Bhrigu

Words do not suffice to explain what chiru means to Andhra population. A whole generation that grew on his movies swear by his performances and the way he has entertained us for more than 20 years. But now in the twilight(??) of his career, it has become pertinent to question 'what next?' for Chiru. After Jai Chiranjeeva and Andarivaadu, one expected a movie with substance, something that can really reconcile Chiranjeevi's off-screen image with his on screen larger than life stardom. Stalin not only fails to do this but also pushes Chiru into a pigeon hole getting out of which is not only imperative but also mandatory for all of us to cherish him again. I am going to assume that he is still interested in making movies and would ignore winds of his political entry for now.

People often question why a fine movie like Rudraveena failed at the box office. Several suggestions were strewn around that it was too soft and needed some masala elements to attract the masses. Luckily, that thought did not enter either Chiru or Balachander's prescient minds back then. But what if it really did? The answer is that we would have seen a Stalin if it did. Stalin might be the biggest 1st week grosser in the south indian film industry and might even notch up a few records in its run but the fact is that as a movie, as a piece of art as it is supposed to be, the movie fails to satiate our appetite. And the mistake lies in the immaturity of handling a sensitive and soft message in a 'masala' way. Where's a Balachander when you need one?

Comparisons to Tagore are ominous what with the same set of people behind both the movies. But at a subject level, Tagore lends itself to some fights and tension filled nervous moments since the hero is essentially an anti-hero. He might be taking up the right cause but his execution is not exactly a legal manifesto. And it was handled easily and very well by both the directors. Now Stalin happens to be a radically different message which needed a deft director at the helm and a star who could convey the message without having to resort to goon bashing. Where exactly does one fit in long fights when the message is 'each of us help three others'. Why would I take the message home when the preacher of such a gentle message goes around bashing people in the movie. Yes, the ones he bashes are villains who do evil things but how can anyone focus on his violent image there and believe in his good samaritan preacher image at the same time? Its exactly this conundrum that has also puzzled the screenplay writer who simply went haywire and hoped that Chiru's 'image' would get him a home run. Yes it did ensure we all ran to our homes reminiscing the chiru of yore. Questions need to be answered about why such a potential filled movie ended up as a garbled kichdi badly mangled by its maker - out of shape and taste. Wasn't a more logical script which could also address the need for some masala possible? Why was the hero's confrontation with a villain allowed to overshadow the theme of the movie itself?

Two factors disappoint me the most with Stalin. One, that a great message that had the luxury of the biggest star at it's disposal got watered down because of some cockeyed decision making and two, that, chiru in an age where people expect him to lay down the rules for how movies need to be made now seems lost in trying to figure out where he fits in a movie. Should he be the all pervading God that encompasses the movie's every frame reminding us of why we are watching the movie or should he be the catalyst that prods a movie's theme along only playing the decisive role but not the universal role. The second option should be the logical choice for the sheer magic of the combination of his age, his stature and the bang for the buck that only he can give to a moviegoer. One tends to think that Chiru already chose this option by letting Kushbu have a strong and meaningful character in the movie but everything else in the movie again leaves one in doubts. Essentially, rid yourself of the selfimposed shackles of expectations and the necessity of playing to the gallery in every scene. Just choose one strong theme and stay true to the soul of the movie and not compromise to include inanities like item songs and C-grade SFX fight scenes. People whistle and bustle when an 'aata kaavala' comes up but hiss and fuss when a 'I want a spiderman' comes up simply because however illogical and escapist our movies are, one expects a certain degree of consistency from the biggest star's movie. Hence, in a masala potboiler like Annayya, it's welcomed while in a movement-oriented movie, it's dissed.

Honestly, it's just a can of worms trying to detail what really went wrong with Stalin but as is the need of the hour, it's important that Chiru understands that losing weight or gyrating with hot babes is not his calling right now. Smart stories with logical character developments abetted by his acting skills will and should do the box office trick. He is no longer a supreme hero who did a Rudraveena with all the right intentions but unsure if he can elevate it to a success. As a megastar with an enviable off-screen image, all he needs are those good intentions executed in a truthful fashion. Both critical and box office success would be logical outcomes not desired ones.

-Bhrigu
[email protected]

Other articles written by Bhrigu:
• Athadu - a beautiful collage of eclectic influences
• Anukokunda Oka Roju - a Chronicle