Agraharathil Kazhuthai (1977)
Director: John Abraham; Producer: John Abraham, Charlee John; Cinematographer: K. Ramachandra Babu, Ananda Kuttan; Editor: Ravi; Cast: M.B. Srinivasan, Swathi, Srilalitha, Gopali, Veera Raghavan, Narasimham, Thillai Rajan, Krishna Raj, Raman, Rajan
Duration: 01:35:40; Aspect Ratio: 1.333:1; Lightness: 0.262; Volume: 0.171; Cuts per Minute: 7.870
Summary: Abraham’s 2nd feature, his only one in Tamil, is an acid satire told in an innovative, surreal narrative style making excellent use of repetitions for comic effect, on brahminical bigotry and superstition. It was shot around Kunrathur near Chingelpet and at the Loyola College in Madras. A donkey strays into the brahminical enclave in a village and is adopted as a pet by Prof. Narayanaswami (Srinivasan). Ridiculed by his caste fellows, he asks the mute village girl Uma (Swathi) to look after it. When the girl’s stillborn baby is deposited outside the temple, the donkey is blamed and killed. Guilt then induces the priests to start seeing miracles. The dead donkey becomes an object of veneration and is ritually burned. In a symbolic sequence recalling Bunuel, the fire spreads and engulfs the entire village. Only the girl and the professor survive. Although Brahmin bigots tried to have the film banned, it is more a morality fable about innocence (Abraham claimed Bresson’s Au Hasard Balthazar, 1966, as an inspiration) and guilt, recalling parts of Ajantrik (1957) by Abraham’s FTII teacher Ghatak. Although the film received a national award, the Tamil press ignored the film. Even in late 1989, Doordarshan thought it prudent to cancel a scheduled TV screening.
censor certificate
John Abraham made Agraharathil Kazhuthai after five years of his first film
Vidyarthikale Ithile Ithile. The film was inspired by Robert Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar and Glauber Rocha's films.
John, in an interview, has said his application to Film Finance Corporation (now NFDC) for a loan to make the film was rejected after John refused to change the film's title which was found offensive. Later, he got financial support from his sister Susan Joseph to complete the film. (Apparently, John got the money from Susan saying he was going to make a documentary on a Bishop, but invested the money in "Donkey", and later justified his action by saying: 'a donkey is better than the Bishop anyway'!: John's interview with Kakkanadan).
The film was distributed in Kerala by Janashakthi Films - a production and distribution company launched by the CPM with the money collected from people;
P Govinda Pillai was its first president and advocate Jayapala Menon its secretary. Janashakthi rented off-beat films, exhibited them in theatres and made them available for film societies in the region.
As its production ventures didn't succeed, Janashakthi tried to reduce its losses by exhibiting the 16mm prints of the films, which it had the distribution rights for, in festival and fair grounds. Janashakthi has the ambitions of making Mrinal Sen direct a film on Kayyur movement.
For those who are interested in more on Janashakthi films: Janashakthi Films
started as an initiative by the CPI(M), in association with Deshabhimani Study Circle, in order to attract the youth fascinated by the new enthusiasms especially in and around cinema during the 1970s that manifested in the forms of film society movements, attempts to spread political literacy through international cinema, search for new aesthetics in cinema-making, etc. Chathunni Master, then the Party’s State Secretariat member and a leading figure of the Deshabhimani Study Circle, in consultations with the Left ideologue P Govindapillai, conceived Janashakthi in the context of the emerging film literacy movements in Kerala during the 1970s.
On Jan 25, 1977, it got registered as Janashakthi Films Pvt Ltd as per the Companies Act of 1956. It sold its 118 shares for Rs. 5000 per each, to around 40 people; set up an office near Town Hall in Ernakulam; Advocate Jayapala Menon was appointed its managing director.
Janashakthi was instrumental in the distribution of films like Mrinal Sen’s Bhuvan Shome, and Ek Din Prathi Din, Khatak’s Subarnarekha, B V Karanth’s Chomanadudi, Girish Kasaravalli’s Ghatashradha, Ray’s Pather Panchali, and Apur Sansar, P Lankesh’s Pallavi, Bhim Singh’s Oru Nadikai Nadam Parkkinal, Kutishai, Shyam Benegal’s Bhoomika, and Manthan, etc. in Kerala, in theatres and through film societies. It brought the “outright” of many award winning unreleased films like Agraharathil Kazhuthai, Bakkar’s Kabani Nadi Chuvannappol, G S Panicker’s Ekakini. Ekakini happens to be the only film that brought Janashakthi some profit – the film was bought at its production cost of Rs 1.25 lakhs. Apparently, the practice of showing award winning films as ‘Noon Show’s at Ernakulam Kavitha theatre – one of the first to start the practice – began with the screening of Ekakini. (Adoor Gopalakrishnan’s Chithralekha had initially brought the distribution rights of the film and had helped G S Panicker by paying the money required for completing its post-production works in Chennai. However, the release was getting delayed indefinitely.)
Janashakthi brought the rights of Agraharathil Kazhuthai by paying Rs 2.5 lakhs when the Brahmin community’s opposition in Tamil Nadu had made sure the film was not released in the theatres in the state, and after it was even denied a screening slot in Doordarshan even after it winning the national award.
In the film festival that Janashakthi Films organized in 1978 from Oct 20-26 at Ernakulam Kavitha and Shenoys theatres, it screened films like Mrinal Sen’s 1977 Telugu film like Oka Oori Katha, Jack Gold’s Aces High (1976; English), Agraharathil, Alain Resnais’ Stavisky… (1974), Shyam Benegal’s Bhoomika, Sergei Bondarchuk’s They Fought For Their Motherland (1975; Russian), Girish Kasaravalli’s Ghatashradha, etc.
Janashakthi also had plans to set up outdoor units, post production units as well as mini theatres in towns in Kerala. Upon the influence of Janashakthi, the party started Yugashakthi in Tamil Nadu Navashakthi in Karnataka, under the chairmanship of Jayapala Menon.
The invocation of the all-purifying, all-powerful fire is something the film comes back to at the end, when the fire consumes the Brahmin neighbourhood.
The film is taken in the format of a fable. Interviews with John suggest that he was very satisfied with the cinematic form that he achieved in the film.
John was perfectly aware of the shocking effects his works produced on many quarters of the public; indeed, one might say he almost revelled in it.
One of John's concerns was to make intelligent films without the intellectual aura around them. In fact, in many interviews, John takes 'an anti-intellectual stance' especially when speaking about cinema-making. This irreverence reflects vividly in this sequence. Later, John came to be known as people's filmmaker, or as the only serious filmmaker who managed to 'connect with the people'.
Excerpts from
interview with John: "Everyone has the right to watch and
appreciate a film in the way s/he pleases. I can talk about my approach. I don’t adopt a Brechtian approach to facts. For us Indians, the affective domain is more important. My approach to cinema is more affective than intellectual. I’m particular that people watch my films. Otherwise, it means as a director I have not succeeded."
(...)
Question: Can we consider your film as a criticism of intellectual cinema?
John: "Perhaps. Like I said already, I don’t adopt an intellectual approach to things. We must learn to see life with an open mind. We must take into account emotions and “sentiments”. I am very “sentimental” in many matters; and I am not embarrassed to admit that in public. I will cry loud when my mother or my child dies. What is the point of staying far away saying ‘I won’t cry; I have read Brecht’?
(...)
Question: What is your opinion on ‘personal cinema’?
John: "‘Personal cinema’ is a form of masturbation. I am more interested in making films that common people can understand. My people love me. We can’t escape from those who love us. I’m
particular that my people should be able to understand my film. You might ask me then why ‘The Donkey in the Brahmin Courtyard’? The answer is not simple. I want to express everything that I have in my mind, through cinema."
The scandalized public, again...
The professor who comes to his village with his donkey sees a traditional funeral procession in which the localites dance to the rhythmic music that the band plays. The sequence ends with a shot of the revelry of the masses taken over the basket containing the donkey.
The film has the inadvertent effect of turning the anthropological gaze on the traditional Brahmin neighbourhood, its peculiar people and customs, etc. The most scandalizing aspect of the film, thus, turns out to be the fact that the film shows traditional Brahmins as easily scandalized sections of people.
These scenes of the Brahmin neighbourhood's obsession with the donkey is inter-cut with shots in which Uma, the mute girl (Swathy) being lured and impregnated.
Of the three oracles, one is played by John himself, and one by T V Chandran, who had played the protagonist in Kabani Nadi Chuvannappol. T V Chandran later directed influential films, and went on to become one of the important figures in art cinema in Malayalam.
FTII strike assembly
John Abraham and T.V. Chandran as the fortune tellers.
The 'temple-in-ruins' sequence, which later became a controversy....
Like in the beginning, the film ends with an invocation of 'fire' as the all-powerful force.
John says in an
interview:
"In Indian imagination, fire cleanses. We use fire in our poojas and weddings. Even for Christians, fire is divine. That’s the reason I gave much importance to the “miniature shot” showing the agrahara (Brahmin neighbourhood) burning down."
(...)
"I admire the Dravidian concept of shakthi. Moreover, you can find elements of Christian mythology in my film in plenty. There are certain similarities between Christ and my donkey. Many interpreted the killing of Christ as a miracle. They instituted Churches. Towards the end of the film,
all the characters come to the place where the donkey was killed. Through a choreographed movement, the camera shows you the expressions of each of them. I was trying to portray the dramatic nature of the illusion called miracle. We can, thus, interpret the film in many layers."
(...)
"The speech-impaired girl is the image of shakthi. You will realize that if you watch the film closely. I wish to make a film on sthree shakthi sometime soon. In 1979, (if I am alive), I will make a film based on the story of Kannagi."
FTII strike assembly
Indiancine.ma requires JavaScript.
