Anuradha SenGupta, Features Editor at CNN-IBN, shares her opinion about enduring the ordeal that is Sivaji.
Well, everyone is entitled to voice an opinion. But Ms. SenGupta goes rather overboard in trying to prove that the movie isn’t great. Her post reads as if it were a natural reaction to someone who suggested that the Rajnikanth must be awarded an Oscar, or the movie must be conferred with the Palme d’Or. It is a populist movie, and it must please a lot of constituencies (which, going by all reports, it has). Surely then, such a movie cannot please elitists like Ms. SenGupta.
But what really throws one into a fit of anger is this statement:
I remember Rajnikanth from some very forgettable Hindi films of the 80s. Well the news is that he is still there. Stuck in the 80s that is.
What ignorance! How does watching an odd movie or two make anyone an authority on Rajni’s movies? This movie could be bad, even crappy. But Ms. SenGupta, in a fit of idiocy, diverts her criticism (or disappointments) of the movie to a needless assessment of Rajnikanth as an actor. Agreed, thalaivar‘s histrionics might be a few levels lower than Kamal Hassan, but he has nevertheless churned out some excellent performances over the years. One needs to look no further than Mullum Malarum or Aarilirundhu Arupadhu Varai to convince oneself of this fact. (Here is a partial list of other interesting movies starring thalaivar.)
Sivaji’s success can be attributed almost entirely to Rajnikanth; but the nationwide hype that has been generated this time around is partially because Ms. SenGupta’s bosses at CNN-IBN chose to brand the movie a phenomenon. One anchor even went to the extent of saying that Rajnikanth had successfully bridged the North-South divide in India. If Ms. SenGupta feels bad about Rajni making her feel like a pig, then she would do better to train her guns on her news-hungry bosses. And not the BOSS!
No related posts.