ஐ - Shankar + Vikram + Amy Jackson + ARR

[Arvind Srinivasan]

Firstly, I have got to appreciate Mappi and OnMyWay for the wonderful posts. Here is my two cents on the discussion.

Acting in general can be seperated into two- Presentation and Representation. The Representational actor deliberately chooses to imitate or illustrate the character’s behavior while the Presentational actor attempts this through a use of himself, through an understanding of himself and consequently an understanding of the character he is portraying. The Representational actor finds a form based on an objective result for the character, which he then carefully watches as he executes it while This has been very vivdly explained in Uta Hagen's book- Respect for Acting. Each one has its own clear cut USPs. It is clearly the representational acting that makes the audience sit up, take notice, hoot and clap.The presentational acting is more more mellow in comparison to the former but clearly infuses the much needed subtlety, restraint to the performance.

Traditionally,TFI's comprised more of Representational performances. Sivaji's majestic performance onscreen are major examples. But even in those times of theatrics, there have been performances that have infused the much needed subtlety- a Ranga Rao performace is a good example be it any role. In modern times however, this whole concept has been miscontrued, butchered and overused and that speaks of the quality of acting that's present onscreen.

Of all actors today, very few have balanced both aspects well. Sivaji and Kamal come to mind as actors who had the mastery of both. Muthal Mariyathai is a good example of his presentational acting skills. Kamal's experiences in Malayalam cinema definitely brought the much needed subtleties to his acting, the ironing out of the rough edges from his teenage theatre experience.

Vikram is probably the only actor in Tamil Cinema nowadays to have come close to sharing the stage with the above two interms of talent, the effort and dedication put into each role. He's pulled off highly representational ones onscreen as seen in Sethu, Anniyan, Pithamagan and probably in I but is yet to shine in one that brings in the presentational aspect. Probably that's the reason as to why he comes across as a difficult actor to watch and appreciate. You know he is acting his heart out, tooth and nail but its sometimes hard to ignore the fact that the acting is just skin deep and the much needed soul is missing. Here is where the presentational skills of an actor come to the fore and this is why no one, not even an actor of Vikram's caliber and dediction can match the above two that I have mentioned. Conversely If we were to discuss the modern definition of acting which is 'Living truthfully under imaginary circumstances' as popularised by Sanford Meisner, I doubt if any of Vikram's performances had hit the bulls eye. They've been entertaining for sure, but once the dust has settled you only see an actor trying to live out the character when not living it actually.