My teachers were perplexed. It was a small town school and I was standing before them in the staff room. I had signed up for the newly announced Bharatanatyam classes and it happened that I was the only boy in the school to do so. The dance teacher is not a school staff and had agreed to come on Saturdays to teach. She definitely had reservations. Now, my teachers were trying to talk me out of it. Encouraged by the opposition, I showed more interest. My teachers were quietly talking among themselves and occasionally smiling at me until one of them said loudly: “Yen Kamal aadaliyaa?” (Why not? Kamal dances) and the discussion ended there. Kamal Hassan played the role of a multi-talented dancer, adept at the Indian classical dances of Kuchipudi, Bharatanatyam, Kathak, etc. in his 1983 film, Salangai Oli, a role no other Tamil hero had played until then.

I had no idea what my teachers’ reservations were at that time, but looking back, I can guess what their discussion would have been, and the role Kamal may have played in their decision. I was allowed to join the dance class. The two classes I attended before dropping out are material enough for a hilarious series. I simply had no sense of music or rhythm and I was too stiff. My journey that took off because of Kamal ended because, as it turned out, my dancing skills were worse than those of Rajani.

Rajani and Kamal were established stars during my childhood.

Their era had begun even before I was born, therefore, I could be totally wrong in my reading of the famous Rajini-Kamal scene: Rajani charmed his fans with his style and mannerisms, Kamal was seen as the suave, soft guy. Kamal cried in his movies and in some, his heroines kissed him on the neck (necking) instead of him kissing them all the time. His characters were passionate, real and sometimes even vulnerable, behaviors that were not considered suitable for a hero in those days (Remember the Manasu Mayangum song from Sippikkul Muthu (1985), where he obediently learns lovemaking from Radhika?). Nonetheless, Kamal was a heartthrob for many women (and some men), even more popular than Rajani. Just as the emergence of Dravid earned respect for the defensive batsman in gully cricket, I imagine Kamal might have changed impressions of the soft guys, effeminate guys or guys who were into the fine arts back then. A friend of mine who was in college during the beginning of the Kamal-Rajani era said that there were two groups in every college, one supporting Rajani and one supporting Kamal. The groups often clashed with each other and abused the stars in a war of words. Kamal was often ridiculed for being a “pottai paiyan” (sissy boy).  His choice of roles in movies such as 16 Vayathinile (1977) could have been the reason for that. In that movie, Kamal played Chappani, a timid, undesirable and  “useless” man (impotency implied?). In his early days, Kamal was not considered very manly.  He had effeminate characteristics, yet he was a heartthrob.

During his hunky days, Kamal played the title role in the 1986 sci-fi thriller Vikram. His character was a spy from India who traveled to the faraway land Salamia to save the world. His Salamia tour guide Dubash (brilliantly played by Janakaraj) is one of the very few same-sex attracted characters in Tamil cinema’s history. In the story, Dubash has a crush on Vikram, which Vikram obviously ignores. Still the fact that there was such a character and that character was allowed to express himself is significant.

As years went by, Kamal did not shy away from roles such as the one he played in Avvai Shanmugi (1996). While other actors have donned female getup in movies, the portrayals were often meant to be funny and their intent was not to conceal the so called “manly mannerisms.” After all, Tamil cinema heros can’t completely give up their masculinity, can they? Kamal played the part with the utmost seriousness and sincerity and transformed himself into a woman on screen. He probably would have considered the comment “Apadiye maami mathiri irukaan” (I can’t believe that’s a man), a compliment.

Many, many years later, Vettaiyadu Vilayadu (2006) upset me for it’s portrayal of homosexual men. I have no problem with gay men being villains or psychopaths, but the homophobic sentiments displayed by the lead character (played by Kamal) at a time when the LGBT community was taking baby steps in Tamil Nadu was very disappointing. As Aniruddhan Vasudevan points out in his review, “It is very unfortunate that the first, open representation of homosexuality in Tamil movies had to happen that way.” Vettaiyadu Vilayadu will go down as one of Kamal’s mistakes and will be referenced and researched in the years to come.

I felt Kamal, who is generally a progressive thinker, owed more. He may have evolved however.  In a very small way, he gave a subtle nod to same-sex love in a recent Vijay TV show. Two girls chose and sang one of Kamal’s famous duets (simply for music reasons)

“ஒரே நாள் உன்னை நான் நிலாவில் பார்த்தது
உலாவும் உன் இளமைதான் ஊஞ்சலாடுது”

Kamal’s response:

டூயட் ரெண்டு பேர் பாடணும் , அது எந்த இருவர் என்றாலும் பராவில்லை!”
“A duet is meant for two people. The two can be any (gender)”

Is this Kamal’s view on homosexuality? I would like to think so. Nonetheless, this comment from someone as iconic as Kamal Haasan in a very popular family show should do the LGBT community a lot of good.

More recently, the plot of Kamal’s new movie, Vishwaroopam (2013)  offended some in the LGBT community. In the movie, the heroine, who rejects the hero (played by Kamal) because he is effeminate, later falls for him, when the hero reveals that he is a macho man in disguise. When I watched the movie, I wasn’t offended and my interpretation of that scene was very different. Even if the heroine fell ‘only’ for the macho behavior of the character, I see no wrong there. I view it as a matter of personal choice.

Peter Roebuck put it so well when he was writing about Sachin Tendulkar, India’s legendary cricketer: “Inevitably mistakes have been made. Something about a car, something else about a cricket ball and suggestions that he had stretched the facts to assist his pal Harbhajan Singh. But then he is no secular saint. It’s enough that he is expected to bat better than anyone else. It’s hardly fair to ask him to match Mother Teresa as well.” May be the same sentiment could be applied to Kamal Hassan too. He might have done some offensive scenes and roles, but his career conveys a bigger message: A Tamil cinema hero doesn’t have to constantly play typical masculine characters. He can break gender conventions and still win the hearts of women of an entire generation.

Update Feb 2014: Kamal Hassan makes a reference to IPC 377 while discussing culture, traditions and moral policing

February 9, 2013:

Finally, when Kamal’s magnum opus, Vishwaroopam, managed to see the light of day in Tamil Nadu, his fans thronged the theatres to watch this much-awaited and controversy-stricken film. While there will likely be a continuing debate on the movie’s representation of a particular religious community, it would not be surprising if those same critics ignore the movie’s problematic portrayal of another minority, i.e. of those of us who are marginalized because of our sexual orientations and gender identities. Vishwaroopam, apart from being totally one-sided in its pro-American troops story line, offers a misguided and damaging portrayal of queerness through its denigration of male effeminacy and putative homosexuality.

As has been the case with many movies in the past, Vettayadu Vilayadu, Dostana and Goa, to name a few, it is very likely that any critique of Vishwaroopam and its brand of homophobia or effeminophobia will only be summarily rubbished by mainstream audiences. On second thoughts, it may also be quite an injustice to group Goa and Dostana with the likes of Vishwaroopam, because the problem with these two movies has more to do with the heteronormative portrayal of real or faux same-sex relationships and less about how gender-normative the subjects are.

Vishwaroopam is much more dangerous just for the reason that it invokes the notion of deviation from “normal” to capture the wife’s discomfort with the effeminacy of Kamal Hassan’s character. A few scenes later, when the wife realizes that he is macho enough and not as unmanly as she suspected him to be, she falls desperately in love with him. And this falling in love just happens in a scene in which he walks down the stairs exhibiting his machismo. While, this scene alone is heterosexist enough and portrays a nauseatingly shallow understanding of falling in love, the problem with the movie is much deeper than this. It goes back to the introductory scene which  questions the normalcy and validity of any sexual identity other than heterosexuality or stereotypical masculine demeanor. This reflects the movie’s strong prejudice against queerness.

It may be easy to trivialize or dismiss the issue as too petty be taken seriously by mainstream audiences. We can be totally certain that such a trivialization is what we would be hearing in future, if at all this criticism gathers any momentum. But only queer people and our allies would be aware of the potential of such a portrayal to cause a deep psychological scar in the minds of sexual and gender minorities. For years now, the queer community has been bearing a heavy burden of  classifications such as “normal” and “abnormal”, which have  been used as instruments to foment hatred and prejudice against the community.

At this juncture, where we have only taken a few baby steps towards changing society’s larger mindset towards sexual and gender minorities, movies like Vishwaroopam are an unfortunate hindrance towards our fight for equality and social justice; and for re-examining normative constructs of gender that are at the heart of much violence towards queer communities and women in general. For the sake of a few laughs here and there, it has become a recent norm in Indian movies to take a dig at queer community. A movie like Vishwaroopam takes us even farther back in its retrogressive portrayal of  queer masculinity as deviance. Such portrayal by a mass hero will only reinforce the already prevalent hatred and prejudices against much maligned sexual and gender minorities.

It is very clear that Kamal Hassan, in his efforts to showcase his acting prowess, has gone ahead and essayed this role of an effeminate man, as has the case been in his earlier movies like Dasavatharam and Avvai Shanmugi. He has sketched this initial part of the story to set a platform for such a character. And so the queer community ends up being exploited for him to exhibit his skills as an actor and director. This alone contradicts Kamal’s claims of his intellectual capabilities in storytelling.

It’s time that we stopped expecting anything more than ordinary from his movies, as this is proof enough that his stories can sink well below the standards of the average masala movie in its attempt to woo crowds. Movies like Vishwaroopam are made often to teach us a lesson or two. A lesson that Tamil movies will continue to be hopeless as they are now!

Orinam’s note: An earlier version of this essay appeared on the author’s blog, and has been reproduced with consent.

Recommended Reading:

• Review of Kamal Hassan’s (homophobic) film Vettayadu Vilayadu by Aniruddhan Vasudevan:  Game’s Up
• An alternative take on Kamal’s movies and queer issues by Vishnu Ramakrishnan: Queering Kamal Hassan

Dustin Lance Black’s play “8” is based on the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8, stating it is “…unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry.”

Judge Walker agreed to the request of opponents of Proposition 8 to broadcast the trial, a move that was opposed by the proponents of Prop 8. The proponents went to the US Supreme court, which ruled in their favor, blocking broadcast of the trial. This play is an attempt by American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) to let America and the rest of the world know what happened at the trial, something the proponents fought so hard to keep from public view.

A stellar cast that included George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Kevin Bacon, Jane Lynch, Jamie Lee Curtis and Christine Lahti brought the trial alive with amazing performances in the web premier of “8” on March 3, 2011. The premiere was watched by millions across the globe.

The play begins with a conversation between female couple Kris Perry and Sandra Stier (played by Curtis and Lahti) and their teenage sons. The couple, along with another male couple, are the plaintiffs in the case. The kids are worried about their soccer practice and how their moms appear in the media, but not the significance of the case. They don’t want to be in court and are not happy that their moms have to spend time in the court taking time away from their home life. Perry tells them “Who knew! I have never personally sued Schwarzenegger before.” The statement evokes laughter, but is very powerful in articulating the enormity of the struggle that same-sex couple face in their quest to live life in a manner equal to their heterosexual counterparts.

The trial begins with the introduction of the couples, the attorneys and the Judge. Attorneys Ted Olson (played by Sheen) and David Boies (played by Clooney) who opposed each other in 2000’s Bush v. Gore are now on the same side arguing in favor of same-sex marriage. After the plaintiff’s testimony, Olson presents eight witnesses who are experts in marriage, American history, psychology, sociology, economics and political science. These experts make powerful and compelling arguments for same-sex marriage, dispelling myths and showing the court how providing everyone the right to marry will only lead a better society.

During cross examination of the expert witnesses, Charles Cooper (played by Bacon), raises questions about same-sex couples ability to procreate, whether domestic partnership is equal protection, whether there is any evidence from Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2004) that allowing same-sex couples to marry has improved their lives, and whether conversion therapies have worked for people who ‘sincerely’ wanted to change their sexual orientation. Cooper calls the children of same-sex couples “irresponsible procreation” and “illegitimate natural children.” When these statements are made, the play shits to the plaintiffs, who express their outrage and also talk about their struggles, challenges and the discrimination they face in their daily lives. In a moving conversation between Stier and her son, Stier lovingly explains how the boy was conceived and delivered.

Cooper calls only two witnesses in defense of Proposition 8 and presents no studies, data or findings to make his case. His arguments crumble when he and the witnesses make statements like “I don’t have to have evidence to prove”, “It is on the internet” etc. One of the witnesses, Mr. Blakenhorn (brilliantly played by John C. Reilly) scores a same-side goal and ends up supporting same-sex marriage! The most crucial moment in the case comes when Judge Walker asks Cooper how allowing same-sex couples to marry will negatively impact heterosexual marriages and procreation. In response to this key question, Cooper hesitates and, significantly, can only muster three words: “I don’t know.”

Seven million people in California voted against same-sex marriage, but only two came to the court to testify. Boies’ closing statement stresses this point. “When they come into court they have to support and defend their opinions under oath. In cross examinations, those opinions just melt away! There simply wasn’t any evidence, there weren’t any empirical studies, its made up. It’s junk science. It’s easy to say that on television, but the witness stand is a lonely place to lie. When you come into court you can’t do that. And that’s what we did. We put fear and prejudice on trial.” Olson concludes the argument with extremely powerful statements comparing the fight for same-sex marriage to the fight to allow interracial marriage. Sheen’s performance in these few minutes gives you goosebumps!

Everyone in the cast plays their part to perfection. Jane Lynch, as National Organization of Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher, is hilarious! Chis Colfer makes a strong impact as a person who went through (failed) conversion therapy. George Clooney is a delight to watch. And of course, Brad Pitt as Judge Walker puts out a restrained and awesome performance.

“8” is a must watch!

Sources: Wikipedia.org, Afer.org

Watch the play on Youtube.