Kamal decodes perceived toxicity of Mammootty characters in ‘Rappakal,’ ‘Valsalyam’ and ‘Azhakiya Ravanan’

Two characters donned by Megastar Mammootty stood out as champions of familial ties – Krishnan of ‘Rappakal’ and Meledatthu Raghavan Nair of ‘Valsalyam.’ These characters are now trending, albeit for the wrong reasons. But ‘Rappakal’ director Kamal says Krishnan is not a ‘problematic guy’ as is being portrayed now, but admits some other characters could have been shaped in a different way. Kamal discusses the toxicity that shaped some of these characters, why it happened and how it could have reflected in case these movies were made today.
‘Not a toxic guy’
‘Rappakal’ is a movie that hit theatres in 2005, nearly two decades ago. When we discuss a movie, the period in which the film originated should also be considered. What we do now may not be acceptable two decades from now. Ditto is the case with film scenarios. Krishnan of ‘Rappakal’ is not a problematic guy. For the mother character in the movie, Krishnan was family. That was why she was angered when he was not allowed to be part of a family photo.

It is natural for a caretaker who spends years in the family to show some sense of authority like Krishnan. The authority shown over family members is his respect and caring for them. But the new generation is of the view that a servant should confine himself to homely tasks. That is why the character of Krishnan is being slammed now. Krishnan gets bashed up in the scene just ahead of the interval. When the film released then, people in theatre cried along with Krishnan.
However, Raghavan Nair of ‘Valsalyam,’ is indeed toxic. He is an embodiment of all shades of patriarchy. He lords over his family, beats his wife and is convinced that everything in his family should run according to his diktat. But that should be seen from the prism of families that existed then.

Movies in 70s
When we dwell on films, it should be noted that films of the 70s were more progressive. The wayward heroine of ‘Avalude Ravukal’ was accepted by the audience without much fuss. But when Malayalis morphed into the nutshell of nuclear families in the late eighties, they became narrow minded.
Shruti, Shankar Das
‘Meghamalhar’ climax was done keeping in mind the sensitivities of that age. If it were taken today, the climax would have been different. Same is the case with ‘Azhakiya Ravanan.’ Shankar Das leaves behind his wife when he comes to know about her affair with her former lover. At a time when society is overly keen on ensuring the ‘pristine’ nature of a woman, he could have only done that. After that, he comes back to accept her only after realising his deep affection for her. Even then he proclaims that she is pristine, or not violated by the former lover, in his mind. If it was taken now, that dialogue wouldn’t find a place. Anupama will not fall on Shankar Das feet to atone for her ‘sins’. As artists, we do believe in self-criticism and realisation.
Shruti of ‘Mazhayethum Munpe’ is wrapped in such agony. Though Shruti was accepted to a certain degree by the audience then, if the film had come out today, she would have been embraced more. New-age audiences can better understand Shruti.
Many films being released now also have these defects. A film being screened in theatres now has the theme of honour killing. The movie's plot may not be acceptable to the audience ten years from now. We should understand that cinema reflects the societal moorings of the period in which it is made. Like society, artists also shape their outlook through self-reviews and criticism. Healthy discussions like these are always welcome.