Mullum Malarum

Mullum Malarum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC), Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After three disappointing FACs in a row (and an intense PR), I massacred chunks of content I no longer deemed helpful (taking inspiration from the Mad Queen, not that I liked what she did) to ensure that the article is now more concise and FA-worthy. Unlike earlier FACs, this one is a co-nomination and that should help. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will most definitely help Kailash for this article's promotion to FA. Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (clashes with his boss, Kumaran, when the latter falls in love with Valli), I am wondering if there is a way to avoid “the latter”. Maybe something like (clashes with his boss, Kumaran, who falls in love with Valli).

The basic premise at both IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes reads, "A boorish villager butts heads with a newly appointed engineer from the city". Can I simply remove the last sentence about Kumaran loving Valli since it is spoilery and not the original cause of enmity between him and Kali? --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the comment. I think that the part could be removed without any issue. The current wording does imply the Kumaran/Valli relationship was the original cause of the conflict, and that appears to be only true for later in the film. I do not personally have an issue with putting a spoiler in the lead, but I think that just saying (Mullum Malarum tells the story of Kali, a winch operator at a power plant who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with his boss, Kumaran) would cover the basics of the storyline and should be enough. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done as suggested, Aoba47.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be helpful to wikilink “Tamil cinema” since here is a separate article for it?

Done by Ssven2. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The word “lorry” is wikilinked twice in the article.

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure that the references are in numeric order. For instance, the first part of the “Legacy” section’s first paragraph has reference 59 after reference 88.

Re-arranged. Now can you read [59][88]89]? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, everything looks great. I will support this for promotion once my relatively minor comments are addressed. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, I hope you are doing a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Yashthepunisher

• Support My issues were resolved at the PR. Hope it passes this time. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose by Fowler&fowler

• • Lead: Here are some sentences in the lead:

*** 1. Fourth sentence >>> "Mullum Malarum tells the story of Kali, a winch operator at a power plant who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with his boss, Kumaran."

****a) Why is an average reader expected to know what a winch operator does in a power plant? The link provides no clue.

I've only retained the part mentioning he is a winch operator. Removed the power plant. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • b) Why is the sister's name, or his boss's, needed at this stage in the lead, when it appears again nowhere else in the lead, and when neither name is accompanied by the name of the actor who plays the part?
      • c) Why is a man's doting on his sister (i.e. lavishing uncritical affection on her) notable enough for mention in the lead but without further explanation of how this ties in with the story?

Because they were orphaned. Should I mention this in the lead? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • d) The same goes for the protagonist's "clashing" (coming into constant conflict) with his boss; why is that, without further explication, notable for mention?

They clash because of differing ideologies; Kumaran dislikes Kali's unruliness and Kali's nickname for Kumaran ("Law Point") is caustic. Should I mention this? I'm trying to keep the premise in the lead faithful to what RT shows, though I've already added more than what it shows. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • 2. Fifth sentence >>>"Production on the film was complicated by its producer Chettiar's opposition to cast Rajinikanth as the protagonist because of his dark skin and typecasting as a villain at the time, but Mahendran refused to direct the film without the actor."
      • a) There are too many syntactical and semantic errors here ... I am guessing you mean: "In casting for the hero, the producer opposed choosing Rajinikanth whose complexion he judged too dark for such a role, and whose successful roles as a villain he judged to have already typecast him. " But so what if I have rewritten it? The bigger problem here is that the text has little coherence. What you want to say first is that the movie broke new ground in Tamil cinema by casting as its hero an actor with physical characteristics which the conventions of the cinema had hitherto considered unbecoming. Instead, you go off on the complications of the producers opposition etc. The reader is left perplexed.

Ssven seems to have taken care of this. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • 3 Sixth sentence. >>>> "Since Mahendran had no previous directing experience, cinematographer Balu Mahendra, who was already an established director, assisted him with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing."

He had cinematic experience; he was a screenwriter, but did not serve as an AD. In India, most men serve as ADs before making their directorial debut. What should I do? Remove the sentence completely or what? But I feel it is important to mention Balu Mahendra as DOP in the lead. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • a) The 800-pound gorilla here is the absence of any directing experience in the director. Instead of telling us how he managed to wangle the role, how the producer was on board, what the director's potential handicaps were, you are matter-of-factly telling us that in such an unsurprising happenstance, cinematographers who are established directors just happen to be around for rendering help. Again, the reader is left perplexed.
    • At a glance I can tell there are similar problems with all too many sentences throughout the article. Have you put yourself in the shoes of an unfamiliar reader who comes to this article? Where are the hooks of elegance to sustain pleasure of reading, hooks of emphasis to sustain coherence in meaning, hooks of connection to sustain cohesion of narrative? Receiving perfunctory supports after superficial copy edits won't help here. The article has serious issues. You need to double down and think about them. It doesn't help the article, nor is respectful to the reviewers, that a nominator has submitted an article for the fourth time at FAC in such state, and accompanied by such an opaque nomination note. PS Please also don't tell me that this is not actionable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have solved one issue, I hope Ssven2 can solve the rest. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, is this all the comments you have got? Can you please strike them out if they have been addressed? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead reads better than before. I'll try to find time to read the rest of the article. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four days later, any update? Can you please reply to my questions which go "Should I mention this"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I've solved all your comments. Is that all? Or are you planning on giving more comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure what to say. You have been very earnest and prompt in your responses. I have been unresponsive after my initial comments. I attribute this to my not wanting to offer detailed sentence-by-sentence critiques. I'm not familiar with the material, and there are not enough details in the text for me to learn. The plot, for example, is still written in the style of a bare-bone Aesop's fable. Please read the first few sentences of the plot, and put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary reader: "Kali is a winch operator at a village power plant. Although notorious for his escapades and self-aggrandising ways, he also does good deeds for the local community. ... The power plant's new supervising engineer is Kumaran, an austere but fair boss. His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees Kali's unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules. ..." Winches have different designs, forms, and functions. There are winches that lower things into the ocean. How will anyone ride that winch? You still haven't given us enough details about your winch to make the sentence comprehensible. There are "opposites" set up in the text that are confusing or distracting: "escapades" and "good deeds," or "austere" and "fair." There are surprises: "The power plant's new boss." That is the first time we learn that the old boss, who was presumably more accepting of winch riding, had left. Anyway, all I can see is that the plot remains too sketchy, too uneven, and too anonymous. It is not at FA level, in my limited experience. I know you have worked hard. I haven't read the rest of the article. I don't have specific things for you, but after you're done with this article, howsoever its candidacy ends, you might want to take some time aside and practise writing plots. I know this sounds presumptuous or paternalistic, but I mean it sincerely. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a winch that can be ridden. What to call it? There is no mention of who Kumaran's predecessor was. If you are confused with the plot, you can read the essential plot details from 252 of this book, and pages 80 to 81 of this book, then tell me what to rewrite. However, the former book cannot be used as a source as it has copied from Wiki in large parts, even though the highlighted chapter is blameless. And I removed the "austere but fair" sentence since it sounds POVish. As for your comment that there are "opposites" that are "confusing" or "distracting", I guess that's what the film's title, meaning "thorn and flower", reflects. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You posted on my talk page, so I'm changing my comment into a vote. Sorry, but I don't see any improvements. It's been two weeks since 11 August when I last made my comment. If you haven't found time in two weeks to pick up a dictionary and figure out that a winch involves a drum and a cable or rope which the drum pulls in or lets out by rotating, I afraid I can't help you. In my view, the article remains poorly written, a combination of haphazard narration and the liberal use of jargon. Fixes there are many, but I don't see any within the ambit of an FAC review. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Links to sources all appear to be working
• Formats

• Ref 15 requires pp. not p.

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 42 requires p. not pp.

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 60 does not provide sufficient information to identify or access the source. Is this DVD, CD or what? Can you provide the identifying code number?

Do you know what liner notes are? Alright, here is the link to the original LP cover (alternate link). But then, Discogs is not RS, is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise ref 68, which has the additional complication of Vaidyanathan

Here is the link to Mullu Puvvu's soundtrack. But then using Photobucket to display copyrighted content is not legal is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 82 is missing archive and retrieval dates.

The archiving never works correctly for subscription-only articles on this site. But I added the accessdate. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The bibliography includes "Rajinikanth 12.12.12..." etc – can you identify where this source is cited?

I've converted it into a proper ref. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in use of publisher location in the bibliography

It doesn't matter much, does it? I've removed all locations in the section as I feel it doesn't add much. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quality and reliability: The sources appear to meet the required quality/reliability criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Veera Narayana

Okay, the article has been really expanded when compared to the previous review, and I have the following issues with it.

Firstly, the plot:

• "Although notorious for his escapades and self-aggrandising ways, he also does good deeds for the local community." -- Pleasee see if we can rephrase this into something more clear. IIRC, Kali is shown to have a good relationship with the villagers but we are not shown the good deeds he has done (or at least the version I saw did not contain them).

Ramachandran's plot says, "He has a reputation as a local hell-raiser, what with his regular escapades and self-aggrandizing ways. But he also does good deeds for the community from time to time". Anything confusing? Any better wording? But I think this shows Kali is both the mull and malar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-watched the film and understood one thing for sure. Kali (or Kaali for that matter) isn't a man doing good deeds, but is actually playing god. IMHO what all good deeds he does, he thinks it is a "favour" he has done to the community he lives in. However, i am not objecting your POV here because Mahendran shows a sequence where Kali is shown to be very friendly to everyone around and helping them in their errands. Hence, discounted. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees Kali's unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules." -- Kali repeats twice in the same sentence.

Done, wrote "His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees his unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules." --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kali hated Manga right? The winch scene where he runs after her, was it a trigger to their future romance, even if it was one-sided?

Ramachandran's plot says, "Manga takes a shine to Kaali [this is how to pronounce his name] but he is disgusted with her gluttonous ways as her main focus in life is food". The next mention of Manga comes in "Kaali eventually succumbs to Manga's ample charms. But to his bad luck, on the one day that he frolics in the river with Manga, away from his post, there is an emergency and he is absent without leave." Any suggestion? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like, "Manga developed a liking for Kali, but he is particularly unimpressed with her obsession over food. As time passes, he begins to reciprocate her feelings."

• "Although Manga opposes Kali's decision, he stubbornly refuses her plea to let his sister marry Kumaran." -- "Although" isn't necessary here IMO. Manga opposed and Kali denied. "Although" gives an impressions as if Manga isn't okay with the alliance but is going forward with Kali's plans.

Rewritten as "Manga opposes Kali's decision, but he stubbornly refuses her plea to let his sister marry Kumaran". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, off to the Production section. Much expanded compared to the previous review period :)

• "He then developed a screenplay based on the novel, starting with the childhood of Kali and his sister Valli, according to his own wishes." -- own wishes? some rephrasing needs to be done in this aspect.

Yep. This source says, "But he wrote the screenplay the way he visualised it". I don't want to get into WP:QUOTEFARM. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See, he's a screenwriter. He has the liberty to start the way he wishes to. What clarity needed here is that, is it deviating from the novel? If it was just the way he visualised it, the very mention of "own wishes" is sheer useless. Give it a thought. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he deviated from the novel since he did not read it fully. How about this? He then developed a screenplay based on the novel, starting with the childhood of Kali and his sister Valli, without being faithful to the source material. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Veera Narayana 02:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mahendran believed Chettiar accepted because of the latter's belief that Mahendran would make a successful brother-sister film like the melodramatic Pasamalar (1961)." -- Mahendran repeats twice. If I understood the context correctly, Chettiar expected a Pasamalar-like film from Mahendran, though the latter had an approach that was raidcally different. Mahendran didn't want to betray Chettiar's trust in him and decided to be silent. If yes, please go for rephrasing.

This needs to be addressed. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Balu Mahendra said he avoided incorporating the usual hero-heroine dancing into the film because he thought it was like "watching two drunken monkeys dancing"" -- to whom did this man say?

During the audio launch of Angadi Theru, to the attendees. But that's not important is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "When Kamal Haasan asked Chettiar if he did not mind anyone else financing the scene, Chettiar agreed, and Haasan himself financed the scene" -- Can't we go for something like "Haasan convinced Chettiar, gained his consent, and financed the scene"?

Yes, sounds good. But I don't want people thinking Kamal pacified Chettiar into financing the scene. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten. Hope the current phrasing is good. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect to Chettiar, somehow the Production section has portrayed him as an eternal villain cynical of the film's success. I know this is unintentional, but don't you think it teases the neutrality aspect?

I believed this does, so I'll leave it to Ssven2. Let him read Mahendran's book (yes, I shared the pages with him) and see if any correction/addition needs to be made. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will get around to it tomorrow as I am a little more freer then.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait. No worries. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to the themes, I don't know from when Rajinikanth was politically active, but 1978 was too early to make assumptions. He wasn't even a proper lead actor with a noticeable stardom then. Why should we see it as Rajinikanth's resentment on AIADMK? If there is no proper justification to this, it is better you bid goodbye to this point.

The source reads, "J Ramki in his book Rajni: Sapthama? Sagaapthama? writes that Rajnikanth had ruffled a few feathers in the ruling AIADMK since his Mullum Malarum (1978), where he sings ‘raman aandaalum raavanan aadaalum enakkoru kavalai illai [I don’t care if Raman rules the state or Raavanan]'." I believe it was (and still is) allegorical, like Padayappa vs Neelambari reflected Rajini vs Jaya. So can it be rephrased or simply removed? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. MM was his breakthrough. If he hurt AIADMK's feelings, it is the film's issue, not the actor's. Place any actor there, and the result is still the same. Because the man on screen wasn't a star even then. Rajinikanth vs Jayalalitha is a different issue, as he openly took a stand against her and the references were clear in Muthu, Arunachalam and Padayappa. So, i believe this should be either removed, or needs to be mentioned as an impact of the song's lyrics on the then-existing political scenario. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as it is not helpful any longer, and also reduces clutter in the section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going further, i am unable to understand what would the guys at Ananda Vikatan compare the film with Kurinji flowers. I mean why? is it the rarity? uniqueness? visual beauty? subtle colour? Why?

Most probably rarity. This once glorious icon translated the last line of Vikatan's review in his now-unusable book as "This flower is one of those rarest Kurinchi flowers in Tamil Cinema". Can I write the reviewer likened it to Kurinchi flowers because of its rarity? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Legacy, don't you think we can mention the usage of "Raman Aandalum" in Petta's climax? BR says in his review of Petta, "My favourite nod, though, has to be Anirudh’s number, ‘Marana Mass’. It isn’t till the end of the film that you realise the song is a tribute to (and an extension of) a famous Rajini number that was equally percussion-heavy and also sung by SP Balasubrahmanyam."

Sounds good, I'll added this additional source since BR's review doesn't say "mullum" or "raman". --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Veera Narayana 21:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a Prime account, you can watch it with subs and clarify any plot details. The annual subscription pack isn't so expensive. Since I plan on watching the film again from scratch (the last time was a pirated copy on YT, this time will be Prime), I do not want to ruin it by watching bits and pieces. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendation. As i said earlier, the playing god aspect was the only thing i could highlight in this viewing. Let me know once you are done with the above comments of mine. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veera Narayana, I've tried to down the negativity regarding Chettiar. Please check now. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the timely responses. Given that my concerns are met, i support this article's promotion to FA. Regards, Veera Narayana 11:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]