Sponsor PFCOne
(53 votes, average: 4.79 out of 5)
Loading ...
Ameesha, Kareena, Soha : Whose intellect is needed on screen in Hindi cinema ?
Some time ago a famous Director who has earned his reputation as an intellectual director also, said, during a private talk with someone, while asked to give his take on two actresses, that he can not have a conversation with a certain famous actress as she is too dumb for that.
Its immaterial who he was and about whom he had said but important thing is this that a wise director thought in those terms.
Nevertheless his sayings gave push to an interesting topic.
Being a director he needed an intellectual actress on sets, who could talk on any topic under the sun with a good wisdom but who could not bring life and true justice to the character given to her or he needed an actress who might not be thoroughly intellectual in real life but who could make her character alive on screen?
What a director demands and what he should demand from his actors?
Is it necessary for a director to make conversation on intellectual level with his actors?
* * * * * * *
Acting is an entirely different area than having skills in any other area of life. One can be having intellectual level at par with intellect of Einstein in Science but it is not necessary that he may become a good actor also.
Education certainly helps in any area of life but intellectual level in the real life to talk wisely about any complicated or interesting area does not make one a good actor.
Intellectual capability of an actor helps any actor to understand the fine nuances required to play a complicated character. But this intellectual capability is certainly different than the intellectual capability of an author who can write a character with certain depth.
We have examples of highly capable writers (like Girish Karnad ) who have tried to do work in acting also. But his highly intellectual level does not make him a better actor than other actors who are not as wise in real life as he is.
Rather many less educated and less intellectual actors have been acting far better than him since years. Girish Karnad can explain a character to other actor with so many details in depth, for example to Om Puri but certainly Girish Karnad can not play any character better than Om Puri and its very much possible that in real life while doing conversation one will find Girish Karnad more interesting because he has a high intellectual level and can talk on many topics with high wisdom. Om Puri may not be intellectual writer, orator like Girish Karnad but he is a highly capable actor and this is required in cinema.
Mehmood was not an intellectual in regular sense but he had far better understanding of cinema than many intellectual filmmakers, actors etc might have.
Inspite of all his intellectual level and being ex director of FTII Pune, Mohan Agashe has never been a better actor than any of the students came out of FTII , say Naseer, Om Puri, Shatrughan Sinha, Danny, Asrani etc. Mohan Agashe remains an average type of actor, atleast in Hindi cinema. I have never seen any of his play and he may be a brilliant actor in theatre but in cinema he has never reached above the average level and remains an actor with limited range only. Same can be said about another theatre veteran Ram Gopal Bajaj also.
* * * *
If we see the history of hindi cinema then we will find that many actors and female actors especially, were not even having average education level and many were not even 12th standard pass as far as academic degrees are concerned but did that stop them to become highly capable actors?
Meena Kumari did not have college degree. I doubt if she was even 10th pass but she was an amazing actress and was a poet too. Her creativity was better than many of the actors and directors having masters and Ph.D degrees.
While Dev Anand joined films only after doing graduation, his colleagues Dilip Kumar and Raj Kapoor were not graduates. While Dilip Kumar left graduation in between, Raj Kapoor said Good Bye to school education when he was in 10th standard only.
Now to say that actors, having post graduate degrees, have been better actors than Dilip Kumar is like denying the fact that sun rises in the east. This is different thing that due to self-education habit Dilip Kumar has been having command over many things which is not possible for people earning highest degrees in academics.
Which director possessing post graduation degree has been better than Raj Kapoor?
Meenakshi Sheshadri has been the only actress who completed her PhD while being an actress also but all her academic capabilities could not help her in sustaining a good and steady acting career.
These were the players of past but if we look in contemporary actors than we will find that many modern days actors are highly educated.
John Abraham possesses M.B.A degree but that does not make him better actor than Akshay Kumar and Abhishek Bachchan in any department of acting.
If we talk about actresses then Ameesha Patel and Soha Ali Khan both the actresses have got atleast post graduation degrees and both had illustrious academic career and both have worked in international organisations before joining the films. There can not be any doubt about their intellectual level but we have to consider that whether their shining academic achievements and past careers have made them good actors also or not?
Are they better actress than Kareena Kapoor, who may not be a graduate? I am not sure but academically she certainly has not been in the league of Ameesha and Soha.
Ameesha, a gold medallist in education started her acting career in 2000 with block buster film Kaho na pyar hai. She was praised for the film. But in last 8 years she is recognised only in one more film only and that is Gadar – Ek Prem Katha. Else she has been in the news for all the wrong reasons like her love affair and real life problems with her parents.
Neither her past films nor her handling of real life suggest that she has been using any good level of wisdom. But she certainly may make good conversation with intellectual directors but her same intellect has not helped her in acting profession. Her selection of films, her performances etc have been very average.
Soha Ali Khan, though almost falling in same age group as Ameesha and Kareena, started her acting career bit late in 2004 and to her credit she has only 1-2 films which could be said as good films. Rang De Basanti and Ahista Ahista are the only films where she was praised.
Inspite of all her intellectual level she could not do any justice to a big role of an actress Nikhat in Khoya Khoya Chaand. It can not be completely her fault as Directors are also responsible for the failure of their actors.
She has done only 8-9 films and may grow more in coming years but till now she has not played any character where it could be said that she had made it her own character and nobody could have played it better than her. She easily could be replaced by any contemporary actress in any of the roles she has played till now.
Her recent revealing poses on Maxim also suggest that she understands that its not intellectual level which is required but glamour quotient is also required to be in demand. Her acceptance to do such photo shoot does not match with image of an intellectual actress. Its not required in real. If she had done marvelous work in KKC then she could have got more recognition, more benefits than what she will be getting by such photos. If her intellect does not help her giving good performances and picking up good films then its useless as far as film medium is concerned.
By any account, Tabu, Vida Balan or Kareena Kapoor could have played Nikhat in a far better way than Soha has played it. They have vulnerability to look like actresses of by gone era which was lost in case of Soha and they have acting capability to play such demanding roles.
Now we come to Kareena Kapoor who is not member of so called intellectual club. Many of her films might not have worked on BO and many of her characters like Poo/Pooh/Pooja’s character in KKKG, or her special appearance in Don, have been criticised in the past but her performances have got an upward profile.
She has progressed a lot. She has Dev, Yuva, Omkara and Jab We Met and to some extent Chameli also to her credit. And there are many other films where she has been liked and has maintained a level of her performance. Without wearing bikini in films like Tashan she may keep her in demand becasue she can act.
Isn’t it look right that as an actress Kareena’s future is far brighter than Ameesha or Soha’s acting career?
Same we can see in case of Sushmita Sen and Rani Mukharjee. Sushmita has made her image as an intellectual lady in real life but all her wisdom does not give her a steadily progressive acting career while Rani may not have earned image of an intellectual in real life but she has earned reputation of being a good actress.
Audiences need to see acting capability and not intellectual level of real life while they are watching a film.
Ofcourse high intellectual level clubbed with a good acting capability is a dream come true situation for any actor but mere intellectual level does not make a better actor also.
And its not necessary that an intellectual person is good in conversation also. He may be a good writer whose intelligence comes out through his writing only. How wise people searching other wise people to have a conversation will handle this situation?
In general, more beauty with less brain and less beauty with a fully grown up brain has always been a matter of concern atleast for males.
When they get one then they simply hanker after the other one.
41 Responses to “Ameesha, Kareena, Soha : Whose intellect is needed on screen in Hindi cinema ?”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- Lots of soul, lots of heart - that’s what Tahaan is
- Maati Maay(2006) -A Grave-keeper’s Tale
- Recipe for a Chick Flick - Easy Primer :-)
- Re-awakening!
- Play School Rock !!
- Anurag & I… Jab Imtiaz
- Deepak Venkateshan : Recipe for a Chick
- Phoonk R
- Play School Ro
- Top 10 Directors of Telugu C
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
RK: very interesting analysis. I don’t think ‘intellect’, if you look at it from academic qualification, has anything to do with acting capabilities. But a certain level of ‘intellect’, if you define it as a capability to understand nuances of life, society, history, etc., might be needed to portray certain characters.
Intellect has nothing to do with Academics ,yes a certain level of education is required but real intellectuals are the ones with powers of observation and progressive mentality ,people who can understand the truth and see what others can’t.
In that sense being an actor certainly requires a level of intellect ,some intellectuals prefer to keep to themselves rather than mix with the so called intellectuals.
that certainly does not mean they are ordinary.
I don’t know if you ever watch “Laughter Challenge” on Star One ,but some of the comedians there depict an absolutely amazing level of intellect in the sense that they bring the ordinaryness of life onto the stage and are able to present it so well.
Some of the jokes make me wonder…..”How come I never noticed that” and “So true”.
As Vijay Tendulkar said…”Anybody can write ,what’s the big deal in that ? the real writer is the one who makes observations”
On the contrary, Balraj Sahni was the finest actor ever (arguably) in Hindi cinema and one of the most intellectual one too. I can think of other examples too.
somehow i feel this article is coming out of some insecurity of yours or u might have a genuine question
my 2 cents
Being intellectual is not completely neccesary for beign a good actor
You can be an intellectual and be a good actor
Education and intellectuallisim are different dotn confuse the two…ameesha patel etc are educated …how do you know how intellectual they are :S
aamir khan on the other hand is an uneducated intellectualwho in my opinon is not the best of actors internationally but he tries hard
then again define good acting…
why do u consider mehmood a good actor ?
This comes across as a confused and flawed article. Equating intellect with academic qualification is grossly incorrect.
I found this a very lame article. It almost goes to prove that good actors are people with low intellect and vice versa. How do u define intellect?
What sort of comparison was that? Ameesha being more intellectual than Kareena?
Its almost insulting…..
How could you ever compare Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan and Shahrukh Khan based on their intellect?
and scoring 95/100 doesn’t prove u r an intellect.
I do agree at a certain level that having the capability to understand your character,certainly allows you to give it a distinct “voice” ,but it shall never allow you to be able to extract those depths that it may require(although how someone’s educational qualifications may enable one to do that is lost on me!)
In Sudhir Mishra’s case I think most of his films suffer from poor casting.Kareena as Chameli was a complete directorial harakiri,no wonder she came across as too self-consciously pious and in many crucial scenes completely untouched by that life.Soha on the other hand is just not good enough to do such a character.
I remember reading one Sudhir Mishra interview in which he stated and I quote “I think she(Vidya Balan) was afraid of the role”(on being asked why she didn’t do the film).I don’t know how true that is,but given the perception I have of Mishra,if I chase the whirling ideas that this creates in my mind I would be inclined to think this is an egoistic statement by a pompous windbag.(I don’t have much admiration for him either.IMO he has made two decent films(ISS raat ki,Dharavi) and a load of shite.Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi being one of those in the long line of grossly over-rated films by the Indian media).I wonder why Mishra could not organize a workshop to get the actress he wanted over her fears of the role..
Kareena in Omkara= a complete directorial goof-up.I don’t think anyone else could have reduced Desdemona to a one-note caricature
I think this is a meaningless discussion. To each his own really. If a certain director can’t work with someone because ‘intellectually’ that person doesn’t match up to the director’s level, its the director’s problem really.
We need to redefine ‘EDUCATION’ and ‘INTELLECTUAL CAPABILITIES’ here, if we are to have a sensible discussion. And they definitely can’t mean what academic books we read or what schools we went to.
@ French: I so agree with you on Kareena’s casting in Omkara. It was such a damper! It seemed like Bharadwaj compromised with acting prowess in order to get star power into Omkara. Ultimately, it did not turn out to be a masterpiece like MAQBOOL, which gives me shivers to this day everytime I watch it.
RK,
Interesting but I think your reasoning is basically flawed. When you speak about actors without education (which you consider a major factor in ‘intellect’) you speak of their acting capabilities, whereas when you speak of people with ‘intellect’ you speak of acting careers. I think that is basically unfair reasoning. The entire logic of using Mr. Om Puri is also incorrect as it makes a huge assumption about Mr. Puri’s intellect and that I find demeaning. You might personally know him to make this reasoning but you haven’t mentioned in this article about your knowledge of his intellect and that is why your statement is flawed. Secondly, your statement about Tabu and Vidya balan playing the role of Nikat, assumes lesser ‘intellect’ to them as well. This is again is flawed for the same reasoning that I have mentioned above. Especially, since we do know that Tabu hasn’t had a traditionally flourishing career when you compare it to Kareena. Enough Said!
RK…very very interesting topic…
I am not sure of what exactly the director menat that he would prefer an actress who is intellect and can have a good conversation with him..for the time being lets take it word to word..
If we see the history of bollywood..not many actors are that well educated in a traditional sense..but then education is a very relative term..a person can be matric failed but has solid education and knowledge of cinema..now that is education too…
Infact i was watching this interview of Aamir Khan who said the sae thing..he dropped out of formal education after 12th, cuase he wanted to get educated in cinema…and we still call jim the most intellect actor in bollywood
Very nice topic yaar…
The basic flaw of the the argument that you are putting across is pitting “intellectualism” versus “good acting” whilst what you are actually doing is pitting “intellecualism” versus “success”…as far as I think.
As far as Mohan Agashe goes, I believe has put far across better performances in Tendulkar’s plays than any the actors you care to mention. And yes, he is not as successful as Shatrughan Sinha but perhaps a much better actor. As far as Karnad and Om Puri. Karnad is first and foremost a writer and Om Puri an actor…and it would be foolish to term him as “not an intellectual” actor…considering the roles that he has done in the past…mind you, intellectualism does not mean a college education or anything like it…the oft abused term, essentially means, an understanding of certains precepts of life.
Brando, Di Nero, Pacino…and other actors like River Phoenix, Dean, Penn, Vincent Cassel, Tony Leung might not have had great college degrees but their experiences which come from life (EDUCATION) make them better actors…just because Tom Cruise has had bigger hits does not make him a greater actor…and you are right about Tabu, no college degrees, but great education…and thats why she’s fab…
Intellectualism is not neccessarily a bad word, if understood…it does not mean degrees…but a talent, willingness, and tenacity to understand and decipher the world…and thats not a bad thing especially if film is about depicting and deciphiring the world…
PS: Kareena apparently went to Harvard…for something or the other…and Amisha is not really a model example either for a gold medal in Eco…or a best actress award…
RK,
Do You remember “Abhinetri” in Satyajit Ray Presents (featured Smita Patil in the title role) ?
@Pavan (14),
I remember Smita in Bhumika. My memory must be giving a slip. Please help about this one.
Shiv(13),
I hope I had repeated in the post few times.
To work in films one needs wisdom of acting and not wisdom of engineering or medical science or management.
—
I have never cared about success of an actor and I have clearly mentioned that I dont know if Mohan Agashe has been a brilliant actor in plays, in films he remains very average actor. Since the time of Nishant, there is no growth in his acting. Its same in every role, whether he plays a DM in Train to Pakistan or a father of Paap. It happens with many actors of theatre, they are good when watched from a distance as in theatre but they remain very average before a camera as their your facial and eyes expresions matter more than the excessive use of hands or voice’s ups and downs.
An AK Hnagal has always been more impressive than a Mohan Agashe or Girish Karnad in films. See GK in Iqbal and Dor, China Gate etc if he has done any good justice to the roles. Intellect of Girish Karnad, seen in his plays, direction, articles etc is hardly seen in acting department.
Same is true with many many people.
Om (12),
I guess the questioner might have asked the director to say about two actresses’s works in the films and Director took it in other direction and commented in general. Anyway, thats their area. why and what was asked and what was answered.
To get an skill one can be focussed entirely on that area only and can become wise in that field. For example Sachin, who started very early in cricket. He was high school student when joined Indian team and for him it was clear that his education area is Cricket.
Same is true with many actors also.
You know wisdom has been attached to certain actors because of their family and educational background.:)
That was the concern. Though in reality their actions dont give witness of any kind of wisdom.
And line is thin, by any means hardly anyone will call Sanjay Dutt as a man of intellect as he has been doing many mistakes which a normal mind person will not do and he is a good actor so his acting skills dont make him intelligent in every area of life and at same time a normal person showing wisdom in many areas can not act at par with Sanjay Dutt.
@Sarang, I have no idea why you find it demeaning in case of Om Puri.
Om Puri is far more intelligent actor than Girish Karnad or Mohan Agashe etc.
and at same time Girish Karnad is far more intelligent in writing, direction, discussion etc.
I find you wrong when you make assumption that by saying that Tabu and Vida Balan playing the role of Nikhat make them less intelectual. Thats your pick and not my writing.
I have not mentioned it.
You have to read carefully whats written.
@Debashri,
“To each his/her own” is valid in any kind of discussion on any topic under the sun.
If we have such a high wisdom then perhaps world will not be suffering from sound pollution and thought pollution.
@French(9) Did you go to watch Othelo in Omkara?
French(8),
Perhaps you could not like many of Sudhir Mishra’s films but Sorry to say, your saying
that he made shite other than IRKSN and Dharavi,
does not make his films bad but you as a bad audience.
HKA can be overrated considering some obvious flaws in the film but it still is one of the good films.
Your extreme reactions dont do any justice to any film.
You should care to point out those loads of shite in those films. many other readers will be obliged to have a better understanding of films.
@Ahsam(7),
sorry for personal area. take it in general. If you are unmarried, what you are going to see in girl’s metrimonial if you are going to do that kind of marriage?
Will you make a judgement among, 12th pass, BA pass , MA pass, PhD girl?
and how would you know IIT JEE topper or civil service topper will make a good wife also?
You always can compare acting abilities of AB, SRK and Aamir. But certainly as they belong to different generations so its difficult to compare them in every field.
AK and SRK can be compared though. wait.
@Aditya(6) Thats your reading which is giving you impression that education and intellect has been strictly equated.
@Vivek(5)
You must have a wonderful secret analysis tool with you to guess that its coming out of my insecurity or i have a genuine question.
I have no question and I have no insecurity.
Now about your 2 cents.
whatever you have written between words “Being intellectual —– confuse the two” has been repeated in the post itself few times.
How you make conclusion that Aamir Khan is uneducated intellectual?
Mehmood is a proven good actor and if you feel otherwise then you have to prove that he is not. You have a new hypothesis and its your responsibility to propagate it. I have fairly well impression that he was a very good actor, filmmaker etc.
Please prove otherwise.
@Ankit (4)
Contrary to what? Its a proven fact that Balraj Shani was a briiliant actor and an intellectual too. He was a very good author also.
@Vineet,
There is intellgence limited to one area and there is over all intelligence.
Sometimes first can be cocluded in SKILL while second can be spread in to WISDOM.
@Utkal,
Ttue.
RK:Did I go to watch Othello in Omkara?Most definitely.When a film is tom-tomed as a Shakespeare adaptation,this tag weighs too heavily on it for anyone to ignore.I don’t claim to be a pro at Shakespeare,but Vishal Bhardwaj’s grasp of the Bard sadly seems quite weak..
With respect to Kareena’s turn as Dolly–Desdemona bluntly chose Othello over her arranged spouse,Kareena in the opening scene sounded apologetic about it!
I do submit that Vishal did imbue the film with a mythic fable like quality,but a Shakespeare adaptation cannot be so slackly paced.This is just a contradiction of Shakespeare’s basic principles.There are a lot of other problems with the film,but the almost imbecilic deviation in the finale from Othello clearly repudiated all the goodwill Bhardwaj has earnt until then.
And as far as Maqbool is concerned suffice to say that Irrfan Khan and Tabu are as much Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as I am The Pope!
________________________________________
As far as my perception of Sudhir Mishra is concerned,I am not inclined to think of Calcutta Mail,Chameli and Khoya Khoya Chand as anything other than shit.Asfar as Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi is concerned,even though the film is commendable for attempting what it did,some of the narrative choices completely dilute the impact of the film.For one,the use of voice-overs marks a distance between the action on-screen and the viewer,thereby rendering the initiation of debate an uphill task.Even the otherwise pretentious Swades trumps Hazaaron on this card.The erratic editing,the cookie-cutter constructs that the lead characters were,the way the rebels are always shown on the run either from the onslaught of the state or for evasive action,incapable of formulating a strategy makes you question their prudence at various times.
err Rk aamir dropped out at the 12 th standard its common knowledge
i didnt read the above posts
and prove to me why is mehmood a good actor
define good acting ?
Mr wannabe moronic French:
Your diatribe against some of the better directors of India smacks of sour grapes. You seem angry at some very personal level. To completely sweep aside a body of work as “shit” seems ugly if nothing else. I wonder what you have achieved in your life? As Shabana Azmi once said, and I might be paraphrasing here- “there is far more opinion in India than substance….” That is the problem with an open forum like PFC. Every little shithead sets himself up as a critic. I think one should have membership at PFC so that people can be held accountable for some of the stuff that passes as discussion here. Just my two cents worth…
This is ridiculous…I mean, I appreciate the author’s tenacity…he DID key it all in…but the buck stops there…a poorly written piece…based on a derisory premise…can’t believe I actually read all of that :(…
@ vivek
for me mehmood is a brilliant actor for the simple reason that he has carved a special place for himself in the hearts of millions of people including me…
for me if mehmood was not a good actor than no one ever was….
@ french
did shakespeare write in his obituary that if ever his work was adapted in any form of art..it had to has to stick to the content in the truest form….
a director has every right to his own interpretation….
omkara may not be the greatest movie ever made but one thing im sure of is that it only lifted the stature of bhardwaj as director………
Hey,
Did you know that Viveik Oberoi at Cannes last year, actually said that he believed that Omkara was better than Othello…??????????I heard that from someone trustworthy…hope he was wrong…but still…ha ha ha
@ashwin
Shah Rukh Khan has done the very same thing
Is shah Rukh Khan a brilliant actor ?
Honestly ?
Ashwin:I didnt know people wrote their own obits
amisha is not gud actress
karena was gud in omkara nd jab v met only
soha was ok ok in rang de basanti only… but she is not a gud actress… she can not work in hindi films… too plane face… no expression she is duing gud…marrying sidahrth of rdb… she is 30 year old.
karina is more smart than her…she got big star saif khan… bhabhi is smarter than nanad ha ha ha
mehmud…i like him…very gud comedian
http://www.rediff.com/entertai/2003/may/10meh.htm
please check ur spam …cmnts stuck again
remembering mehmud…gud article …with photos
http://specials.rediff.com/movies/2004/jul/26sld1.htm
@RK
there is no universal definition of wisdom ,and people who claim it certainly do not deserve to be filed under that category.
On another note ,there are idiots and there are educated idiots ,the former have an excuse ,the latter have none.
another supposedly intellectual person but bad actor is Rahul Bose.. just saw shaurya.. he is so overrated and over the top actor..