Palaivana Rojakkal

<p>Journalist Sabarathnam, his lover and his friend fight a corrupt system to expose unscrupulous politicians. Politician ‘s production company Poompuhar Productions, after a , sought to raise both political and financial capital. They chose to remake the 1986 film in Tamil with the title . Karunanidhi wrote the screenplay, while directed the film, which was produced by Murasoli Selvam. said he accepted to act in the film because it was a remake of a successful film and was guaranteed to do well. Cinematography was handled by A. Sabapathi, and editing by P. Venkateswara Rao. Karunanidhi appeared as himself onscreen, giving the opening and closing monologues. Some scenes were shot at office. is about the , and the “struggle between corrupt politicians and angry heroes”. Writing in the , historian noted that, in contrast (1952) and (1954) where Karunanidhi “virtually blasted the audience with extremely dramatic, alliterative dialogues”, he used a “far more subdued and sophisticated style to convey his political message” in this film. Film critic compared to for the way they “took on the times”. The soundtrack was composed by , while the lyrics were written by . was released on 1 November 1986, during day, and distributed by N. M. T. Raman Agencies. Despite facing competition from other Diwali releases such as , , and , the film emerged a commercial success, and was instrumental in establishing Sathyaraj as a “mass hero”. It also led to a slew of political films being made, mainly those which spoke against and ministers, depicting them as , drunkards and . In a review dated 7 November 1986, N. Krishnaswamy of wrote, “One sees [Karunanidhi’s] stamp in the hyperbolic references to , and in certain needless allusions, but these however are not too long or too frequent to detract from the value of the film. The main strength of [ ] is that it has some lively characters.” , in a review dated 23 November, said the film stands out because of the right cast chosen to play the various roles. The reviewer added that the artistes had acted competitively with each other, thus enhancing the appeal for the film and being worthy of appreciation. The reviewer added that the film stood out for attacking the-then political powers, and the backbone of the film was the dialogue written by Karunanidhi who adapted himself well for the 20th century and wrote dialogues which could be liked even by contemporary audiences. The reviewer said the director needs to be appreciated for making a hard-hitting film without worrying about the political consequences and rated the film 51 out of 100. of wrote that the uneducated layman cannot be roused so much by the press; should tap them.</p>