Quote:
Originally Posted by NOV
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakthiprabha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerd
Lot of reservations as TFM has scarcity of versatile actors. irukkaradha vechu paatha
Kamal
Rajini
Nagesh
Nasser
Surya
Madhavan
Danush, Bharath - innum konjam edhirpaakkaren...
I completely agree on Nasser, but Nagesh?
I seriously think we should limit it to main artistes.
how do you identify main artistes :?Quote:
Originally Posted by NOV
eg. Vikram in and Barath out? :?
mm.. illa-ngareengala?Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Aboorva , Nammavar, Magalir Mattum (and some obscure 'character' roles). yellathulayum Nagesh 'touch' irukkum but appadi paatha one sees "Robert De Niro" in all his films except a very few.
Cases in point pathala-ngareengala, adhuvum oru vidhathula unmai dhaan...
equa, what versatility are we talking about here? Modhalla, lets agree on a common definition fo what constitutes versatility - else each person goes in a direction unintelligible to others and LOL icons.
In a layman's definition, it is simply carrying out many different types of roles with perfection.
Pre-Apoorva, Nagesh already established himself as good character actor. He is one of the strongest case in point of how a good comedian can also be great dramatic actor (as proven also in Hollywood....and at the same time I am not including Vivek here).
Versatility here means what? Ability to do many types of role? Sure, any actor can do, but can they do well. What we see is indeed cases of actors attempting many role, but do they excell in it?
Or versatility as in able to do things other than acting and do it well. Appadi paartha Sakalakalavallan-nu oruthar mattume.
definitely not this definitionQuote:
Originally Posted by groucho070
nagEsh, imo, is many things, but versatility is not his strongest point. which doesnt really matter, since that was not required of him.
Well, to "see Robert De Niro" is to be "aware of," in some sense, how he'll play a role, not to say that the "how" is the same all the time. But with Nagesh, I think the "how" is often quite the same. One of his chief exploits is his physicality, and again he puts it to use the same way in most of his films.
Don't mistake me, I'm a big fan of Nagesh, and like him a lot in 'character' roles. Especially when he's in the tragicomic mode, he's superb. His tour de force in 'nammavar' or his Suri in 'abUrva rAgangaL' come to mind. Just that I think he's not really a versatile actor.
"In a layman's definition, it is simply carrying out many different types of roles with perfection.
"
Different type of roles - idhula kooda, naan 80's-la chinna payyana irukkarache, vaLarum actors-lam pEtti kodutha ipdi solluvanga:
Interviewer: What is your dream role?
:-).Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Interview
grocuho is getting close to a definition.
:lol:
:rotfl: @ the random interviewed actor
of course we are not talking about occupations as roles to be acted out here
more like Vikram - from a Sethu to a nice decent role in Dhil, to a more commercial Saamy, Pithamagan, Anniyan
you can see some versatility in his acting
De Niro's tilted head, drooping mouth, dialogue delivery?Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Relative-a Nagesh ku adhigam nu solreengala? Or, apart from these De Niro brings something different in each role nu solreengala?
P.S: Let not anyone misunderstand that i'm comparing DN's versatility with Nagesh's. Namma oor kanakku padi paathu solren, avvalavu dhaan
Plum :lol:
Back in the days, I used to translate Tamizh written interviews of stars in English for a movie publication. Each time I see the word "intha padathula different-aana role panniirukken", I'd be fuming mad.
Athey moonji, athey kural, athey body language, athey modulation...give me a break. And then of course, get-up mathina Kamal agiduvaangganu innoru neneppu.
And then there is "actor-proof" role that Vikram hijacked successfully. I call that cheating. His take on Anniyan was one of the most hillarious piece of circuis freak act I had seen in years...wait, maybe I have never seen anything as hilarious as that. National award my.... :evil:
idha thaanga Pandian-um sonnaaru, avara pathi :razz:Quote:
Originally Posted by jaaze
I seriously think we should limit it to TAMIL artistes. :D :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by NOV
I'm sure you'd agree that it is wrong to judge an actor's range based on what's plainly visible. nAn kaNNukkuth theriyAdha vishayangaLap paththi solREn. Intensity, mood etc. displayed by way of one's physicality. What the actor does to the character by "playing" it.Quote:
Originally Posted by crajkumar_be
Of course, we need that calibration all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by crajkumar_be
One of the attributes that I like in Madhavan is his ability to blend in the film.
He hardly does getup changes, maybe twice to play two different rugged individuals.
Mostly, he would service the story as we saw even recently in Evano Oruvan and Yavarum Nalam, two totally different films. I doubt if he will do a film playing a hunchback, or a blind, or a multiple personaly sicko. He knows his limitation and works around it beautifully and chooses films that can best use whatever talent he has.
That is a mark of a good actor. I don't know if he is versatile or not, since the definition is not so clear. But he is a fine, fine actor.
Adha thaan naan "Or, apart from these De Niro brings something different in each role nu solreengala?" nu solli/kettirundhen. Not necessarily differences in physically observable traits or "habits".Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Aboorva - Though you see the usual Nageshisms, the meanness was there which was a revelation to me.
Nammavar - I hadn't seen Nagesh in that mode. I mean i hadn't seen anyone in that mode
Innum edhavadhu kudthirundha indha madhiri vishayangal veliya vandhirukkum nu nenaikkaren
equa, now we talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalaivar equanimus as always cutting straight to the point
This is a good base to start evaluating candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho displaying his junior equa weld movies champion status
P.S: I dont quite hate Vikram to the intensity that CR, groucho etc have displayed in this forum;he is pretty decent but limited - the very opposite of versatile but he is not bad at all. His national award was for Pithamagan Groucho not Anniyan. And remember this, the man who lost out to Vikram wsa Hritik Roshan for Koi Mil Gaya so I am sure you'd agree with me when you say that in the context of that year, Vikram's NA was well-deserved. However, as a counter to your Viikram-takes-actor-proof role theory, Upendra, who I would have thought quite was well placed to breeze through that role in terms pf physical screen presence, style of acting and screen image, did fail to capture the same intensity as Vikram in the Kannada version
Ditto Plum
He is not that bad at all
The only thing annoying about the national award win (PithAmagan) is that he pipped Kamal (VirumANdi) to get it. Otherwise nothing to grudge.
PR, if Kamal's Virumandi was the same year, then the quirks of our NA selection process means that he wsa not even in comptetion for the award. Hritik Roshan, per widely publicised reports then, missed out narrowly to Vikram that year. Kamal finals-ku kooda qualify aagalai :-)
For the record, I find Vikram to be a decent actor in his range but not versatile.
The choice comments are for his remarks about Thalaivar - thats not changing my opinion on him as an actor, obviously
Hey, I like Vikram too. idhula enna thappu? Certainly one of the good actors around. It's not as if Tamil cinema is blessed with the likes of Irrfan Khan!
Plum, I know it was for Pitha Magan. I am disputing that too. That's a plain actor-proof role. You dirty yourself up, get that dye done, lose weight (again), and act dumb and voila! Award committee will kiss your feet. It's a shortcut to glory.
I like the fact that PR brought Virumandi. Now, that is what I call a great performance .Sure, Kamal has nice facial hair. But it stops there, the rest is how he presented the internal conflict...the transformation from a happy go lucky village youth, and how he takes in when hell descends on him with that serious violent incident, the wisdom he picks up in jail. His interview session with Rohini itself is enough to pick up dozens of awards.
What did Vikram do? Stiff walking and some grunts.
Edit: By the way, I just don't like Vikram when he attempts heavy duty acting. But I like him fair enough in straight forward Masala films. He is good as an action hero.
Plum,Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
No, similarly, the Tamil media reports did say that Vikram pipped Kamal for the award. I remember reading somewhere that Vikram, Kamal and Hrithik were the 3 'finalists.'
Then, I recommend you the Kannada version of the same movie, whose name I have forgotten but rajasaranam might remember, where Upendra, whom you might not know about but has all the necessary ingredients even more than Vikram to excel in that role, screw it up and ham badly. It is not at all actor-proof. Imagine Madhavan in the same role, for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho, who is blinded by hate for Vikram:-)
Couldn't agree more. Horrendous is the word. I can't still come to terms with the fact that this performance was well appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho070
Completely agree again. Take a film like Saamy. If you look past the standard gymnastics, he's a really compelling presence. (I'd go so far as to say his Saamy is much more compelling than the vastly overrated Anbuchelvan of 'kAkka kAkka'.) I like him in Majaa too. Graceful and understated comic presence.Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho070
Plum :lol:
Hate illangga. Well, I am sure any role done by Vikram, can be done by others. But he do stand out in action role. Nichayamaa paarpen, I enjoy his roles in Dhil, Dhool, Samy...but missed the recent ones. Good actor in action flicks.
equa, on Anniyan, was it Anniyan alone or the more-celebrated(more-pooh-poohed) Remo and Ambi that grated on your nerves?
And Anna Vettikad-a yellam innum "critic" nu nadamaada vitrukkaanga namma naatlaQuote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Yes I too saw it... What Upendra did was, reproduce vikram's reaction in each and every frame of the kannada version... Thats why it looked so bad... Btw I didn't find anything amazing with Vikram's performance as well... Here I agree with groucho....Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
But Pithamagan by Madhavan or even Surya konjam horrendous-a dhaan irukku nenachu paarka. He did bring something of his own to that role. I can agree if you are talking about Sethu that anyone could have done it(Even Dr Rajasekar managed Sethu in Telugu half-decently despite his age:Sudeep did pretty well in Kannada; Only Salman Khan was total damage in that role). You must grant him that. Curiously enough, I liked him most in Majaa(as equa perceptively observed) and way back in Ullaasam.Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho070
P.S: hate ellam kidding dhaan - glad you saw that and I didnt have to explain that to you
Actor-proof ellAm romba over
I can't think of many people who can convincingly participate in the iLangkAththu veesuthE sequences. SuryA-kkE konjam kastappadum-nu thONudhu.
I liked Vikram in Saamy, Dhool, Majaa and Sethu.... apart from that none......Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Maybe Chemistry, Physics nu sollaraangale athuva irukumo....I guess his Chemistry with Pasupathy worked out well...
Aamam Surya oda Motta Gajini role Sahikala... But Chithan oda mannerisms or Sanjay Ramasamy oda mannerisms ellam enakku konjam Artificial a irunthuchu.... It should have been more Subtle like that of Sivam in Anbe Sivam.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram