letstalkaboutbollywood

précédent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 suivant

Samedi 7 avril 2007 6 07 /04 /Avr /2007 14:30

Amitabh's power

Hmm… Difficult ! The very fact of writing about « Big A » is daunting. Not only is the actor so impressive, but the person seems to demand respect, and of course the sheer length and scope of his career as a professional is amazing. I’ve seen films with him (only) from year 2000 onwards, and so I wonder whether he was as much in control in his younger roles. This is perhaps what strikes me most: this perfect control of his power. Obviously certain parts are better adapted to him, those which precisely involve power, but even in strange roles like the one of the father in KANK, he manages to fool you! During that scene where he's trying to justify his flirt with a young babe in front of his son, I remember thinking: “Oh, no! they’re not going to make him play that!” But he does it, he plays the old beau, with those outrageous glasses and behind them that vulgar leer… And it put Abishek completely off balance! I could actually feel what Abi must have been telling himself: “All right, I’ve got to go through it, HE’s doing it, by God!” But he didn’t really enjoy seeing Daddy-O do that. He was completely put off!

Amitabh Bachchan has great assets: his size, his voice, his dark eyes with their expressive eyelids, his lips which he has used to great effect (in Black, for instance). All these are especially effective in roles cut out for him, roles of fathers, leaders, commanders, etc (I was awed by his acting in Khakee). But what is especially good is his ability to vibrate with the role, to make it real and convincing. He can play pleasant grandfathers (Veer-Zaara) as successfully as stern headmasters (Mohabbatein), and we don’t carry with us a preconception of him as better fitted for baddies’ roles, as happens with Amrish Puri, for example. I am as ready to trust him in either role. Does this “power” mean that Amitabh Bachchan could do whatever he wants? Probably not beyond certain limits. But given Bollywood limits, which mean that actors have to satisfy spectators more than themselves or film-makers, I'd say he can stretch them further than anybody. I have practically never seen him play badly! When we do see him in soppy or pathetic parts (here I am reminded of Hum kisise kum Nahin), his talent is such that it’s the story that emerges bad. He somehow underlines the scenario’s weaknesses, just by playing so well. Our reaction is: “Whew, well if it weren’t for Amitabh…” Probably why they chose him for KBC!

If I now turn to his great roles, that is, the ones I know of course (I think I’ve seen 8 films with him playing… a little scant, yes) I would single out Kahbi Kushi Kabhi Gham, Khakee, and Black. I appreciated that little role in Veer-Zaara too, but of course it was minor. So I don’t think anyone will contradict me if I say that AB’s recent fame is based on the mastery, the rigour, the inventiveness and realism he puts in his roles. He appears, and immediately we feel at ease: there no distance between the character and the actor. He takes us along, he knows what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Instinct, yes, but also this knowledge of humanity, this clear-headedness and this charm that comes from the intimacy with the camera. He's quite forgotten that thing in front of him. Or, in fact, he's so accustomed to it that he can afford to seem to forget it, he can play in front of it with complete freedom and complete mastery.

In Khakee, his role is convincing in spite of the fact that he has to fight to impose a character which isn’t that easy to defend against Ajay’s. The comings and goings between the military leader and the father seemed to me a little weak, potentially. But he pulls it off superbly. The authority he displays against Ajay, who also plays very well, is a proof that age is not necessarily in disfavour of the actor (I'm placing myself from the spectator's point of view). In Black, Amitabh is a marvel of delicacy and inventiveness. I think the film is probably his, despite Rani’s great performance. She’s perhaps overdoing it a little (see article on “Rani’s magic” for my discussion of that). But he’s just there, obviously in command, undisturbed, just acting his part from beginning to end. I particularly enjoyed the moment when he has to face the mother’s despair and anger, who tells him his method will never work, that he has gone too far, and will not be allowed to continue as teacher. At that moment, he creates such a profound justification for his role that I could have wept. And in KKKG, an easier role for him perhaps, Amitabh is just great throughout. He masters the disagreeable bits as efficiently as the more gratifying ones, and makes the disappointed father utterly believable. He’s got this way of retreating in his personality that imposes a sort of respect of what he’s doing. One tells oneself (or at least, I tell myself): “OK, he’s doing that… not so gallant, not so sensitive”. But then his role-playing makes us trust him, and sure enough, he wins us over to his side. We feel pity for that father too, we understand him and become interested in his position.

On recent photos (this one in particular) I saw him more tired, more worn (but he’s only 65). Yet, on IMDb, I’ve seen he’s shooting something like 10 films in 2007!! And they count 169 films since 1969. This guy is a giant.

Ha! Young blood!!

Plus
- Email
- Lien
- Imprimer

Voir les 2 commentaires Communauté : L'UNIVERS DE BOLLYWOOD

Samedi 24 mars 2007 6 24 /03 /Mars /2007 16:55

Shahrukh Khan's charm

Okay, here we go : an article on « King » Khan. He’s of course inescapable in today’s Bollywood… perhaps a little too predictable, a little too much himself? But we’ll see him put to good use, in fact very good use, and also often not so good. On the whole, I must say I rather like him, so perhaps this review is going to be a little biased. First, he’s got this winning smile, those twinkling eyes, and this strong personality… Well, I’m a man, so I’m not much moved emotionally, but I can well see how ladies might feel. He obviously is a kind person, a good Dad, and a sensitive friend. You can feel all that. But perhaps it’s a little too apparent, and that might be his problem. He might be too see-through for his own good. He’s always so sure that he’s doing the right thing, that he’s very good. He is good, but too much self-confidence is not always an asset in acting: on the contrary, some diffidence, some soul-searching, some inaptitude (not too much, of course!) work marvels when you aren’t an accomplished professional. Shahrukh is still young; he’s still got lots to learn.

Let’s look at some of his roles. There’s Swades, Chalte chalte, there’s the trio KKHH, DDLJ, KGKG, but one of the best is the role he plays in Veer-Zaara, in which he gives life and depth to Captain Veer in a very convincing way. He has the grit, he has the strength, and he has the weakness, the fragility: they’re all there. The role is inspiring, true. But he jumps in it, and believes in it (Only thing I don’t like is the “Super handsome pilot” bits, but unfortunately, I can’t take it out of the film now). Shining on him are two of the brightest lights of Bollywood, Rani Mukherjee and Preity Zinta, lucky him (I recently saw the three of them together on YouTube for KBC, very nice, see Part 1 here). And it’s true he has been lucky. Probably too lucky in a sense. Again, as for others of the actors that the industry has used , Shahrukh has had a rather easy time. We see him in some good roles, but also in rather repetitive ones. I’ve counted that I’ve seen him in 17 different films, and the roles that really stand out as creative are limited, I regret to say.

So I find myself with this paradox: I like him, I like watching films with him, but I don’t really think he’s an exceptional actor. So why is that? I suppose his charm, his friendliness, his dependability make up for his “shahrukh-ness”, which is so recognizable, and a little worrying from an artistic point of view. Even films in films such as Josh or Baazigar, I am still watching old Shahrukh all along. I can’t really forget him. In Devdas, he didn’t really convince me, even though he plays rather nicely. But that’s it: he’s a rather good actor, he delivers well, but he can’t disappear behind his role. Only once, in Paheli, have I seen him wear a moustache! Obviously his physique is important for him.

I wonder whether this phenomenon which I am describing about Shahrukh Khan isn’t typical of Bollywood, in fact. What I mean is that being an actor (or an actress) in Bollywood films is not really about living your roles to the point that you create an artistic metamorphosis; you’re not supposed to become somebody else, you’re not expected to wear a mask and disappear behind it. This is a perspective which we have in the West, probably, which has evolved because of the influence of our own drama culture, and this culture emphasizes the attitude of the actor as a sort of creator. The actor must somehow recreate the character which he is impersonating, so that us spectators almost forget him, or rather, we don’t forget the actor, but the actor becomes the character, the actor re-evokes the character so well that we have in front of us like an avatar of the character, thanks to the actor’s work.

Now perhaps in Bollywood, actors aren’t expected to do that kind of work. Perhaps the type of alienation of their self as an actor isn’t really approved of? Or wouldn’t be understood? Perhaps what spectators are interested in is more the actor, and less the character? This would be coherent with a lot of what I know of Bollywood cinema, at least the recent cinema. It certainly corresponds to the type of actor that Shahrukh Khan is: the friendly, lovable actor that people like to see involved in their favourite stories: love-stories, revenge-stories, sacrifice-stories, etc… As he is, he focuses the spectators’ wishes and hopes much better than if he continuously adopted roles which they would not be ready to see him play, and which would mean stopping the identification procedure that is so important in fiction. It's all part of the seduction strategy which goes on on the screen!

What do you think of this theory? (It’s probably a little excessive, but, well, don’t hesitate to give me your impressions!)

Plus
- Email
- Lien
- Imprimer

Voir les 2 commentaires Communauté : L'UNIVERS DE BOLLYWOOD

Vendredi 16 mars 2007 5 16 /03 /Mars /2007 23:10

Rani's magic

Rani’s got (almost) everything. She’s not yet an internationally known actress, but in terms of Bollywood, I’d bet on her for the title of Best Actress (Amitabh is still the best Actor…) Let’s have a look: Black, Veer-Zaara, Yuva, Chalte chalte, Kabhi alvida na kehna, Hum tum, Kuch kuch hota hai… There is a long list of very nice compositions in which this unobtrusive actress is an essential ingredient.

I think there is a kind of magic in Rani Mukherjee. She obviously wants to lead a strong career. She isn’t married yet, has little flirts (that I know of), and plays in numerous films. The latter are nearly always blockbusters. But (at least in the movies above, and the half-dozen of other ones I’ve seen) the roles she chooses are all life-oriented, positive, constructive. I’m sure it’s a choice, because she would have the possibility to choose more baddies’ or losers’ roles if she wanted. But her talent enables her to choose, I’m sure. And what she chooses are those shining characters of women who fight, stand firm, hold on and resist. She naturally has lighter roles too, mostly roles of lovers (KKHH, Saathiyaa, Paheli…) that are more or less star-crossed, more or less successful (Chori chori chupke chupke), but even in these roles, she often contributes to the film in no small measure. And even in those roles, the same general choice prevails.

Obviously, I know that Bollywood cinema needs its heroes and heroines, and that Rani's fans would probably be dismayed if they saw a film with their star playing the role of an anti-heroine. But my point is that Rani probably could choose to do that, for art's sake. Yet she chooses not to do it. So, what is the range of her talent?

I’m sure those of you who have seen her in such little marvels as Chalte chalte (Imdb link) remember that fascinating presence she gives to her character, a woman every man should wish to hug once in his life! She’s intelligent, determined, responsible, human too (that moment when she thinks their marriage is hopeless, and abandons), and made to shine in front of SRK, she’s SUCH an attractive woman.

And then there’s her composition in Black. Well, that’s a feat. The film is hardly Masala Bollywood, of course. No songs, no dance, only the story and the acting to immortalise it. Together with Amitabh Bachchan, she delivers one of the nicest efforts I have seen in acting so far. It’s even almost too much, because it was obviously a challenge, and a lot of effort has been devoted to make the role believable, and this shows. A little “downshifting” might have been good in certain scenes, if you see what I mean. It is possible to overdo a scene. But on the whole, the result is fascinating: the physical transformation she goes through, the energy, the faith, the love, the humanity: all these aspects of her character radiate on the screen. I hope we’ll have many more films by Sanjay Leela Bhansali.

So: what’s missing in her career? Where could she go from now? Well, she’ll probably want to cross that border between the goodies’ and the baddies’ roles, if she wants to be recognised as a complete actress. Accept losing that image of Rani the queen of hearts, and play in films where she is just a woman, with her failings, her doubts, her shortcomings, her imperfections… This is perhaps asking a lot, I realise. Not because Rani Mukherjee would be technically incapable of doing something different than what she’s doing. But because I feel that she might not want to do something else, and that this position is a consciously chosen attitude, which probably both fits her ideal as an actress, and corresponds to what she’s comfortable with.

So asking her to leave that type of roles, and choose the ones that would not fit in her mission or her art, that’s asking a lot from someone, I realise. But such versatility is probably needed before she can be said to be a complete actress. The paradox of the actor is that he grows in stature when s/he is forgotten behind the roles s/he performs. If s/he is stuck in the roles of goodies, the inevitable conclusion will be: is s/he afraid of the other roles? And even though this choice is valid on a moral basis (one might not want to compromise oneself by playing evil or impure characters), it’s more difficult to defend it aesthetically speaking. And indeed, the conflict between morality and aesthetics is real, and has been one of the sources of condemnation of the performing arts as far back as Augustine, at least!

So I’ll finish by wishing Rani all the best, whatever she chooses to do. There’s still plenty to do for her, even though she might never decide to warp that loving and responsible lady-image which has been hers throughout most of her films. We’ll still love what she does.

Plus
- Email
- Lien
- Imprimer

Voir les 0 commentaires - Ecrire un commentaire - Communauté : LE PORTAIL DE BOLLYWOOD

Jeudi 15 mars 2007 4 15 /03 /Mars /2007 23:14

Is Deepa Mehta's "Water" still Bollywood?

In the Bollywood cinema that I know, the Masala type, it seems there are two (main) types of films: the social/historical and the comedy/escapist. Of course, there are films that belong to the two types (and they are some of the best) such as Dil se or Monsoon Wedding, and there are probably films that don’t really fit into this categorization. Water belongs to the "social" type, even if it contains a romance element (and if I had to count the films that don’t use romance, that would be a very short list indeed! In fact, among the ones I know, I can think of only Black). It belongs to the same category as Matrubhoomi, that extraordinary documentary/experiment which explores the consequences of a society without women. Obviously, the oppression and even alienation to which women in India are subjected is the link between the two films, and even if (obviously) this theme is very present in many Bollywood movies (Cf. especially Umrao Jaan or Paheli), in these two films, it is the central subject. Water succeeds in merging the social denunciation and the pleasant artistic dimension and of course the second is used as a means for the first. I don’t know whether I shouldn’t therefore add the feminist film as a category? Speaking of which, there is an interesting “feminist” link between Paheli and Matrubhoomi made here.

The horror of "a nation without women"

Are Water or Matrubhoomi still Bollywood? This provocative question only serves me as an instrument to look at the particularity of Deepa Mehta’s film. Because one could say: yes, they’re still Bollywood. Bollywood is not just Masala (see this wiki link). There are the historical films, the political or social ones, and even the imaginary/fantasy ones, such as Paheli, where legends and folklore play a part. There is no recipe for a good film. Films can be satisfying from so many points of view! So, what is very satisfying in Water is, first, the realism, the psychological and the social reality shown. These confined women, with their varied individualities, their lives torn or forgotten, the little society they form with its structure, its rules, its tensions, and its mixture of good and bad (the mistress of the ashram Madhumati thanking Kalyani, the long-haired heroine for giving her burial money to pay for an old inmate’s cremation, and on the other hand sending her to the rich man’s house as a whore). (Another example, an ecstatically radiant Chuyia painting old Madhumati’s smiling face on the day of colours, in spite of having been reprimanded so often, and yet she will be sent whoring when Kalyani is dead…)

Indeed much of the charm of Water comes from the child actress Sarala (Chuyia), who is delightful to watch from beginning to end. Around her shines a sort of aura of joy, of freedom and of hope, all these signs of life and youth that the widows’ community must stifle. She is free, she is life. Her little dog, her companionship with the lovely and movingly hopeful Kalyani, her naïve questioning of the institution and religious rules, her unrepressed feelings of the human nature we all share, all these elements are some of the ingredients of her appeal (I loved her voice too). All the more surprising that she speaks neither English nor Hindi, from what I’ve read, and had to learn her cues by heart.

The movie is given additional meaning when one knows that it has gone through the ordeal of being the target of traditionalists, who burnt the sets, forced Deepa Mehta to shoot it far from its original location (Varanasi), five years later. The fact that she managed to have it done in spite of this opposition, and that it had the success it has had (more overseas than in India, I read), all this speaks a lot for it. The ending has been commented upon a lot, of course: I would like to say that the author’s commitment to children and women has a universal appeal. In a world where men so often stand for oppression and violence, to the expense of the rest of humankind, such a battle is the eternal battle for the higher values of emancipation and human rights. Gandhi would have been proud that what he started in his time is still courageously continued today.

Plus
- Email
- Lien
- Imprimer

Voir les 0 commentaires Communauté : l'Inde

Mardi 27 février 2007 2 27 /02 /Fév /2007 00:32

Bollywood music

I realise that this theme « Bollywood music » is as vast as the sea, and that wanting to speak about it in one instalment is a little presumptuous. But I won’t: there’ll be other messages, more detailed and more focussed. What I want to speak about here is the general impressions I have when listening to the music from the films.

My first flash for Bolly music was Kuch kuch hota hai, which I had heard while watching the movie, and soon I bought the CD “Shah Rukh Khan, the Greatest hits”. On the CD were other super tracks (some are listed below), but that one immediately struck my ears. I was rather new to Bollywood music and films, but I so loved the tune and voice that I actually learnt the words, event if I didn’t understand them. I got a translation on the net at that time, and now since I’ve started leaning Hindi, I understand most of the song’s words, but the language used in songs is not easy: it seems to me it’s versified, and the order of the words is not always the same, I think, as the one taught in the book I’m using.

Lata Mangeshkar: Voice of India

The jadu of Bollywood music caught me, I confess, and I have been an eager seeker of beautiful tunes sung in those particular tones of voices, and with those instruments. I don’t like the remixes, in general, and so the songs I prefer are the ones with a good melody and beautiful voices. Masculine or feminine, I don’t mind, although naturally being a man, feminine voices have a special appeal to me. Alka Yagnik and Shreya Ghoshal are two of my favourites, but I love Lata Mangeshkar’s high pitch as well as Kavita Krishnamurthy’s clever intonations. I fell head over heels listening to Shubha Mugdal sing with her sombre voice “Mathura Nagarpati” in the movie Raincoat. My favourite male singers are, naturally Udit Narayan, Kumar Sanu, Sonu Nigam, Shaan, among many others.

I enjoy all kinds of rhythms, slow, fast, spirited, borrowed from other cultures or not. But I need a certain originality: if I hear a song which is sung to the tune of another well-known song, it would need to have a lot of qualities! But in general, there isn’t too much plagiarism, I find. I love group songs, and of course the duets of which there are so many. If the music is well written, there is an interlacing of the feminine and masculine voices which is particularly beautiful. I also like to hear some words spoken at the beginning of songs (Ajnabi mujkho itna bata is the only one I can think of offhand): perhaps because I can’t (yet) understand their meaning, they often sound beautiful and passionate, and I listen more perhaps to the quality of the voices than somebody who would understand the meaning immediately.

Shreya Ghoshal: the prodigy

Alka Yagnik: Magnificence and Mystery

I have naturally seen lists such as “my 20 best Bollywood songs”… It’s almost impossible for me to make such a list, but I can give you the names of some of my favourite songs (I realise some have been sung by several singers… and I don’t know many of the films where they come from!):

- Tere liye (Movie Veer-Zaara)

- Chalo tumko lekar chale (Movie Jism, I think, which also features Jadu hai nasha hai, of course)

- Bhool ja jo hua use

- Waqt ne kiya (probably well known because Aamir Khan sings it in Fanaa)

- Saansein madham hai

- Aa paas aa

- Dayya dayya

- Dekhne walon (Movie Chori chori chupke chupke)

- Dil dil

- Tujhe dekha to (Movie Dilwale dulhaniya le jayenge)

- Pehla nasha

- O sanam

- Suraj hua madham (Movie Kabhi kushi kabhi gham)

- Dinka dinka (not sure about the spelling)

- Ek dil ne

- Hum apni taraf se (Movie Ansh)

- Humko sirf tum se pyar hai

- Saajan saajan saajan (Movie Barsaat)

- Dil to yahan abhi abhi

- Bole chudiyan (Movie Kabhi kushi kabhi gham)

- Maahive (Movie Kal ho na ho)

I’ll stop my list there, because it is not very interesting to go on and on. I have a lot of CDs with only good songs (thanks all the downloading sites)! So, anyhow, more on Bollywood music soon!

Plus
- Email
- Lien
- Imprimer

Voir les 2 commentaires - Ecrire un commentaire

Mardi 20 février 2007 2 20 /02 /Fév /2007 16:04

Kajol's future

Seen from away, Kajol is the actress’s dream come true. A real talent, the recognition of the public, her marriage and family with Ajay Devgan, with whom she’s had a little girl, a promising future, what else can you ask for? Well, the answer is, a lot. Kajol is an asset that Bollywood hasn’t started to tap. At least, I hope so. Let’s look at certain facts. (I’ll focus only on the films I’ve seen). The first series is the following: Baazigar, Dil kya kare, Gupt, Raju Chacha, Hum aapke dil mein rehte hain, Kuch Khatti Kuch Meethi, Ishq. I like Kajol, I appreciate her charm(s), her liveliness, her character. But frankly: can we really say this is good Bollywood? Excepting perhaps HADMRH, where the story gives her a little more scope, what is left? Not much more than a bunch of poorly written, superficial and predictable movies, in which she is obviously there to attract spectators on her name and good looks. Baazigar would be an exception, but it isn’t saved by Kajol. SRK does all the work.

Then my second series (still only the films I’ve seen): Dilwale dulhaniya le jayenge, Fanaa, Kabhi khushi kabhie gham, Kuch kuch hota hai. In this list, we have more effort, better acting, and in general more purpose. I realise that I am crediting actors with some of the merit or absence of merit that should accrue to the film-makers. But, well, the two are linked. DDLJ, KKHH (and KKKG to a lesser degree) are more or less on the same level, as far as Kajol is concerned: nice compositions, in which one is ravished by the sheer charm of the young mistress, in which one marvels at what she can do, what she could do. These films are her press-book, the proof that she’s got that something that film-makers will be able to use. And then there’s Fanaa, her latest film: in Fanaa, she’s starting to perform, she’s starting to act. There are moments in the film when she’s given real moments of cinema. Not surprisingly, she plays the role of a blind girl. Such a role was recently and successfully played by her cousin Rani in Black.

Right: I think you can see what I’m driving at. I think Kajol has so far surfed on an easy wave of charm and good nature, spiced with some nice moments in which her roles was cut out for her. But she has hardly started acting. She has “played”, yes. She has put all she could in her films, but she has only been herself on the screen, even if that isn’t negligible. She hasn’t done much more than what she is in real life, it seems to me. Her film roles look like her, apart from a couple of exceptions. Her characters on the screen have therefore been a sort of trap for her, because she has had to play roles which the public has been led to appreciate, and not enough roles which she would have reinvented with her talent. First that buoyant, children-loving college girl (I have often read the adjective “bubbly”), then the faithful friend, the forsaken lover, the caring young mother and that’s it. In Fanaa she gets to be a slightly different person, but there is so much more that could be done! I’ve read somewhere that Ajay has plans for them, a family story. Why not, after all, such a vague frame could contain anything. Still, I’m afraid she will be asked to draw on her own experience, rather than put that experience to the service of a really different story or situation.

One last thing about Kajol. Not that it’s very original to say, but that period during which she’s left the screens to have her baby and make the world realise there’s something more to life than glamour and being in the limelight, that really speaks for her. She’s probably (from what I can tell) a person who has chosen life, who doesn’t want to miss on it, and who knows what’s important in life. Getting married to the right guy, having children young, putting her career in n°2 or 3; Kajol has apparently chosen to do all these things, and this naturally sends the message to all those young ‘uns out there: your time of beauty will be short-lived, don’t forget what is really important. Now if only some daring film-maker could come up with a couple of real actress’s roles for her, I’d be all too willing to say: thank you Ajay for lending her to us.

Plus
- Email
- Lien
- Imprimer

Voir les 1 commentaires - Ecrire un commentaire - Communauté : LE PORTAIL DE BOLLYWOOD

Dimanche 18 février 2007 7 18 /02 /Fév /2007 22:24

Bollywood actors (of today)

After actresses, actors. It seems to me more difficult to speak about Bollywood actors – the men - in general than actresses, perhaps because I see more individualism and differences there. Not that actresses are all from the same mould, but being women, perhaps they have a common objective which men do not have. Okay. Well, I would like to say that some men stand out for me as being both artistically competent and positive figures, mostly in terms of their personalities, in fact. When I first started to think about them, I thought this list would be rather short. I told myself that the pressure of the Bollywood star-system was probably greater on men than on women, that the fight for supremacy was fiercer… But then there are perhaps more male actors (this remains to be documented… I’m just voicing my impression), and given the variety of genres in Bollywood, there’s also room for a variety of talents. And so all in all, there’s not such a bad gallery.

I suppose I’ll have to go through the ordeal of giving a list! So, let’s get rid of that. It’s alphabetical, so no ranking (yet!): Abishek Bachchan, Amitabh Bachchan, Ajay Devgan, Johnny Lever, Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Shahrukh Khan, Akshaye Khanna, Anupam Kher, Vivek Oberoi, Amrish Puri, Arjun Rampal. You realise that, in this list, I am putting side by side actors who might be at the same level as Dustin Hoffman on the one hand and, say, Leonardo di Caprio on the other. One category has proven its worth, the other still needs to prove what it is capable of, even though it has started attracting interest on itself. I am of course simplifying a lot. I am not aware of the existence of a high quality system of training for the performing arts in India. It seems nevertheless that the overall demand for quality acting is probably lower in the Bollywood system than it is in the West. Given that, which I am aware is rather a sweeping description, what can one say about male Bollywood actors ? One big temptation, the same as for female actors, lies waiting for them: the temptation to gain public approval thanks to their physical appearance, more than thanks to their work. Such an attitude has pathetically been chosen by actors such as Salman Khan or John Abraham, who obviously hope to be chosen in leading roles because they will bring crowds of eager young spectators wanting to see their hunky figures. Some producers enjoy this type of cinema. I don’t.

Let’s have a look first at the positive contribution of Bollywood male actors. What I appreciate is when the actor reappears after having disappeared behind the role. I first see the actor, then he introduces me to his character, and I see only the character. The actor has vanished, only the character remains. If that job is well done, then without a doubt, the actor will stand out as he who has been able to summon the character’s figure so well. Okay, I realise that this is extremely ordinary. It’s the normal phenomenon of acting, and the criterion which makes the difference between good and bad acting. And it’s true of male and female actors alike. Let’s give a few examples. Amitabh Bachchan in Khakee, in Veer-Zaara,in Mohabbatein, Aamir Khan in Lagaan, Vivek Oberoi and Abhishek Bachachan in Yuva, Shahrukh Khan in Dil se, in Chalte chalte and certain sections of Devdas, are some of my most vivid memories of good acting. Amrish Puri in almost all of his roles, Johnny Lever and Anupam Kher likewise strike a very good chord, even if their range of acting isn’t as broad as the other actors mentioned above. I love watching Saif Ali Khan too: he’s lucky not to have such a pleasant physique, and has therefore been freer in his compositions. He’s done a very good job in Kal ho na ho and Hum Tum. And I have spoken about Abhishek already elsewhere.

Naturally I am partial to actors who choose soul-lifting human roles, but I don’t mind it good acting serves villains or failures as well. That’s why Amrish Puri and of course Amitabh Bachchan are so good. Shahrukh Khan has pulled off some nice compositions in that direction too (Josh). What is most important is for them to lead us towards an understanding of what masculine values are: responsibility, courage, strength, dependency, and a sense of sacrifice. I’m certainly forgetting a lot of them. But the role of directors is also very important in that delivery.

Plus
- Email
- Lien
- Imprimer

Voir les 0 commentaires - Ecrire un commentaire - Communauté : L'UNIVERS DE BOLLYWOOD

précédent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 suivant

Let's share it!

Latest posts

About me

Bolly blogs I visit

Photo albums

Research

Practical Info

Subscribe to the posts

Categories