Opinion Decoding a superstar

I can think of three possible,if partial,explanations.

Firstly,Rajnikant’s celebrated style,and the “antics” that are so characteristic of it — the flip of his cigarette,the twist of his goggles. These are not merely style statements; they are also socially subversive acts. While his ease with sunglasses subverts class symbols,his use of cigarettes dignifies “mass” symbols. Often doing them together creates a strong effect within the confined social space of a cinema hall.

Secondly,Rajnikant has a distinct body language,and a mode of projecting it that is unusual and therefore powerful. His side glance,his twist of the fist,his rather awkward style of sitting cross-legged,to mention a few,exude a rare energy and confidence — a person at ease with himself. In a segregated society that is at best judgmental,and at worst prejudicial,both the art of being at ease with oneself and the science of self-confidence and self-esteem are denied to most individuals. It is an indulgence; few can afford to refuse to be socially conditioned,to live by the terms they set. In cinema and real life,body language such as Rajnikant’s is a rarity: it allows you to lower your guard,without the threat of losing your sense of the self or your self-esteem.

In a caste-ridden society where the colour of one’s skin,one’s dress sense and eating etiquette,and one’s choice of profession are all under scrutiny,this provides on-screen relief. It is almost like licence to behave — to speak,think and gesticulate — as one would like.

Finally,there is something very distinct about the relation between his on-screen and off-screen images. They are completely disjoint — and,in addition,there appears no anxiety to cover that up. This lends inexplicable authenticity to his over-the-top on-screen characters and performances. He is known to be simple and honest; his lifestyle is modest; he remains a vegetarian and sleeps on the floor,keeping luxury at arms’ length,in spite of being the highest-paid actor in the country.

Nor does he hide his modest background as a bus conductor in Bangalore; indeed,every story about him begins with that fact,and ends with his current demi-god status. He comes across,and looks,unbelievably different in real life from what he does on-screen — calm,polite and,of course,bald.

He began his career in films with negative roles,as a villain,and before moving centrestage as an iconic hero. And throughout he has come across as unfazed by changes,and thus authentic. The only actor who shared some of this was Raajkumar,the matinee idol of the Kannada cinema industry,known for his austere persona and lifestyle.

And both Rajnikant and Raajkumar maintained a respectable distance from the arena of active politics. In complete contrast,stars such as NTR and MGR nurtured larger-than-life-images in real life as well; they were overwhelming and overbearing,benevolent and glad to extend feudal patronage. Rajnikant is none of these,and therefore his public persona is at odds with the demands of an active political life. While Rajnikant represents himself in a film to entertain his fans,NTR and MGR re-presented themselves on-screen as what they were supposed to be in real life.

In a context where directors exploit the star’s off-screen images — whether of Salman Khan as brutish,loud and impulsive,for his character as Chulbul Pandey in Dabangg,or Sanjay Dutt as gullible and emotional for his character as Munnabhai — to create an authentic on-screen image,here is a person who creates an on-screen image that is genuine precisely because he is not that character,but simply someone who intends to entertain. He,therefore,succeeds in doing that like no-one else.

The writer is at the Centre for Political Studies,Jawaharlal Nehru University,Delhi