Originally posted by: cutejodikangal
Honestly she felt like a hindrance in the Mahanati and the weaker part of the script. I still don't understand the need to insert her character into the movie. Every time people wanted to see more of Savitri, her character would show up out of nowhere annoying the heck out of the audience.
In Rangasthalam she was nothing but a supporting star while the movie was about the two brothers, I mean what contribution you are talking about?
She is an average actress who would’ve faded into oblivion like the other actresses of south had she not been married into the Akkineni family. Anushka is far bigger than her but look at her plight today. Nayantara is a better actress than her but still struggling. Whether you want to accept it or not, a big part of Samantha’s brand name was because of her link to the Akkinenis and Daggupatis.
On your opinion on Samantha's character in Mahanati, that is the director's prerogative. But regardless of that, it was commendable of her to do a second lead role to a newer and less popular actress who clearly had the author backed role.
Same with Rangasthalam. Like, it's funny we're talking about her having a "supporting role" in the film (again, why is it bad? It is way better than playing a worthless flowerpot who is a mere decorative piece in a film. At least she had something to work with. You are expecting too much out of her if you think she should get an equally important role. Male-dominated Tollywood shall never let that happen. You speak of Anushka and Nayanthara, they also suffered because of the same sexism that exists in the industry.
She received good reviews for all these films, so why shouldn't she get credit for it?
I still don't get how her link to Akkinenis/Daggubatis helped her as an actress? Only male actors benefit from that, not women. Lakshmi Manchu will tell you.
comment:
p_commentcount