Mammootty, Mohanlal and caste in Malaylam Cinema

This is NOT about the 'Thilakan' issue which is currently grabbing eyeballs in Kerala. I am far too removed from the workings of Malayalam cinema (MC) to comment on that. This are some perceptions that I and some of my friends have about MC. This is purely from an audience's point of view.

Art, it is said, reflects society. In fact, I believe it should reflect society. India, of which Kerala is a part, is as is well known, a caste-ridden society. How many films reflect this?

Let's look at MC. How many movies have we seen which have Ezhavas (the largest Hindu community in Kerala) as the main protagonists? The only one which comes to my mind in 'Kattukuthira'. What about other communities? Most films have a Nair or upper caste background. Many reviewers speak glowingly about the films of the Mohanlal-Srinivasan duo of the 1980s as being representative of the problems of the 'common man' . But how representative was this really? There is a subtle hint of Mohanlal being from an Upper caste and hence being more educated and slightly 'smarter' than Srini. Then there was this film called 'Aryan' which truly shocked me with its casteist overtones.

The other community whch has had some representation (romanticisation IMO) are the fisher folk. But how many 'mainstream' actors have had to courage to take on these roles and depict them without making them comic figures. Mammootty (Amaram), Satyan Mash (Chemmeen) and Kottarakara. Mohanlal tried once in 'Mahasamudram' and fell flat. Most of Mohanlal's films have had subtle overtones of feudalism and casteism. Even when he is a 'common man' in films like 'Sanmanassulavarkku Samadhanam', he is a 'Nair' common man who has lost his property due to court cases. Maybe uneducated, but Nair. And therein lies the problem.

Lal has often been feted for being the actor with the 'greater' range than Mammootty. True, he can portray comic roles and serious ones with equal ease. But his body language ( upper caste) never changes in any of his movies. Contrasts that with Mammootty whso ahs depicted a range of common men: From Amaram to Kazhcha to Rappakal. He changes his body language and his dialect according to the character. Agreed, he often falls flat in comedy and cannot dance to save his life, but I do not think he can be accused of having less 'range' than Lal.


Coming back to the point of art reflecting society, taking into account all the above, now whose films reflect society more?