.@manojgovind I wanted to respond in some detail to your blog-post on Bala, but didn't have time then, so here goes.

I totally concur with you about Bala satirizing the sacred and poking fun at authorities. His films are always populated with judges, lawyers and other agents of bureaucracy, not to mention the policemen. But I think it's very crucial to note that he does not operate in the Dravidian movement mode at all. The latter is a direct and pointed critique at brahminism and Bala hasn't really followed that mode in his films. The politically conscious film viewers of Tamil lit circles have never really identified it proper in his films. It's no coincidence that his films' politics have always been received with a certain suspicion in these circles. And nAn kadavuL topped it all and was clearly identified as a film with Hindutva leanings. Some people then attributed this to Jeyamohan, who's well known for his Hindu/India sympathies, wrongly so in my reading. The overarching mystique angle, the visceral good vs. evil narrative and the mythical godlike hero are all patently Bala's signature. Jeyamohan is far too rigourous for this sort of stuff.

Consider Sethu, which I think is at its heart a conservative film, as I was arguing with someone the other day. It dealt with the 'problem' of an unmarked Tamil hero falling in love with a brahmin girl. The love story narrative erupts and goes berserk as if the cosmos would rather have anything else happen than the two join hands. This is in a sense the film's repressed kernel. The whole thing dawns on the audience when the girl's father speaks out in anger and frustration towards the end, "indha ezhavukku thAnA dA..." If all that happens in the film is due to mere 'cruel fate,' why does he react the way he does? There's a repressed message against 'காதல்' here, which I'd argue has always gone well with the Tamil audience. (Yes, we love our films with the lead couple overcome all hurdles, join hands and live happily ever after, but we love the failures much more!) Incidentally, I subsequently stumbled upon a piece on Bala's films in Keetru.com that touched upon this among other things:

http://www.keetru.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15337&Itemid=128

His later films to my mind don't allow us to reduce them to such simple readings, though the above piece argues (quite ingeniously at some points) they do. But it must still be noted that they do not espouse the Dravidian ideological framework in the least. For instance, the portrayal of Periyavar in Nandhaa (or at the other end of Highness in Avan - Ivan) is extremely sly and maintains a strong sense of ambivalence towards the character, which at the end of the day can't be accommodated in the Periyarist worldview. In general, the mystic overtone of Bala's films is something that doesn't sit well with a conscious and direct critique of God and the sacred à la the Dravidian movement.

Reply · Report Post