Name: senthil
Email Address: write_sk@yahoo.com
Date: May 1, 2005 10:56 AM

Comments:

lazy,
There are certain fields where age does not matter and certain field’s, where it does.Anand has already given an example on the same logic that you are using. “Imagine Sunil Gavaskar continuing to open India’s batting”.

keerthi,
The fact that Vikram was not recognized in his first movie Meera and that he had to do something on the footsteps of kamal(loosing weight,changing hairstyle etc) in sethu to be recognized again prooves what has been the effect of these 2 stars on the tamil cinema.

Say for example i want to adapt a simple novel into a tamil movie it will surely bomb.Even if the actor’s adapt to the characters well and give a good performance,it wont be considered as great acting because of what kamal has done to the industry.He has made it a defacto standard that you have to change your makeup drastically to be considered a good actor.That’s exactly what ajith,surya and vikram are doing.So there is again a 2 different types of actors in tamil industry now.One who hard work on there makeups to be considered a good actor and the others dont care about it and talk to the screen.

when statements like “people will decide when rajini will retire” and “the crowd has to get sick of rajini” etc are uttered,the crowd and people means you and me too.Have we decided when we want rajini to retire? That is the question S.Anand is asking us.

I agree that he was angry that the comment was deleted but can’t take when he says that I didn’t read the article before I posted it. I hate being fake. I did read the article , Senthil.

Here’s the comment that I left on his blog for the angry post on me -

Senthil,

Thats a huge plug man. I am extremely sorry that your post got deleted. The reason was unintentional. I was deleting spam comments through MT-blacklist and even yours got deleted. This had happened a few times before and I should have made sure that I didn’t delete any comment that wasn’t a spam. The MT-Blacklist interface is a little cluttered and you could easily miss a good comment.

Don’t worry, I have the comment stored as an email to me. I will put back the same comment.

Also, I have to re-iterate that I don’t post blogposts to create a controversy. Infact, some of them complain that I refrain from posting controversial blogposts. My idea is to have a democratic public space for those who are passionate about cinema and books, for which I am passionate about. I appreciate your comments and welcome you to post back comments freely if you still feel that I was doing stuff un-intentionally.

we r not passionte abt watching any of that……..othe rthan rajni we r not supportive of any other star stunts……………atleats not me and i dont think kamal fits into this category………………..

all we lack is screenplay writers……….the best example is selvaraghavan who feels he is not a director but is forced to do it else he wud have to sell his story to sum established director who wud screw it up………….

for every martin scorsese there is a paul schrader and we also have ppl like anurag kashyap etc coming up a genuine script writers and even sujatha rangarajan is involved wid mani ratnam and shankar for the scripts………

so when we have good screenplay writers we can think of adapting art froms into celluloid…….

anbey shivam, hey ram are all recent movies. my argument is not about kamal being the greatest actor but about the fact that mr. anand seems to believe that in the last 20 years which is the timeframe of his rant, kamal has done nothing to move tamil cinema forward. which is baseless in my opinion. also, his claim that these two are at fault because others ape them again is senseless. movies are primarily for entertainment. it is not an art form from a classical standpoint. people pay money to be entertained. anand’s grouse is not justified because his expectation is that all movies have to be different or be exceptional. and that is not possible. if you want to see movies that are not entertainers, feel free to do so. but you cannot blame those who like entertainers as being brain dead. for no matter how exquisite a bharatanatyam dance can be, sometimes you are more in a mood for a mujra. so anand would do well to not watch movies that he perceives to be of sub-standards as opposed to watching them and then griping about it later. no matter how many film historians he has on his side, mass movies will never die, just like big budget action flicks will never die in hollywood.
that is all i say, live and let live. dont put down other’s tastes because you dont like them. it is very easy to write a negative commentary on anything and the easy route is what anand has taken by blaming two well known stars for all that he hates about commercial movies. his piece could have been much better if he talked about movies that he felt were breaking the norms of traditional cinema. but being a typical human being, he decided to point fingers at whoever he found in his crosshairs!

to the next topic and beyond!

katz

I dont think its plain costumes that make kamal gr8…………….lest talk abt all the movies where he had special make up:

1.Indian
2. Avvai shanmughi
3. anbey sivam
4. hey ram

now u tell me except hey ram which movies were not commercial and tell me is that all kamal has achieve din his life………..have u not seen any of his movies of the 70s wid Kb or varumayin niram sigappu where he depicts the aura and red euphoriaof the 1970s and the young man’s obsession wid idealism………………has any of AB’s characters ever come close to portraying the angry young man like this role…………ur talkin thro ur ass man…………u have a dislike for kamal and nothig\ng more………….

i dont think rajni and kamal cud ever kill an actor like vikram…………..there were soo many of them making movies like vijaykanth,satyaraj etc and they even had different formulae for themselves………..and vikram;s meera wa snot that gr8 that it was a ideological defeat for the flick………….what abt bala and selvaraghavan??………….aren’t speaheading the next revolution…………..

I mentioned in my earlier post itself that kamal’s days of acting are over with mundram pirai, mahanadhi etc.you seem to be mentioning those good old days again and again.

Anyways i dont want to drag this into “whether kamal is the greatest actor the world has ever produced or not??”.

I felt there are a few points to be noted from S.Anand’s article.But if you prefer to say, that we are doing justice to “Cinema as an art form” by passionately watching all Rajini, kamal, vijaykanth, sathyaraj, arjun, chimbu movies.It is your choice.

the key to a good actor is not only to make the viewer feel that he is not acting.but to also make that character come alive and that is only possible when he becomes the character by transforming himself like that character as opposed to playing a character by being himself. if kamal does not get into the character’s skin, he would not have made memorable movies that include mahanadhi, thevar magan, hey ram, anbey shivam etc. denzel washington is no means a benchmark, for none of the movies he has acted in required him to play a character different from what he plays. even the russel crow example you used is wrong for in insider he had to put on weight to play an older gentleman, with white hair as opposed to being fit and trim for gladiator. i am surprised that you did not notice this very obvious difference when watching those movies! and you are wrong if you think i believe good make-up is good acting. but if i am seeing a character that has survived a severe accident, i expect to see some remnants of that tragedy in their physical appearance as opposed to seeing them hale and hearty! an example is phir milenge. a really nice movie made by revathy which was offset by the fact that salman khan who played an aids victim seemed a little too healthy for his condition. contrast that with tom hanks in philadelphia. he had to lose weight to make his character more convincing. and that is my point. you cannot have an actor look like how he does everyday and play a middle aged father or a drug addict or a gangster. he has to vary his looks to suit the character.

as for hey ram, you seem to think that maudlin sentiments are the way to great emotional response. saket ram was not seeking salvation, he was only seeking answers to the personal war being waged within him. there is a BIG difference between the two. what would you have liked him to do? throw himself at gandhi’s feet and sob? give an example of what you think is a better way to have done that instead of merely claiming that was wrong. if kamal was not good in sentimental scenes, a moondram pirai would not have been such a good movie, a mahanadhi would not have been such a good movie, a devar magan would not have been such a good movie. first of all, step outside your personal dislike/bias of kamal to review his contribution to tamil cinema. then we can compare notes on a frame by frame basis.

well, senthil, your sexual knowledge and preference is yours alone to pursue! what the general population would do is of no concern for that is what the character in a movie chooses to do. besides how do you know what others do when it comes to their lovers?? and please, dont use the same talking points about culture, values etc. in truth, the general population are doing far more perverse things that what either of these movies show. the point is, not everyone creates their own kamasutra manual. some do take pointers from sources around them. if we have to stick to culture and values when it comes to expressing the primal desire between a man and a woman, then we all have to remain in the missionary position only! and in complete darkness too!

painful cry? it sounded more like an acid fuelled cacophonic screech devoid of any facts or logic. taking a leaf from his garden of banyan tree, i blame him for not letting fresh saplings of pen wielders blossom. If not for people like him, we would actually have some good columnists/journalists who can churn out a balanced piece. as opposed to an one-sided space filler!

katz

The solution, i thought was already there.Take any english actor’s most of them except for dustin hoffman, hardly change there makeup’s in a big way.There is no difference in denzel washington between a hurricane and a crimson tide, rusell crowe between an insider and gladiator forget all of them take mohanlal, the difference between spadikam and vanaprastham is a moustache but he portraied a world of difference between these 2 characters.you are just being hoodwinked into believing that good makeup is good acting.

I havn’t seen anbe sivam completely so i cannot comment on that.Let’s talk about Hey ram.It is a wonderful story great characters , art direction etc etc.But let’s talk about acting.The whole movie revolves around sakhet ram’s quest for forgiveness and peace, he atlast finds that in gandhi.he goes to meet gandhi, how do you think he should have acted?, did you feel any of the his need for forgiveness?his pasts yearning for a salvation?.No, it done pathetically.Kamal is a not a sentimental person and he cannot act in sentimental scenes anymore.

Between the exaggerated sexual scenes of thulluvatho illamai & an adult biting his lover’s back in heyram.Iam sure given a chance of doing both the choices, a sizeable amount of population is going to do what the guy in thulluvatho illamai does, but i doubt many people biting there lovers back as an act of love.And FYI kamal didn’t do it out of his creative love, he did it cause he liked Al pacino bitting michelle piffer in “Frankie and jhonny”.This is what happenes when you copy everything without caring whether it will fit into our culture.

Anand is simply saying what he feels, it is up to you to take it however you want.He is just letting out a painful cry that we are not encouraging more realistic works in the way we are encourage the 2 big guys.

by saying that you cannot adapt a simple novel into a movie because it will bomb showcases your inherent fear of failure. not all good movie are judged by their success. some good movies enjoy a revival much after their time. if you want to make a good movie, make it. but dont expect others to make the same kind of movies you want. why dont you hold surya, vikram and the likes accountable for wanting to do different characters?? and i still dont get your gripe with makeup??? you would prefer them to look the same whether they are playing a rich man or a poor man or a mentally instable man or a father or a politician?? they have to change their looks to suit the character they play as they or the director think it should be played. THAT IS THE KEY TO A GOOD ACTOR! someone who can adapt himself by disguise or other means to play someone else!! you talk about how 2 types of actors are there predominantly, so why dont you tell us what other kinds of actors you think should be there?? why blame someone else for doing what they like to do or blame someone else who like to see what they do for encouraging them when you still have not contributed any viable solution? pointing fingers at others is not a great solution! if you dont like kamal, dont watch his movies. as simple as that. dont blame them for all the problems plaguing the cinema industry. and mr. anand is not asking if we have decided when we want rajini to retire, he is upset that people dont mind seeing rajini when he cant stomach to see him. simple solution again, YOU AND MR.ANAND dont have to see him!

and to answer to your point:

YES HISTRIONICS…..he is still a good actor! why compare pammal k sambandham & vasool raja mbbs to moondram pirai? it is like comparing a person with a masters to one with a bcom degree and saying the latter is an illiterate! compare movies within the same genre not outside it. the movies you mention were intended to be masala movies, and they were perfectly what was expected. why did you not talk about anbey shivam? because if you did do that, you would not have a talking point to flaunt like the absolute truth!!! and yes, he has to also make money. after all that is his business too!

one kadhal is not the guiding example. you can allow some exaggerated sexual scenes because the story is about teenagers coming to grip with their adolescence but you cannot accept an adult biting his lover’s back???? why is that? double standards don’t you think? when it comes to any love related scene, you cannot keep it in sync with the rest of the movie. for lovers can be just as creative and get down with it beyond holding hands!!! if you want a movie that flows in a single direction alone, watch documentaries. not a MOVIE WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A MEDIUM BUILT ON FANTASY, not reality!!! you cannot brush off the commercialism in that movie because you liked it and then nitpick other’s movies. that movie was JUST ANOTHER MASALA FLICK!!!!

katz