Between Reviews: And the Loser is… the Audience!
AND THE LOSER IS… THE AUDIENCE!
MAR 1, 2009 – AFTER THE TIRESOMELY BLOATED OSCAR CEREMONY, I think it’s safe to officially declare the Golden Globes as the awards ceremony to hunker down for. For one, it’s the earliest film award of the year (I’m talking about the circussy ones, not the honourable badges of merit dispensed by sombre batches of movie critics across America) – so there are no clear favourites yet. I remember how my heart was in my mouth when AR Rahman won the Golden Globe. At that point, he was literally the outsider, the long shot – and when he won, the reaction was as much revelry as relief at being able to exhale again. But after the Globes, after Slumdog Millionaire swept every single awards ceremony, Rahman became the hot favourite. So even when the great man won a double Oscar – a glorious event we’re not likely to see again in our lifetime – it was something of an anticlimax.
Oh, there was great pride, greater joy. What was missing was that nail-biting dread in the pit of the stomach, the desperate desire to look upwards and mutter ohpleasepleasepleaseplease – not just in the case of Rahman, but in any category. Despite ringmaster Hugh Jackman’s valiant attempts to orchestrate distracting, carnivalesque sideshows, this year’s Academy Awards ceremony was a creaking, groaning bore – about a half-hour’s worth of entertainment padded with three hours of unctuous platitudes that made it appear that the people being honoured had cured cancer or AIDS or both. This is showbiz, folks – and to most people, that means stars. I’m as appreciative as the next person about the doughty documentarian who chronicles the effects of dwindling shoe polish supplies on the footwear of the Nicaraguan military, but can they not figure out a way to make these segments interesting?
But what about the homey banter, you ask – the carefully rehearsed chitchat between the presenters? Barring the awesome twosome of Tina Fey and Steve Martin (kudos for pulling off that Scientology joke in a room filled with some of the religion’s most famous and powerful practitioners), was anyone remotely amusing? These people are entertainers. They are paid to entertain us. And this is all they can come up with, flatulent nuggets like, “If the score is the narrative of a movie, the song is the punctuation?” Couldn’t all these lesser categories – lesser only in terms of wattage, not achievement – been reduced to the airing of the five relevant film clips followed by the “and the winner is” announcement?
And couldn’t the time thus saved be apportioned to, oh, an actual tribute to Paul Newman, preferably from Robert Redford? One of the greatest stars and actors and screen presences of our time passes away, and all they could do is tack on a bit of his dialogue at the end of an unending obituary montage, lumped alongside clips of lesser lights like Van Johnson and Nina Foch? Even the major awards were preceded by such illuminating insights as “[a director’s job is] clarifying the intent of the screenwriter’s world” and “helping each actor find true connection to the material.” (You don’t say! And here I was, thinking that the on-set carpenter was responsible for all that.) By this time, wouldn’t even the most ill-informed moviegoer be aware that a set decorator’s job is to, well, decorate the sets? Do we need this spelt out year after year?
In contrast, our own awards shows aren’t so bad after all. You may not respect any of them (or the people who win), but at least there’s all that eye-popping bling, with big stars doing their thing. That’s why the Golden Globes are far more entertaining. They have more awards in the acting categories, which ensures that more actors show up, the beautiful people whose names we recognise and pay good money to see on screen. (When was the last time you went to a film because it was art-directed by so-and-so?) Oh, beautiful people did show up at the Oscars too – but to honour the nominees with such hushed deference, they appeared to be delivering eulogies. It was heartbreaking to see the iconic likes of Shirley MacLaine and Sophia Loren being reduced to shills, luring us into buying the supposed greatness of Angelina Jolie’s laughably overheated performance in Changeling.
At least, Robert de Niro had it better, as he was called upon to make a case for Sean Penn’s performance in Milk. Apart from the ones Rahman was competing in, the only category I was invested in was Best Actor, as it featured Penn and Mickey Rourke, two of my favourite performers from the eighties. I haven’t seen either performance, but deserved or not, I was happy that Penn won. He is that rare actor, like the early Pacino, whose commitment to the craft matches the commitment to the audience, making us experience the effects of the processes he’s putting himself through. De Niro and Meryl Streep, for instance, are excellent technical actors, but they sometimes get so locked up inside their characters, you sense the greatness in their performance but you don’t particularly feel it. With Penn, however, the line of communication is always open, and if only for that, I can’t wait to see Milk.
Copyright ©2009 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
oops: I’m sorry. The comments, for some reason, got turned off. I’m posting your comment here:
ok since the comments are off on the oscar topic, i will say it here. You are completely right. Actually this is the first time i found Cesar (french awards) funnier than oscar’s (and that’s something big to do without SFX and less money).
The worst part was that we knew all the winners even before the beginning, all the host looked stiff… they should write their own jokes or try to act like they don’t read it at least…
)
Jackman was sexy but this ceremony was the proof that they need more than a bunch of musical cameos… a real comedian and some good punch lines are better to keep the rythm up. And true, Golden Globes are far more enjoyable (but that’s also because stars can drink there, so it’s easy to offer a better show
I also agree that Indian awards are funnier BUT, let’s tell the truth, wouldn’t be excited to see them add the “quality factor” one day ? Just imagine, how enjoyable it would be to see an indian actress cry for real taking her filmfare because she knows the price of it… .
But finally, i think i appreciate oscar’s more than you did. This is only place where i can watch John Legend singing with A R Rahman, or a french actress winning the best actress title (last year)… i don’t really like this country but really in US “everything looks possible”
My two cents, bye
BR, your comments on Filmfare awards? At least the winners?
Hrithik for Actor, Jodha Akbar for film and totally trivializing the worthy performances of Shahana Goswami, Pratik Babbar by giving them the “critics” awards. Also forgetting A Wednesday and Mithya.
one of the most boring oscars in recent years ! they shoulda just handed over the entire show to Steve Martin and Tina Fey ! I think they’ve been really getting it wrong in choosing the hosts in recent years… I would like to see Robin Williams host it next time…he was a scream at the AFI’s lifetime achievement ceremony for Al Pacino sometime back…
its rather silly that the category presenters get more time to babble than the infamous 45 seconds allotted for the winning speech !
I wasn’t that put off by the Oscars. To tell you the truth, in the past years, I was getting bored of Jon Stewart and even Billy Crystal for doing teh same routine…no surprises at all. Of course, they were consummate performers able to carry off their best jokes, but the ceremony itself held no surprises. That’s why this year was delightful…I loved the fact that Jackman acted like a showman…and the musical performances with him were quite unexpected. He was the single biggest difference to me!!
Baddy, on a side note, have you watched the new Vodafone commercial with the guy anxiously checking out his exam results on the college notice board? I thought that the actor in that commercial performed spendidly, considering it was a mono-act. The other striking factor to me was the jingle…the tune, composition and style sounded vintage IR (almost like a theme from Idhayathai Thirudathe)…wonder who scored it?
Adithya – you find this surprising and worthy of comment?
Arun: Reg. “one of the most boring oscars in recent years!” Seriously. I was glad there was the Rahman element, otherwise it would’ve been a complete snooze-fest.
Shankar: The quality of acting in our commercials has always been very good. Have you seen the one where the wife is tired and the husband gives her a foot massage? That was very well acted too (the cues are perfect). Even the kids in the commercials act well. Clearly, there is an aspect of show business Luck By Chance left out: the Mumbai Ad-Acting School
PS: Of course, I’m generalising. For every Vodaphone/Airtel commercial, there’s the Fanta Apple one, where everyone acts like a screaming moron
Amrita: Thank you for answering. And of course you know the winner of Best Picture at the Stardust Awards, right? Singh is Kinng
@Amritha: Hehehe, I know, not worthy but when I saw the nominations, I thought ok good, some nice stuff is there. And this happening after that is quite a put off. At least Stardust awards didn’t even nominate the worthy stuff, so you knew what to expect!
Without fundamentally changing the Oscar format, I’m don’t think it is possible to cut the “drag” factor. Also, given the timing of the Oscars, all the punch has been drained out. If the Oscars somehow could happen on Jan 15 (before the globes), no matter what the format, I’m willing to wager that dread at the pit of your stomach will force you to watch. So in some sense the biggest thing going for the globes is that they’re the first on the calendar.
The other point you made escaped me completely, about De Niro and Streep being “excellent technical actors”. My definition of quality acting has been fundamentally about connecting with the audience – in other words the evaluation is outcome driven not process driven. The reason film buffs even care about technique is because we’d like to know how the actors gets to make that emotional connection. I’m not sure if the point you’re making is that Penn and Pacino are superior actors because they make the connection with the audience better than Streep or De Niro. I don’t know that I agree, but at least its a claim I can understand and argue
. To say that De Niro/Streep are equal or perhaps better technically than Penn and Pacino seems pointless to me.
BTW, I thought Penn’s was a performance for the ages. Although it ended up being a two horse race, I though Langella was every bit as worthy as the other two. I saw all three films and was rueful that Langella doesn’t have the star wattage to be a serious contender.
Sorry, this is such a long comment. In my defense, I enjoy your blog enormously and I like that you challenge me to think about what I like about the movies
I though this year’s Oscars were the best in recent memory (and I’m someone who’s been watching them at 6.30 AM for years now). The acting award presentation idea worked very well, IMO, at least as a one time concept.
I don’t think our award shows are better — I think movie award shows should be about the industry and the crafts that are involved in the process of filmmaking and also about the ACTUAL awards and the winners’ speeches. I don’t want to watch an award show where the highlight was Akshay Kumar’s stunts or Priyanka Chopra’s dance performance instead of the winners.
I find the technical awards at our desi shows very badly done — I would like to see nominations in those categories and fair time for even those winners to speak!
I agree, the acting in our Ads have mostly been very good. My 20 month old son watches only the Ads!! So, I’m forced to record every single serial on Sun TV so he can watch the Ads!! His current favorites are the above mentioned Vodafone commercial, the Asin “Athadi Ammadi” Mirinda Ad and the Aamir “Gappy Aunty” Parle G Ad!! I’m becoming quite an expert on Indian TV Ads!!
Actually I think Steven Colbert would make a great Oscar host. He’s slyly funny and can sing and dance.
Or as you suggested Tina Fey/Steve Martin as cohost.
It was painful to watch Hugh Jackman because you could see he was trying really really hard to be entertaining.
Having seen both The Wrestler and Milk, I have to say I wasn’t surprised they gave it to Penn. While Mickey probably went through far more ‘physical’ stress and had to access quite a few of his own demons, Penn probably had to do a lot more homework to get in character.
Hopefully the Mickey Rourke comeback train has gathered enough momentum that the Oscar diss doesn’t derail it. I hear Downey Jr. wants Mickey to play the next Ironman villain and that he agreed.
Maru: Reg. “If the Oscars somehow could happen on Jan 15 (before the globes), no matter what the format, I’m willing to wager that dread at the pit of your stomach will force you to watch.” Well, yeah, that’s because the Globes have become such an accurate prediction of which films will win at the Oscars. I’m always amazed at how the choices of a random bunch of foreign journos can coincide so eerily with those of some of the best minds in the industry, people who are actually supposed to know the craft and all.
About quality acting, what I meant is that you can “see” Streep and De Niro “acting” in many of their roles. The things Streep does with her fingers for instance (the much-lauded Sophie’s Choice, or that big breakdown scene in the kitchen in The Hours), or De Niro does with his head. These are sometimes such conscious choices that you admire the work that’s gone into the performance, and yet, because of your “awareness,” the performance stays aloof. I’m not necessarily a subscriber of the “invisible” school of acting, but sometimes, it’s nice when you lose youself in the film and the actors help in this process.
Sid: Reg. “I don’t think our award shows are better” – oh no, I was just talking about the gawk-ability factor, with the stars. The awards themselves are a joke.
Lee: Yeah, that was it. He was trying too hard, plus he wasn’t there all that much. The second big production number (with Beyonce) could have been axed for some more appearances, perhaps.
“totally trivializing the worthy performances of Shahana Goswami, Pratik Babbar”
Since you mentioned Shahana, I just had to say that I think she’s one of the best (if not the best) actresses currently in Bollywood. I hadn’t even heard of her a few months ago and then I saw one of her films (can’t remember the name). I was stunned at how good she was. Equally impressed with her work in Rock On.
Can’t believe the likes of Katrina Kaif get work when someone like Shahana’s around.
Also, I love Stephen Colbert and I’d love to see him give hosting the Oscars a shot. I’m not sure his brand of dry political comedy would work for the Oscars, though and he wouldn’t be half as good if they censored his material (which the Oscar people tend to do).
My dream scenario would be Stephen Colbert co-hosting with Jon Stewart and Steve Carell (Daily Show reunion!).
BR…don’t tell me you didn’t like the Judd Apatow skit with Seth Rogen and James Franco. I thought it was typical Apatow…the political incorrectness, I mean
PS: Aside from the Oscars…I wonder how Robert Downey Jr will play Sherlock Holmes (with Jude Law as Dr. Watson). Waiting for that…that should be fun considering Guy Ritchie is helming it.
I found this years oscars better than last years. Guess the opening performance by Jackman was brilliant and kicked of the show on a high note, only to fizzle out gradually..I think the winners rite from our own resul pookutty to sean penn were pretty good with their acceptance speech which in a way made up for the dull presenters..But the surprise element is totally out and thats a big let down for any awards ceremony..
the latest airtel ad where the kid calls up his dad using the toy phone is the best one i have seen in the recent years…the varied expression the kid shows throughout the ad is top notch…priceless
*slight digression*
I was looking at the user reviews of Jai Ho at iTunes, and the praise being heaped on the song struck me as odd.
I love the song, no doubt about it. BUT Rahman has consistently done much better work – year after year he has given us great music. Jai Ho is definitely not his best.
I am not a fan of English songs – don’t listen to them at all. The praise Jai Ho getting made me wonder – do ‘they’ don’t listen to good music AT ALL? Or are we spoilt by Rahman here?
Baradwaj: Penn was a very deserving winner IMO. But Mickey Roourke and especially Frank Langella’s performances were of equal calibre. Langella’s last 15 mins in Frost/Nixon alone is worthy of Oscar. This was the only category where there was some competition going.
I actually loved the way past winners came on stage to celebrate the nominees.
Vis-a-vis the “gawkability” factor, the Oscars still rate the highest for me just because the clothes are so gorgeous and the atmosphere of warm bonhomie (fake as it may be) give me the warm fuzzies. I do think Filmfare is stepping it up on the nomination and technical awards front, but one has to remember that the nomination process at Indian awards is so remiss. There is no Academy, no Foreign Press Association. This is not to say that these are perfectly fair arbiters of quality, but they have more merit than the ever changing juries and reader votes of the wards in India.
Of course, no one – not even Bill “Dreamgirls” Condon who helmed the Oscars – does song and dance spectacle like the desis at Filmfare. Remember Shahrukh with Sharmila, Vyjanthimala, Kajol, et al? Or Sridevi the year before last?
Being a scriptwriter myself, I loved the way they made the nomination-graphics for Screenplay category…but then, that category was in any case presented by Tina Fey and Steve Martin.
Also, the line of the day came from Jack Black when he told Aniston how he is making money by Animation films: “I do one dreamworks project, and bet all the money I earn from them on Pixar (winning the Oscars).” Lol.
But yes, most of the ‘descriptions’ were too text-bookish and even abstract. Though I still hate the way Filmfare-etc. are conducted for the last 8-10 years…where awards are just a ‘reason’ for some to dance, poke fun, or show-off their color-coordinated ‘good friends’.
P.S. – I had more of a lump seeing Sunidhi winning ‘Meri aawaz Suno’ on DD than seeing rehman grab that trophy which was his for the last one month at least.
P.S. – And why was Ledger’s family so ‘correct/rehearsed/unemotional’? Or have we become too sensation-seeking, thanks to our media houses?
quite agree with your preference for the Golden Globes…i thought Golden Globe rightly nominated Kate Winslet for the Best Actress award for Revolutionary Road…i think she was wonderful there…it is a performance that doesn’t feel like a performance at all…her portrayal of Hannah in The Reader was equally wonderful but I loved the Revolutionary Road role…
Who can forget the Filmfare awards show hosted by SRK and SAK? (Both shows). It was hilarious and entertaining. I also think that our award shows are better because we need not take them seriously. The actual handing over of award is not important; but the events in between!
But having said that I was quite surprised with this year’s awards – some going to OLLO and some to MMJ.
Well the problem with indian awards IMO is exactly what you said Anand.
Just my two cents but if the indian film industry don’t try to take itself seriously, who will do that abroad ? And please, let’s not act like India don’t need it because one day it will be “recognised” internationally (hopefully) and it will make a big difference for everyone involved.
Rangan sir, am a regulare reader but very rarely comment.
I completely disagree with your view that there was no suspense on if AR would win or not. In my case, although he won the GG’s I was still very nervous on if he would win. And when he did i was crying myself hoarse in joy.
I thought hugh jackman was a good host and the presentation ceremonies were very good. It is case of us expecting a lot more than what an award ceremony should be. Also, I record the shows and watch later so did feel it as a drag.
I was expecting a longer tribute ot our own oscar winner from you.
“Couldn’t all these lesser categories – lesser only in terms of wattage, not achievement – been reduced to the airing of the five relevant film clips followed by the “and the winner is” announcement?”
I made the same comment at my Oscars-viewing party, and was treated to a lecture by my friends on the importance of publicly recognizing in primetime all the people who toil behind the scenes. I need to get new friends.:-)
As for the Penn better(or less consciously “acting”) than Streep stuff – Oh, PLEASE!:-) Fortunately, I’m too darn lazy to argue with you and show you the error of your views.:-) So, I’ll just leave you with one question – have you seen “I am Sam”? If yes, still think you can’t “see” Penn acting?:-)
I enjoyed the Oscars, but then, I’m also the target demographic for the show, so aptly titled the “Super Bowl for Women”. Female, 18-35 years of age, obsessed with fashion, watches everything leading up to the OScars including the pre-red carpet programs (those are the ones where they talk about the dresses worn the years before). And although my love for Hugh Jackman may color my thoughts on the presentation, I honestly felt it was a fun,Old-Hollywood style show, with a setting like it was the Copa Cabana Club, the band on stage instead of being buried inside a pit. But I do agree that the Gliobes are more suspenseful. I even enjoyed the SAG awards.
I haven’t gone through the comments, so don’t know if someone has already said this – I can’t believe you haven’t seen Milk yet! Or The Wrestler, for that matter! Did my respect for your knowledge of films just come down?
Naah, that’s rather difficult, but please go and watch the two movies. Especially Milk.
BR,I always thought that if it seems obvious that an actor is acting then it is not great acting, right? Dont you call it “acting”?(like Surya in Ghajini)
If De Niro’s shake of the head is distracting you then he has failed. Technical acting, whatever it means, be damned.
“you sense the greatness in their performance but you don’t particularly feel it”
How can you spot or sense greatness without feeling it? This implies that there is some textbook definition of “great” acting that you can see but which somehow doesn’t connect to you.
The reason I am asking this is, I feel the exact same way about De Niro that you do. He doesnt connect with me at times. But at the same time I can’t sense any greatness either. Are you talking about just putting on weight and getting all the mannerisms right and all that method acting stuff?(like in Raging Bull)
* more than a slight digression*
@varun.. Meri awaz suno had separate male and female winners . Now we all know sunidhi, but do you remember the guy who won it.?:-)
Off track, an article on film critics at Rediff with some deserved praise for you , bade saab!
http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/oct/03bolly.htm
Never understood what this star wattage is. Eternally bored by between-award dance shows and such. While many a swooning fan talks about “oh it was soooooo thrilling” etc, nobody ever explains what exactly they feel when semi-interested starlets and superstars put in mostly half hearted, sometimes full hearted performances in these shows. I’m not saying how can people get thrilled by these sideshows but can someone actually articulate the merit in these show – btw that’s rhetorical since even baradwaj is not able to capture what exactly these shows thrill or excite about _ the task must surely be beyond mere mortals then
On the acting note..one of the most finest actors who make us see the character and not the actor is “Daniel Day Lewis”, I have mentioned this to many ppl and tell them his different movies, to their surprise none of them realize it was him in those role…every single one of them….from “My Left Foot” to “There will be Blood”, he does not bring any mannerism from one movie to another like Clooney’s eye gestures, Gibson’s head shake, Depp’s mouth gestures, etc
Rahul: I’m not THAT big an Apatow fan. I enjoy his films, but I don’t get the fuss. But I haven’t seen Pineapple Express, so perhaps the skit didn’t resonate all that much.
Varun: Was that the one where she sang Tu chanda? I just caught the clip on youtube recently. I mean… wow!
Anand: Reg. “I also think that our award shows are better because we need not take them seriously.” Precisely. Once you tune out the worthiness aspect, it’s good fun. Especially when something unexpected happens, like Ashutosh Gowarikar completely losing his cool
Shalini: “Oh, PLEASE,” right back at you. Every actor has these bad films and bad roles. Maybe he had a mortgage to pay off. Or maybe it’s just the law of averages
Vijay: We’ve talked about this before (in the context of movies). Like there are movies I love and movies I admire (the former category are those that touch me emotionally and I can watch over and over, the latter are those that engage me, say, intellectually), there are various ways to enjoy performances. You are right of course when you say the best acting should be invisible. But when it’s not invisible, there are two things that can happen. (1) The performance can collapse like Surya in VA, where that old age makeup and that shuffling gait was just plain distracting. (Think also Sean Penn in I am Sam.) Or, (2) It can be a good “technical” performance that satisfies all the requirements of the role and yet doesn’t reach out to you, so you don’t lose yourself in the character but are still able to appreciate the “work” and the “thought’ that’s gone into the performance. But having said that, I’d take Pacino and Brando over De Niro any day (except in his 70s films).
Babs: Oh yeah, DDL rocks. He did one of the rare “disease movies,” where the role didn’t come off as a stunt (My Left Foot) — as opposed to Rain Man, where I kept wishing Tom Cruise would put a gun to Hoffman’s head and put him (and us) out of his misery
““you sense the greatness in their performance but you don’t particularly feel it”
. Or is that a differente animal?
”
Just like you watch movies you dont understand but feel the greatness
Talking of disease movies and acting, BR what did you think of De Niro in The Awakenings? Was he convincing enough?
BR: “Rain Man, where I kept wishing Tom Cruise would put a gun to Hoffman’s head and put him (and us) out of his misery”
Bite your tongue!!
Sorry, that was a reflex because I love Dustin Hoffman.
But Pacino and Brando over De Niro? Really? I’ve always thought those two (especially Pacino) were masters of the “Look at me! I’m acting!” school of acting. They’re defnitely two of those people that I can appreciate technically, but I’m always aware of their “acting”.
De Niro seems more natural to me (except maybe in Raging Bull).
Speaking of Raging Bull, I thought Joe Pesci was amazing.
raj: I thought I’d mentioned earlier that I don’t watch films without subtitles (if it’s in a language I don’t know).
Vijay: I saw Awakenings so long ago, I don’t exactly recall the performance. But at time, i remember enjoying what De Niro did, a rare “still” performance. But in general, I hate “disease movie” performances, especially the ones that involve facial tics, slurred speech and so on. The only time these things work for me is when a brand new actor plays the role (in the sense that I have no earlier sense of his performing style and he seems to be “natural”). What did you think of Awakenings, BTW?
Elizabeth: Pacico got showy only after the 80s. His run of 70s performances is a great one.
reg. “De Niro seems more natural to me” – in general, I feel any “actor” has a few initial years that are great. After that, the mannerisms set in and everything they do, we seem to have seen before. That’s why I find it far more pleasurable to watch someone like Cary Grant (who was Cary Grant from film to film, so we didn’t have to watch him try to “stretch”) than the “great actors” who, after a point, become repetitive in many ways despite trying so hard to be different in each role. (This isn’t to say Grant wasn’t a great actor; just that his signature style isn’t what is usually called “great acting.”) Naseer somehow seems an exception. It’s as much a pleasure to watch him today as it was in the 70s. I wonder if it could be because he’s mostly been in non-show-offy roles, and this low-keyness ensured that we didn’t tire of him.
Am surprised why no one has mentioned Gene Hackman…I think he is one among the top ‘un-noticed (as in unmentioned among the top pantheon) actors. He elevates a movie…
BR, no frets,you know I’m not serious there
But coming back to awards functions, just caught up with Imran “Next best thing after sliced bread” Khan and Ranbir “next best thing after Imran Khan” Kappoor’s filmfare antics in a news channel – seriously, this obvious, unsuccesful play acting is what people look for in award shows? They find this sort of thing interesting? Seriously, dont tell me.
“Naseer somehow seems an exception”
You forgot his wife, who, apparently, has a similar impact
But isnt this relative – Kamal fans for instance dont have the same problem as you have with him(tics, used to it etc). They do tolerate or enjoy Dasavatharam. Is it just that you are a Naseer fan in the same way a Kamal fan is a Kamal fan?
“In general, I feel any “actor” has a few initial years that are great. After that, the mannerisms set in and everything they do, we seem to have seen before. That’s why I find it far more pleasurable to watch someone like Cary Grant (who was Cary Grant from film to film, so we didn’t have to watch him try to “stretch”) than the “great actors” who, after a point, become repetitive in many ways despite trying so hard to be different in each role” – Just curious, does this hold true for Kamal as well? You seem to indluge in his mannerisms with all the joy of a 10 year old all the way from Moondram pirai to Anbe Sivam?
“Even without these bits, there’s the attraction, after ages, of a superb Kamal performance. We’ve seen him act for so long now that everything – his laughter, his cries, the softening of his face in the romantic passages – is familiar, but Anbe Sivam contains one of those obsessive makeup-makeovers that results in a persona that’s different, yet familiar. With thick glasses and facial scars, a dislocated jaw and paralysed limbs (you even see a toe sticking out when he’s lying down), Kamal appears a grotesque version of his Mayor in Indiran Chandran, and it’s an amazing transformation!”
” I was struck by a scene from Moondram Pirai, the one where the dinner that Kamal is preparing gets burnt and he vents his bile on poor Sridevi. I haven’t seen the film in a long while and I’d forgotten what an accumulation of Kamal-isms this stretch is. He needs to go out and buy food now, so he hurriedly pulls on a pant and a shirt. He opens a drawer in this haste (to locate his wallet) and its contents crash to the floor – among them a bottle of ink, now reduced to a spreading stain of red. Kamal – the peerless manipulator of props that he is – skirts around the mess and tries to push the drawer back into its recess. No amount of fidgeting helps, so he drops it in irritation. He continues tucking his shirt into his pants, and locates the wallet in another shirt hanging on the wall. He grabs it and tries to stuff it into the front pocket of his pants, and he tries again, and then discovers that these pants have no pockets, so he places the wallet inside his shirt and strides out”
raj: And what makes you think I’m not a Kamal fan? Isn’t that obvious after all this time you’ve spent on this blog?
vivek: Damn, our comments crossed.
BR, no not that way. You arent a Kamal fan in the sense that I meant – and the sense I meant it was derogative – so there.(Ofcourse, that still doesnt make my comment a compliment considering the following line but let’s ignore that
)
You did mention about familiar Kamal tics in Dasavatharam, though, so I thought he had crossed that rubicon of “initial years of good acting and then degenerating to tics” for you. But the basic point still remains that identifying something as a tic happens to different fans at different times – like, a kamal fan from the 70’s might have felt that Nayakan was merely full of those tics and therefore, his initial years of great acting had passed. For you, Dasavatharam might be the cut off point. For me, it is reverse chronological order- the more I go back in his filmography, the less I like his performances
Tics or not, Kamal has had about one noteworthy performance in the last decade-Sivam. Everywhere else Kamal the star peeps in and ensures that we are watching him and not the character. I want to see Kamal disappear into a character without the need of a heavy makeup, atleast one more time.
BR, Awakenings was a decent movie but DeNiro was “acting” I thought. And, why does he sport a scowl on his face(his lips curving downwards almost like an inverted U) in a lot of his movies as if the directors shortchanged him or something?
Maybe that’s the mannerism you are talking about.
While you are at it, tell me what you think of Morgan Freeman too.There is almost a hushed reverence whenever his name comes up in awards ceremonies or on TV. Is he all that he is cracked up to be? I have’nt seen enough of a range from Freeman to completely come to a conclusion.In most of the films I have seen he plays more or less a dignified mentor role to the lead character – Seven, Shawshank, Glory,Million Dollar Baby and so on..He was good in those but has he played any other kind of roles really well? Apart from Driving Daisy.
Speaking of Oscars, did you happen to see ‘waltz with Bashir’; it is the only Oscar movie I managed to watch so far-a surrealist semi-autobiographical war account by Ari Folman?
It is surprising that it missed-out on the Oscars, anyway, am happy to see Japanese movies brought back to the cine-map.
It would be a pleasure to read your take on these
“:Pacico got showy only after the 80s. His run of 70s performances is a great one.”
Could not agree more on that, though am yet to watch a few, btw how did you find him in ’scent of a woman’?
tic tic tic was one horrible movie …
BR – good that you clarified that Cary Grant is a great actor. Otherwise would have to send some really nasty electrons your way.:-)
raj, I have only one thing to say….vandhuttayan, vandhuttan!!
Reg. the ‘dumbing-down’ you talked about:
Isn’t there a reason why they seem to bend over backwards to accomodate the technicians now? They simply don’t want another strike, this time from the set-decorators.Maybe the hangover’s still floating around.
Let’s say, if Shibani Bhatija, Sridhar Raghavan, Kamlesh Pandey, and the rest of their tribe decided to hold things up….maybe the Screen awards( and the rest of their coop) would force those same trite excursions into the mouths of Kareena ,Karan Johar,and the Khans.
Or maybe they wouldn’t. We’d just be back to the days of submitting to Subhash Ghai and Sanjay Gupta. In any case, as long as the people behind the scenes add box office value to the product, there’d be a lurking fear of losing their loyalties(if at all they ever decided to wedge a jammy into the smug studio’s megalomania).
Some of the greatest of Kamal’s work is not considered great purely because he ‘not acting’. Recent Case in point – Mumbai Xpress, Virumandi and Vettaiyadu Vilaiyadu. The problem with people like Mani, Kamal and Raja is that the bar is getting raised so high every time that whatever they do, we end up disappointed. But after a few years, we look back and say that it is great work. For example, Kannathil Muthamittal by Mani, Virumandi by Raja, Anbe Sivam by Kamal.
Vijay: reg Morgan Freeman, exactly. He is the Major Sundararajan of Hollywood. Even Major had a Bama Vijayam where he played comedy superbly. Morgan’s range is not tested even to that level.
raj: I still like him when he’s subdued, as in Vettaiyaadu. That performance worked for me because he wasn’t trying very hard. He was just “being” for the most part, and after a long time. That was nice.
Vijay: Have you seen Freeman in ‘Street Smart’, opposite a then-hot Christopher Reeve? He was superb as a pimp and had that film been a hit, he may have had a different career. Unfortunately, ‘Unforgiven’ became a huge hit and Freeman became one of the worst victims of typecasting. I do think he’s a terrific actor though, if only for finding little things to do within the “same” roles he gets.
Hari: I did write about ‘Waltz with Bashir’, from Goa. Oh, and that ‘Scent of a Woman’ performance is emblematic of everything I don’t like about the latter-day Pacino. I still can’t believe the Oscar.
“raj, I have only one thing to say….vandhuttayan, vandhuttan!! ”
mhmmm..the correct statement is “aarambichuttanya, aarmbichuttan”
BR, but with Kamal, there was a phase in the 80’s when if you just watched him in tamil movies, you would simply hate him – azhukku sattai, per kedutha pillai, thaazhndha ullam etc. Kodumai doesnt begin to describe it.
Ippo evlavo thevalai – indha kodumaikkellam dasavatharam evlavo thevalai
I belong to the category of Kamal fans who enjoy and love him in Dasavatharam, yet how i wish to see a movie like mahanadhi where he sheds all his makeup accessories and spellbounds purely by his performance. I thought his performance in Virumandi was very good, it was over the top and suited the charecterisation to tee. Even in a movie like thenali i thought the interview sequence was superbly done staring of on a humorous note and moving into narrating his mothers death in one single shot….it was classic kamal stuff to me..,it may look showy or we have already seen this from Kamal, but the subtle differences he brings out in his body language..his varied usage of dialects adds a new dimension to his performances. Guess we can see the good old Kamal that everyones waiting/wanting for in the Wednesday remake, though i am indeed too curious to see how different Kamal will play Naseers role, as the last time he was acting in a remake (vasool raja) he was supposedly dozing of in the sets between shots and just went through the motions and finished of the movie.
Wanted to link this piece by the brilliant Anand Ramachandran – it takes a good writer to articulate, thats what this article proves. A few lines convey all that I have taken reams of column space to express.
http://bosey.co.in
Raj : i think even then he was balancing a kaaki sattai with a punnagai mannan..a per sollum pillai with a Nayagan.. I think its quiet unbelievable he did per sollum pillai and nayagan in the same year…he was able to meet both the ends…and cater to the entire class of audience.. Kaaki chattai was a good entertainer with the some foot tapping numbers..Simla special was good too.. Per sollum pillai was playing in ktv today m,orning
..These movies of the 80s and early 90s were the ones that made Kamal commercially a very much sellable product..I personally feel they arent kodumai..probably to an extent may be guru..or per sollum pillai..True that most of these movies look dated..
…So you hate these movies or Kamals performance or both in general….
Per sollum Pillai was one of the worst movies ever. I do enjoy a few masala flicks of Kamal from the 80s because the expectations are different and we looked forward to seeing Kamal the star do what he does best. I do wish that Kamal had started his one serious one comedy film routine much earlier than the 90s however, but overall considering his obligation to the wretched AVM, his fan base, his (im)age and all that you cant blame him much for doing those films.
But Per sollum Pillai was in a different league altogether. I remember even a suggestive handjob scene with Radhika followed by the typical song. How did they, after doing Sippikkul Muthu, did this?
Sariyaana mokka padam. It has that typical AVM bungalow set with the tall stairs and a gawdy red carpet. Storyline and production values were 50 yrs old. Kamal had done much better masalas by then and this was an outright embarassment.
In the last 10 years Pamal Sambhandham has got to be the worst, narrowly beating Vasool Raja. It was one big borefest. I remember not being able to manage a smile for atleast 40 mins during a stretch.
BR, havent seen Street Smart but thanks for the info. I do feel he is capable but like you said, typecasted.
KPV Balaji/raj: I agree. But right from the beginning he did interesting films / interesting roles. He may have hammed a few but at that point in time, they looked great. Who else had a list like this in their CVs in 70S and 80s? 16 Vayadhinile, Avargal, Nizhal Nijamagiradhu, Apoorva Raganagal, Sigappu Rojakkal, Raja Paarvai, Ek Duuje Ke Liye, Meendum Kokila, Moondram Pirai, Sagara Sangamam, Swathi Muthyam, Solla Than Ninaikiren, Unarchigal, Aval Appadi than, Simla Special, Kokila, Oru Kaidhiyin Diary, Kalyanaraman, Varumaiyin Niram Sivappu, Ilamai Oonjalaadugiradhu, Chanakyan, Sathya, Pushpak, Punnagai Mannan, Nayakan! All this in 70s and 80s!
BTW, for people hating Per sollum Pillai, try Ram Lakshman
Or the numerous Hindi films he did…Raj Tilak, Giraftaar, Sanam Teri Kasam!
The worst phase began with Thoongadhe Thambi Thoongadhe, then Enakkul Oruvan, Kakki Sattai, Andha Oru Nimidam, Uyarndha Ullam, Japanil Kalyanaraman, Kadhal Parisu and Per Sollum Pillai.
“The worst phase began with Thoongadhe Thambi Thoongadhe, then Enakkul Oruvan, Kakki Sattai, Andha Oru Nimidam, Uyarndha Ullam, Japanil Kalyanaraman, Kadhal Parisu and Per Sollum Pillai.
”
Anand, this is exactly my point. I dont use the same names while referring to these films – I use Thaangadhe Thambi Thaangadhae, Kadhal saabam, azhukku sattai, Per kedutha pillai etc. No wonder I wasnt a Kamal fan then. I dont want to tell my name for Enakkul oruvan. Just add a K before enakkul and remove the L at the last
Have you not been watching the Oscars? This was definitely the best ceremony in years and I’m not just saying that because of Slumdog.