|
Entertainment
Of human bonding
About friendship... Charlie dominates with his histrionics.
WHEN WRITER Ravindran (of Pregnai literary group, active in the 1970s in Chennai) was admitted in a hospital for a surgery, he observed a bedridden patient being tenderly cared for by his brother. He wondered if there would be such a bond had they not been siblings. That thought culminated in a story `Nanbaa... Nanbaa' (Friend..Dear Friend.) Seven years after Ravindran's death, his brother, filmmaker Jayabharathy, has made it into a movie, a tribute to the brother he lost.
A Tamil film that lends itself to canons of film criticism is as rare as the blossoming of the Kurinji on the mountain slopes. "Nanbaa... Nanbaa" is one such. The film centres round Lawrence, a paraplegic after a scooter accident and his friend Joseph. The two, incidentally, went to the same school. Joseph takes care of his friend but is quite upset to learn that he has to spend the rest of his life in bed. Lawrence wants Joseph to get married and tries to organise a match: but Joseph lays the condition that even after the marriage he should be able to take care of his bed-ridden friend. The father of the proposed girl does not agree. Lawrence, who sees himself as a stumbling block to his friend's marriage, gets himself admitted in a home with the help of Father Kirupakaran but soon after dies there. Joseph realises his own emotional dependence on Lawrence. Despondent, he decides to quit his job and move away elsewhere. While waiting at a railway gate, he hears the yelping of a pup and finds it abandoned in a bush by the roadside. He picks it up, looks at it and in a Zen-like moment, regains his zest for life.
For Jayabharathy, a self-taught craftsman, this is the seventh film. His earlier films such as "Kudisai" (1978) and "Uchiveyil" (1990) opened to indifferent reception but won critical acclaim. The latter was featured in the Indian panorama that year. "Nanbaa..Nanbaa" is the result of a fruitful interaction between literature and cinema. Jayabharathy, like his brother Ravindran,is also a short story writer. Their parents, Saroja and Thu. Ramamoorthy, too were both writers. However, his literary background does not tie him to words and he is able to unravel the power of images. The use of symbols such as the picture of Jesus on his way to Gethsemene and the gold fish in the bowl add power to the images. Much of the action takes places inside a room but the claustrophobic effect is neutralised by dynamic camera positions.
The heart of the film is the bonding between Lawrence and Joseph, both orphans, abandoned like the puppy, brought up by the Catholic priest, Father Kirupakaran. It is tightrope walking for any filmmaker to depict male bonding, avoiding any suggestion of a gay relationship. Jayabharathy with a clear-eyed approach to the subject, successfully achieves this. Nor does he get overly sentimental in the process.
The casting has been thoughtfully done. The characters have been etched clearly and the sharp acting of different protagonists enhances this aspect of the film. The dominant performance comes from V.M.T. Charlie as Joseph. His concern for Lawrence and his bewilderment in the cemetery confronted by the death of his friend are examples. Chandrasekhar as the cripple brings out the agony of being helpless, his love for Joseph and later his loss of the will to live. Rindhia, as Lucy, gives a moving, yet understated depiction of a young woman anxious to get married. `Bharathi' Mani as the priest, looking so comfortable in a cassock, delivers a convincing portrayal of a compassionate human being, It recalls the memorable performance of Serukalathur Sama in a similar role in "Ezhai Padum Padu" (1951), Tamil adaptation of Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables".
Jayabharathy captures the Tamil Christian subculture as no other filmmaker has done before. The occasional organ music and a few bars of a hymn add to the flavour. He goes into minute details and establishes credibility, in scenes such as the publishing of banns in the church and at the funeral.
The film has its problems. That it has been shot in 16 mm and blown up to 35, shows in some scenes. There are flaws in the soundtrack also. Music in some spots is intrusive, particularly in moments where silence would have been more meaningful.
The conversation of the family in the next portion that Lawrence overhears is too loud and lacks depth. Lip synchronisation problem could be noticed also. However, environmental noises — the bird calls in the graveyard — have been integrated well.
The best moment of the filmmaker is the finale. It is the encounter between Joseph and the pup where Jayabharathy demonstrates the dictum that the primary job of a filmmaker is to show and not say it. The film ends with a note of hope, symbolised by the smile Joseph breaks into. It is a hope that is based on the choice all of us have — to choose our attitude to deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Something very ordinary can trigger this realisation. It could be a pup.
S. THEODORE BASKARAN
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Entertainment
|
