SEXED CELLULOID: QUEERING THE HETEROSEXUAL MALAYALAM

CINEMA

By

ANAND MATHEW

Contents

Page No.

Chapter 1. Inception of Cinematic Queering: A Journey

through Indian and Malayalam Cinema

01 - 23

Chapter 2. Queering of the Heterosexual Malayalam

Cinema 24 - 43

Chapter 3. Conclusion

44 - 49

Works Sited

50- 52

Bibliography

53 -57

Chapter 1

Inception of Cinematic Queering: A Journey through

Indian and Malayalam Cinema

Introduction of cinema in India took place in 1896

with the aid of the British colonisers. While discussing

about the history of Indian cinema the first name that

springs up is that of the Lumiere Brothers who

demonstrated the art of cinema to the subcontinent.

Bombay was the first Indian city that introduced

Cinematography screening six short films by the Lumiere

Brothers. In 1900, the entire Indian entertainment

sector underwent huge changes and the emergence of Dada

Saheb Phalke took Indian cinema to new heights. Thus the

path breaking film of the Silent era, Raja Harishchandra,

was released in 1913. During this time and the era of

the talkies the main sources for Indian films were the

mythological texts.

The rapid growth of the Indian cinema led to the end

of the silent era and escorted the era of the talkies.

The latter introduced the Indian cinema in a completely

new way to the audience. Initially films were primarily

made in Hindi, Tamil, Bengali and Telugu and these films

proved to be phenomenal successes. 1930s and 1940s

witnessed the rise of film personalities, such as,

Debaki Bose, Chetan Anand, S.S. Vasan, Nitin Bose and

others. Their contributions helped the Indian cinema to

grow further. By this time apart from Bombay, the film

industry shaped up well in down south too. The Tamil,

Telugu and Kannada film industries were making

indigenous films as well.

By late 1940s, films in India were made in various

languages but the religious influence was predominant.

With struggle for independence, the entire scenario

altered. Indian cinema now saw films based on the then

contemporary social issues. Movies no longer were

limited to the periphery of entertainment; they were now

potent instruments to educate the masses as well.

The golden period in the history of Indian cinema is

attributed to the 1950s. Guru Dutt, Mehboob Khan, Raj

Kapoor, Balraj Sahani, Nargis, Bimal Roy, Meena Kumari,

Madhubala, Dilip Kumar graced the screens. In south

India esteemed actors like Rajkumar, Gemini Ganesan, N.

T. Rama Rao and several other actors and actresses

entertained the audiences. Indian cinema moved one step

further with the release of K. Asif’s Mughal-e-Azamin

1960. A trail of romantic movies followed all over

India. While the Indian commercial cinema enjoyed

popularity amidst the movie goers, Indian art cinema did

not go unnoticed. Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Ritwik Ghatak,

Aravindan, Satyajit Ray, Shaji Karun and several other

art film directors were making movies that took India to

international fame and glory. 1970s were the

unforgettable year for Hindi cinema as Ramesh Sippy’s

Sholay proved to be an iconoclast and gave Indian cinema

its new superstar-Amitabh Bachchan. Hardly did anyone

know then that the ‘Bachchan era’ was here to stay for

long enough. At one hand, Hindi cinema was growing in

leaps and bounds and on the other; the regional films

were making their presence felt too. A number of well-

established Hindi film stars who became a part of the

star system in India actually began their career with

the Indian regional films (“A History of Indian

Cinema”).

The regional films like Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu,

Bengali and others produced a number of romantic films.

With romantic films at the helm, the Indian cinema

ushered into 1990s. A mixed genre was witnessed during

this time. Romantic, thriller, actions, and comic movies

were made. Gradually the face of Indian cinema was

undergoing changes one again. The audiences, too, were

getting weary of similar story-lines. Hence the

contemporary Indian cinema, keeping pace with time and

technology, witnessed Dolby digital sound effects,

advanced special effects, choreography, international

appeal, further investments from corporate sectors along

with finer scripts and performances. The aesthetic

appeal of cinema became important for the filmmakers.

The people of Kerala were familiar with the moving

images on the screen through the traditional art form

‘tholpavakooth’. It was usually exhibited at festive

seasons in village temples. ‘Tholpavakooth’ uses puppets

made of leather with flexible joints. These joints are

moved using sticks and the shadow of these moving

puppets are captured on a screen using a light source

from behind, creating dramatic moving images on the

screen. ‘Tholpavakooth’ uses the stories from

mythology, with accompanying dialogues and songs with

traditional percussions like the Chenda ( “Kerala

movies”). There were other forms of art like ‘Kooth’,‘

Koodiyattam’ and ‘Kathakali’ that exhibit high visual

qualities in their form. This may be the legacy of

Kerala’s visual culture that lead the filmmakers of

Kerala to take up cinema in a different way, rather than

mere plain storytelling, than anywhere else in India,

and the people of Kerala appreciated them.

In the silent era of film, marrying the image with

synchronous sound was not possible for inventors and

producers, since no practical method was devised until

1923. Thus, for the first thirty years of their history,

films were silent, although accompanied by live

musicians and sometimes sound effects and even

commentary spoken by the showman or projectionist.

Vigathakumaran, a silent film released in 1928 remarks the

inception of Malayalam cinema. The man behind

Vigathakumaran was J. C. Daniel who produced, directed,

wrote, photographed, edited and acted as the protagonist

in the movie. But the movie flopped, as it faced

opposition from certain orthodox groups in Kerala. The

reason for their opposition is said to be the presence

of women in the film, which was considered equivalent

to prostitution, at that time in Kerala.

Marthanda Varma directed by V.V. Rao and released in

1933 was the second film. V.V. Rao based this silent

movie on a novel of its namesake by C. V. Raman Pillai.

But the producer of the film Sunder Raj failed to obtain

the film rights of the book and the film was withdrawn

from screenings.

The first talkie in Malayalam was Balan which came

out in the year 1938 was directed by S. Nottani. Balan,

scripted by Muthukulam Raghavan Pillai told the story of

two orphaned children oppressed by their stepmother. The

film was a stereotype of the themes of early Indian

cinema, particularly South Indian cinema. Balan was

followed by Gnanambika, also directed by S. Nottani and

Prahlada directed by K.Subramaniam.

Until 1947 Malayalam films were made almost

exclusively by Tamil producers. This trend changed when

P. J. Cherian made Nirmala in 1948. Vellinakshatram released

in 1949 was the first movie to be made in Kerala and it

took shape at the Udaya Studios at Alleppey. Jeevithanauka,

produced in 1951 by Udaya Studios marked the first

commercial success in the history of Malayalam cinema

and its protagonist Thikkurissy Sukumaran Nair was

widely accepted as the first everlasting stars in

Malayalam cinema. The film contained all the ingredients

that were to form the basis for future commercial

productions. The film owed its structure more to the

village festivals of Kerala than anything else. Cinema

was seen as a mixture of various traditional art forms

like music, dance, dance-drama, mimicry and so on.

Connecting these various disparate elements was a

storyline, which often showed the triumph of the good

over the evil.

Malayalam cinema too took a new path during the mid-

1950s towards more down-to-earth social realities,

rather than cosmetic social dramas. This change in

sensibility was not due to the effect of world cinema on

them, as the Malayalee filmmakers were virtually absent

at the film festival. Hence, even though Malayalam

cinema became more sensible during the mid-1950s, it had

to wait till the mid-1970s, till the new breed of FTII

trained filmmakers started filmmaking, for Malayalam

cinema to become ‘real cinema’.

It was the powerful movement that happened in

Malayalam literature spearheaded by literary giants like

Thakazhi Shivashankara Pillai, Viakom Muhammad Basheer

and M. T. Vasudevan Nair and the ‘Library Movement’

which coincided with it became the real factor for this

changes in Malayalam cinema. Also the strong presence of

playwrights like N Krishna Pillai, C. J. Thomas, C. N.

Shreekhantan Nair, G. Shankara Pillai and K. T. Muhammad

opened up new vistas in the field of stage plays. Dramas

of Thoppil Bhasi like Ningalanne Communist Aakki, Survey

Kallu and Mudiayanaya Puthran created ripples in the

society.

1950s witnessed the emergence of Sathyan into

Malayalam cinema through Athmasakhi. Malayalam cinema

gained national attraction when Neelakuyil won President's

silver medal in 1954. Neelakuyil is considered to be the

first authentic Malayalam film. It was scripted by Uroob

and directed by P. Bhaskaran- Ramu Kariat duo with

Sathyan as the protagonist. This film deals with the

subject of untouchability. Melodramatic in style and

filled with songs and dances, the film was a big hit

with the public. This was at a time when Malayalam

cinema had not established its cultural identity and was

hardly distinguishable from the Tamil films of the time

except for the spoken language. Newspaper Boy  was the

reflection of neo-realism in cinema, which became

popular all over the world.

Neorealism emerged as a product of the Resistance in

an effort to show reality and utilize the screen as a

self-reflective tool for building a new national

identity as a reaction to fascism. Film served as a

platform for political and civil awareness, sometimes

even acting as a political battleground. The plotlines

are extremely dramatic and usually focus on a humble

protagonist who stereotypically goes against the myth of

the superhero. This character is then used to convey a

message about society, often acknowledging the brutal

past, bleak present, and expressing hope for a better

future (“ Italian Neorealism Film Techniques ”).

This film was a result of extreme hard work by a

group of college students. Newspaper Boy was directed by

P. Ramadas, who was very new to cinema and almost all

technical works were handled by amateur students. This

film narrated the sad story of a printing press employee

and his family reeling through poverty. He dies of

extreme poverty and illness, which forces his children

to stop their education. His elder son Appu leaves to

Madras in search of a job. Failing to secure a job

there, he returns and decides to take up the job of a

newspaper boy. It was distributed some months before

Satyajith Ray's  Pather Panchali came out.

Other notable films of the fifties include Navalokam,

Achan, Sneha Seema, Harishchandra, Rarichan Enna Pauran, Randidangazhi

and Padatha Painkili. Prominent actors of the fifties include

Thikkurisi Sukumaran Nair, Sathyan, PremNazir,

S.P.Pillai and Kottarakara Sreedharan Nair. Sathyan and

PremNazir went on to become the everlasting stars of

Malayalam cinema. Leading actresses were Miss.Kumari,

B.S.Saroja, Kumari Thankam, Padmini and Prema.

The practice of utilizing literary materials of

repute as raw material for film scripts became more

frequent in 1960s. When well-known stories and novels,

mostly serialized in literary journals, were made into

film, it automatically introduced lot of cultural

elements which were absent in the Malayalam films of the

50s.

Novels were preferred to other literary sources. The

tendency to borrow literary material for filmmaking was

at its peak in the later sixties and early seventies.

The combined effort of writers and directors had its

impact on Malayalam film. The general standard of

production went up. Since many of the literary materials

were area-specific, films had to be shot on actual

locations. This was something that was unheard of at

least in Malayalam Cinema a decade before. Much of the

difficulty in providing a realistic touch in a film like

Neelakuyil arose from its studio-bound interior shots.

Malayalam films of the sixties were mostly based on

the novels, short stories, and plays of Thakazhi,

Kesavdev, Parappurath, Basheer, M. T.Vasudevan Nair,

Thoppil Bhasi and others. The era of colour films

started in Malayalam cinema in the sixties with Kandam

Bacha Coat released in 1961. Chemmeen, released in 1965,

put Malayalam cinema on the national map. The film won

the President's Gold Medal for the best film of the

year. The film acquired cult status in the history of

Malayalam cinema besides being the first South Indian

film to win the coveted President's Gold Medal for the

best film. The story of Chemmeen is set in a fisher folk

community settled in the southern belt of the coastal

area of the state. The highly emotional melodrama told

the tragic love story set in the backdrop of a fishing

village interlinked with some ancient beliefs that

exists among the community. The film was released

commercially on August 19, 1966.The film was based on a

highly acclaimed Malayalam novel of the same title by

the renowned novelist Thakazhi Sivasankara Pillai. First

published in 1956, the novel won the award for the best

literary work from Kendra Sahitya Academy in 1957 and

was the first Malayalam novel to receive the national

honour. Chemmeen was translated to more than 30

languages which include major Indian languages and

foreign languages. The novel was accepted as part of the

UNESCO collection of Representative Works - Indian

series ( “Chemmeen1965”).

Popular films of the decade include Unniyarcha, Mudiyanaya

Puthran, Velu Thampi Dalava, Palattu Koman, Ninamaninja Kalpadukal,

Bhargavi Nilayam, Murappennu, Kavyamela, Odayil Ninnu, Anweshichu

Kandethiyilla, Adyapika, Kavalam Chundan, Iruttinte Athmavu and

Thulabharam. Ramu Kariyatu, P.Bhaskaran, K. S.

Sethumadhavan and Sasikumar were some of the popular

directors of the decade. Actor Madhu entered the film

world during the sixties and became a super star.

The post- Chemmeen Malayalam cinema arena saw an

upsurge in quality films, mainly based on literary works

of some of the best writers of Kerala. After Chemmeen,

Ramu Karyat directed Ezhu Rathrikal which narrated the story

of the down trodden. The renowned Malayalam writer M. T.

Vasudevan Nair made his film debut by writing screenplay

for Murapennu. Directed by A Vincent, Murapennu was a

landmark film. Oolavum Theeravum by P. N. Menon announced

the revolutionary changes Malayalam cinema was about to

witness in the early 1970s. A new generation of

filmmakers who realized the uniqueness of the language

of this medium, ventured into a different kind of

cinema. This film could be considered as the bridge

between the two eras of Malayalam cinema.

Malayalam cinema got split into two distinct

streams, one that considered cinema’s artistic qualities

as its primary objective, which kept away all the

formulas of popularity and the other the crass

commercials, which took into consideration only the

possibilities to entertain the mass and spin money.

The films by Adoor

Gopalakrishnan, Aravindan and John Abraham during the

early 1970s were reflections of 'new wave' movements all

over the world, often termed as 'parallel cinema'

movement. Even when Malayalam cinema reached new heights

through these films, they remained as the art of a

minority. A synthesis of the easily communicative, but

hollow commercial cinema and the cinema enjoyed by a

minority, the parallel cinema, took place during this

period, which later came to be known as 'middle-stream

cinema'.

The early 1970s witnessed a radical change in the

perspective towards cinema by filmmakers as well as film

viewers of Kerala. The beginning of film society

movement resulted in the exposure to world classics,

which helped a group of young filmmakers realise the

uniqueness of the language of this medium, which until

then was in the clutches of the forms used for stage

dramas. Influenced by the French and Italian New Wave,

as elsewhere in India, the Malayalam New Wave was born.

The arrival of young filmmakers from the newly

constituted Film Institute in Pune acted as a catalyst

for this radical change.

Adoor Gopalakrishnan’s Swayamvaram released in 1972

unplugged a stream of extraordinary films, often termed

as ‘Parallel Cinema’, by film institute trained and

self-taught young directors, which surpassed the

superficiality of mere storytelling and made maximum use

of the possibilities cinema as a medium. Through

Uttarayanam G. Aravindan joined this movement followed by

directors like P. A. Backer with Kabani Nadi Chuvannappol;

K. P. Kumaran with Athithi and K. R. Mohanan with

Ashwathama. Renowned writer M. T. Vasudevan Nair made his

directorial debut with Nirmalyam released in 1973 won the

Golden lotus award during this period. Padmarajan and K.

G. George who later became the proponents of the stream

of cinema often termed ‘Middle Cinema’ too made their

debuts in 1979 with their films Swapnadanam and

Peruvazhiyambalam respectively.

Even though the Parallel Cinema movement had a slow

down during 1980s, some of the best films of Malayalam

cinema from directors like Adoor and Aravindan came out

during this period. The major development during this

decade was the growth of another stream of Malayalam

cinema, the ‘Middle Cinema’, which fused the artistic

qualities of ‘Parallel Cinema’ and the popular form of

the commercial Malayalam cinema. This resulted in the

birth of a number of films with down to earth stories,

but with most of them becoming commercial successes. K.

G. George with his films Kolangal , Yavanika, Lekhayude

Maranam Oru Flashback, Adaminte Variyellu and Irakal; P.

Padmarajan with his films like Oridathoru Phayalwan,

Koodevide? , Namakku Parkan Munthiri Thoppukal, Moonnampakkam

and Aparan; Bharathan with Lorry, Marmaram and Ormakkayi;

Mohan with Vidaparayum Munpe; Lenin Rajendran with Chillu

and Meenamasathile Sooryan; Pavithran with Uppuand K. S.

Sethumadhavan with Oppo all were strong presence in

Malayalam cinema during the 80s (“List of Malayalam

movies: 1980s”).

Barring films from Adoor, Aravindan and Shaji 1990s

did not see many good films. Murali Nair’s film

Maranasimhasanam released in1999 was an exception. T. V.

Chandran who started with Alicinte Anveshanam too continued

with his films like Ponthan Mada, Ormakalundayirikanam and

Mankamma. The commercial cinema came out with films

cut-off from the real Kerala society and larger than

human chauvinist characters. Soft porno films too

flooded the theatres, which won huge commercial gains.

In South India, Parallel cinema or the Art

cinema was well supported in the state of Kerala.

Malayalam moviemakers like Adoor Gopalakrishnan, G.

Aravindan, and M. T. Vasudevan Nair were quite

successful. Starting the 1970s, Kannada filmmakers from

Karnataka state produced a string of serious, low-budget

films. But virtually only one director from that period

continues to make off- beat films – Girish Kasaravalli.

In other markets of south India, like Kannada, Tamil,

Malayalam, and Telugu, stars and popular cinema rule the

box office. A few directors, such as Balachander,

Bharathiraja, Balu Mahendra, Bapu, Puttanna,

Siddalingaiah, Dr.K.Vishwanath, and Mani Ratnam have

achieved fair amount of success at the box-office while

balancing elements of art and popular cinema together.

The directors of the art cinema owed much more to

foreign influences, such as Italian Neo-Realism or

French New Wave, than they did to the genre conventions

of commercial Indian cinema.

Popular cinema of Malayalam rarely tried to adopt

the language of cinema until the 1980s. Delivering

highly dramatic dialogues and singing and dancing in a

set that resembled a stage were the widely accepted

format of Malayalam commercial cinema. The eighties

witnessed the further blossoming of new wave in

Malayalam cinema earning it National and International

accolades. Notable films in this genre during the

eighties were Adoor's Elippathayam, Mukhamukham,

Anantharam and Mathilukal; Aravindan's Pokkuveyil,

Chidambaram and Oridathu, Sethumadhavan's Oppol; John

Abraham's AmmaAriyan and Shaji N Karun's Piravi. Lenin

Rajendran and T.V.Chandran also came out with some

quality works in the eighties. Elippathayam won the British

Film Institute award for Most Original and Imaginative

film in 1982. Chidambaram won the National Film Award

for the Best Feature Film in 1985, while Balan K Nair

won the National Film Award for the Best Actor in 1981

for his performance in Oppol. Piravi was another landmark

film in the new wave genre bagging the National Film

Awards for Best Film, Best Director, and Best Actor, in

1989 and several international awards.

Another stream of films called as "middle-stream-

cinema" got well established in the eighties. This form

of cinema was appreciated for their seamless integration

of the seriousness of parallel cinema and the popularity

of mainstream cinema. Films belonging to this genre were

mostly directed by K. G. George, Bharathan and

Padmarajan. K. G. George made commercially successful

films that were praised for their artistic qualities.

Some of his movies in the eighties include Kolangal,

Yavanika, Lekhayude Marnam: Oru Flashback , Adaminte Variyellu,

Panchavadi Palam, Irakal and Mattoral. Bharatan's movies were

well known for their aesthetic appreciation of nature

and female body and he treated sexuality without falling

into vulgarity. His widely appreciated movies in the

eighties include Chamaram, Marmaram, Palangal, Kattathe

Kilikoodu, Kathodu Kathoram, Chilampu, Oru Minnaminunginte

Nurunguvettam and Vaishali. Padmarajan entered Malayalam

Cinema world as a script writer and later ventured into

direction based on his own screenplays. His highly

acclaimed works of the eighties include Oridaththoru

Phayalvaan, Novemberintaey Nashtam, Koodevide, Nammukku

Paarkkaan Munthiri Thoppukal, Thoovaanathumbikal, Aparan and

Moonnaampakkam.

Commercial movies of the eighties had brilliant

content dealing with social, political, and cultural

issues laced with action and creative comedy. The period

from 1986-1990 is widely regarded as the golden age of

Malayalam cinema. Commercial films during this period

narrowed the gap between parallel and mainstream cinema.

The Malayalam cinema of this period was characterised by

detailed screenplays dealing with everyday life with a

lucid narration of plot intermingling with humour and

melancholy. Many of the movies released during this time

narrowed the gap between art cinemas and commercial

cinemas in the Malayalam film industry, as in Oru Vadakkan

Veeragatha. These were paralleled with movies like Kireedam

directed by SibiMalayil and written by Lohitadas,

Mathilukal directed by Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Amaram

directed by Bharathan, Kaakothikaavile Appoopan Thadikal

directed by Kamal and Sargam directed by Hariharan.

Some of the humorous movies of Malayalam were also

made during this age like Siddique-Lal's Ramji Rao Speaking

in 1989 and In Harihar Nagar. Some of the other popular

movies of this time were His Highness Abdullah directed by

Sibi Malayil; Bharatham, Piravi by Shaji N. Karun.

Malayalam cinema made significant technological

achievements in the eighties. India's first indigenous

70mm movie was the Malayalam film Padayottam, released in

1982. Padayottam was produced by Appachan of Navodaya

group. The first 3-D Film made in India, My Dear

Kuttichathan was also a Malayalam Film produced by Navodaya

Appachan and was released in 1984. Leading heroes of the

eighties were Mammootty, Mohanlal, Ratheesh, Shankar and

Rahman. Mammootty and Mohanlal went on become superstars

and are the reigning stars of Malayalam cinema, while

the others lost their stardom by late eighties and early

nineties and later gave good performances in character

roles. Jayaram and Suresh Gopi played promising

performances as heroes in the late eighties and early

nineties and later grew to the level of superstars.

Leading heroines of the decade were Shobhana, Seema,

Jalaja, Menaka, Urvashi, Geetha, Unni Mary, Parvathi,

Lizy, Santhi Krishna, Ambika, Karthika, Renjini and

Revathi

In the nineties, also many films in the new wave

genre were produced and released in Kerala. These films

won many awards at the state and national levels and

contributed greatly to the world wide recognition of

Malayalam Cinema. Notable art films of the nineties

include Adoor's Mathilukal, Vidheyan, Kathapurushan,

Aravindan's Vasthuhara, Shaji N Karun's Swaham,

Vanaprastham, M. T. Vasudevan Nair'sKadavu, T.V.Chandran's

Ponthan Mada, Mangamma and Shyamaprasad's Agni Sakshi.

Commercial films and middle stream films released during

the nineties were also of good quality. These films were

well received by the masses as well as the critics and

some films managed to win awards at the National level.

Malayalam films produced in the early 2000's were

not able to match the quality of films in the eighties

and nineties. Slapstick comedy and larger-than-life

characters were the main theme in this period. Some

movies in this genre did good business and became super

hits but others failed disastrously. The crisis was

deepened by piracy and the emergence of adult-content

movies, which ruled the theatres for almost one year.

Despite the crisis Malayalam cinema produced some hit

commercial films in the early 2000's including Shaji

Kailas's Narasimham, Valyettan; Rafi-Meccartin's

Thenkasipattanam; Sathyan Anthikad's Kochu Kochu

Santhoshangal, Yathrakarude Sradhakku, Manassinakkare;. A new set

of promising actors also emerged in the early 2000's

like Prithviraj, Narain, Jayasurya and Indrajith.

Heroines like Samyuktha Varma, Kavya Madhavan, Meera

Jasmine.

During the late 1960s and during the 1970s when

Indian ‘New Wave’ cinema, especially the much acclaimed

Hindi films, fell into the trap of a formula of class-

struggle stories, ironically mostly funded by the very

oppressor class, Malayalam cinema broke away from such

formulas and explored the depths of social and

individual relationships. These extraordinary films made

during the period could even find its audience among the

common man through theatres and film societies. But in

the millennium Malayalam cinema seems to be going to the

same trap, which ultimately proved to be destructive to

the ‘New Wave’ elsewhere in India. The ‘Parallel’ films

coming out today often dwells on the most obvious

subject, which could be even got from newspapers. The

strength of cinema to go much beyond the surface level

of an issue is often neglected and dramatizing these

obvious ‘issues’ in even more obvious ways have become

the rule of the day. And when critics laud these films

as greats, the downfall becomes complete.

New age Malayalam cinema entertains every walk of

life that it promotes the cultural diversity and the

intellectual advancement in terms of mass cultural

reception and visual principles. Visual principles of

Malayalam cinema accommodates the politics of desire and

erotica where everything is censored. Malayalee culture

and global awareness influences the new age cinema

production. The notable change in the Malayalam industry

is the shift in the super hero oriented visual

treatment. New age films like Salt and Pepper, Chappa Kurishu,

Malarvadi Arts Club, City of God, Beautiful, Cocktail, Sevens, Traffic,

Thirakatha, etc. show the existence and survival of the

Malayalam cinema without the so-called super and mega

stars. The middle stream cinemas like Rithu, Sufi Paranja

Katha, Sancharam, etc. give us the hope of art and thought

provoking revival of Malayalam cinema.

The effects of middle stream cinema as well as the

parallel cinema introduced new trends in Malayalam

cinema culture. The current course of Malayalam cinema

entertains the mass cultural elite psyche of society and

the films which are produced by the industry under the

preconceived notions of mass reception treats only a

focused class and race of people. The negligence caused

the revival of the new wave in the cinematic

accommodation of art and life. When art refuses to adopt

and accommodate every walk of social life, art

contradicts itself by being parted in the same

discourse. Thus, the emergence of queer aesthetics in

the Malayalam movies. Initially this approach was

passive and kept thoroughly a subtext, which was never

allowed its own voice. Later, the approach of the

society towards the neglected sides of life and society

were gradually shifted and the queer came into the

common platform. Though the films discussed the queer

elements many of the times they contradicted themselves

and it brought forth new discussions on their diplomatic

discussion of the queer aesthetics on screen.

Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with

the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There

is nothing in particular to which it necessarily

refers. It is an identity without essence.

‘Queer’ then, demarcates not a positivity but a

positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the

normative (Halperin 62).

In general, 'Queer' may be seen as partially

deconstructing our own discourses and creating a greater

openness in the way we think through our categories.

Queer theory is, to quote Michael Warner, “a stark

attack on normal business in the academy” (Warner 25).

It poses the paradox of being inside the academy whilst

wanting to be outside of it. It suggests that a "sexual

order overlaps with a wide range of institutions and

social ideologies to challenge the sexual order is

sooner or later to encounter these institutions as a

problem” (Warner 5). Queer cinema as a term came about

quite probably, by identification with the trends in

critical theory begun in the mid-1980s, namely, queer

theory. Queer theory looks at, and studies, and has a

political critique of, anything that falls in to

normative and deviant categories, particularly sexual

activities and identities. The word queer, as it

appears in the Oxford Dictionary, has a primary meaning

of ‘odd,’ ‘strange.’ Queer theory concerns itself with

any forms of sexuality that are ‘queer’ in this sense

and then, by extension, with the normative behaviours

and identities, that define what is ‘queer.’ Thus, queer

theory expands the scope of analysis to all kinds of

behaviours, including those that are gender –bending as

well as those, which involve ‘queer’ non- normative

forms of sexuality. Queer theory follows feminist theory

and gay/lesbian studies in rejecting the idea that

sexuality is an essentialist category, something

determined by biology or judged by eternal standards of

morality and truth. For queer theorists, sexuality is a

complex array of social codes and forces, forms of

individual activity and institutional power, which

interacts to shape the ideas of what is deviant at any

particular moment, and which then operate under the

rubric of what is ‘natural,’ ‘essentialist,’

‘biological,’ or ‘God-given.’

Queer theory emphasizes radical otherness that the

otherness of the normative structural patterns of the

normal discourses of everything especially gender and

sexuality. In many ways, it begins from similar

observations as structuralism, but with a very different

perspective on the value of structures because in

structuralism, structuralists treat social structures as

indispensable for social cohesion, but queer theorists

treat structures as the root of human domination.

Therefore, queer perspectives are critical of anything

mainstream that are proponents of structured normalities

and hegemonial regularities or any social force that

pushes us in to the mainstream category. Acknowledging

the inevitable violence of identity politics and having

no stake in its own hegemony, queer is less an identity

than a critique of identity. But it is in no position to

imagine itself outside that circuit of problems

energised by identity politics. Instead of defending

itself against those criticisms that its operations

inevitably attract, queer allows such criticisms to

shape its- for now unimaginable- future directions.

'The term', writes Butler, 'will be revised,

dispelled, rendered obsolete to the extent that it

yields to the demands which resist the term precisely

because of the exclusions by which it is mobilized'. The

mobilisation of queer- no less than the critique of it-

foregrounds the conditions of political representation:

its intentions and effects, its resistance to and

recovery by the existing networks of power.

Most people in and outside of the academy are

still puzzled about what queerness means,

exactly, so the concept still has the

potentiality to disturb or complicate ways of

seeing gender and sexuality, as well as the

related areas of race, ethnicity and class

( Dothy 7).

Introducing the theory in the film genre the discourse

becomes both active and passive simultaneously. The

complexity and the overlapping of the subjects may

puzzle the scholar theoretically, but the application of

the theory on the screen prevail the complexity of the

subject matter. In the cinema, the examination of the

theory extends to the making about queerness by the

filmmakers. Queer theory can open up film/texts and lead

us to read texts that seem straight differently or view

them from a new and different angle. Thus, a queer

reading of the text can reveal that the audience is

watching something far more complex than they originally

thought they were. The examination of the Buddy films

reveal that they are not what they are normally

projected, but there may be some explicit queerness

behind their diplomatic projections as Hayward places

forth:

The actor or film maker does not have to be

queer, but the text or performance may offer

itself up for a queer reading ( Joan Crawford as

the cross-dressing gun-toting but butchly feminie

Vienna in Jonny guitar, Nicholas Ray, 1954)

(309).

.

In the last twenty years, the study of gay and

lesbian cinema has expanded greatly beyond simplistic

image analysis. Within academia, the development of

third wave feminism and queer theory across many

disciplines in the humanities has sought to rethink

basic concepts about human sexuality, demonstrating the

complexity of a subject that encompasses not only

personal orientation and behaviour but also the social,

cultural, and historical factors that define and create

the conditions of such orientations and behaviours. The

term ‘queer,’ once a pejorative epithet used to

humiliate gay men and women, is now used to describe

that broad expanse of sexualities. Queer should thus be

understood to describe any sexuality not defined as

heterosexual procreative monogamy that once the presumed

goal of any Hollywood coupling; queers are people

including heterosexuals who do not organize their

sexuality according to that rubric.

Recently many of the theoretical issues raised by

queer theory have found their way into gay and lesbian

independent filmmaking, within a movement known as New

Queer Cinema. Queer theory also helps us interrogate and

complicate the category ‘gay and lesbian cinema.’ For

example, the very meaning of the words ‘gay’ and

‘lesbian’—how they are used and understood—has changed

greatly over the decades, as have the conditions of

their cinematic representation. The characteristics that

mass culture has used to signify homosexuality have also

changed. While present-day films can be relatively

forthright about sexuality, older films could only hint

at it in various ways. Thus, many classical cinematic

performances, directors, and genres might be considered

queer rather than gay, in that they do not explicitly

acknowledge homosexuality, but nonetheless allow for

spaces in which normative heterosexuality is threatened

or shown to be an unstable performative identity.

New Queer Cinema is a term first coined by the

academic B. Ruby Rich in Sight & Sound magazine in 1992 to

define and describe a movement in queer-

themed independent filmmaking in the early 1990s. The

term developed from use of the word ‘queer’ in academic

writing in the 1980s and 1990s as an inclusive way of

describing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender

identity, and experience, and defining a form of

sexuality that was fluid and subversive of traditional

understandings of sexuality. Since 1992, the phenomenon

has also been described by various other academics and

has been used to describe several other films released

since the 1990s.

Films of the New Queer Cinema movement typically

share certain themes, such as the rejection of hetero -

normativity and the lives of LGBT protagonists living on

the fringe of society. In her 1992 article, Rich

commented on the strong gay and lesbian presence on the

previous year's film festival circuit, and coined the

phrase "New Queer Cinema" to describe a growing movement

of similarly themed films being made by gay and lesbian

independent filmmakers, chiefly in North America and

England ( Aaron 3). Rich developed her theory in

the Village Voice newspaper, describing films that were

radical in form, and aggressive in their presentation of

sexual identities which challenged both the status quo

of heterosexual definition, and resisted promoting

"positive" images of lesbians and gay men that had been

advocated by the gay liberation movement of the 1970s

and 1980s. In the films of New Queer Cinema, the

protagonists and narratives were predominantly LGBT, but

were presented invariably as outsiders and renegades

from the rules of conventional society, and embraced

radical and unconventional gender roles and ways of

life, frequently casting themselves as outlaws or

fugitives.

Drawing

on postmodernist and poststructuralist academic theories

of the 1980s, the New Queer Cinema presented human

identity and sexuality as socially constructed, and

therefore fluid and changeable, rather than fixed. In

the world of New Queer Cinema, sexuality is often a

chaotic and subversive force, which is alienating to and

often brutally repressed by dominant heterosexual power

structures. Films in the New Queer Cinema movement

frequently featured explicit and unapologetic depictions

of same-sex sexual activity, and presented same-sex

relationships that reconfigured traditional heterosexual

notions of family and marriage. While not all

identifying with a specific political movement, New

Queer Cinema films were invariably radical, as they

sought to challenge and subvert assumptions about

identity, gender, class, family and society.

This paper is an attempt to bring out the

possibilities of queer readings in Malayalam cinema.

From 1970s, Malayalam cinema traced the elements of

queer readings. With the global awareness around the

issues of gender, sex and sexuality Malayalam cinema

also attempted the glimpses of sexual identity politics,

which might lead us towards the politics of erotica and

desire of Malayalee cultural as well as the visual

psyche. The queer attempts made by the middle stream and

parallel filmmakers of Malayalam cinema left an open

platform for the discourses that may potentially escort

the given elements of ‘deviant sexual identities’.

The films which will be discussed in the following

chapter are the projections of Malayalee cultural

psyche. Since the cinema reflects each pulse of the

society it is to be stated that the structural patterns

of normative visual culture conspires the silence behind

the projections of ‘events’. The ‘events’ are the

elements of homosexual discourses which are made

subtexts in the ‘hetero-normative’ patterns of social

living. The films mention the ‘events’, but they

hesitate to make it a major discourse. Though they are

presented, they are under the shadows of the

heterosexual identities. Recent trends in Malayalam

cinema shows a shift in the usual track of heterosexual

constructive life patterns, where everything other than

hetero-normative is conceived to be deviant and not

normal. The construction of this normalization begins to

shake with the queer thinking that takes place in the

contemporary visual culture world. Films, which are

mentioned in the next chapter, are soft and diplomatic

towards the issues of queer elements. The paper goes

through the potentiality of the queer discourse over the

non-queer normative structural pattern, which may threat

the hierarchical order of the sexual identities and the

normalization of the non-queer.

Chapter 2

Queering the Heterosexual Malayalam Cinema

There seems to be a crisis about how to cope with

‘sex offenders’ generally. Are they ill, and if

so, what is the cure? Alternatively, are they

‘evil’? What or whom are they offending? Nature,

the Law, Society? And how, more generally, do we

know what makes one erotic activity good and

another bad? Is it a matter of divine ordinance,

biological nature, or social convention? Can we

really be sure that our own desires and pleasures

are normal, natural, nice – or that we are? Why

does sex matter so much? (Spargo, Tamsin.

Postmodern Encounters: Foucault and Queer

Theory.1999.p.5).

Cinema is one structure among others that constructs

sexuality. It may construct or destruct the structured

‘normative patterns’ of the socio-cultural

understanding. The structured ‘normative patterns’ of

the social set up direct an individual towards the

designed norms of morality and vulgarity in order to cop

him or her with the usual flow of collective

consciousness. The normative structural pattern of the

cultural understanding of sexuality is about “the

masculinity and femininity, in other words, ‘proper’

ways for men and women to behave” (Mottier 2). One of

the causes of this socio-cultural structured ‘normative

patterns’ of sexuality refers to the politics of the

cinema that consciously takes the position on the major

voices of the social set up. Cinema constructs a

normative structural perspective, which involves the

concretised versions of sexual behaviour that are

showcased and catered to the mass psyche of the society.

In films, this propagation of normative behavioural

patterns of gender, sex, and sexuality can overlap. They

overlap in order to meet the ends of the spec tectorial

anticipations that are produced by the structured sexual

‘normative patterns.’

Earlier, cinema required fixed iconography for

audiences to follow the narrative, which cost the

stereotyping of the characters. Thus, within mainstream

cinema especially, but not exclusively, stereotyping is

not questioned. Equally, sexuality is normally taken to

refer heterosexuality. Motion pictures contribute a

crucial set of signifiers that actively participate in

the multifaceted processes that codify sexuality and

gender. The preconceived notions of the mainstream mass

projections deal with the conceptualized perceptions of

gender and sexual identity. Normalization of

heterosexuality plays a hegemonic manipulation of gender

and sexual hierarchical order. This prior-given

hierarchical order of dominance to heterosexuality

forbids the ‘subtexts’ in the categorical gender

identification. Nevertheless, postmodernism questions

the self -assumed hierarchical dominance of

heterosexuality. The acceptance of difference along with

the shift in the paradigmatic gender and sexual

identities address the postmodern onscreen gendered

projection, both explicitly and diplomatically.

Postmodern sexual identities define themselves on the

self-definitions that it assumes to be the chief traits

of the postmodern structural patterns of normative

behavioural constructions. These postmodern identities

are:

Gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, bi-curious,

exhibitionists, submissives, dominatrixes,

swingers (people who engage in partner exchange),

switchers (people who change from being gay to

being straight or vice versa), traders (gaymen

who have sex with straight men), born-again

virgins (people who have, technically, lost their

virginity but pledge to renounce sex until

marriage), acrotomophiliacs (people who are

sexually attracted to amputees), furverts (or

furries – people who dress up in animal suits and

derive sexual excitement from doing so), or

feeders (people who overfeed their, generally

obese, partners). The important point here is

that we draw on these categories in order to make

sense of who we are: we define ourselves in part

through our sexuality (Mottier 1).

The self-definition drawn by the individual questions

the structured and normalized patterns projected in the

movies. Presence of a normalized category of identity

addresses the issue of ‘conceptual war of identities’ in

which cinema consciously projects the celluloid for the

normalized category of identity. This normalization

undergoes the cinematic perspectives of power discourse

around class, race, and gender. Instead of gender and

sexuality discourses, which find themselves arrested in

the socio-cultural, political, and biological

perspectives. This paper would try to unify the

discourse under the term ‘identity.’ The term identity

here may trespass completely the constructive socio-bio

notions of male-female mythical and textual credos.

The unconscious contentment of the cinematic

reception consciously entertains the majority of the

visible identities. The constructive proposition of

cinema constructs within itself the centre-periphery

dialogues around ‘identities’. So it creates an audience

consciously for the active participation of their

collective consciousness that sublimate their

unconscious structural designs of cinematic identities

to onscreen personas, thus to pursue the spec tectorial

fictional heroism. This spec tectorial heroism is built

upon the structured ‘normative patterns’ of the socio-

cultural norms around race, class and gender. It leads

the audience towards a large frame of structured

patterns, which are cinematically established for the

mainstream discourses. Finally, Cinema defines what is

normal and natural from the mass cultural perspectives.

The pervasive factors of cinema may include its

easiness to define ‘things’ and to play with the

moralized vulgarities and vulgarized moralities, that

accommodates the unconscious contentment of erotica to a

particular category which has been normalized by the

cinema itself. Thus, the term ‘erotica’ structures

itself to follow the normalized category of

heterosexuals and cinema promotes it. The promoted

visual erotica accepts, conceptually censors the moral

perception, and satisfies the needs of preconceived

normative structural design of identities.

The prior acceptance of a constructive collection of

a category of identity neglects the other ‘categorized

deviant’ identity and their erotica. These categorized

identities and censored erotica may obviously found in

Malayalam cinema. The basic construction of Malayalam

cinema might be placed on a strict centre-periphery

binary structure of power discourse around race, class,

and gender. While the Indian cinema, especially the

southern, accepts the diversity of identity and erotica

both in terms of audience and projection, Malayalam

cinema contradicts itself on the articulation of non-

heterosexual subject matters attempted with a structure

conventionally motivated by heterosexuality.

Mainstream Malayalam cinema has projected, and at

times hastily displayed liaison, homicide, dissension,

viciousness. The notable fact is that the industry is

still reluctant to the discussion of the ‘queer’ on

screen. Malayalam cinema from 1930’s to the present has

taken us to the possible levels of aesthetic and

intellectual reflection and entertainment, possibly

adopted from every thought of the cultural psyche of

Kerala, social system and perceptions on gender and

sexuality.

Recent discourses around gender and sexuality that

has been undertaking by Malayalam cinema are

negotiations of superfluity in addressing the self-

assumed sexual behavioural patterns, the ‘identities.’

While the neighbour Tamil industry welcomes the shift in

the categorical identity, Malayalam cinema admits the

fact of shift and the categorized erotica, but plays a

diplomatic game on the issue. The sexual diplomacy

around the deviant identity may codify the diplomatic

address of the queered identity on the screen that

refers to the Malayalam cultural psyche and its

reluctance to admit ‘Otherness’ of the ‘normalized

identities.’ The addressal of the queered identity might

be new and queer for the Malayalee audience

theoretically because the mainstream cinema often

overwrites the middle-stream and the parallel cinema.

Malayalam mainstream cinema plays a pivotal stand in

shaping of Malayalee cultural psyche on and around the

normative structural designs of patriarchy and

matriarchy; feminism and heroism; fashion and tradition;

nature and culture; gender and sexuality; family and

modernity; love and sex. Middle-stream Malayalam cinema,

on the contrary, during the late 1960s and early 1970s

witnessed changes in the approach of film makers towards

cinema and this was reciprocated in the quality of film

viewing too. Films like Kuttyedathy, Oolavum Theeravum and

Mappusakshi by P. N Menon during the late 60s band early

70s were signals of these films brought the heroes of

popular cinema down to earth, identifiable for ordinary

people as one of them. Even there the discourse of

qureered identity hesitated to show its face, but the

early 1970s witnessed a radical change in the

perspective towards cinema by filmmakers as well as

viewers of Kerala too. The beginning of film societies

resulting in the exposure to world classics helped a

group of young film makers realize the uniqueness of the

language of this medium, which until then was in the

clutches of the forms used for stage dramas. Influenced

by the French and Italian New Wave, as elsewhere in

India, the Malayalam new wave was born, known as

Malayalam parallel cinema.

A positive development was witnessed in the field of

commercial Malayalam Cinema too during the 1980s.

Directors Padmarajan and Bharathan, films that stood

equidistant from traditional ‘popular’ and ‘parallel’

cinema, introduced a new path of filmmaking. These

filmmakers successfully made films, which were

commercially viable, without using the usual formulas of

commercial cinema. The distance between 'popular' and

'parallel' cinema reduced so that these films could not

be distinguished.

1990s could be considered the worst years for

Malayalam parallel cinema. Only few good films were

produced during this decade. These include Adoor

Gopalakrishnan’s Vidheyan  and  Kathapurushan, Aravindan's

last film Vasthuhara and Shaji N Karun's  Swaham. T V

Chandran with films like Susannah, Danny and Padam Onnu

OruVilapam is a strong presence in Malayalam cinema. R

Sarath's  Sayahnam and Stithi, Murali Nair's 

Maranasimhasanam, Pattiyude Divasam and  Arimpara, Satish

Menon's Bhavam, Rajiv Vijayaraghavan's Margam and Ashok

R. Nath's  Sabhalam are notable films that came out

during the recent years. After a long absence of eight

years, Adoor Gopalakrishnan is back with

his Nizhalkkuthu in 2003.

Malayalam parallel cinema deconstructed the

structure of cultural institutions as well as the linear

flow of sexual discourses. The structured linearity of

gender discourses doubted the base of its own existence

with the introduction of movies like Randu Penkuttikal

(1978), Deshadanakkili Karayarilla (1986), Sancharam (2004),

Chantupottu (2003), Rithu (2009), Sufi Paranja Katha (2010), Salt

and Pepper (2011). Though these movies bring forth the

queer elements in the Malayalam cinema, they

diplomatically address the issue in order to place

itself in a comfort zone. The discourse of diplomatic

queering becomes prominent in this scenario of implicit

expression of queerness on the heterosexual platform.

Queer cinema has been in existence for decades

although it lacked a label. During the late 1980s and

1990s, queer cinema became more familiar for the common

audience. “These films proposed renegotiated

subjectivities, men looking at men, gazes exchanged, and

so on” (Hayward 30). Earlier, queer cinema, though

proposed renegotiated subjectivities and same-sex

affairs failed to deconstruct the firmed structural

patterns of gender designs and identities. Religion with

its divine text and the deterrent examples of Sodom and

Gomorrah threatened the cultural and moral psyche of the

common:

And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any

besides? Son in law, and thy sons, and thy

daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city,

bring [them] out of this place: For we will

destroy this place, because the cry of them is

waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the

LORD hath sent us to destroy it. And Lot went

out, and spake unto his sons in law, which

married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out

of this place; for the LORD will destroy this

city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his

sons in law (Genesis 19: 12-14).

Now, queer cinema and the movement have nothing to

do with the postmodern sexual ‘identities’ of the west

as Susan Hayward stated: “Indeed, the new queer cinema,

as this cinema is also labelled, has presently become a

marketable commodity if not an identifiable movement”

(307-308) . The postmodern sexual ‘identities’ are self-

defined in terms of social existence. The existence of

queer discourse is relevant to the Malayalam cultural

psyche since it is in favour of structured normalities,

identities, and erotica.

Queer cinema does not address a unified aesthetics

that may not perverse the conceptualized perspectives of

the audience on the constructive cultural gendered

notions. It is a constellation of varied aesthetics that

may become an epitome of queer aesthetics.

Queering becomes neutral and diplomatic in the

Malayalam movies. the potentiality of the queer

discourse may challenge all the established normative

patterns of the hetero-normative ideologies and the

conceptualization of male-female love affair as Strayer

points out:

Women’s desire for women deconstructs male-female

sexual dichotomies, sex-gender conflation, and

the universality of the oedipal narrative.

Acknowledgement of the female-initiated active

sexuality and sexualized activity of lesbians has

the potential to reopen a space in which

heterosexual women as well as lesbians can

exercise self-determined pleasure (Straayer 331).

Malayalam movie directors who are a direct extension

and part of Kerala society, and in the business of

creating a product of art that sells, are hesitative of

using the theme of queerness to spin their onscreen

narratives. For the same reason, the society carefully

avoids discussing or conversing about this amongst the

normative structural designs and patterns of projections

and discourses. Deepa, a Keralite lesbian activist,

states that sexual minorities “are so harassed that they

are forced to leave Kerala for other states…. A

conspiracy of silence about sexual minorities in Kerala

and people pretend that gays, lesbians, and transsexuals

did not exist in the state” (Refugee Review Tribunal).

The Malayalam cinema that have dealt with the topics of

same-sex relationships and bailed out of the narrative

without a pause, have been Rnadu Penkuttikal and

Deshadanakkili Karayarilla and Sancharam . There was a

‘passing’ characterization in Rithu and a hasty portrayal

in Sufi Paranja Katha . The movie Chantupottu has also tried

the transsexual identity crisis, but has taken a very

diplomatic arrangement of the socio-cultural events on

the queering process. Salt and Pepper makes the queering

process more passive and ‘doubly subtext’.

This section is concerned mainly with films that do

not depict queerness explicitly, but employ or provide

sites for queer intervention. The depiction of queerness

by the films is diplomatically presented, for the

audience goes through both the socio-cultural structured

normalities of heterosexuality and homosexuality. The

presence of heterosexuality is dominant throughout the

so-called Malayalam queer cinema. The queerness of the

film executed on the heterosexual platform that it might

overlap at any time for the conscious construction of

queer presence. The diplomacy of queer aesthetics in

Malayalam cinema is that even while it projects the

queer, it also entertains the ‘normalities’ of gender

and sexual discourses. The absences of an entire

homosexual or queer platform for the films, which have

been celebrated for their revolutionary approaches in

the Kerala society, drag them again towards the shadows

of heterosexuality and structured ‘normative’

behavioural patterns. This conscious or unconscious

application of queerness in heterosexual platform and

vis-á-vis lead us to the reading of a diplomatic

queerness of heterosexuality. The queerness of the films

creates a comfort zone within the heterosexual platform

itself that it may defend itself under the ‘normative’

patterns.

In this sense, the use of the term ‘queer’ to

discuss reception takes up the standard binary

oppositions of ‘queer’ and ‘nonqueer’ (or

straight) while questioning its viability, at

least in cultural studies, because, as noted

earlier ,the queer often operates within the

nonqueer, as the nonqueer does within the queer

( whether in reception, texts, or producers)

( Dothy 338).

Sancharam directed by Liggy J. Pullappally actively

partakes the issue of lesbian relationship far removed

from the conventionality of same-sex relationships.

Earlier, the movies which initiated the discourse in the

society were Randu Penkuttikal directed by Mohan and

Deshadanakkili Karayarilla directed by Padmarajan. Randu

Penkuttikal analysed the deep psychoanalysis of the

female mind and the intricacies of their mental and

physical constructions. Director Mohan in a recent

interview confesses that he has never read the novel on

which the film adaptation was based on completely

(Mohan). The novel talks about the lesbian theme, which

could be analysed under the light of the possessive

relationship that Kokila, the senior girl in school has

for Girija. The infatuation between the two comes to

terms when Kokila showers Girija with gifts and also

makes it clear in terms as to what their nature of

relationship is and will be, going forward. However, the

readers find that Girija falls in love with a handsome

apprentice who takes charge in the local photo studio

and gets in to a physical relation with her while his

term lasts, but he then disappears. Finally, she gets

married to her young teacher who had, in the past,

proposed to her, but was turned away in part by the

rumour mills put in motion by a deeply possessive

Girija.

The movie ends with the politically correct note of

Girija at last seeing the light that “this was all a

phase in one’s teenage years and like any normal woman,

she should be married and lead a happy, productive life”

by the dashing young physician who is besotted by

Girija and wants to marry her. Though the film portrays

the complexities of female bonding, it is still

subjected to the structured ‘normative’ patterns of the

heterosexual society. The complexities of the female

bonding by being on the hetero-normative platform

ultimately lead to the lesbian elements of the film. The

end of the movie signifies the dependence of the queer

elements towards the non-queer elements. The characters

of the movie finally go back to the normative structures

of the sexual identities and duties. The diplomacy of

Randu Penkuttikal is obviously the conceptualized perception

of love, marriage, and family setup. The notable fact is

that the hetero-normative structures/texts enjoy the

freedom over the queer element, prior given authority by

the ‘normative patterns’ of the socio-cultural

constructions.

The movie Deshadanakkili Karayarilla also moves through the

same track of ‘event’ while treating the intricacies of

the female bonding. The audience can emphatically point

out that the characters are just two normal friends,

obsessively possessive about each other (Desatanakkili

Karayarilla). While Randu Penkuttiakal ends up with timid,

politically correct, and tepid ending, Padmarajan cranks

up the ‘helplessness and bitterness quotient’ a few

notches high in the latter, hurtling the movie towards a

tragic climax. The relationship does not survive in the

end.

The lesbian look of exchange and female bonding are

vulnerable to heterosexual structure. The lesbian

discourse places the heterosexual conceptualized notions

of ‘romantic love’ in contrast with homosexual love.

‘Love at first sight’ also gets a shake with the

introduction of queer aesthetics. Within the

construction of narrative film sexuality, the phrase

‘lesbian heroine’ is a contradiction in terms. The

female position in classical narrative is a stationary

site to which the male hero travels and on which he

acts.

The romance formula of love at first sight relies

on a slippage between sexuality and love. The movie

Sancharam forwards the ‘event’ of female bonding and

visibly riddles the notions of love and sex that has

been considered as the traditional property of the

heterosexual normality and structured normative patterns

of socio-cultural setup. Sexual desire pretends to be

reason enough for love and love pretends to be sexual

pleasure. While sexual desire is visually available for

viewer’s vicarious experiences, sexual pleasure is

blocked. By the time the plot reaches a symbolic climax,

love has been substituted for sex, restricting sex to

the realm of desire. So structured, love is unrequited

sex. Since this love is ‘hetero- love’, homosexual views

are doubly distanced from sexual pleasure. Love and

desire dealt with Sancharam explicitly treat the

homosexual love and the ‘desire’, but often intermitted

by the unconscious constructed structures of the hetero

society and the platform they perform the ‘event’.

Sncharam foregrounds the question of male- female love

and desire.

Within the construction of narrative film

sexuality, the phrase ‘lesbian heroine’ is a

contradiction in terms (…). The relationship

between male and female is one of conquest (…).

There can be no lesbian heroine here, for the

very definition of lesbianism requires an act of

defiance in relation to assumptions about sexual

desire and activity (Strayer 331-332).

The movie though runs through the same track, it deals

with a different ‘event’. The ‘event’ is the exclusive

celebration of the female bonding. The socio-cultural

background of the cinema is heterosexual. The elements

of heterosexual social setup meet the ends of diplomacy

of the Malayalam queer visual culture.

The predominant concept of male-female love and the

structured ‘normative patterns’ of marriage as a

cultural institution places forth the contradictions

between sexual identities whereas the categorized sexual

identities constitute ‘normalized deviations’ apart

from the heterosexual normalities. The movie Sancharam

also constitutes a normalized deviation through the ‘war

of sexual identities’. The story is about Delilah and

Kiran and how their unbridled, deep, passionate love for

each other, as they come of age, both being childhood

friends.

The transdiscursivity of family glory and pride is

supposed to flow through the generations to come. Kiran

being a descendant of a high race carries the burden of

family royalty. While Delilah carries the burden of

Christian belief system, the discussion of the ‘event’

surpasses the mythical and conventional patterns of

belief system and notions. The question of normality is

also questioned in the film. The judgements of

normalities by the hetero-normative characters on the

homosexual characters conceptualize the preconceived

treatment of sexual identity politics. The take on the

conversation between Kiran’s mother Priya, father

Naryanan and Kiran stretches out the hetero normative

judgement on the homosexuals:

Priya: You must be treated somewhere.

Kiran: Why should I?

Priya: Shut up.

(….)

Priya: You, you are so unnatural!

Kiran: I am not unnatural.

Narayanan: Is this for what I have cared my

daughter?

(The Journey [Sancharam] ).

The diplomacy of the cinema Sancharam demonstrates

the elements of diplomatic lesbian heroine. When Kiran

and Delilah meet the palmist, Delilah asks about Kiran’s

marriage. The notable fact is that Delilah is a passive

lesbian heroine while Kiran is active. Delilah realizes

her love for Kiran only when she writes love letter for

Delilah, insisted by Rajan who loves Delilah. The

exchange of look and the physical involvement that

shakes the hetero normative concepts of male- female

love and desire takes place while the both heroines take

bath in the pool. Another instance that codifies the

female bonding and trespasses the concept of spiritual

love is the take on lip-lock and the physical

involvement of the body in the jungle. The ‘event’

becomes more problematic when Delilah is forced to marry

a man. She claims, “Anyway we have to marry some man,

but we can maintain our relationship even after the

marriage.”

Kiran: Can you really do it?

Delilah: Yes, I can.

Kiran; But, I can’t.

(….)

Kiran: You said we will be together forever.

Delilah: I was wrong.

The audience might suspect the authenticity of the

lesbian discourse on screen especially when Kiran urges

Delilah to flee with her. However, the movie suggests a

bit before the climax that Delilah can lead a ‘straight’

life irrespective of her lesbian narration.

Kiran: Come with me.

Delilah: No, I go nowhere. That is good for

everyone.

Kiran: Is it good for you?

Delilah: Yes.

Kiran: Delilah, please.

Delilah: No, we don’t have anything from now on.

Delilah’s wedding is hurried. The earliest way to

‘revalidate’ her normalcy in the existing social setup,

reclaim the family’s position in the ‘normal’ scheme of

things. In addition, post, which, everyone can go back

to his or her lives, as if nothing, happened. Certainly,

Sancharam could very well be the first middle

stream/parallel features film in Malayalam that makes

homosexuality the crux, the focal point of the

narrative. The movie is an open ending. Delilah runs

from alter to the portico while Kiran stands on the edge

of a waterfall suggesting the audience about the

suicide. Kiran cuts her hair and walks away. The open

ending of the movie adds more possibility of the

diplomatic treatment of the event.

The primary threat of female bonding is the

elimination of the male. This acknowledges the defensive

androcentric reactions. The underlying presence attempts

to define female bonding and lesbianism in relation to

men. To be more effective, the interference needs to be

visual in order to physically separate women’s bodies

and interrupt their glances. Male intermediaries are

common in films with female bonding. In Sancharam, the

presence of Rajan, who loves Delilah and Sebastian who

comes to marry Delilah connotes the heterosexual

normative structures of male-female bonding. The

presence of the male characters reduces the tension on

which the ‘event’ goes on. Sancharam uses the

heterosexual raw materials effectively in order to

project the conflict between sexual identities. But,

open ending of the movie validates the structure of

diplomacy that the heterosexual audience can derive the

conclusion of a ‘straight’ marriage and the homosexual

audience can reach at the conclusion of a female

bonding.

I define gay sensibility as a creative energy

reflecting a consciousness that is different from

the mainstream; a heightened awareness of certain

human complications of feeling that spring from

the fact of social oppression; in short, a

perception of the world which is coloured,

shaped, directed and defined by the fact of one’s

gayness ( Babuscio 40).

As a concept useful in the study of film, gay

sensibility can be defined as a developed awareness of

sexual variation. This does not automatically mean that

a filmmaker or viewer has to be gay or lesbian to be

able to present or appreciate themes and issues

connected with gay people, but such awareness can open

up rich creative possibilities.

Malayalam gay films are implicitly projected in

terms of Buddy film categories. Nevertheless, those

films, which discussed gayness, are passive and their

gayness has nothing to do with the flow of the

narrative. Rithu directed by Shyamaprasad discussed the

gay identity of Sunny that merely adds a ‘fleeting

layer’ to the character and disappears. The filmmaker

would have this aspect to stay in the background and not

affect the central set of events that drive the movie

forward. The film portrays most of the postmodern

acceptance of sexual ideologies. For instance, through

the characters of Sunny, Sharat and Varsha the movie

shows a glimpse of ‘condom culture’. They present Sharat

the ‘box’ Kamasutra also approach the medical shop for

condoms. They also question the moral policing of the

Kerala culture, but the movie fails to discuss the

issues of homosexuality (Rithu). The diplomacy of the film

lies in the passiveness over the scheme of same-sex

‘event’ on the heterosexual ground.

Sufiparanja Katha is more on the lines of sexual slavery

that is depicted in the gay relationship portrayed with

so-hurried moments of screen time. Priyanandan’s

wracking film adaptation is based on K. P. Rmanunni’s

novel by the same name. The main protagonist of the

movie, Prakash Bare as Mammootty, in his emotional

progression through the movie, seems to find solace in

consensual same-sex physical relationship with a young

cousin of his Amir and in an ironic twist, is caught by

his wife. Through the incident proves to be the catalyst

that drives the narrative to its tragic climax. The gay

text in the movie is a hurried device to facilitate a

morbid conclusion to the movie. The subtext of

Mammootti’s gayness causes the climax, but the movie or

the narrator never says whether Mammootti’s gayness

caused the tragedy. Mammootti’s sexual identity is both

homosexual and heterosexual. By marrying the Hindu woman

Karthy, he maintains the heterosexual normative

structures of social life.

These narrative films exist by the right of a

language informed by heterosexuality. They are about

queer relationships; they also challenge the conventions

of this language, but the ‘conspiracy of silence’ makes

it diplomatic in treating the ‘event’. They remain

subtext and appear in the flash of a light. Some of them

survives but ends in an open ending. Male sexuality is

‘transgressive’ primarily because it is non-procreative,

and lesbian sexuality is ‘dangerous’ because it allows

women to escape the social hierarchy. Therefore, the

dominant voice makes the ‘event’ a subtext that can be

voiceless and overwritten by the mainstream. Finally, it

results the diplomacy that preaches the existence of the

queer, but passive, which would never harm the

heterosexual structured ‘normative’ patterns of social

setup. In Shalini’s poem “Woman Love,” included in Facing

The Mirror: Lesbian Writing From India edited by Ashwini

Sukthankar, world is not some imagery. It enforces it’s

will through family and friends. Apart from the

diplomacy of the whole society it survives, it speaks

for itself:

We did not believe that the world will love us

for who we are.

But did we know it would be so difficult?

That there is nothing in the world

Which makes it easy for two women

To love and live together-we knew.

That our own will battle us the most,

That friends will claw at this love,

That the pain will come from those

We are loathe to fight

…what justice is this, goddess? (Sukthankar 294).

Chapter 3

Conclusion

The idea of hetero-normative social order

establishes a set of principles in which the majority of

sexual identities acclaim the superiority over the

subtexts of normative discourse. The power discourse of

these normative principles operates through the visual

cultural texts of ‘virtual realities.’ Visual cultural

texts produce an undeniable existence of a power

discourse to which the mass psyche is oriented and

controlled. The role of visual texts are indispensible

in the creation of cultural structures which directly or

indirectly cause the ‘push and pull factor’ for the

creation of normative patterns. The definition that

cinema provides for the cultural existence of both

social and sexual identities, where cinema predominantly

rules over the formation of a mass cultural psyche, are

pivotal for their material existence.

The elements of poststructuralist belief on the

construction of gender and sexual identities, found in

the Malayalam cinema, demonstrates the conceptual

creation of ‘hetero-normativism’ through the stereotypes

that conform the general interest of the mass reception.

‘Hetero-normativism’ professes the existence of

established principles of dominant discourse on the

gender and sexuality that everything other than the

normalised category of sexual identity is unnatural and

not acceptable. Malayalam cinema on its usual and

conventional track of cinematography celebrated and

entertained the ‘ultra- hetero-normativism’. It develops

an established man-woman relationship where the

cinematographic projections of life roams around the

strict established structural pattern of ‘straight

marriage’ affair and the attraction of opposite sexes.

In reality, all these cinematographic projections of

heterosexual ‘events’ forbid the ‘otherness’ of their

existence.

The conscious projection of the ‘acceptable’ and

‘proper’ sexual entertainment of the visual texts

celebrate the general understanding and definition of

hetero sexuality that is conceived by the reception of

visual erotica. In this process, it incorporates a mass

constellation of heterosexual audience for whom it is

made and aimed at.

Cinema, as an agent of both constructive and

destructive concepts, accepts the queerness of sexual

identities. The global celebration of queer identities

also influenced Malayalam cinema. The introduction of

‘buddy movies’ conspired behind the screen about the

potentiality of the category. Malayalam super hit ‘buddy

movies’ screened the queerness behind the male- bonding.

The films which introduced lesbian and gay ‘events’

paved the way for the new age queer thinking. Though the

early movies discussed the intricacies of male and

female bonding, they were able to ignite the issue

around the platform of forthcoming queer discourse in

the history of Malayalam cinema.

Women’s desire for women deconstructs male- female

sexual dichotomies and the concept of love at first

sight. The structural ‘normative patterns’ of society

struggles to defend its own existence. The religious

norms and notions about the natural sex and sexuality

beget questions, which question the celibacy that

becomes queer for the natural sex. The new queer cinema

demonstrates the path breaking movements in Kerala

society too. In the case of lesbian ‘events’, what

becomes evident from the movies is that, when one

searches for lesbian exchange in narrative film

construction, one finds a constant flux between

competing forces to suggest and deny it. Because female

bonding and the exchange of glances between women

threaten heterosexual and patriarchal structures, when

female bonding occurs in feature narrative film, its

readiness for lesbian appropriation is often

acknowledged by internal efforts to forbid such

conclusions. As with sexuality in general, efforts to

subdue lesbian connotations can stimulate innovations.

Conceptually, female bonding is a precondition for

lesbianism. If women are situated only in relationship

to men or in antagonistic relationship to each other,

the very idea of lesbianism is precluded. This

partiality explains the appreciation lesbian audiences

have for films with female bonding. So often has female

bonding stood in for lesbian content that lesbian

audiences seem to find it an acceptable displacement at

the conclusions of such ‘lesbian romances’.

The queer elements in the recent Malayalam movies

begin to provoke the mass cultural psyche of Kerala

society, which has strong established norms and

concepts on gender and sexuality. The movies are noted

for their queer elements contradict themselves under the

terms of heterosexuality and homosexuality. These movies

issue the queer ‘events’ under the strong presence of

heterosexual patterns. These films make a soft and

diplomatic treatment of queer elements in their

projection of sexual identities. The presence of hetero-

normative patterns of society accommodates and provides

them the comfort zone where these films could be able to

defend them with the presence of non-queer elements

whereas, the presence of queer elements pictures the

binary discourse for the non-queerness on the screen

along with an indirect demonstration of queer ‘events’.

The sexual ideology of the culture, that is the idea

that society and culture through structures such as the

family and artefacts such as film impose a particular

view of what it considers correct sexual behaviour. This

view includes a dominance of the heterosexual viewpoint

and antipathy towards the homosexual one. Homosexuality

is predominantly seen from a heterosexual viewpoint in

most of mainstream films. The ideology is contradictory

and ambiguous, full of ‘gaps and fissures’ through which

film makers and audience can make new, alternative

meanings.

In many ways, queer bonding is the antithesis of the

structural normalities of the ‘acceptable’ and ‘proper’

sexual relationship between heterosexuals. The primary

threat of female and male bonding in cinema is the

elimination of the male and female respectively. The

unstated but always evident question implicit in such

films, ‘where is the man?’ and ‘where is the woman?’

Malayalam movies do not state such questions because the

discussed movies do not give the full platform for the

lesbian and gay ‘events;’ they appear only in the midst

of main plot which is dominated by heterosexual voices.

These films remain as the subtext of the main text in

which the interference of opposite sexual identities

acknowledge the audience the fact that the movie is not

homoerotic.

One way to interfere with female and male bonding is

to insert references to men and women and

heterosexuality between men and women characters. The

movies which are taken for the analysis give the

instances for verification of the counterpart

intermediary. The lesbian characters in the movie

Sancharam talk about their heterosexual marriage and

entertains the heterosexual love affair. The gay

characters in the movies, noted for its gay elements,

shift their sexual identities occasionally in order to

cope with the dominant ideology of the film. Their gay

identity is silent throughout the movie. The audience

conceive the gay identity of the character by the

utterance of other characters.

To be more effective, the interference needs to be

visual in order to physically separate the women’s

bodies as well as men and interrupt their glances. Male

intermediaries are common in films with female bonding.

They reduce the tension between the compromise of queer

sensibility of the audience and the representation of

the heterosexual identities. These movies constitute the

erotic exchange of glances, which contrasts with the

unidirectional, hierarchical male gaze. The oppositely

sexed intermediary both separates and connects the same-

sexed couple, accomplishing both heterosexuality and

homosexuality with in the contradictory text of

representation.

As a concept useful in the study of film, gay

sensibility can be defined as a developed awareness of

sexual variation. This does not automatically mean that

a filmmaker or viewer has to be gay or lesbian to be

able to present or appreciate themes and issues

connected with queer people, but such awareness can open

up rich creative possibilities. The movies discussed in

this paper display the subdued queer sensibility. These

movies also make viewers comfortably aware of the

fragile limits of conventional masculinity. While one

can debate what exactly constitute a ‘lesbian or gay

film’, queer sensibility can enrich film production and

appreciation for queers and non-queers.

These structures neither replace nor threat the

heterosexual ‘event’ and ‘text’, but merely state the

antithesis of the central ideology like the conventional

construction of villain for hero. Thus the Malayalam

movies which are noted for their queer elements are

neither a threat nor a question for the non-queer

‘events’ because their queer ‘events’ , gradually,

either compromise or succumb to the non-queer factors

thus become a mere situational creation in order to

wither away as it begets the ‘event.’

Works Cited

Aaron, Michelle. New Queer Cinema: A Critical

Reader.Edinburgh: Edinburgh U P, 2004. 

Babuscio.J. “Camp and Gay Sensibility.”Gays and Film. Ed.

R. Dyer. London: BFI, 1977. Print.

Butler, Judith .Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex'.

New York: Routledge, 1993. Print.

Chemmeen1965. 15 March 2012

<http://www.hindu.com/mp/2010/11/22/stories/20101122

50310400.htm>

Desatanakkilikarayarilla. Dir.Padmarajan.Perf. Mohanlal,

Karthika, Shaari, Urvashi. SargaChitra Movies, 1986,

DVD.

Dothy, Alexander. Flaming Classics: Queering the Film Cannon.

London: Routledge, 2000. Print.

Halperin, David. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay

Hagiography.London: Oxford U P,1995. Print.

Hayward, Susan. Key Concepts in Cinema Studies. London:

Routledge, 2004. Print.

“History of Indian Cinema.” 13 march 2012

<http://www.indianetzone.com/2/history_indian_cinema

.html>

“Italian Neo Realism Film Techniques.” 15 march 2012 <

http://filmdirectors.co/italian-neorealism-film-

techniques/>

“Kerala Movies.”16 March 2012 <

http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/kerala/people-

culture-and- festivals/movies.html>

“List of Malayalam films: 1980s.” 15 March

2012<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Malayalam_

films:_1980s>

Mohan. Interview. RanduPenkuttikal Dealt With Lesbian Relation

Video. 16 March 2012

<http://www.videokeralam.com/Malayalam_filmstars_int

erview/mohan-randu-penkuttikal-dealt-with-lesbian-

relation-video_fd80b555c.html>

Mottier, Véronique.Sexuality, A Very Short Introduction. New York:

Oxford U P, 2008. Print.

“Refugee Review Tribunal” 17 March 2012. < www.mrt-

rrt.gov.au/ArticleDocument/87/ind35677.pdf.aspx>

Rithu. Dir. Shyamaprasad. Perf. Asif Ali, Nishan, Rima

Kallingal, Vinay Fort. Playhouse Release, 2009, DVD.

Shalini.“Woman Love.”Facing the Mirror: Lesbian Writing From

India.Ed. AshwiniSukthankar. New Delhi: Penguin, 1999.

Print.

Spargo, Tamsin. Postmodern Encounters: Foucault and Queer Theory.

New York: Totem Books, 1999. Print.

Straayer, Chris. “The Hypothetical Lesbian Heroine in

Narrative Feature Film.”The Film Cultures Reader.Ed. Graeme

Turner. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

The Holy Bible.The New Revised Standard Version.Catholic

Edition. Imprimatur: Most Reverened Daniel E.

Pilarczyk, Washington, DC, September 12, 1991. Pub.

Thomas Nelson.

The Journey[Sancharam].Dir. Ligy J. Pullapally.Perf. Suhasini

V. Nair, ShruthiMenon, K.P.A.C Lalitha. Wolfe Video,

2004, DVD.

Warner, Michael. 'From Queer to Eternity', Voice

LiterarySupplement,106 June.1991, 1992.

Bibliography

Aaron, Michelle. New Queer Cinema: A Critical Reader. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh U P, 2004. 

Babuscio.J. “Camp and Gay Sensibility.”Gays and Film. Ed.

R. Dyer. London: BFI, 1977. Print

Butler, Judith. Gender trouble.London: Routledge, 1990.

Print.

Cameron, Deborah and Don Kulick. Language and Sexuality.

London: Cambridge U P, 2003. Print.

Chemmeen1965. 15 March 2012

<http://www.hindu.com/mp/2010/11/22/stories/20101122

50310400.htm>

Cossman, Brenda, “Sexuality, Queer Theory, and Feminism

After: Reading and Rereading the Sexual Subject”.

Macgill Law Journal. Vol.49, 2004.

Delph, Edward William. The Silent Community: Public Homosexual

Encounters.Beverely Hills: Sage, 1978.

Desatanakkilikarayarilla. Dir. Padmarajan. Perf.Mohanlal,

Karthika, Shaari, Urvashi. SargaChitra Movies, 1986,

DVD

Dothy, Alexander. Flaming Classics: Queering the Filming Cannon.

London: Routledge, 2000. Print.

- - -. Making Things Perfectly Queer: Interpreting Mass

Culture.Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 1993.

- - - . “There’s Something Queer Here.” The Film Studies

Reader. Ed. Joanne Hollows. London: Arnold, 2000.

Print.

Faucault, Michael. History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon

Books, 1978. Print.

Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge:

Polity Press, 1991.

Glover, David and Lora Kaplan. Genders. London: Routledge,

2001. Print.

Halperin, David. Saint Foucault: towards a gay Hagiography.

London: Oxford University Press,1995. Print.

Hayward, Susan. Key Concepts in Cinema Studies. London:

Routledge, 2004. Print.

“History of Indian Cinema.” 13 march 2012

<http://www.indianetzone.com/2/history_indian_cinema

.html

Hooks, Bell. “Choosing the Margins as a Space of Radical

Openness.”Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics.Boston:

South End Press, 1990.

“Italian Neo Realism Film Techniques.” 15 march

2012<http://filmdirectors.co/italian-neorealism-

film-techniques/>

Joseph, Sherry. “Gay and Lesbian Movement in India.”

Economic and Political Weekly. August 17, 1996.

“Kerala movies.” 16 March 2012

<http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/kerala/people-

culture-and- festivals/movies.html>

Kleinhans, C. “Talking Out the Trash: Camp and Politics

of Parody”. M. Meyer. Ed. The Politics and Poetics of Camp.

London: Routledge, 1994.

“List of Malayalam films: 1980s.” 15 March

2012<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Malayalam_

films:_1980s>

Maltby, Richard. Hollywood Cinema. Oxford: Black Well,

1995. Print.

Mankekar, Purnima. “Dangerous Desires: Television and

Erotics in Late Twentieth Century India.” The Journey

of Asian Studies, May 2004.

Mohan. Interview. Randu Penkuttikal Dealt With Lesbian Relation

Video. 16 March 2012

<http://www.videokeralam.com/Malayalam_filmstars_int

erview/mohan-randu-penkuttikal-dealt-with-lesbian-

relation-video_fd80b555c.html>

Mottier, Véronique. Sexuality, A Very Short Introduction. New

York: Oxford U P, 2008. Print.

Narrain, Aravind. Queer: Despised Sexuality, Law and Social Change.

Bangalore: Books for Change, 2004.

Nelmes, Jill. Ed. An Introduction to Film Studies. London:

Routledge, 1999. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science.Ed. Bernard Williams.

New York: Cambridge U P, 2001.

Parrinder, Geoffrey. Sexual Morality in the World’s Religions.

Oxford: One World, 1980. Print.

Ramaswamy, Uma. Bhanumathy Vasudevan. Anuradha Prasad.

Gugan Sethi. Sulagna Sengupta. Reconstructing Gender

Towards Collaboration. Bangalore: Books for Change, 2000.

“Refugee Review Tribunal” 17 March 2012. < www.mrt-

rrt.gov.au/ArticleDocument/87/ind35677.pdf.aspx>

Rithu. Dir. Shyamaprasad. Perf. Asif Ali, Nishan, Rima

Kallingal, Vinay Fort. Playhouse Release, 2009, DVD.

Shalini. “Woman Love.”Facing the Mirror: Lesbian Writing From India.

Ed. Ashwini Sukthankar. New Delhi: Penguin, 1999.

Print.

Spargo, Tamsin. Postmodern Encounters: Foucault and Queer Theory.

New York: Totem Books, 1999. Print.

Straayer, Chris. “The Hypothetical Lesbian Heroine in

Narrative Feature Film.”The Film Cultures Reader. Ed.

Graeme Turner. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

The Holy Bible.The New Revised Standard Version.Catholic

Edition. Imprimatur: Most Reverened Daniel E.

Pilarczyk, Washington, DC, September 12, 1991. Pub.

Thomas Nelson.

The Journey [Sancharam]. Dir. Ligy J. Pullapally.

Perf.Suhasini V. Nair, Shruthi Menon, K.P.A.C

Lalitha. Wolfe Video, 2004, DVD.

Turner, Graeme, Ed. The Film Cultures Reader. London:

Routledge, 2002. Print.

Vanitha, Ruth. “Homosexuality in India: Past and Present.”

IIAS Newsletter, November 2002.

- - -. Queering India: Same-Sex Love and Eroticism in Indian Culture

and Society. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Warner, Michael “From Queer to Eternity,”Voice Literary

Supplement,106 June. 1991,1992.