The Prithviraj versus Mohanlal Debate

When I first saw Prithviraj on the sets of Nandanam, I was completely bowled over by his personality- a combination of good looks and the individuality that radiated from his persona. It was something amiss in Malayalam cinema.

And then I heard all these squabbles over Prithviraj versus Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal has a very strong place in my heart, on account of the calibre of characters that he has delivered over a span of several years. I do think it is baseless to ‘compare’ these 2 personalities. It would be more mature on our part to give Prithvi his due merit and give him constructive criticism on his performance.

However, such a squabble did set me thinking on these 2 personalities and the differences in them. I watched Prithvi’s interview shortly after his marriage and was impressed by the clarity of his thoughts and the ease/courage with which he put across his thoughts. The conservative malayalee will brand his individuality as ‘attitude’ or ‘arrogance’.

But then I ask myself- I love him as an individual…do I love him as an actor?

Nandanam was a masterpiece by Ranjith. And the truth is that I was too much in love with the movie to contemplate on Prithvi’s proficiency as an actor. As subsequent movies unfolded, I found his acting skills very average. In fact, there are a good many young actors in some Malayalam serials who outdo his performance any day- I always wonder why they don’t make it to movies. Prithvi is good at roles that match his personality. But that is not what defines an actor. An actor is one who can effortlessly shed his own personality and get into the soul and spirit of the character in the movie…who can become one with the character. It is in this regard that Mohan Lal and Prithvi differ. Lal is the product of a different era- he is the sum total of years of grooming and moulding by harsher circumstances, greater struggle and ingenious mentors. Also, Lal’s personality differs- he doesn’t lash out like Prithvi does. He ‘contains’ his emotions. It is these contained emotions which define an artist for they remain a part of his subconscious and are liberated in the artist’s art. Prithvi dissipates all this emotions by reacting aggressively to every situation. To be a fine actor, one must have allowed oneself to experience the range and depth of emotions that one wants to portray on screen. One must have in one’s mind the silence and solitude to allow these emotions to attain depth…to allow them to mature. Prithvi lacks this silence and solitude of mind that is vital in shaping an actor. I think he would make a brilliant journalist.

When we think of Lal, all his characters come to our minds. There is very little we know about the individual- Mohan Lal. We know him and remember him as the sum total of all the characters he has brilliantly enacted; Lal is that raw. On the other hand, when we think of Prithvi, it is his own personality that comes to our minds- the individual ‘Prithviraj’, whose personality has spilled into all his characters. This is the primary difference between these two personalities that I love in entirely different ways.

It is true that Lal and Mammootty bring down their image when they play characters much younger, but as Lal himself has put it-‘I am what the film makers make of me. Lal is not one person…he is the work output of numerous people who have stood backstage and gone into his making.’ I think the entire film industry needs a serious revision and redefining of standards. I can only wish that someone would somehow turn the key and we could go back to the golden era of the 90s when movies set our standards for life.