To make a
distinction between inspiration and imitation is almost impossible. Therefore
critiquing films that share some connection with their plots is a difficult
thing. Many films have been regarded by us as poor imitations, as good works
that are loyal to their source films and as those that excel better compared to
their source films. Films like Charlie
come somewhere among these categories. It is, in my view a film that took its
source material from first class art films like Esthappan and tried to present
something the makers thought suited the new times. Though there are many places
in this film (Charlie) which become just simulations and misreads, the film
still is a commendable work of art that deserves attention. Charlie, thus is a work of art that is
capable of exhorting its spectators to first class art pieces like Esthappan.
Scenes from Esthappan and Charlie
We know from
the very beginning of the two films that a huge amount of enigma is pervading the central characters of Charlie and
Esthappan. In Esthappan, we see the
character of Esthappan is always trying almost all sorts of things (in a moral
way) to make people remind of Christ. At the sea shore and on the walls he
draws pictures of Christ. It is evident after the homily given by the priest
that the film gives importance to act besides belief. This very thing acts as
the manifesto of the film Esthappan
which we see absent in Charlie. In
Esthappan, the fishermen community of the place works (different sorts of ‘acts’)
so hard and so do all other men and women of the locality. Yet the greatness of
their acts is lost once the same community indulges without any moral concerns,
in immoral and illegal acts. They lose the greatness of their effort (acts)
through excessive drinking, gossiping, being promiscuous and through exploiting each other in many ways.
Esthappan who was once a fisherman now does no work other than doing things
that will remind the people of Christ. He thinks that to work without a
philosophy, is a waste. Therefore his attempt is at the heart of the people who
have forgotten Christ. He finds a need to remind the people of the deeds of
Christ. In order to do that he comes to help people from diseases, from false
acquisitions, from debt, from dangers etc. like Christ did. But his constant
worries and thoughts while doing all these suggest us that he is not satisfied
from these external acts alone. He is worried more about getting into the hearts
of people where lay the real problem; the question of morality and conscience.
Charlie however does not try to enter the hearts of people. His attempts are
external attempts. It is also
interesting to note that unlike Charlie, Esthappan is not against established
dogmas of the Church or against the practices of her. His attendance of mass
celebrated in the church and his asking for the incenses are examples for this.
However Charlie by the name Charlie focuses on
external acts more thereby tries to address social injustices at an individual
level. Though he himself has a magical aura like Esthappan has, he does nothing
magically to help others than to unite lovers and appear here and there unannounced.
The true extent of his magic goes as far as a woman can chase and meet him in a
busy temple festival. The character is excessively showy who beliefs in
correcting people through attacking them physically. His beliefs are purely
materialistic which is reflected through his offensive speech and love for bolshies
and leftist leaders. He simply likes names of left leaders and dislikes names
of their political rivals without giving sufficient reasons for doing so. We
come to know about Esthappan solely through the narration of different people
whereas about Charlie we know him by his own explicit deeds. Though Esthappan
does mostly benevolent deeds he is seen by some as a trickster. Sometimes
people talk about him in hostile tones. However those who directly received the
goodness of his deed like the children and women, talk nicely about him. The
reason why others talk ill of Esthappan is that either he does things that they
are not capable of (for which they are jealous) or because they basically are
immoral to accept someone’s good deeds. Interestingly, about Charlie no one has
any complaint. His only enemies are those who become causes of social
injustices who are guilty of their own deeds. This makes Charlie a weird person
behaving in a positive way.
Scenes from Charlie and Esthappan
The
scene where Charlie befriends a thief and ventures with him to rob others (an
act of Charlie just for pleasure or sake of experience) can be paralleled to
the scene in Esthappan where he (Esthappan) incurs on himself the blame of
someone else’s theft. (of a really poor man unlike the fashionable thief in Charlie
who is well versed in modern technology, who can read minds of deceptive young
people like him yet so poor as to rob others!) Esthappan helps the man to
escape the blame of theft because of the man’s poverty but Charlie does not
touch the thief in anyway. He just sees him as an innocuous man. The thief of Charlie is unconvincing at the
background of a prosperous Kerala, where thousands of migrant foreign state
employees easily find their jobs. Thus the native learned thief ends just as a
comic relief throughout the entire film. Charlies’ supernatural aura is
suspicious because of his materialistic philosophy. The two are antithesis to
each other. However Esthappan’s supernatural aura is believable because of his
acts which precede his supernatural deeds. Aravindan was keen to maintain the
objective correlative, if we put it in T.S Eliot’s terms. Esthappan who has a bit of supernatural aura
is able to help sick people, appears to fishermen in the middle of the sea,
escapes the torments of little devils etc. We see him (Esthappan) doing a
death-like act which he himself clears as a sleep-act (Like Christ’s death on
the cross). In Charlie we see he does this through a fake news of his death
merely for the sake of experience alone. Esthappan was trying to remind people
of Christ who is made to sleep by the people. Charlie when asked by a person at
sea ‘so are you Christ then?’ gives him a laugh, which acts as a scaffold to
what the makers of the movie covertly wanted to develop. The philosophy of
Esthappan’s is much more evident whereas Charlies’ is not. This is mainly
because of the differences in the philosophy the two share. Esthappan truly
acknowledges the divinity of Christ and the importance of His teachings. The
inability of Esthappan in completely representing Christ stems from the
vastness of Christ’s infinite nature. This is reflected in the disillusionments
and restlessness of the finite character Esthappan. This attests to the fact
that nobody can completely replace Christ on earth through his finite human
form.
Charlie
at sea serves nothing more than to mimic what the makers of the movie might
have gotten from Esthappan. Another
scene like this is the scene of ‘chavittunadakam’. Aravindan included this in
his film as something that could contribute to the theme of his film. But in Charlie it occurs just as an art form
like many other art forms. A main difference between the two is in Charlie we have an individual following
its protagonist. But in Esthappan
everyone seems like withdrawing from Esthappan. This difference is mainly
because of the varied nature of the two films; one being a first class art film
and another a semi art-cum entertainment flick- The heroine is an audience
produced necessity in Charlie.
Withdrawal of Esthappan and Charlie toward the end also makes a clear cut
distinction between the two. Charlie has swayed for an individual while
Esthappan sleeps (though the death toll knells) at seashore after all of his
possible attempts to remind them of Christ are over. Hence we see how the two
who went on to represent Christ in their imperfect human nature miserably
failed. Charlie resolves issues after issues in a never ending cycle and
Esthappan after did what he could possibly do seems like lost in his ability to
touch the hearts of people. Charlie,
the film should thus act as a way to its source film (possible source) Esthappan and Esthappan to the life of Christ, though neither of the two films is
not an absolute necessity to know and love Christ Who works internally and
Whose deeds are detailed in The Bible.
-Anjoe
Paul-
Nice to hear that.
ReplyDelete