Aamir Khan supersedes other super stars of commercial hindi cinema in 2008
Ghazini has similarities with many films like Memento, Jhootha Kahin Ka and Pasand Apni Apni etc, but does it reduce the intensity of hard work Aamir Khan needed to put in the character, he has played?
Had his job become easy because scenes or ideas have been taken from above mentioned films?
Sholay is said to be inspired by many films (Hindi and Western) but does this reduce the impact of the film?
Satte Pe Satta’s first half had similarities with Seven brides for seven brothers but did those similarities reduce the quality of Satte Pe Satta or stop audiences of Hindi cinema to enjoy the film?
No. Satte Pe Satta was a hit film and people have been enjoying the film since last 26 years.
Reason to like some films inspired by other films made in past has been only one and that is the conviction of makers and actors who have played the characters in them.
Films can not be copied as it can be done in print media, as there one does not need anything other than a photocopy machine.
In other forms of arts, one can try to make a replica but still he needs lots of efforts to match or excel the original creation.
When conviction of maker and actors is not present then these efforts, which get inspirations from some other sources, make bad products. There have been many such bad products in the past and there would be many such bad products in the future also.
If an Engineer is visiting a plant and he makes some notes in his mind about the size and shape of the equipments and vessels used in that plant and comes back and designs his own plant where he has taken help of his memory about the visit of that plant then it will be called his skills and not merely a copy.
There is one kind of love but there are thousands of imitations.
In the field of art a certain intellect and devotion is needed to make an inspired thing which looks in the end as creator’s own product. An idea can have inspiration from other sources but final product should scream that it belongs to this present creator.
Many of the Aamir Khan’s films have been inspired by other films but credit goes to Aamir Khan that once an audience is watching his films, he is devoid of this burden that he has seen such character in so and so film before because Aamir’s devotion in playing his characters is beyond any doubt.
Ghazini has many weaknesses but cinema is one such thing which works on its merits and where it continuously walks on the chest of weaknesses. Sholay’s story has shortcomings but audience is not allowed to fall for those shortcomings while one is watching it.
After watching Sholay, one can make notes of these shortcomings but if same audience watch again the Sholay, keeping in mind all those shortcomings, even then he will be lost in the visual story telling capability of the film. This is symbol of powerful cinema where audience has to accept the final film and acceptance means a love affair where one accepts other knowing very well that other may have certain shortcomings and in reality other is having shortcomings.
Shortcomings in a good film cease to bother while it is watched.
Sholay has that capacity where a long term relationship is established and its magic still affects the audience.
Ghazini does not contain 25% of that magic which Sholay has been having but Ghazini has power to make audience sitting on his seat and enjoying the film in the first time viewing.
Aamir Khan of Ghazini has that power that people will repeat the film only for his performance and his performance will be used as a reference whenever subject will be there to discuss the animal instinct shown by an actor on the screen in hindi cinema.
With Ghazini, actor Aamir Khan has been rejuvenated. He is revamped as an actor and his energies have been charged.
In TZP he had acted as a director also and hence there was a dilution in his personal performance. Character of DJ he played in RDB was repetitive and he had played such characters with good skills in the past in many of his films like Rangeela and DCH. His get ups might have changed but growth of an actor was halted at some level.
He had worked in Raakh as a curious actor who wanted to perform well and wanted to learn. That was a revenge drama. Sarfarosh will remain his one of the best performances and this was again a revenge drama. And now in Ghazini he again plays a character who has to take revenge of the murder of his lover.
Shahrukh Khan’s six packs were not needed in OSO. They became a marketing tool to promote the film.
Aamir’s body building in Ghazini will remain as a thing necessary for his character or which suits his character.
He was not playing a character on stage and he was facing the camera and one can not fool the camera. He had to use his expressionless eyes and face to portray a character who has been suffering from short term memory loss and he was successful in it.
He played this part very well and all those scenes where he is in confusion or where his character can not recall anything are very good and will provide a text book material for other actors of Hindi cinema.
For audience, who have watched films like Pasand Apni Apni and Jootha Kahin Ka, it had become clear after few initial scenes only between Aamir Khan, Asin and Tinu Anand that this track has been taken from those old films but credit has to be given to Aamir Khan and Asin that they did not make it looking like a stale dish which stinks and tastes bad.
At times it feels as if Asin is taking a resort in overacting but she overwhelms this idea because she does continuous efforts to perform and that matters for an actor.
Ghazini could be a slick thriller if shortcomings were reduced. Songs, clich'©s in the screenplay and very average performances from the actors who have played Inspector and Ghazini etc bring down the standard of the film but in first watch, audience may be hooked to see Aamir Khan’s performance and the presentation of the film and later he may make an opinion about good and bad things of the film.
After some time people may not remember the film but Aamir Khan will be remembered for his performance. An actor has to feel a curiosity about a character offered to him, he should feel energy and proud inside that a different character has been offered to him which he has not played before and he should feel a fear also inside whether he will be able to do the justice with the character or not.
Aamir’s performance gives witness in the favour of his capabilities as an actor. He has earned a reputation of being an actor who can increase effective area and can try many different characters.
Some years ago, I think Aamir Khan was visiting Pakistan for some purpose, Aamir Khan was asked to comment on Shahrukh Khan’s saying that he is the King or Badshah of Hindi cinema, and Aamir Khan had said that if SRK is a King then I am an ace (Shahrukh agar badshah hai to mein Ikka hun).
SRK of early 90s was an actor who was doing something different than Aamir Khan and Salman Khan were doing in the films like Dil and Saajan etc.
SRK was energetic and willing to do different things on screen and it was appreciated.
One can see his hard work in a film like Ram Jane also.
Film will be known for SRK’s hard work in playing the character and Pankaj Kapur’s interesting portrayal of the character named as Techni-colour.
SRK’s never die attitude is so visible in that performance. He performs there in a way of a warrior or a player who has to do efforts inspite of knowing all his limitations and where one accepts the shortcomings but does not take impression of those weaknesses and fights or plays to win only. He may win or lose, it does not matter, what matters is the effort to perform.
SRK excelled in not so big films where there was not any expectation prior to their releases. DDLJ was not something special before its release. SRK of KHKN, Darr, Duplicate, Yes Boss, Maya Memsaab and even DDLJ was a surprise element and a pleasant performer but then he got this super stardom and though his films have been earning maximum revenue on box office, post DDLJ, but that old SRK has been burdened by this stardom. It seems makers who cast him remain under that burden and there is no free spirited performance anymore. He played very well his characters in KANK, Swades and few other films but none of his performance brought him a tag of a very good performance. They were repetitive somewhere and his box office power was utilized more than the desire to present him in something different and there was not a trial to extract out best from him.
At times he gives glimpses that perhaps now he can rejuvenate his actor also but he remains a performer who is performing within a defined boundary only. That freshness has been lost which is required to differentiate between two characters he plays in two different films.
RNBDJ may earn 100 Million Rupees or dollars but it has not added anything in his acting skills.
It was easy in the year, when Rangeela and DDLJ were released, to make a tie between Aamir Khan and Shahrukh Khan but in the year 2008 Aamir Khan has easily excelled in the role of Sanjay Singhania in Ghazini over SRK’s Suri or Raj of RNBDJ.
At times SRK (as Suri) looked like as if he was imitating Anil Kapur (in Ishwar), who himself was trying to do a mimicry act on Raj Kapoor’s some of the on screen traits. That energy for which SRK has been known for years was not visible in RNBDJ. That person, who had “never accept defeat and do efforts” attitude, was not seen in the film. He looked tired even in his disguised form of Raj also.
SRK did not look enjoying his own performance. An actor should give impression that he has enjoyed very much playing the character and then only actor looks fresh on screen.
A certain philosophy may work after RNBDJ but it does not bring an impression to the audiences who have been watching SRK since his Fauji days that it has added any feather in his cap as an actor.
It has even brought down expectations from him as an actor.
Super stars have their respective grips on the market so their films have to earn profit but for an actor genuine praise of his performance is also very important.
Ghazini as a film may not convince many audiences but expectations from Aamir Khan as an actor have been increased. There comes a faith on him that he can play difficult characters with conviction and if his non-conventional films also get commercial success then he will be remembered as someone who brought some changes in his era.
New and different things were expected from other member, Hritik Roshan, of super star club also after he had done Koi Mil Gaya and he has not disappointed in Jodha Akbar and those high expectations from him have not died.
Salman Khan’s stardom may still continue but he is not getting projects where he could be praised as an actor. In light scenes in Yuvraj he is fine but as soon as some difficult scene comes where he has to portray some deep emotions, he looks like a weak actor.
Saif Ali Khan has not delivered anything significant after Omkara.
Akshay Kumar has successfully proved that he can match the appeal of any super star on Box office but he also has to prove in near future that he can do something extra other than action and comedy.
Aamir Khan and Hritik Roshan both have made dent in the market of Shahrukh Khan as an actor. As a performer he and other super stars may still give blockbusters in coming future but Aamir and Hritik are asking for improvements in their acting skills and selection of characters also.
Aamir and Hritik too have to be selective regarding the types of films they have been doing. Overall quality of whole project also matters and not to mention that if Ghazini as a film had any match with Aamir Khan’s performance then it could have helped hindi cinema more and then hindi cinema could be developed further.
Tags: aamir khan, akshay kumar, DCH, Ghazini, Hritik Roshan, Jootha Kahin ka, OSO, pankaj kapur, Pasand Apni Apni, Raakh, Rangeela, RNBDJ, Salman Khan, Satte Pe Satta, Seven brides for seven brothers, sholay, TZP, Yuvraj
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
“With Ghazini, actor Aamir Khan has been rejuvenated. He is revamped as an actor and his energies have been charged. ”
Bang on, my friend…..when I saw the film, my first thought was “He’s really enjoying this..”
And yes, he did look a bit jaded in TZP….especially towards the end..
Yes, RK at times we should leave the baggage of cinematic history outside the hall and view a movie for its visual storytelling and not wait to point out similarities in story or characters from other movies.
@Aditya Mani Jha,
Thanks for your comment. It takes something out of an actor when he works as a director also on same film. Very few actor cum director, kind of people mainatin same quality in their own directed films as they have been maintaining in films where they have acted under direction of somebodyelse and who is quite competent director.
May be in his second directorial venture Aamir Khan will be able to enter in this group of actor cum director.
e.g, there is no difference in the actor Raj Kapoor’s acting whether he is acting in his own film where he is directing also or film is directed by other director. It shows his command on both the mediums.
@Arun,
Entertainment ka takaja to yahi kehta hai. Once one has accepted to watch a film then first he should be devoted to this particular film for the time, film is shown on screen and opinions should be made later once film is finished.
Its foolish also to go and buy a ticket and complain (in mind) all the time tzhat its copy of that film. Its not photo copy.
Once film is finished, then decide it was good or bad.
No marriage happen where one goes with preconceived notions that the other person has to be bad.
—
Later, what matters is merits of the film. If there are certain merits then they will remain in the memory of an open minded audiences.
Confused audiences can never be happy and they will be dissatisfied with world’s greatest film also because they themselves dont know what they want to see and why they have come to watch the film.
Meritorious film can help audience to avoid any unnecessary things.
Few merits in Ghazini can not be ignored. Plot and scenes can have inspiration from other films but authentic performance of Aamir Khan keeps alive its existence in the forest of films.
While I havent seen Ghajini, I think the body-building here was as much of a marketing thing as it was in OSO… Why do I say this? Coz, I think by toning down the action a bit (or probably since it was a hard-core masala film, there wasnt even a need to tone down the body and) he could have easily carried off the ‘Fanaa’ body (or the ‘Mangal Pandey’ body) for the action scenes… One can also argue that such a body is not really required of a business man (even though in the movie he probably built that body after her murder but still)…
)
But the point remains that SRK also dint really NEED the body for the role…
(PS: Yes, you can accuse me of only picking on this, rather small thing to comment
Offtopic: I really liked your article on Kalyug. Dint have anything to post there as I havent seen it, but will try to get hold of the next opportunity to watch that movie…
Typo: I meant “there wasnt even a need to tone down the action and”…
very well written article. aamir might’ve delivered good performance but he didn’t convince me much as lead role compared to what surya did in the tamil version. surya excelled in his mannerisms and approach towards the role. and as far as comparing sharukh and aamir, shahrukh stands no where near as an actor near aamir.
@rk ~:
super analysis and backing up the article with reasonable examples made it all more interesting. I h’v always liked your posts, never commented though…pchh
@rbehemoth ~:
Aamir building-up his body for Ghajini helped the character he played. I think it gave the necessary motivation. It gave an instant intense look and gave an idea of what to expect from the film. Having said that, the makers also used it to market the film. That’s not a bad thing at all as that’s not the only motivation, unlike OSO.
On a lighter note – it’s always easy to write numbers and names on a slate (ghajini look) rather than a sponge (fanaa body)..lol
hey i agree with most of what you said other than one thing
the six packs were used for marketing in both films…
they were needed also in a way in both films and both of them were marketed
SRK needed six packs in OSO to spoof the modern star
Aamir needed six pakcs in ghajini to look the part
Hi Rk,
I disagree with your analysis on Suri. I think Suri was supposed to look jaded. A common man who is caught up in his monotonous “boring” 9 to 5 job and world. He was not suppose to look too energetic or fresh that would have defeated the purpose otherwise.
.
SRK, IMO, performed very well as Suri. He brought that endearing quality without making him look retarded or a caricature.
.
I have not seen Ghajini so can’t comment on Aamir.
Regarding the six pack and physique, it looked realistic considering Aaamir’s state of mind. His character is supposed to live for only one purpose i.e. kill his beloved’s killers and he has built up his body in order to take and give the maximum punishment. His body muscles looked the part i.e. intimidating and tough as nails. When he punches a guy, it looks like he has genuinely hurt him because of the physique and strength. SRK’s build in OSO also looked the part i.e. attractive in the eyes of females and pansy in the eyes of males.
However I did not like him wearing shirts with the sleeves rolled up till the biceps during his “full memory” life. No one wears such shirts in office or before delegates.
@rbehemoth,
Thanks for your comment.
Re: Body building in Ghazini, It can look justified knowing the mental condition of Aamir Khan’s character. Perhaps he is not capable to do anything else now where mind is needed. His mind is filled with one emotion that he has to take revenge.
He needs sleep. He has to pass time. Physical work is the only solace in such state. Its filmy but does not pinch because it has changed Aamir Khan’s otherwise soft personality into a wild animal like person. In past we can recall only Kamal Hasan in Abhay in such boundary or villain of Akayla.
—
Re: Kalyug, you have not seen the film but you know Mahabharata. Thats enough ground to play around. Hope you like the film, whenever you get a DVD.
@bhanu ksihore,
Thanks for your comment. Sadly I have not seen the Tamil version of Ghazini.
Any actor who can play few different characters, can bring shocking performance if he gets good director to guide him and if he is willing to work with that devotion.
Super stars dont try to come out of that safe boundary is another thing.
Shahrukh, Aamir and Salman all have proved their skills in their respective areas and if given right kind of project each can outshine rest of the two in that year. They have few films which look belong to them.
We can see example of Saif. He was so good in Omkara but could he do anything significant after that? He cared for Box office hits only and hence selected films with such directors on whom he had faith that their films will be super hit on BO. and he did not need to do extra efforts to shine in those films. They were easy and repetitive roles.
But can we question his capability as an actor?
I dont doubt acting capabilities of either of them but feel reservation on kind of films they do and characters they play. Except Aamir, they are not trying to put them under heat of playing something different and in a different manner. That is their limitation, atleast at present.
May be this fear is wining over them that if their film does not shake Box Office then their names will get bad reputation in the market.
They have earned enough money in past years and can decide in a relaxed manner.
@j@!,
Thanks for comment. Your Slate and Sponge analogy is good and if a spongy body loses some weight then stretch marks will make english or hindi inscriptions, inscribed on body, looking like inscriptions written in Pali of Samrat Ashoka’s times
@vivek,
Thanks for your comment.
Re: SRK and OSO, If you recall documentary Inner and outer world of SRK, he was shown wearing a cover inside his shirt while shooting,(perhaps for Main Hoon Na) and this cover had shape and structure of six packed front portion of a male having well built physique.
SRK was suffering from back problem some years ago and it should be because of his hard work and determination that he got six pack abs at that age.
But just to make a spoof on stars of todays era, was it needed to do in real? That inner cover could have worked.
Its personal choice of SRK to do it.
But there is a difference between marketting styles opeted by Aamir and SRK.
Aamir’s marketing starts few weeks or days before the release of his films and before that people dont see him doing marketing all the time. He is creating market for his film.
While SRK is seen doing marketing 24X7@~300 days, and sometimes even his holidays are used to market him and his styles. He is an intelligent person so naturally he has justification for everything.
More than OSO, SRK’s six packs were marketed.
@vishesh,
Thanks for your comment.
Sorry for showing disagreement w.r.t RNBDJ. If Suri was not a caricature than who can be?
To look ordianry one does not need to look a comical character.
In concept RNBDJ is not something new.
Please watch Hriskesh Mukharjee’s Anuradha to see Balraj Sahni, BRChopra’s Gumrah to see Ashok Kumar, Shabana Azmi and Girish Karnad starrer Swami to look Girish Karnad’s ordinary husband, who is not liked by Shabana Azmi or Farookh Sheikh of Maya Memsaab.
SRK’s Suri is not ordinary looking intelligent person. He is kind of joker and goes more into comical side in his mannerisms.
Perhaps after CDI and Swades, it was difficult for SRK to play a character in a completely normal but different way so he played it in a way as if Suri is a bhola bhala. He made it on pattern of Vinay Pathak’s character in Bheja Fry. A normal SRK could have worked better as far as long term advantage is concerned. SRK is a super star and one of the most known Indian outside of India. After criticising him him for few films people have to admire him or his films.
We will see what people say in 2020 when RNBDJ will get a retrospection if people still remember it.
Was not same track used between Anupam Kher and Archana Pooran Singh in Mohabatein? Idea is expanded a bit.
Naseer of Katha is not a joker but a normal and simple guy and Farookh Sheikh was like Raj of RNBDJ.
Naseer’s kind of simple take was needed in this cindrella kind of story also.
and sad thing is SRK could do it much better but he did not do it in a normal way and opted for a caricature type of characterisation.
@ Dhananjay Mhatre,
Thanks for your comment. True about rolled up half sleeves shirts, while attending office or business meeting.
May be target audiens were those kind of guys who were mad about Radhe type hair style few years ago. Such people will still be existing in that age group and India has no dearth of such young people.
Fashion statements
@ RK
Even I do not agree with your views on SRK as Suri in RNBDJ.Let me tell you why I disagree.You say that Suri is made to appear as a clown , as a caricature & have given examples of Ashok Kumar in Gumrah, Girish Karnad in Swamy & Farooq Shaikh in Maya Memsaab who all acted as ordinary husbands.Yes I’ve seen all these movies & here’s what I feel.Suri is a character- who’s a simple seedha saadha guy, who was a bookworm when it came to studies & is someone that his teacher talks about as a model student.Suri is someone ho lives a routine life & is content with it.whats his life all about?Its just his home, office & some daaru sessions with his friend played by Vinay Pathak.Its keeping all these things in mind that SRK’s look has been fashioned the particular way for Suri.I dont think its a clown or a caricature in any way.Have you seen the way in which SRK as Suri stands in any of the frames?Its not a confident natural stance- it will be with some kind of nervousness & some slant- thats the kind of detailing SRK has done for Suri’s character.While I completely agree with you on Aamir doing Ghajini & why we need to look at it differently I wont agree that Aamir supersedes SRK in 2008.To me its like both SRK & Aamir have ensured that they do something different within the commercial milieu in the fag end of 2008 till emerge successful.
@ Sethumadhavan,
Everybody is entitled to keep any kind of viewpoint.
Thanks for writing reasons in an elaborative manner.
You missed Naseer of Katha to mention.
—
Lets look some logic behind such characterisation even if we dig deeply people living around us.
You say- [ Suri is simple seedha saadha, a bookworm when it came to studies & a model student for his teacher (or teachers?).Suri stands in any of the frames?Its not a confident natural stance- it will be with some kind of nervousness & some slant-thats the kind of detailing SRK has done for Suri’s character ].
—
So Suri was a favourite and intelligent and studious student in his college days. He got distinctions in every subject or in few of his favourite subjects. We dont have any background on his family and past life. But we see him getting a job in Panjab power and living in a really Big house and we can imagine it should be his ancestral house else he can not purchase such a big constructed area in initial years of his job.
Now when he was such a performer in education and later got a decent job, what makes SRK think that Suri should feel nervous and should stand with a slant?
—-
Coming to transformation of same character in the life outside of house in a cindrella way- Recall Love in Shimla and take of Director and Sadhana on this transformation.
—-
Amitabh Bachchan in Besharm plays a normal man, son of a humble teacher in the begining, he is transformed for a reason but not before a training.
—-
Is Suri schizophraniac that when he is Suri then he is nervous and stands in a slanted mode but when he changes into tight figure hugging Ts then all his physical and mental changes come immediately as soon as we audience blink our eyes?
—
SRK in Bazigar had already played two versions of same character in Bazigar in an appealing manner.
—
This is subjective issue if you dont find Suri as a caricature.
Its not a normal character and it looks synthetic. A person can be diffident or unable to express his feelings but its not necessary that he has to opt mannerisms suitable for a comical character or a person whose mind has not only few but many problems.
You dont find him following path paved by Vinay Pathak’s bhola bhala but comical character in Bheja Fry?
Or was it on pattern of Mahmood’s character in Main Sundar Hoon?
—-
There are two scopes when a person lives alone.
Either he can be very imaginative in his solitude or he can become ignorant about his looks and personal appearances.
What exists in case of Suri?
Is Suri living a satisfied life (before marrying) or is he living a boring life and accepts that he is good for nothing?
The love story was shown well. The song picturization of Guzarish was awesome. Rest of the film I felt like sleeping
@kcp,
Bhai, thats called occupational hazard. Dont work too much, have some time for your cine world related works also as that will keep you in a relaxed state.
Voice of Hammering can work as a lullaby for people realted with constrcution works and machines.
Kamal Hasan (pushpak) needed to record noise of market to sleep in the quietness of the hotel room
RK- I’ve always believed to each his/her own.So you & I are both entitled to our viewpoints
But yes I’ll get back to you shortly with my response to your comments.
And yes I’m back after a short break.To begin with, my apologies for missing out Nasser in Katha.
Here is my response to your comments-
“Now when he was such a performer in education and later got a decent job, what makes SRK think that Suri should feel nervous and should stand with a slant”?
Suri is a topper in acads & gets a decent job- but remember he is not shown as a very confident and in control character.Rather he is more of a simpleton in nature,slightly shy & probably only letting himself loose with his closest friend played by Vinay Pathak.
“Is Suri schizophraniac that when he is Suri then he is nervous and stands in a slanted mode but when he changes into tight figure hugging Ts then all his physical and mental changes come immediately as soon as we audience blink our eyes?”
Well Suri is given a makeover not only in looks but also in demeanour by Vinay Pathak.So initially when SRK comes as Raj to check Taani @ the auditions he is still clumsy- but soon picks himself & gets into the confident mood as he realises the purpose for which he’s there.I do agree here that some amount of cinematic liberty has been used.
“This is subjective issue if you dont find Suri as a caricature.Its not a normal character and it looks synthetic. A person can be diffident or unable to express his feelings but its not necessary that he has to opt mannerisms suitable for a comical character or a person whose mind has not only few but many problems.
You dont find him following path paved by Vinay Pathak’s bhola bhala but comical character in Bheja Fry?Or was it on pattern of Mahmood’s character in Main Sundar Hoon?”
Well no I repeat I dont find him comical & not similar to Vinay Pathak in Bheja Fry- a lovable fool or even Mahmood in Main Sundar Hoon.In a way he was probably more like Vinay Pathak in Dasvidaniya.
“Is Suri living a satisfied life (before marrying) or is he living a boring life and accepts that he is good for nothing?”
Well Suri definitely seems to be contented with his life.yes he has a routine lifestyle- home,office,meeting an only friend- but he seems to be perfectly fine with it & doesnt seem to be yearning for anything more.He’s a contented man & that’s for sure.
And let me tell you much as SRK must have improvised over the character, its Aditya’s brainwork which has come up with the basic skeleton of Suri the way he is.
RK,
Our disagreement continues :-)
Thanks for taking pains to explain your POV.
The four illustrations that you mentioned are not the only ways to portray a common man. I think there can be more additions to them.
.
Only the get-up of Suri seems comical at first glance but none of his act are comical or cartoonish. He does not ask dumb questions or does dumb act and shows lot of maturity at many instances. I don’t understand if that defines a caricature. If your reference for Suri is Kake of Mohabbatein then I am certain we will never converge on Suri’s act.
.
Suri is not insecure. He feels awkward with all the attention he gets. Whether he wins the Sumo fight or the Dance competition. Even the first scene when he is with Taani after marriage on railway station, he feels the world is watching him and that’s what makes him awkward.
.
Not to explain his back ground was a master stroke otherwise the character would have been handicapped with a back story.
.
Of course, Suri is not one dimensional character. He has his flaws and the way he created Frankensteinien Raj showed that he had a repressed maniacal streak :-) but he vented out not in a destructive manner. (That would have been Darr 2). .
On a side note: What if Taani would have died like Kalpana, would Suri ended up like Ghajini?
@Sethumadhavan,vishesh,
Yes Suri was a wise man though he was not brave in true manner but he was not foolishly emotional about facing the truth.
He saw Rab in Anushka or Taani Ji and rab ke samne to sab nange hain, all are naked in whatever they do.
He could have brought transformation in him which he brought via Rajian route but he was not bold enough to undergo overhauling of his personality in broad daylight hence that Raj in disguise.
He loved her and he was wise enough to understand everything and he was changing his format to lure her but without revealing his true identity. so he had this hidden trait also.
No?
Rk- here I agree with you.Suri was a little unsure of transforming himself in broad dalylight & hence used an alter ego as Raj to do the needful.
But its true that Raj was only doing in reality whatever Suri wished to do, but probably shied away from doing so.
@Vishesh (24),
Re: Anupam Kher and Archana P Singh’s angle in Mohabatein and Suri and Taani angle in RNBDJ,
Tale is similar. One person thinks other does not like him as he is. In the end, other starts liking him as he is.
Thats is common concept or say philosophy behind both the tales.
Sorry missed yesterday to address your main objection.
@Sethumadhavan,
Does Film suggest that Raj was doing what Suri wanted to do but could not.
Suri in the form of Raj was doing something which he thinks should be liked by Taani Ji or which should be good to lure her.