‘Pennum Porattum’ movie review: An absurdist satire that just escapes getting lost in its chaos

Much like an out-of-control car hurtling down a crowded pathway, leaving utter chaos in its wake, there is really no moment at which actor Rajesh Madhavan’s debut directorial Pennum Porattum pauses to ponder. It occasionally takes detours to keep us abreast of the two parallel tracks through which the film conveys the same idea, but the pandemonium does not ease whichever path it takes. Drawing its spirit from the subaltern, satirical art form of Porattu Nadakam, the movie attempts to put human behaviour under the lens in a fictional village somewhere in Palakkad. The lens it uses initially is that of an animal, the pet dog Suttu, who slowly realises some painful existential truths. The screenplay written by Ravi Sankar deals with how the entire village reacts to a very private communication between two individuals. A young man makes a proposition, which Charulata (Raina Radhakrishnan) promptly rejects. However, word gets to the villagers, and promptly a mob casts its judgmental eyes on the woman. Another mob is out to hunt the pet dog, following rumours of it being rabies-infected In its setting and the subject that it handles, Pennum Porattum is reminiscent of Senna Hegde’s Avihitham and Thinkalazhcha Nishchayam. But this movie is a different beast, infused with manic energy. Absurd situations follow one another, with heightened humour. Exaggerated antics further wind up the quirkiness quotient. In a confounding series of events inside a house where a celebration is taking place, two groups violently attack each other, only for them to arrive at an understanding leading to yet another bout of frenzied celebration. Just that the only one who can see through the absurdity of the whole drama is the woman at the centre of it all. Most of the fresh set of actors put up commendable performances. ALSO READ: ‘Valathu Vashathe Kallan’ movie review: Jeethu Joseph’s film gets lost in a maze of its own creation As we seen in experimental films, Rajesh Madhavan does falter once in a while when the attempts to create or maintain chaos become repetitive. Sequences stretch out beyond bearable limits, or things are done just for the sake of absurdity. But he manages to neatly tie it together in the end, so that what he intends to say through the film is not lost in the din. Through the prologue and the closing sequences, he explicitly states the film’s politics by painting contrasting images of human and animal nature. With these borderline preachy sequences, the film hints at the universal themes that it is reaching for in its hyper-local setting. Rajesh Madhavan is successful to an extent in that endeavour, even though the film briefly loses its way.