Jaya Jaya Jaya Jaya Hey (2022) — when sarcasm elevates sadness

You know they say comedy is a serious business. But I won’t restrict this to the performer, but to the writer too.

Why do I say this? Because memorable comedy is born out of alleviating the severity of issues having trauma or historical grief associated with them. You take an already hilarious subject, and make a joke out of that? That’s good. It may work very well. But you take something that is not so lightweight and has caused life-altering damage to the victims, it is not easy to make it funny while at the same time not trivializing the issue. The latter part is important because the purpose of layering this unquestionably inescapable sadness with a coat of laughter is either a way of rebellion against the aggressors or coping with it (while also inspiring them to be the former). If it is unable to achieve either of them, it has failed. This movie is, fortunately, not a failure. It has succeeded comprehensively.

So the gist of the story is that a girl from an ultra-traditional family who on the outside seems to have a perfect life is an undermined and undervalued part of her family owing to her gender. She has all of her wishes and desires beaten and knocked down because the men in the family are the ones with the final say, even those men who should not have a say in her life, considering her parents to have those rights. Then after an incident in college, she was married away by her parents to a seemingly simple-minded yet innocuous man. But things are not what they were shown to be. How she navigates life in her new home and combats the challenges forms the rest of the movie.

This is a writer’s movie more than a director’s film. That doesn’t mean it has no challenges as a director. Comedy is nothing without a good relationship between visuals and audio. So yes, the comedic effects were well-shot. The strenuous task of managing to not disrupt the momentum during the tonal transition was exceedingly well done with staging. But most of what you see must have been already on paper. The joke, the agony, and whatever between, all of that has been already written. And that is what impressed me about this. This movie is not strictly an out-and-out comedy. It has some somber scenes too. But the seamless tonal shifts the writer achieves are almost invisible. It makes you roll on the floor laughing and then it makes you sit there staring at the screen because things now require not just your reaction but also an emotional investment. These transitions require an immaculate conception on paper and steadfast execution on the sets. Apart from brilliantly staging these segue from grief to joy and vice versa, the editing also needs to be commended here. The reason is, usually, humor requires a few fast cuts for comedic effects and for the punch lines to land effectively. And sad sequences, especially in this movie has the subject arrested to the environment, so to capture that effect, the frequency of cuts needs to be lowered. The tricky part is handling the tragicomedy. This is that realm between each transition. In this realm, you get a sense that things are starting to get intense but the filmmaker has no intention of rushing into the full-throttle intense melancholy. Once you get past this phase it turns into a different movie but the same solidity in writing. The editing channels you through this passage comfortably without any jarring instances.

So the core of the movie is the subjugated and subjugator duality. Despite this serious description, it does not make it into one. It takes that concept and puts it inside a normal husband and wife relationship. But presents this vital and pervasive issue in an entirely new and hilarious manner. Clinging on to these issues, the concept of female subjugation and male chauvinistic bravado, the characters around the protagonist named Jayabarathi (Darshana Rajendran) act out. This is why the tonal shifts are organic. The characters are all different in the way they approach and behave, but similar in their attitude and principles towards these elements they are clinging to. They need not always be in support of this. But whatever they do and say in this story is geared towards this. They do not veer into some unnecessary demeanor. This type of consistency in writing is the most integral part of a good movie. See this is, in a way, a ‘message movie’. What would have made it prosaic preaching is the lack of restraint and the entailing inconsistency in writing. But the writing here shows terrific restraint.

Not just the characters, even the scenes they are part of are not wasted on some brilliant yet standalone incoherency. The continuous effort to coalesce everything into this central theme is the reason why the movie flowed smoothly. Multifarious issue-oriented tales don’t usually translate well onto the screen because of how it diversifies the issues without a firm societal problem as an emotional pivot to organize the characters and scenes. The societal issue need not be pervasive or prevalent. It can be an exceptional issue affecting a short sample of victims, but it would still be relatable if it acts as the primary guide for the screenplay. Even the jokes you see in this film are either at the expense of a character or the problem discussed. This is a tremendous restrain displayed by the writer when the opportunity to let it go was aplenty.

Now comedy is only half the writing. Even a mediocre joke on paper can elicit a roaring response with the right amount of hyperbolic exaggeration. The actors in the movie, irrespective of their residence in the moral spectrum, were all likable if not memorable. Rajesh (Basil Joseph), the short-tempered female illiterate man, whose worldview is extremely parochial along with his preferences and tastes, is the antagonist here.

Though Jaya is the protagonist in the classical sense, concerning screen time, this character is the true star of the film. His performance is an admixture of pretentious false bravado to keep his employees in check and family members in control. His lack of effort and knowledge to understand anything about those around him, especially women has never been an issue for him. Moreover, this behavior was emboldened by the prevailing mindset in the society he is part of. His resistance to change manifests even in his choices. He is also not exactly intelligent. Sure he has power over those around him, but he has no idea how to exactly read the room or to compromise. His only response to most uncertainties is madness. He is also now and then embarrassed by those around him in which he has no say. This is the character sketch gleaned mostly from the performance. That’s how good it was. The description above may be serious if not sincere. But it was not as such in the movie. The actor turned this into a laughing riot despite such matter-of-fact sketches.

The actress who played Jaya may not have been part of such flourishing scenes but she was taken for a kind of roller coaster ride throughout the film. She managed to maintain the resemblance of the character from first to last with some relatable pathos here and there.

Everyone else performed within the scope given to them, special appreciation is given to the actor who played Rajesh’s brother Ani (Azeez Nedumanga). He played the instigator, not just for Rajesh but for the story and for the emotional response of the viewer too.

Another important aspect albeit a brief one is the music and background chatter choices. There are a few scenes where the comedic effect is turned to max merely due to an ingenious choice of background chatter. This cannot be understood unless you watch the movie yourself. While the music is not the greatest facet of the film, it is noticeable and accomplishes its purpose of elevation.

These are those movies that may probably go unnoticed and discovered a few years down the line to flowering reception. In the state it was made, Kerala, the southern part of India, it had received praise from both critics and the audience. So it did not suffer the mercy of posterity even in the place it was made in and for. But I would like this to reach a wider audience and especially more writers. Everyone is aggrieved and holding in some unnamed angst and waiting to let it out. But they do not have a proper path to direct it. We all care about those issues. But we are all worn out when we sit to watch a movie or read a book. We do not want to exercise our minds in wracking up a grave issue. We yearn for escapism. Well, most of us do. Others who follow movies for the sheer love of the craft, do not want to be barraged by jargon and monologues of sanctimonious characters.
That being said, art is political. Art is the greatest tool for propaganda but at the same time to create awareness and education. But what is the difference between a fictional movie and a documentary? This film answers that. It proves important issues with far-reaching dire consequences can and should be approached using a diametrically opposite formula. Moreover, if done well, it will not lessen the gravity but instead, imbue the pain in a more visceral sense. This movie is a please, a lesson, and hopefully, a paragon.

Originally published at http://thevicariousview.wordpress.com on January 5, 2023.