Andha Naal

<p>On 11 October 1943, during , Japanese forces bomb Madras (now ). The next morning, Rajan, a radio engineer and communications researcher, is found shot dead by his own handgun in his house in Madras after his neighbour, Chinnaiya Pillai, having heard the gunshot, informs the police. Purushothaman Naidu, a local police inspector, arrives at Rajan’s house and starts investigating the death. (C.I.D.) Officer Sivanandam joins Naidu to help with the investigation. Naidu suggests that the killer could be a thief who killed Rajan for the money found at the crime scene. However, Sivanandam is unconvinced by Naidu’s theory because the amount of money at the scene matches the withdrawal entry in the bank passbook found in the same room. Rajan was about to leave Madras in anticipation of the bombings. The two policemen question five people in and around Rajan’s house, most of whom are his family members or friends. The first to be questioned is Rajan’s wife Usha, who is unable to speak because of her grief. Sivanandam and Naidu feel embarrassed and are reluctant to question her further. They begin interrogating Chinnaiya, who proposes that the killer is probably Pattabi, Rajan’s younger brother, and recalls a confrontation between them: Pattabi asked for his share of the family property but Rajan refused his request, feeling that he and his wife would squander it. Chinnaiya concludes that this may have prompted Pattabi to kill Rajan. When Sivanandam and Naidu interrogate Pattabi, who feels remorse for Rajan’s death, he admits that he did not treat his brother well nor understand his good intentions. He recounts an incident in which his wife Hema fought with Rajan because he refused to apportion the property. Pattabi says Hema could have killed Rajan for the money as she loses her sanity when overpowered by anger. Sivanandam leaves Naidu to interrogate Hema. She is initially impudent and refuses to give a statement about the crime, but she later agrees when Sivanandam threatens to arrest her husband. She reveals Rajan’s extramarital affair with Ambujam, a dancer who is pregnant with his child. As Rajan treated the news of the pregnancy with a reckless attitude, Hema suggests that Ambujam could have killed him. When questioned, Ambujam accuses Chinnaiya of murdering Rajan, saying Chinnaiya was her foster father and wanted her to stay away from Rajan after the three met during a picnic. As their relationship continued, Chinnaiya became frustrated and wanted to end the affair. Sivanandam interrogates Usha, who tells him how she and Rajan fell in love. Sivanandam tricks Usha into using a leaky to collect her fingerprints. That evening, he and Naidu meet all the suspects at Rajan’s house. Sivanandam carries out an exercise in which the suspects—including Usha—must pretend he is Rajan and shoot him using revolvers loaded with fake bullets. Chinnaiya, Pattabi and Hema shoot him as instructed, but Usha fails to do so and bursts into tears. Sivanandam then demands to have Pattabi and Hema arrested, until Usha reveals the truth. Rajan was a radio engineer who wanted to sell radios to the poor at an affordable price. Unable to get any support from the government, he went to Japan where his work was appreciated. He then became a spy selling India’s military secrets to Japan. Usha learnt about this and tried unsuccessfully to reform him. She could not stop him and attempted to shoot him. She changed her mind but pulled the trigger accidentally, killing him, and then cried at his boots later, holding them. Sivanandam and Naidu ask Usha for the papers Rajan used to hatch the bombing plan. After she goes to Rajan’s room to fetch them, Sivanandam tells Naidu that Usha’s fingerprints which he collected and the ones on Rajan’s boots matched, which led him to suspect her, and her failure to shoot during the exercise confirmed his suspicion. When Usha takes a long time to come back, the two hear a moment’s silence followed by a gunshot, run into Rajan’s room and Sivanandam screams, “Usha!”. Director watched ‘s (1950) at a film festival, was inspired by it, and wrote a play in the same narrative style, but the script was rejected by . He later approached , the founder of , and narrated the story for him. Although Meiyappan agreed to produce it as the film that would later be titled , he was unconvinced with Balachander’s idea of making it without songs or stunts; however, he agreed to finance the project because he liked the story and trusted Balachander’s talent. thus became the first Tamil film that did not have any songs or dance sequences, and was the only film directed by Balachander for AVM Productions. The role of the radio engineer Rajan was initially given to , who was dismissed after a few days of shooting because Balachander and Meiyappan were not satisfied with his performance and felt he looked “too old” to play the role. The makers then engaged newcomer , a Tamilian professor from Calcutta (now ). When the production was halfway through, Meiyappan was dissatisfied with his performance and wanted to reshoot the film with . When Balachander refused Meiyappan ordered the production controller Vasu Menon to settle Balachander’s salary dues and to bring the reels to be burnt before him. Balachander was shocked on hearing this and obliged to Meiyappan’s wish. Since Meiyappan had introduced Ganesan in (1952), he was very keen to have him play the lead role. Initially, Balachander was hesitant to approach Ganesan because he was unsure whether he would agree to play a negative role. In his , Ganesan said the film was almost completed before he was approached. He agreed to be part of the film because he found the story interesting and thought that portraying a variety of characters would interest the audience. In 2009, film historian suggested that the success of (1953), which featured Ganesan as an , encouraged him to play a similar role in . According to film historian , Rajan was one of the earliest antihero roles in Tamil cinema. Ganesan initially demanded a sum of (equivalent to 4.0 million or US$48,000 in 2023) for the film, which Meiyappan could not afford to pay. He offered to pay him (equivalent to 2.5 million or US$30,000 in 2023), which Ganesan declined. Balachander, however, convinced Ganesan that Meiyappan would pay him (equivalent to 100,000 or US$1,200 in 2023) for every day they shot the film. A reluctant Ganesan agreed to this, believing the project would take a long time to complete. But to his dismay, Balachander completed the shoot in 17 days. The screenplay was written by , who also appeared in the film as a C.I.D. officer, and provided the voiceover in the opening sequence before Rajan is shot. It was Seetharaman’s first collaboration with AVM Productions as an actor and screenwriter. was selected to play Rajan’s wife, while , , S. Menaka and K. Sooryakala formed the rest of the main cast. V. Srinivasan—who later became popularly known as —assisted Balachander with the film. Cinematography was handled by , and editing was done by S. Surya. The background score was recorded by Saraswathy Stores Orchestra, AVM Productions’ music troupe. Two songs are used in the film in instrumental form: “Yeh Zindagi Usi Ki Hai” from (1953) and “Chup Chup Khade Ho” from (1949). No credit for the story is given in the introductory credits. s photography was markedly different from most early Tamil films. Rao used the ” ” technique, which captures the actors’ shadows to convey their “mood and character”. Its final cut was shorter than most contemporaneous Tamil films. Regarded as the first in Tamil cinema, is set in , during the bombing of the Indian city of Madras by Japanese forces in 1943. The story of the is referenced in the narrative, when Sivanandam notes how each suspect’s account of Rajan’s death contradicts those of the others. Though various sources, including Ganesan, have said the film was inspired by , Randor Guy notes that this notion is erroneous, that was actually adapted from the 1950 film directed by , and that there was only a “thematic resemblance” between and . Film journalist Jason P. Vest describes the three films as following a by presenting diverging accounts of the same incident. Film historian Swarnavel Eswaran Pillai notes that is unrelated to except for its plot, where the killing is explored using various angles, and also notes that, unlike , ends with the mystery being solved. In the opinion of B. Vijayakumar of , is the first film noir made in South India. According to Ganesan, the main theme of is patriotism; for him the film suggests that if a country does not appreciate its talented young men’s efforts, they could turn against the nation. Regarding the more personal undertones, Ganesan said that the film tells how unemployment and desolation can lead young people to become traitors. Rajan becomes a traitor by selling Indian secrets to Japan because his idea was rejected by the Indian government. According to Guy, reuses the thematic line of the 1946 Tamil film : “a person sending secret messages to the enemy through radio”. Swarnavel Eswaran Pillai compared Pandari Bai’s “ideologically driven” character Usha in the film to her character in , but in the former, “it is the idea of the Indian nation that she pledges her allegiance to.” compared to (1941) for its similar lighting and camera angles. The film uses a Tamil saying ” ” (a wife may even kill her own husband) as a clue to the identity of the culprit. Usha is depicted as a virtuous wife and a patriot who loves her country. When she discovers that her husband has betrayed India, she decides to kill him. The jury of the described Naidu as a “conscientious” officer, and Sivanandam as a “brilliant, eccentric but not so serious” man. ” is for the higher classes of audience and they loved it. But it failed to elicit the interest of the average masses who just go to see a film with all the usual trappings. Yet it was a film that exceeded expectations in all respects.” received a by the after 14 . It was released on 13 April 1954 on the eve of (Tamil New Year). The film received critical acclaim upon release, but failed commercially as the audiences were disappointed over the absence of songs. In theatres, they were disappointed after the first scene when Ganesan’s character is shot dead, and many even walked out. Theatre owners had to persuade them to watch the entire film. After its commercial failure, Meiyappan never again made a film without song sequences. The film was later re-released after winning the at the 2nd National Film Awards (1955), and became a box-office success. and AP International have released the film on home video. In addition to its National Film Award win, the film won a Best Film Award from the Madras Filmfans’ Association in 1955. Contemporary critics lauded Meiyappan and Balachander for the . While Ganesan’s role as an antihero won him critical acclaim, many critics felt that Pandari Bai’s role as the patriotic wife overshadowed his performance. Many contemporary critics expected the film to be a trendsetter, but it failed to inspire many thematically similar films in Tamil. Several years later, Balachander’s wife Shanta recalled that he was not affected by the film’s failure as he was “delighted that he pulled it off”, with critics praising the performances of Ganesan, Pandari Bai and the other actors. A contemporary review from the Tamil monthly magazine praised AVM for novelty and called a daring venture. The Tamil weekly (dated 1 May 1954) praised Meiyappan for recognising “young talents” like Balachander and Seetharaman. However, the reviewer criticised AVM for not publicising the film as a thriller; he asserted that had the film been publicised in such manner, the fans would not have been horrified by the absence of songs in the film. The reviewer’s verdict was “Success of art; failure of narrative”. The same month, a meeting was organised by the Film Fans Association in Madras to congratulate Meiyappan, Balachander, the actors and the other crew members. V. C. Gopalaratnam, the president of the association, praised Meiyappan for his “pioneering spirit” in producing a film without songs or dances. The Tamil magazine said that, for fans who were wondering whether there would be a day when a shorter film without songs and dance would be produced that had a narrative beyond the traditional love story, “That Day has come. Such a cinema of renaissance is “. The writer also appreciated Maruti Rao’s cinematography and Meiyappan’s courageous effort, and asked fans to support such a film if they “really want Tamil cinema to progress”. praised the script by Seetharaman, the performances of Ganesan, Pandari Bai and Sambandam, the absence of songs and dance sequences, and concluded that the film was “remarkable for some fine and original ideas in photography”. The film has been described by film historian Yves Thoraval as a revolution in Tamil cinema for the absence of songs and dances. Though largely ignored at the time of its original release, it has since attained in Tamil cinema. In addition to becoming a trendsetter for Tamil films without songs, it set a benchmark in Tamil cinema for noir-style lighting with some of its dramatic sequences. In 2001, journalist called the “best film” produced by Meiyappan. He noted that it “proved that a song-and-danceless film could also be a hit.” In July 2007 when S. R. Ashok Kumar of asked eight Tamil film directors for a list of their all-time favourite Tamil films, three of them— , and —named . Malaysian author Devika Bai, writing for the , described as Balachander’s , and Balachander as “Tamil cinema’s Father of Film Noir”. The film is regarded by many critics as Balachander’s best. Encouraged by its critical success, Balachander went on to direct and act in several more films of the same genre: (1962), (1964) and (1970). inspired several later whodunit films: including (1964), (1965), (1978), (1980) and (1990), and several songless Tamil films such as (1965), (1979), (1988) and (1990). Researcher and ethnographer Preeti Mudliar compared (1954) to because in both films “the sin of foreignness is [neutralised] by a chaste Tamil woman, the virtuous wife”. Director acknowledged as an influence on his 2014 film . was screened in the “Tamil Retrospective Section” of the in 1991. In 2008, Randor Guy praised it for “being the first Tamil film which had no dance, song or stunt sequence and for [Balachander]’s impressive direction and fine performances by Sivaji Ganesan and Pandari Bai”. In March 2012, film historian told that, being the first film noir in Tamil cinema, it was “among the significant black and white films of yore”, along with (1957) and (1940). In a 2013 interview with the Tamil magazine , filmmaker listed as one of his earliest favourites in Tamil cinema. In April 2013, was included in ‘s list of “100 greatest Indian films of all time”. In mid-April 2014, it was screened at the Russian Cultural Centre, Chennai, to mark its anniversary. In March 2015, the Film Heritage Foundation announced that it would be restoring along with a few other Indian films from 1931 to 1965 as a part of its restoration projects being carried out in India and abroad. The Foundation said it would not colourise any of the films as they should be “the way the master or the creator had seen it.” Filmmaker Shivendra Singh Dungarpur also believes that the film requires restoration on a “priority basis”. A 30-minute play adaptation of the film was staged in April 2016, directed by Balachander’s son Raman. Another play adaptation, also directed by him, was staged the following year, on 13 April.</p>