They broke a lot of inhibitions related to humour. Even the d ramatic situations are c rafted with humour as base. “They created dramatic stories and laced the narrative with humour. It’s not that their stories were different-in fact they also latched on to familiar issues and often focussed their stories around families, friendships, relationships and unemployment but it’s the irreverence in whic h they dialogued their characters, and slithered wit into ordinary situations that made all the difference.
They are the architects of situational comedy in Malayalam cinema-where clean, unadulterated humour is procured through a dialogue, a situation, when a comedy skit (their background in mimicry helped) is converted into a sequence. In 1989 came a film, Ramji Rao Speaking, helmed by tw o new directors, who jointly called themselves as Siddique-Lal. Siddique and Lal-the game changers (1989-95) Iron y is that it was directed by Shaji Kailas and written by Renji Panicker, both of who later went on to create hardcore political thrillers. And there was Dr Pasupathy (1990), a hilarious satire placed in a village headlining a fraudster who pretends to be a doctor. Sreenivasan imbibed these in his writings.ĭirector Kamal’s Peruvannapurathe Visheshangal (1989) was very Anthikad in making and texture, with an ensemble of comedy actors and situations that evoked natural humour. “Their sketches and caricatures are lapped up by Keralites. Anthikad’s association with other writers have also borne fruit-Raghunath Paleri directed Ponmuttayidunna Tharavu, a fable in tricately knitted with rooted characters who spoke effortless humour, is considered as one of the finest Malayalam films of all times.Ĭartoon has played a key part in Malayalees psyche and some of the best cartoonists in India are from Kerala-Shankar, Abu, Kutty, OV Vijayan, Ep Unni. Varavelppu dealt with the issues faced by a Gulf Malayali on his return to Kerala and Sandesham was a socio-political satire. Pattanapravesham was a sequel to Nadodika ttu. Their synergy seemed matchless as they collaborated for one fruitful film after another with this formula. But Sreenivasan was skilful in gauging the Malayali psyche. In hindsight, it could have been just another tired rags-to-riches script. So much so, that for over a decade Malayalam cinema nursed a crushing affection for two of its most ordinary “heroes”.
T ogether they battle redundancy, unemployment and poverty with a wry wit that struck a chord with the viewers. What follows is their survival story in the city. The trio’s most stunn ing collaboration was in Nadodikattu -about two unemployed men (a B-com graduate from a waning Nair family and a lesser educated friend) who pay for a Gulf migration but get swindled and end up in Chennai. His characters (nobody did self-deprecatory humour like Sreenivasan) and later films ( Vadakkunokkiyanthram, Chinthavishtayaya Shyamala ) have always pulled up the pretentious progressiveness of the Malayali middle class. This formula was repeated successfully in Gandhinagar Second Street, Sanmanassullavark ku Samadhanam. Mohanlal’s most popular image-makeover occurred during this time. But Anthikad and Sreenivasan interlaces a lot of organic humour into the narrative, bringing a light-heartedness to what seems like a gloomy turn of events on paper. He is a government employee but does odd jobs to earn extra cash, is the sole breadwinner, has a greedy sister and brother-in-law and almost loses his girl to a more affluent suitor. Sreenivasan’s hero is ordinary, middle-class and struggling to keep the family t ogether. Though historically KG George can be credited with introducing one of the best satires ( Panchavadi Palam ) in Malayala m cinema, it reached the mainstream only with the collaborative effort of Sathyan Anthikad and Sreenivasan, with Mohanlal giving a face to it.