Hema, Meena, Deeka8230;

This is not to say that there isn8217;t an intrinsic link between cinema and politics. Both, after all, are crucially dependent on the ability to communicate with vast numbers of people; to work the crowds, as it were. Cinema was the first truly democratic mass medium, because it provided a common space in which people, regardless of their location in the social sphere, could participate as a single entity. Much like a crowd at a political rally, the audience too has to make value judgements, decide 8212; as the film unspools to its climax 8212; on 8220;what happened in a particular system of events8221;; judge 8220;why it happens, what it means and how it affects our lives and conduct8221; John Howard Lawson: Film: The Creative Process. In cinema, too, as in politics, individuals can be swayed by emotions and ideas generated on a mass scale and allow their own views to be influenced by the dominant opinion of the crowd. The protagonists in cinema then enjoy a rather unique social status, some of them even successfully acquiring the 8220;charismatic authority8221; that Max Weber spoke about 8212; that 8220;certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities8221;.

The first man to conspicuously meld cinema and politics into a seamless whole, the Kandy-born Marudur Gopalamenon Ramachandran, or MGR, had what could be construed as 8220;charismatic authority8221;. He could win a third election from his death bed and his terminal illness saw 22 people killing themselves in the hope that their deaths would save their hero. But there is an abiding difference between the cinema-politics of an MGR and that of a Hema Malini, or a Vinod Khanna, or indeed of the incredibly popular Amitabh Bachchan, when he had joined the Rajiv Gandhi bandwagon in the eighties. With MGR, there was an intrinsic link between films and his politics, which is not evident in the other instances.

MGR emerged from an intensely political culture that had already sought to meld cinema and political activism. Even as early as the 1950s, an actress like K.B. Sundarambal could become a legislator in the Madras assembly and political activists like S. Satyamurthi, a local Congress leader, had sought to use films to further the nationalist project. MGR, himself, began life as a theatre actor projecting Gandhian ideals and Congress politics. Like many others, he then became a votary of Dravida politics precisely because this movement was quick to perceive the great propaganda value of cinema: its ability to bring large numbers together, break caste hierarchies, vault over literacy barriers, and opened a whole new world of vicarious experience for people otherwise trapped in the frustrating drudgery of impoverished lives.

MGR8217;s trajectory as a film actor is also extremely interesting. As commentators have pointed out, his films in the Tamil cinema of the fifties were basically adventure-driven in the Errol Flynn mode. But in the course of portraying those early swashbuckling roles, he acquired the attributes of physical invincibility and limitless charm, which he deployed with telling effect in the more realistic settings of the cinema of the sixties and early seventies. His film persona now veered to that of a man emerging from a marginalised social milieu with the physical strength and intelligence to take on a cruel world that tyrannises women, the poor, the low caste, and to 8220;correct it8221; by destroying its thugs, extolling its mothers and preaching against its vices.

MGR8217;s best known political commentator, M.S.S. Pandian, remarks in The Image Trap: M.G. Ramachandran in Films and Politics that the man8217;s social universe was one of asymmetrical power: 8220;The conflict between the upper caste/ class oppressors and MGR as a subaltern and its resolution forms the core of the film.8221; By coming to political power in 1977, as the head of the All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam AIADMK 8212; the splinter outfit he had created 8212; he could actualise this persona, appear the champion of the poor and the 8220;vathiyar8221; teacher that his fans roared after. It was a formula that worked like a shot 8212; as his imitator in neighbouring Andhra Pradesh, Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao, or NTR, demonstrated so tellingly by coming to power through the offer of rice for the hungry at two rupees a kilo.

This integration between film persona and political persona, so obvious in the cases of MGR and NTR, is not apparent in the film stars strutting the election stage today. Hema Malini, and her counterparts in other parties, will be descending on us en masse as part of campaign atmospherics. Like the buntings, flags and posters, they will lend colour to a rally or thicken the crowd for an uncertain candidate. But they do not use their unique ability to attract crowds to address the social concerns of the day or deepen democratic debate and participation. They have, instead, chosen to trade their mass appeal for individual objectives 8212; to dodge an irksome police or taxation case, swing an academy for themselves, claim a prestigious national honour, capture a piece of prime land 8212; and sometimes earn a handsome fee. Their participation makes for great political spectacle but poor politics.