3 days ago
- Entertainment
- New Indian Express
Aabhyanthara Kuttavaali Movie Review: Sexist lens mars this film advocating for men's rights
The film opens with Sadhanandan and Nayana's (Thulasi) wedding. We first see Nayana beautifully decked up, or rather covered in a variety of gold ornaments. She wears 100 sovereigns of gold, which signifies a certain status symbol in our society. While it's evident that the gold is part of the dowry system, Sadhanandan, and his family argue that "we never asked for it". But when Nayana asks Sadhanandan to pledge the gold for her studies, he refuses to agree as if it's his earnings. And when he's forced to return it after police intervention, the whole sequence is depicted as if it's an act of sacrifice. So there's a clear lack of understanding of where the film wants to position itself concerning the dowry system.
Aabhyanthara Kuttavaali primarily wants to talk about men's issues. Fair enough. But by doing so, the film constantly invisibilises the women in it. Despite being crucial to the overall narrative, there's hardly an attempt to understand Nayana. It is only towards the climax that we get to know a bit about her, but by then, it's too late. What it means is that even though she's a victim of child abuse, we are not allowed to empathise with her. The other women in the film are also stripped of any agency. While Sadhanandan's sister goes absent right after the wedding portions, his mother hardly has a say in the case except asking occasional questions like, "Nee evide aayirunnu?" or "Casente karyam enthayi?" Then there's a junior advocate, whose incompetence leads Sadhanandan to present his points himself in the court. She is also casually mocked for not knowing how to drive despite having a licence. "Appo athum ariyille?" scoffs Sadhanandan.
Aabhyanthara Kuttavaali also attempts to highlight that Sadhanandan's case is not a rarity by introducing two more characters—Peter and Makarikka, who have also been wrongly vilified by the women in their lives. While Peter (Sidharth Bharathan) is framed as mentally unstable by his wife to keep him away from their daughter, Makarikka (Harisree Ashokan) is dragged to court by his greedy, widowed daughter-in-law. By picking characters from all three major communities, it seems like the makers wanted to stress that men being harassed is a common issue across religions. Sidharth Bharathan's performance, especially his dialogue on how such legal tussles affect children, is a poignant moment. But in the very next scene, we see a banner in the background that reads, "Effect of divorce on children." This lack of subtlety is a constant throughout the film.
With a large portion of the film's second half set within a courtroom, the makers take a lot of cinematic liberty to dramatise the proceedings. Asif Ali gets two lengthy monologues where he lists out the consequences of misusing 498A, statistics comparing the suicide ratio of married men and women, questions the practice of alimony, and even brings up an example from the Ramayana to drive home his point. At one point, he even breaks the fourth wall to address things directly to the public. By the end of it, the judge, impressed by Sadhanandan's arguments, urges him to consider taking up LLB!
With women empowerment narratives becoming increasingly common, it does make sense that there is a clamour for films that speak for men. Aabhyanthara Kuttavaali does seem to have started at the same point, but as we have seen through films about women empowerment, too, intentions can only take you so far if the writing is flawed, the execution is functional, and your 'villains' are mere caricatures.
