Papanasam (2015)
Jeethu Joseph
Tamil
Paapanasam’s director Jeethu Joseph likes a few things. He likes the fade. He likes the Jimmy Jib. He likes filming his female actors in decreasing order of height. He likes the chimerical simple life. He likes the family. And boy, does he like the family? His film leisurely introduces us to the life of Suyambulingam (Kamal Haasan), a fifty-ish cable TV operator who spends nights at his office watching movies, away from his wife and two daughters – an effective enough shorthand for a middle-aged everyman whose love life is as unyielding as his wallet and who channels his libido onto cinema in ways more than one. So that’s what Paapanasam is – an elaborate odyssey for Suyambu to reassert masculinity, exacerbated it is as much by his perceived lack of education as by his age, and take the reins of his family. (It is one of those therapeutic films which entertain the trivial possibility that the whole narrative takes place inside the protagonist’s head to serve as an antidote to a fear or a lack – a direct parallel to the filmmaking endeavour itself.) And there lies the biggest strength of this rare thriller that is unapologetic and conscious of which value system is at the wheel. The family is paramount in Paapanasam, the engine that runs the world, the institute meriting the highest priority, more than friendship, religion, law and even the individual itself. Sure, it’s a reactionary text, asserting patriarchy’s enterprise, rigour and sense of order prevailing over matriarchy’s apparent laxity, but there’s a sense of something well thought through unfolding before us instead of the unintentionally muddled politics of many a modern movie. It is a film that at least knows which god it is prostrating itself before – the phallus in this case – and I think this clarity deserves something other than outright condemnation.
The Seventh Art 
July 4, 2015 at 9:45 pm
Well said overall. I haven’t seen the Tamil version yet but since it is the same as the Malayalam one, I can understand and relate to what you are saying.
As a guy who reads a lot of murder mysteries, what I can say is that Jeethu Joseph converts a Japanese thriller into an American one. The overall inspiration is from ‘Devotion of Suspect X’ in which the women finally reject the patriarchal attempt to cover up something wrong. Whereas in most American thrillers the family is the main unit and everyone will go to any extent to ‘save’ the family. The poignancy of the Japanese climax gives way to an exhilarating climax here. As you rightly observe, the film knows to which god it is prostrating itself before.
LikeLike
July 5, 2015 at 3:54 am
Thanks, Suresh. I haven’t heard of the Japanese film. Sound interesting.
Reg. the family being sacrosanct in Hollywood: true, it was a pillar of classical Hollywood, though I’m not sure if in this era of identity politics it is anymore.
LikeLike
July 10, 2015 at 3:28 pm
It still is :) Most of the Hollywood movies I see give the message, ‘Don’t give up on family’
LikeLike
July 5, 2015 at 3:56 am
Oh I see the Japanese inspiration you mention is a book.
LikeLike
July 20, 2015 at 9:52 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_X
LikeLike
July 5, 2015 at 5:12 pm
Your choice of the picture for the post is spot on yet again! The man flaunting his patronising control of the vehicle while the women fret distressed. Your concern for form in your observations on fades, positioning etc is a welcome relief.
Drishyam/Papanasanam is anything but a lazy film (save for some parts) and it reminds us of the seduction of commercial narrative cinema which cleverly is made the part of the story itself.
P.S. – On another note, I was wondering if there is a way to establish a correspondence with you regarding a film society that we run at Christ University. I would be grateful if you could provide your email/ ph.no.
prashantp92@gmail.com
LikeLike
July 6, 2015 at 2:58 pm
Sent you a note, Prashant.
LikeLike
July 6, 2015 at 9:33 am
Good review. I haven’t seen the tamil version yet. I will see it soon. Please do a post on “Kakka Muttai”. I look forward hearing from you.
LikeLike
July 6, 2015 at 3:21 pm
Thanks, Raja. I haven’t seen the film, and I don’t think I will either.
Cheers!
LikeLike
January 3, 2016 at 2:45 pm
[Copying from a Twitter post]
Dunno how much it reuses from the original, but THOONGAVANAM in its own way converses with the traditional outlook of PAPANASAM.
Divakar is not exactly a star single parent. His relation with his son seems to be an everyday challenge to be negotiated. He is not even in a position to take care of himself properly and keeps harking back to his ex-spouse, who seems to share none of this atavism. So the Patriarch is a mess without Woman the caretaker. (He’s a cop, she’s a doctor, duh.) Marriage, once again, saves the Man from destroying himself.
This is not an ideal situation for the Son to take over his father’s role. Heck, his father couldn’t even hold his hand right the one time it mattered. Divakar will later handcuff his son to keep him from getting lost. Or rather, he will be the one being handcuffed TO his son to prevent his usual negligence of parental duty. Seen from another view, he can understand familial ties only thorugh the prism of work, and fulfil his private responsibility only as a public servant – a cop rescuing a kidnapped child.
Divakar, in a way, is Suyambulingam of PAPANASAM a decade down the line, without the invisible support of his wife. If the latter film was about triumph of the patriarchal rigour over matriarchal laxity, THOOGAVANAM depicts the fallibility of such an efficient patriarchal machinery without the traditional support of the woman, without its foundational heterosexual coupledom. (Asha Sharath and Kamal Haasan kind of reprise their roles here.) Divakar is the image of debilitating patriarchal power in his very person, in his weakening physical prowess, his fatigability, his exploding midsection that a stolen coat can barely cover, his waning police acumen (in ways that tie into the Kamal Haasan persona, need it be said?)
It is apt that the film ends with the image of Divakar and Mallika together, the latter being a substitute-family at workplace that resolves the contradicting demands of work and family. But then something else happens. It is with the presence of Mallika that Divakar is able to regain his parental instincts. With Mallika taking care of the case’s closure, he concentrates on delivering his kid safely back home. (It’s not difficult to imagine a film in which Divakar hands over the kid to Mallika while he takes care of unfinished business with the narco gang.) It is as thought Divakar harmonizes with his son only when the traditional gender roles are relaxed. Once bitten twice shy.
Taking this academic droning further, the pub acts as a liminal space for this reversal of traditional gender and professional roles – Woman bartenders, male cooks, men and women going into each others’ restrooms fighting on equal terms – neither a thing of great import nor something the movie is really conscious about. It is a film that I would have liked to see though.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 7:39 pm
Hi !
Here is a post I’ve written on Papanasam. You seem to have said this movie is more patriarchal. Have a look at some of the interpretations I have made about how the movie also praises women, but that somehow is hidden in the movie.
LikeLike