Nadigar Thilagam Sivaji Ganesan Part 12

[Russellbpw]

REVIEW OF BOOK " AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF AN ACTOR

Brando and Ganesan

Marlon Brando (1924-2004) in the USA and Sivaji Ganesan (1928-2001) in South India were talented contemporaries.

Both set the definitions for what acting is, both on the stage and in movies in their cultural milieu. Both were school dropouts; while Brando left school during his high school years, Sivaji Ganesan never even completed his primary schooling. Both blossomed as talent that has been unseen and unheard of; Brando in the hands of Elia Kazan, and Sivaji in delivering the scripts of Anna and Karunanidhi. In late career, both had their critics; Brando was lampooned for his ‘method acting’ and Sivaji was critiqued for his ‘overacting’.

One day in 1962, both Brando and Ganesan met for lunch and exchanged pleasantries in Hollywood.

The motif of a new face seizing an opportunity of a lifetime when the chosen star rejects the role in stage or cinema is a recurrent theme. In his autobiography, Marlon Brando noted that his big break on stage in 1947, for a Tennessee Williams play, A Streetcar Named Desire, came when he was the third choice as the lead male cast. Two established movie stars, first John Garfield (1913-1952) and then Burt Lancaster (1913-1994) had to turn down the role. Then, the director and producer of the play felt that Brando was ‘probably too young’, but left the final decision of selection to playwright Tennessee Williams, who wanted Brando to ‘have the role’. A Streetcar Named Desire play opened in New York on Dec.3, 1947 and a 23 year old Brando became the talk of the town.

Akin to Brando’s story, we have Sivaji Ganesan, hailed as the Marlon Brando of Indian stage and screen, who seized an opportunity of his life time in 1946, at the age of 18, when he was offered the role of Maratha king Sivaji, for a play authored by C.N. Annadurai (Anna) – a role that was rejected by M.G. Ramachandran (MGR), at the last moment. Here are excerpts from Ganesan’s reminiscences of his lucky break:

“Anna wrote the play Sivaji kanda Hindu Rajyam. Originally, M.G. Ramachandran was chosen to play the role of Sivaji and the costumes tailored for him. For some reason MGR turned down the offer. With hardly a week left for the play, D.V. Narayanaswamy, the stage manager, was extremely worried. He told Anna that MGR had refused to act this role. Both had a brainstorming session to find alternatives…Anna thought a beard would look good on me. He put the question to me very directly. ‘Ganesa, are you willing to act as Sivaji?’ I perspired profusely at this question…Anna asked me to try it out. Moreover he had the confidence that I could do it. He handed me a 90 page dialogue manuscript and adviced me to go through it. He was going home and on his return would audition me for the role. Anna gave me the manuscript at eleven in the morning and he came back around six in the evening…I managed to memorise so much in merely seven hours. ‘You are Sivaji’, he announced, his voice choking with emotion. If I could memorise a 90 page manuscript in a relatively short time, it was only because of my passion for acting, you could even call it addiction…There were only four days left for the play to be staged and all the costumes tailored for MGR had to be downsized to suit me. They had to pad cotton in some places to correct the size difference as I was a mere boy and was slightly built at that time.”

Thus, at the age of 18, Ganesan received his moniker ‘Sivaji’ in 1946, and comfortably carried it to this tomb. “I am not very sure of the day of the week, but I know I was born on October 1, 1928.” said he. That day was a Monday, and on that day his father Chinnaiya mandrayar was arrested for taking part in an anti-British campaign in Villupuram. This autobiography of Villupuram Chinnaiya Ganesa Moorthy (Ganesa Moorthy was his original name) first appeared in Tamil on Oct.1, 2002, on the first posthumous birthday of Sivaji. It consists of a question and answer format. The questions were formulated by Dr. T.S. Narayana Swamy, and Sivaji provides reminiscences of his notable life. The English version appeared five years later on Oct.1, 2007.

For a comparison on the influence of maternal love, here is Brando’s reminiscences: “The money that came with A Streetcar Named Desire was less important to me, however, than something else: every night after the performance, there would be seven or eight girls waiting in my dressing room. I looked them over and choose one for the night. For a twenty four year old who was eager to follow his penis wherever it could go, it was wonderful. It was more than that; to be able to get just about any woman I wanted into bed was intoxicating.” Brando was unlucky in that his mother turned out to be an alcoholic and he suffered badly from lack of maternal love and direction.

For Sivaji, his mother Rajamani Ammal, though illiterate had a mother’s common sense in directing her prodigious son’s family life. Ganesan reminise’s in gratitude: “The film Parasakti was released in 1952 and I got married the same year…My mother decided that it was time for me to tie the knot and arranged to get me married to my cousin’s daughter Kamala…The simplicity of the wedding made it a revolutionary ceremony. I was married on May 1st 1952 at Swamimalai, a place close to my cousin’s house. Sri P.A. Perumal, annan MGR, Sri Karunanidhi, the poet Kannadasan, Smt. T.A. Maduram, Sri. S.V. Sahasranamam, along with directors Krishnan and Panju attended my wedding…Nowadays much emphasis is placed on celebrating weddings extravagantly with glitz and glamour. My wedding was devoid of that and my total expenditure was only five hundred rupees! I confess that I did not have the means to spend more.”

For the uninitiated, P.A.Perumal was the producer of Sivaji’s first movie Parasakti, who stood by his talent when other influential personnel (like AVM’s studio boss Meiyappa Chettiar and director P. Neelakandan) in the studios griped about him. Karunanidhi was the script writer for the movie, veteran Sahasranamam was a fellow actor in the movie and Krishnan-Panju were the directors of Parasakti. The mention of 500 rupees for his wedding seems to be a dig and rebuke to the well-publicized wedding of his grand daughter N. Sathyalakshumi to Jeyalalitha’s then adopted son V.N. Sudhakaran, that made news on Sept.7, 1995.

In a profession rife with polygamy, paramours, dalliances and affairs, Sivaji practiced monogamy and attributed his mental health and vigor to his wife’s devotion and love. His sincere compliments to his wife Kamal were, “She is the captain of our home and my boss. I will act only in accordance with her wishes.” The book is dedicated to Kamala, who died on Nov. 3, 2007.

Hard Work

In the first edition (1963) of their landmark book, Indian Film, Eric Barnouw and his protégé S.Krishnaswamy, allocated three paragraphs to Sivaji’s role and relevance to Tamil movies. (Krishnaswamy was the son of K. Subramanyam, one of the pioneers in Tamil films.) However, in the second edition (1980) of the same book, the three paragraphs had been condensed into a single paragraph. For record, I provide the first, adulatory paragraph that appeared in the first edition below, to reflect the importance of Sivaji the actor in the then Madras in late 1950s and early 1960s, when his influence was at its peak.

“In Madras one of the most astonishing phenomena is film star Sivaji Ganesan. Among southern film stars only M.G. Ramachandran, the star associated with the Dravidian movement, has in recent years come close to him in status. For some years a leading Madras theatre has shown only films starring Sivaji Ganesan. This has not been difficult, for he stars in innumerable films. For some years it has seemed risky for any producer to produce a Tamil film not starring Sivaji Ganesan. [italics, as in the original.] He produces films himself but also appears in the production of others. He is always involved in many projects simultaneously, dolign out a morning of shooting time here, an afternoon there, while numerous producers wait nervously for his next moment of availability. It is common for films made under these circumstances to be in production one, two or three years, or even more. For some years in the Madras film industry scores of film workers – producers, directors, actors, writers, technicians – have at all times been dependent on the favorable decisions of Sivaji Ganesan. His nod secures financial backing. Because of his central importance, script, cast and choice of director are all subject to his approval. During his precious appearances at the studio he works with speed and precision, and can be so charming to co-workers that he is adored by all. Then he is off again, leaving anxiety as to when he will return once more. In appearance he does not especially conform to any hero pattern. He is, on the contrary, squat and stockily built. But his fine voice has a large range of expressiveness, and he can play such a variety of roles that almost any starring role is offered to him – comic or tragic – without regard to suitability. Such is his standing, so precious his time, that no director dares direct him, and his scenes are often completely out of key with other portions of a film. Seldom has a substantial talent been used so recklessly – or so profitably. He has amassed a fortune and carries on well-organized and well-publicized charities.”

Sivaji concurs with the profile of him provided by Barnow and Krishnaswami. Before his first invited trip to USA in 1962, he notes: “I had signed up for the film Bale Pandiya. I went into the studios on the second of the month and left the sets on the twelfth after completing the film. I probably hold the world record of completing a film in eleven days time. I had acted in three roles in the film and annan M.R. Radha in two.” In another page he had stated: “During the period of my life when I was extremely busy, the studios would assign rooms exclusively for me during the different shifts. I worked in three shifts (7am-1pm), (2pm-9pm), (10pm-5am). I used to work twenty hours a day, and on odd days return home for four hours of rest. Many a time I would run through the day’s schedule and move to the next studio to begin the following day’s work. I compensated for my sleep deprivation by napping whilst traveling in the car and during breaks.”

A technical dictionary defines a shot as ‘what is recorded between the time a camera starts and the time it stops, ie., between the director’s call for ‘Action’ and his call to ‘Cut’. The three common shots are, (1) A long shot or establishing shot, showing the main object at a considerable distance from the camera and thus presenting it in relation to its general surroundings; (2) A medium shot, showing the object in relation to its immediate surroundings; (3) A close-up, showing only the main object, or, more often, only a part of it.

The gamut of this autobiography consists of 155 questions and answers. Among these, the first 49 questions provide the long shot, covering Sivaji’s life from childhood to the release of his first movie Parasakti in 1952. In this, the hero remembers with gratitude those who helped him in kind and cash – drama troupe leader Yathartham Ponnuswami Pillai, his senior actors Kaka Radhakrishnan, M.R. Radha, N.S. Krishnan, MGR, Anna, Karunanidhi, producer of his first film P.A. Perumal and the directors of Parasakti, Krishnan and Panju. Following 63 questions offer a medium shot, covering the period from 1952 to 1970, when Sivaji’s influence in the Tamil movie reached its peak. He remembers affectionately his guru in politics, the Congress leader K. Kamaraj, and a few in the movie world – like producer/director B.R.Banthulu and directors A. Bhimsingh and A.P.Nagarajan. Final 43 questions spanning the period from 1970 to 1993 were more or less close-up shots, when Sivaji dabbled in politics and became a flop. He also nursed a hurt feeling that his contributions to the Indian movie world had been slighted by national politics, indifference and professional politician ‘termites’ (his term), who used him for their wants.

In Politics

Sivaji Ganesan’s political career lacked direction and commitment. From 1946 to 1957, he was aligned with DMK leaders like Anna and Karunanidhi. He says: “I have never been a member of the DK or DMK. No doubt, I accepted the ideologies of Anna and Priyar and tried to spread their message. I accepted the principles for which the party stood, but did not become a member.” Then from 1957 until 1975, Sivaji’s mentor in politics was Congress leader Kamaraj. After Kamaraj’s demise, he shifted his alliance to Indira Gandhi, until her death in 1984.

Indira Gandhi nominated Sivaji, for the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) in 1982, after this post became vacant following the death of Hindi actress Nargis (1928-1981). A bout his performance at the Rajya Sabha, Sivaji reminisces: “If I spoke my mind just became I was an MP, it would lead to squabble. I went to Delhi to represent the woes of the film industry. I attended the Rajya Sabha sittings, spoke about the ideals of Kamaraj at opportune moments and instigated others to follow them. What more can one do?” After Indira Gandhi’s assassination, Sivaji’s ties with the Congress Party soured, which he attribute to tale carriers in the party who are professional politicians. Strangely he never mention a Congress Party big-wig’s name in Tamil Nadu (the likes of R. Venkataraman, G. K. Moopanar, Kumari Ananthan, V. Ramamurthi, Maragatham Chandrasekhar and P. Chidambaram) in his recollection.

About Rajiv Gandhi’s selection and tenure from 1984 to 1989, Sivaji’s thoughts are as follows: “I also played a part in making Rajiv Gandhi a politician and worked to make him the prime minister. One should not forget that, should one? Prior to the elections I met Rajiv Gandhi at the Governor’s residence. I told him rather pointedly that there were many termites in the party and that he must get rid of them, otherwise he could not become the prime minister. Rajiv Gandhi’s face reddened on such a delicate issue being brought out in the open. Quick to seize advantage, certain persons of our State thought that the moment was just right to eliminate me. They passed on some unsavoury information to Rajiv Gandhi about me. They made me a scapegoat. I thought to myself that I did not need this party and if I stayed, they would humiliate me further.”

On Jan.28, 1988, Sivaji quit his ties with Congress Party that sustained him for over 30 years. Soon after that, he established his own party named Tamizhaga Munnetra Munnani (TMM) on Feb.10, 1988. He considers this decision as one of his mistakes. “Many of the people with me were professional politicians. They had to remain in politics necessarily to make a living. I was compelled to start a party for their sake, although I did not require it.” Egged on by those who pampered him, his TMM party contested the January 1989 Tamil Nadu state legislative assembly elections, in alliance with one faction of AIADMK (that of MGR’s wife Janaki Ramachandran). Of the 49 TMM candidates who stood for election, none were elected. Sivaji himself lost at Tiruvayaru constituency to DMK candidate Chandrasekaran Durai by a margin of 10,643 votes. He notes, “The votes that I secured came from people of another party. It is true that I was defeated. This was a big disappointment and a very difficult situation that I faced. What could one do? When we take wrong decisions, we have to face disappointments.”

Later, Sivaji dissolved his party and on invitation from his friend V.P. Singh (later to be prime minister), he joined the Janata Dal and functioned for a while only to quit later. His advice to artistes with political inclinations were: “Be a friend to politicians but do not become a politician. Do not become a member and get caught in the web…Remain a singer, don’t become the song…this is my message.”

Plus and Minus

The plus points of the book include, (a) a memorable assemblage of retrieved old photos of stage plays and clips of movie stills, (b) an appendix providing a listing of Sivaji’s 10 plays, staged by his troupe Sivaji Nadaga Mandram, 287 movie titles and another 18 movie titles that featured him in a guest/honorary role. A notable demerit of the book is the absence of an index, a common omission in Tamil books.

I located a slip in Sivaji’s famed memory. He had noted that on his way to USA in 1962 as a guest of cultural exchange program, he first landed in Rome. “I was scheduled to join His Holiness the Pope for a meal, but unfortunately the Pope died a week before my arrival and I did not get the chance to meet him.” The fact is that Pope John XXIII died not in 1962, but on June 3, 1963.

Though he had seen three generations of performers from age 7 to 70, Sivaji had been diplomatic on commenting about the performances of fellow artistes – actors, lyricists, music directors, playback singers, script writers and directors. His comment was: “I am an actor and it would not be ethical to comment on another performer. I will only say that he or she performed well but will never comment on anyone’s ‘bad performance’.” It appears that he never had his likes and dislikes. To the question ‘What was your salary for the film Parasakti?’ Sivaji had replied: “The highest salary I got those days was 250 rupees per month. This was my remuneration for Parasakti. I received 25,000 rupees for each of the other projects. The 250 rupees salary was an honorarium and the 25,000 for my expertise as an entertainer. As Sri P.A. Perumal was instrumental in giving me the first opportunity, I agreed to a small remuneration from him.” That was in 1952. One would be curious to learn, how much he earned for his 100th movie, Navarathri (1964), 200th movie, Trisoolam (1979) and for his final 287th movie Pooparikka Varukirom (1999). Information of his earning when he was at his peak are sadly missing.

On completing the 250 page book, one gets a feel that much has been left out in this autobiography. May be, the question and answer format adopted has a role in such omissions. Proper, penetrating questions may have been omitted for reasons of causing inconvenience for those who are living. Sivaji’s taste on sporting interests (wild game hunting) had been noted. But we are left clueless about his taste for books and authors – how big was his library? his taste for music and movies (actors, directors and technicians) in other languages. Not much information was forthcoming on the business angle of his cinematic involvement in Tamil Nadu. A few of Sivaji Ganesan’s professional associates (such as MGR, Karunanidhi, poet Kannadasan, director C.V. Sridhar and script writer Aroordhas) have left their impressions in Tamil. Among those I have checked, quite a few details on Sivaji presented by Sridhar and Aroordhas in their memoirs, are missing in this autobiography.

To sum up, as an actor Sivaji Ganesan was a class act, as a politician he was a flop. As an autobiographer, Sivaji’s performance – like many of his movies – provides glimpses of some class in a flop, leaving much to be desired.

Eric Barnow and Krishnaswamy, in the 2nd edition (1980) of their book, Indian Film, summed up on Sivaji: “He could view his own eminence objectively. Those who sought his favour, he said, had mixed feelings toward him. They wooed him but would also like to destroy him".

Asked if the dominance of the star was good for the industry, he said without hesitation that it was not.” Ganesa Moorthy the gentleman, when he passed away on July 21, 2001, took to his grave the hurt feelings and the misdeeds of those who had benefited from him and who attempted to destroy him.

The $45.00 price I paid for the book in net purchase from a New Delhi vendor seems marginally off-base for a 250 page book, and the price has not been inserted in the book. But for fans of Sivaji, it is a good memento to cherish.

[Russellbpw]

Non-followers of Tamil film might not want to read this page.

I have almost stopped watching Tamil film (new ones) myself. Most of them are devoid of any legitimate talent, pretentious, and are more concerned with charming the audience, rather than telling a good story and telling it well. Good actors are reduced to the stature of stereotypes and good actresses are usually found standing behind animated mannequins called heroines, playing sis or mom. Tamil film of present day has no place for skill or talent.

But the non-followers may want to know a bit about the guy who made acting respectable in Tamil films - like Brando did in Hollywood and probably to the world. Here is my take...


The requirement for moving muscle in present day Tamil films is reserved only for dancing and fight sequences. Of course, I am being very generalistic here. But consider the achievements present day actors reap, which mainly consist of the ability to move their facial muscle. The film Valee, for example, was celebrated for its lead's (Ajith Kumar) performance. For me, it is mainly a revelation that the present generation of performers are indeed capable of a facial expression or two.

All that bashings aside, this article intents to penetrate into the phsyche of the actor Sivaji Ganesan.

I would avoid the use of titles like Chevalier, or Nadigar Thilagam, since the mere mention of the name Sivaji is enough to bring thousands of screen images to the minds of Tamil film fans, which is far more important than said titles. Historical figures like W.U. Chithambaram (Kappalotiya Tamizhan) and Kattabomman (Veerapandiya Kattabomman), religious identities like Lord Shiva (Tiruvilayadal) and Appar (Thiruvarutchelvar), all the nine roles in one film (Navarathiri) and many others are up there, representing his achievements. There are so many, so varied, but the truth is simple.

Sivaji means great screen performance. Why do I say so? And why I still hear some protest.

Who's the best actor?

I am most careful when I mention "the best actor in Tamil film". Though it would be Sivaji in my book, I can't decide for anyone else who it was, or will ever be.
Fans are torn between the realistic portrayal of Kamal and his peers, and Sivaji and performers at the time of his peak. There are those who dismiss the stage-like exaggerated performance so abundant in Tamil cinema before the eighties, while there are just as many (probably more) who revere it. The latter will appreciate Sivaji (unless they are still two bickering blocks, another being the backers of MGR), while the former are quite in unity (some grudgingly so) in admitting about Kamal Hassan's superior performance.

There used to be a time when Sivaji's name was associated with overacting. Here was his reaction to it:

"What is acting? It means doing something that is not natural. So then where is the question of overacting? When your mother dies, what do you do? You shout Amma and cry, don't you? Your instant reaction is to cry out loud. Not sit quietly covering your eyes with your hands. That's exactly what I do in my films."

Justification or not, one must admit that Sivaji had in more occasions immersed himself in the role. This is not something to shout about. Its the most basic requirements at the core of performing art. Stanislavsky's Method acting is famed for its more extreme bent on character immersion.

For the benefit of those who doesn't know this, method acting was popularised by Marlon Brando (see Film Personalities)in the fifties; which requires, amongst others, to recall the actor's memory of certain emotion during the scene. It can be very painful, especially if the memory does not permit happiness.

Whether or not Sivaji had even heard of Stanislavsky's method acting (Sowkar Janaki, to my surprise, does; she mentioned it in one interview), the performance he had brought out throughout his career exuded such possibility. He rarely looked fake, though I may add that the rest of him i.e the costume, the wig and the make-up did.

"I was inspired by the character of Kattabomman when I used to watch the theru koothus (street dramas) as a child," he said once. "I had memorised all the dialogues. But that role is not my favourite. I like all my roles, because I do full justice to every one . All good artistes will tell you the same thing. If someone has his roots in theatre, he will definitely tell you that all his roles are the same."

That might give one an idea as how much of commitment he gives to all his roles. That, I believe, is the strongest attribute one can give to a true professional. Consistent commitment and discipline.

The discipline

Which brings us to one characteristics that I found the industry has generally agreed upon - his discipline, especially punctuality.

This was what Rajinikanth learnt during his early days from his favourite actor, most likely on the set of "Nan Vazhavaippen", which is a Sivaji film with Rajini having a guest role.

Recalls V K Ramaswamy, a versatile comedian and character actor, in one of his interviews:

"One day, I came to the set at 2300 hrs. Sivaji told me, 'You've taken your money from the producer, haven't you? Then why are you late?' I told him that my callsheet was for 2300 hrs.

'That may be,' Sivaji said, 'but how can you act like that? How can you not be on the set when the film you are working in is being shot? I have done some scenes this evening, now you have to react to those, you have to do the reaction shots. How can you do that well if you don't know how I did my shots?' I learnt a lesson that day.

"Sivaji was like that. Even if a junior artiste was acting, he would remain on the set, in full make up, he insisted on doing that, he would never go away and rest. He said, I have to see what the others are doing, only then can I know how to do my own role, my scene.

This statement is another revelation about Sivaji's working method. Here is something else he mentioned to his co-star Nagesh:

'My lines are not independent, they act on, and react with, the lines others say. So if I don't know your lines, my own responses won't be up to the mark'.

Nagesh revealed something else:

"One day, after a shot -- he normally needs only one take -- he looked at me and asked, What do you think?

I said I thought maybe we could go for another take. At once, he told the director to take again. I felt very bad, very small.

After the shot was canned, I went up to him and said, Anna, what is this? I only made a comment, how can you listen to me and take me so seriously?

He told me, My boy, there are lakhs of people like you out there. If you thought that take could have been improved, lakhs of others might think so too -- only, by then, it would have been too late. So for me, it makes sense to go with your gut feeling, to do another take.

There you go. He listens. That, at times, have been the problem. In the hands of the inferior director and writing, his character suffers and has to mainly survive with Sivaji's on-screen presence.
He shines in the hands of masters like Sridhar, K.S. Gopalakrishnan, Bhim Singh, Banthulu and A P Nagarajan. The ever-inconsistent Barathiraja had a go in using Sivaji and managed to pull it off beautifully in Muthal Mariyadhai.

Kamal once declared that his favourite Sivaji performance was in his own film, Thevar Magan, where the latter's powerful screen presence did most of the acting. This usually happens especially with the older Hollywood actors like Brando and Paul Newman in present day films.

But he failed again in the latter day films like Once More and Mannavar Chinnavar, his final film, co-starring Arjun. The directors simply didn't know how to use him. They probably felt intimidated and decided to let Sivaji on his own. There lies the faliure.

His Style

"Sivaji was very convincing and realistic in his earlier films -- in the Fifties and the early Sixties," said Theodore Baskaran, a film historian to Rediff.com. "But he became a stylised and flamboyant actor during his stardom days. In the Nineties, he went back to the subtle, controlled style of acting."

Baskaran mentioned that during Sivaji's stardom, he didn't have directors controlling him, hence Sivaji's excessive reliance on his stage experience and heeding demands of some fans for flamboyance. This flamboyance was adopted by many actors following him, but only one succeeded into making it watchable - Rajini.

The Influence

To me, if at all there was one actor who devoured Sivaji's acting method in its entirety, it would be Rajinikanth.
Rajini owes all of it to Sivaji.

While Kamal also adopted, apart from Sivaji, methods from outside India, especially those of Marlon Brando and Charlie Chaplin; Rajini and Sathyaraj used Sivaji as THE encyclopaedia for acting. They never denied it.

Rajini especially remarked that "If I am the king of style, Sivaji is the emperor of style." The style he was referring to is immediately recognised by Tamil film fans as gimmicks such as popping cigarettes (and of late, cigars) into his mouth. There are more. Forget about style, his performance is very Sivaji-like during the early days. His father character in Netrikann has many traits of Sivaji's Inspector Choudary from Tanggapathakkam; the physical stiffness, the speed of the delivery of the dialogue and the outburst. Rajini's other famous character Alex Pandiyan is almost a tribute to Inspector Choudary.

The same can be said of Sathyaraj. Watch his lawyer in Villathi Villain and you need no effort to recall Sivaji's performance (my favourite) as an egostical lawyer in Gouravam.

Says Satyaraj in one interview, "When you think about it, what we know of historical characters is what Sivaji Ganesan showed us. Whether it is Subramanya Bharati or Rajaraja Cholan or Kappal Ottiya Thamizhan, Chidambaram Pillai or Veera Pandiya Kattabomman, when we think of them we see what Sivaji showed us. He defined those characters for us. He showed us how they must have walked and how they talked." Though the comment can easily be ignored as comments of another Sivaji worshipper, one must remember Satyaraj's stature as one of the leading men of Tamil cinema. He had his share of good roles, and his statements bear a testimony on strong reliance on his own memory of roles commanded by Sivaji.

Rajini and Sathyaraj are two of the most visible among Sivaji followers. I would like to limit my imagination to them. They are better actors, and worth analysises. I wouldn't want to waste my time and thought on others.

True, Sivaji's son Prabhu is a watered down version of his father; but he has a long way to go and is still struggling to establish his own identity.


The present day actors are indirectly indebted to Sivaji as they follow the followers of the eminent actor. I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected, but this remains my conviction.

There are much more to write, but more research had to be done, especially his connection, if any, with Hollywood. But I leave you here with one finaly quote from Sivaji himself.

Just to show how he was towards his final days, when he was asked about his plans:

"Plans are for businessmen. I am an actor. I will always remain an actor. What was my ambition when I started of is the same now. I still want to be a good actor!"

[eehaiupehazij]

dear RKS. Congratulations for joining the rank and file of doyens of this prestigious thread by way of your meticulous compilations and presentations as tribute to NT. Keep up enthralling us friend!

[Russellbpw]

[Russellbpw]

[Russellbpw]

[Russellbpw]

[Russellbpw]

[Russellbpw]

[Russellbpw]