Yennanga Sir Unga Sattam - Offers quick fix solutions but was the problem understood?

Bharath Vijayakumar

There is always this hot discussion if movies need to be giving messages. Some films end up merely as propaganda vehicles and some shine as an art form while ensuring that the message is an organic takeaway from the film. Director Prabhu Jeyaram takes a different path. He has divided his film into two halves. Well, every other Tamil film does the same. But here it almost plays out like two different films. The first one is light hearted and follows a wastrel and his romantic (stalking) escapades. The second one follows the lives of three different characters and wants to make a statement about caste and reservation.

Let us get into the discussion about what the film is trying to convey a little later. That apart, how does the film fare. Prabhu Jeyaram does have interesting ideas and even the pretty usual premise of a carefree guy and his romantic escapades is treated in a quirky manner. But a lot of the quirkiness gets diluted on screen with the performances being either amateur or just about adequate. The second half which is serious and is actually the crux of the film also faces similar issues.

Yennanga Sir Unga Sattam proposes quick fix solutions. It wants a relook at the reservation system. To be fair, the film takes a dig at every section. But everything is so black and white. The characters never feel like flesh and blood. Even an actress like Rohini doesn't make an impression. The messages are in the form of lectures to the audience. A character talks about the pros and cons of reservation to another character. The message is for the audience but within the film, what is the need for the character to be spelling all this to another character. It is as though the director wants to tell us something and so he has two characters converse or debate about it. None of this comes across as organic.

As said earlier, the film does take a dig at everything. It speaks against caste (superficially), mocks at the arrange marriage set up and does a lot that makes the film seem as progressive.The bottomline that the film wants to convey is that reservation should exist but if someone benefits out of it, the person's next generation should not opt for it. Then it also talks about economic disparity and how reservation should also be based on it. I am not an expert on the topic but the film conveniently doesn't talk about management quota. It equates reservation to economic upliftment. Economic upliftment maybe a byproduct of reservation but isn't reservation more about representation. What about social capital? How do you measure that? The film talks about complex problems and then gives easy solutions. But was the problem understood clearly in the first place? There is this scene in Villadhi Villain where someone comes to the gym to learn from Goundamani. He then moves his arms, falsely assuming that he is lifting the dumbell and is surprised and asks, "Enna ivlo easy ah irukku". This is what I felt watching the film.

Bottomline

Debatable politics aside, the film has an interesting premise and there are some interesting ideas in the writing. But a certain amateurishness in the execution and performances is glaring. The film offers easy solutions. But did it actually understand the problem for which it is proposing the solution?

Rating: 2.5/5