Has cinema defined political success in Tamil Nadu?

What were the conditions that led to the emergence of a figure such as Vijay in the State?

A.S. Panneerselvan: Ever since the formation of the AIADMK in 1972, there has consistently been a space for a non-DMK political force. This segment typically ranges between 15% and 18% of the vote share. Initially, this space was occupied by the Congress. It was later taken over by Vaiko with his Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK). After the MDMK, this space shifted to Vijayakanth’s Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK). Following the decline of the DMDK, it has fragmented across formations such as the Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) and personalities like Rajinikanth and Kamal Haasan. Therefore, this is not a new phenomenon — it is constant. There is a steady vote bank of people who do not prefer the two Dravidian majors and instead opt for an alternative. However, this vote share has not translated into electoral success.

Also read | Tamil Nadu’s actor-politicians and their crusade against corruption

Srinivasan Ramani: If you look at the composition of the crowds Vijay is drawing, they are largely youth-driven. There exists a section of Tamil society that has not been sufficiently politicised, and they are transferring their political loyalties to a cinematic figure by equating his on-screen roles with real-life leadership. At the same time, there is another figure from cinema — director Seeman — who leads the NTK. Unlike Vijay, Seeman represents a clear ideological space rooted in Tamil nationalism, in contrast to the Dravidian framework. He is actively attempting to build an ideological base. In contrast, Vijay’s appeal appears less ideological and more rooted in heroism. This is concerning because it risks creating an apolitical base — one that is not encouraged to question societal issues. Instead, it promotes a messianic image of leadership.

What explains the culture of hero worship and the transition of film stars into politics in Tamil Nadu? How did the Dravidian movement shape cinema as a medium?

A.S. Panneerselvan: Tamil cinema before the Dravidian movement largely followed two tracks. One was the Bhakti tradition, where devotional literature was adapted into films. The other was the nationalist track, with films inspired by the Indian freedom movement. These films carried strong social markers. Dialogue delivery often reflected caste and regional identities. The Dravidian movement transformed this by creating a more standardised, secular Tamil prose that removed such embedded social markers. Another key shift was in media control. Earlier, the media was dominated by socially privileged groups. The Dravidian movement had to create its own media platforms. It used theatre and cinema as vehicles for political messaging. Importantly, Dravidian leaders did not enter politics through cinema; rather, they brought their politics into cinema. They embedded political messages within films.

Also read | Dravidian politics and Tamil cinema: The conjoined twins of the Tamil motherland

This is why it is incorrect to compare MGR and Vijay. MGR operated within a highly politicised public sphere and used cinema to reinforce political ideology, benefiting both the movement and his personal image. Vijay, on the other hand, operates in a depoliticised public sphere and focuses primarily on constructing a personal image. MGR’s appeal was broad and inclusive, cutting across demographics. In contrast, Vijay’s appeal appears more limited.

Do you think that with the arrival of progressive directors, Tamil cinema has begun to focus on people who might otherwise not have received attention in mainstream cinema such as the Dalits?

Srinivasan Ramani: Contemporary Tamil cinema reflects two parallel trends. On the one hand, there are mass heroes attempting to leverage political themes to build their personal image. On the other hand, there is a strong current of independent filmmakers engaging deeply with social and political issues. Directors like Pa. Ranjith, Vetrimaaran, Mari Selvaraj, Tamizh and others are addressing themes such as caste oppression, custodial violence, communal tensions, and religious marginalisation. These films often push political discourse forward and compel mainstream politics to respond. Tamil cinema today contains both a progressive, politically engaged stream and an apolitical, personality-driven stream.

Comment | Tamil Nadu, where cinema and politics meet

A.S. Panneerselvan: Cinema has also evolved in form. Early Tamil cinema relied heavily on orality — dialogues and speeches — because literacy levels were low, and people primarily engaged through listening. As literacy and media exposure increased, cinematic forms evolved. However, Vijay’s films neither fully utilise the earlier oral political style nor engage with newer forms of political storytelling. Instead, they resemble the “Angry Young Man” template popularised decades ago. While Vijay undeniably has substantial popularity, the key question is whether it cuts across all demographics.

Also read | The missing isms in Vijayism

Srinivasan Ramani: Publicity should not be mistaken for public-mindedness. Public-mindedness involves addressing difficult societal questions and creating collective solutions. Publicity, on the other hand, often relies on projecting a single heroic figure as the solution to all problems.

Why is Tamil Nadu particularly conducive to film actors entering politics?

A.S. Panneerselvan: Many assume that a career in cinema naturally provides a pathway into politics. However, this assumption overlooks the historical trajectories of key figures. Annadurai had already moved away from cinema by the early 1950s and was deeply engaged in political organisation. MGR, before founding the AIADMK, had a long and active political career within the DMK. Jayalalithaa, too, entered politics after establishing herself through writing and public engagement in magazines such as Thuglak and Kumudam. In all these cases, political success was built on sustained groundwork and organisational involvement, not merely on popularity from cinema. At best, cinema provides a certain degree of recognition — but attempting to directly convert that recognition into political capital, without deeper engagement, is often misguided.

Also read | How a rattled Jayalalithaa tackled Vijayakant’s political reach

While the successes of Annadurai, MGR, and Jayalalithaa are frequently highlighted, we do not, in the same breath, discuss the unsuccessful political trajectories of figures such as Sivaji Ganesan and Bhagyaraj.

Also read | From silver screen to Parliament: journey of Tamil actors to Rajya Sabha

Srinivasan Ramani: There is this Gramscian approach: if you don’t have the power to change things directly, you try to occupy the ideological state apparatus and then mould opinions. The Dravidian movement managed to use popular culture significantly to bring about social change. So, it’s not as if popular culture itself resulted in change; rather, the Dravidian activists and movement utilised that space to bring about change. Now, people think that cinema is a change-maker in Tamil Nadu. That’s not the case. Cinema was a ‘via media’ to achieve that.

Also read | The business of films and the politics behind it

In other places where changes happened, different mediums were used — student movements, or agitation politics. But in Tamil Nadu, cinema was used as a powerful medium to bring about change. Because of this, people take a shortcut and assume that cinema itself can be used similarly elsewhere and will work in the same way. If one asks why Tamil Nadu is so different compared to the rest of the country — where we now see increasing penetration of Hindutva — that is because there is also a civil society component that is autonomous from political society, which raises these questions just as much as political actors do. That’s where the role of filmmakers and directors comes in.

Also read | Tamil cinema and its struggle to strike the right balance

They have kept critical discourse alive to an extent such that the burden does not fall solely on political parties to resist dominant ideologies

Listen to the conversation