Honestly I don't believe that any celebrity can be as modest as Rajnikant. At a function to commemorate Kamalahasan's 50th anniversary in cinema, he proudly acknowledged, “I am what I am today because of Kamalahasan!” And I also don't believe any superstar can be so politically naïve as to declare that Bal Thackeray is like his god and get away with it too! So, at the outset, for someone who has ruled unchallenged for three decades in Tamil cinema, let us feel thankful that he has remained non-political!
Rajnikant is indeed an incredible phenomenon and yet, if we choose randomly from his 150-odd movies like ‘Manithan', ‘Maveeran' or ‘Mannan', chances are that they are badly crafted with pathetic sets embellished with some ridiculous pieces of choreography and embarrassing stunts. By any convention, one cannot claim that Rajnikant has a demeanour which can remotely subscribe to the idea of ‘good-looking' and a review of his acting talent will draw out only a tiny repertoire of gestures. Yet, his gimmicks have crowned him as the lord of ‘style'! So what made this phenomenon? Was it part of our familiar anti-incumbent factor?
Yes, in a way. The 1960s' image of MGR was a kind of totemic mask which would strangely set most of the ground rules for Rajnikant to follow or even break. Following in his footsteps, he neither takes on mythological roles nor plays the upper caste card. But the robust and clean image was not for him. With his drinking and smoking roles, the ‘rebel' image of Rajnikant spouting sexist rhetoric would categorically demolish MGR's persona, unleashing a sort of counter culture which would rock remote villages of Tamil Nadu.
When this young man from Bangalore entered Tamil Nadu around the mid 1970s, little would he know that his melodramatic Tamil film lovers were going through one of their strongest identity crises. During the emergency, their two big Dravidian party bosses would vie with each other to ally with their arch rival — the Hindi-speaking Congress party. The political dream of a Tamil Nation stood completely betrayed but the dream of an all-embracing Tamilian culture had to be kept alive for cinema to survive! Cinema was going to be their last straw.
Different iconography
Fortunately, the Tamil new wave cinema was enunciated by rebel newcomers like Bharathiraja, Bhagyaraj, Balachander, Balu Mahendra and their dreams were yoked primarily on the shoulders of Rajnikant and Kamalahasan. Their manifestation on screen was not going to mimic the earlier Dravidian iconography but instead enact an antithesis which was going to recolour a monotonous film industry.
The icon of Rajnikant was thrown in to lead the chariot pulled by the Tamil populace who desperately needed a new identity and reassert their desire for a new Tamil space. The heroic or anti-heroic mask that he donned so often can be better appreciated if we study the parallel phenomenon of Amitabh Bachchan meticulously crafted by Salim and Javed! Their ‘angry young man' of Amitabh was going to scatter the fears emanating out of Mrs. Gandhi's autocratic regime, but the Tamil superstar's narratives were going to re-enact the tragedy of a dream gone sour.
Keeping in tune with this dilemma, most films show that his infancy is deeply troubled with his mother either abandoning or dying, forcing him to grow up like an unlawful child, seeking ways of legitimising his identity/ existence. The lone subaltern struggle connects him with an assortment of authoritarian villains, ranging from underground gun runners (“Mr. Bharat”) to cruel industrialists (“Mannan”); from merciless colonial rulers (“Maveeran”) to cold-blooded landlords (“Padayappa”); from glossy metropolitan gangsters (“Basha”) to corrupt educationists (“Sivaji”). He also had his fair share of departures in films like “Mundru Mugam”, “Thillu Mullu” and even “Sivaji” where he paired himself with typical Tamil film comedians like Nagesh, Senthil and Vivek to show a slightly different facet of his demeanour. He also did some sober films like “Johnny” and “Arulirinthu Arrupadhu Varai” where he played the ill-fated protagonist with all kinds of personal tribulations. He even accepted an inconsequential role of a taxi driver in a C grade Hollywood film called “Bloodstone”. He must have hoped that these films would bring him some kind of appreciation through National awards or International honours from his NRI devotees! Unfortunately no and he suffered equally trying to make a mark in Bollywood too. His frustration must have been so deep that he goes ‘spiritual' and as a mark of his departure from the agnostic Tamilian route, he plays the role of ‘Saint Raghavendra' for his 100th film in 1985.
The cruelty of the system gets partially redeemed via Mani Ratnam. “Thalapathi” (1991) restores Rajnikant's belief in himself as an actor, underplaying the modern adaptation of ‘Karna' in the Mahabharata with some fabulous music by Ilayaraja and ably supported by Malayalam superstar Mammooty. And in the climax of the film, when he mercilessly slays Amrish Puri, one almost feels him kicking Bollywood where it hurts!
Over the years, he has managed to pay off all his emotional debts! Consequently, he is no more in the affordable range for most filmmakers and thus capable of withdrawing into his secretive spiritual retreats. He is unmoved by the fact that his films “Muthu” and “Veera” even found some avid fans when it was released in Tokyo.
Too few
Is this new spiritual mask the only way for him to escape? Why is the angry young man of the 1980s so disgusted with the reality of the 21st century? Just six films in the last 14 years for someone who did 100 films between 1975 and 1985 is indeed a troubling statistic!
We all know that the Rajnikant era will soon be over. But it is indeed sad to see four years of hard labour wasted in “Endhiran”. And even sadder to see this raw bundle of energy being defaced by all kinds of special effects and graphics! The film had to be virtually bulldozed into 500-plus theatres screening eight times a day at appalling prices over the opening weekend, leaving thousands of his fans seriously ‘lost'. The producers claim to have recovered the cost and more but should this phenomenon called Rajnikant end as a ‘robot'? Or was the self-dismantling of the robot in the film Rajni's way of declaring ‘Nirvana'?
The writer is Director, LV Prasad Film and TV Academy.
