t. I will explain why.
Bala’s protagonist is an ‘aghori’. Someone who thinks he is a realized soul and who think he is God. Contrary to what people believe, Bala doesn’t give us a clue if this is true. The whole characterization of the protagonist is such that you do not know if he is really a realized soul or if he has God delusion!! Is he a real sanyasi or is he a psychic case? Again, I feel the director gives no clue. He mutters some mantras, quote ‘sidhar padal’ and generally gives out pithy comments. His indifference to his parents, his indifference to the blind girl can also be interpreted in the same way. Is he such a realized soul that he doesn’t care for earthly attachments or has he been brought up in such an environment that he has lost his ability to mingle with his fellow human beings? People can argue that Bala tells that Rudran is a realized soul by the dialogues of his mother and that of the physically challenged ‘saami’. I again beg to differ. The interpretations can differ here again. Did both the ‘saami’ and the mother make the statements because they realized Rudran’s greatness or because they just gave up? The ‘saami’ realizing he is no ‘saami’ and Rudran’s mother realizing that she has lost her son!!
So you have an ‘aghori’ as the hero, which provides the film with color. At the same time provides you with a confusion which is generally not present in the Tamil movie. Who exactly is this fellow? The side characters don’t help much. The fake sanyasis are as bewildered as we are. The police are equally confused and so are the beggars. This ganja smoking person, prone to suddenly bouts of shouting, causes confusion all around.
On the other hand is the blind beggar girl, of very kindly disposition but who has no control over what happens to her. Her happiness is always short lived and finally she has no recourse but to question the very existence of God.
What would a person, who claims he is God, do when confronted with a person who is losing her faith and who is pleading with him to release her from the suffering? Does realization finally dawn on him that he is no God? Does he realize how difficult it is to play God? Does he realize that it takes God to give life and as humans we can only take away life? Multiple questions but Bala provides no answers.
What Rudran does in the end can be interpreted in many ways. Everyone’s understanding is based on the dialog that Rudran speaks in the court, that of death being a relief to some. Again, I do not know if those were the utterances of a mad man or he really meant it. For nowhere is compassion evident in his characterization. Infact when he fights off the villains the first time, it is not because he is compassionate about the blind girl but because he is irritated!! So I would go to the extent of saying that we do not know if he slits the throat of the girl because he wants to release her from this suffering or because he couldn’t bear her shouting that long!!! Due to the protagonist absolute lack of compassion, the film lacks the emotional quotient overall and becomes an intellectual exercise. (I know, I know. Even I was shocked and moved to see the beggars and their lives but as I said earlier, that is not the crux of the film. The interaction between Rudran and Amsavalli is.)
So what exactly is Bala’s vision. I believe he has none and I don’t mean it in a derogatory way. What I believe Bala has done is to make two diametrically opposite views clash. On one hand we can look at it as clash between faith and loss of faith but more importantly between the intellect and the emotional. Rudran’s realization is more of the intellectual variety whereas Amsavalli’s realization is due to the emotional trauma she has suffered. What happens when pure intellect meets pure emotion? In this case the intellect kills the emotion but is the intellect changed due to this interaction? Questions remain.
Am I overanalyzing? Maybe so, but I have seen very few Tamil films which were worth analysis in the first place. This film is worth the over analysis
Spiritual films in Tamil cinema have been non existent. The only spirituality you get is the Devar or Ramanarayan kind, wherein if you pray hard a snake will appear in your house and kill the person who is troubling you. (Unfortunately that doesn’t happen in real life else many mother-in-laws would have ceased to exist in Tamil Nadu). The question of God has always been binary here. Either you believe him / her as in the bhakti movies or you become an absolute non believer, of whom there is no dearth in Tamil Nadu. So it is indeed a joy to see this kind of film. There are ofcourse many things which could have better but I would say Hats Off to Bala for risking this film in mainstream cinema.
Wilson’s camera work is good. The lighting and shot taking is in line with Bala’s in-your-face approach. Jeyamohan shines with his dialogs and I am sure he had a major say in the overall vision of the film. When the king (Raja) handles the music, you can rest assured that you will get nothing short of world class music. And it happens.
Faith is a very paradoxical thing. People whom you think God just gave up on continue keeping their faith. A case in point is the Jews. What united them after all the suffering was their faith. They had every reason to give up their faith in face of unimaginable cruelty but didn’t. This is a phenomenon that is worth exploring and Bala has taken the first step as far as Tamil cinema is concerned. Will there be others? That is the multi crore rupee question.
Spoilers ahead: I will be talking about some scenes from the movie. So if you haven't watched the movie yet, watch it and then continue reading.
This is a very different movie for Tamil cinema. Not because it shows the plight of beggars or physically handicapped people but for a very different reason. That is what I want to examine through this post. Staying within the ambit of commercial cinema, Bala differs from it by not using some of the age old tools and techniques and in the process creates a refreshingly different movie.
So let's start. What is this movie about? Good question. Let me answer in the negative first. It is not about beggars and their plight, it is not about physically and mentally handicapped people, it is not about society's apathy towards them. It is a question about God which has been asked perennially, “Where is God?” This question continues to be asked again and again in the face of man’s cruelty to fellow human beings. It is also a question about faith. How do you believe in God or religion when your suffering never ends? And when you don’t even have a notional control over your destiny? When you are a slave with no hope for freedom? This forms the crux of Bala’s movie. People think he resolved this question. I think he didn’t. I will explain why.
Bala’s protagonist is an ‘aghori’. Someone who thinks he is a realized soul and who think he is God. Contrary to what people believe, Bala doesn’t give us a clue if this is true. The whole characterization of the protagonist is such that you do not know if he is really a realized soul or if he has God delusion!! Is he a real sanyasi or is he a psychic case? Again, I feel the director gives no clue. He mutters some mantras, quote ‘sidhar padal’ and generally gives out pithy comments. His indifference to his parents, his indifference to the blind girl can also be interpreted in the same way. Is he such a realized soul that he doesn’t care for earthly attachments or has he been brought up in such an environment that he has lost his ability to mingle with his fellow human beings? People can argue that Bala tells that Rudran is a realized soul by the dialogues of his mother and that of the physically challenged ‘saami’. I again beg to differ. The interpretations can differ here again. Did both the ‘saami’ and the mother make the statements because they realized Rudran’s greatness or because they just gave up? The ‘saami’ realizing he is no ‘saami’ and Rudran’s mother realizing that she has lost her son!!
So you have an ‘aghori’ as the hero, which provides the film with color. At the same time provides you with a confusion which is generally not present in the Tamil movie. Who exactly is this fellow? The side characters don’t help much. The fake sanyasis are as bewildered as we are. The police are equally confused and so are the beggars. This ganja smoking person, prone to suddenly bouts of shouting, causes confusion all around.
On the other hand is the blind beggar girl, of very kindly disposition but who has no control over what happens to her. Her happiness is always short lived and finally she has no recourse but to question the very existence of God.
What would a person, who claims he is God, do when confronted with a person who is losing her faith and who is pleading with him to release her from the suffering? Does realization finally dawn on him that he is no God? Does he realize how difficult it is to play God? Does he realize that it takes God to give life and as humans we can only take away life? Multiple questions but Bala provides no answers.
What Rudran does in the end can be interpreted in many ways. Everyone’s understanding is based on the dialog that Rudran speaks in the court, that of death being a relief to some. Again, I do not know if those were the utterances of a mad man or he really meant it. For nowhere is compassion evident in his characterization. Infact when he fights off the villains the first time, it is not because he is compassionate about the blind girl but because he is irritated!! So I would go to the extent of saying that we do not know if he slits the throat of the girl because he wants to release her from this suffering or because he couldn’t bear her shouting that long!!! Due to the protagonist absolute lack of compassion, the film lacks the emotional quotient overall and becomes an intellectual exercise. (I know, I know. Even I was shocked and moved to see the beggars and their lives but as I said earlier, that is not the crux of the film. The interaction between Rudran and Amsavalli is.)
So what exactly is Bala’s vision. I believe he has none and I don’t mean it in a derogatory way. What I believe Bala has done is to make two diametrically opposite views clash. On one hand we can look at it as clash between faith and loss of faith but more importantly between the intellect and the emotional. Rudran’s realization is more of the intellectual variety whereas Amsavalli’s realization is due to the emotional trauma she has suffered. What happens when pure intellect meets pure emotion? In this case the intellect kills the emotion but is the intellect changed due to this interaction? Questions remain.
Am I overanalyzing? Maybe so, but I have seen very few Tamil films which were worth analysis in the first place. This film is worth the over analysis
Spiritual films in Tamil cinema have been non existent. The only spirituality you get is the Devar or Ramanarayan kind, wherein if you pray hard a snake will appear in your house and kill the person who is troubling you. (Unfortunately that doesn’t happen in real life else many mother-in-laws would have ceased to exist in Tamil Nadu). The question of God has always been binary here. Either you believe him / her as in the bhakti movies or you become an absolute non believer, of whom there is no dearth in Tamil Nadu. So it is indeed a joy to see this kind of film. There are ofcourse many things which could have better but I would say Hats Off to Bala for risking this film in mainstream cinema.
Wilson’s camera work is good. The lighting and shot taking is in line with Bala’s in-your-face approach. Jeyamohan shines with his dialogs and I am sure he had a major say in the overall vision of the film. When the king (Raja) handles the music, you can rest assured that you will get nothing short of world class music. And it happens.
Faith is a very paradoxical thing. People whom you think God just gave up on continue keeping their faith. A case in point is the Jews. What united them after all the suffering was their faith. They had every reason to give up their faith in face of unimaginable cruelty but didn’t. This is a phenomenon that is worth exploring and Bala has taken the first step as far as Tamil cinema is concerned. Will there be others? That is the multi crore rupee question.
(Digression: Initially people were worried if there would be parallels between this movie and 'Slumdog Millionaire'. They need not have feared. 'Slumdog Millionaire' is a third rate movie which is being hyped as a first rate one. A fairly reasonable review of "Slumdog Millionaire" appeared in Hindu today. Check out this link )
Comments
the intellect takes over emotion n doesnt change even still, meaning unaffected by it as we see Rudran still being his usual self after giving moksha to hamsavalli,the sences afterhe takes her life.
Yes it is true that bala , i dunno (if he deliberatly or he ran out of ideas) towards the middle of the story where he concentrated more about the beggars..but the crux of the film lies in the end ..idea of death as the end of suffering, and death as a means of punishment . Also he tries to bring out the philosophy that even if you are born again and again, this suffering would continue until self realisation. Rudran was like shiva, who came to free her from ignorance and ideally aghoris being jivanmuktas ideally do the opposite of a sannyasi since they maintain everything as an illusion.
Excellent analysis!
I have my own views about the movie but whether I liked the movie or not is important.I simply love your narration, your command over the language and your analytical skills.
Raj
ps:I loved the last line on SDM!!
I read some more analysis on Jeyamohan's blog after I wrote this. Some of what he said made sense. The only problem being that much has been lost on the editing table. Wanted to expand this post to include Jeyamohan's views but didn't do it due to the usual problem termed laziness :)
Heard recently that Bala has decided to now direct a comedy!!! Seems not many takers for this kind of movie making. A pity really.