Mani Ratnam¿s Problematic Take On Adoption

hundreds of other Amudhas) and her biological child - with whom she has no wish to maintain contact, much less be reunited. We leave the family there, ostensibly on their way home, with the brat who, in the course of her overwhelming urge to meet her biological mother, stops speaking (!) to the woman who has raised her and been the only mother she has known all her life. Adoption isn¿t a decision that can, or is, taken easily. And to all those childless couples considering it with mixed feelings, this movie becomes a metaphor for their worst fears.

That, however is only a part of the story. The other part is the media coverage of it. Eminent reviewers of even leading papers gave it uniformly splendid ratings. One even called it a superb film that is enriched with many issues - among them, war and adoption. Yes, the director¿s aura probably predisposes them when they sit down to watch his effort. But should something that is made well and packaged even better dazzle the critic with its superficial trappings and intellectual label? Does credibility and content count for nothing at all? The Tamil weekly Ananda Vikatan even carried a cover story that had two adoption activists in a panel discussion which appeared to endorse the film - the manner of presentation was such that the lay reader would never have guessed the purported experts had not seen the movie at all at the time of the discussion (something this writer just happened to stumble upon elsewhere).

There was a great deal else wrong with the film but this isn¿t the place for going into it. To most people for whom adoption is a peripheral non-issue which doesn¿t affect their lives, what this flopped movie said was of no consequence anyway. And then, of course, I had a granny tell me at a family function - "Did you not read the Ananda Vikatan? Didn¿t he say there is only so much time available for telling a story through a movie and therefore he had to show it like that?" Possible evidence that we need never doubt the reach and acceptance of the printed word.

This is not a Mani Ratnam witch-hunt - I have enjoyed more than one of his films, had the privilege of interviewing the man himself and found him to be a completely decent human being. I do, however, have to wonder - does the media, sometimes, report news or create it? Profile icons or generate them? When the readership is wearying of the daily focus on riots and communalism, diseases and overpopulation, failing infrastructure and natural calamities, everybody needs a break. This is where the heroes, not just of celluloid, come in handy.

I once dragged my children halfway across the city for a beach side contemporary puppet show, organized under the aegis of a highly respected foundation promoting heritage. There are many words for the programme to which so many people came (ably aided by a willing media blitz) with such enthusiasm - it was awful, unimaginative and utterly boring. Ask any child and they would have agreed that this emperor was wearing no clothes. The following day¿s papers had a different story to tell - colourful pictures and copy that must have dearly tested the reporters¿ creative skills. Celebrity icons, NGOs, activists, beauty queens, artists, authors, cultural events, heritage movements and sundry other bleeding hearts and "isms", which include the predominant feminism and secularism, are all give a long rope by the media - not just the editors, we all need them to feel good about ourselves. Nevertheless, holy cows are sometimes just so much bull.

Contact:
sridhars@md4.vsnl.net.in

Posted May 3, 2002