The best and worst "Bollywood" actors
In between those political stories, it would not be out of place to discuss the Hindi film industry. More so when the media is increasingly viewing entertainment as news.
The acting talents, or the lack thereof, of our movie stars are often discussed by film lovers. So much so that there are orkut communities dedicated to many of these stars. If the media is to be believed, Shah Rukh is a bundle of energy, a euphemism for melodrama, and Aamir is the first perfect thing to happen to the world after God. Salman, too, is seen by some as shirtlessly serious.
Well, before being judgemental, we should see what acting as a craft is all about. It is basically an attempt to represent reality; to recreate an existent cultural context on the screen. The performing artiste, in this sense, becomes a symbol of the entire social milieu, or milieus, that a particular film industry is situated in. In short, social location defines art.
What, then, is the milieu that the Hindi film industry supposedly reflects. It is primarily north and central India. The cultural territory of the Hindi film world broadly lies between Punjab and Bengal from west to east, and Kashmir and Maharashtra from north to south. In this geographical space are situated cultures -- agrarian material cultures, some zones of industry, and particular sets of caste, religious and gender relations.
A good actor in the sociological sense, thus, is anyone who can ably represent this cultural complex through his performances. In recent times, I would particularly mention the efforts of Naseeruddin Shah and Sarika in playing a Parsi couple in Parzania, different roles played by Konkona Sen Sharma, Saif's depiction of Langda Tyagi in Omkara, Irrfan Khan's roles in Haasil and TheNamesake, and even Govinda's depiction of a Poorvanchali taxi driver in Salaam-e-Ishq.
By this yardstick, among the worst recent performances would be Shah Rukh Khan's unrealistic depictions of a Bengali in Devdas and of a simpleton from east U.P. in Don, a part Amitabh played very well in the original.
Shah Rukh is a non-actor for the simple reason that he cannot play any section of the population of the aforementioned cultural space convincingly. He can play even a Punjabi only if it's a metro-based or NRI role. Even someone like Akshay Kumar, who is generally wooden, would play a Punjabi farmer much more convincingly.
The reason why we hear so much about the likes of SRK is because the multiplex and NRI viewers, both representing microscopic minorities, can identify with them. And they are the ones who pay those hefty sums for movie tickets, and provide a good collection to aesthetically poor and culturally hollow movies.
The acting talents, or the lack thereof, of our movie stars are often discussed by film lovers. So much so that there are orkut communities dedicated to many of these stars. If the media is to be believed, Shah Rukh is a bundle of energy, a euphemism for melodrama, and Aamir is the first perfect thing to happen to the world after God. Salman, too, is seen by some as shirtlessly serious.
Well, before being judgemental, we should see what acting as a craft is all about. It is basically an attempt to represent reality; to recreate an existent cultural context on the screen. The performing artiste, in this sense, becomes a symbol of the entire social milieu, or milieus, that a particular film industry is situated in. In short, social location defines art.
What, then, is the milieu that the Hindi film industry supposedly reflects. It is primarily north and central India. The cultural territory of the Hindi film world broadly lies between Punjab and Bengal from west to east, and Kashmir and Maharashtra from north to south. In this geographical space are situated cultures -- agrarian material cultures, some zones of industry, and particular sets of caste, religious and gender relations.
A good actor in the sociological sense, thus, is anyone who can ably represent this cultural complex through his performances. In recent times, I would particularly mention the efforts of Naseeruddin Shah and Sarika in playing a Parsi couple in Parzania, different roles played by Konkona Sen Sharma, Saif's depiction of Langda Tyagi in Omkara, Irrfan Khan's roles in Haasil and TheNamesake, and even Govinda's depiction of a Poorvanchali taxi driver in Salaam-e-Ishq.
By this yardstick, among the worst recent performances would be Shah Rukh Khan's unrealistic depictions of a Bengali in Devdas and of a simpleton from east U.P. in Don, a part Amitabh played very well in the original.
Shah Rukh is a non-actor for the simple reason that he cannot play any section of the population of the aforementioned cultural space convincingly. He can play even a Punjabi only if it's a metro-based or NRI role. Even someone like Akshay Kumar, who is generally wooden, would play a Punjabi farmer much more convincingly.
The reason why we hear so much about the likes of SRK is because the multiplex and NRI viewers, both representing microscopic minorities, can identify with them. And they are the ones who pay those hefty sums for movie tickets, and provide a good collection to aesthetically poor and culturally hollow movies.
posted by vikaspathak at 1:04 PM
5 Comments:
I am not a movie person, and it is with great hesitation that I write here. My lack of knowledge be excused!
Vikas, except for those few movies that you cite, are Hindi movies really 'Hindi'? Except for the language, I would argue that they are not.
Any genuine art form must be intimately connected with the land of its performance - as you put it, recreate an existing cultural context.
More so, it must renew itself from that particular cultural context. It must seek its idiom and meaning from the land.
Does the Bollywood movie do either? It does not represent any land or culture (bourgeoisie mass culture, maybe, but that is a different matter).
Neither does it seek meaning from that culture. It projects an aspirational class, whose objects of desire are those which are held out by the forces of globalisation.
A simple question should suffice to underline the point I make here. In a Bollywood movie of recent times, does the caste, or the region, or the religion of the protagonists have any salience?
The answer is no. SRK might be a Punjabi NRI, but does it have any relevance? Does it change the meaning of the movie (except, maybe, allow for lavish weddings and suchlike)?
On the contrary, these markers are glossed over. The protagonist is just the protagonist. Everone (the good people, at least) are the same as him. It is a monochrome world out there.
And yet, the 'no' needs to be qualified. The glossing over and normalising of the glossed over, de-casted, de-regionised, de-religionised protagonist reflects the mindset of a class that believes in 'merit', and that these ascriptive markers have no relevance to what a person is or comes out to be.
People ought to be like us, or they do not exist, so it seems, the subtle message of the movie.
It is not merely coincidence that the candyfloss genre of movies began along the same time as liberalisation, and also at the emergence of the great debate on merit.
These ideas are precisely of those who patronise those movies in the multiplexes. Who cares if cinema halls in the hinterlands are empty? Ten seats in the multiplex would give you the same revenue! Make movies for the multiplex crowd... Let Mithunda service the rest!
I know that my references are limited to the movies of the Khans and their ilk, but I believe you too refer to them alone.
Cheri,
Well, I entirely agree with you. But one recent comedy that was somewhat grounded was Priyadarshan's Maalamaal Weekly.
Religion as part of popular culture does not feature in movies now, but it is present in one way: the teary-eyed Hindu NRI singing a song in front of life-size images of gods in a large room of his extra-large bungalow after having descended from a helicoptor. It's another matter that I havent seen this form of worship ever in real life.
Well inspite of all your eloquent arguments,you can't deny the Brand Equity of a Shahrukh Khan today!! If he has not graduated into a Naseerudding it is because,we the paying public have refused to accept him in different roles. His different flicks like Maya Memsaab,Oh Darling Yeh hain India,Swades,Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa were promptly rebuffed at the box office. The fault ,my friend ,lies within us,we are the ones who want SRK to perpetuate his loverboy image!! Indian audience needs to mature for the likes of SRK to say " I'd rather act in a Parzania than pull of incredulous stunts in DON". After all,SRK has a wax statue in Madame Tussauds',not Naseer-thats what he will say now!!
Well Dipankar the IIM product in you and the Brahmaputra product in me can never agree on this. ha ha.. You look at success in terms of brand equity. Here if 10 per cent people rich enough to pay as much as 60 per cent who are poorer choose someone or something, it becomes a brand.
I look at success in terms of what art represents. If it is representative of just the tip -- which is often itself unrepresentative -- it counts for nothing in a sociological sense. If it can make you fathom the depths -- where brand loses its meaning as commerce no longer or hardly operates -- it has profound meaning.
If you compare SRK and Naseer, you'll see these two things as necessarily dichotomous, but try to compare SRK with Amitabh or even Raj Kapoor and Dilip Kumar, and then you will realise that SRK is just a brand -- like Reebock or Nike.
It Looks like someone has a real grudge against SRK! I personally believe that as a UK citizen living in the real world SRK's Don was far more realistic than Amitabh's as in real life a Interpol officer cannot be corrupt he would have gone under intense review! Secondly SRK broke alot of boundries in the Hindi Cinema yes he may be over rated but his performances have shown that he can do it better than anyone else, imagine Salman Khan playing the role of Devdas, or Aamir Khan playing the lead in DDLJ how about Akshay Kumar as a villan in Darr. SRK has proven again and again that he is the best in the industry, anyhow the Filmfare awards had to say alot about itself Hrithik Roshan as best actor? questionable in all angles, and it looks like Abhishek Bachan is a type cast fr best supporting role maybe its time we all took a step back of good looks and father's fame and start looking at the art rather than popularity, when i talk about art someone like Kajol who by far showed her integrity and greatness in Fanaa, but there are downsides such as the almighty Saif's villanous attire in Omkara, the point is the seduction of art tends the bend in a different direction when looking at true talent which deserves the praise like the best film in 2006 should have been KANK yet the boring and horrible Rang de Basanti was a winner this was due to controversy see the films history and you will know what i mean also that it made a lot of money, so it seems controversy does create cash and true talents tend to be ignored(Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla and so on).
Post a Comment
<< Home