Intimacy on Display: Movie Stars, Images and Everyday Life in South India

Abstract

Because of the close links between the Tamil movie industry and politics, and the position of fans in this, everyday engagements of fans with their actors are generally overlooked. This article focuses on how fandom unfolds in the familial space in Tamil Nadu state, South India. Brothers fight over images, newlywed couples insert movie stars in their wedding photography, and fathers take a son to their favorite star to get him back on the right track. I argue that fandom is inflected in familial relationships as well as being informed by them. Further, I argue that personalized images of movie stars play a crucial role herein.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gvan20
Download by: [Roos Gerritsen] Date: 24 July 2016, At: 21:55
Visual Anthropology
ISSN: 0894-9468 (Print) 1545-5920 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gvan20
Intimacy on Display: Movie Stars, Images and
Everyday Life in South India
Roos Gerritsen
To cite this article: Roos Gerritsen (2016) Intimacy on Display: Movie Stars, Images
and Everyday Life in South India, Visual Anthropology, 29:4-5, 382-405, DOI:
10.1080/08949468.2016.1192363
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2016.1192363
Published online: 22 Jul 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 72
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Intimacy on Display: Movie Stars, Images
and Everyday Life in South India
Roos Gerritsen
Because of the close links between the Tamil movie industry and politics, and the
position of fans in this, everyday engagements of fans with their actors are generally
overlooked. This article focuses on how fandom unfolds in the familial space in
Tamil Nadu state, South India. Brothers fight over images, newlywed couples insert
movie stars in their wedding photography, and fathers take a son to their favorite
star to get him back on the right track. I argue that fandom is inflected in familial
relationships as well as being informed by them. Further, I argue that personalized
images of movie stars play a crucial role herein.
Selvam rushes in when he sees that Gandhiraj, my research assistant, and I have
come to his house. ‘‘Please come in,’’ he says, pleasantly surprised, and he rushes
out again with the same speed. We settle on the floor of Selvam’s living room,
looking around for changes in the decoration since the last time we were here.
The room is sparsely furnished with a plastic chair and a cupboard holding a
television set. The walls on the contrary are elaborately decorated with posters
and framed pictures. These walls immediately reveal that Selvam is a fan of
the celebrated Tamil movie actor Rajinikanth (born in 1950). Each time I visit Sel-
vam his walls are embellished with novel images of the star. After a few minutes
Selvam comes back, as usual with two fresh coconuts. ‘‘Here, please drink this.’’
While drinking the coconut we exchange queries about each other’s wellbeing.
Selvam finally asks the question that is always gripping him: ‘‘Have you met
him?’’ His voice has a curious tone when he asks if I have met Rajinikanth.
‘‘No, I haven’t,’’ I reply, and Selvam, slightly disappointed but spoiling no words
on the lack of news, continues to look through his cupboard to pull out images of
Rajinikanth that he has collected or made in the last days or months.
When I got to know Selvam he was a coconut seller in his thirties living in a
modest house in Tengai Tope, one of the coconut plantations on the outskirts
of Puducheri (Pondicherry). He was living alone, his parents no longer alive,
and was not yet married. Selvam has been a fan of the famed Tamil movie star
Rajinikanth since his early childhood. Each time I visited Selvam the images he
ROOS GERRITSEN teaches Media Anthropology at Heidelberg University. She is working on topics
in popular culture, urban space, cinema, cultural politics and new vernacular media in India.
E-mail: gerritsen@eth.uni-heidelberg.de
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online
at www.tandfonline.com/gvan.
Visual Anthropology, 29: 382–405, 2016
Copyright #Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0894-9468 print=1545-5920 online
DOI: 10.1080/08949468.2016.1192363
382
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

had collected and displayed on his walls served as the leading thread to recount
his tales of Rajinikanth, the images themselves, the fan club in Puducheri and his
own everyday life. Every image came with news such as the death of his mother,
his marriage, and later the birth of his children and their birthdays. This article is
about these images.
Rajinikanth is a 66-year-old movie star in the large Tamil movie industry, and
despite his age still has an enormous fan following. He is popular with both young
and old, even though several new generations of stars have emerged. More specifi-
cally he, as well as other main stars of Tamil film, has thousands of organized fan
clubs in his name. They are part of the fusion between the mass medium of cinema
and politics, which over the past half-century has produced several major film-star
politicians in South India; while several actors and directors have also been taking
up political careers. Fan clubs themselves have also gone beyond their engagement
with cinema, since they are closely involved in politicking through patronage
relationships and developing their own political careers [Gerritsen 2012].
In both popular and scholarly accounts fan clubs in Tamil Nadu have been
analyzed in terms of their support of political careers of their stars [Dickey
1993; Hardgrave 1973; M. S. S. Pandian 1992; Rogers 2009]. Although I subscribe
to these analyses, what is never brought out concerning Tamil fans is the ways in
which fandom actually unfolds in everyday lives and in the familial space. Film
stars do not merely become popular for their political moves or for the films they
play in, but for cinema’s capacity to trickle into daily life.
Here I want to follow up on this by looking at everyday affects in relation to
movie stars. In this article, based on 18 months of fieldwork with fan club members,
I am particularly interested in their personal, everyday lives, and how photos as
material objects and representations of their star play a role herein. In the cities of
Puducheri and Chennai I have worked with numerous fan club members devoted
mostly to Rajinikanth, but also to Vijay, Ajith, Kamal Hassan and Vijayakanth. This
research on image practices of the fan clubs and their larger embedding in public
spaces was based on participant observation along with over 100 extensive inter-
views with fan club members and with people in the broader field of cinema, ban-
ner artists [Jacob 1998], photo studios, etc. Over the years I got to know various fans
well beyond the realms of an interview. The accounts given here are based on these
long acquaintances and therefore, even if expressed discursively, are situated in a
wider frame of empirical data. All fans described here are members of a fan club;
the scope of this article however is not to discuss collective fan activity as such.
I make two interrelated arguments. The first relates to the way fandom is
inflected in familial relationships as well as being informed by them. The ways
in which the movie star Rajinikanth emerges in familial, everyday settings pro-
vides a novel view on how cinematic elements incite and inflect veneration,
affect, pleasure and family life in a South Asian context. Secondly, personalized
images of movie stars in everyday settings, I argue, engender a relationship with
the star. In everyday spaces of the home, images seemed to be one important
mode through which fans related to their star, making this relationship parti-
cularly personal and affective. Images were personalized, not merely through
interacting with them but by actively retouching, reworking and familiarizing
them so that they end up in familial albums, narratives and memories.
Intimacy on Display 383
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

What I argue here is not just that images of movie stars enter the private lives
of Indians; this assertion has been made already [Blamey and D’Souza 2005;
Dwyer 2000; Thomas 1995]. Most fans will never get to meet the star, yet through
images he or she endures and resonates within people’s minds, to paraphrase
Guha-Thakurta, ‘‘as a body of readily available, reproducible imagery’’ [2003:
110]. This intimates the extra-filmic circulation of stars via memories, stories,
rumors, images, and the popular press [Dickey 2005; Dwyer 2000; Thomas
1995]. I also do not aim to prioritize still images above other ways of engaging
with film stars. It is not just images that generate fandom, even though they play
a significant part in a larger imaginary fueled by familiarity with films and film
culture and the wider context of social relations. Naturally, images go hand in
hand with other ways of engagement—watching and talking about films, fan
club activities, memories of performance, and repeating scenes and songs, etc.
[Dickey 2005; A. Pandian 2008]. The social act of watching films, recollecting film
scenes and re-enacting dialogues plays a vital role in experiencing fandom and in
performing everyday life [Gerritsen 2012; A. Pandian 2008]. What was striking
throughout my research however was that many fans actually became fans only
by seeing images and hearing stories about a star. Several explained that when
they were still too young to join a fan club or go to the cinema (and had no access
to television yet) they actually became a fan of an actor, not because of the
films they had seen but because of the images exhibited at cinemas, and the
stories and images that circulated in magazines, at tea-stalls or just in friends’
talk. Fandom therefore is not merely a product of spectatorship, but actually
precedes it here.
Thus I will explore the multiple ways of how images in fans’ lives bring about
forms of spectatorship and fandom that lead to affective relationships with public
figures, as well as permeating family lives. To specify, the images discussed here
are not just ‘‘entering’’ private lives but also flesh them out, organizing the star–
fan relations as well as familial relations, memories and affects. Here I will
attempt to connect the different frames of understanding in which I situate the
position of celebrities in everyday experience. Thus I consider the family, notions
of love and affect, family images, and modes of veneration articulating the mod-
alities of fandom in familial life.
THE FAMILY AND EVERYDAY LIFE
The household in south Asia is not a fixed entity and goes through various cyc-
lical developments [Hockings 1999: 136–143; Uberoi 2006]. Families grow and
shrink as people move in and out; people die; children arrive; women move into
the husband’s home, etc. Households also relate to neighbors, community and
friends or in the present case the peer group of fans. In other words, the concept
of household is flexible, as it can change in time and across space. What I am
interested in here is how distant figures, not related by kinship and with no
actual presence, are incorporated as well.
Making distant figures familiar has its roots among other things in consangui-
neal kinship terminology and practices of devotion. The naming of well-known
384 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

figures in familial terms is commonplace in India where, in the Tamil language,
strangers can be called by consanguineal kinship terms such as tampi (younger
brother), anna (older brother), tan
˙kacci (younger sister) or akka¯ (older sister). Also
the acquaintances of families are commonly called not only by their names but by
such kinship terms; and throughout India older acquaintances are addressed
with the English terms uncle or auntie. More widely, public figures are very often
accorded special nicknames, such as amma (mother) or talaiva¯r (leader), which
construct a sense of attachment. This shows how kinship terminology is actually
more than relating to the family, to also include friends, strangers and public
figures.
1
Generally families in south Asia are most often patrilocal, i.e., women come
to live with their husbands after marriage and the eldest son may well remain
living with his parents in the same household. Even though this is the general
custom, today this is very often not the case, especially in urban environments
where living space may be very constricted. Women came to live with their
husbands, but a lot of the fans I worked with lived in a nuclear family; that
is with wife and possible children. Moving out of one’s home and into a
new household, as women do after marriage, often not only gives rise to senti-
ments of anxiety before marriage about their new role in an unfamiliar setting,
but also means acquiring a new position, personality, status and responsibility
and exhibiting deference to the husband and senior kin [Gerritsen 2006; Mines
and Lamb 2010; Uberoi 2006]. These loyalties are directed towards the new
family members. Authority within the family in patrilineal kinship systems lies
with senior males, and the eldest, the patriarch, acts on behalf of the family
[Uberoi 2006].
Love is not commonly articulated within the family. Spouses especially are not
expected to show affection for each other, and mothers usually do not express
their love towards their children, so as not to attract the evil eye [Trawick
1990]. It is beyond the scope of this article to elaborate on love within the family,
but I mention this here because fans do openly express their love for their star,
also within the household. Loyalties towards the family are often downplayed
as fans give preference to spending time and money on their star, the fan clubs
and imagery that has made a star’s name. So where on the one hand celebrities
become incorporated into family life, they do have a separate status which I
would explain as the ‘‘hierarchical intimacy’’ [Babb 1986] that informs deference
and praise as performed for deities, politicians, movie stars and the like (see
below).
Thus celebrities are merged into these familial settings of the household and
hierarchical relations through deference and even their inclusion in rites of pass-
age such as marriages, births, birthdays and deaths in several ways. Siblings and
spouses share or change allegiances, stars are spoken of using kinship termin-
ology and talked about with children, fathers see Rajinikanth as the patriarch
to solve their children’s issues, and the stars gets inserted into family imagery
as they get inserted into family albums, wedding photos, or framed photos. I will
continue below to discuss the role of images in everyday lives and how this
relates to the reciprocal gaze.
Intimacy on Display 385
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

CELEBRITIES, IMAGES AND PRESENCE
Fans build up a relationship with their star through the stories they collect and
the desire they nurse to know about and engage in his personal life as well as
his cinematic avatar. They are intrigued by the on- and off-screen life of a star
which they trace, pursue and follow through magazines, television and circulat-
ing stories [Doss 1999; Marshall 2002: 234–235]. Rojek considers the production of
celebrity as an individual or collective abstract desire [2001: 186–187]; for him,
this abstract desire is rooted in capitalism, where consumers develop a desire
for commodities on the basis of media representations. Marshall argues that
the audience builds a relationship with a celebrity through a tension between
the possibility and the impossibility of knowing the authentic individual: ‘‘The
various mediated constructions of the film celebrity ensure that whatever inti-
macy is permitted between the audience and the star is purely at the discursive
level. Desire and pleasure are derived from this clear separation of the material
reality of the star as living being from the fragments of identity that are mani-
fested in films, interviews, magazines, pinup posters, autographs and so on’’
[2002: 234–235].
Both Rojek and Marshall point to the celebrity as a commodity or image that is
consumed due to desire, but how this desire materializes and is experienced in
personal lives is not explicated. In her study on erotic desire [2004] Purnima
Mankekar observes a relation between erotic desire and a desire to consume.
She defines the desire to consume as ‘‘commodity affect’’ which ‘‘ranges from
the desire to consume a particular object, to the desire to acquire it, to the desire
to display it. More importantly, desire in commodity affect pertains not just to the
pleasure of acquiring a commodity but also to the pleasures of gazing upon
it ...’’ [ibid.: 408]. This brings in the role of consumption and media that allow
us to display, to gaze upon and hence familiarize it in everyday settings. While
audiences, and fans in particular, consume the spectacle of celebrity on screen or
in other media, fans themselves are part of this spectacle—and thus make it
real—by producing stories, fantasies, images and as such, the star himself.
Besides magazines, other media—visual and aural, moving and still—are respon-
sible for the construction of familiarity and affect as well [Mazumdar 2007: 97].
The role of images, I argue, becomes crucial in how fans articulate and mediate
the presence of and desire for their star within the family. In almost all Tamil
households walls are populated by retouched and framed photos of deceased
family members and calendars depicting most often deities or politicians and uti-
lized for worshipping practices [Figure 1]. Family pictures are objects of remem-
brance, of memory, and provide possibilities to project and explore identities and
ideals [Poole 1997]. Images that we could call family pictures or that present ‘‘the
family,’’ Marianne Hirsch has argued, support the ‘‘familial gaze’’—‘‘the conven-
tions and ideologies of family through which they see themselves,’’ and shape
memories, narratives and experiences [1999: xi]. Hirsch intimates that the
inclusion of extra-familial subjects demonstrates pictures’ power to support
and enforce these dominant ideologies. What happens therefore if we include
images of movie stars in family pictures and bring them within the realm of
the familial gaze?
386 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

In her book Refracted Visions [2010] Karen Strassler starts with the description of
a novel in which the Indonesian protagonist imagines himself as the peer and lover
of the late Dutch queen Wilhelmina via a circulating mass-produced photo of her
in the former Dutch colony. Instead of the intended effect of political allegiance,
Strassler argues that ‘‘photographic images operate in different registers, circulat-
ing in the public sphere as political symbols while also mediating an intimate
realm of personal affiliations, memories, and sentiments’’ [ibid.:xiv].
Images kindle, produce and convey desires, ambitions and imaginations
through sensory experiences and engagements. The relationship that viewers
construct with him who is being viewed is mediated through the image and gives
the image its power [Pinney 1997b]. Images displayed in everyday settings of the
home engender a feeling of familiarity and personal space, as they are connected
to the people living there [Morgan 1998: 57]: they are part of the everyday prac-
tices and experiences of their producers and consumers and through incorporat-
ing them into everyday practices. Presencing is an act that goes beyond mere
representation, as displaying your star indicates his presence as though in a sense
he were there [ibid.]. The incorporation of images into everyday life engenders a
relation between beholder and picture that goes beyond ‘‘a simple person-picture
dualism’’ [Meyer 2011: 1046]. This brings us to an essential framework of
understanding the position of celebrity (images) in everyday life; that is, every-
day religious practices and in particular the Hindu mode of visuality in bhakti
worship called darshan.Bhakti is devotion that is directly approaching the deity
and not mediated by a Brahmin priest. This indicates that deities can also be wor-
shipped at home and in other locations, mediated among other things through
popular prints, so-called calendar or bazaar art [Jain 2007; Pinney 2004; Uberoi
1990]. Darshan can be translated as seeing and being seen by the divine, and it
implies a more direct, corporeal, reciprocal and affective understanding of seeing
[Babb 1981; Eck 1981]. The reciprocal gaze and active, repetitive veneration create
a relationship or bond of intimacy between the image (as material presence and
what is depicted) and the beholder [Appadurai and Breckenridge 1992: 46–50;
Meyer 2011].
While the contribution of darshan to everyday visuality in India is recognized
and emphasized by many scholars of visual culture there, Rachel Dwyer argues
that the ways in which darshan can help us actually understand visual practices
and visuality in a South Asian context still lack detailed analysis [2006: 284].
Investigating other forms of religious and non-religious practices in various con-
texts or regions shows us that labeling a highly complicated embodied corporeal
practice as darshan leaves little scope for, and can even impede, more detailed
analysis. Sophie Hawkins, in an attempt to rethink darshan, argues that ‘‘[r]ather
than understanding darshan to be an end in itself ...it becomes merely one aspect
in a repertoire of devotional aspirations that seek union with God’’ [1999: 150]. I
agree with both writers that we should situate the darshanic gaze within a
broader spectrum of visuality and devotion, as the embodied reciprocal vision
is not something that exists on its own. Moreover the mutual gaze of viewer
and viewed is not unique to South Asia or to a Hindu religious way of seeing
but rather identifies a widespread way of seeing [Benjamin 1969; Mitchell 2005;
Morgan 2005; Pinney 2006].
Intimacy on Display 387
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

Also for darshan, while primarily a Hindu religious concept, it denotes a wider
practice of viewing in India as well, constituting a reciprocal gaze between
viewer and viewed [Pinney 2001,2004]. Devotion is not limited to the divine
or religious as such, but is also directed towards parents, politicians, saintly per-
sonages and movie stars [Ramaswamy 1998]. Images of such people and of gods
or saints can be imbued with extraordinary power, and exchanging gazes with
them empowers the viewer as well [Babb 1981; T. Srinivas 2012].
2
Therefore situ-
ating venerating practices and giving presence to such figures in everyday spaces
of the home demands an understanding that on the one hand parallels everyday
forms of religion, and at the same time should not be limited to a mere religious
elucidation of these practices. What is at hand here is a confluence of practices
that attend us to affect, veneration and respect related to familial relations and
religious worship but that also go beyond that. The position of fan club members
in a family can on the one hand be appreciated, but also mocked or criticized, and
on the other hand fans actually define themselves as fans by excessive behavior
that surpasses the usual relations of respect and veneration. In the narratives
below we will see instances that do not fit seamlessly into religious and familial
deference and respect. We should therefore be careful not to merely analyze
within a religious framework: even though such a framework is helpful to situate
fandom, it may also limit our understanding of the multiple ways in which
fandom is articulated in everyday life.
In what follows I explore the multiple ways in which celebrities enter everyday
Tamil lives; how they become part of family life, narratives and relationships.
From the various anecdotes and narratives of fans I show how images articulate
the desires and presence of celebrities, as they are mediated in the images that
fans collect, produce and display. The various narratives show how in different
ways celebrities come to figure in everyday lives and become part of family struc-
ture through daily parlance, practices of devotion and particularly mediation
through images.
FAMILY IMAGES, FAMILY LIVES
Rajinikanth fan club members collect and portray all sorts of images in their
homes. Posters, framed personalized photos adorn photo albums, living rooms,
motorbikes, fridges and men’s bodies. Images holding indexical or iconical signs
of the star are carried close to the body, in a pocket or wallet, as rings, or as a
necklet. Fans often created special albums in which they collected images related
to their star and the fan club they belonged to. These were sometimes snapshots
of events organized for their fan club events, retouched photos bringing together
fan and star, along with cuttings from magazines and newspapers. I have come
across the use of star imagery for marriage announcements, birthdays, ear pierc-
ing and coming of age ceremonies, as well as death notices of fans or their family
members.
Figures 2–4 show some examples of what the use of images of the star in
personal imagery can look like. Figure 2is a photo from a family album of the club
member Napoleon Raja. For the occasion of his sister’s marriage one finds him
388 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

Figure 1 The Rajinikanth fan Ravichandran pointing to a row of images of meetings with
Rajinikanth. The cupboard behind him contains a small worshipping space with deities in the form
of calendars and statuettes. On the left two framed photos of Ravichandran’s deceased mother and
father hang on the wall, garlanded and adorned with kumkum powder on their foreheads.
Figure 2 Napoleon Raja (left) posing for his sister’s marriage in white clothes and a Rajinikanth
pose, Puducheri. (Figure 9 in the collection of Napoleon Raja; used with permission)
Intimacy on Display 389
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

pictured as a young boy wearing a white outfit and posing with his hands in his
pockets, mimicking in clothes and posture a pose from one of Rajinikanth’s films
of that time. By doing this he deviates from the emblematic formal postures that
one can regularly find in wedding photography, in interweaving his fondness for
Rajinikanth in his family life through photography. Also outside the realm of
photographic moments fans mimic haircuts, sartorial codes and postures to
resemble their star. Or friends and brothers use gimmicks from Rajinikanth’s films
as a sort of mutual language amongst them. These kinds of image, besides appear-
ing in wedding albums, also end up in photo albums that contain both personal
family photos and collected commodity pictures of the star.
Figure 3depicts the wedding invitation of the fan club leader Saktivel and his
wife Nalini. Saktivel was an active club member and acted as the local council presi-
dent while Nalini was mostly running the household. Whenever I visited the pair,
Saktivel was usually out solving an issue in the neighborhood he was responsible
for. His fan club members assisted him and always accompanied him on such
Figure 3 Saktivel and Nalini’s wedding invitation. (Moratandi, 1995; collection of Saktivel and
Nalini; used with permission)
390 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

missions. When Saktivel was at home, Nalini usually stayed in the background, lis-
tening to the stories and preparing tea or coffee. But when he was away, Nalini
enjoyed talking about her life, their mutual fandom for Rajinikanth, and how their
son included Tamil stars in his life. Nalini was already before her marriage a fan of
Rajinikanth, as was her entire family. She told how, before her wedding, she
secretly hoped that her future husband would be a Rajinikanth fan. Her youth
friends, she told me, were jealous that she was able to marry a husband who
had the same liking for an actor. I asked her when she found out about it:
I didn’t know about it [when the marriage arrangements were made]. One day he came to
my home to discuss the design of the [wedding] invitation. He asked permission to put
Rajini’s photo on it. It was only then that we found out that he was a Rajini fan. In my
home we all are Rajini fans, including my father, so we agreed that he could put Rajini’s
photo on the invitation. Now I am happy that my long-time dream has been fulfilled!
That wedding was in 1995, before today’s multicolor, offset design and
printing possibilities were available. The prints were mostly bicolor posters with
Figure 4 Cover of a wedding photo album with the bride and groom in the middle and the filmstar
Kamal Hassan on the left, talking into a microphone. (Photo studio Devi, Puducheri, 2002; used
with permission)
Intimacy on Display 391
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

minimal designs, as distinct from recent invitations that contain several special
effects in the use of colors and multiple ways of including the star. The invitation
shows two formal photos of Nalini and Saktivel, similar to I.D. photos. The image
of Rajinikanth shows the star with folded hands indicating the wishes he suppos-
edly gives to the bride and groom for their wedding.
Besides creating the still images used for invitations and later on wedding
albums, marriages are habitually also registered on video [Abraham 2010;
Gerritsen 2006]. These videos are made by photo studios and are not a linear
registration of the event but a filmic production that is edited and to which
extra-filmic imagery is added. The couple is thus situated within imaginary
landscapes clearly referring to the style also seen in the romantic scenes of film
songs. Couples, and sometimes the photo studio, select songs in which their
favorite star has a similar experience as they are experiencing at that moment,
thus relating their lives to their star. Moreover, I have come across various photo
albums of family events in which a movie star was included as if he were
present. Figure 4shows such a possibility of inserting a movie star for a wedding
album, made by the photo studio Devi. The album cover shows a portrait of the
bride and groom in the middle, and on the lower left corner a photo of the movie
actor Kamal Hassan, as if he were addressing the bridal couple for their
marriage.
These examples bring forward a way of including a movie star in familial pho-
tography. The use of images of the star is not a prerequisite, and family members
of fan club members do not always approve of it. Saktivel came to Nalini’s house
to ask her family’s permission to use Rajinikanth’s image. As the members of
Nalini’s family were also Rajinikanth fans they did not oppose it. But this is
not always the case, and using the image of a movie star may not always be
thought appropriate for momentous events such as weddings, when notions
on fandom are woven into discourses on class distinctions or useless activities
[Gerritsen 2012].
Nalini’s words already show how the image is not merely a way of connect-
ing to a star but also how this fandom may spark ties between husband and
wife. This connection goes beyond the images, as a star is also present in daily
parlance and allegiances that husband and wife, also brothers or sisters, have
with their favorite star. Rajinikanth can foster common ground for the newly-
wed couple. This also seemed to relate to Selvam, introduced earlier. He
married around two years after I first met him. He stressed that he was not
planning to change anything about his activities regarding Rajinikanth, empha-
sizing that he was planning to keep on spending money on imagery and other
activities related to the fan club, and would not change the decoration of his
house regardless of what his future wife might say. His biggest wish was a
wedding under the auspices of Rajinikanth. He tried to invite him by sending
his wedding invitation and later on the birthday celebration of his son to
Rajinikanth, secretly hoping that the star would respond. Selvam hoped that
I had better connections and so asked me to send the invitations, but still with
no effect: he never heard back from Rajinikanth. When I visited Selvam two
and a half years later he was married and had a son over a year old. His
wife explained, while Selvam was out cutting coconuts, how she shifted her
392 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

preference for an actor from Vijay to Rajinikanth. Even though she secretly still
liked Vijay’s films more, in their household she stated that she was now a
Rajinikanth fan. Rajinikanth’s films and the knowledge circulating about him
gave them common ground. The way in which Selvam’s wife was relating to
the commonly attributed characteristics of Rajinikanth was quite standardized
but did trickle into their familial life. They watched the same films, talked
about their mutual favorite star, and used his images on their invitations.
Rajinikanth’s real and reel character was seen as an example of good behavior
and for solving problems in their own lives.
I have met several women who changed allegiance to their husbands’ favorite
movie stars. This indicates that personal affection can inform fandom but also
shows how it is exchangeable and based on other selection criteria than merely
a personal attraction and affection for a movie star. Also fan club members some-
times changed from a previous fan club to one for another actor, if not satisfied
with what they got out of their club membership. It is beyond the scope of this
article to go into the details of such a shift in fan activity, but it does parallel
the ways in which women changed allegiance, even though the intricacies might
be different. It relates to the ways in which women, while moving into the house-
hold of a husband, have to adopt a new identity and role. ‘‘I like what my
husband likes’’ was a comment often heard, though sometimes they quietly
retained their own preference for an actor. Usually, where their husbands were
active beyond mere appreciation of films, in fan club activity, women were not
able to participate in such activities. Nalini, whose wedding invitation I just
described, complained with each release of a Rajinikanth film that she wanted
to see the film on the first day in the theater. These first days are special shows
where the predominantly male audience is celebrating seeing their actor, with
dancing, singing, music, and other embodied activities [L. Srinivas 2016: chap.
7]. But Saktivel, Nalini’s husband, kept turning her request down: ‘‘The theater
is not a place for women to be on the first day, it is full of men, and the film can-
not even be seen!’’ At home, though, they did watch films together, and Saktivel
often buys DVDs to watch at home.
Families not only have a deity they worship, but several of them I knew had a
‘‘family star’’ as well who was the favorite of everybody. Nalini and Saktivel
were one such family, for instance. They took pride in their son for being keen
on Rajinikanth, imitating his dances, buying his images and imitating his father’s
fan club activities by, for example, distributing sweets at school to celebrate a
new film release. Nalini explained to me how her son actually had his own favor-
ite star, namely Vijay. But despite this first choice he was also fond of Rajinikanth.
Saktivel, Nalini told me, tried to favor Rajinikanth by putting up his images
everywhere in the house, on the fridge and the walls, and by watching his films
in the main. ‘‘It worked,’’ Nalini declared. Children regularly adopt their father’s
favorite actor but then later or simultaneously have their own favorite who is
concurrent to their generation. This is also exemplified by the names given to
stars. Selvam told me proudly that his son reacts on hearing or seeing Rajinikanth
on television, calling him ta¯ta¯, ‘‘grandfather.’’ While scanning through a recent
photo album of Selvam’s, their son indeed reacted instantly on seeing
Rajinikanth’s image. Without his own father around, Selvam and his family still
Intimacy on Display 393
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

have this elderly person in their household whom they could give their respect to
or intimately address with kinship terms.
Within familial relations Rajinikanth is ascribed an important role as patri-
arch of the family, not only in kinship terminology but also in the ways by
whichheisembeddedinthefamilialcontext. Let me illustrate this by the story
ofBalradjandhisson.Balradj,amaninhisforties,worksasalawyerandisa
fan club member high up in the hierarchy in Puducheri. He told me how he
detected problems with his son who, as he put it, got infected by Rajinikanth
throughhisownactiveroleinthefanclub.Henoticedthatasfatherhewas
not in control of his son anymore, and needed the help of Rajinikanth to get
issonbackontherighttrack.
When you go and meet a religious person, you have some sort of chemistry in your entire
body. That is with all big personalities, but it is only with this person when I met him that I
felt some sort of vibration. My son also had some sort of attraction to him. Because of my
active involvement in the manram [fan club], this boy was only thinking about Rajini.
When he was sleeping, always Rajini Rajini Rajini. The money I spent on my son’s health
was exorbitant. I took him to all the best doctors, but they said: fix an appointment with
Rajinikanth and take him to him. Only then, this boy will come to normalcy. Only he can
solve it. After Rajinikanth came to know this, he said that he wanted to meet my son
immediately. He just asked ‘What is the story? What problem is the boy facing?’ I
answered ‘This boy only wants to be with you! Not even with me! He is my son, but he
wants only you, he wants to be with you! He wants to spend time with you.’ Rajini sir said
to my son, ‘Study good afterwards, don’t worry, we’ll put you through, you can come and
meet me at any time. All we want you to do is to study well.’ While he had his hands
around my son and was talking, my son had been staring at him. He was dumbfounded!
Perplexed on seeing him. This advice had that much of effect! Now, my son is going for his
exams in B.Com. The boy is okay now.
A few themes come together here which I would like to point to. First of all,
Rajinikanth is seen as the patriarch who is listened to with respect by Balradj’s
son, bypassing his actual father. Rajinikanth has taken over the family patriarch’s
position. Secondly, this brings us to deference and veneration of family patri-
archs and especially the gaze. Balradj noted the importance of seeing and being
seen, the darshanic power of the gaze. The story parallels several other narratives
of fans or their children that I heard, that relate to the similarity to religious ima-
gery that images of Rajinikanth seem to have. Several fans or parents of fans
whom I met recalled how they were always distracted in school, thinking about
Rajinikanth and his films, or drawing his image in their notebooks. Parents com-
plained that their children were spending so much time on their actor, losing
their heads in the world of cinema, and wasting money on fan activity. Different
kinds of trace (tactical, indexical) of the star worked to ‘‘heal’’ them, as with Bal-
radj’s son.
This is also exemplified by a youthful memory of Saktivel, whose wedding
invitation we noted earlier and who has been a fan of Rajinikanth since child-
hood. I can imagine Saktivel, at the age of 13, eagerly wanting to see a newly
released Rajinikanth movie. He got cinema money from his parents but instead
of spending it on a ticket bought sweets to distribute at the theater, as is
394 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

commonly done by fan clubs. Afterwards he had no money left for an actual
ticket, and in the meantime his parents were out so he could not ask them for
more money. He decided to earn some money by collecting and selling firewood.
He climbed a tree, fell out of it, and was severely injured. Even though he could
not walk properly, Saktivel was determined to see the film. With a broken leg he
stumbled to the theater and saw the film, after which he was hospitalized for
months. His mother, Saktivel recounted, knew that nothing would please him
more than an image of Rajinikanth, so she went to Chennai and tried to meet
Rajinikanth to get a photo of him, but in vain. Instead, she met Rajinikanth’s
All India fan club president Sathyanarayanan, who agreed to give her his auto-
graph. This autograph pleased Saktivel almost as much as a photo of Rajinikanth
would have done. Even when Saktivel tells me the story he enjoys recalling it and
keeps emphasizing how happy he was with this autograph, keeping it under his
pillow. He did not need anything else. The autograph here also seems to work as
an index: Sathyanarayanan’s autograph became a physical token of Rajinikanth’s
proximity. This indexical connection is almost tactical: it works like medicine or a
magical cure, it has mana.
Up to now I have shown how in family lives filmstars come to play a role as
common ground, as patriarch, and are inserted in images and indexical traces
as a presence, as an object of veneration and protection. In the rest of this article
I will show how meeting a star and the indexical and memorized traces of this
meeting become crucial in images that fans keep at home.
INTIMATE ENCOUNTERS
For Selvam and his brother images played an important role in being a fan from
early childhood.
After father and mother, he [Rajini] is my breath. I have liked him a lot since I was a child.
Even then, we painted on small cloth banners and celebrated [movie releases] at the thea-
ter in a grand manner with fire crackers. Also for his birthday we celebrated and distrib-
uted milk and chocolate to children. My mother scolded me sometimes but I didn’t pay
attention to her.
I was a fan of Rajini and my elder brother was a Kamal [Hassan] fan, so we held
competitions to collect their images. At the time, when we were going to school, our par-
ents gave us some pocket money. I purchased Rajini photos but my brother found them
and he spoiled the images. So we often fought with each other. And when I was in school
I was always thinking about Rajini and his movies.
Selvam’s childhood memories resonate in many other childhood stories I heard
from fans.
3
Brothers and sisters fight over images or fight over which film to see
on television. When I met Selvam he actively collected and displayed images. He
spent a considerable amount of his modest earnings on collecting and producing
images in the form of posters, wall paintings and large billboards for display out-
side his home. He also produced elaborate invitations that contain Rajinikanth’s
image, for family events. If he could not afford it himself he borrowed money
from friends to cover the costs.
Intimacy on Display 395
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

With slight embarrassment but primarily with pride Selvam admitted that he
gives preference to his star over his family. ‘‘How many fans have you met? Did
you ever see such a collection? You cannot find one! I have collected even the
smallest piece of paper with his image.... Did you ever see such a variety of
photos of Rajini? See, I have pasted them all over my house, even on the TV
and everywhere else. I have only one photo of my mother, the rest are all of
Rajini.’’ Selvam’s mother died a couple of months before I first met him. He felt
guilty since he had been spending large amounts of money on the fan club and
his collection of Rajinikanth but had not yet devoted as much attention to his
mother’s death. He urgently needed to frame a picture of her and display it in
his home, but had not yet done so. In the meantime he had displayed new images
of Rajinikanth. It was only months after this confession that he managed to put
up his mother’s image too.
The best-preserved and most displayed images are the ones recounting fans’
meetings with the star. They are often enlarged and framed and figure proudly
in homes or offices or get stored away in pockets or wallets. It is a fan’s ultimate
dream to meet Rajinikanth at least once in his lifetime, even though most will
never do so. Selvam was extremely keen on meeting Rajinikanth, seeing his
movies and the images that circulate of him: ‘‘All I want is to see him. We have
to bring some fans to him, take a picture with him, and that is enough. That is
what we are working for.’’
The importance Selvam puts on seeing Rajinikanth refers to the desire of prox-
imity to a star, and can again be explained in terms of darshan. Images mediate
this sensual viewing. In these images the eyes of those portrayed are often look-
ing directly at the viewer, thereby exchanging gazes with him or her. In this way,
seeing the star in real life is transferred to the image that serves as the mediator of
exchange, also after the meeting has ended. In other words, it prolongs the gaze.
Meeting the star is thus what all fans wish for, but this meeting is not complete
without a photographic memento, preferably one that can be enlarged and
framed. Selvam indicated this by stating: ‘‘We take a picture with him, and that
is enough.’’ Most fans I have worked with, when they talked about their meeting
with Rajinikanth or when they expressed the hope of meeting him, showed this
in their desire to have a photograph with Rajinikanth. Selvam did meet
Rajinikanth, but was frustrated that he did not have a photo of this meeting.
He still hoped that he could meet him again, so he worked for it by showing
his dedication to the club as a genuine fan. Needless to say, taking a picture does
not always happen for fans. Most have never met the star personally and, if they
have, the photos were not always fit for use. Several fans showed me photos of
their meeting that were badly framed or out of focus due to the hectic moment
and the fact that the photographer was as overwhelmed as the others by seeing
Rajinikanth, and therefore just pressed the button without paying attention.
Nevertheless, in spite of being blurred or badly framed, at least the photo was
evidence and a keepsake of the event. Without one, the meeting did not really
count, as shown by disappointed fans who did meet Rajinikanth but had no
photo of the occasion. Since they could not show ‘‘evidence’’ to their family, fel-
low fans and others, they did not talk about their meeting in the same way as fans
who had such photos.
396 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

So when Selvam told me that he did not have a picture of his meeting with
Rajinikanth, I was surprised to find a framed photo of him and Rajinikanth on
his television set [Figure 5]. ‘‘How is that possible? Where does that picture come
from?’’ I asked. Selvam was at first reluctant to reveal the story but then
explained that he asked a photo studio to retouch a photo of another fan who
did meet Rajinikanth, replacing that person’s face with his own.
Selvam’s retouching of the photo demonstrates that images do not have to be
indexical to be effective. While the photo is not indexical it becomes indexical as it
replaces the traces of the actual meeting he once had. Selvam’s wife didn’t know
about the retouching of this photo, viewing it as proof of Selvam’s accomplish-
ment in meeting Rajinikanth. Selvam left it that way, not wanting to admit the
disappointment of not having photographic evidence of his meeting. This was
now the evidence; this would suggest that such a photo of a meeting of the star
actually should be indexical and a reliable representation of what is photographed.
The manipulated image is a construction of something that did take place but
had no indexical trace, something that would be desirable to have. Going beyond
the Peircean distinction of icons, symbols and indexes, Barthes pointed out how
the photograph is not a copy of reality but an emanation of a past reality: ‘‘the
photograph possesses an evidential force, and that is that its testimony bears
not on the object but on time’’ [1981: 88–89]. We can think about the retouched
photos as a way of creating what has been, not as a copy of reality but as a
production of it.
Figure 5 Rajinikanth and Selvam, Puducheri. Date and photographer unknown. (Selvam’s
personal collection; used with permission)
Intimacy on Display 397
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

At the same time Selvam’s reluctance shows that certain photographic
practices are not acceptable. His reluctance lies at another level, which points
to the fine balance between public and private selves, or genuine fandom and
exceeding what fandom should be. It is the location of display, the everyday
space of the home, and of who gets to see the photos that bring about leeway
in what is possible.
Another example of retouching to evoke intimacy is the next image. Figure 6
shows a meeting with the late Ranjit, who was a friend of Selvam and also a
Rajinikanth fan. He had met Rajinikanth once, but not alone. Being a billboard
painter Ranjit replaced the other person in the photo by continuing the
Figure 6 Rajinikanth and Ranjit, Puducheri. Date unknown. (Ranjit’s family collection; used
with permission)
398 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

background and added Rajinikanth’s arm which was previously around the
shoulders of the person he erased. He also repainted the wall in the back and
added flowers in the doorway, probably to hide the objects and keep one’s atten-
tion on what is important in the photo. So where Selvam replaced someone else
with his image, Ranjit erased someone to make the image entirely his own.
Figure 7displays another example of a retouched photograph of actual and
constructed meetings with the star which figured in a personal album of Saktivel.
In this figure the fans, who haven’t met Rajinikanth on this occasion, have added
Rajinikanth on either side. The tactical link lies in the fact that former All India
Rajinikanth Fan Club leader Sathyanarayanan is present next to three fan club
members, i.e., Ibrahim, Saktivel and Murugan. Those club members not present
(and of lower rank in the club) have been added with passport sized photos on
the bottom of the image. Rajinikanth has been added with two ‘‘natural stills.’’ By
using the term ‘‘natural stills’’ fans were referring to photos of Rajinikanth that
were not taken from movies but were of his off-screen self. A natural still could
therefore give the photo a more ‘‘realistic’’ look. As a result, ‘‘natural stills’’ were
mainly used for personal occasions such as wedding invitations, whereas ‘‘movie
stills’’ were used for images produced at movie releases and other fan club
events. In this way a filmstar is naturally included in the ‘‘familial gaze,’’
becoming part of the memories, narratives and experiences of family life.
Figure 7 Image constructed from the photo of a meeting with the former AIRFC leader
Sathyanarayanan with Ibrahim, Saktivel and Murugan. Rajinikanth appears on the left- and
right-hand side. Vannur, date unknown. (Saktivel’s personal collection; used with permission)
Intimacy on Display 399
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

Retouching and collage techniques are commonly used for images in Tamil
Nadu and India at large, for example in wedding albums or in studio portraits
[Gerritsen 2006; Pinney 1997a]. From the beginning, personal photographs in
India have been more than indexical photographic documentation [Pinney
1997a]. In studio photography, popular throughout the years, photo settings
and poses are staged and manipulated to signify possible states of being that
‘‘leave substantive traces of what otherwise would be mere dreams’’ [ibid.: 91].
People pose in front of backdrops of all kinds of imaginary scenes, as they did
even in the 19th century. What makes the liberal use of paint unproblematic,
Pinney suggests, is the lack of desire in India to capture someone within a tem-
poral and spatial framework. Moreover, photography does not capture the
‘‘inner’’ character visible by its physiognomic traces. In this way, creating a
romantic wedding narrative or positioning yourself next to Rajinikanth in a
manipulated image is not problematic, as in this case a photo is not just an index-
ical trace of the ‘‘real": what we see is merely the person’s physiognomy in a
constructed dream world. The efficacy of the image however is more than that.
Proximity by physically putting objects together, as Pinney has also shown in
his work, imbues the image with power [ibid.]. The use of photos of Rajinikanth
works in similar ways. It creates traces of the star where they would otherwise be
mere fantasies. For fans, the power of these kinds of image lies, first and fore-
most, in the pleasure of seeing yourself with your star. But by embedding the star
in the familial surrounding of familial images, it naturalizes his presence and
comes to be inserted in family practices of deference.
MIMESIS AND ITS LIMITS
Annamalai, who works as an auto-rickshaw driver, is proud to be the only
person in Puducheri with a Rajinikanth flag fluttering on top of his small vehicle.
He tries to imitate Rajinikanth in every possible way, admiring him particularly
in the highly successful movie Baadsha [Burmawalla and Burmawalla 1995], in
which the actor played a rickshaw driver. During a conversation with Annamalai
in his rickshaw, he kept emphasizing to me that nothing is more important to
him than waking up and seeing Rajinikanth’s image first. It is not his wife or
his children he wants to see, it is Rajinikanth. That, he says, is why there is such
a huge poster of the actor above their bed. Indeed, in their small one-room home
this poster is visible from every corner of the room. Underneath the poster stands
a huge television set with two framed images [Figure 8].
In order to emphasize that he imitates Rajinikanth in every possible way,
Annamalai combined his own photo with Rajinikanth’s in two picture frames.
One of them shows an enlarged portrait of Rajinikanth to which he has added
a passport-size photo of himself in a similar pose. In the other frame he enlarged
himself instead and added the original passport-size photo of Rajinikanth. Just as
other fans had their meeting with the star framed and displayed in their living
rooms, Annamalai framed his attachment to Rajinikanth by mimicking him
and in this way enhanced proximity, and hence intimacy, with the star [Pinney
2001]. It creates a narrative that is shared, not because Rajinikanth shares the
400 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

narrative but because the image makes Rajinikanth come closer and be embed-
ded in everyday memories. This is enforced by the play with the physical and
imaginary size of the two men, Rajinikanth and Annamalai.
Annamalai is playing with mimicry by copying Rajinikanth’s pose, but he is
also mimicking the latter’s eminence by both enlarging and reducing his own
image and that of Rajinikanth. But who actually mimics whom here? Can we
speak of an original and a copy in this case? This reversal mimesis ‘‘becomes
an enactment not merely of and [sic] original but by an ‘original’’’ [Taussig
1993: 79; his emphasis]. Benjamin defined the mimetic faculty as the capacity
to copy and to become the other [Buck-Morss 1989]. Taussig, drawing on
Benjamin’s work, has pointed to the sensuous connection between perceiver
and perceived and mimesis as ‘‘the nature that culture uses to create second
nature’’ [1993: xiii]. He argues that mimesis not only copies the appearance of
the ‘‘other’’ but also appropriates its power. In this way, mimesis is not just a
reproductive but rather a productive act; Annamalai does not become a copy
or something similar but accentuates his own identity by means of mimesis.
But there are limits to the agency of mimesis, due to fan community constraints.
On the one hand Annamalai is actively mimicking Rajinikanth, and in this way
confirms his genuine devotion to his hero; on the other hand, the way in which
he does this—by comparing himself to Rajinikanth’s largesse—is considered as
Figure 8 Rajinikanth and Annamalai, and Annamalai and Rajinikanth. Puducheri, date
unknown. (Annamalai’s personal collection; used with permission)
Intimacy on Display 401
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

inappropriate. Copying the star’s posture, clothes or hairstyle is acceptable, but
fans consider it inappropriate if you depict yourself as large as or larger than
the star. This would suggest, they say, that you see yourself as being as significant
as the star. The fact that Annamalai knows he is crossing the fine line between
devotional intimacy and identification thus acknowledges the existence of the
original; yet as it is an image, it works in both ways for Annamalai.
But these limits to the creativity and mimesis of fans depend largely on the site
of display. The personal, domestic spaces and personal appropriations of a star
allow more liberty for mimetic performance than public spaces do. Even though
simulacra seem to go beyond their original, I argue that they are bounded by
social and spatial limitations that are not instilled by the ‘‘original’’ but by those
engaging with the images. These limits, and importantly the zone of flexibility
and ambiguity in which they navigate, tell us as much about the production of
images as the act of mimicking itself does.
CONCLUSION
In this article I have narrated several instances of fandom being imbricated with
family life. I have shown how fandom is part of familial settings as brothers fight
over their filmstar, wives shift to their husband’s favorite star and families have a
family-star that several generations seem to admire. Deceased mothers are set
aside to a second place of honor or a filmstar becomes one’s first desire after wak-
ing up. I have framed these narratives in terms of everyday family relations and
forms of religious practice (darshan) and in terms of the ways in which images
mediate the presence of the star. I have also shown how the ways in which stars
come into view in family settings go beyond commonplace practices of deference,
as fans can also privilege their star over their family and perform acts of mimicry
that are actually impeded by community constraints. Therefore a direct link
between religious devotion and deference by fans restrains our understanding
of these practices. Fandom goes beyond veneration in being always on the edge
of devotion, creating hierarchies but also transcending these hierarchies and fam-
ily roles. Selvam emphasized that he continued to spend money on the fan club,
despite new responsibilities as a husband, or put the images for Rajinikanth in
the prime place, despite his mother’s death. Also in images, the boundary
between devotion and playing with hierarchical relations comes into play.
Images, I have argued, are quintessential in mediating desires and imagina-
tions of the daily attachments with a star and with the everyday social environ-
ment. They facilitate these personal desires and memories. As material objects
they become the trace of something that has been—c¸aae
´te
´,in Barthes’ words—
and become a residue of proximity. Fans pursue proximity outside the realm
of the photo but in many cases do not reach their desire; photos then become a
stand-in for this desire. Finally, following Taussig, I discussed the potential of
mimesis but also its limits. As a filmstar is a distant yet desired person, copies
of the star in the form of images and imitating the star can bring him closer. Fans,
by mimicking their star and by individually appropriating and manipulating his
images, take possession of the original. As such, the images become a presence on
402 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

their own. At the same time however, mimicking engenders questions of hier-
archy and putting yourself on the same height as a hero. And that goes too far
if displayed for everyone to see. The limits of display refer once more to bound-
aries and the public and private expressions that fandom maintains.
NOTES
1. See Ramaswamy [1998] specifically on language devotion and how metaphors of
motherhood in Tamil Nadu came to dominate representations of language. For a brief
ethnographic sketch of the Tamils, see Maloney [1992].
2. See, among others, Jain [2007], Taylor [2003], Ramaswamy [2010], and Pinney [2004] for
a discussion on images related to the reciprocal gaze.
3. This story reminds me of a scene in the movie Slumdog Millionaire [Boyle and Tandan
2008] in which the protagonist, when still a young boy living in a Mumbai slum, is in
raptures because of the autograph he got from the celebrated filmstar Amitabh
Bachchan. In the next scene, to his sorrow and rage, his slightly older brother sells
the signature, which leads to a fight between the two.
REFERENCES
Abraham, Janaki
2010 Wedding Videos in North Kerala: Technologies, Rituals, and Ideas about Love and
Conjugality. Visual Anthropology Review, 26(2): 116–127.
Appadurai, Arjun, and Carol A. Breckenridge
1992 Museums Are Good to Think: Heritage on View in India. In Museums and Communities: The Poli-
tics of Public Culture. Ivan Karp, ed. Pp. 34–55. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Babb, Lawrence A.
1981 Glancing: Visual Interaction in Hinduism. Journal of Anthropological Research, 37(4): 387–401.
1986 Redemptive Encounters: Three Religious Movements in Modern Hindu Tradition. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Barthes, Roland
1981 Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang.
Benjamin, Walter
1969 The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. In his Illuminations. Hannah
Arendt, ed. Pp. 217–252. New York: Schocken Books.
Blamey, David, and Robert D’Souza
2005 Living Pictures: Perspectives on the Film Poster in India. London: Open Editions.
Buck-Morss, Susan
1989 The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dickey, Sara
1993 Cinema and the Urban Poor in South India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
(Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology).
2005 Still ‘One Man in a Thousand.’ In Living Pictures: Perspectives on the Film Poster in India.
David Blamey and Robert D’Souza, eds. Pp. 69–78. London: Open Editions.
Doss, Erika
1999 Elvis Culture: Fans, Faith, and Image. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Dwyer, Rachel
2000 All You Want Is Money, All You Need Is Love. London: Cassell.
2006 Filming the Gods: Religion and Indian Cinema. New York: Routledge.
Eck, Diana L.
1981 Dar
´san: Seeing the Divine Image in India. Chambersburg, PA: Anima Books (Focus on
Hinduism and Buddhism).
Intimacy on Display 403
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

Gerritsen, Roos
2006 Tamil Wedding Souvenirs of Predictive Love: Future Memories in South India. Etnofoor,
19(2): 5–22.
2012 Fandom on Display: Intimate Visualities and the Politics of Spectacle. Leiden: Leiden
University; Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology.
Guha-Thakurta, Tapati
2003 The Compulsion of Visual Representation in Colonial India. In Traces of India: Photography,
Architecture, and the Politics of Representation, 1850–1900. M. A. Pelizzari, ed. Pp. 108–139.
Quebec: Canadian Centre for Architecture.
Hardgrave, Robert L.
1973 Politics and the Film in Tamilnadu: The Stars and the DMK. Asian Survey, 13(3): 288–305.
Hawkins, Sophie
1999 Bordering Realism. The Aesthetics of Sai Baba’s Mediated Universe. In Image Journeys:
Audio-Visual Media and Cultural Change in India. Christiane Brosius and Melissa Butcher,
eds. Pp. 139–163. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Hirsch, Marianne
1999 The Familial Gaze. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College.
Hockings, Paul
1999 Kindreds of the Earth: Badaga Household Structure and Demography. New Delhi, London and
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Jacob, Preminda
1998 Media Spectacles: The Production and Reception of Tamil Cinema Advertisements. Visual
Anthropology, 11(4): 287–322.
Jain, Kajri
2007 Gods in the Bazaar: The Economies of Indian Calendar Art. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Maloney, Clarence
1992 Tamil. In Encyclopedia of World Cultures Volume Three South Asia. David Levinson and Paul
Hockings, eds. Pp. 275–279. Boston: G. K. Hall.
Mankekar, Purnima
2004 Dangerous Desires: Television and Erotics in Late Twentieth-Century India. Journal of Asian
Studies, 63(2): 403–431.
Marshall, P. David
2002 Cinematic Apparatus and the Film Celebrity. In The Film Cultures Reader. Graeme Turner,
ed. Pp. 228–240. London and New York: Routledge.
Mazumdar, Ranjani
2007 The Bombay Film Poster. In India’s Popular Culture: Iconic Spaces and Fluid Images. Jyotindra
Jain, ed. Pp. 90–103. New Delhi: Marg Publications.
Meyer, Birgit
2011 Mediating Absence—Effecting Spiritual Presence: Pictures and the Christian Imagination.
Social Research, 78(4): 1029–1056.
Mines, Diane P., and Sarah E. Lamb (eds.)
2010 Everyday Life in South Asia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Mitchell,W.J.T.
2005 What Do Images Want? The Lives and Loves of Images.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.
Morgan, David
1998 Visual Piety: A History and Theory of Popular Religious Images. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
2005 The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Pandian, Anand
2008 Cinema in the Countryside: Popular Tamil Film and the Remaking or Rural Life. In Tamil
Cinema: The Cultural Politics of India’s Other Film Industry. Selvaraj Velayutham, ed.
Pp. 124–138. New York: Routledge.
Pandian, M. S.S.
1992 The Image Trap: M.G. Ramachandran in Film and Politics. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
404 R. Gerritsen
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016

Pinney, Christopher
1997a Camera Indica: The Social Life of Indian Photographs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1997b The Nation (un)Pictured? Chromolithography and ‘Popular’ Politics in India, 1878–1995.
Critical Inquiry, 23(4): 834–867.
2001 Piercing the Skin of the Idol. In Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of Enchantment.
Christopher Pinney and Nicholas Thomas, eds. Pp. 157–180. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
2004 Photos of the Gods: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
2006 Four Types of Visual Culture. In Handbook of Material Culture. Christopher Tilley, Webb
Keane, Susanne Kuchler, Michael Rowlands and Patricia Spyer, eds. Pp. 131–144. London:
Sage Publications.
Poole, Deborah
1997 Vision, Race, and Modernity; A Visual Economy of the Andean Image World. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Ramaswamy, Sumathi
1998 Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891–1970. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers.
2010 The Goddess and the Nation. Mapping Mother India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rogers, Martyn
2009 ’Between Fantasy and ‘Reality’: Tamil Film Star Fan Club Networks and the Political
Economy of Film Fandom. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 32(1): 63–85.
Rojek, Chris
2001 Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books.
Srinivas, Lakshmi
2016 House Full. Indian Cinema and the Active Audience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Srinivas, Tulasi
2012 Articles of Faith: Material Piety, Devotional Aesthetics and the Construction of a Moral
Economy in the Transnational Sathya Sai Movement. Visual Anthropology, 25(4): 270–302.
Strassler, Karen
2010 Refracted Visions: Popular Photography and National Modernity in Java. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Taussig, Michael
1993 Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. London and New York: Routledge.
Taylor, Woodman
2003 Penetrating Gazes: The Poetics of Sight and Visual Display in Popular Indian Cinema. In
Beyond Appearances? Visual Practices and Ideologies in Modern India. Sumathi Ramaswamy,
ed. Pp. 297–322. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Thomas, Rosie
1995 Melodrama and the Negotiation of Morality in Mainstream Hindi Film. In Consuming
Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World. Carol A. Breckenridge, ed. Pp. 157–182.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Trawick, Margaret
1990 Notes on Love in a Tamil Family. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Uberoi, Patricia
1990 Feminine Identity and National Ethos in Indian Calendar Art. Economic and Political Weekly.
2006 Freedom and Destiny: Gender, Family, and Popular Culture in India. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
FILMOGRAPHY
Boyle, Danny, and Lovely Tandan (dirs.)
2008 Slumdog Millionaire. Starring Dev Patel. Hollywood: Warner Brothers; color, 120 mins.
Burmawalla, A. A., and M. A. Burmawalla (dirs.)
1995 Baadsha. Starring Shah Rukh Khan and Twinkle Khanna. London: Ayngaran International;
color, 175mins.
Intimacy on Display 405
Downloaded by [Roos Gerritsen] at 21:55 24 July 2016