Portrayal of Same-Sex Relationship in Malayalam Cinema

Home , Balachandra Menon, Dulquer Salmaan, Jayasurya, Kunchacko, Mammootty, Namitha

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021

Namitha V. S Research Scholar Department of English St. Joseph’s College, Devagiri Calicut, Kerala, India. Abstract

There were many unwritten rules regarding what the subject matter of Malayalam films should be. The Malayalam film industry have managed to depict strife, violence, sibling rivalry, infidelity, murder and crime on the screen. But the filmmakers never had the courage to discuss the third gender onscreen. Dominant films portray homosexuality as indecent or immoral. Gay men and women are either shown as sadists, psychopaths or anti-social villains. Alternative sexuality is predominantly the object of ridicule and contempt in Malayalam film scenario. Malayalam cinema was always interested in depicting heterosexual couplings and the movie makers have never attempted to portray anything other than this on the screen. Anyhow there were some attempts from the part of film makers to show alternative sexualities, but the society has never approached it from a serious point of view. This paper tries a resistant reading of many of the established films in Malayalam industry by using the premises of queer theory.

Keywords: Alternative Sexuality, homosexuality and homosociality, laughter films Malayalam movies, queer theory, same-sex relationship.

In our society, family is the cornerstone of civilization. Inseparably linked to that tenet is the belief that marriage; that is, one woman and one man living together in a lifelong, monogamous relationship is the foundational element of the family unit. The world of Malayalam film making has entertained us with topics that have been picked out from every possible nook and corner of the Malayali’s psyche and social systems. But it is a matter of wonder that homosexuality has hardly been featured in any of them. People consider homosexuality as one of the taboo subjects which is difficult to talk about, especially in Kerala. This was the attitude of the filmmakers too:

The filmmakers dared not break such images built after long years of oral and visual tradition, and with which the audience easily identified…Characters and situations that

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021

they thought the public could easily identify with, thus became the stock material of a screen or magazine writer, and stereotyping invariably crept in long before one became conscious of it. (Nair 28)

Discussing films as a reflection of society, it is interesting to see its people looking for a place to hide or a direction to turn away when it comes to illustrating Homosexuality. There is a beautiful, enlightening, insightful note on our attitude towards what we perceive as deviant behaviour - same-sex relationships, transsexuals, effeminate males - that still runs through the Malayali psyche. In Malayalam film industry, “normative masculinity is strictly centred on such notions of heterosexuality wherein any other social behaviour-such as homosexuality- is considered to be deviant, abnormal and emasculating” (Rowena 129). The Malayali audience exhibit a highly prejudiced mind set on sexuality and alternative sexuality. Portrayal and discussion of alternative sexualities are considered by an average Keralite as incremental events that at any time threaten to intrude our normalcy. And reports state that sexual minorities are so harassed that they are forced to leave Kerala for other states. People in Kerala pretend that gays, lesbians and transsexuals do not exist in the State. Same is done by the film makers too.

So far the Malayalam cinema had been revolving around the hero and the heroine, their love affair, problems that they face in succeeding their love, and finally the solution of all problems that lead to the marriage between them. This is how the basic thread of Malayalam films work. Among the Malayali audiences, who are extremely homophobic, it is difficult to have a movie with a difference. Almost all Malayalam films end with a marriage or a heterosexual coupling. Even if such couplings are not shown on the screen, the story line gives many hints that the hero/heroine is going to marry a person belonging to the opposite sex. It can be said that the queer sensations of Kerala society are apparently “closeted in the rationale of heterosexual narratives” (Sedgwick 916).

There are lots of reasons behind this, the important one being our old customs and traditions regarding sexual relations. The filmmakers are afraid how the society will receive the films dealing with sexual minorities. As Collins rightly says, “popular film is the dominant/hegemonic ideology writ in celluloid” (90). But it is high time that they should realise that these are the real things happening in our society. Sexuality is not anybody’s choice or an illness that some people misunderstand. For our society, being a gay or a lesbian has always been a problem of our heritage, problem for the old traditions and customs who thinks our

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021 culture is based on discourses of heteronormativity. But the fact is that, even in all the period of the ages same sex love and attraction had existed. We can see the examples, artistic proud of India which portraits lesbian and homosexual relations, in ancient temples including Khajuraho Temples.

People were sceptical when Notebook (2006) discussed the pregnancy issue of a teenage girl. Problems raised when Ente Veedu Appoonteyum (2003) dealt with a school boy killing his younger brother. Even the educated population of the present day consider Rathi Nirvedam (1978) and Avalude Ravukal (1978) as porn movies which they hesitate to watch in public. Depictions in Chandupottu (2005) somehow tend to make pithy caricatures than real characterisations. The Malayali audience have been accustomed to watching every possible human emotion, ranging from wild passion to hatred and violence. But our film makers either do not make films about homosexuals, or picture them in a ridiculing way. Their existence is a social reality and it is a big social mistake to portray them as funny characters, as film makers have done before.

Tackling sexuality within Malayalam cinema comes up against an established tradition of equating politics with the public sphere of economy and culture. Sexuality is also spoken of in jokes, conversations between friends, in cheap books sold on the side walk, and in folksong. But they are never dealt with as an important topic. In the last twenty years the queer identity has come to be taken more seriously in arts. Books had men declaring their sexual identity in no uncertain terms while cinema struggled to strike a balance between the morally acceptable lines the makers still complied to with the changing times. Anyhow film industry in Kerala hasn’t dared to break concepts of male-male bonding. The same-sex love shown on screen was only lesbianism.

There were minor attempts to portray same-sex relations on the Malayalam screen. The earliest references to queer theme in Malayalam cinema was Randu Penkuttikal in 1978. Based on a story by Nanda Kumar, director Mohan narrated the obsessive love of a woman for a danseuse. There are homoerotic references in Deshadanakkilikal Karayaarilla (1986). Ligy J Pullappally’s Sancharram (2004) portrayed the dilemma of two village belles embracing their sexuality, and there was a hasty queer portrayal in Sufi Paranja Katha (2010).

However, some directors had the courage and boldness to reveal the real things happening in our society, regarding sexuality. Finally, someone gained enough courage and

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021 weaved homosexuality into the persona of a lead protagonist in a mainstream Malayalam film. Mumbai Police (2013) directed by Rosshan Andrrews was the first of its kind in Malayalam popular cinema, to represent a gay hero, a gay police officer, in which the lead role is played by Prithviraj. The film makes homosexuality the crux, the focal point of the narrative. Here there are no hints and assumptions; the situation is clear. No other film makers have dared to point out explicitly such a fact in Malayalam cinema. The film could at least represent the emotions and feelings of gays. In Kerala, coming out of a guy or a girl regarding his or her sexuality is really complicated. But the fact is that, though the director has made a land mark in Malayalam cinema by portraying a gay, the text indirectly views it as a bad thing. It is interesting to note that if the story wouldn’t be likewise, it would have been great difficult for our society to accept such a cinema.

Another notable movie that represented gay relationship is English: An Autumn in London (2013), directed by Shyamaprasad. The film written by Ajayan Venugopalan, stars Jayasurya, Mukesh, NivinPauly, Nadia Moidu, Remya Nambeesan and others. It tells the story of the lives of some Keralites living in London. It follows the lives of four characters from diverse backgrounds whose passage to the UK and its aftermath are dealt with in the film. Dr. Ram (played by Murali Menon) is among one of them, a well settled doctor, belonging to a Tamil Brahmin family. Dr. Ram and his wife Sarasu (Nadiya Moithu) live in the UK with their two daughters, for more than 20 years. Sarasu is terribly homesick; she longs to go back to India. It is in the meantime that she discovers a pack of condoms in her husband’s pocket. She finds many changes in her husband’s behaviour, but never questions him. At the same time Dr. Ram expresses his willingness to work over time, in order to earn more, the reason he gives. He explains that it is impossible for him to come home on every other day and so he has rented a home in the city, with a colleague. Later, Sarasu discovers her husband having a sexual relationship with his roommate, a young male doctor from his hospital. It is impossible to judge the orientation of Dr. Ram, a middle-aged man, with a loving wife and two children.

On analysing the early Malayalam films, on certain aspects, it is possible to read queer implications between the characters in it. Though many films seem innocent on the surface level, it is clear that same sex love and desire were present in different movies, between many male characters, that have become box office successes in our industry. Alexander Doty in Making Things Perfectly Queer (1993) applies connotation and denotation to contemporary mass cultural phenomena. He reads television sitcoms as sites which embody queer desire.

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021

Even though the main characters of these programmes are defined as heterosexual, Doty observes that these characters overlook for same-sex friendships and relationships. Such kind of an analysis is applicable to Malayalam films also. If we allow this possibility, we can think about different strategies for interpreting mass culture:

Since the consumption, uses and discussion of mass culture as queers still find us moving between being on the ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’ of straight culture’s critical language, representational codes, and market practices. We are in a position to refuse, confuse, and redefine the terms by which mass culture is understood by the public and in the academy. (Doty 102)

Here Doty remarks on the double bind of interpretation with regard to sexuality. Although normative heterosexuality continually reproduces itself through the Malayalam film industry, it does so by relegating homosexuality to a parenthetical status. With the help of a few films, it can be made clear that homosexual subject positions are inscribed practically everywhere, although they are less frequently denoted as such. Malayalam industry was revolving around the masculine heroism of the hero and his object of love. By reading those films from an oppositional point of view, queer sensibilities can be read out from them.

The Malayalam film world entirely runs behind the male star. What T. Muraleedharan says of the star persona of Mamootty is applicable to all heroes:

He is constantly seen as the head of a big family, a domineering patriarch who safe guards the heterosexual, middleclass family morality by disciplining everyone else with an iron hand … He is rarely shown as having a male companion but if there is one, he is mostly a subordinate (or a younger brother) who maintains a respectable distance. The rest of the males in his films, most of the time, are rivals or antagonists who strive and predictably fail to undermine his authority. (193)

This companionship between a male superstar and his male friend is analysed here. It is interesting to note that when we view it from against-the-grain angle, the hitherto valorised ideas of same sex friendships and attachments were just a mask, a mask knowingly put to undermine certain aspects of such relationships.

Jenny Rowena’s findings regarding the laughter films, that flourished during the last decade of the twentieth century is very important here. Laughter films gave immense scope for

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021 finding queer desires between its male protagonists. Films like Kilukkam (1991), Godfather (1991) etc. are examples. In Kilukkam (1991) characters played by Mohanlal and Jagathy Sreekumar are seen inseparable, always coaxing with each other, yet too loving. Once a girl enters their world, the serenity that they had in their lives is lost. In Godfather (1991), Mukesh is always seen with Jagadeesh. Both share everything that happens in their life. They share mutual love, friendship and care. And in moments of distress, though the hero has a female lover, he at first comes to this friend for solace. Such Laughter Films “not only prevented the reproduction of highly patriarchal themes, but…it also opened up Malayalam cinema to the dynamics of homoerotic relations” (Rowena 134). Films like Boeing Boeing (1985), Gandhi Nagar Second Street (1986), Nadodikaatu (1987), Cheppukilukkana Changaathi (1991), Mannar Mathai Speaking (1995), Malayala Masom Chingam Onnu (1996), Chandralekha (1997), Kalyanapittennu (1997), Ee Parakkum Thalika (2001) etc. belong to this group.

Through these films, the hitherto established dimensions of stardom and masculinity were starting to be blown out. Sedgwick’s finding on how male homosocial bonding is structured around hostility to homosexuality is important here. The men in these films shout at each other, made hindrances to other’s lives, but were inseparable. Another film Ramji Rao Speaking (1989) is also noteworthy here. The protagonists at first meet from the streets, and later they change into thick friends, where both of them becomes so attached with each other, that they are even ready to die for the other person’s safety.

Then came a set of films featuring the friendship between Mohanlal and Sreenivasan. In almost all these films it is Mohanlal who is the hero and Sreenivasan is always the ‘backward other’ of the hero. However, here the backward other is seen always as “homoerotically attracted to him” (Rowena 142). Noteworthy films are Nadodikaatu (1987), Pattanapravesham (1988), Akkare Akkare Akkare (1990), etc. were the character of Sreenivasan in a silent, subordinate fellow, who always need the other person for correcting himself and depending on. One can read the same kind of dependency relationships that exists between a man and a woman here. In another movie Chandraalekha (1997), the character of Sreenivasan is again seen as the feminine other, erotically attached to the dominant role played by Mohanlal.

The noteworthy feature of these films is that the role of a woman character gets minimalized here. She is only an object of desire, who, comes into the scene of action, only at the last. Until then all the actions, fun, laughter, joys, sorrows and fights are seen to be happening within these friends. The homosocial desire gets prominence here. Kimmel’s

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021

“homosocial enactment” (129) is working out here. Here each man portrayed on the screen try to win and attain a sense of masculine identity, by showing off his strengths and calibres in front of others.

Many gestures that are present in male-female physical intimacies are seen in many male-male bonding. For example, in No. 20 Madras Mail (1990), during that famous train journey scene, just after befriending the popular male star, character played by Mohanlal expresses his wish to kiss the other. This is typical of what happens in the mind of a man when he experiences the presence of a woman. In another film Ayal Katha Ezhuthukayanu (1998), just after a song sequence, the men are seen going to the same bed, covers themselves with the same blanket, followed by some obvious movements underneath the sheet. One is reminded of a bedroom sequence or a love making scene between a man and a woman here.

Other films like Devasuram (1993), Manichithrathazhu (1994), Thacholi Varghese Chekavar (1996), Aaram Thampuran (1998), etc. portray a group of young men who are emotionally attached with each other. All these characters share a strong friendship with another male. And these friendships constitute the prime concern of these movies. Another movie that belongs to this category is Harikrishnans (1998), featuring the lead actors of Malayalam industry, Mamooty and Mohanlal. Though the film portrays the presence of a woman in almost all the scenes of the movie, one can easily find out the homosexual desires stinging between them. And in order to reduce this bond, both of them attempt to win the heart of the lady. But finally when the woman asked both of them whom she shall marry, both looks so dumb. The thing is that, though at times they feel like having a family with a woman, they cannot completely unravel that secret tie both feel for each other.

Thenkasipattanam (2000), the comedy musical film written and directed by Rafi Mecartin, starring Suresh Gopi and Lal can also be read in this manner. Kannan (Suresh Gopi) and Dasappan (Lal) are two rowdies in their village, very rich and owners of a firm, the KD & Company. Even though the movie portrays a complicated love-play, on the deep analysis of the movie, one cannot resist the fact that Kannan and Dasappan are homoerotically attracted to each other. Nammal, another blockbuster Malayalam movie released in 2002, directed by the notable director Kamal, also belongs to this category. The movie stars Jishnu, Siddharth, Renuka Menon and Bhavana. It is a campus movie which portrays the life of two thick friends Shyam (Siddharth) and Sivan (Jishnu). Shyam and Sivan are heroes of the campus, two fun filled characters as well naughty. But later it is known that they are orphans, hardworking and

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021 their guardian is a priest (Balachandra Menon). Here too the bond that Shyam and Sivan share is extraordinary, who are always seen inseparable, whether in the college, or in their living place.

Next is Ritu (2009), another notable movie, a worthwhile experiment by Shyamaprasad with a predominantly new team that does not disappoint. The film revealed a gay relation, even it shows only the clue on one side. It is about young people working in the IT sector. The story follows the lives of three childhood friends; Sunny Immatty (Asif Ali), Sarath Varma (Nishan), Varsha John (Rima). The trio were almost inseparable as friends; they grew up in the same neighbourhood in their love, bonding and innocence. The three main characters exude confidence that defies their inexperience. Aspects of deviant behaviour are portrayed in this movie. It perpetuates the myth that females working in BPO/IT sector become sex fiends. It is revealed that Sunny Immatty, the lead protagonist of the movie is a gay. The erotic undercurrent of the movie is so well expressed. The movie is ostensibly a new genre of Malayalam movie. The story is written to touch the raw areas and sweet spots of its audience. The homosexual implications in this movie is quite obvious and many people viewed the film as dealing with a taboo subject and even blamed the director for portraying such deviances on the screen.

National-award winning director Priyanandanan’s Sufi Paranja Kadha (2010) includes religious, historical, political and sexual issues that continue to haunt Kerala and the rest of the country. In this film, based on KP Ramanunni’s novel by the same name, the protagonist Prakash Bare (Mammootty), in his emotional progression through the movie, seems to find solace in a same-sex physical relationship with his young cousin Aamir. But this sexual act, in an ironic twist, is caught by his wife. Though this incident was the catalyst that directed the narrative to its tragic climax, one feels that it is just a hurried device to facilitate a morbid conclusion to the movie.

Urumi, a 2011 epic Malayalam film about the history of Calicut, directed by Santosh Sivan also be analysed in such a way where one can find queer implications between the male protagonists in it. The film is set in the early 16th century, when the Portuguese sailors dominated the Indian Ocean. The bond between Kelu (Prithviraj) and Vavvali (Prabhu Deva) is quite uncommon. Vavvali frequently repeats in the movie that he will never do anything against his friend’s wish. In a scene where a girl approaches Vavvali, fascinated by his well- built body, he stands against her wish by saying that he needs the consent of his friend to love her. This reply is enough to show that the position his friend has in his life is not a common

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021 one. And the extreme bond and affection they have for each other is itself enough to prove that the relationship they share has deep undertones more than mere friendship.

Second Show, a 2012 Malayalam action crime film directed by Srinath Rajendran, shows on the screen the extreme friendship and relation shared by the two protagonists, Hari (Dulquer Salmaan) and Kurudi (Sunny Wayne). The film, set in the backdrop of criminal gangs of varied varieties in Kerala is about the life of Hari who rises from an illicit sand miner to a smuggling baron in a short time. In the film it is shown that Kurudi is more important for Hari than everything in the world. There is a scene where Kurudi draws Hari to a fight during a night. It is clear that Hari is ready to sacrifice anything for Kurudi. Hari has that kind of attachment with Kurudi that he doesn’t even have with his own mother. Moreover, when the girl enters into Hari’s life, it is shown that Kurudi is not willing to sacrifice his space in Hari’s life. All these shows that the intimacy they share is not just friendship.

Ordinary (2012), the comedy drama film directed by Sugeeth stars Kunchacko Boban, Biju Menon and others in the main roles. Iravi Kuttan Pillai (Kunchako Boban) and Suku (Biju Menon), the conductor and the driver of the bus, play the lead roles in the movie. From the beginning of the movie itself, it can be seen that Iravi is a subordinate to Suku. It is always Suku who gives directions about what to do, how to behave, etc. to Iravi. Iravi is the movie often exhibits feminine features too. Though Iravi has confessed his love to Kalyani (Shritha Sivadas), in the moments of difficulty and danger, it is to Suku that he shares everything. This means that Suku is more important for Iravi than even the girl whom he loves.

Thus, it is clear that all these films, while reading from the dimensions of queer perspectives, have elements of non-normative sexual behaviours in it. Whether it is homosexual, or homosocial, one thing for sure is that the male protagonists in these films show an interest in their male counterparts than other females. Most of these men usually are thick friends, always seen together, and who always desire for the same woman. It can be said that the movies discussed here are all conventional texts. But all of them scores high deviant potential homosexual deposits.

Works cited

Collins, J. Uncommon Cultures: Popular Culture and Post Modernism. London: Routledge,

1989.

I N S I G H T: An International Multilingual Journal for Arts and Humanities Peer Reviewed and Referred: ISSN: 2582-8002 University Research Publications, Ernakulam, Kerala VOL 1-ISSUE 4: JUNE 2021

Doty, Alexander. Making Things Perfectly Queer: Interpreting Mass Culture. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993.

Kimmel, Michael S. Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame and Silence in the

Construction of Gender Identity. NY: Penguin, 1994.

Muraleedharan, T. “Disrupted Desires: Male Bonds in Mohanlal Films.” Film and Philosophy.

Ed. K. Gopinathan. Calicut: Calicut UP, 2003.

Nair, P. K. “Gender Equations in Malayalam Cinema.” Women in Malayalam Cinema:

Naturalizing Gender Hierarchies. Ed. Meena T. Pillai. Hbd: Orient Blackswan, 2010.

Rowena, Jenny. “The ‘Laughter-Films’ and the Reconfiguration of Masculinities.” Women in

Malayalam Cinema: Naturalizing Gender Hierarchies. Ed. Meena T. Pillai. Hbd:

Orient Blackswan, 2010.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. “Epistomology of the Closet.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed.

Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2004.