"Nanal" is Balachander´s second film as a director. The film revolves around the story of a well to do family, and the happenings in the house when four fugitives enter their house and hold them hostage.
Similar to Balachander´s first film Neerkumizhi, this script is adapted from a play as well, and occurs for most part, within the confines of a house. While Neerkumizhi takes place within the four walls of a ward, the house in Neerkumizhi has two floors, which the Director uses very well to maximise drama between the fugitives and the occupants of the house. The subject of the fugitives´ ire is the ´Dorai,´ the man of the house and a person of means and of social influence. Sowcar Janaki, who was the heroine in Balachander´s Neerkumizhi, is cast in the role of the lady of the house. Nagesh is cast too, in a supporting role.
The cast delivers strong performances. The lead actors, in particular, showcase a remarkable range of emotions, making the characters relatable and engaging. Muthuraman, essaying the character of the cop and the love interest of the Dorai´s sister, is handsome as ever. K.R. Vijaya plays the sister, and given that this was her 18th movie, it´s quite surprising that her acting chops are yet to show on screen. What surprises me most about the movie is that, if this film were to be made today, the cinematography might change, but the emotions explored and the reactions that each of the characters have, the human aspects of the screenplay in essence, would in all probability remain the same.
Originally, Dorai was scripted as a stern, rules-oriented judge with a strong moral compass, who had handed down the sentences that put the film's fugitives behind bars. This intriguing setup added layers of tension and moral complexity to the narrative. However, the Censor Board had other ideas. They saw potential for real-world influence - what if criminals, inspired by the film, started targeting judges? To avoid such a scenario, the Censor Board required Balachander to make a significant change. Balachander has commented in an interview, that he was flustered by the censor board´s decision, and wanted to pursue an appeal. However, the producer of the movie reminded him of the name of the movie and what it stands for.
“Nanal” means reed. Much like how the flexibility of the reed allows it to grow straight, the flexibility of the morals of the various characters, particularly that of the patriarch, allows them to ultimately free themselves of captivity. Taking a leaf out of his own script, Balachander transformed Dorai’s character from that of a judge into that of an influential, yet non-judicial business figure with social influence, all within the span of one week prior to the committed release of the movie.
The movie is a bit lost without the clear context and understanding of why the fugitives are targeting this specific family. The strong ethics of the Dorai are not sufficiently established without this context, and the philosophical discussions between the Dorai and the fugitives on how money dictates ethics, seem hollow or preachy at best. Nevertheless, the film presents some complex discussions of whether ethics is a byproduct of financial wellness and societal influence, or whether ethics can be sustained in poverty. In the same interview, Balachander notes that when the movie was released, a number of people said that this movie would have been a massive hit, had the original character been retained, and had the movie been made ten years from then. He notes that he made another movie ´Avargal´ ten years from this movie, and people said the same for Avargal too. It is his reputation after all, as a director ahead of his times.
The censor board´s tweak to the Dorai´s character struck me more than a mere footnote in cinematic history. It is a vivid reminder of the delicate balance between art and social responsibility. It appears that the Censor Board proactively evaluated potential societal impacts of movie narratives with a much more nuanced perspective, than the present day.
Movies today arguably wield even greater influence, and yet the modern censoring approach is considerably less stringent when it comes to the implications of character portrayals. What do you think of this decision of the censor board back then? Share your thoughts in the comments below.