Robert Connell, a pioneer in the study of masculinities seen in works such as Masculinities (1995), Masculinities and Globalisation in Men and Masculinities Vol.I.nr.1 (1998) and The Men and the Boys (2000) put forth for the first time that there are different kinds of masculinities and that one of these is dominant. This came like a beacon in theoretical studies surrounding men and what made men ‘men.’ The ‘dominant’ form of masculinity was defined by Connell as hegemonic masculinity. Other kinds of masculinity were either subsumed or marginalised and hegemonic masculinity was the frame of reference to live up to. The relationship between these different ways to be a man are characterised by conflict faced by most men - often in relation to women.

Is masculinity born, does it evolve over time or is it thrust on the man? Masculinity is not a monolith. It is not a homogenous term that can define all men of all ages across geography, culture, language class and time. It is an abstract, fluid and differential value that attaches itself to men subject to the time they function and live in, the class they belong to, the language they speak and the social ambience they move within, which, interestingly, are also not fixed in time and space. In his informed paper, Bengalis but not Men? Bhadralok Masculinities in Adda (SubVersions | Vol.1, Issue.1, (2013), 146- 170. Romit Chowdury lays bare how masculinities, “far from being natural, are made in particular socio-cultural contexts.”

What about the cinema in the Southern parts of India where we have contemporary heroes ranging from Kamal Haasan through Rajinikant, Mammooty, Mohanlal, Chiranjeevi, Suriya, Prithviraj, Ram Charan, Allu Arjun, Mahesh Babu, Dhanush, Dulquer Salmaan and many, many others who will certainly outrun the increasing number of macho heroes in Bollywood or even beyond Indian shores? They represent not only the evolution of masculinity in Southern cinema through its heroes but also bring across different kinds of masculinity from predominantly ‘macho’ in terms of their muscled, sexy body right through a virtual rainbow of masculinities that are focussed on the blending of a star-actor with the kind of characters he portrays and the screen image he has carefully constructed over his career.

Cinema has always been considered as a powerful voyeuristic medium. Women in India are figured into two essentialised categories of Tradition and Modernity. India sets up an interesting case in the post-independence period working in conjunction with the cinematic apparatus. A new nationalism develops linked with most intimate and ‘private’........

© Mathrubhumi English