3 days ago
- Entertainment
- New Indian Express
Paramasivan Fathima Movie Review: This predictable film is ideologically inept and clumsily crafted
Generally, filmmakers find it easy to dish out social issues if their films are set in a fictional world. This helps you stay away from offending any powerful person, organisation or community. It also creates a space for uninhibited discussions. But filmmaker Esakki Karvannan is disingenuous with things he presents as issues and lacks honesty in exploring them fully.
Paramasivan Fathima introduces the fictional world of Subramaniyapuram and the towns split from it, namely Yokobpuram (predominantly Christian) and Sultanpettai (predominantly Muslim). The film begins with the narration that the rampant conversions are the reason for the split, and prospective grooms from both these towns die a day before their D-day. In parallel, we get glimpses of Paramasivan (Vemal) and Fathima/Tamilselvi (Chayadevi), teasing us with what could have happened to them even though the familiar stench of honour killing is discernible from a mile away. However, the film chooses to take a tiring 140 minutes to uninspiringly tell us the relation between the deaths and conversions.
Putting itself on a high pedestal, the film claims to impart some noble message, but is off the target right from the beginning. It reeks of contrivance, especially with no villager in this film having anything to do except be bothered by religion. It could be said that communal flare-ups in Tamil Nadu are few and far in between when compared to cases of caste discrimination. However, the absence of an engaging fictional story cannot be blamed on the social fabric of the state. The film should have ideally explored how bigotry comes in the way of religious harmony in the 21st century rather than creating a fictional world filled with people, who seem to be straight out of the Middle Ages.
The film also trivialises hunger and unemployment through Hindu characters coercing others in their community to not convert for "food and jobs" as though they aren't important enough for sustenance. The question is, what kind of pride should one take in a religion where one follower does not take care of another? Why will anyone not be grateful to someone from some other faith, who has taken it upon themselves to provide sustenance to live a dignified life? Also, it is important to note that the act of service done with an ulterior motive of converting more people to their religion cannot be brought under the umbrella term of 'service.' It is but a transactional relationship.
Can an apathetic person judge when someone from his 'brethren' converts to another religion after receiving certain favours from them? No. Some scenes and dialogues reflect the 'rice-bag convert' condescension in social media, but this anger would have been better justified if it was targeted at those depriving the starving people of their 'rice bag'. 20th-century American psychologist Abraham Maslow would have created a five-tier needs hierarchy that treats physiological and safety needs as having paramount importance for a bare minimum decent life. Food and material requirements aren't nothing. I am duty-bound to remind such self-righteous people that the miracle stories of Lord Krishna filling his impoverished friend Kuselan's house with riches just for a morsel of puffed rice and Lord Jesus multiplying five bread loaves and two fishes to feed 5000 people are being taught to their respective followers even to this day to praise God's glory, generosity and magnanimity.
