I recently caught a few scenes from SS Rajamouli’s Simhadri on TV. Some showed the hero hacking bad people. Some others showed the savior promising more bloodshed. Some scenes had crowds in them cheering the violence. All may have been cheered by the crowds involved in making and watching them.

A day before that I had watched part of an interview of SS Rajamouli (the initials stand for Super Successful, I am told). Thoroughly discussing his craft and influences, of course. He explained how all his characters are rarely seen in a real society and are larger than life, but how they are all realistic. I can’t comment on their being larger or smaller than life, but I notice that most of them do not value life.

I disapprove. My snobbery and indifference are sufficient reasons, but for once I feel eager to offer an explanation.

The setting is easy enough to grasp. There lives a superhero who minds his own business. Unbeknownst to him exists a most bestial villain enslaving the society with his thousand goons. The superhero accidentally saves a stranger or the villain accidentally mutilates a member of the superhero’s kith and kin, and inadvertently the two cross paths. The righteous superhero rises, becomes the guardian, massacres the thousand and one miscreants, and sets the society free. (I fully acknowledge the injustice done to the story by not explaining the roles of the heroines, the comedians and the items.)

The protagonist succinctly summarizes his principle as, “padimandini kApADaTamkOsam champaDAnikainA siddhamE chAvaDAnikainA siddhamE.” I am ready to kill or die to save ten people. I dare say that this is shared by many of the protagonists played by today’s “mass heroes”. Apparently simple and adjudged by a majority as valid, it is a war-mongering violence-hungry non-principle that is useless, inefficient and incomplete.

Neither killing nor dying is the first solution. They are rarely a solution at all, and at best temporary suppressants rich with side-effects. It is the reason why societies hire Police (hire, yes). It is the reason why societies debate the validity of capital punishment, and many have abolished it. It is the reason why the United Nations was and is considered an important idea and institution, however dysfunctional it may seem. That, life has value. If this sounds too preachy: killing is not a solution because it is not reversible yet (our medicine isn’t even advanced enough to heal fractures perfectly), and dying is not a solution because if one is willing to die for people he or she is likely to be more useful alive in the future. (I am doubtful about this justification for people certified to be dying.)

Superheroes are relatively unknown. I sometimes wonder whether the hope may be an implication of the importance given to Hindu mythology in Indian culture. Sri Sri wrote, “evarO vastArani EdO chEstArani eduruchUsi mOsapOkumA”, and another poet I can’t recall wrote, “evarO vacchuvAralani mIkElA vRdhA bhrAnti?” Why this useless delusion that some savior will come? Useless. Even the most courageous of people who bring change in the modern society, real heroes that are largely ignored by Indian filmmakers, are rarely blood-thirsty.

Corruption is relatively universal as a manifestation of greed and need in every opportune society. The superhero’s act does not involve empowering the society (whatever that means). It remains opportune for another at a later point to take over. Inefficient. The superhero’s style is more inefficient because it is at most an act of transferring fear from the society to the leadership, a temporary transfer. The superhero’s act of toppling itself is a form of monarchy (multi-starrers perhaps cater to aristocracies), a form of government that many societies have long ago recognized as ineffectual and less desirable than a democracy.

The incompleteness is best explained by Thomas Barnett about how it is not enough to change status quo (winning a war here) without reestablishing a stable self-governable system.

I wonder why the filmmakers continues to successfully retry the experiment numerous times, as if expecting different results.d

Continued from Telugu Cinema in the 70s – 3.

Heroes. It is no exaggeration that they rule film industries across the world, more so in India, even more so in Andhra Pradesh. Their involvement in shaping characters, casting, and encouraging new talent is prominent. During the 60s, Kanta Rao began fading, and ANR and NTR were the only two heroes that anybody could think of. New talent thus became a necessity.

Krishna and Sobhan Babu steadily laid down their foundations during the late 60s, as actors more than heroes, and started getting their share of limelight by the dawn of 70s and played significant roles since then. Krishnam Raju began acting in the late 60s, as a villain, and then slowly transitioned to other roles and then heroes by mid 70s.

People might be surprised to see this name aside major heroes’: Chandra Mohan. Though rangula rATnam came in the 60′s itself, and he acted in a number of movies in various kinds of roles, he had some of his best movies during the 70s, especially with Viswanath. Several actors of his generation have quoted that he would’ve become a great hero had it not been for his personality. I believe that it was his personality that allowed him to play such varied roles, without being limited to a hero’s. He is known to have given several ladies great luck in their cinema careers.

Chiranjeevi: The legend began in 1978 with Kranti Kumar’s prANam kharEdu. His place in the history of Telugu Cinema is preserved thanks to his perseverance with which he literally redefined the definition of a hero, whether in acting, dances, or stunts. Chiranjeevi is probably also the one reason behind a concept called “Number One Star”. It might have existed before, but with never a competition more than a namesake in the minds of audiences. He certainly was (is?) the last number one star.

Kamal Haasan: Considered the most versatile Indian actor ever, though he started acting at six, it wasn’t until Balachander’s antuleni katha that he acted in Telugu movies. His association with the Telugu film industry will remain an honor.

Mohan Babu: Though he has been around the industry for a while, it was only with Dasari’s swargam narakam that he began his career as an actor. Considered to be constantly controversial (usually for insignificant reasons, if I may), he has however acted in a number of movies as a hero, villain, supporting character, and comedian. His dialogue delivery (and dialogues written for him) distinguishes him from everybody else, except when he mimics Naga Bhushanam while playing a villain or a comedian.

Murali Mohan: He didn’t have a great range as an actor, especially as a hero, having often played a soft husband in middle class husband-wife dramas. That said, he was a success, and later went on to become a big producer.

Rajnikanth: He started his Telugu career alongside Kamal Haasan with Balachander’s antuleni katha. And has remained the one Tamil hero whose dubbed movies can scare other producers releasing big movies. Though he mostly plays too-good-to-believe characters with extremely positive traits, audiences throng the theaters to watch them especially for the new style that he would bring.

Amazon Ads: