"Dorothy" - is art just an expression or a statement

— Srinivas Arvind

When we dust off old canvases, what we see is art that reflects the culture, lifestyle, and political climate of a bygone era. While it gives an important historical insight, it also raises a valid question. Have we truly evolved politically?

Political correctness isn’t always subjective. Often it’s binary. For example, we are finally coming to terms with two consenting adults, regardless of gender, engaging in something as their own private matter, and we shouldn’t throw our opinions in between them.

I understand that the tailpiece of “Dorothy” is drawing heat—not just from transphobes and homophobes, but also from cinephiles who view cinema strictly as an aesthetic exercise, an art form of expression. However, cinema’s true power lies in its ability to make audiences uncomfortable — or should I say evolve? — acting as a force capable of moving the hardened rock of so-called “cultural sanity”. If such a thing even exists.

Yes, the romantic angle between Karthi and Subbu feels a bit hurried — though I wouldn’t call it forced — yet it undeniably has a soul. As harsh critics, we might also feel the movie reached its narrative resolution right at the moment Karthi addresses Subbu — before she adopts the name Dorothy — as “di”, the intimate Tamil feminine honorific.

But is that subtle gesture enough for a community that has been oppressed and marginalised for centuries? Is it enough for our society as a whole?

Director Karthik Subbaraj, much like his protagonist Karthi, has climbed mountains, endured harsh heat, and navigated rough roads to reach this point of acceptance—normalising a trans woman’s identity and her desire to be whole (woman). Isn’t it only fair that he goes that extra mile to show what we haven’t seen, or what no one else dared to picture: a man and a trans woman sharing a kiss in the final frame? Or, as homophobes reductively call it, a man kissing another “man”?

First of all, it is dehumanising to refer to Subbu as a man; she is a woman—she is Dorothy. But let’s go with the tide; even if she’s a man, what does it have to do with anyone else, honestly? Both individuals consent to it. Unfortunately, the word “consent” holds no meaning for ‘-phobes’.

Even if the romance feels sudden or narrative-wise “unnecessary”, it is okay for us to remove those harsh critic glasses for a change and witness humanity at its fullest, through our very human eyes. Formal film criticism can comfortably take the back seat when the art is evolving from mere expression into a bold political statement. As a receptive audience, we can call shotgun to witness that evolution to the fullest.

If you are still not convinced yet, consider this: for decades, we have willingly accepted our mainstream heroes falling in “love at first sight” with our heroines without questioning the setup. Here, “Dorothy”, too, followed the same trope. We just failed to see it.