logo

Films are not made to show one actor’s talent only. They have to have an overall impact. Yes some actors show talent of par excellence and even if they are alone on screen audience can watch them for hrs to act but rest others are just fit in the movie. Its director who has to exploit the talent of actors and has to extract out the best suitable for that role. A director feels that here I have a story which I can show in this particular way through all my actors. For some of the directors story is very important and they want to convey that content as a whole package and they dont bother whether a particular actor is coming out as an outstanding actor or not in that process of film making. To quote an example we can see Dev Anand’s film Awvval Number where we see our solid famed actor Aamir Khan playing an average role with average effort. Dev Anand was not interested in promoting Aamir’s talent as an extraordinary talent. Dev Anand had an idea of a story revolving around regional terrorism with game of cricket in background. Before any other film maker could even think to make a film on terrorism fastly spread in country at that time, Dev Anand made his film. Content was important for Dev Anand and not Aamir Khan’s role. Aamir Khan type actors need a role with substance to show their talent. Aamir has cultivated a habit to rise beyond his film and here he was not having chance. Now we have several examples where story is bad, film is bad in totallity but an actor outshines because of his acting ability. Several Amitabh’s films in 80s and 90s are good example here. No story or poor story, yet Amitabh’s acting is the saving grace as usual. Dilip Kumar did some of such films where only his acting is the factor to watch those films. Such films dont leave collective impact of a total film. There are films where every single aspect of films is extra ordinary. Be it Story, direction, acting, music, camera work or other technical area etc, all areas shine there like in Mother India, Mughal-e-Azam, Awara, Ganga Jamuna, Sangam, Guide, Sholay, Deewar etc. But each time no creative man can play a sixer like shot. If Raj Kapoor made Awara, Sangam, Mera Naam Joker, Bobby, Prem rog then he made Satyam Shivam Sundaram and Ram teri ganga Maili also.

Critics (real as well as authors at PFC) often have been rejecting few actors or film makers on the basis of their own ideas about these actors and film makers. There is no standard criteria to assess. They can put on stake the ability of these actors and film makers as they like. Critics never gave solace to Jeetnedra as an actor. He saw his debut with a film maker like V Shantaram. Now to say that V Shantaram was not knowing how to make films will be a outrageous thing. He had a story to tell in terms of Geet Gaya Pathoron ne. He found Jeetendra fit in the role of his main hero. If V Shantaram felt that only Kishori Amonkar could sing- geet gaya pathoron ne- and not Lata or Asha in a way which he likes then its his vision and this was his vision to take Jeetendra as a character in his film. As a director he used Jeetendra in a way and certainly Shantaram was more interested in his film as a total packaged film and not to make Jeetendra as oustanding actor. To learn any process whether its art or sport one needs time and proper chances. 

This is cynical approach of critics which stops them to see things as they are. When they praise an actor/film maker then they dont try to see weaknesses of that particular actor/film maker and if they personally dislike an actor or film maker then they dont try to see any worth in him/her. Reality exist in between, every actor or film maker does good or bad or average work. If we are watching a film just for the acting or any particular area then we are going to be hanged between two extremes of success and disappointments. When people praise Irfaan with lofty words and treat him as an actor of extra ordinary talent then I feel to ask can he do every kind of roles? No doubt he is good actor but he also need a fare assessment and not praise at extreme level. He also has given average and even bad performances in his short film career. Sanjeev Kumar, we know, how brilliant actor he was! But does that mean he never gave bad performances? or always gave good performances? We may see his bad films where he is also bad. Please watch Love and God to see how one can spoil the role of Majnu - an eternal lover’s role. He was simply misfit for this role. He made Thakur in Sholay a role which any actor would like to play again and again but could he play role of Veeru with same intensity as Dharmendra played, keeping in mind the physical appearance of Sanjeev Kumar? Yes In Satyakam he could have exchanged his role with Dharmendra with ease. But what about Trishul? Amitabh and Sanjeev Kumar could have exchanged their roles? Could SK act with same intensity wearing those skirts which Dharmendra wore in Dharm Veer? 

Actors have limitations as well as advantages and what matters is when they get those kind of directors who can synchronise their stories with their talents. Like Gulzar did with Sanjeev Kumar. or Gulzar did with Jeetendra and Hema Malini. For years Jeetendra and Hema Malini have been bearing non-actor’s tag on their image imposed by so called critics. But that tag detered film makers to sign these artists in their films? Hema Malini has been most powerful leading lady of hindi cinema and not for a year or two but for several years. Jeetendra has been box office king after Amitabh for years. Either millions of audience all over India are foolish and few critics are intelligent or facts remain that film makers try to make a collective film where it becomes watchable film. Watch Jeetendra in Gulzar’s Khushbu, Kinara and Parichaya. He even gave Jeetendra his own get up with a moustache and thick glasses and simple shirt falling oustide the trouser. A complete non glamorous look. Three stories are shown beautifully in all the three above mentioned films and Jeetendra as a character did full justice to all his three roles. Gulzar was capable so he extracted out what he thought was needed for his story from Jeetendra.

Directors of 50s and 60s were not having thousands of DVDs at their homes as present day’s film makers have. They were not exposed to world cinema in a way as present day’s film makers are. But film makers of old era learnt and made films which were fulfilling the demands of that era. They created wonderful cinema. A simple mathematic reveals that to create from 0 to 1 needs infinite effort and afterwards you could count under percentage. To bring something from 0 to 1 needs paramount efforts. If Satyajit Ray could develop his unique way of using diffused light on his own then its was sheer brilliance. If one sees Tarantino’s style of showing stories in different order and he tries to opt this technique in his film then its not brilliance. What Kurosawa did in Rashômon and Hrishikesh Mukherjee did in his first film Musafir, were brilliant efforts. They were innovative. When Raj Kapoor visualized first time a dream sequence in Awara then it was a new idea and later we saw immitations. If same innovative Raj Kapoor signs an actor Rajendra Kumar (who is given non actor tag by critics) for his first coloured film then he knows as a big film maker that this actor can be used in such and such a way to present my story. 

ManMohan Desai was there with a clear motive to create an throughly entertaining film where common man can enjoy 3 hours by forgetting tensions of daily life. He was not making cult films. His motive was clear and he had his way of story showing. It cant be said that Amitabh did not do good acting in his films. Prakash Mehra was bit more good in terms of story and script and several of his films are termed today as classic though at their time they were termed crap by critics though thoroughly loved by audience.

Again coming back to the Director’s own vision about a story showing, recall Hare Krishna Hare Ram now known as a cult movie had Jeenat Aman. Zeenat never enjoyed reputation of good actress in whole her active filmi life. But at the time of making of HRHK, can we imagine any other actress playing role of Jasmeet the way Dev showed her in the film? Zeenat was a best fit in that role of a girl influenced by hippy life. Now Zeenat’s rold in Don is termed as classic but get access to those day’s film magazines and read views of critics about her and her role. She and Parveen Bobby beared images of westernized actresses who dont know how to act and speak dialogues in proper hindi.

Directors are not searching extra ordinary actors to show their stories but they search actors who can be moulded in a way so that stories are shown in a better way. No doubt in every field certain people excel and actors also follow this trait when they perform better than any other thing in a film. But that is not a dreamy desire for a director.  

Very few actors are capable to do any kind of roles and rest of the actors really depend on their directors. KK, Irfaan and John Abraham are popular actors on PFC with high expectations from them but are they capable to play any kind of roles? John depends thoroughly on his directors. KK and Irfaan can do good in a film which is otherwise bad but can you imagine any one of them playing role of Prince Salim in Mughal-e-Azam? KK can play the role of Munna Aamir played in Rangeela with equal  ease?  Can you put Irfaan in place of Shahrukh Khan in DDLJ? Though opposite can be true that SRK can play role of Maqbool? Yes you can replace SRK with Aamir or Salman in DDLJ. Certain roles demand certain kind of actors and Bombay makes around 200 hindi films a year and only actors praised by few critics cant play all the roles in all the films. Actors have to be seen and assessed on the basis of their roles given in films.

Not many will term Madan Lal, Roger Binny, Balwinder Sandhu as great cricketer if they are comapred individually with good bowlers, batsmen and filders but they have been part of great team of Indian cricket and contributed brilliantly in winning only world Cup for India. That team was a collective team and performed in that way. Films are also collective efforts like that team where everybody has to play its role. OK sometimes in some matches one shines better than others but ideally its collective effort. What Kapil Dev did in 1983 world cup against Zimbabwe was individual show but over all tournament was collective effort of our team. and thats why 1983 will always be remembered as all time favourite where every single member contributed in a graceful manner. Sholay is in hindi cinema what 1983 world cup is in Indian cricket. In Sholay every actor contributed in an important manner.
Directors sometimes dont collect good team and thats why people have to say, film is good in patches, only this actor was good but film is below average.
Keeping everything in mind we can show little respect toward old actors and film makers and can analyse their work properly without insulting them. Without them we would not have been able to reach where we are at present in terms of film making. Some of them might have made films which brought wonderful actors in film industry, some of them might have helped in making some great cinema based on wonderful stories, some of them might have helped in brining new technology to the films. How we can outrightly reject them? /div>