Recently there is an attempt to make Randamoozham, a Malayalam book into a film.  Essentially the book is a retelling of Mahabharata with Bhima as the narrator.  It is obvious that in an epic as big as Mahabharata, people might have spent hardly any time in thinking about such narratives/perspectives and so the writer's contribution is to bring such a perspective into 'discussion'.  There is a difference between 'loose ends' and 'open ends' when it comes to arts.  A work of art has to be 'finished', no doubt, i.e. there should not be 'loose ends' but it need not be 'complete'.  It can be 'completed' by the MIND of the beholder depending on how he/she sees it.  In the case of Randamoozham, that author has thought about how Bhima might have seen and reacted to the events unfolding around him.

Indian films have been mostly 'formatted' to have products where everything is explained, derived and self-contained.  All questions and answers are answered within the product and the viewer does not want to be 'troubled' thinking about 'open ends' if any.  The product has to be complete and in some sense even prescriptive with some 'grammar'.  Unfortunately this is not the desired impact of a product of art.  If the creator has made the viewer think later about the product, even if it is for a second, he/she has succeeded in making the person THINK which is essentially what arts is all about.  Having been formatted to self contained 'products', Indian viewers have found it difficult to think and even rejected films with 'open ends', complaining that there were too many 'loose ends'.  'Psycho' Selvaraghavan's products has often been criticized wrongly because of the misinterpretation of 'open ends' as 'loose ends' and sometimes even with jaundiced eyes with 'conditioning' through scores of other (mediocre?) films.

First things first.  'Mayakkam Enna' is NOT just a love story, as the director himself has said.  A discerning viewer is more likely to see this film as a 'story' of a strong woman (iron lady?), who goes by what she BELIEVES IN.  No two minds about it, it is a terrific role for debutant Richa Gangopadhyay and the actor has taken it further by her performance (of course guided by the director).  The positive ending of the film is NOT CONTRIVED, say to fetch distributors, but it is only to accentuate her personality in the film.  The director has kept quite a few OPEN ends in the film which can be interpreted in any way that the viewer wants depending on his/her state of mind, though some scenes can be used to 'connect the dots'.  For instance, Karthik is a weak person who is low on self-confidence, dependent on others and this can be seen on the way he wants to take 'others' help/deference for even planning his honeymoon.  Yamini's perseverance and maturity can be seen in the way she handles her neighbours or the friend's advances.  The fact that she sticks to her husband despite what he is, trauma that she had to undergo and her refusal to even speak with him etc can be 'justified/reasoned' in many ways by (wo)men.

Selvaraghavan has succeeded in making his characters talk less and say more.  No wonder, film says a lot more.  On the music front, the music director could have restrained himself in many scenes by avoiding any music in some heavy scenes.  Silence could have been more deafening in some scenes, if only the music director had chosen to restrain.  There are three scenes which I found really poignant and even some parallels in the old Rajni-Kamal-Sripriya starrer 'Aval Appadi Thaan' viz. a) when he likens her to being 'his sister' - reactions of the woman in either film  is market contrarian for sure b) when his friend makes advances and later they meet c) when she MEETS his wife at the climax, when the wife innocently points to her husband's achievements - husband's reaction well etched by director even if it is for a second.

She is like that.