The key difference between stage and film actors lies in how their roles impact their identity. On stage, the roles matter more than the actors themselves; a stage actor’s self-image is irrelevant during a performance, and they rarely carry their characters into daily life. In films, however, the actor’s self-image becomes deeply intertwined with their roles. Film actors are defined by their on-screen personas, with each performance shaping and reinforcing their public image in a cycle that’s hard to break. This distinction is crucial, as it shapes the careers and public perception of actors in profound ways.
For instance, while Sir John Gielgud, Sir Laurence Olivier, and Richard Burton received acclaim for their portrayals of Shakespeare’s Hamlet on stage, the role never defined their personal identities. Conversely, their film roles had a lasting impact on how they were perceived. Stage actors focus on the depth of the characters they play, while film actors must carefully select roles that align with the image they want to project. Each film choice shapes their identity in the audience’s mind.
If ever there was a case study of a screen actor trapped by his on-screen image, it would be Rajnikanth, the South Indian superstar. For over four decades, his performances have been dictated not by personal acting preferences—assuming he once had them—but by the expectations of his adoring public. Ironically, Rajnikanth began his career in the seventies as a versatile character actor, experimenting with varied roles such as the layered and introspective performances in “Mullum Malarum” and “Aarilirunthu Arubathu Varai.” However, he was quickly drawn into the heroic mold and has since been confined to perpetuating that image.
With every film, Rajni became larger than life. His private life, full of spiritual leanings and catchy wisdom, became part of his screen presence. Audiences come to watch a “Rajni movie,” not for the movie but to watch him relive his signature elements over and over again: the charismatic walk, iconic one-liners, playful stunts with cigarettes or sunglasses, gravity-defying action sequences, political jabs, and naive humor. Regardless of the role he played, these trademark traits became non-negotiable staples of his films. When Rajni movies deviate from this formula, they often fail, leaving the public feeling let down. This is the curse of achieving stardom on screen.
Rajni’s latest film, “Vettaiyan,” directed by Gnanavel, is difficult to categorize. It has several elements packed into it. For starters, there is an aging star—actually, two aging stars: Rajni and Amitabh Bachchan—playing roles that they have reprised many times in their careers. The film explores two parallel themes: one about the legal and moral validity of police encounters, and the other about the efficacy and financial integrity of EduTech companies. Finally, there is a half-hearted effort to revitalize the legend of Rajni, which has been dimming in the last ten years or so. The overall effect of the movie is not bad, but it doesn’t leave one satisfied. The thematic connections feel weak, and the film struggles to balance Rajni’s larger-than-life persona with its attempts at meaningful social commentary.
Gnanavel is an educated director; he holds a doctorate in Tamil literature and worked as a dialogue writer for a few films before becoming a full-time director in 2017. His previous film, “Jai Bhim,” produced by the house of Actor Surya—who seems to have mastered the knack of annoying the public—was controversial but well-made. It debuted on OTT, which was quite a thing when it happened. In “Vettaiyan,” Gnanavel has tried to discuss two important issues, but juxtaposing them in a single narrative with only a tenuous thread connecting them doesn’t work well.
The film begins with a lecture to graduates in the police academy on the popularity of police inspectors who take the law into their own hands. Then Rajni makes his entry as Athiyan, beating up a bunch of criminals. Next, there is a short introduction to a young, idealistic schoolteacher who takes education seriously. A murder then takes place, which leads to a police encounter, setting the stage to explore a deeper social issue involving online education, startups, and financial ruin. In between all this, Rajni displays his “Rajnisque” capabilities. Fahadh Faasil plays a very unusual role as a police informer, spy, computer wizard, confidante, and charmer—all rolled into one. Somehow, I always get the feeling that Fahadh has not yet found his footing in Tamil cinema. But the good thing about him is that he performs the roles he gets with passion and authenticity. He is very likable. All the above threads come together in a grand finale—again straight out of Rajni’s standard playbook—helicopter landings out of nowhere, beating up people twice the size of the hero, and justice delivered the “right” way.
Nat Academy, the online education company that is the source of all the troubles in the movie, reflects the rise and fall of Byju’s—the EduTech company whose founder and CEO, Byju Ravindran, is currently on the run for fraud and corruption. In 2011, Byju took the Indian education market by storm, promising to democratize education using its proprietary online platform. Ravindran, the charismatic leader, brought in a lot of investment. Byju became the poster child for startups. But little did anyone notice that beneath all the hype, students and parents were being defrauded. Parents eager to have their children educated were lured into debt they couldn’t fulfill, and the quality of education promised was never delivered. The weakness of the formal education mechanism in the country is reason enough for profiteering companies like Byju’s to mushroom. The film captures this parallel but struggles to offer a cohesive critique of the larger systemic issues.
Rana Daggubati, the star from Telugu cinema, plays the role of Byju. He has nothing much to do except constantly scowling and putting on a furrowed face. Rana is a much better actor than that. But what can he do when the script doesn’t give him any scope to perform? From a film critic’s perspective, his role is wasted, and so are many other characters in the film. Amitabh Bachchan, for a change, hardly makes a mark in the movie. The director depended more on his regal bearing, white hair, and intellectual looks than on anything Amitabh was expected to do in front of the camera. As a representative of the Human Rights Commission (an organization that appears frequently in Indian films), he is the conscience keeper of law and order. Amitabh, in his dubbed baritone voice, delivers monologues that don’t add anything new to the character or the storyline.
When I spoke to my niece and her husband yesterday, they asked me why I was spending ink on a film that didn’t deserve it at all. Good question! The only reason I write this review is that I have been following Rajni since I started watching films and, more importantly, observing his decline over the last ten years. With each new film, I hope against hope that he is cast in a character that does justice to his initial talent. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened, and I am now more certain than ever that it may never happen. The fact that “Vettaiyan” didn’t do well at the box office, and Rajni fans themselves weren’t enthusiastic about their Thalaivar’s choice of role or performance, shows that Rajni’s era is passing away—which is a good thing for Tamil cinema. Newer actors and fresher storylines are beginning to take shape. Audiences today demand more nuanced storytelling and varied performances. Stardom, as such, is no longer a sure currency in Indian films. An actor, however famous, is expected to perform well in each movie and choose different roles. The need for the Rajni brand of heroes is fading away.
Rajni is seventy-three years old and ailing. He looks fit and presentable in the film, not because he is inherently fit and presentable. A lot of work goes into making him look that way, some of which is done in software studios. But despite all that hard work, Rajni’s age and declining skin tone were pretty evident in Vettaiyan. His voice is also hoarse as if he is suffering from a perpetual cold. Denzel Washington, the American actor and one of the greatest ever, turns seventy soon, not that much younger than Rajni. They both started their careers roughly around the same time. While Denzel has done about 60 films in 40 years, Rajni has worked in 180 or so. Clearly, Hollywood superstars are selective on the number of films and the roles they play. I recently watched Denzel on the Jimmy Kimmel show the other day. And My God! How fit he is. When asked, he said he had a full-time trainer who lived with him, cooked for him, and trained him. Denzel also practices boxing. That is discipline. In his latest release, ‘Gladiator 2,’ Denzel plays a villain, demonstrating his versatility and his energy to take on complex and challenging roles with intensity and depth . Denzel expects to work till he is 78 years old—five more films. By the time Denzel finishes his career, Rajni’s may be long over.
Overall, Vettaiyan was better than some of the recent Rajni films, but viewed through a cinematic eye without factoring in Rajni, the film fails. There are parts of the film that work well, but those moments are few and far between. In the second half, the movie collapses completely, and we squirm in our seats, waiting impatiently for the end.
I am more confident than ever that the Rajni era will end soon. It is time.