I dont think acting can ever be taken over body building. The two are different forms of art and hence there cannot be a competition between the two. Acting is all about your mental faculty while body building is physical.
A good body is more of an eye candy while good acting is food foe thought (on screen off course). Tricks of the show business changes astime moves on, as a result actors are packaged in a diffrent wasy today, after all astronomical amounts are at stake while films play with the phsyche of millions of viewers across the globe.
Even in the times of extreme gimmickry finally what counts is how you appeal to an indivujual from the screen.A lot of people who have enviable bodies have failed eg Shail Khan ( the non actor form style), Inder Kumar ( a boy who started mid 90),Harman Baweja( time will tell not accepted too much till now), Ruslaan Mumtaz ( yet to make a mark)and so many.
What i want to say is an actor has to be a starry vehicle of heroic attributes, the superficial factors do make a diffrence for a while but in the long run what lasts is how u can make your viewer happy with your entire entity.Hrithik Rosahn almost lost his status after his debut till he made a diff with koi mil gaya.
The media will highlight everything which attarcts quick attention that should be mistaken for eclipsing the art
Re: Acts and pack
by Kirit Raja on Dec 03, 2009 10:19 PM
I don't agree with you completely. Salman does not know acting. But he is hit because of his body.
Re: Re: Acts and pack
by Sudipto Basu on Dec 03, 2009 11:02 PM
There is no doubt that he is a forced actor but his fans must have found some x factor abt him including his body,otherwise only skin cannot make u survive for this long,peole donot go to see his films to watch him act but experience that extra something which is not available in other actors or muscle men.
Critics say that hema malini is an average actor yet she got the kind of sucess which is best of actresses didinot Why? read my post i have said abt making the audience 'happy'.you never know who gets happiness form what.I have also mentioned 'playing' with the minds of the audience.
jaya prada is a classic beauty as say everyone but she remained second to sridevi (not as good a beauty as her)
Be prepared with all your powers,no 'one' can overtake the rest of your being.atleast not the skin.
Re: Re: Re: Acts and pack
by ramen das on Dec 04, 2009 02:34 PM
c'mon now sridevi is way more beautiful that jaya prada...agree with the rest of ur post
Re: Re: Re: Acts and pack
by ramen das on Dec 04, 2009 02:34 PM
c'mon now sridevi is way more beautiful that jaya prada...agree with the rest of ur post
Re: Re: Re: Acts and pack
by ramen das on Dec 04, 2009 02:34 PM
c'mon now sridevi is way more beautiful that jaya prada...agree with the rest of ur post
The actors who doesn't know acting of angry young man try to fool people with there six pack.The great AB,Dharam paji,Sunny or Anil never required six pack to look angry.There eyes shows everything.So learn acting instesd of make packs.All packers are cheaters.
Re: ANGRY????????
by sujith kumar on Dec 04, 2009 10:53 AM
when u means All packers are cheaters,did u include BackPackers,Movers and Packers also...ultimately when life goes to a point of deception ,there is nothing that can stop u doing the challenge...
I’ll say what I said on a previous Rediff forum. The very fact that a bloke like Himesh Reshammiya is even considered an actor is an insult to the profession. To be an actor, all you need is build a toned body, learn some dancing moves, get a makeover, and, last but not the least, good connectivity in showbiz. These seem to be the eligibility criteria these days. "Acting" of course is not a mandatory requirement in all this!
So why bother to attend FTII or NSD? In the past, the only testimomial that mattered was a diploma from these institutes unless of course you happened to be a natural like Sanjeev Kumar and Balraj Sahni or good enough to start your own school of acting like Dilip Kumar or Amitabh Bachchan.
Talking about the West, has Hollywood produced another Brando, Pacino, De Niro, or Cary Grant? I don’t think so. So perhaps it’s safe to assume that the whole definition of acting has undergone a sea change in the new millennium and we [the audience] have contributed to this decadence by accepting this change.
I’ll end with an anecdote attributed to Satyajit Ray. The director was once asked if he would ever consider casting Amitabh for a leading role in any of his films. Ray is reported to have said that he does not want his script to be overpowered by a single character. Does that mean that Ray did not rate Amitabh as a great actor? Not necessarily. Bachchan was and still is a phenomenon. But that comment tells you what Ray thought of mainstrea
Re: Re: Acting? Now what’s that?
by Poopa on Dec 03, 2009 06:32 PM
I beg to differ..mainstream movies through the ages, in all parts of the world had few good actors...it is not as if ALL the yesteryear stars were good actors...
Re: Re: Re: Acting? Now what’s that?
by obelix on Dec 03, 2009 06:47 PM
Even in the past, there were "few" good actors, but those "few" were skillful in their trade.
Re: It didn't started with SRK.. but with SK
by VINOD HEGADE on Dec 04, 2009 12:30 AM
I completely agree. It was Salman Khan who started the trend. As usual writers of these articles underestimate him and praise late starters like SRK and Aamir !
Is there any thing called good acting in Choriwood ?. The choriwood industry has been one of the crappiest in existence. Quality actors are a rarity in the low IQ choriwood industry. So is good scripts. So i guess they try to cover for it by style, pretense, fashion and abs.
Re: Good acting ?
by Pat Thakur on Dec 03, 2009 05:33 PM
...& with schmoozing blogs like Rediff, who keep running after choriwood with lolling tongues to pounce on morsels tossed at them.
