After running at myriad film festivals all over the world, the Telugu film Vanaja is opening as a commercial release in New York this weekend; it will be opening more broadly around the U.S. in the next month.
Vanaja is an art film, which is to say, the director, Rajnesh Domalpalli, doesn’t come out of the “Tollywood” world of commercial Telugu cinema (he actually has an M.F.A. from Columbia, and the script for this film was submitted as his Master’s Thesis). Domalpalli’s primary actors are nearly all amateurs — people he found on the street. Carnatic music and Kuchipudi dance play important, but not overwhelming, roles in the film, and even there, it appears the actors actually spent months training in these rigorous arts.
This is a film about caste and class relations in a village setting, but Domalpalli doesn’t take the familiar route seen in many other films about village life (i.e., villagers are exploited, landowners are inherently evil). Here, the rich people, though they do not always behave sympathetically, are as human and complex as Vanaja herself. I don’t want to get too bogged down in plot, but suffice it to say that the romance in the film follows a surprising course.
Throughout, Domalpalli pays very close attention to details, including sets and staging, and the result is a film that feels very natural, yet is full of visual pleasures. The colors are rich, though not unrealistically so, and the acting is much better than one would expect from an all-amateur cast and a novice director.
I’m very curious to know how this film might be received in India, in particular in Andhra Pradesh. Unlike the films of, say, Deepa Mehta, who I’ve now come to feel makes her movies primarily for western audiences, Domalpalli’s Vanaja might actually be popular with Desi viewers. (My mother-in-law, who is visiting us from Bombay, liked it.)
One other thing, since Anna (rightly) wants us ignorant northies to learn a bit more about South Indian culture, the set of cymbals on the right side of the photo above is called a Nattuvangam. (The word of the day is Nattuvangam. Say it. Good.) Though I’m a little confused, because this site defines Nattuvangam a little differently; I gather that “Nattuvangam” refers both to the cymbals and to the act of conducting the dance by playing the cymbals?
Ardy, If you do go would like to hear what you think.
I agree, but its unfair to compare him with the film makers of previous generation. He is one of the best in the Hindi film industry. But, if you compare him with the commercial filmmakers of his generation from regional films, he is pretty mediocre.
BTW, I consider Nagesh Kukunoor as a commercial filmmaker.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004699.html#comment163594
sollu kattu is thamizh and the language that the original sadir dancers spoke before it all became bharata natyam. this is what those calls are called.
nattuvangam is the process/practice of doing this sollu kattu. nuttuvanar is the person who does the nattuvangam and also was the dance instructor. traditionally were men but now women do it as well. i too want to know what those cymbals are called. tala ot talam is keeping time but these things should have a name.
can someone give a plot summary of Vanaja?
i’m from kerala, hubby is from andhra and he’s been trying to say pazham (banana) for 18 years now :-))
i will say this about films in general, no matter what country they come from (and i’m sure i’ll get all kinds of mean comments and arguments, but that’s OK). i’ve been somewhat of a ‘discriminating film viewer’ all these years thinking esp that most of the worst films came out of bollywood, tollywood (telugu), and of course hollywood.
now, having moved to india from the US a few months ago, i realise that both groups of filmmaking (high art and mass commercial appeal) need to exist. i can’t honestly think that a day labourer in a village who can’t write his/her own name really wants to see dor. or water. i just asked my maid (let’s not get into an argument over that either please) and she said, why? they have no songs or anything.
i agree with the person who said that a lot of the “good” indian movies are good by comparison. but the karan johars of the world are the ones who give the average indian his or her entertainment. and seeing what i see here every day, believe me, they sorely need it. so that’s OK in my books. and while i find the invasion/success of the lord of the rings, star wars, harry potter, dhoom etc unfathomable, i’m sure many of you out there can elucidate the finer points (and i’m not talking about hritik’s or aishu’s abs)of these series’.
every movie isn’t for everyone. i recently saw ‘unni – life is all about friends’ and LOVED it (but then, i’m from kerala). and in talking to the director murali nair afterwards and hearing how difficult it is to get any distributer to touch films like this (though his first 2 won prizes at CANNES!, the question would be, how many people can relate to these movies? sure, an educated, well-read, culturally aware crowd, or maybe a malayalee crowd (even that’s doubtful), but your average north indian? even your average south indian from another state? it’s a small group we’re talking about.
that doesn’t mean what happens is right. it most certainly is not. and the bollywood crap that’s getting so much press ex-india these days is tragic. but all kinds of people exist and someone makes movies for them. and
cb: this is the summary from the film’s official website, http://www.vanajathefilm.com
Set in rural South India, a place where social barriers are built stronger than fort walls, VANAJA explores the chasm that divides classes as a young girl struggles to come of age.
Vanaja (Mamatha Bhukya) is the 14 year-old daughter of a poor, low caste fisherman, struggling with dwindling catches and mounting debt. When a sooth-sayer predicts that she will be a great dancer one day, she goes to work in the house of the local landlady, Rama Devi (Urmila Dammannagari), in hopes of learning Kuchipudi dance while earning a keep.
She is hired as a farmhand, and her vivacious ways and spunk soon catch the landlady’s eye: when she is entrusted with tending the chicken, she’s caught, instead, chasing them into a general pandemonium, and lying unabashedly to conceal her pranks. To keep her out of trouble, Rama Devi promotes her to a kitchen underhand, where she comes up against the old, crusty and extremely loyal Radhamma (Krishnamma Gundimalla) – Rama Devi’s cook.
It isn’t long before Vanaja gets herself invited to play a game of ashta chamma against Rama Devi. Seeing that losing isn’t the mistress’s forte, Vanaja deliberately gives up her game – a fact that doesn’t go unnoticed – and which eventually secures her the landlady’s mentorship – first in music, and then in dance. Vanaja excels at the art, and seems to be on a steadily ascending path when Shekhar (Karan Singh), Rama Devi’s 23 year old son – handsome, muscular and rather insecure, returns from the US to run for local political elections.
Sexual chemistry is ignited between Shekhar and Vanaja (still a minor at 15), as flirtation and innuendo bloom. But, the situation suddenly turns ugly when Vanaja’s superior intellect pits her against Shekhar in a public incident which ultimately humiliates him in front of his mother. Matters escalate, spiraling downwards and she is pitched into a tale of class, family and animus from which there is only one escape.
AMardeep, Jay – thanks for the info on where its playing in DC.
Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy…”you will be a great dancer”…”oh, I guess I better start taking some lessons then”…
Meenu, what’s wrong with the Lord of The Rings movies?
like i said, there’s something out there for everyone. i don’t get it, but that doesn’t mean anything.
i love mafia shit (incl shootout at lokhandwala and vikram chandra’s sacred games). if you like LOTR, more power to ya!
Well, I have never been a big fan of sports movies due to the predictability of the plot. The plot here too was quite predictable (Chak De India reminded me of Hoosiers), but what I really liked was that he has indeed covered a lot of issues inherent in Indian teams like player jealousy, senior airs, coach nepotism, official disinterest, etc without seeming to trying to do too much or over dramatizing those issues (except at a few places). Plus also he has not been shy about bringing out a lot of Indian stereotypes in a casual way(Madrassi for all South Indians, treating people from the NE as foreigners, people thinking NE women are easy, a belief that Muslims are not loyal to India, treating indigenous adivasi people as second class citizens, male stereotypes of women, all important things which a lot of mainstream movies don’t touch upon). I think all this gave the movie an additional depth lacking in most sports movies. I also liked SRK who I am not a big fan of, he was quite reserved and except a few places did not go overboard which was a pleasant surprise and also Shilpa Shukla.
Of course, the movie had issues – some melodrama being the biggest, painting various non main characters quite stereotypically (the cricketer, the husband, the officials, the basti wale), the scenes where they show SRKs issues with his mohalla got on my nerves and seemed too false/immature. But for a commercial movie and a sports one at that bounded by all their constraints, I guess it’s decent.
Or maybe like most Indian audiences I have got too dumbed to really expect too much. Thus when out comes a movie like CDI or RDB which is marginally better than the usual crap despite all it’s faults, I too think it’s not so bad. Plus of course maybe it’s hypocritical but I different benchmarks for a mainstream movie (targeted to the masses) and a art house one. Or maybe I went in with expectations that were too low and so when it was not as bad as I imagined, I just came away not feeling too unhappy about it.
The comments on this thread really proved to me : like of dislike a particular film is so totally a matter of individual taste.I loved “Dor ” and thought Gul Panag was amazing. After a very long time, “Dor” was one Hindi film that I had no qualms in recommending to others.I can watch LOTR again and again. Karan Johar/Aditya Chopra/Sooraj Barjatya may make weepy sagas but I cannot forget standing in line to buy tickets to DDLJ in Mumbai and coming away deeply satisfied at being entertained for 3 hrs! I am quite unashamedly unapologetic about it.( Yes ,I also watched HAHK and bougth tickets froma scalper to do so !)
Yesterday,”First Blood” was playing on cable for the nth time and my husband was watching it for the “nth” time and I can only wonder for the nth time why that movie was ever made .See,its all a matter of taste !
I forgot to comment about this movie. Though I haven’t seen it, after watching the trailers and clips on youtube, I get the feeling that, Rajnesh Domalpalli might have been influenced by the great Telugu Filmmaker K Vishwanath. His film Saptapadhi, dealt Class/Caste issues with classical dance as the backdrop.
Sure. But movies can be considered poorly made independent of their appeal to aam junta. Bollywood films tend to be melodramatic, written by someone with little idea of story telling, poorly directed, poorly shot (although that has improved somewhat lately), and edited by the producer’s 6 year old child as a first grade project. And yet they entertain billions of people. Good for them, I say. But please don’t classify bollywood crap as good cinema.
Junta has eaten a gazillion hamburgers at McDonald’s, but that does not make it good food. Why then should we think that movies with mass appeal have to be good? The bottom line is: Bollywood movies are nonsensical junk, and people like it that way.
Did I really do that? Please read my comment again- at no point did I defend anything as good cinema.However,I do think that context matters .Bollywood is primarily created for the Indian audience.Please don’t tell me that you or I have a great understanding of what is “good” or “bad” for the aam junta that you seem to show disdain for. This is an audience that graduated from nautanki/Ram lila /narrative story telling to film .Some carryover of the melodrama is to be expected and yes, appreciated by that audience at least.
Hindi movies are made to entertain. Very, very few of them are made to educate.My point was just that. I don’t defend Bollywood as great cinema and I do not turn my nose up at all Bollywood either
Whats wrong with Melodrama?, Desis are pretty melodramatic in real life too. Desi weddings are a prime example of how melodramtic we are! BTW, I prefer Bollywood melodrama over cold-hearted intellectual spiel that comes out of Hollywood 😉
I think melodramas are fun and entertaining. The absurd too is fun sometimes (Vijaykant/Rajni/Mithun is quite entertaining when one is in the right mood) However, I think the problem is not that we have melodrama but that a bulk of our movies are of a particular type while other genres are not explored enough. Art being an imitation of life and all that jazz, one would get the impression Indians have a very one track life 🙂
melodrama. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.: A drama, such as a play, film, or television program, characterized by exaggerated emotions, stereotypical characters, and interpersonal conflicts.
Do you mean to say that all us desis display exaggerated emotions etc. 1.2 billion of us and we can find so few stories to tell?
Btw, I have penetrated your clever disguise indianoguy . You are a hollywood flack, aren’t you … 🙂
Thank goodness. Because art that is made to educate usually turns out to be neither educational nor very satisfying as art. As for the entertainment value of hindi movies, clearly many, many people find them entertaining, and that’s great. It sustains an industry which provides jobs, creates financial value, supports the mafia etc.
None of that answers my question as to why does it have to be that what most people like must be called good? I think my McDonald’s example was an apt one. I don’t think any less of people if they eat fast food (they may be too poor to buy better food), but that is not good food by any metric.
Which gets to me to role of ‘context’ in evaluating ‘good vs bad’. Unfortunately, in the absence of further explanation context is such a vague word. Here’s an example of how argument by context can be misleading. Ray’s films are the finest celluloid depictions of des as it really is. You would expect that because of context, no one but desis would get his films. And yet, cinephiles from Japan to Europe consider him to be one of the best humanist filmmakers ever. To say that ‘desi villagers have just graduated from nautanki/ram lila to movies so what else do you expect’, just sets up low expectations for a pretty big class of people.
You don’t defend bollywood as great cinema but you don’t turn up your nose at it either. Why not have the courage of your convictions and say that bollywood is crap. Because of a sense of egalitarianism? This sense of identification with aam aadmi is a little misplaced. No one on this board can be considered a ‘typical’ desi. Among other things, a typical desi does not have a computer, an internet connection, and leisure time to indulge in arguments on cinema.
Because I do not think it is “crap”.You want me to have the courage of your convictions and I can’t do that!
The nearest parallel I can draw is: I can admire great art ( and do!).But that does not mean my home is decorated with copies of old masters( it is not).Similarly,I can appreciate truly great cinema but I love watching Bollywood.That means I do watch some awful stuff at times but I also watch and enjoy Dor,Sarfarosh, Rang De Basanti and old goldies like Guru Dutt movies,Padosan ,Anand etc etc and those were commerical hits – not art cinema. You may consider it crap – thats your prerogative -but I did enjoy K3G ( along with the rest of the des!.
I think you and I have a basically different approach to this : evidently, you feel that time should not be spent on cinema or food unless its great.I do not.Sometimes a Big Mac fills the spot that a 5 star meal does not
🙂
Interesting discussion. Can’t help but copy and paste Jai Arjun Singh’s interview w/ Vikram Chandra (link).
just as long as you didn’t enjoy kank! this is an example of a movie that actually had potential (despite its formulaic and somewhat borrowed plotline) but whose director seemed to sabotage it with a heavy hand. i also had a hard time figuring out what sort of audience it was trying to ‘touch’…
in general, though, i think the theatre-going experience is very different for different segments of indian society – for many people, it’s not such a frequent event, such that what they value in that experience might be more comfort, or escapist, than anything else. as in shodan’s quote, the different strata of classes evaluate their films differently, such that good and bad can truly be subjective. i think a movie is not necessarily bad so long as it succesfully conveys what it set out to; i would never recommend harold & kumar to, say, my parents, nor would i put it on a ‘top 10’ film list – but it was supposed to make me laugh, and it did a great job. and honestly, humour, or any other sort of entertainment, has a certain value that even the most undeniably ‘good’ films cannot rival.
ak, I did not for much the same reasons as you.Infidelity is such a nuanced subject and KJ tramped all over it in hobnailed boots.The characters were completely undeveloped and SK hammed it horribly through the movie.I found it impossible to develop any sort of empathy with any of the characters.
ak, Runa, it sounds like the difference between enjoying high-art films and rom-coms. One can be “crap” from an art perspective, but who cares? Sometimes we all need a good pick-me-up. Runa, you already know that K3G makes me cry, so I’ll stop now before I get all misty-eyed 🙂 That said, I do think there are films that are able to touch on both elements — for example, my parents and I totally love Hustle & Flow. It’s hard to call one bad or good unless you’ve already agreed on the metrics for goodness and badness.
This is profound in its simple truth. I wish more people in India would question the education (or at least its underlying cultural assumptions) they receive.
I always feel this way about Preiti Zinta, gorgeous as she is. And Kajol. Their relentless screeching oh I mean nuanced performances, to me are like someone scratching their nails on a chalkboard. I always end up hating the character they’re portraying.
What? Even in “Kya Kehna” or”Laksh”( Preity) or “DDLJ” or “Fanaa” or ” Baazigar”( Kaajol)? tsk,tsk …;-)
I know … when you have to have a double-double animal style, you can’t be satisfied with a single. I eat it and enjoy it but I don’t call it good food.
You are mistaking my basic argument so here it is stripped of all subtleties: Enjoy whatever you please, just don’t call it good/great unless it meets some standards. And if you think something is good, it makes for good ‘adda’ if you can provide some solid arguments for it, than saying – ‘all of des liked it’.
[ The you in the above para (except the first one) is a generic you; it doesn’t address you, Runa. Just so this discussion does not take too personal a turn. ]
See this is what I don’t get. Why do we think good masala films have to be crap from an art perspective, or why are art films considered good even if they are unwatchable? There are good films that engage an intelligent viewer, and bad films that don’t.
For example, every cinephile has to pay homage at the altar of Godard. I find that most of his films are unwatchable, even if they have some formal innovations in them which make film students go weak in the knees. Similarly, later Fellini’s are so self indulgent, but ‘good’ art film nonetheless.
Then we have masala films such as early Dharmendra rom-coms (you know, the ones set in Simla or such, with a gaggle of yound co-eds …) which are tightly scripted, unfussily shot, and well paced. ‘Jaane Bhi Do Yaro’ was another fantastic film which straddled art and comedy successfully. All masala (no education here, Runa … 🙂 but such fun to watch.
The only recent desi film I have seen which I can recommend with few reservations is ‘Khosla ka Ghonsla’. Needs some editing, but great fun as it is. A little more polish and its director, Dibakar Banerjee, might be another Hrishikesh Mukherjee.
ardy at 72: how could you link that???? i am craving a good old fashioned american burger RIGHT NOW! and indian mcdonald’s don’t count!
—–Enjoy whatever you please, just don’t call it good/great unless it meets some standards.
But who gets to set the standard of what is good/great?
OK, the only one I saw of those was DDLJ….I’m not a huge Bolly fan, watch maybe 3 or 4 ‘desi fillums’ per year, at the most. I do want to see Dor now that you’ve praised it so much. Last night they were showing Dushman on TV, another piece of crap, but the performance by Ashutosh Rana as the villain was amazing. The talent is definitely there…it just needs the right encouragment. Better writers, better directors, and most of all, a more demanding audience. By the way, Sanjay Dutt has aged tremendously in the past 10 years.
McD in india is much cooler than in ny.
Favorite current male actor: Aamir Khan.
Favorite current female actor: In terms of talent, probably Rani Mukherjee. In terms of looks (I know most of you won’t agree) Neha Dhupia and Tabu (yes I like my tagdiyan lammiyan kudiyan).
puli: not if you’re craving beef :-)) sad i know, but what to do…
pizza hut here kinda kicks ass! much better than chicago.
fave female actor – nandita das and has been for years…beauty (oh god, she’s gorgeous in real life without makeup too) and brains (check out…well, any of her movies)
fave male actor – saifu (check out being cyrus, parineeta) and oh so HOT!
There are “few stories” being told in regional cinema, you just have to look for them. There are quite a few filmmakers in Telugu and Tamil, who make commercial films which are realistic. I am sure there are a few in other languages as well.
You got me there!. I am also an undercover CIA agent, looking for Osama on Sepia Mutiny 😉
quite a few malayalam films are realistic and the actors look like real people. full of pathos and humour. don’t know if that will translate into the subtitles, but worth a shot.
Re Chak De India
Took my daughter, sister, nephew, friend, and his little kids to see Chak De on Sat night. Most fun I had was my 7-year old saying, “that was the best movie of her life”.
She said too after being taken to “Ta Ra Pum Pum” two months and I was lying trembling on the couch and my husband was handing me 3 painkillers and a glass of water.
BUT, I didn’t have a painful headache after CDI.
sp
Forgot to mention one more thing.
Chak De India is SRK’s Lagaan.
But, Lagaan is not touchable in my opinion.
sp
here’s an example of nattuvangam from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cSOGfNryD4, 01:23 to 01:28 and 01:31 to 01:45 and 02:00 to 02:33. For northies :-), it is equivalent to a kathak dancer’s recital of tabla bols.
correcting the link in previous post
an example of nattuvangam from youtube, from 01:23 to 01:28, 01:31 to 01:45 and 02:00 to 02:33.
we indians are melodramatic. there is too much emphasis in the west on subtlety and nuance. doggie don’t roll like that. an example i can use is, when someone dies in the west, people wear a black suit and are sombre and make polite talk. In India, people wail. Like really loudly. And when they are carying the body to a cremation/burial ground, people dance on the street. you get drunk and dance as you walk ur dead relative to their final resting spot cos they got lucky and died and you still got that bitch of a life to live.
looks interesting, i may check it out this weekend. must send the info to my former kuchipudi teacher… i wonder if she’s heard about it yet from any other sources? (ohh btw Saagara Sangamam is pretty much a must-see, as has been mentioned) ‘cos honestly, most NRIs don’t wanna see stuff like this. my mom and her friend had no idea what i was talking about when i brought it up, and they’re both verrrry involved with the telugu community around here. perhaps mr. domalpalli (hah! such a telugu name!) could use some better advertising (though it seems that it’s screening pretty well anyway). the other thing is, this is a ‘serious’ movie dealing with serious issues (a.k.a. reality) about stuff that’s wrong in Indian society that most NRIs don’t want to deal with–they’d rather talk about how great India is becoming, especially with the high-tech boom in Hyderabad, blah blah blah. the synopsis doesn’t sound very family-friendly either (though honestly i would never ever take my kids to see most telugu movies anyway… such violent, sexist crap with shady morals-of-the-story to boot).
the sad part is, my mother (and assorted relatives and family friends) would call themselves TOTAL movie buffs. i think it’s sad, that my mother has seen that many crappy movies in her life. because that’s what most commercial telugu movies are… crap. the recent one that’s been getting a lot of buzz is Yamadonga. I had the privilege (not) of seeing it, and umm while it is different in terms of the use of old-school Telugu dialogues, ‘period’ sets and costumes for part of the movie, special effects, etc., I was waiting for the movie to be over for most of it. (My parents loved it though.) Also, can this actor not make a single damn movie without invoking his grandfather’s name?! (NTR, a classic)
oh yeah my main beef with Yamadonga was that it was SO.GODDAMN.SEXIST. and blatantly objectifying. i know, i shouldn’t be surprised, but this movie just took it to a whole new low. uggggh still waiting for gender relations in telugu movies that make me not want to poke my eyes out it’s ironic considering that the south (or at least andhra pradesh) generally never had as much of an entrenched macho-man-patriarchy as the north did, i believe.
I kinda agree with you, but there are some decent movies compensating for the crappy ones. BTW, Tollywood is a prolific film industry, it pops out almost as many movies as Bollywood does. Thats the basic problem with commercial cinema. Whether it is Hollywood, Bollywood or Tollywood..90% of the movies are crap!
ha ha..lucky me..I missed that one, I sensed it would suck big time.
There are loads of films in the past, which dealt with caste/class issues and gender equality. In the present lot, I think ChandraSekhar Yeleti, Sekhar Kammula and Krishna Vamsy make socially relevant films (within mainstream commercial cinema).
indianoguy, i don’t know that many directors’ names so i looked up their filmographies, and have only heard of Godavari and seen Ninne Pelladatha (though I’m guessing that was a more mainstream venture to begin with). i’m seriously beginning to think my family members are mentally deficient somehow, watching such crap and calling it good! (they said the same of Rajnikanth’s Sivaji shudder) i will look into those directors’ work. the stuff my parents watch, though… they still haven’t completely learned how to frame different types of shots in one scene. and the 50-somethings still act as college students. that’s how bad they are.
oh one commercial film I liked recently was Bommarillu. good acting, no black-and-white over-the-top villain, family-friendly moral, good songs, ORIGINAL STORYLINE (to india at least… ‘free-spirited girl loosens up frigid guy’ has been done a million and one times in Hollywood, plus of course it added the family angle in the Indian version), the female character actually matters! and has a personality! etc.
Sekhar Kammula’s Anand and Godavari both have strong female protagonists. Same with ChandraSkehar Yeleti’s films, Aithe and Anukokunda oka roju.
thanks for the recommendations, will check them out! that reminds me, jagapathi babu’s movies are usually decent. he seems like a nice guy too 🙂
for all of you who have lamented the lack of (competitively) ‘good’ cinema, here are a few movies (incl. regional and western collaborative films) to look forward to.