Defending Sivaji Ganesan (OR) The Misconceptions About An Actor’s Art

 

“Sivaji Ganesan OVERACTS!” is a common statement made by many youngsters today. I am a youngster myself, and I vehemently disagree with these sort of statements. Sivaji’s acting style is not something we generally see in films today, but that doesn’t mean that he is overdramatic.

Tamil Cinema of the past had derived it’s acting from the musical theatre. The films were not particularly great, they had a few unnecessary scenes and as the critic Baradwaj Rangan puts it, they all seemed like photographed plays. The camera either focussed all the actors at the centre of the frame or just the emotions of a single actor. Barring directors like Sridhar and V.Balachander, no one even tried to focus the camera at different angles. Sometimes, there were just too many songs and the films were excessively long. But these films had a great bunch of actors who had made it worth a watch.

Since the acting was derived from Tamil plays, it appears to be starkly different from what is portrayed on screen today. Because of this, I feel many people are put off by old Tamil films and especially their actors, who face the ire of the young public. But most of these actors, not only Sivaji, have a varied repertoire and can easily boast of versatility. With the exception of a certain MGR, none of them could be confined to a repetitive role or labelled as a star.

To those who dislike Sivaji, I always tell them to watch films like Veerapandiya Kattabomman and Navaratiri. Of course, there are more options I could give them, but these, I believe will strike a chord with the younger public as well. Among all the actors whom I have seen, I don’t believe anyone can enunciate Tamil as well as Sivaji Ganesan. His dialogue delivery is near perfect and can be emotionally stirring as well. Consider the famous dialogue in Veerapandiya Kattabomman. It wasn’t just his exceptional dialogue delivery and emotionaly stirring speech that stood out, but also his body language and mannerisms. Every intricate movement of his had resembled a man of royal lineage. Such was his attention to detail. Many of the present day actors can’t even speak Sentamizh properly, while this man had made it his own, with a delicate poise and aplomb.

His versatility was exemplified in Navarathri, where he played nine different roles corresponding to emotions. Each was very disparate, and he even had to speak different dialects. The roles of the performing artist and the uncle are my favourites. All of these roles were played with such charisma, zeal and élan, so much so that it astounds me every time I watch it. It is unbelievable that same man had played each of these roles. His versatility was matched by the wonderful Savithri. This film is sufficient to illustrate the prowess of Sivaji Ganesan.

Sivaji also had the uncanny ability for comedy. Consider the film, Bale Pandiya, where he played an innocuous bumpkin. His innocence and his child like enthusiasm on seeing food being offered to him by M. R. Radha leaves us in splits. Yes, the film was not that good, but he made quite a few scenes memorable. This was a Sivaji which people had never seen before, a credulous and naïve young man, and he pulled of the role with such aplomb.

Sivaji Ganesan also possessed loads of style, as wonderfully executed in films like Uttamaputhiran and Puthiya Paravai. In the Yaaradi Nee Mohini song, there is a particular portion where Sivaji claps when the dancers arrive. I have never seen a clap that is so regal, but also equally stylish and suave. And what about the way he smoked a cigarette in the song, Partha Nyabagam Illayo? The way in which he held the cigarette and puffed out the smoke makes our present day actors’ much loved style look amateurish.

Sivaji Ganesan is among the few method actors in our country. In the song Pattum Naane, he played each of the instruments like a professional, and one could be easily fooled into believing that he was an esteemed musician. Also, one has to admire the way he has dubbed for every song, incorporating the alapanas and the kalpanaswaras as well. Amazingly, he didn’t have a great knowledge in music, and all of these performances were a breath taking result of his diligence.  He also captured the gestures of a musician perfectly, as illustrated in Thillana Mohanambal.

I am not quite sure if many are still convinced by my argument, so I will illustrate my case with the help of foreign examples. When Akira Kurosawa’s samurai films had arrived on the Western shore, he was lauded by the critics, but some of the public thought that the actors had overacted. But here again, the acting style was taken from the kabuki plays of Japan, and this form of acting can be found in nearly every Jidaigeki, including those of other famous directors like Masaki Kobayashi, Kihachi Okamoto, Teshigahara and so on. It took a while for the American audience to accept this form of acting, and their actors like Toshiro Mifune and Tatsuya Nakadai. Only when Kurosawa’s urban films had released in the U.S. did people realise the greatness of Mifune and Nakadai, and also about the difference in acting styles for a period film and a modern film.

There were also different acting styles in the U.S. too, whose cinema the Indian audiences revere. The silent films of the past had a completely different type of acting, but I am not sure how many people have watched silent films. I would like to classify American acting into the periods, before On the Waterfront and after On the Waterfront. Once sound pictures came to America, you had actors speaking immaculate English regardless of their roles. Until the 1951 film, the actors spoke with impeccable diction and an Oxfordian form of English, that had hardly resembled the common man. Barring actresses like Ingrid Bergman, who had a European accent, most of these actors spoke this way. But Marlon Brando and Elia Kazan had completely changed acting in On the Waterfront. Brando’s diction and language was more colloquial, and his accent was more like a dockworker rather than an Oxford educated dockworker. But that doesn’t mean that the actors before him were bad. I don’t think anyone can portray villainy better than Robert Mitchum in the dark The Night of the Hunter. Mitchum, Bogart, Bergman, Stewart were all fantastic actors in their own right. But this sort of acting has again been derived from theatre, which is the actor’s art. This has been wonderfully illustrated in Mike Leigh’s delightful Topsy Turvy, where the play actors spoke immaculate English even in a Japanese setting.

 Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront

Robert Mitchum in The Night of the Hunter

I don’t understand how people accept these old, but wonderful English actors but not Sivaji Ganesan. In Stanley Kubrick’s brilliant Paths of Glory, we saw Kirk Douglas speaking in a strong British accent, along with his soldiers, despite the characters were all French. In John Huston’s The Treasure of Sierra Madre, Humphrey Bogart’s English was crystal clear and near perfect, with a few colloquial words invading his dialogues despite the fact that he is not quite an educated man. Of course, the acting was wonderful and the films are masterpieces, but why don’t people accept Sivaji Ganesan, but laud these actors?  The younger public lambasts him for baseless reasons, when they also have seen acting evolve in English cinema as well. It irks me to see such hypocrisy.

At least people appreciate Kamal Hassan. His acting style is familiar with everyone as it hasn’t changed much since the 70s. This remarkable change can be only attributed to K. Balachander. I believe that he had changed the acting style in plays as well, for his film adaptations of his plays vindicate my claim. He also revolutionized Tamil cinema, for his films were no longer photographed plays and involved controversial subjects and wonderful cinematography. (The films of his that I have seen could have been a bit better, but that’s for a different article.)

Sivaji Ganesan has adapted wonderfully to the acting methods of the 70s. The films like Mudhal Mariyadha and Thevar Magan are testaments to his adaptability. Also, look at the wonderful Andha Naal(1954), where he played the antagonist. His emotions were more subtle, rather than direct as his other films. It was a very different and underrated performance, which had showed that he could be as powerful as an antagonist as well. (The film changed Tamil cinema, but again, that is a different article.)

There are quite a few films where he was off colour, especially the films of the 70s, in which he was fat and sported a pretty weird hairstyle. Even in some black and white films, he was far from his best. But that is no reason to lambast him and label him as an overdramatic actor, for these films have not overshadowed his achievements at all. His versatility and diligence puts him among the league of great actors. To quote the late critic Gene Siskel, “There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say ‘The Valachi Papers’ is a better film than ‘The Godfather,’ you are wrong.” Sivaji Ganesan is a great actor. That is a fact.