Emergence of the bad guy as hero in Tamil films

IN Media Practice | 03/11/2011

“How long can I keep acting like a good soul?” So goes the punch line in Tamil (“Naanum evvalavu naalthan nallavanave nadikkirathu?”) by Vinayak Mahadevan, the lead role played by Tamil actor Ajith Kumar in his latest super hit film, Mankatha (2011). In the same movie he also says, “Ellarumkettavan,naanrombakettavan”, (everybody is bad, I am very bad). This is a milestone in the career of Ajit Kumar as it is his 50th film.

However, the purpose of this article is not to present a review of the film, but to study the changing trend of ethics in Tamil cinema as indicated in the above punch lines. As we know, cinema makes heavy use of stereotypes. Critics are concerned with how stereotypes negatively affect people's perceptions of themselves or promote socially undesirable behaviour. This article attempts to study the changing pattern of stereotypes in relation to normative ethics.

Likeable hero

Historically Tamil films used to have a clear demarcation between hero and villain. The M.G.R. type films are a good example of this. The stereotyping was so acute that villainous nature itself came to be associated with characters like Nambiar, the yesteryear villain. In fact, the thespian actor shared in interviews his negative experiences with the audience which emanated from his stereotyping. On the other hand the consistent heroic characterisation of M.G.R. helped him to maintain his ‘good image’ and boosted his political career.

The heroism exhibited in films during this era was associated with the ethics of ‘goodness’ which implied siding with victims, fighting for justice, upholding moral values and manifesting exemplary behaviour like abstaining from alcohol and smoking and defending the honour of women, promoting peace and harmony, etc. Villainy was the quality of evil reflecting all the contrary characteristics. The conflict between the two polarities ended in victory for good and punishment for evil. The message for the audience was quite clear, namely, that good souls triumph and evil forces face a fatal end. Hence, heroes were likeable and villains despicable. The films promoted good values and reminded the audience of the absolute principle of right and wrong.

Likeable villain

In course of time the trend changed so that villainy became enjoyable, unique and stylistic from being merely hateful. The veteran actor M.R. Radha may be credited for this shift and making villains likeable. He was an active member of the Dravidian movement, and was known for his critical rationalist views. His uniqueness lay in mixing villainy with satirical comedy. This then began to become an acceptable trend and many other villains too played likable and humorous characters. Rajinikanth and Satyaraj in their initial career, and Prakash raj are popularly known for their unique and appealing mannerism.

A further change was introduced by changes in minor value systems. Rajnikanth who smoked and drank as a villain in the earlier stages of his career continued to do the same as a hero. This introduced a new element and the dislike for a villain could not be strongly associated with what was considered as deviant behaviour as the same was also being displayed by the hero. Some critics hold the view that these characteristics displayed by popular heroes also inspired teh younger generation to emulate them. Nevertheless, all these likeable villains were punished in the climactic scenes to proclaim the assertion of right values.

Later, smoking and drinking became part and parcel of heroism.  Some movies made an attempt to justify the hero’s deviant behaviour while in others they were assumed to be an essential part of his character. For instance in many films starring Sivaji Ganesan, drinking and smoking are shown as a tasty slice of his characterization. However this stopped in 2005 with the Ministry of Health banning cigarette smoking in films. Only then did Rajinikanth give up cigarette smoking in his films.

Emergence of anti-hero

Sometimes heroes play the role of a villain for the sake of variety. In such cases, the actors used to play double roles, one as hero and the other as villain. M.G.R.’s Kudiyiruntha Koil (1968), Rajinikanth’s Billa (1980), Vijay’s Azhagiya Thamizh Magan(2007) can be cited as examples. In such films, the hero-turned-villain cannot be absolutely compared with the stereotyped villains. In every frame, we are reminded that this hero-turned-villain assumes only one of the double roles. Moreover, at the end of the film, this villainy is justified with a story of ‘inevitable’ circumstances that made him villain or a flashback loaded with a feeling of sympathy for him. In case of absence of such justification, the villain, realizing his mistakes and wrongs, will be portrayed as having finally become a good soul. Alternatively a super villain will emerge in the background who has been using the hero-villain as a puppet.

Deviating from this trend, some heroes played the role of a full-fledged villain, which is popularly known as ‘anti-hero’ in filmdom. In other words, they will play the role of a villain as there is no other prominent hero and the entire story centres on the villain. After the phenomenal success of his debut Parasakthi (1952), Sivaji Ganesan surprisingly donned anti-hero roles in movies such as Rangoon Radha (1956), Andha Naal (1954) and Thirumbi Paar (1953). In all such films, though performance of the actor was appreciated, villainy was not made likeable and hence the villain was punished or reformed in the end.

When studying the treatment of the role of villain or anti-hero within the hero’s double-role mode of acting, one notices no change in the trend of the ethical message that ultimately good wins and evil is eradicated. The values behind the principle of good and evil are reinforced.

Justified and likeable anti-hero

Later, however, portraying the characters either as hundred per cent good or bad became increasingly outdated. Earlier, the treatment of good and evil used to be in absolute terms. But now, in contrast, by crossing the boundary of this absolute perfection, anti-hero films set a new trend. Studying certain genre of gangster movies and anti-hero films that mushroomed in the last decade, the characterization of the lead role lacks the standard characteristics and stereotyped moral values of a hero. Yet, the so-called hero becomes a likeable anti-hero, because he is a protagonist too. In general, the protagonist is often referred to as the ‘good person’ or hero. As a result the ‘anti-hero protagonist blends the characteristics of a villain and a hero.

In this context, the obvious struggle of the audience to synthesize anti-heroism with protagonism is set right, as his deviant behaviour and characteristics are convincingly and sympathetically justified from his personal point of view. As a result, one gets the impression that the justified overtakes unjustified evil. The characterization of Karthi in Parutthi Veeran (2007), Jeevan in Thottaa (2008) and Hari Kumar in Madurai Sambavam (2009) are some examples.Here there is an obvious challenge to universal ethics. For instance, killing an enemy is made out to be a component of courageous act for an anti-hero. Such killings are justified from personal point of view. As a result, ethics related to killing becomes relative and contingent. Secondly, the audience has no choice of opting for good or evil. The only choice left is between either justified or unjustified evil. Thirdly, no discussion of ethics arises as these genres of films are glorified as a package of realism.*

Unjustified and likeable anti-hero

Coming back to Mankatha, it goes one step ahead in changing the trend of ethics. The story revolves around a mafia gang of five men involved in gambling during IPL cricket and executing a heist of betting money. This anti-hero episode conveys the message that one can indulge in any evil act for the sake of money and that money is superior to moral values, moral characteristics and human relationships.

The anti-hero is likeable, though his actions are not justified. Obviously, the director makes no attempt to justify it either. Moral conscience has no role to play, as money motive dominates the screenplay. The question of ‘how to successfully loot money’ is the prime issue and it is well addressed. The usual social concern of the hero becomes obsolete. The success of the movie lies not only in the box office collection, but the message being strongly sent to the audience. This film may be looked upon as a trend setter as more producers and directors are bound to copy this portrayal.

And now let us return to the two punch lines of Ajit Kumar. It is significant to note that the film was released after he dissolved all his fan clubs and he did not have to confirm to the stereotyped expectations of his fan clubs which had the dream of making him a politician. He is also relieved from the burden of cinematic ethics and related image building activity. The above mentioned punch dialogues can, therefore, be interpreted to mean that Ajit Kumar is bored of acting like a good man and proudly proclaims that he is `too’ bad.

In this respect, it is interesting to situate the message of the film in the context of the anti-corruption campaign launched by Anna Hazare. Unlike their North Indian and national counter parts, the Media in Tamil Nadu was only moderately excited about the Lokpal Bill debate. Ironically the same media which upheld the anti-corruption slogan of Hazare was thrilled by the message of Mankatha. In fact, the media hardly read the ironical link between Mankatha (upholding evil) and Hazare (protesting against the evil of corruption).

(The author is Programme Director of Media Education in IDEAS (Institute of Development Education, Action and Studies), Madurai)

* “The term realism comes from a literary and art movement of the nineteenth century which went against the grand tradition of classical idealism and sought to portray ‘life as it really was’. ….However, because the narrative of closure of these films tends to provide easy solutions, this form of realism on the whole serves only to naturalize social problems and division and not provide any deep insight.” Hayward, Susan. Key Concepts in Cinema Studies, Routledge, London, 2004, p. 311.

Reference :
1. Hayward, Susan. Key Concepts in Cinema Studies, Routledge, London, 2004

2. Nichlos, Bill. Movies and Methods – Vol -I, Seagull Books, Calcutta, 1993

3. Nichlos, Bill. Movies and Methods – Vol -II, Seagull Books, Calcutta, 1993

4. http://www.sagepub.com/mcquail6/PDF/Chapter%201%20-%20The%20SAGE%20Handbook%20of%20Media%20Studies.pdf, 22.10.2011