The other day, a Netizen claimed that Mohanlal is a better actor than Chiranjeevi and Rajinikanth, his contemporary superstars. While Malayali audiences give primacy to naturalistic performances, Telugus and Tamils are a different set of audiences. Telugus want stylistic performances from actors. Chiru aced it and became a superstar.
But even if you argue that the Waltair Veerayya and Vishwambhara actor is better than Rajini, Mohanlal or even Kamal Haasan, does it absolve him? "Chiru mostly worked within the average commercial cinema framework. Kamal and Mohanlal churned out more memorable films than Chiru's few outliers and a Rajni cinema release is peak commercial cinema," a Netizen opined.
But Chiru's fans say that directors must be blamed. "Chiru has contributed significantly to TFI. He redefined the commercial genre in the 80s and 90s. You should remember that TFI did not have directors like Shankar or Mani Ratnam, as Tamil cinema did during the two decades. These directors expanded the Tamil market to different languages, benefiting Rajinikanth and Kamal Haasan," another Netizen countered. As a counter, one could argue that Chiranjeevi got to work with the likes of K Viswanath and Balachander.
