Thiruvilaiyadal

<p>The god gives a sacred mango fruit, brought by the sage , to his elder son as a prize for outsmarting his younger brother in a competition. Angry with his father, Muruga (dressed as a hermit) goes to . He meets , one of his devotees, along the way. Despite her attempts to convince Muruga to return to , he remains adamant about his decision to leave his family. His mother, the goddess , arrives there and tells the stories of four of Shiva’s divine games to calm Muruga. The first story is set in , the capital city of the . Shenbagapandian, the king, wants to find the answer to a question posed by his wife (whether the fragrance of a woman’s hair is natural or artificial), and announces a reward of 1,000 gold coins to anyone who can come up with the answer. Dharumi, a poor poet, desperately wants the reward, and starts to break down in the . Shiva, hearing him weeping, takes the form of a poet and gives Dharumi a poem containing the answer. Overjoyed, Dharumi takes the poem to Shenbagapandian’s and recites it; however, the court’s head poet claims that the poem’s meaning is incorrect. On hearing this, Shiva argues with Nakkeerar about the poem’s accuracy and burns him to ashes when he refuses to relent. Later, Shiva revives Nakkeerar and says that he only wanted to test his knowledge. Realising it was Shiva’s will that Dharumi should get the reward, Nakkeerar requests Shenbagapandian to give it to Dharumi. The second story focuses on Shiva marrying against the will of her father, . Daksha performs a without inviting his son-in-law. Sati asks Shiva’s permission to go to the ceremony, but Shiva refuses to let her go because he feels that no good will come from it. Sati disobeys him and goes, only to be insulted by Daksha. She curses her father and returns to Shiva, who is angry with her. Sati says that they are one; without her, there is no Shiva. He disagrees, and burns her to ashes. He then performs his , which is noticed by the , who pacify him. Shiva restores Sati to life (who is reborn as Parvati) and accepts their oneness. In the third story, Parvati is banished by Shiva when she is momentarily distracted while listening to his explanation of the . Parvati, now born as Kayarkanni, is the daughter of a fisherman. When she is playing with her friends, Shiva approaches in the guise of a fisherman and tries to flirt with her. The fishermen are troubled by a giant shark who disrupts their way of life, and Shiva says that he alone can defeat the shark. After a long battle, Shiva subdues the shark (who is the bull deity in disguise) and marries Parvati. The last story is about Banabathirar, a devotional singer. Hemanatha Bhagavathar, a talented singer, tries to conquer the Pandya Kingdom when he challenges its musicians. The king’s minister advises the king to seek Banabathirar’s help against Bhagavathar. When the other musicians spurn the competition, the king orders Banabathirar to compete against Bhagavathar. Knowing that he cannot win, the troubled Banabathirar prays to Shiva—who appears outside Bhagavathar’s house in the form of a firewood vendor the night before the competition, and shatters his arrogance by singing “Paattum Naane”. Shiva introduces himself to Bhagavathar as Banabathirar’s student. Sheepish at hearing this, Bhagavathar leaves the kingdom immediately and leaves a letter for Shiva to give to Banabathirar. Shiva gives the letter to Banabathirar, and reveals his true identity; Banabathirar thanks him for his help. After listening to the stories, Muruga realises that this too was one of Shiva’s divine games to test his patience; he then reconciles with his family. The film ends with Avvaiyar singing “Vaasi Vaasi” and “Ondraanavan Uruvil”, in praise of Shiva and Parvati. In 1965, after the critical and commercial success of (1964), its director and producer A. M. Shahul Hameed came together to make a film entitled , later retitled . It was inspired by the , a collection of sixty-four 16th-century devotional epic stories by Paranjothi Munivar, which describe the actions (and antics) of on Earth in a number of disguises to test his devotees. Four of the stories are depicted in the film, including the story where the Tamil poet confronts Shiva over an error in his poem, exaggerating his sensitivity to the right and the wrong. Nagarajan had previously used this story as a in K. Somu’s (1956). In addition to directing, Nagarajan co-produced under the banner of Sri Vijayalakshmi Pictures, and wrote the screenplay. M. N. Rajan and T. R. Natarajan edited ; K. S. Prasad and Ganga were the film’s cinematographer and art director, respectively. was cast as Shiva, and as the goddess . R. Rangasamy did the make-up for Ganesan, and Savitri was given green make-up to portray her character. was chosen to play , reprising her role in the 1953 . was cast as Dharumi, and had a of one-and-a-half days to finish his portion. Besides directing, producing and writing, Nagarajan appeared as Nakkeerar. initially wanted to portray Hemanatha Bhagavathar but Nagarajan refused, believing would be able to emote the character better. Balamuralikrishna agreed, and remained on the film as a singer. We had to talk as we walked. We could not break up the dialogues for our convenience as that would slow down the tempo of the shot. We had such a degree of understanding that we enacted the scene with immaculate timing and with the required expressions in one continuous shot. was shot on a custom-built set at Vasu Studios in Madras (now ). It was filmed in , thereby making it Nagarajan’s first picture to be shot in colour. Before he began filming, Nagesh learned that Ganesan’s arrival was delayed because his make-up had not been completed; he asked Nagarajan whether they could film any solo sequences, which included a scene where Dharumi laments his misfortune in the . While filming, Nagesh spontaneously came up with the line ” ” (He won’t come. He won’t come. He will definitely not come. I know he won’t come). According to the actor, two incidents inspired him. One involved two assistant directors discussing whether Ganesan would be ready before or after lunch; one said he would be ready, the other said not. The other was when Nagesh overheard a passerby talking to himself about how the world had fallen on bad times. He also took inspiration from Mylapore Krishnasamy Iyer. Dubbing of the scenes with Nagesh and Ganesan was completed soon after the footage was shot. After watching the scenes twice, Ganesan asked Nagarajan not to remove even a single frame of Nagesh’s portions from the final cut, because he believed that those scenes along with the ones involving Balaiah would be the highlights of the film. The conversations between Shiva and Dharumi were improvised by Ganesan and Nagesh, not scripted by Nagarajan. was the first Tamil film since (1944) in which the lead actor plays five roles in one scene. Ganesan does so during the song “Paattum Naane”, where he sings and plays four instruments: the , , flute and . Asked by his biographer, T. S. Narayanawami, about the he performed in the film, Ganesan replied that he simply learned the movements necessary for the dance and followed the choreographer’s instructions. was the last film produced by Hameed, who died on 20 May 1965, a few days after the filming ended. Neither he nor Nagarajan was credited in the film as producers. The film’s title is explained in an introductory voiceover. Greeting the audience, it quotes Shiva’s literary epic of the same name. According to the narrator (Nagarajan), Shiva does what he does to test the patience of his disciples; the god plays games, which evoke more devotion in the hearts of his worshippers. Therefore, the film’s title refers to the games played by Shiva. According to Hari Narayan of , celebrates the deeds of a god (in this case, Shiva) by depicting miracles performed by him. R. Bharathwaj wrote for that the story of the competition between Hemanatha Bhagavathar and Banabathirar is comparable to a contest between composer and Kesavvaya, a singer from . Sastri had sought divine intervention from the goddess Kamakshi to defeat Kesavayya, mirroring Banabathirar’s plea for Shiva’s help. Mana Baskaran of notes that the film, despite being a mythological, also depicts contemporary social issues. K. V. Mahadevan composed the film’s soundtrack and score, Kannadasan wrote the song lyrics except for the first portions of “Pazham Neeyappa”, which were written by Sankaradas Swamigal. Nagarajan initially wanted to sing “Oru Naal Podhuma”, but he refused and M. Balamuralikrishna sang the song. Each line in the song is from a different , including , , , and . “Pazham Neeyappa” is based on three ragas: , and . “Isai Thamizh”, “Paattum Naane” and “Illadhathondrillai” are based on the , and ragas, respectively. Vikku Vinayakram and Cheena Kutty were the and mridangam players, respectively, for “Paattum Naane”. Subbiah Asari made the seen in “Paattum Naane”, and the crew of purchased it from him for (equivalent to 670,000 or US$7,900 in 2023). Songs from the album, including “Pazham Neeyappa”, “Oru Naal Podhuma”, “Isai Thamizh”, “Paarthal Pasumaram” and “Paattum Naane”, became popular with the . Film historian , in his 1997 book , said “Pazham Neeyappa” (performed by Sundarambal) was the “favourite of millions”. Singer wrote for that Sundarambal produced a “pure and pristine depiction” of the raga in “Vaasi Vaasi”, and praised Balamuralikrishna’s rendition of “Oru Naal Podhuma”. was released on 31 July 1965, and distributed by . During a screening at a Madras cinema, several women went into a religious frenzy during a scene with Avvaiyar and Murugan. The film was temporarily suspended so the women could be attended to. According to artist , the management of the Raja Theatre built a replica of Mount Kailash to promote . A commercial success, the film ran for twenty-five weeks at the Ganesan-owned . It also ran for twenty-five weeks at the Crown and Bhuvaneshwari Theatres in Madras and other theatres across South India, becoming a . It added to Ganesan’s string of successful films. At the , received the in Tamil. It also received the . was praised by critics. The Tamil magazine , in a review dated 22 August 1965, considered the film a victory for Tamil cinema. Shanmugam Pillai and Meenakshi Ammal of jointly reviewed the film on the same day. Shanmugam Pillai praised the and said Nagarajan deserved to be appreciated for taking such a long epic and making it into a film. Although Meenakshi Ammal felt it was unnecessary to have a Tamil poet (Dharumi) do comedy, Shanmugam Pillai applauded Nagesh for showing his comic skills even in a mythological. Meenakshi Ammal noted that at a time where social films were dominating Tamil cinema, a mythological like was a welcome change and deserved another viewing. On 7 August 1965, appreciated Nagarajan for treating the four episodes adapted from the with “due reverence and respect” and chaste Tamil dialogue (a “delight to the ears”). However, the reviewer derided Nagarajan’s “unimaginative” handling of the fisherman episode and Ganesan’s “awkward” gestures, which turned what would have been a “sublime, divine love story” into a typical “boy-meets-girl affair”. They also criticised technical aspects such as “jumpy” shots, the colour scheme, Shiva’s fight with the shark and the facial make-up. The reviewer criticised Ganesan for while opining that Savitri had nothing to do, but commended the performances of Sundarambal, Mahalingam, Balaiah, Nagesh, Sarangapani, Muthuraman and Nagarajan. On 4 September 1965, T. M. Ramachandran wrote for , “Both for the devout Hindu and the average movie fan, the picture provides such elements that sustain their interest from beginning to end.” He noted that although there were anachronisms such as telephone and telegraph wires visible, “these defects pale into insignificance before the gloss and satisfying impact of the film as a whole on the minds of cinegoers.” Ramachandran lauded Ganesan’s performance, his , the performances of Savitri, Nagarajan and the other supporting actors, Sundarambal’s singing, K. S. Prasad’s cinematography and Ganga’s art direction. In mid-2012, legal issues arose when attempts were made to digitally re-release the film. G. Vijaya of Vijaya Pictures filed a lawsuit against and Sri Vijayalakshmi Pictures for attempting to re-release the film without her company’s permission. In December 1975, Sri Vijayalakshmi Pictures transferred the film rights to Movie Film Circuit; MFC transferred them to Vijaya Pictures on 18 May 1976. Vijaya Pictures approached Gemini to digitise the film for re-release, but Sri Vijayalakshmi Pictures asked laboratory officials not to release the film without their consent. Sri Vijayalakshmi Pictures disputed Vijaya’s claim by running an advertisement in a Tamil newspaper on 18 May 2012 saying that it owned the film’s rights, and anyone who wanted to exhibit it in a digital format should only do so with their permission. The judge who presided over the case ordered that the be maintained by both parties. Encouraged by the success of the re-release of (1964), C. N. Paramasivam (Nagarajan’s son and the head of Sri Vijayalakshmi Pictures) found film negatives of in a storage facility. Paramasivam restored the film and re-released it in in September 2012. The digitised version premiered at the Woodlands Theater in Royapettah, . It received public acclaim and became a commercial success. Producer (Ganesan’s son) said about the digitised version, “It was like watching a new film”. Only two actors can pull the scene away from under my feet when we face the camera together – one is , the other, Nagesh. has attained in Tamil cinema. Along with , it was responsible for a resurgence in devotional and mythological cinema, since it was released at a time when Tamil cinema primarily made social films. Film critic called “the best” Tamil film released during the 1960s. Nagarajan and Ganesan collaborated on many more films in the genre, including (1966), (1967), (1967) and (1968). The film was a milestone of Nagesh’s career, and the character of Dharumi is cited as one of his finest roles. In July 2007, when S. R. Ashok Kumar of asked eight notable directors to list ten films they liked the most, and chose . Ameer found the film “imaginative”, depicting mythology in “an interesting way”, and called it “one of the best films in the annals of Tamil cinema.” After Nagesh’s death in 2009, ranked fifth on the list of “10 Best Films of late Nagesh”; according to its entry, the actor “was at his comic best in this film”. is included with other Sivaji Ganesan films in , a compilation DVD with Ganesan’s “iconic performances in the form of scenes, songs and stunts”, which was released in May 2012. The film has been parodied and referenced in cinema, television and theatre. Notable films alluding to include (1996), (1996), (1998), (2000), (2001), (2002), (2009) and (2012). In his review of (2014), Baradwaj Rangan noted that the use of touchscreen human facial on was a ” -like framing device”. The comedy series parodied the film twice: in an episode of the same name, and in a contemporary version titled . After T. M. Soundararajan’s death in May 2013, M. Ramesh of wrote: “The unforgettable sequences from … [ ] … have forever divided the world of Tamil music lovers in two: those who believe that the [ ] of the swollen-headed Hemanatha Bhagavathar could not be bested, and those who believe that Lord Shiva’s won the debate hands down”. The character of Dharumi was parodied in , a play staged in November 2013. In a January 2015 interview with , playwright said: “Most character artists today lack variety […] Show me one actor in India currently who can do a , a , a , a and a [ ].” After Manorama’s death in October 2015, was ranked eighth on list of top movies featuring the actress.</p>