Shah Rukh Khan thread

[SLICKR392]

Following the script also requires talent and good memory power. Actors tend to find memorizing lines and delivering performances and roles acorrding to the script more difficult than improvising because it's easy to create lines according to situations, but it is difficult to take a uniformed script into one's hand and try to perform a role or a character. Actor's tend to forget their lines, if they have poor memory.

You are right but its not all that tough as you might think. When you read a script, you start picturing every scene in it. While reading it for the first time i.e. How you would look in that scene and so on. Now when you read the script, you don't mug it up. If you do mug it up, its going to get harder for you while performing. Rather, just live the character in the script and remembering the lines would be easier than you can imagine. I suck at memorizing big paras. I was rejected from tons of plays in the first year. I used to mug up 1-3 page script and forget it while performing. Its ugly and embarrassing. By the second year, we were taught method and to merge ourselves with the character in the script. It was so damn easy since then. You just need to read the script twice to perform fluently. We are not allowed to act out of the scripts, since its plays based on good authors. You can do it in a movie though. Again, when you act out of the script in a movie, its not so easy. Your partner should be good enough to back that up and so should you. Most actors don't do it as you should be good enough to control the flow or you will end up falling in your own pit. I'm no one special to spot Amir as an actor who doesn't act out of the script, but having seen him for a long time, its pretty easy to figure out what sort of an actor one is. Observation is the top priority of any student in theater.

[SLICKR392]

I saw Dil Se when it released. I really thought SRK was an actor with many things to come. He really impressed me. He massively disappointed me afterwords with his rom coms. I agree in some of his movies(Chak de, swades, etc) he has shown good, natural acting. But, in other movies his acting has been sub par, but his entertaining skills made films become hits. Very few movies has he shown superb, out of this world acting. He should've become a world class actor, with the potential he had. But, he became engrossed into making money and only chose masala films that were sure to have become hits in the Indian Market.

SRK's demise as an actor should be credited to Karan Johar, but should be credited for his popularity as a 'super star'.

[Crookbond]

Slickr and I6MTW should get married.

[SLICKR392]

Slickr and I6MTW should get married.

Be my best man.

[FischerTal]

:hysterical: :hysterical:

Oh sorry I meant Atul Kulkarni

[Number]

Can't blame SRK for acting in stupid movies. That's what people in India like to watch. For an outsider with average looks, its very difficult to make big in Bollywood. So I respect him for whatever struggle he has put in his rise.

[Ram]

I agree with the bulk of your initial post in this thread, except for the part I've quoted. This entire idea that "critical acclaim" defines the acting prowess of an actor is specious at best. Critical Acclaim is basically a cop out. Critically acclaimed has become an euphemism for " my movie didn't do well, but a couple of snobs who have a higher than thou view on movies appreciated my movie/acting". Its being contrarian for the hell of it. Chak de and Swades were also massive box office hits. Apart form these, movies (which may or may not be box office successes) where I think SRK has done some good work are DDLJ Baazigar Kabhi Ha Kabhi Na ( his best acting upto date, IMO) Anjam Oh darling! Yeh hai India! Ram Jaane Dil Se Devdas And this is a diverse set of roles.

I could be wrong in my interpretation, but your basic premise seems to be that making movies to appease holier-than-thou critics with dark-rimmed glasses and a goatee inevitably results in compromising on box office success. I don’t think that is what I meant to say. For the record, I don’t believe that actors who make those artsy kind of movies that win the hearts of movie critics are any more praiseworthy than actors who are geared towards more populist roles. They deserve a lot of praise for their courage to try something different, but it does not make them any more honorable or praiseworthy than the rest of the actors. My only gripe with SRK is that I know for a fact that he’s a BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT actor (You don’t get to be at the top of the Bollywood tree for 15 years straight without having rarified acting talent). You cant say that of every actor out there. I am a big fan of guys like Abhishek Bachan and Ajay Devgan, but I honestly don’t think they are 10% the actor that SRK is. So my expectations from him are far less than what I expect from SRK. I am disappointed with the fact that a majority of SRK’s movies are formulaic, geared towards mass entertainment. For example, ‘Chennai Express’ was a pretty decent entertainer, but at no point in the movie was my breadth taken away from me. I know that SRK is capable of putting out those kinds of performances. Maybe it is just a question of recalibrating g my own expectations

What kind of an arguement is this? Kamal's ability to sing' date=' direct, produce, compose, write scripts, juggle knives, book tickets on yatra.com, bargain with his neighbourhood baniya on the price of sugar etc has [b']nothing to do with him being a great actor. Not denying that Kamal Hassan is a great actor, but he's nowhere in comparison to SRK.

I hope you have a very specific context to that statement. Or else, my mind is just blown away!

[coffee_rules]

Faltu discussion among Fanbois!

[Precambrian]

My point is, he was good at acting. He wasn't articulate or a star with natural charisma with the ability to draw in crowds. He was an artistic actor. Sure, he is popular in South India. But, because of these flaws, he wasn't popular in the whole of India. For example: Rajinikanth is a poor actor, but his charisma and the ability to generate style and draw in crowds proved to be successful not only in India but also all over the world. He also acted in Hollywood films. Not saying Kamal has this in abundance, but he is better than Mohanlal when it comes to this.

Ever been to kerala?

[I6MTW]

Ever been to kerala?

Mohanlal is an icon in Kerala, I know.

[Deleted_User_1]

Most Bollywood actors overact including SRK. Bollywood is mostly trash. In the 70s and 80s we used to have a thriving art film industry. Now mostly that come out of Shytwood is tripe.

[I6MTW]

Most Bollywood actors overact including SRK. Bollywood is mostly trash. In the 70s and 80s we used to have a thriving art film industry. Now mostly that come out of Shytwood is tripe.

Films were actually worse in 70's and 80's. Except for the artistic films, and parallel cinema, most of the mainstream films made no sense. Only the music was good in those days.

[SLICKR392]

Films were actually worse in 70's and 80's. Except for the artistic films, and parallel cinema, most of the mainstream films made no sense. Only the music was good in those days.

It was far better than what we see today. The actors could act. Check out box office hits nowadays- Meh Terra Hero My Name is Khan That Dar de Disco movie Dhoom series Chennai Express These are the tripes that run the show among the audience now. Yes, there are good movies which are usually underrated and ignored by the majority of fans.

[Deleted_User_1]

Films were actually worse in 70's and 80's. Except for the artistic films, and parallel cinema, most of the mainstream films made no sense. Only the music was good in those days.

Agree about the quality of movies in 70s and 80s. Can't imagine how I watched those. :P I was mostly talking about the films made by Govin Nihalani, Prakash Jha, Mrinal Sen, Gautam Ghose, Shyam Benegal, etc. There was a lot of Govt funding for these types of films although they never made much money. Sadly those days are gone. Now a days even the so called serious movies coming out of Bollywood have some masala and overacting in them. I can't watch them.

[Deleted_User_1]

It was far better than what we see today. The actors could act. Check out box office hits nowadays- Meh Terra Hero My Name is Khan That Dar de Disco movie Dhoom series Chennai Express These are the tripes that run the show among the audience now. Yes, there are good movies which are usually underrated and ignored by the majority of fans.

Sadly even the Bengali film industry (which was known for social movies) is turning out trash like Bollywood. Films like Paglu, Paglu 2, Gunday etc. :facepalm:

[I6MTW]

It was far better than what we see today. The actors could act. Check out box office hits nowadays- Meh Terra Hero My Name is Khan That Dar de Disco movie Dhoom series Chennai Express These are the tripes that run the show among the audience now. Yes, there are good movies which are usually underrated and ignored by the majority of fans.

You could say acting was good, but the movies were usually worse, aside from the 5 good movies each year. Each movie had a tedious, mind-numbing, story full of over-reaction. Not saying today's movies are oozing in creativity and all. In fact there are 2-3 good movies each year compared to the 5 during the 70's and 80's.

[I6MTW]

Sadly even the Bengali film industry (which was known for social movies) is turning out trash like Bollywood. Films like Paglu' date=' Paglu 2, Gunday etc. :facepalm:[/quote'] Even South Industry is full of **** movies these days.

[I6MTW]

Agree about the quality of movies in 70s and 80s. Can't imagine how I watched those. :P I was mostly talking about the films made by Govin Nihalani, Prakash Jha, Mrinal Sen, Gautam Ghose, Shyam Benegal, etc. There was a lot of Govt funding for these types of films although they never made much money. Sadly those days are gone. Now a days even the so called serious movies coming out of Bollywood have some masala and overacting in them. I can't watch them.

Around 5 good movies were produced each year during those times. Some memorable movies and performances were delivered during those times.

[Deleted_User_1]

You could say acting was good, but the movies were usually worse, aside from the 5 good movies each year. Each movie had a tedious, mind-numbing, story full of over-reaction. Not saying today's movies are oozing in creativity and all. In fact there are 2-3 good movies each year compared to the 5 during the 70's and 80's.

There are only a handful of actors in Bollywood who are decent. Too much importance is given to looks than acting skills. Hollywood also produces some trash, but in general a lot of decent movies are made. Also in Hollywood, if you cannot act, you can only go so far based on looks. Look at actresses like Megan Fox, etc.

[I6MTW]

It was far better than what we see today. The actors could act. Check out box office hits nowadays- Meh Terra Hero My Name is Khan That Dar de Disco movie Dhoom series Chennai Express These are the tripes that run the show among the audience now. Yes, there are good movies which are usually underrated and ignored by the majority of fans.

This was actually a decent movie. Others were crap. Bollywood was trying to copy hollywood style police and special effect movies while trying out Dhoom.