Scattered Notes on Super Deluxe: Follow-up Exchanges Part 1

[In response to @complicateur]

"people or principle" question சரியா நினைவில்ல. :-) Are you talking about how we as the audience expect the movie to impose certain turns in the situation of characters based on their actions, and the movie actually doesn't? I'm not sure if this film could be characterised as one making this move? After all, 2 of the strands are so dramatic and are of "what are the odds?" variety in the first place. The Leela story coasts along expected lines (not a complaint, just saying it's more about what the characters go through). the Vaembu story on the other hand starts with assuming a really grave situation (via the extreme contrivance that they decide to assume the role of murderers) and there's really no surprise in terms of offsetting our expectations. We expect things to go from bad to worse while we root for them and they eventually survive. And that's pretty much what happens. My point is, the moment you've parallel strands, the audience already expects them to collide and impinge on one another in interesting ways. Here, the oddity (in a simple-minded sense) was that it doesn't even collide all that much and nor is there (i.e. I was unable to find) a broader commentary on how life just chugs along with random mundane events with little sense of justice. A happy closure is brought about in a typical way for all the individual strands. The story of the boys is the one that is attuned to the "fuck it dude, let's go bowling" ethos, esp in the way the film sketches Gaaji as a particularly equanimous presence, but it's weak because their situation is selfconsciously blown out of proportions from the start, unlike the other two.

On Gaaji, oh yeah, I didn't find his character sketch as a whole, impressive at all. But it seemed to me the film does try to privilege his vantage point by having specific moments that suggest he has greater clarity and சமநிலை. Anyway, I highlighted this because it felt like Kumararaja was invested more in this seemingly frivolous story than the other ones. In this story, one could say things take absurd turns but the characters chug along without much success but also without any grave outcomes. What else is actually random as opposed to designed, (in the other strands) is what I was trying to ask. I didn't get your point about the film not taking any position or attempt to show just chaotic things happening.
[Btw, I was also going to mention an example of a character sketched as cool in the face of adversity in above reply, but seems you weren't really talking about that. Mentioning it anyway though I'd say this movie doesn't warrant any comparison at all: Das from Soodhu Kavvum.]

[...]

Yes, to begin with, I don't see the point in digging into these overlapping elements/presences in the different narratives. I'd gladly join the conversation on the Easter eggs if the film as such and its overarching worldview is captivating enough. (Otherwise it merely shows how carefully constructed each moment/image is, which is as it is evident the way Kumararaja has built the film's universe.) I'm curious to hear about more such Easter eggs from a film geek perspective.

[But let me also add that a lot of the connections drawn already seem exaggerated and/or arbitrary. E.g. if Berlin was indeed Thooyavan's father, the film should have left more traces than it actually does. Like most people, when I first heard of this, I wondered if the offscreen voice was anything like Bagavathi Perumal's distinct voice. Incidentally, in my second watch, I felt the voice didn't sound like Bagavathi Perumal and was a bit like it was emerging from a closed space. But then that was a bit similar to how the Berlin character sounds later when he enquires a neighbour about Mugil/Vaembu. Just adding my bit to the mess!]

I'd have liked to write at length about the levels at which I thought the film goes for greater meaning and offers some kind of a piercing commentary and the limits it encounters therein. But I haven't been able to find time to put together my thoughts in a structured piece. Anyway, let me jot down some of these fragments to continue the conversation.

It seems the film tries to alleviate if not cancel the anxiety around human sexuality. Here are some moves in this direction: Leela disarmingly positioning herself as just Leela, Leela's son Soori and his friend laughing off the slur instead of prohibiting it, Mugil-Vaembu striking a rapport at the end without having to reconcile her affair in any particular way, Gaaji seeing "things for what it is" and not going through or put through a guilt-trip. Raasukkutti not being affected by her biological father being a transwoman is implicitly about sexuality but it's not part of the son's gaze, so this probably stands out. I didn't think all of these things are actually very effective in the film but I think it'd be fair to say the film's general impulse lies in this direction and the Manushya Puthiran's (the doctor's) monologue from the porn film, tries to tie these things together in a similar vein. But I'd question - are things that simple? Is it really about people taking it easy and things will be fine? Next to ending one's life, sure, but does the film point to a different horizon other than telling we all and especially those affected should take it easy? How different it is anyway from surrendering oneself to god anyway? Especially the bit about Soori and his friend (Mohan?) laughing it off was egregious because Mohan explicitly invokes the difference between Soori and him when (they talk about how porn stars too have kids and be regular mothers and so on) the former asks "நீ அப்படி நெனச்சுப்பியா டா?" I thought this kind of closure was too pat. It is as if our internal turmoils are too insignificant but this is something we have to work our way out by, well, developing a thick skin. Vaembu also goes through the motions similarly with Mugil. Mugil keeps referring to her morning incident in a jokey way throughout the film and the idea is, well, if she doesn't take it hard, it's all cool! I thought the treatment of this sub-story was too silly beyond a point. (And what annoys me here is how some critics say people around us think like Mugil and the filmmaker has showed how we think and by not punishing Vaembu he has taken her side. I reject this frame of reference. Yes, it is true that Tamil cinema doesn't usually venture beyond generic women characters and the few times it does show a woman having extramarital sex, there can be a good deal of hyperventilation. But why is this the bar? I'd say it becomes important to imagine the scenario authentically *and* free the man and the woman. Here, we only see them on and off, and mostly by way of plot progression and some cutesy "he says, she says" scenes! And Mugil's general reaction to the situation borders on just plain silly. Compare this to, say, how Michael in Iraivi responds - "ஒரு மாதிரி இருக்குதுடி" - about him not knowing what happened when he wasn't around (simple as the moment is; and we know what happened, etc.).

[...]

Regarding Gaaji, I thought the film positions him differently at multiple places, though I didn't think it was a congruous portrait by any stretch. Initially, he seems relatively unfazed by some hindrances at faces but that (and his character) gets muddled up in the scheme of every boy getting his chance to be funny/crack a joke. But later, it becomes more distinct. He faces up to the situation when Idi Amin decides to thrash him (even the latter is a bit impressed). He's the one who sees the alien for what it/he/she/they is/are, which again impresses the alien. He (one of the two, a la "இந்த ரெண்டு காஜில எந்த காஜி எங்க காஜி?") also gets to do a bit of commentary on the doctor in the porn they're about to watch!

Anyway, this is a minor point and it's not like Gaaji's character resonated with me as a congruous one. But regarding his comment being xenophobic, might this not be a bit of a strong judgement? After all, we're talking about Kumararaja where people say all sorts of outrageous stuff. There's quite a bit of stuff about aunties and other people in ஆரண்ய காண்டம், not all of them are seriously critiqued or even rejected though there's some bit of that as well. Even on "சேட்டு", there's this hilarious line in ஓரம் போ (assuming it was his line, etc.): "தாயும் புள்ளையானாலும் வாயும் வயிறும் வேறன்னு ஒரு பழமொழி இருக்குல்ல. அதை மொதல்ல சொன்னதே ஒரு சேட்டு தான்."

But having read and listened to your thoughts about the film's amoral universe, it seems you considered the entire film and all the characters specifically in the light of the "problematic" things that show up in the film, in the sense of "what happens to people who do/say problematic/plain bad things?" I didn't see the film that way. In fact, I thought the film made fairly conventional choices almost everywhere. Vaembu has extramarital sex but it's short-circuited by having the guy dead! The boy's rage at his mother is undercut by him getting injured and his mother giving her all to save him. When Shilpa returns, those who have no direct stake in the immediate family react in the worst possible way but not the immediate ones. (In a film like Varuthapadatha Vaalibar Sangam or Petta, this choice might work as it attempts to critique how the casteist folks around push the parent/spouse/child to a corner. Here one'd think the problem is more intimate.) As I said earlier, the only story that is more abstract and not going along predictable lines is, well, the unruffled story of the boys where nothing bad really happens nor you expect it to. This is incidentally why I don't understand the criticism people have about the appearance of the alien! The strangeness itself is what is good about it. It's not like it's there as a contrivance to solve anything. What happens there? The boys get the money. Are we really saying it's the alien that makes it possible? Aren't there myriad conventional ways in which they could have got the money they wanted?

I found Mysskin's scenario sort of exploring philosophical question of faith also to be fairly prosaic if not conventional. The outcome of his breaking the statue, seemed oddly rushed. For one, because of the film's tone, you don't doubt for a moment that the boy is going to live so it doesn't come off as a saviour per se. And the film doesn't build up enough at all about how they need an impossible amount of money to save him. It looks like all the time Leela and co. are up to something and they're almost there. Even before he finally breaks, his friend comes to his place with some money by selling off his vehicle. The kind of money needs typically associated with hidden diamonds and what they need here seem like entirely different things! I don't mean this as a criticism but just registering the sense I got when I saw the film (both times).

[...]
Also, another really conventional choice that I want to carefully put forth: rape in mainstream cinema serves as a trope for revenge/vigilante narratives, which new age/liberal filmmakers are wary of and avoid/try comment on. Here it just seemed wrong that there are 2 scenes set up in a very similar way and the one with the traditionally attractive heroine is averted (stated differently, her crying and pleading come off as a 'familiar' appeal if I may put it that way, as if to pretty much necessitate the deus ex machina). This a very delicate point, I am obviously not at all suggesting it'd have worked if the film remained a 'truly amoral universe' all through (Berlin's prolonged presence as it is didn't work for me at all). But again, just want to register that this came off as a very conventional choice.

[And to be clear, here, I'm not criticising the film's politics per se, in terms of how it treats its trans character and so on. (Not distancing myself from such criticisms really but I also such criticisms are sometimes misplaced when the consideration is purely about "what happened to the character at the end?") My point is particularly about how the film treats the threat of rape differently in 2 similar sequences in the film.— equanimus (@equanimus)

[...]
Well, my point was not that we shouldn't probe what happens in the narrative, but the backdrop details that are being found don't seem to change the narrative in our eyes in any way. I don't get why everyone is even talking about cause and effect in the first place, when in the film, it's just 2 moments (one of which unfortunately is placed just as a flashback insert). I'm not saying there should have been more (or less for that matter) but it's not clear to me what the presences of these elements/echoes actually mean. About the question of why should the TV fall there, I don't get why there should be an explanation beyond the idea of having a cool coinciding moment Kumararaja seems to have gone for. :-) Even the logic that "the movie has to end" requires a playful meta angle or something.

[...]

Oh, sure, the film is clearly self-conscious of its artifice, its filmy universe. I meant a specific kind of playful angle like "so now we have to come to the end, isn't it?" which I don't think is there. "If the threat to Vaembu had not been averted" Vaembu is portrayed as a nice person all along, which is what really matters. Honestly I don't get the point about possible readings that the film works towards averting. Films end on a happy note and has drastic/bad things happening in between all the time, that in itself won't be meta, would it?

[...]
Ha ha, I return to my earlier point - I think I just didn't look at the film in this specific frame of reference: as specifically about "what scenarios it pushes its characters into for their actions?" In this kind of plotty narrative, something or the other happens all the time. If your point/reading is that the film ensures it doesn't leave room for any simplistic interpretations of "this happens to this person because...", I do kinda see where you're getting at. (Except things don't happen that randomly either.)

[Exchange with @tifoskrishna]

@tifosikrishna: "Philosophical ideas don't cohere" - agreed, but to set up a premise to let us reflect in such morally complex questions is a task in itself. And all the effort/investment was worth it only because of the way movie ended. I liked Dasavatharam for the same reason.

@equanimus: I'd question if the film actually dwelt on the questions (complex or otherwise) it raises. If I were to be a bit more uncharitable, I'd say the film's tongue-in-cheek approach and the overall message of "take it easy, you're insignificant" allows it to say stuff that can't be critiqued seriously because, well, one'd then be taking oneself too seriously! (But to be fair, I wouldn't level this charge on the movie itself, as I'm still curious what the film's sincere position is, but for this kind of a movie, the discussions can go in that direction. :-))P.S.: This is btw why I'm also (as yet) inclined to talk only about the formal and narrative aspects of the film and not its politics or some other weighty considerations like that.