ஐ - Shankar + Vikram + Amy Jackson + ARR

[OnMyWay]

Omitting "multilayered", as I am scared of this word/term, most of characters Vikram played do grow all along the film giving a multi flavoured experience for the audience. The problem of this discussion that we are heading nowhere, is basically because the people occupying the least share in the pie chart are coming out with multiple exemples and resuming an entire carrier in just under 250 characters. We have to pinpoint one at a time and go on to feed the argument rather than including a bunch of movies disliked in the same line.

Anyway, lets take the under rated movie Bheema, Bheema alone it is.

Bheema is a free lance rowdy geting his inspiration from a classic goon since childhood. The character elevates with happiness when he gets acquainted with the goon (apply Maslow's hierarchy of needs, if necessary). It gets deeper when he becomes the only savior of his (god) father, until he is exposed to another parallely existing form, the necessity. Here the rugged character shows signs of clamness and a visionless Bhemma starts creating his future when the ultimate misunderstanding hits him hard. One side he is losing his dream fort, other side he is losing his castle which sheltered him. Caught inbetween are the numerous decision that he has to make where time is calcualted only in seconds. There is a dialogue in the film describing Bheema - "Possuku-nu Yosikira narathula Sutitu poite irrupna" - Even this dialogue evolues, giving it altother a different meaning towards the end, where Bheema gets trapped inside his own Best Quality which effects not only Bheema but his God Father too. Then the police encounter should speak for itself the state Bheema is in.

So you see the character does grow all the while in the film, and Vikram suits up with the right design for each changeover.

Now we can take anyother movie of your choice. But please don't bring in Maaja or Rajapattai or Kandasamy just for the sake of it. Its not that there isn't anyting to talk about them, but I consider these films don't merit a discussion, atleast I am not giving my time.

Thanks for the response.
Well from whatever little I know , modern acting pretty much has two parts to it.

Getting all the external mannerisms of a character right; getting into inner psyche of the character and being it on screen.

Vikram gets 1 right , he takes the effort to do it. I just do not feel he does part two well enough . Its no shame though.
There was an interview where Al Pacino says he only sometimes gets into that space.

When people do get both right ,acting becomes a bit magical, where even fully knowing what the character to be ,one would still surprised what the actor does with it.

Without it it becomes a thorough,professional performance , but it just doesnt standout so much.

I am not arguing Vikram didnt do his homework and gets the characters mannerisms or emotions .
Its about the aah moments and how the actor can hold the camera . We should know more about the character when we see the actor plays it.
There is no sense of mystery/magic to what he does.Vikram seems to play it as one might expect it and he does it well.
Great acting is more than "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck,"

Any of his movies including the above mentioned have professional performances. They just dont make the average viewer feel he knew more about the character by watching him act than just by reading a script and interpreting it himself.

It could be a great role that triggers that next step. Maybe if he plays someone like Hannibal Lecter where he is told 'don't move. Scare people by being still.'
Would get him to dig deeper if he has it.