Badgirl - Its Just Too Bad!

Is this perspective not accepted in Tamil Nadu or on this forum?

The Tamil film Kadhalikka Neramillai is a 2025 release, and from what I’ve read, it’s the first Tamil movie to feature a gay wedding. It has been well-received, targeting Gen Alpha, and is currently the third highest-grossing film of the year according to online sources. Reviews have also been largely positive.

Concepts like LGBTQ+ representation, children born out of wedlock, and live-in relationships are fairly normalized in metropolitan cities. Tamil cinema has explored these themes through various films and short films, many of which have been critically acclaimed and well-received by most audiences—though, naturally, older and more conservative individuals have their reservations.

On the other hand, looking back at past films, I recall watching Gokulathil Seethai as a teenager. At the time, it was praised for its storyline and even won the Tamil Nadu State Film Award for portraying a female character in a positive light. Many kids from the 80s and 90s grew up admiring and aspiring to be like the heroine.

However, rewatching it today was a completely different experience—it was hard to digest certain aspects of the film. The heroine chooses to marry a man who proposes to her with an emotional threat, saying he would commit suicide if she refused. Her entire purpose in life seems to be about supporting such a weak-willed man, despite having no real love or understanding between them.

In a shocking twist, she abandons her arranged marriage at the wedding hall to elope with this man—only for him to reject her when his parents oppose the marriage. Before leaving, she apologizes to her groom and explains that her life’s purpose is to support a struggling man. The groom, instead of reacting with shock or concern, simply replies, “No worries, I’ll marry your sister instead.” There’s no question of whether the sister consents—it’s just presented as if the groom is an ideal man for agreeing to it.

But what about the consequences? The impact on the families? How irresponsible is it to leave the wedding hall like that? And how foolish is it to trust a phone call and run away at midnight, without even seeing the person who is driving her at that night, just to "give life" to a spineless man?

As the story progresses, the heroine ends up in a womanizer’s house by accident and eventually "transforms" him into a good person. The only highlight of the film was Actor Karthik’s performance as the womanizer—beyond that, nothing stood out. If anything, the lead female character’s confused and misguided decisions sent completely wrong messages to viewers.

Conservative audiences may have embraced these ideas, where women are expected to be doormats or prioritize what men want. Even feminist themes and women’s empowerment in older films were often depicted through a male-centric lens, which is why such movies gained popularity back then.

Even tele serials of today (mostly watched by older and conservative women) targets female centric themes, but through male chauvinist lenses. Those lead women in the dramas often make foolish decisions in the name of women empowerment, often ends up in struggles and failures; and awaiting for a male saviour to save them.
People, including my own mom who religiously watches such dramas are influenced so negatively; hence they think women can not shine on her own, or her decisions against those social norms can only lead to problems down the line.

However, I believe Tamil Nadu has moved past that era now. Society has evolved, and so has cinema.

 

Why are we mixing caste and faith in this discussion?

I belong to the Vellalar caste but follow Christianity, while some of my friends from the same caste are Hindus. Caste is something inherited, whereas faith is a personal choice—today, I am a Christian, but in the future, I could choose another belief system.

The police character in the said movie may have converted to Christianity, but that doesn’t mean he came from Rome or Bethlehem. He is an Indian, specifically from Tamil Nadu, originally from a Hindu background, and naturally carries the caste he was born into. So why unnecessarily bring his faith into the discussion when the real debate is about caste?

I've seen plenty of Tamil movies—especially those featuring Kamal Haasan (KH)—where Brahmin characters are shown rejecting traditional Brahmin practices. Actor Vivek, in his comedy scenes, often criticized outdated customs like untouchability, and Bhagyaraj also questioned such practices in his films. Even in recent years, Madhavan’s character in "Minnale" attempts to eat chicken to convince his Christian girlfriend that he has embraced a different identity. I don't remember the name, but actor Ashok Selvan also did something like that in a movie.

These portrayals are nothing new, and they have no connection to any ruling government. However, the current outrage seems politically charged rather than just about cinema.

Can you confidently say that a Brahmin wouldn't eat meat? or she wouldn't marry a non-brahmin or she/he wouldn't reject the brahmin tradition? I bet the answer is NO. Because flawed people and different characters exists in every caste.

As I mentioned earlier, negative portrayals exist across all groups—whether it’s bad women, terrorists, or flawed individuals from various castes and religions. Unless a movie is outrightly anti-Brahmin or anti-any-community, I wouldn’t be too concerned about a character’s caste or religion—because, at the end of the day, every community has both good and bad individuals.

The real issue in this thread isn't about a single movie character but about certain Brahmin references that have apparently hurt the sentiments of the Brahmin community.

 

Let’s agree to disagree as mature adults. I sincerely apologize if my posts have hurt you in any way.

I understand your concern that recent films seem to portray Brahmin characters in a negative light. However, for a long time in India, especially in Tamil Nadu, similar portrayals have been the norm for those from so-called lower castes and minority religious communities. I don’t believe it’s always intentional, but rather a reflection of the trends in filmmaking over different eras.

As I mentioned earlier, many movies in the past depicted certain groups as villains with extreme negative traits. Now, the trend has shifted, and unfortunately, Brahmins appear to be on the receiving end. In the future, it could be another group—that's just the reality of how narratives evolve in cinema.

I shared the same perspective when a Muslim friend felt hurt by a Tamil movie featuring a Muslim character as a terrorist, reinforcing stereotypes about their community. Now, Brahmins are upset about a flawed Brahmin character in a film.

From Baashha (Rajinikanth’s film) to present-day movies, many villains have Christian names like Mark Antony, Daniel, or Michael, often committing heinous crimes, sometimes even wearing a cross. Yet, I don’t perceive Christians as villains or feel personally hurt by such portrayals.

My argument is based on my beliefs and is not politically driven. With that, I’d like to conclude my points here.

 

I totally agree with all you said.
That movie was jai bhim. The inspector was a Christian, but they showed him as vanniyar caste.
Anthony Samy is name of the actual inspector in reality. But in film the character is Gurumoorthy, a Hindu name.
When you make a biopic on a real life incident, why not potray the real characters as it is.
Bad people exist in all Religions.

The movie Soorarai Potru was a biopic of Gopinath who is a Brahmin. But they showed him as non Brahmin. As like the movie Amaran.
Surya in Soorarai Potru will be shown as attending Periyar meetings.

It's the same DMK agenda. I am seeing some uproar in Twitter about all these nowadays. Hopefully some changes will happen.
Nayantara apologized after people boycotted her Annapoorni movie.
People need to boycott, then only changes will happen