In today's world, Seethanam has gained great relevance in various areas of daily life. Since its emergence, Seethanam has caught the attention of many people due to its impact and influence in different aspects. There are several factors that have contributed to its popularity, such as its importance in the work environment, its relevance in society, its impact on technology or its influence on contemporary culture. In this article, we will further explore the role Seethanam plays today and how it has managed to capture the interest of so many people around the world.
Seethanam | |
---|---|
![]() Poster | |
Directed by | R. Sundarrajan |
Written by | R. Sundarrajan |
Produced by | T. Siva |
Starring | |
Cinematography | Rajarajan |
Edited by | Ashok Mehtha |
Music by | Deva |
Distributed by | Amma Creations |
Release date |
|
Running time | 150 minutes |
Country | India |
Language | Tamil |
Seethanam (/siːθənəm/ transl. Dowry)[1] is a 1995 Indian Tamil-language crime film directed by R. Sundarrajan and produced by T. Siva. The film stars Prabhu, Sangita and Ranjitha. It was released on 24 November 1995.[2]
![]() | This article needs an improved plot summary. (July 2023) |
After spending many years in jail, Muthu Manikkam is back to his village and wants to take revenge on a corrupt politician Marimuthu. Soon, he clashes with advocate Radha until she knows his tragic past. It is revealed that Muthumanikkam's wife was killed by Marimuthu. In the end, Muthumanikkam kills Marimuthu.
The music was composed by Deva, with lyrics written by R. Sundarrajan.[3][4]
Song | Singer(s) | Duration |
---|---|---|
"Chinnavaru" | K. S. Chithra | 4:44 |
"Rathiri Puthu Rathiri" | K. S. Chithra | 4:40 |
"Selaikku Potta" | Mano, K. S. Chithra | 5:13 |
"Valayal" | S. Kuzhanthaivelu, K. S. Chithra | 5:00 |
"Vanthalaappa" (duet) | Mano, K. S. Chithra | 4:57 |
"Vanthalaappa" (male) | S.P.Balasubramanyam | 4:57 |
"Vanthalaappa" (female) | K. S. Chithra | 4:57 |
D. S. Ramanujam of The Hindu wrote, "The desperate eagerness to do something new only lands the director in sorts of trouble, the first half being a mockery, the director, his acting inclusive, and his screenplay being woefully inadequate" but found the second half "enjoyable to an extent".[5]