Dilip Kumar may get Bharat Ratna:Reports

[zen]

We can see amazing depth in performance in the two videos that I posted earlier: In the one below - you can actually feel the passion shown on screen 8mM5A2wVaMM In the one below - Dilip Kumar makes you feel sorry for him that he has to propose to the girl :haha: uN7xCk957kk :hatsoff:

[Texan]

National Film awards started in 1953, Dillip saab was 31 by then. Also, first actor to get National Film Award was Uttam Kumar in 1967 (DK was 45 by then). Looks like actors were not considered for National Awards pre 1967 era, by when DK was past his prime. Earlier National Awards were mostly given to best films, best directors etc. Neither Dev Anand nor RK has received National Award for the Best Actor (rightly so, I think). For that matter not even Motilal or Balaraj Sahani (great actors, in the league of Dillip saab in my opinion) has received one. One has to judge Dillip Kumar by the sheer impact he had on actors to come and his colossal acting talent which was way ahead of his time.

Many actors have won the National Award past the age of 45. In fact, two of Amitabh Bachchan's three National Awards have come when he had passed 60. Older actors like Ashok Kumar and MGR have also won. National Awards are a better indicator of acting prowess than the populist and saleable Filmfare Awards. There is no guarantee that if you win 8 Filmfare Awards, you will surely win a National Award for at least one of those performances. Just ask Shahrukh Khan.

[zen]

Many actors have won the National Award past the age of 45. In fact' date= two of Amitabh Bachchan's three National Awards have come when he had passed 60. Older actors like Ashok Kumar and MGR have also won. National Awards are a better indicator of acting prowess than the populist and saleable Filmfare Awards. There is no guarantee that if you win 8 Filmfare Awards, you will surely win a National Award for at least one of those performances. Just ask Shahrukh Khan.

1st - For me the National Award argument is moot .... and Dilip Sahab has been bestowed with the DadaSaheb Phalke award and he is widely acknowledged as one of the all time great legends 2nd - The argument ignores the type of films that were made casting older actors in 70s and 80s and now 3rd - The argument also ignores Dilip Kumar's career history including the films that he did in the 70s. He also took a break for 5 years returning with a bang to star in films such as Kranti, Mashaal, Vidhaata, Shakti, Karma and Saudagaar 4th - Gabbar Singh's character is acknowledged as one of the most iconic and best played in the history of Indian cinema. However, there are no major awards to show for it 5th - The assumption that because Filmfare are salable now, they were salable in the time of Dilip Kumar may be inaccurate

[zen]

National Film awards started in 1953' date=' Dillip saab was 31 by then. Also, first actor to get National Film Award was [b']Uttam Kumar in 1967 (DK was 45 by then). Looks like actors were not considered for National Awards pre 1967 era, by when DK was past his prime. Earlier National Awards were mostly given to best films, best directors etc.

If I am not wrong, Uttam Kumar was referred to as the Dilip Kumar of Bengal

[mishra]

If I am not wrong' date=' Uttam Kumar was referred to as the Dilip Kumar of Bengal[/quote'] Not sure about the title, But Bengali film industry was equally good. When Uttam Kumar was there, they ignored Bollywood. I think there was nationalist Bangali movement too. Troubled past of India.

[zen]

WhwqkqSVpR8 ^Dilip Kumar trying is hand at speaking in English in Gopi :cantstop:

[Texan]

1st - For me the National Award argument is moot .... and Dilip Sahab has been bestowed with the DadaSaheb Phalke award and he is widely acknowledged as one of the all time great legends 2nd - The argument ignores the type of films that were made casting older actors in 70s and 80s and now 3rd - The argument also ignores Dilip Kumar's career history including the films that he did in the 70s. He also took a break for 5 years returning with a bang to star in films such as Kranti, Mashaal, Vidhaata, Shakti, Karma and Saudagaar 4th - Gabbar Singh's character is acknowledged as one of the most iconic and best played in the history of Indian cinema. However, there are no major awards to show for it 5th - The assumption that because Filmfare are salable now, they were salable in the time of Dilip Kumar may be inaccurate

1st - How does winning the Phalke Award make not winning the National Award a moot point? National Awards are awarded for individual performances in a given year. In no year was Dilip Kumar's performance rated higher than his contemporaries. 2nd - You contradict yourself in your 3rd point when you say he returned with a bang with some great films. 3rd - What point are you trying to make here other than contradicting your earlier point? 4th - National Awards for Best Supporting Actor weren't awarded until 1984 5th - These awards have always been populist awards meaning acting prowess counts for little as long as you are the most popular.

[zen]

1st - How does winning the Phalke Award make not winning the National Award a moot point? National Awards are awarded for individual performances in a given year. In no year was Dilip Kumar's performance rated higher than his contemporaries. 2nd - You contradict yourself in your 3rd point when you say he returned with a bang with some great films. 3rd - What point are you trying to make here other than contradicting your earlier point? 4th - National Awards for Best Supporting Actor weren't awarded until 1984 5th - These awards have always been populist awards meaning acting prowess counts for little as long as you are the most popular.

Because DadaSahab Phalke award is the "highest" award .... and winning National Award is moot because Dilip Sabab won the awards that were considered as prestigious during his peak anyways There is no contradiction as Dilip Kumar came with a bang in commercial big budget multi-starer films which are not usually considered for awards. Look at the films that were chosen for national awards in the 80s for example and that would answer your question

[Texan]

Because DadaSahab Phalke award is the "highest" award .... and winning National Award is moot because Dilip Sabab won the awards that were considered as prestigious during his peak anyways There is no contradiction as Dilip Kumar came with a bang in commercial big budget multi-starer films which are not usually considered for awards. Look at the films that were chosen for national awards in the 80s for example and that would answer your question

No Sir. Dadasaheb Phalke Award != National Award Phalke Awards are generally given to those who had a big influence on the film industry, which Dilip Kumar after his decades long career did. What I am saying is that his acting prowess was not really anything out of the ordinary. You could have a long career in the Indian film industry even if you are not an extraordinary actor. National Award is given to the actor with the best performance in a given year. In not a single year was Dilip Kumar's acting performance rated higher than his contemporaries. You are failing to acknowledge that in your idol worship. You are looking at Filmfare Awards as the certification for accomplishment in acting. I have already pointed out to you that Filmfare Awards are populist awards. Just check up on how these award winners are determined. There is a jury as well as a popular vote. So, if you have more fans, you are more likely to win even if your performance was not the best among the contenders. And if Filmfare Awards was the yardstick, then Shahrukh Khan equally deserves the Bharat Ratna as Dilip Kumar. Both have won 8 Filmfare Awards with SRK more likely to beat the joint record they hold.

[zen]

No Sir. Dadasaheb Phalke Award != National Award Phalke Awards are generally given to those who had a big influence on the film industry, which Dilip Kumar after his decades long career did. What I am saying is that his acting prowess was not really anything out of the ordinary. You could have a long career in the Indian film industry even if you are not an extraordinary actor. National Award is given to the actor with the best performance in a given year. In not a single year was Dilip Kumar's acting performance rated higher than his contemporaries. You are failing to acknowledge that in your idol worship. You are looking at Filmfare Awards as the certification for accomplishment in acting. I have already pointed out to you that Filmfare Awards are populist awards. Just check up on how these award winners are determined. There is a jury as well as a popular vote. So, if you have more fans, you are more likely to win even if your performance was not the best among the contenders. And if Filmfare Awards was the yardstick, then Shahrukh Khan equally deserves the Bharat Ratna as Dilip Kumar. Both have won 8 Filmfare Awards with SRK more likely to beat the joint record they hold.

If you believe in the bolded lines, you should not have problems with him getting the BR As for acting, I have already mentioned that personal opinion aside, DK is widely recognized as one of the best actors ever Most of your points have been addressed but since you made an effort to write the post, I will once again elaborate on some of your points: Your line of argument: a) Best actors in a given year get the national award b) Filmfare awards don't count Unfortunately, cross-era comparisons don't work that way esp when we are taking about someone who made is debut in 1944 or something like that. Why? Because: a) At a given point in time, the policies of the jury can be different. For e.g. now even popular cinema gets considered for National Awards. You only have to see the list of winners in 80s to see what type of films were selected for best actor awards b) Similarly for Filmfare which were premier awards for actors when Dilip Kumar was at his peak c) You have to follow an actor's career to see what he had been doing, the type of films, etc. So implying that because SRK has won filmfare awards and they do not mean much NOW = Dilip Kumar's filmfare awards didn't mean much THEN, is either being naive or thinking that others are naive enough to believe such points Similarly for National Awards, one cannot assume that every jury had the same policies - as can be seen from the choices in the 80s when Dilip Kumar made a comeback, and the type of films that are selected now

[zen]

DyHSOpcpAmI Sunghursh, the last Dilip Kumar film released in 1960s (1968) .... This one is more like a hidden gem esp. since it stars actors such as Balraj Sahani and Sanjeev Kumar as well. It is nice to see all three of them on screen together :nice:

[CasualVisitor]

DyHSOpcpAmI Sunghursh, the last Dilip Kumar film released in 1960s (1968) .... This one is more like a hidden gem esp. since it stars actors such as Balraj Sahani and Sanjeev Kumar as well. It is nice to see all three of them on screen together :nice:

:thumbs_up:

[CasualVisitor]

Many actors have won the National Award past the age of 45. In fact, two of Amitabh Bachchan's three National Awards have come when he had passed 60. Older actors like Ashok Kumar and MGR have also won. National Awards are a better indicator of acting prowess than the populist and saleable Filmfare Awards. There is no guarantee that if you win 8 Filmfare Awards, you will surely win a National Award for at least one of those performances. Just ask Shahrukh Khan.

Is it (winning a national award) not subject to getting good roles and, as Rett mentions, inconsistent policy of the jury etc? Are you suggesting that Ashok Kumar, by virtue of winning a national award, is a decidedly more talented actor than Dilip Saab? Neither Motilal nor Balraj Sahani have won any national award for acting. Going by your argument, one has to conclude that none of them were great actors? Few of the National Award winners who are nowhere close to Dilip saab's acting talent, IMHO: Shashi Kapoor Mithun Chakravarty Ajay Devgan Anil Kapoor Sail Ali Khan

[Texan]

If you believe in the bolded lines, you should not have problems with him getting the BR As for acting, I have already mentioned that personal opinion aside, DK is widely recognized as one of the best actors ever Most of your points have been addressed but since you made an effort to write the post, I will once again elaborate on some of your points: Your line of argument: a) Best actors in a given year get the national award b) Filmfare awards don't count Unfortunately, cross-era comparisons don't work that way esp when we are taking about someone who made is debut in 1944 or something like that. Why? Because: a) At a given point in time, the policies of the jury can be different. For e.g. now even popular cinema gets considered for National Awards. You only have to see the list of winners in 80s to see what type of films were selected for best actor awards b) Similarly for Filmfare which were premier awards for actors when Dilip Kumar was at his peak c) You have to follow an actor's career to see what he had been doing, the type of films, etc. So implying that because SRK has won filmfare awards and they do not mean much NOW = Dilip Kumar's filmfare awards didn't mean much THEN, is either being naive or thinking that others are naive enough to believe such points Similarly for National Awards, one cannot assume that every jury had the same policies - as can be seen from the choices in the 80s when Dilip Kumar made a comeback, and the type of films that are selected now

Your line of thinking that if he is worthy of a Dadasaheb Phalke Award, he should also be awarded the Bharat Ratna is flawed. There are 46 winners of the Dadasaheb Phalke Award. Do you think everyone of those deserves a Bharat Ratna too? Secondly, your contention that jury in "those days" were more knowledgeable and fairer than the jury of today is irrelevant to my argument. I have already pointed out to you that immaterial of the jury employed, Filmfare Awards are populist awards and entail popular vote in addition to jury choice. As a result, they always tend to favor performers with a large base of core fans. Hence, it results in skewed results where one performer can trump many contempiraries with equal or even greater acting prowess. You seem to have missed this point completely.

[Texan]

Is it (winning a national award) not subject to getting good roles and, as Rett mentions, inconsistent policy of the jury etc? Are you suggesting that Ashok Kumar, by virtue of winning a national award, is a decidedly more talented actor than Dilip Saab? Neither Motilal nor Balraj Sahani have won any national award for acting. Going by your argument, one has to conclude that none of them were great actors? Few of the National Award winners who are nowhere close to Dilip saab's acting talent, IMHO: Shashi Kapoor Mithun Chakravarty Ajay Devgan Anil Kapoor Sail Ali Khan

Read my subsequent post on the subject.

[zen]

Your line of thinking that if he is worthy of a Dadasaheb Phalke Award, he should also be awarded the Bharat Ratna is flawed. There are 46 winners of the Dadasaheb Phalke Award. Do you think everyone of those deserves a Bharat Ratna too? Secondly, your contention that jury in "those days" were more knowledgeable and fairer than the jury of today is irrelevant to my argument. I have already pointed out to you that immaterial of the jury employed, Filmfare Awards are populist awards and entail popular vote in addition to jury choice. As a result, they always tend to favor performers with a large base of core fans. Hence, it results in skewed results where one performer can trump many contempiraries with equal or even greater acting prowess. You seem to have missed this point completely.

Dadesaheb Phalke award is given to outstanding achievers in the industry. Now not everyone who gets that award would qualify for BR, but Dilip Kumar's contribution to and influence on the industry is widely acknowledged (confirmed by the Award too for those who need confirmation) so I assumed that would be the "understood" point In Dilip Kumar's time, Raj Kapoor and Dev Anand were equally popular so that would balance the scales. In the 50s and 60s, Bharat Bhusan, Ashok Kumar and Sunil Dutt (probably not as popular as the trio) have got awards too. And how would my point be irrelevant when you yourself acknowledged that jury too was responsible for selecting the winners :winky: Additionally, there is a story on how Rajesh Khanna was angry on Filmfare as one of his fav performances was not nominated. He even organized a party on the day of the awards to show his protest .... So this highlights the importance the industry gave to Filmfare at that time Also some performances are widely accepted as great even without being awarded for e.g. Amitabh in Deewar, Amjad Khan in Sholay, etc. .... Similarly, many of Dilip Kumar's performances have influenced many in the Indian film industry

[Kalia_Test]

If DK gets Bharat Ratna, then the below should also get :- Kamal Hassan NTR ANR MGR Rajnikanth Chiranjeevi Super Star Krishna Naseeruddin Shah Om Puri Anupam Kher Nana Patekar Pran Sahab Dev Anand Raj Kapoor Shammi Kapoor Shashi Kapoor Rishi Kapoor Many more that are in better league than DK who did handful of films in prehistoric times and living on memories..No one even knows DK nowadays but ask about Kamal Hassan and you will know...India is a BIG nation....Bollywood is NOT India...Ask any AP guy, Kerala guy, Tamil guy, Kannada guy - they will say who the **** is DK? And these 4 states are about 40% of India... Bharat Ratna to DK....bullcrap - like his movies

[zen]

If DK gets Bharat Ratna, then the below should also get :- Kamal Hassan NTR ANR MGR Rajnikanth Chiranjeevi Super Star Krishna Naseeruddin Shah Om Puri Anupam Kher Nana Patekar Pran Sahab Dev Anand Raj Kapoor Shammi Kapoor Shashi Kapoor Rishi Kapoor Many more that are in better league than DK who did handful of films in prehistoric times and living on memories..No one even knows DK nowadays but ask about Kamal Hassan and you will know...India is a BIG nation....Bollywood is NOT India...Ask any AP guy, Kerala guy, Tamil guy, Kannada guy - they will say who the **** is DK? And these 4 states are about 40% of India... Bharat Ratna to DK....bullcrap - like his movies

How comical can an argument get? So DK did a handful of films in prehistoric times while his colleagues Pran, Dev, Raj, Shammi, etc. did not and are on your laundry list? :hysterical:

[zen]

Bhagwan Dada, Johnny Walker, IS Johar, Om Prakesh, etc. could be amongst the best actors in India, however their impact on the industry may not be the same as a Amitabh Bachaan or a RAjesh Khanna Mahmood is one of the finest actors that Ind has produced. Many stars avoided working with Mahmood for the fear of being overshadowed by him .... Mahmood Sahab also helped talented actors in their days of struggle. One example being Amitabh Bachaan. However, Mahmood would not be considered for a BR over Amitabh or Rajesh (assuming that their names can be considered)

[Kalia_Test]

How comical can an argument get? So DK did a handful of films in prehistoric times while his colleagues Pran, Dev, Raj, Shammi, etc. did not and are on your laundry list? :hysterical:

It helps to read post sometimes :--D. IF THEN P.S Pran did 300+ films IIRC