How different is Papanasam when compared to Drishyam?

Papanasam Movie Stills (4)

Kamal’s Suyambulingam is poles apart from Mohanlal’s George Kutty

This apple was a bit hard to resist: just how different is the original Drishyam to Papanasam, and how different was Mohanlal’s performance to Kamal’s?

(( Spoilers ahead: If you have not seen Papanasam yet, please do so at the theatre first. ))

Many reviewers, recounting purely from their memory, have said Papanasam stays true to the original. Even I wrote that in my blog, but after watching it again just now, I have to say there are more differences that I had originally thought.

1. The screenplay: This is a bit of a surprise. But there are some poignant moments in the first half of Drishyam focussed on the lead pair of George Kutty and Rani (played by Meena) that have been chopped in the Tamil version. A segment that offers some insight into George Kutty’s pysche where he wants his daughters to continue in a local school against the “better English Medium” school that Rani wants is missing in Papanasam. And some exchanges that George Kutty has with his father-in-law, that establishes well his middle class moorings are missing. There is a delightful scene in which George Kutty complains that Rani keeps buying utensils that she never uses. Delhi Ganesh makes just a fleeting appearance as Suyambulingam’s father-in-law.

Also, there is a subtle difference in how Drishyam shows Anju’s attack on Varun. It shows an enraged Anju directly striking at his head. Whereas in Papanasam, Selvi targets his hand but inadvertently ends up striking his head. (This is used as a device in the climax scene, in Suyambulingam’s dialogues.)

But the biggest change in Papanasam is the interval block. In Drishyam, which runs at around 2 hrs 46 mins (15 minutes shorter than Papanasam that clocks 3 hrs 1 min), the interval comes just after the first hour mark, with George Kutty returning home and discovering what had transpired that fateful night. The interval credits appear with him standing near the compost pit. The tone of the movie changes exactly at this point.

But in Papanasam, the interval block is more or less at the mid-point.

It works better in Drishyam, in my opinion, because what happens in the genre-altering second half works better as one continous block.

2. The pacing: Drishyam moves at a much slower pace in the first few minutes especially. This seems to be a deliberate device used by Jeethu Joseph that actually helps build pace through the second half. George Kutty’s introduction is a lot less flamboyant than Suyambulingam’s, and the story itself appears very laidback in the first half. Papanasam, on the other hand, tries to bristle a bit more with its humour.

Papanasam Movie Stills (8)

Anant Mahadevan and Asha Sarath are in top form in Papanasam

3. The performances (of everyone else): Twenty minutes into Drishyam, one thing is very clear. Leaving aside the legends, most actors have put in a much better performance than compared to what we see in Papanasam. Meena is pretty brilliant, and also perhaps benefits from the scripts that allows for a bit more nuance than what at least the end product of Papanasam seems to have allowed Gautami Tadimalla. There are more scenes that establish her as a concerned mother, and she has generally too put out a far better performance.

The antagonist Constable Mahadevan in Drishyam is played by Kalabhavan Shajon, who I gather was a comedian that Jeethu identified to play the role of the villain for the first time. His performance is a lot different than what we get from Kalabhavan Mani in Papanasam. Shajon is not menacing by any stretch, though he does bring out his grudge at George Kutty adequately. It is not an “in your face” kind of performance. Kalabhavan Mani, on the hand, has a very strong body language that oozes brings out a bit of menace even in sequences that just required him to just be a bit more calm.

And one other actor who has scored in Drishyam over his counterpart in Papanasam is the person who plays the tea shop owner (Kozhikode Narayanan Nair, who I have absolutely no idea about). He just seems more at ease than M.S.Baskar in Papanasam.

That said, in Papanasam, Anant Mahadevan has put out a far superior performance to the role portrayed by Siddique in Drishyam. This is especially true in that unforgettable last scene, where he is the perfect foil to Kamal.

And Asha Sarath too has put in a better performance, in my opinion, in Papanasam. It could be because she has already played it twice, and was able to emote better.


Mohanlal’s George Kutty is a lot less emotional

4. Techniques: Though we have the same editor and cinematographer in Ayub Khan and Sujjith Vaasudev, the end product in Papanasam is slightly different. There are far more shots closing in on Suyambulingam’s eyes and it almost feels like the Tamil version was slightly dumbed down in trying to explain the plot points for the audience.

5. Mohanlal vs Kamal: And now to the juicy bit. I wont go into who was better, but just how the two legends had approached it differently.

Mohanlal’s George Kutty and Kamal’s Suyambulingam are poles apart. Both actors have internalised the script well but have approached it from very different points, which probably says a little bit about their preparations for the character of a small town middle class father.

Mohanlal’s George Kutty is a slightly short-tempered man who does not display his emotions easily. He plays it a bit nagging, as one that does not shy away from a fight and is very nearly adamant. George Kutty sheds tears too, but silently almost in a manner that attempts to belie the sense of vulnerability.

Kamal’s Suyambulingam, on the other hand, is all heart, a bit of a romantic and is highly emotional. He cries when watching the black and white Sivaji Ganesan starrer ‘Paasa Malargal’ and in a bit of foreshadowing for what is to follow, says “Paasa Malargal paathu azhaathavalam manushana?” (A person who does not shed tears while watching ‘Paasa Malargal’ is not human.) At this point, the cable TV assistant reiterates the point that Suyambulingam is highly emotional. He says “Neenga Nadigar Thilagam paera potta odaneye azhuthurupeengaley” (“You would have cried as soon as you saw Nadigar Thilagam (Sivaji Ganesan) in the title cards.”)

George Kutty is a man of habit and does not want to be drawn into conversations. At his home, he switches off the lights where they are unnecessary but does not have to say a word. He plays it in a way, where it is almost a natural impulse.

Suyambulingam, on the other hand, is a motor mouth. He necessarily has to point out and speak his mind.

The contrasts are wonderful, and are probably also indicative of some cultural differences. Just studying how these actors have brought out the nuances is almost like a master class in cinema acting.

During the course of their investigation, when the police strikes his family, George Kutty shows more defiance and even tries to take on Constable Mahadevan. But Kamal’s Suyambulingam endures a lot more pain, and this is shown physically as well when Constable Perumal dislodges one of his fingers.

6. THAT LAST SCENE: Where Drishyam and Papanasam are most different from one another is in that incredible last scene.

Papanasam Movie Stills (15)

The climax in Papanasam is quite different from Drishyam mainly in how the protagonist has been designed.

In Drishyam, George Kutty is both repentant and defiant at the same time. He gives the former IG Geetha Prabakhar and her husband an indirect answer to their question on the fate of Varun and even while he asks for forgiveness, he is not overwhelmed by guilt. His body language is stiff here, almost as if he is frozen. He holds his hands together in a frozen posture, as Geetha Prabhakar and her husband leave.

In Papanasam, Suyambulingam is overwhelmed by guilt and as he makes a more earnest attempt to tell the truth, he loses cohesiveness even while mumbling “ava kai thavari thappu nadathuduthu” (She hit by mistake). (This was facilitated by the change in the screenplay I referred to earlier.) Kamal’s body language takes a different tenor here. He is trembling and shaking, almost like he is begging for forgiveness.

Both Mohanlal and Kamal has made Drishyam and Papanasam one of their career bests, and any discussion on trying to argue which was better will only be a waste of time.


10 thoughts on “How different is Papanasam when compared to Drishyam?

  1. Reblogged this on koffee reads and commented:
    Wrote my mind. Especially Point no. 6. Though Kamal’s body language was good, Lal scores it subtly and that is why it is hard to say who was better in that role

    • In one scene where the assistant in his office asked Kamal in his office after the incident , what happened ,why u r tensed ! Kamal suddenly changed his expression and try to show he is normal ! But in that scene we can see a huge difference between Lal sir as he did that mire naturally and scored better too !

      • the perception of naturality in acting is a paradox of sorts. we all overact and overreact in our natural lives, everyday almost. the subtlest of acting is lost in translation, if the visual experience on screen is not perceptible. you will see even the most ardent devotees of method acting, such as marlon brando .. taking extreme measures to emote when the character fits.

        kamal in this movie picked certain scenes to underplay and a few other to be overt in expression. a little bit of one’s natural self comes out in such ocassions because when you pick and choose – this kind of selective burst and underplay is consistent with this defintion of the character, atleast in this movie. overall, kamal scored in this movie better than mohanlal.

        on seeing malayalam drishyam, was a bit befuddled that a person with such detailed eloquence as ‘george kutty’ did’nt necessarily wear the emotions on his sleeve, when it suits .. but then to understand this, we have to dig deep into to kerala and culture of stoic personalities and the coutenances playing close to chest. mohanlal’s acting throughout his career is subtlety personified .. in my observation, he never goes overboard. its not his vocabulary. but that itself is a constraint, when you open yourself as an actor. to be able to appreciate mohanla’s acting, which is par excellence, you got to travel beyond what meets the eye .. to the overall gaits, undertones, demeanor, and not just the twitching of the facial muscles and the dialogue delivery.

        whereas – kamal does a lot of over-emoting, even experimental .. for example, ‘guna’… for some reason – it was not captivating to me to see him playing innocent and mixing up the innocent and matured almost indiscriminately. this is when, you get lost .. because you are not constrained within the definition that
        you set out to yourself, of the character.

        enough said.

  2. Hey! It’s a well studied, well written piece ! Kamal is kamal… Lal is lal! It cannot be KAMALAL. Isn’t it?

  3. very good dissection of the both the versions of the movie. I never noticed all the difference until I read this. But we cannot compare the two lead artistes from both the versions. it’s would be like a Jeethu Vs Jeethu comparison.

  4. Really good article.I would just like to add some other small differences as well in terms of dialogues in the screenplay.
    1)In the scene where Mohanlal talks to his father-in-law,his father-in-law manages to convince him to accept the land which he would write in his name,without paying heed to his resistance.However, Kamal is shown to be able to convince his father-in-law not to do the same.
    2)Again,in the climax exchange scene between Kamal and his wife at their home,he also expresses guilt in having had to instruct his daughters to lie to people,as opposed to speaking the truth,which was not there in the original version.

  5. Very good article. The subtle observations are impressive. It is interesting to compare both the legends’ performance.

    After had seen Drishyam in Telugu, I saw the Malayalam one. The director Sripriya followed most of the shots of the original religiously. Of course, It proved to be right. Here in Tamil, the director is the same. So he might have tried to improve the treatment.

  6. A good review, but could never accept that the guy who played the role of Siddique is better than him. I could hardly have accepted he did justice to the role he played even if Dhrishyam was not made and Papanasam was original, for the role he was made to play was that of a Country side brought-up who has reached such a money-rich position, as his dialect hardly suggested he was one such. And I dunno why you ‘ve to turn down Siddique’s performance for his was one of the best in the whole movie.

    And i don’t see anyone complaining the Nellai slang usage! I’m sure it’s a very good try in Kollywood but it’s not perfect at all and that could leave us in a position where we can hardly compare these two.

    To me Dhrishyam was Perfect!
    Papanasam was not.

    One thing where Papanasam could’ve scored more is the performance of the First Child of the couple.

  7. I am really not sure why no one has ever thought of the bgm score. The background score in papanasam (by Gibran) is much much lively and making the movie a pacy thriller… Whereas in Dhrishyam, the bgm was not an important element and it ought to get unnoticed….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s