After getting trained in a film institute, both Chiru and Rajni went their own ways and became superstars in their own states. Chiru once even played a villain in Rajni's Tamil film 'Ranuvaveeran' but became a superstar in T-town after 'Khaidi' and remained at the top. Chiranjeevi is the best dancer of that generation and the risk he took in dare-devil action sequences, got him closer to the masses and youth. Whereas, Rajni's dancing abilities are limited and he doesn't take big risks in action sequecnes and prefers to ride on his styles like fliping the cigarate and few mannerisms.
As an actor, Chiranjeevi did performance-oriented roles in films like 'Subhalekha', 'Apathbandhavudu' and 'Rudraveena'. 'Chiru is both Kamal and Rajni, since he is star as well as a good actor' said K. Balachander who introduced Rajni. The director is true because, Rajni gave more prominence to potboilers than serious roles, so Chiru has an edge over him acting wise. However, Rajni's market has spread beyond Tamilnandu and reached new heights in AP, Mumbai and is king of overseas market that includes Singapore, Europe and Japan.They stand equally, in attracting all sections of the audience from children to families, to youth to masses and some-non filmi crowd.
Rajni could score over Chiru in overseas segment because Tamil population living in far off countries prefer to watch only Tamil movies (love for their language), whereas Telugus settled in US and Europe, watch other language films over Telugu. Both attained larger-than-life image but Chiranjeevi explored varied themes- against anti-corruption in Tagore, developing 3-member help chain Stalin, but Rajni avoided such themes.
May be, Rajni can score over Chiru as his market touched 100-crore, but Chiru if returns to acting (which looks possible), he could easily touch that three digit magic figure, but Chiru has better skill set to entertain viewers than Rajni, that's for sure. Because Chiru has won more awards than Rajni.
0 comments:
Post a Comment