Man as a mere instrument of the society
It could be inferred from T V Chandran's film Danny that man often tends to become instruments of the society that he represents. In simple terms, the name Danny could be defined as an individual who was born in the year 1930 and died in 2000. Danny too lived with the course of history, but never being the part of it. If history of a Nation can be considered as the happenings in that Nation during the course of time, Danny never understood the Nation or the Nation never felt the presence of Danny. But, Danny understood and experienced the society around him. Or looking from Danny's point of view, he was never the part of this society, but a mere instrument of the society. A feeble instrument used and abused excessively by the society. Often Danny's presence itself is not experienced in the society. At such times he try to announce his presence by playing his saxophone. Even when the music produced by Danny's saxophone was considered by the society as irksome, it was the only factor the reiterated the existence of Danny in the society. But, it is his death, which gives him a permanent identity. The carving on his death tomb 'Danny: Born-1930, Died- 2000' ultimately becomes the only proof that such an individual too was a part of history.
If the claim that cinema is a director's art is taken for granted, Danny could be considered as a good film. The presence of the director is felt throughout the film. The director somewhat succeeds in controlling the star cast of the film. The film also satisfies different classes of audience, who try to see the film from different perspectives; the not-so-bad commercial success of this film upholds this.
Talking about the film, Danny is a story of three individuals, a society and a nation. Danny, Maggy and the teacher being the individuals, the society of which they too are a part and a Nation that houses such individuals and societies. Even when the film is viewed in Danny's point of view, Maggy and the teacher too could be considered as mere instruments. During the first half of the film, the director spends considerable time documenting history of the Nation, in which the fact that these individuals were never a part is embedded. To know that the history texts, which we studied and understood, were never ours is an irony.
A film is not something to be forgotten after viewing it. Also it is not some thing to be viewed like taking a bitter medicine. It should be something that remains in our mind while leaving the cinema hall. If it goes beyond the empty masks of stardom and succeeds in creating at least a tiny stir in a viewer's mind, it would be remarkable. To summarise, Danny is not a failure.