Talk:Mullum Malarum

message: * http://www.rediff.com/election/2009/mar/18voter-voice-opportunists-will-form-government.htm
* https://web.archive.org/web/20131216081106/http://www.dc-epaper.com/PUBLICATIONS/DC/DCC/2013/12/12/Article//112/12_12_2013_112_018.jpg
* http://cinemalead.com/slide-show-id-rajinikanth-mullum-malarum1205.htm ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful sources 

message: In my remarks here made at 10:56 on 5 September 2019, I made an elementary error.  The "direct object" in my edit is really an indirect object. I make a similar error a little later.  Please correct.  Many apologies. A simpler way of describing this is: you can say "Chettiar offered to produce the movie" (here "to produce ..." is a verb complement with an infinitive (to)." or "Chettiar offered Mahendran the job of the director." (Here "the job of the director," a noun phrase, is the direct object, and Mahendran is the indirect object.)  But you cannot say: "Chettiar offered Mahendra to direct the movie." (PS I've made this example up from memory.  The actual edit of the link above might be a little different.)   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what happened, the quotes are rough not exact. Chettiar was Mahi's friend. He visited Mahi's home and said, "I want to produce a film. Will you direct it?". Mahi agreed, and when Chettiar asked for a story, Mahi outlined MM which was finalised. Does this sentence solve any confusion? "Producer Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films, a friend of Mahendran, offered him the job of directing his next film". Because Indian producers don't typically pitch projects, they only finance them. --Kailash29792 (talk)  17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of my post was to point out an error in my explanation of your grammatical error.  I can't do anything with your explanation here as it addresses something else, and it is not sourced.  I've already told you to cite to Chakravarthy, whose tribute to Mahendran published in Frontline is a reliable secondary source, who writes accurately, and who says,  "By the time this film was completed, Mahendran began to experience symptoms of burnout. He was equally assailed by guilt as he was well aware that he was promoting the kind of cinema that was contrary to his spirit and against which he wrote many a scathing review. He decided to stop writing, but his fascination for the potential of the medium nonetheless remained. So when producers put pressure on him to come up with more stories he told them point-blank that he had exhausted all his ideas and all that he could do was perhaps adapt a literary work. That was how Uma Chandran’s novel Mullum Malarum (1966) landed on his lap. Abandoning any faithful rendition of the novel, he followed his own instincts and transformed it into a screenplay. Quickly realising, though, that the kind of treatment he had arrived at would have no takers in the industry, he quietly filed it away. He was certain that producers would reject it as it had no scope for routine melodrama, excessive dialogues, overacting, duets and a typical climax, all of which he was always highly critical about since he made that speech in front of MGR during his college days."  In that paragraph and the four that follow, you have enough material for the Development section.  You could even add earlier material about his career as a film critic, and frustration with the conventional Tamil movie.  I'm not sure why you are taking this complicated route of using a Tamil language primary source, and then running circles around potential objections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is simple; get info straight from the horse's mouth. The Frontline article has numerous omissions and some errors; it says, "When it was eventually released in theatres, for the first three days there was not much of an audience to talk about. The producer felt that his judgment had been vindicated. On the fourth day, large crowds began to gather to see the film, clearing the path for Mahendran to make more films and for Rajinikanth to adorn lead roles." It was for the first three/four weeks that the film did not have a strong audience. --Kailash29792 (talk)  11:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that is your personal opinion.  Wikipedia guidelines about primary sources are pretty clear.  Please read WP:NOTRS:  "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Frontline is a highly respected Indian magazine. If you think it has made an error, please write a letter to the magazine's editor and request the author to recant it, or find another reliable secondary source that points out that error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elementary error in my FAC review 

message: Okay , I want to solve all issues before I attempt another FAC. I rewrote the development section yesterday, and I had help. Is it better and more coherent than before? I know it is accurate, because someone fluent in both English and Tamil sat near me to proof read. Now where all do you want me to remove Mahendran's book as a source from the article? If a statement is available only in that book and nowhere else, you cannot call that OR worth removing. Maybe I can write, "According to Mahendran...". The Frontline article is not a carbon copy of the book in English, and has maybe one or two factual errors. I believed primary sources should only not be used for highly disputed info like box office collections. The book does not lack complete third-party coverage, here's proof. --Kailash29792 (talk)  11:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in much worse shape than it was before.  Instead of fixing a piece of text in the manner in which I had suggested, you have rewritten it with more errors than before.  I'm cutting you some slack now because I see that you are not able to write encyclopedic prose.  Before long I will lose patience and stop responding until the next FAC.  I am not obliged to help you outside of that.  An article in the movies section of a newspaper about a 5,000-book private collection that has been opened to the public, and that states,  "In a sense, one can find the book Cinemavum Naanum by J Mahendran as well as Hitchcock/Truffaut by François Truffaut in the same shelf. Designed by Pa Ranjith’s wife Anitha, the interiors of Koogai are densely packed and lit with vibrant colours. Anitha believes that Koogai was started with the intention to act as a social gathering."  is not third-party mention in the sense of a discussion of the contents of the book, its publication history, or its critical worth,  in a reliable secondary source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest favour you could do is to not take part in the next FAC. But don't worry, I will get all your comments resolved in less than a month, no matter how many eggs I have to break to make a single omelette. --Kailash29792 (talk)  13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it means the producer Chettiar wanted Mahendran to direct a film for Ananthi Films, and "production" is also a noun. --Kailash29792 (talk)  06:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

text: The verb he is talking about is not "production," but the verb complement with infinitive, to direct his new production. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , sorry for that last edit. I didn't know about the policy. Looks like I will never be able to add a worthy link to Mahi's memoir. Since you got angry with me for seeking your help outside an FAC and opening a PR without informing you, what should I do to make you happy? Ssven may not be available till he finishes his exams in October. Because only  can tell me how to solve the comments raised by you, which are all harder to understand than rocket science. And please finish editing the "Themes" and "Plot" sections. --Kailash29792 (talk)  16:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cinemavum Naanum'' 

message: I'm not sure why you're not using,   It has a full three pages on MM. It has quite a bit about the development.  It mentions that the winch-operated cable railway was the one in Glenmorgan, Ooty, which now seems to have been abandoned.  In other words, the movie wasn't just incidentally also shot in Ooty, it was deliberately shot in Glenmorgan, Ooty, for the employment of the winch-operated trolley, which was presumably still functional then. This fact, without my interpretation, should be mentioned in the article.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, who came up with the idea of using the winch and the railway as a significant prop?  I would imagine that winch operated railways are quite rare in India.  Does the Uma Chandran novel have the winch, and does it specifically mention Ooty? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see what happened during the first FAC, read Vensatry's comments. --Kailash29792 (talk)  13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it paraphrase from this article, or does from the version of October 2015? To "mirror" typically means to copy verbatim.  Paraphrasing is allowed.  It does have a few errors, such as the perennial "riding the winch," but has quite a bit of material not in this article. I see that the lead of your version of October 2015 is much better, more encyclopedic, than the current lead.  Perhaps, as I had suggested before, you have been too pliable, essentially butchering the article to please reviewers, in turn, to receive their vote.  Encyclopedia writing involves a compact between the author (you) and the reader (a layperson), not a reviewer. That compact is more important than FA-hood.  I will take a good look at Dhananjayan.  If it sounds fine, I'll be happy to add it back to the bibliography section and you can cite it.  I notice the version of October 2015 has Glenmorgan already!  I can feel your overall frustration.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for trying to help, but if I was a bit too cryptic, I'll be clearer. Vensatry opposed the first FAC because it used Pride of Tamil Cinema which he said is a case of WP:CIRCULAR. However, the Mullum Malarum chapter did not copy at all from Wiki, but I still closed the FAC voluntarily since I could not fight back. Does this make the entire book an automatic non-RS? Besides, after I bought Cinemavum Naanum, I realised Danny (my nickname for Dhananjayan) borrowed liberally from . --Kailash29792 (talk)  13:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

text: The irony in all this is that if Mahendran had been pliable, had let the powers-that-be have their way, the movie would never have been made, or been made with a generic, light-complexioned, fat, hero with a thin mustache. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I raised this issue here, and the reply I got from  was, "Irrespective of whether it's plagiarized or not, the book cites Wikipedia articles as references. It's not an acceptable as per WP:CIRCULAR". Do you think I should open another discussion about this and cite your opinion? If you think not, that Utcursch and Vensatry were right, let's forget the book even exists. Kailash29792 (talk)  11:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

text: They are talking through their hat.  Ask them to turn up here. The OED, the venerable dictionary of the language, copied verbatim from my definition of the British Raj, in 2009, see my mention of that in the Talk:British Raj archives.  That doesn't mean we stop using the OED altogether, or even for that matter for the Raj.  The main issue for me is that the more we make this article bareboned, tossing the baby out with the bathwater, the more it begins to look like something for which the critical mass of sources do not exist for FA-hood. We need every source we can find, within reason.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was once of the opinion that "we need every source we can find" before taking the article to FAC. I've since dropped that because then I realised it means presenting mountains of worthless garbage, distracting the reader from the film's essential details. And the successful FACs of smaller articles like Andha Naal, Kalidas and Keechaka Vadham made me believe the same was possible with MM which is between small and large. Kailash29792 (talk)  11:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can't help there.  I haven't seen those pages, and obviously not reviewed them.  Your interlocutors need to show there was copying, such as for example, of the Wikipedia lead of the British Raj page of early May 2008, which was reproduced, without attribution, in the Oxford English Dictionary in its draft edition of June 2008, or at least significant borrowing from the Wikipedia page.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source: G. Dhananjayan, ''Pride of Tamil Cinema, 1931–2013'' 

message: has asked me to look over the article. Below are my comments about the "Plot" section:
*I do not know what this sentence (Kali seethes at displays of unfeelingness.) means.
*For this part (In revenge for a rich man's cruelty to a porter, he breaks the headlight of the man's car), I think you can say "his car" and it would be understood from the context rather than repeating "man".
*For this part (the newly arrived divisional engineer at the powerhouse.), something about "newly arrived" sounds a little odd to me. I would just say "the new divisional engineer at the powerhouse".
*For this part (They begin to flirt, and Manga on a whim picks up Kali's watch, lying nearby, and begins to run) is the "lying nearby" part really necessary?
*Instead of "begins to run", shouldn't it be "runs away" since she actually did run away? Something about saying she "beings to run" implies to me that she would be stopped rather immediately, but that is not the case.
*For this sentence (Waist-deep in water, Kalli extracts the watch from Manga before rushing back to the shed), I would say "takes" instead. Something about "extracts" in this context sounds off to me.
*I have a question about this sentence (In his absence, a child living in the valley has needed medical attention.). Does the film specify what kind of "medical attention" the child needs? Also, do we ever find out if the child survived/was okay after being taken to the hospital?
*For this part (joining the tribals there in singing and dancing), I do not believe "there" is necessary.
Apologies to  if I am interrupting any ongoing discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is the version I wrote.  It has been changed by Kailash29792.  My version had "unfeeling behavior." It does have the "man's car," because, obsessive as I am, I didn't want anyone to think it was the porter's car!  I do have "newly arrived" because he really had just arrived in the town, still had a newcomer's curiosity about the place, i.e.  was not some local who had been promoted.  He was a new presence for the women as well, including Kaali's sister, Valli, who seemed enamored. Next point: again my obsessiveness/literalness call it what you may.  I thought a watch typically belongs on a wrist, so unless I say, he had laid it somewhere, people might think she had peeled it off his wrist! Next point.  My version says: "Later, as Kali is repairing some machinery, Manga appears in the shed. They begin to flirt, and Manga on a whim picks up Kali's watch, lying nearby, and begins to run. A chase begins, which takes them through the woods and to the river. Waist-deep in water, Kalli extracts the watch from Manga before rushing back to the shed."  She didn't run away, at least not at the outset.  She was running around the winch, and it wasn't clear she was going anyplace far.  She did run away only when he began to chase her. In the river, the camera showed her soaked, focused on her cleavage and flimsy wet blouse, and then on his face.  As he got closer, she dropped the watch down her cleavage. He dunked her and fell into the water himself.  After a few seconds, his hand emerged first, clasping the watch triumphantly, (I had to watch this twice to make sure he had the watch), and then he himself etc. "Extract" was my euphemism for this corny sequence.  ... Actually, I just realized that for four bucks, I actually bought the movie, and hadn't just rented it.  I can go back and check.  More anon.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for the response. I agree that it is best to be as transparent as possible to avoid any confusion or misinterpretations so I think your observations are correct. I still think the "begins to run" part could be worded better. I understand what you mean in your response, but I do not think it is clear in the prose. When I read the section, I had assumed she took the watch and ran away and Kali had chased after her. I am not sure how to make that part clearer though, and it could just be me so take it with a grain of salt. I am still a little uncertain about "extracts", but I have a better understanding of why it is used. It is a little tricky because the summary should not be weighed down by details so I do not believe more details are necessary. I think "extracts" would be fine, although I would be interested in what editors have to say on it. Thank you again for your message, and let me know if anything I said needs clarification. I am currently typing this in between doing some off-Wiki errands so apologies in advance if I miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right.  She did run away.  And you are right, we don't need to say "lying nearby," as his hands were all greasy, implying he routinely took his watch off at work.  The cleavage visual occurred before the chase not in the river, although she did drop the watch down the front of her blouse there.  I had remembered an underwater scuffle of sorts, but this was quick, so "takes" is fine. They don't say what was wrong with the child, but a passer-by operates the winch, and the caboose is shown returning with the child in the engineer's arms. He is transferred to a waiting jeep, which speeds off.  The engineer stays behind, saying, "it was an emergency and the child needed medical attention."  (Exact words in the subtitles)  Not sure if they speak about the child again.  They probably do, but that will require more watching which I can't do now. Next point: my version has, "In the evening, Kali who is bristling with anger at Kumaran, goes to Mullimalai, to let off steam among the Badaga tribals. After singing, dancing, and drinking, as he staggers home at night, he passes out on an unlit street, whereupon a passing truck mangles his left arm."  My version exceeds 700 words.  Is that such a big breach?  I didn't think so, but then I'm new to movie FACs.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I don't have any issues with your changing the text.  You can take my version and change it in whatever idiomatic/encyclopedic fashion as you see fit, and reduce it to 700 as well. If you need more clarification: Ask.  Thanks!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

text: *The movie probably only puts importance in the child's injury in terms of Kali's character so I would not be surprised if the child is never addressed after that point. Since it does not appear the child factors in the movie in any major way after this, it is fair to keep it confined to this. I have two comments about this "In the evening, Kali who is bristling with anger at Kumaran, goes to Mullimalai, to let off steam among the Badaga tribals" wording. The "Badaga" wikilink goes to a disambiguation page so that would need to be correct, and I also prefer the current wording in the article: "Kali goes to the nearby village Mullimalai to relieve his anger, joining the tribals there in singing and dancing." I prefer how it condenses "bristling with anger" and "let off steam" to "relieve his anger". It is a little more concise and conveys the same message so that is always a plus in terms of summary. As for your question about the 700 word limit in an FAC, it really depends. It should not go over the limit by a large amount, but it may be acceptable by a few words. Some reviewers are strict about it while others  are not. I have gotten varying responses when I have done FACs for television episodes, which also have a similar word limit for plot summaries. I think it is important to first make sure the plot summary highlights all of the important aspects of the film in an understandable manner and then try to condense it down while keeping that same information. I hope that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just realized that I have to make the changes.  I've rewritten the plot, taking into account your objections.  Please take a look and tell me what you think.  I've introduced some new things, but it is now 680 words or thereabouts. I'm poor at comma-ing and paragraphing, so please amend.  Also, I've deliberately left some sentences simple, eschewing subordinate-clausing  for the altered emphasis it introduces, but you are free to change them.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I unfortunately will probably not have the time to do extensive edits to the plot summary. I will do a quick look through it now though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have done a small copy-edit of the article. I focused on improving the prose, and I combined some of the paragraphs for readability and to try and make the summary flow somewhat better. Feel free to revert anything as I have not seen the film. I would also double-check my spelling. I am an American so I may have accidentally introduced some American spellings. Pinging  so they are aware of this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

text: *I do not see why this point "carelessly waving a sugarcane stalk" is necessary. It seems like too much of a detail for a summary since it does not appear that this particular point has any real importance on the plot. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * :) Very true.  I was trying to establish her presence at the trolley in the first sentence, but clearly overdid it.  Removed.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * I hope that my revisions were somewhat helpful. Thank you for cleaning up a few of my edits. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * You've done an excellent job.  I wish I had been more attentive to precis writing in high school.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for improving the plot, just one sentence needs rewriting: "This becomes the setting for a Busby Berkeley-inspired musical number, which is one of the film's five musical interludes". I cannot find any source describing it as Berkeley-inspired, and I want the plot to be more in-universe without going into WP:SYNTHESIS or being opinion-based (personally, I feel the number is too rustic to be considered Western-inspired). I feel it is important to simply mention Kali joined the tribals in dancing. Here's what happened. Or I may be wrong, but I wouldn't say anything like, "In a Cuckoo's Nest-inspired manner, he mercifully  kills his lobotomised friend". Kailash29792 (talk)  17:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

text: I have a question: why is his shirt wet?  Is that sweat?  Song and dance numbers typically do not show the singers sweating.  Does it have any significance?   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am not sure as I am not familiar with this genre of film, but it does not sound significant to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've now written, "That evening, Kali goes to the nearby Mullimalai to assuage his anger at Kumaran among the Badagas, joining them in singing and dancing" because I do not want to get  descriptive or POV-ish. Hope it is not incoherent, since you may have read the earlier plot written by Fowler. Kailash29792 (talk)  03:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

text: PS I'm not saying that my sub-page version needs to be incorporated in some way shape or form, only that there needs to be some mention of the songs, however perfunctory, in the plot, and a fuller one somewhere else.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the "Plot" section 

message: Both lead actresses in the film, Fatafat Jayalakshmi, who plays Manga, and Shoba, who plays Valli, killed themselves within two years of making the movie.  Jayalakshmi was 22 at the time of her death, and Shoba just 17.  Shoba had been married two years earlier,  at age 15, to the film's cinematographer, Balu Mahendra.  These anomalies could not have gone unnoticed in the media.  Should these deaths not be discussed in the article, to the extent they have some connection with the movie?
:* I am not convinced their deaths are relevant to this article. Unless for some reason media outlets have tied their suicides to this film, I do not see the connection. I could maybe understand it if this was either of their last film appearances, but both actresses made a relatively large amount of films after this one so I am not convinced. I know absolutely nothing about this though so it would probably be better to get a more experienced perspective. Aoba47 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you. It looks good.  I've made some minor changes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. Unfortunately for me, the media did not make any connections.  I couldn't find any sources.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues to be explored perhaps: the suicides of the lead actresses