Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram indha dikkinity matter-ai konjam psychoanalyze paNNa vEndi irukku. appuramaa...
Politically, I'd argue that Nadhiya should be leading the list though she would also be the most conspicuous entry in it. At a superficial level, she was supposed to represent the modern urban independent woman, but almost all her roles were patently in the child-woman mode; mischievous and cutesy break-the-little-rules type, but ultimately all too pliant. All the middle-class patronage she received (right from the sort of immense appreciation she always received for her "decent" costumes) was, as I see it, a profound reflection of the Victorian-style morality of the middle-class.
I must also add that I find the label "touch-me-not heroines" quite caricatural. We're talking about an industry which stops offering lead roles to an actress because she got married. An industry which insists on labelling actresses either "this way" or "that way." (It is essentially this kind of binary classification that narrows down the "possibilities" in their careers.) It is bleeding obvious that the kind of difficulties an actress would have to face to establish and assert her identity will be much more compared to an actor. So I'm more than a bit wary of slotting an actress as a "touch me not" type, because it could very well be the case that her expectations as an actress were very reasonable.