Matinee mantra

: A million people at Tirupati; motorcycle rallies across Andhra and campaign songs on YouTube; NRIs pledging crores in support; MLAs and MLCs lining up to defect. The echoes from Chiranjeevi’s entry into Andhra Pradesh’s politics continue to reverberate across the state and beyond. With identical, stoic, demeanour, TDP’s Naidu and Congress’s Moily have insisted that the state’s politics is unlikely to change — and even if it were to change, it would be the other party that suffered. Yet neither will have forgotten that Naidu’s father-in-law, N.T. Rama Rao, launched the Telugu Desam in March 1982 and was chief minister within 10 months.

Why did he succeed? Why is it possible that Chiranjeevi might repeat that feat? Why is it that instead, in the North, filmi glamour simply does not translate into enduring political power? The conventional explanation rests on ever so slightly offensive stereotypes — such as the assumption that, in the South, they view cinema as a mystical, quasi-religious activity. This is overly simplistic. Yes, NTR made a name for himself in mythological movies, especially portraying avatars of Vishnu; but it was as an avatar of Andhra nationalism that he swept to power. There was nothing mystical about M.G. Ramachandran’s success; that he used the DMK’s own propaganda against it, using his screen image to represent the Tamil masses against Karunanidhi’s coalition of insiders, is explanation enough. Sivaji Ganesan, in comparison, never quite clicked as a political leader, mainly because he diluted his on-screen brand by taking on somewhat less conventional roles.