[Spoilers, spoilers everywhere]

This is not a review of Dorothy. There’s been a profusion of insightful commentary already on Karthik Subbaraj’s 10th film, less than a week after its wide release. I don’t want to go through the motions of describing the plot, which concerns the evolving relationship between Karthi (Rishikanth) and Subbu (Sananth) from childhood on. What’s presented below is a set of thoughts and propositions on and around Dorothy. Do not read further until you’ve watched the film.
 

  1. What (else) can a filmmaker do with the Madurai film, that genre of Tamil films set in the most mythologized town of on-screen Tamil Nadu? Every twenty years or so, Tamil cinema experiences a renaissance of what have been termed “nativity pictures” — films set in the Tamil hinterland offering an escape/refuge from the threat of globalization and ethnic dilution. Very broadly: the 1960s wave of the Madurai film revolved around feudal distress and the disintegration of the joint family; the 1980s batch — spearheaded by the contributions of Superstar Rajinikanth and music director Ilaiyaraaja, two figures crucial to Dorothy’s political undertaking — constituted odes to righteous masculinity; the 2000s vintage was animated by a gritty realism, offering violent interrogations into crime, caste honour and male camaraderie. Dorothy is, above all, a reckoning with this cinematic history.
  2.  

  3. Exceptions and evolution notwithstanding, women have had a marginal role in the Madurai film, serving variously as objects subject to sexual interest, masculine disciplining or sympathetic suffering and degradation. Dorothy inherits this legacy, presenting a world that is violently opposed to the incursion of femininity into domains not deemed its own. It proposes that the only way the woman can enter the Madurai film on her own terms is through the body of a man. Subbu’s transition into a woman happens in the belly of the beast, in the inner rooms of his family house that is a bastion of caste and male pride. If Subbu’s transformation is an irruption from within, his sister-in-law, Dorothy (Keerthi Suresh), represents an irruption from without, a spectral, fantasy projection that appears in the house unanticipated just as it disappears into it.
  4.  

  5. Karthik Subbaraj is an avowed devotee of Rajinikanth. The entrance to his office in Chennai is adorned with a large painting of the Superstar, and his film Petta (2019) is a veritable fan tribute. Rishikanth’s uncanny similarity in looks and charisma to the Rajinikanth of the 1980s (but also Shankar Nag) allows the director to invent his own version of the Superstar, one that he can bend to his own ends in a way he can’t with the real one. This second, “cinematic” body (and star text) that accompanies Karthi enables Dorothy to revise the history of the 1980s Madurai film, to reimagine it on different political coordinates.
  6.  

  7. The other lead, Sananth, has two bodies too. In the first half of Dorothy, his Subbu is the typical young man of the Madurai film, engaged in violent rituals and public displays of masculinity. His transition into a woman mid-film is scattered with grace notes (how lovely is that sprint away from his house!), but it can also feel a little exaggerated, caricatural, performed. On the other hand, it raises the question: why is it that Subbu’s masculine life in the first half comes across as “natural”, while seen from Subbu’s reality, it is precisely that which is a gender performance? Or more broadly, why does brash, macho performance on Indian screens seem like “the default” for male actors while it is as stylized, constructed and removed from reality as anything other acting mode?
  8.  

  9. Dorothy has been faulted for its implausible plot developments and character psychology. Fair game, but it’s a common lament throughout Karthik Subbaraj’s 10-film career. (It is instructive how consistently his detractors, including me, fault his films more or less on the same terms.) I’m certain that considerations like believability, plausibility, and even some form of realism are very important to Karthik Subbaraj as a writer. But he always gravitates towards types with believable traits than real characters with well-rounded psychology. For instance, Subbu’s father Whistle Veeraiya (Muthu Kumar) is a villain from a Spaghetti Western, a Tarantino-like cartoon. Where a real casteist patriarch would observe the restraint necessary for the maintenance of the feudal order, Veeraiya kills off the last chance he has of re-establishing his household. Clearly, this isn’t a “character” in the true sense. What animates Karthik Subbaraj is instead the expressive potential of his types, their criss-crossing motivations, and the giddy plotting that relates them to one another in ingenious ways. In painting terms, it’s all about the underdrawing and local colour, not optical illusion.
  10.  

  11. As both writer and director, Karthik Subbaraj loves structural games, and Dorothy abounds in them: doubling, symmetry, inversions, mirroring, role reversals. This is a film that begins in stark monochrome and ends in an explosion of colours. The first half, where a woman is trapped in a cis-normative world, gives way to the second, where a straight man finds himself caught in a trans-dominant world. Subbu and Karthi are parts of the same being, with the former leading the latter throughout the film, in full confidence that Karthi will eventually catch up. And when he does, it’s fireworks. The closest equivalent that I can think of for what Dorothy does with the structure of an established popular film format is Nagraj Manjule’s Sairat (2016), whose stark (and starkly different) second-half subverts the “pop-cinema primer” that the first half offers.
  12.  

  13. Dorothy isn’t just a film scored by Ilaiyaraaja as much as one born under the sign of Ilaiyaraaja — that ubiquitous voice of the Madurai film. The film’s songs are magnificent, as is the score, particularly the “Do Anything” piece, first heard on screen in Veedu (1988) as a paean to middle-class aspirations, repurposed here into a stirring anthem for forbidden desire. Ilaiyaraaja’s score here triangulates between the epic, the sentimental and the comical, and I did feel there was too much Ilaiyaraaja in some parts of the film. But on the whole, the music works wonders. For example, the emotion in the scene where a transitioned Subbu meets Karthi’s mother is born of the slight tension between the melodrama of the material and the epic quality of the score. When both registers coincide, as they do during a long death scene, the music-image marriage is less felicitous. But it’s Ilaiyaraaja’s extra-textual presence that is more pertinent here. Ilaiyaraaja, who enjoys a demigod status among Tamils across the political spectrum, serves as a common ground from which people of all persuasions can engage with the film. A more modern composer could conceivably have extracted different, possibly richer undertones from the film. But the moral-spiritual-cultural authority Ilaiyaraaja possesses helps to reconfigure Dorothy’s politics in traditionalist terms and integrate the film into the Tamil cinema canon.
  14.  

  15. The relatively easy passage that Ilaiyaraaja’s presence offers into Dorothy’s furthest reaches is echoed by a difficult and disturbing narrative strategy. It’s that the film offers a great deal of space for characters to register their disgust with Subbu’s femininity. Representatives of the Tamil transgender community have welcomed Dorothy, but also pointed out its re-iteration of hurtful slurs, wondering if they couldn’t have been censored or editorialized. I’m in two minds about this. I’m certainly not a fan of works decrying oppression by portraying it in full force and allowing viewers to share the voyeuristic pleasure of the oppressors. (The film’s 1990s setting is moot — Dorothy is a 2026 work addressing a 2026 audience through 2026 political lens.) On the other hand, the device has indisputable advantages: it acknowledges/preempts the reaction of a section of the audience, helps them be ahead of the characters and quickly find a footing in the film, which then carries them along to where it wants to go. Karthi’s evolving attitude to Subbu becomes the vehicle for this moral trafficking. I suspect that muting injurious language would breach this strategy and impose a distance between the viewers’ beliefs and that of the film too early. On the other hand, I also wonder if a film seeking to offer trans viewers their place in Tamil cinema needed to create so much space for those hostile to their existence. In this, Dorothy is perhaps a transitional work in Tamil cinema that will allow future filmmakers to engineer popular narratives where cis viewers will be able to identify with trans characters without the psychological cushion of their own kind.
  16.  

  17. The conservative pushback against Dorothy right after its release was something of a surprise to me. When I watched the film at a private screening back in May, I expected the strongest backlash to come from the liberal quarters. Dorothy is clearly not au fait when it comes to international debates around queer representation. Karthik Subbaraj is not a sophisticate who has all his politics harmonized and up to speed. (Chances are that you won’t get satisfactory answers from him on transgender bathrooms, women’s sports, access to Hormone Replacement Therapy or gender support plans in high schools.) His liberalism is more intuitive and experiential, and perhaps more secure for that reason. Iraivi (2016) was undone by its sermonizing and sanctimony, of which there is relatively less in Dorothy. The mid-film twist, where Subbu becomes a woman, could be criticized for its sensationalism. But unlike films such as Thittam Irandu (2021) or Dominic and the Ladies’ Purse (2025), Dorothy commits fully to the transition, giving Subbu half the film to enjoy a range of experiences and actualize her true self.
  18.  

  19. I want to conclude by stating the obvious: Dorothy is a popular film. And any popular film is a delicate dance between the conventions of the genre, the expectations of the audience and the possibilities/limitations of the star image. Retro (2025) was too cavalier about the latter and was punished at the box office. Featuring non-star actors, Dorothy is free from having to deal with this component. Still, it is incredible how it threads a very, very fine needle. Pitching the narrative an inch to the left could have alienated large sections of the audience, an inch to the right would have compromised its integrity and vision. In the last decade, Pa. Ranjith and co. shook up Tamil cinema by bringing a new kind of politics into it. Emerging from the opposite bank — from the movie-crazed cohort of Naalaya Iyakkunar — Karthik Subbaraj brings Tamil cinema into politics, and seals the union with a kiss.

The two defining currents of Tamil cinema of the past decade — the engaged, politically aware films of the Pa. Ranjith school and the playful, movie-aware work of the Naalaya Iyakkunar gang — collide head on in Karthik Subbaraj’s Jigarthanda DoubleX (2023), a spiritual sequel to the director’s second feature Jigarthanda (2014). Where the earlier film, arguably its maker’s finest, was a heady celebration of the supremacy of cinematic mythmaking over that of the gun barrel, DoubleX is a much more solemn, spiritually tortured assertion of the importance of cinematic demystification.

As a filmmaker, Karthik Subbaraj calls to mind those expert craftsmen who keep snipping away at a chunk of folded paper without giving us an idea of where they are going with it, only to unfold it at the end and have us marvel the intricacy of the design and the necessity of every redundant seeming gesture. He begins with pet ideas and images — in this case, again, the primacy of the camera over the gun — and then weaves a convoluted plot over them outwards, allowing the audience to arrive at their beating heart in the middle of a film. Showy? Absolutely. And DoubleX doubles down on the showiness. Every shot is an event – sometimes tiringly so, as in the many ritual shootouts organized in a movie theatre — and dramatic logic makes way for a logic of the spectacle.

Coerced by a cop to kill a ruthless, Clint Eastwood-loving henchman named Caesar (Raghava Lawrence, spitting image of a young Rajinikanth), prisoner Raydas (SJ Suryah) masquerades as a filmmaker to woo his vain target into a celluloid dream and slay him. Raydas and Caesar embark on a movie project together, but they soon find their fiction overwhelmed by reality. Faced with the genocide of a mountainous tribe by those in power, both filmmaker and subject must choose to leave fiction for reality. Rather, transform their fiction into reality.

As the synopsis suggests, the film goes all over the place, and then some, and part of the fun and the frustration is in observing Karthik Subbaraj make straight-faced connections between elements that have no right to be together. His previous film Mahaan (2022) — built around the idea of real-life father and son playing a slippery morality game on screen — was in comparison a lean operation, balancing its two central elements with relative ease. DoubleX, in contrast, is unwieldy — weighed down by seriousness where Jigarthanda was shrewdly unserious and light-footed — overstuffed with dramatic developments, all of which, to be sure, is fleshed out with the director’s characteristic taste for symmetries, repetitions and reversals. A wannabe cop, Raydas ends up as a criminal, pretends to be a filmmaker, only to become a real filmmaker exposing the cops; a petty criminal, Caesar aspires to be a movie star, only to turn into a real hero, who becomes a screen legend. And so on.

After Mahaan, Karthik Subbaraj seems to have grown more comfortable propelling his narrative through characters that aren’t conventionally likeable. For a good while, DoubleX is a veritable parade of inglorious bastards, our identification never resting securely with any of them. But despite Karthik Subbaraj’s self-absorbed cinephilia, there’s a naïve idealism at the heart of his films that keeps them from hip cynicism. Part of the idealism comes from the subaltern political assertion, now domesticated thanks to the work of Ranjith and Mari Selvaraj, that DoubleX borrows and gives a unique spin to: cinema cannot defeat oppression, but it can stand witness to it; art cannot fight malevolent power, but it can influence individuals to change the nature of that power.

DoubleX is Karthik Subbaraj’s first film to release in theatres in many years (Mahaan went straight to streaming), so it is perhaps understandable that he turns it into a sentimental ode to the collective movie experience. The notion that a theatre audience can be outraged by images of oppression and moved to action (a lasting legacy of Shankar’s cinema, where cable news and social media become the keepers of public conscience) is so corny and old-fashioned that it is thoroughly impressive in its sincerity. DoubleX presents it almost as a necessary myth for truth to flourish.

It is curious that we get Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) and DoubleX within the span of a month. Very different pictures, but both tackle fraught political subjects with an often stifling piety (although Karthik Subbaraj is capable of inserting an absolutely juvenile punchline in a cop’s mouth in the film’s most harrowing scene), expose cinema’s tendency to “print the legend,” yet refuse to stop at this demystification in order to lay the foundations for truth. The worst rogues in DoubleX use cinema as a medium for political propaganda, but it is also put at the service of justice. The camera is neutral, it is those who wield it that make it good or evil. That, perhaps, is the ultimate myth.

Director Karthik Subbaraj is movie crazy. Like many Tamil filmmakers, he is drawn to intertextuality, but has a temperament that doesn’t allow it to get out of hand in the way it might in a Venkat Prabhu film. It shouldn’t be surprising then that he has cast actor Vikram and his son Dhruv as father and son going at each other in his new work titled Mahaan. It’s an enticing setup: a sparkling Vikram creates a suitable springboard for Dhruv, whose first two ill-fated films came from the cottage industry of Arjun Reddy remakes; performing bits from his father’s classic films, Dhruv reminds us, even if negatively, that talent isn’t inherited.

Vikram plays Gandhi, a middle-aged professor suffocated by his name and the high-minded ideals of his freedom-fighter father. Following the advice of a Randian mendicant (Ramachandran Durairaj), he decides to live out his desires in the company of bar owner Satya (Bobby Simha) and seedy politician Gnanam (Vettai Muthukumar). This betrayal of Gandhian values outrages his wife Nachi (Simran, in a poorly written role), who walks off from his life with their son Dada (Akshath Das). Nursing resentment at this alcohol-driven dissolution of his family, an older Dada (Dhruv) becomes a teetotalling cop to wipe out his wasteful father’s liquor empire.

Like a number of other screenwriters, Karthik Subbaraj is attracted to character pairs, symmetry, mirroring, reversals of roles. This was already obvious in Jigarthanda (2014), whose clever underlying concept had a filmmaker and a gangster trade places. Mahaan abounds with these structural games, which is indeed what sustain the film. The screenplay is divided into clear halves, with Dhruv Vikram making an appearance at the midpoint — a smart ploy that allows his father to shield him for over an hour and lends the film a new lease of energy.

The first half unfolds like a game of rummy; that is to say, through a series of coincidences and lucky accidents. Having cut loose from his regimented life, Gandhi meets business partners Satya and Gnanam (there is some play around their names which respectively mean “truth” and “knowledge”), who, it turns out, are childhood acquaintances. It is hard to buy that this 40-year-old repressed man can so easily ease into one vice after another, but like a round of cards, that is exactly the hand we are dealt. Vikram is fantastic as Gandhi, and despite such radical distortions his character is subjected to, he gives a sense of a coherent person buried beneath all the gaudy shirts and ridiculous coiffure.

As Gandhi keeps leveling up (down) like a debauched game character, Satya has a religious epiphany that makes him gradually distance himself from Gandhi’s dreams of an empire (ba-dum-tsh). This double transition is conveyed through a montage in which images of Satya becoming a born-again Christian are intercut with Gandhi multiplying his murders: a reversal of the Godfather principle. By the end of the film, the two swap places, with Satya reaping the bitter rewards of Gandhi’s bad company.

The second half, in contrast, is a game of chess, where Gandhi’s perfect hand comes undone by his son’s meticulous scheming. If Gandhi’s journey was that of the id unleashed, Dada’s is the return of the superego. A mirror image of his idealistic grandfather, Dada watches over his father even as a child, ferreting out his petty secrets and telling on him. Gandhi and Dada take turns playing father and son, looking out for each other despite their best judgment. They are both introduced (and later developed) through sequences of stylized violence, Dada’s legal killings somewhat amped up to make us wince. Confusing determination with rigidity, though, Dhruv is less than fantastic; it is hard to make out if he is taking a phone call or getting ready to do crunches.

More pairings and reversals: there are two heroes, two friends, two sons, two wives, two weddings, two separations, two telescoped flashbacks to childhood, two scenes of violence in picturesque landscapes. We are in tic territory when even secondary characters seem to have secondary romances going on. Gandhi loses a son figure in the second half, recalling the way he saved one in the first. With age, he grows his hair long as his wife shortens hers. Dada’s revenge on his father is elaborated like a bloody closure to the traumatic scene of his childhood.

These patterns are alluring, and they give solid form to the film’s argument that people who kill for ideology are as vicious, if not more, as people who kill for money, limited as the latter are by their appetite or conscience. But Karthik Subbaraj contrives his screenplay further for these elements to fall in place. A major set-piece in the second half, set in a police bunker designed like an avant-garde theatre set, finds Gandhi and Dada pointing a gun at each other, a cunning image that the whole sequence (and film) seems to be imagined around. But everything in the set-piece before and after this shot shares none of its zing: Dada is elaborately re-established as a sociopath while Gandhi swings from self-effacing helplessness to super-heroic surety and back.

Mahaan is powered by its transitional bits rather than its big scenes, which invariably fall flat. There are three sequences featuring Gandhi and Satya at various stages of their friendship and life. The second of these is poignant, although perhaps redundant, but the other two are quite trying, especially the final one that is set up to resolve another symmetric dilemma: Dada lives if Satya dies and vice versa. An inexplicable scene between Gandhi and his wife Nachi is shoehorned late into the film in order to satisfy the logic of what is to follow.

On the other hand, Mahaan’s tedious passages are also frequently intertwined with its finer qualities. Gandhi’s first fight scene — and I suspect this is where many viewers will take leave of the film — is set in a scenic location surrounded by mountains. As a heavy tries to kill his son with a hammer, Satya cries out in prayer at a crucifix in the distance. Gandhi stops the hammer just as it is about to go down. It’s a rank Tamil movie cliché, but the way it is shot, with Gandhi’s arm jutting out of the sky as if it were the hand of God, shifts the scene’s focus to Satya’s revelation. Unbelievable though the ensuing fight is, there is something in the combination of the locale, Gandhi’s flashy clothes and the pseudo-single shot filmmaking that holds it all together.

As a director, Karthik Subbaraj can often be weird; not weird enough to be creative like Shankar, just weird enough to stick out. He loves his intercutting: the early scene of escalating hysteria where Nachi walks off on Gandhi is finely separated across two groups of actors. The gratuitous quarter hour at the end is split between three spaces and two timelines — a demanding device for the viewer to process. Another effect of modern Tamil films trying to pack 200-minutes worth of narrative into 150: action and dialogue overlapping; we would see items being exchanged across shots while or before we hear about them, as when Gandhi wears his new glasses before we learn that they’re a birthday gift.

Karthik Subbaraj can ask us to make impossible leaps of faith in following Gandhi’s descent into the dumps, but he can also be overly logical in covering his trail, with countless inserts and exchanges whose sole purpose is to cement story gaps. There are fetish images here, like Gandhi with a Tommy gun, but also purely odd ones like Gandhi discarding a movie ticket in the shower drain or a politician literally jumping in joy after having his visitors thrown out. Now that Jai Bhim (2021) has shown us that décor details could be adjusted weeks after a film’s release, Karthik Subbaraj may even consider adding a few more Gandhi photos or crosses in the background.