What is Wrong with Shahrukh Khan?

hmm... dissappointing article.

soundmeister: long time no see. kahan thay aap? hope all`s well.

Watched my favourite movie A Few Good Men again on TV last night. That has the unlikeliest plot and the most overacting I have ever seen in a Hollywood production. EVERYONE overacts- Tom Cruise (always happy to ham it up), Jack Nicholson, even Demi Moore (when asked why do you like (the Marines at G.Bay) so much, she replies``Cuz they stand on a wall. And they say nothing`s gonna happen to you tonight. Not on my watch`` Wah! wah!).
Rob Reiner is an amazing filmmaker (Spielberg is overrated). OK

---

if AFGM is not to your taste, check out his classic quasi-spoof rockumentary ``This is Spinal Tap``.
What`s all this got to do with the article? dunno really

---

except that both are about actors

---

hehe

#33 saminshah

Have you seen ``Kal Ho Na Ho`` if not than go see it. Movie is another reminder of how Indian movies do not represent Indian culture and if you fail to see it in this movie too.... than your bhagwan may help you.
I hope as you age you will realize what damage today`s movies are doing to Indian culture.
Good Luck!

#33 saminshah

I watched this movies so that I can write this, movie ``Kal ho Na Ho`` starts with hollywood style movie, a character Zinta in this case is introducing characters in the movies in different scenes.
Around intermission the movie turns into traditional Indian movie crap like comedy, romance and a songs, for example one in the middle of a street in some east coast city, street is blocked and dancers, singers (N.J I believe). It is just beyond reality.
In the end movie comes back to the starting tempo again, i-e Zinta helps move narrating and adding more stuff to the storyline towards tear jerking end ( I could not believe some people walked out of the theatre with swollen eyes).

Now tell me Samin(after watching the movie), do you really think movies are representation of our daily life?

sometimes i wonder why southindian directers dont get in any movie some slim actors.i dont like their jadia(faty) actors.
as far as talk abt shahrukhkhan he is not actor,he is overactor.there is no chance of him of being 21st`s amitabh or larger then life figure of bollywood.

HN #30
I agree about the character actors. I haven`t seen Yatra or Ambedkar. The one that really stands out in my memory is Thaniyavarthanam.

After a long time, I finally saw an Indian movie, which I would say is a must-see. Kal Ho Na Ho is excellent. The director and writer deserve awards. I would say one of the first new generation comedies I have seen, which had all the correct subtle touches. And it combined tragedy with comedy and romance, which is extremely difficult to do.

Shahrukh Khan was cast for a role, for which he is too old, now. And he was a bit too intense, where some of the scenes required a lighter touch. But his comedic acting was good, as always. I think comedy is where he fits in the best. Shahrukh Khan of seven years ago would have been the perfect age for the role. But I am not sure who else could have fit the role, amongst current actors.

But overall, the best Indian movie I have seen since 1942 - A Love story. And easily the best Indian comedy I have ever seen. It is a real comedy, as opposed to an overacted one. The key to a good comedy is how the subtleties in the humor are handled, without seeming ridiculous. Interestingly by the time the movie ended, everyone was crying, even though it is a comedy.

Interesting note: The whole movie seems to be shot in New York, however, in the middle of one song, for two minutes everything is picturised in downtown Toronto. Kind of wierd. The song goes back and forth between Toronto and New York, depicting everything to be New York. My guess is that due to Sep 11, they were not allowed to film the subways and buses in New York, so they moved to Toronto, for those shots. Good attention to detail.

Priety Zinta is going to be a big star, after this one.

I just saw KHNK, and thought that the film has been entirely misjudged. Saif is the hero! And a great one!

Unlike Anand, Saif`s ? Patel aka Amitabh clearly beats Shah Rukh`s AmaaN, hands down.

Sadna # 17

Mamooty is a brilliant actor, no doubt. I hear from a young cousin that the older lot, especially women, in Kearal, love Mamooty more for his gravity. And those among the young love him to play roles where he gets to spout English!

Mamooty`s Yatra stuck in the mind, and recently ``Ambedkar.``

Malayalam film industry`s greatest gems are perhaps their set of charcter actors...Tilakan, Nedumudi Venu, KPMCLalita, Suresh Gopi....etc Brilliant in any role.


Plats* #24

I do not think there is a debate on comparing Shah Rukh with Naseer! It is more about how the ``lack of personality`` in great actors that is interesting. Today I heard Greg Chappel make a rather colloquial australian expression regarding batting...``he has to get out of his own way``...to score. It was about Ganguly needing to be less Ganguly to get over the chin music the Australians had promised.

In literature class, I remember, Eliot redefining poetry ....as not so much the expression of personality as the ``escape from it.`` The greatness quotient seems to be in escaping than expressing...hah!

On the same subject, for example, my brother is a big fan of jack Nicholson, Pacino and DeNiro. While they are great actors, no doubt, the more I see their later films, more i see the person...not the character. They need to get out of their own ways...:)

Harish

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#26 arjunm

I suspect this was bound to happen, make any kind of (positive?) statement about homosexuals and you invite speculation. Combine this with the effeminate characteristics of Karan Johar and you have enough masala for people to indulge in.

Re: Kal Ho Na Ho

I agree with arjun_m`s analysis that it is more the production house than anything else. I had similar problems with Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham that I had with Kal Ho Na Ho, and they both stem from the fact that I like subtle things more than grand things.

But overall the film was entertaining, it was something you know you could go and watch and not feel like you wasted your money, and take your family with you. Especially since the other choices seem to be films like `Janasheen` (I`ll have to be shot before I`ll be seen in a theatre with that playing, and I know what to expect before going in).

SRK - he knows how to play the `cute` roles, and he invariably gets to all the women. I do applaud his `emotional guy` attempts, opening up the hindi cinema to emotional rather than macho men.

dost-mittarji:
Imagine the tragedy king and queen excelling at comedy. I saw `Kohinoor`, `Azaad` three times each and love `Aplam chaplam`, and the way the song was picturised using Hindi wrods but using an almost S.Indian style of dancing...Dilip was so good in `Ram aur Shyam` too. He is among the few actors who could emote well in songs. Bharat Bhushan would barely open his mouth!

Dilip also sang a solo in `Musafir` without musical accompaniment -- it is that scene when he is sitting alone, he brought the solitariness alive.

---

K.L.Saigal is not a ``nasal voiced singer``. At that time, this was the style of singing adopted by everyone -- Jagmohan, Pankaj Mullick, Rajkumari, Mubarak Begum. Saigal is the epitome of the voice with `thehraav`. The cinematographer of his version who made the Dilip Kumar `Devdas` was Bimal Roy. I think this film succeeded at several levels, mainly because it did not try too hard to capture the Bengali superficialities and went straight to its essence.

I just remembered that this reined-in, unrequited passion was portrayed by Sharukh Khan much better in `Dil Se`.

plats8:
Naseer was stupendous in `Paar`, as he was in `Sparsh`, `Manthan`, `Bhumika`. Have you watched him on stage? Fantastic. If you are in Mumbai, catch him in the Ismat Chugtai adaptations. And `Waiting for Godot`, `Dear Liar`.

Your comment, ``Naseeruddin Shah can play the role of a chair better than a real chair``, I think this is his handicap. Sometimes, his performaces do seem too studied, like in `Mirch Masala` and `Drohkaal`. But these are small quibbles...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Imran Suleman:

``What really gets me going is that the author of Devdas, Sarat Chander Chatopadhyay, was only 19 when he wrote this timeless classic. I wonder, that at the ``tender`` age of 19, how can a young man right such an ``intense`` novel, with such limited life experiences. Perhaps, I am naive in my assumption of not having the life experiences to write such a moving novel, but stil... they dont make authors like that anymore. I want those intense authors back!``

Damn right! Imagine the courage, the sacrifices of such a person! For these qualities must have been in a person who is capable of such `imaginations`! How many times must he have been dismissed as an aimless dreamer! How many times must he have been let down! And yet...the persistance...

Am reminded of a Faiz poem...`Jinhain jurm-e-ishq peh naaz tha, voh gunahgaar chalay ga-aye...`

As for the Telugu Devdaas, here`s some info on it (copy-paste from an email):

``Devdas or Devadaasu as it was called in telugu was released in the year 1953 - 50yrs ago
The main charachters of Devadaasu and parvathi were played by the legendary ANR (Akkineni Nageshwara Rao) and Savitri

It was a biggest all time hit, and ANR`s son who is a very good actor too says that he could never play the role as genuinely as his father did..
I believe the director did not give ANR anything to eat for a long time to make him look the way he did``



Arjun_m:

Advice taken!

2 by meet_taimoor

I second your opinion, you stole my words ;-)

Just watched Kal ho na ho... the second half made me cry... it`s a good sign for the actors and directors right ?

:)

HN #14,

In my very personal and not-so-humble opinion, Naseer and Shah Rukh do not
belong in the same paragraph. Naseeruddin Shah can play the role of a chair better
than a real chair. One seldom sees an actor who becomes the character with that
much ease. ``Paar`` anyone ?

Arjun-m #10,

Please compare Shah Rukh in ``Chalte Chalte`` to Oberoi in ``Saathiya``, and tell me
who`s more convincing. I`d say Farzana is completely accurate in her estimate here.
I don`t remember claiming that Oberoi has a vast body of work.

Anil:
I only saw a couple of Shahrukh`s films and was usually avoiding any film with him in it until recently when I saw a cameo role of his in Kamla Hassan`s Hey Ram. He really gave an impressive performance in it. I understand that this is the only film in which he played a muslim character.

Farzana:
Dilip did play light roles as well. If you get a chance, see an old film of his, Azaad, with a light role by another tragedienne of old days, Meena Kumari. And as a bonus, you will have some beautiful music by C. Ramchandra (marna bhi mohabbat mein kiki kaam na aaya; kitna haseen hai mausam, aplam chaplam, etc.)
And in case you didn`t know, he even sang a semi-classical duet in Musafir, which was of course carried mostly by the other singer, Lata.

Rozaiba,

From what I have heard there are three filmic adaptations of Devdas. The first one I beleive starred Kundan Lal Saigal, that famous nasal voiced voclaist that our grandfathers loved. The cinemtographer to that first Devdas was the great film director who went on to make his version of Devdas with Dilip-Vyjanthimala-Suchitra Sen. Of course, we have all seen the latest. Devdas has struck a chord with three successive generations.

What really gets me going is that the author of Devdas, Sarat Chander Chatopadhyay, was only 19 when he wrote this timeless classic. I wonder, that at the ``tender`` age of 19, how can a young man right such an ``intense`` novel, with such limited life experiences. Perhaps, I am naive in my assumption of not having the life experiences to write such a moving novel, but stil... they dont make authors like that anymore. I want those intense authors back!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

imransuleman:

Will definately watch `Kal ho na ho`- mostly cause I hear its theme is similar to the greatest Indian movie `Anand`.

But I insist Shahrukh outdid Dilip in the role of Devdaas. Hands down!

Was talking to a friend from Hyderabad. She claims the very first Devdaas was in the Telugu language and was far better than any subsequent ones that came out.

IMO, there are very few actors who can shed their style/persona. I remember thinking Laurence Olivier had the same facial expression in Pride and Prejudice that he did in Hamlet :).

Shahrukh Khan grows on you. He had this `negative hero` phase initially which didnot work at all, IMO. After that his `buffoonry-fits-all` style was jarring. But he was good to watch in K-K-K-Gham and seeing his older movies now, I find him more convincing than he was first time round.

HN #14
Mamootty is also v. good, with a wider range than Mohanlal I thought, though I haven`t been keeping track in the last few years.

Arent you guys sick of the cheesey sappy mushy fare that Badjatya - Chopra - Johar trio dishes out? yucccckkk thooooo ;)

Ramgopal Verma rules !!

Shahrukh was much liked in ‘Fauji’, his first TV serial. He looked so down to earth and guy-next-door (he still does in most of the movies). I don’t remember vividly his exact role as we were very young that time but he had instantly become a favourite of all the gals in my colony, leaving Anil Kapoor behind. Probably that natural look and simple ‘Fauji’ charm that continued in many of his movies is now somewhat lacking in Kal Ho Na Ho.

In general, people do like SRK as in real life he is a very good human being and this very much reflects in his eyes. Whether he knows acting or not is one thing, his real life persona gets intermingled with his characters.
And Salman did a fabulous job in `Tere Naam` ..he was much appreciated but had some negative reviews just because the stigma he carried all this time sometimes goes against him.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Anil,

What you say about Shah Rukh Khan is what my better half says about Madhuri Dixit. Madhuri, appararently, has the air of ``look, I am Madhuri, I am the Star`` air about her in her latter films.

But that said, SRK was not a terrific actor from the begining. He had a screen presence perhaps, that is at the best crisp. No woder, he does not feel comfortable away from the Yask Johar/ Yash Chopra`s circus tent of chiffons...and keeps singing...i have miles to go before I peep.

But, even among actors who have taken risks, and attempted a variety of roles, very few succeeds. And in this, especially, those with screen presence tend to be at a disadvantage.
I can only think of Naseer who has played different characters convincingly for a major part of his career, without being Naseer throughout.

I can spot Kamalaahaasan in every film of his, even when he is playing a midget. And yet, look at Naseer, from the reviews, he has done a very tacky Nemo with Sean Connery.

Malayalam actor Mohanlal, called the Deaupardieu *spelling IS wrong`` of Indian cinema, is currently celebrating his 25 years in films. And, currently, fighting off charges that Mohanlal the star is protruding far more inelegantly through his roles. Though, it also has to do with him shifting to do a lot of action and supermen roles lately.

On the other hand, some lesser actors have grown admirably with films. I think Sunjay Dutta broke through with Naam. Similalry, Jackie Shroff managed to act a little in a little known Mahesh Bhatt film called Kaash. Jackie, and Sunjay Dutt to a lesser extent, has made tremendous advances on their voice and diction. Compare Sunju bab of Vidhaata and Jackie of Hero with their later film roles.

HN

Farzana: I agree, I think too SRK exhausted his personality`s potential when he played that author backed role in Azi Mirza`s Kabhi Haan Kabhi Na.

``Filmgoers secretly want ‘one of us’ to be a superstar on the magic screen, not an unreal visage cosmeticized by dress designers, make-up artists, scriptwriters and film directors``
Validated

Nice article to change the taste ...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

North Amrican perception (dem nri`s)...of KHNH

Women:
Movie good. SRK poor guy, he looks not well... but wait that is his role! No big discussion of clothes etc..

Men: Agree with Anil... and were uncomfortable with (fragile PC sensibilities are hurt) showing NRI Gujjus as vulgar.

Everyone liked the movie.. but nothing earth-shattering ....

I loved Kal ho na ho. If you are anew yorker, its a treat. Even if you are not, it worrks. Yes, I can be a sucker for such soppy, yuppy, melo-drama.

I cant stand the way Sharukh acts.

But I will say he has a penchant for picking the rigth scripts. He has starred in many of my favorite movies. But i think the reall credit goes to the Yash Chopra camp, and their spin off`s (Yash Chopra, Karan Johar, Aditya Chopra, and now Nikhil Adwani). And then because he is big star, he will bag the big names, like the Subhash Ghai`s and the Sanjay Leela Bhansli`s.

I think its a classic case of networking with the right people.

And Rozaiba, please. Shahrukh outdoing Dilip?? Im a sucker for good performances and great urdu, and Dilip is a hundred times better in both (yes, i know Devdas was in bengali, so where does the urdu bit come in, but still...). After all, could a Shahrukh ever say with such painful passion the Josh Malihabadi verse, the way Dilip did in devdas, when Chandra Mukhi (Vyjanthimala) talks to him about toelrance and his love for drink: ``Arrey, kaun kambakht bardaasht karney kay liye sharaab peeta hai!``

Love the new Devdas for cinemtaography, Madhuri Dixit, Aishwarya, music, madhuri, and aishwarya....

Shahrukh is a bad actor, a great networker, and his songs rock. Go watch Kal ho na ho, preferbaly on the big screen. You`ll love it!

Farzana #5,

Agree with you completely. He is grossly over-rated, and Vivek Oberoi was far more
convincing in Saathiya than Shah Rukh in Chalte Chalte. Shah Rukh is nothing but
a collection of repeatedly overdone mannerisms.

Kal Ho Na Ho is a classic movie. For the first time in Indian Film industry this kind of story is used and it will carve a genre of this kind of movies in Bollywood. I simply love SRK movies.

Hello Anil . . . from my perch here . . . I think the Indian film-goer / viewer / consumer has now got access to about 80-100 channels of television at home, and tends to demand (a) instant gratification and (b) higher technical quality and (c) some amount of credibility even in dream-sci-fi situations.

And it is in these three attributes that the South Indian film industry seems to be moving rapidly ahead of the Hindi film industry. Their movies have begun to look so . . . crisp! Even without understanding the language, and allowing for heaving bosom/thundering thigh routines in the rain.

Would you agree that to a large extent, all we seem to get out of Bollywood now are:-

a) Expensive set-piece drama films, with 3% chances of doing well, regardless of PR companies.
b) Quickie similar multiple movies with 4 jokes, 3 murders, 2 love angles and 1 boring end, which seldom do well but have good PR companies.
c) ``War`` movies which would have done well if not done to death.
d) Ram Gopal Varma, with mostly the same actors.
c) Other stuff, with a 3% chance of doing well.

SRK (apart from a wierd hairstyle) would be able to transform himself better if he now thought of doing a Kamalahassan.

Just an opinion.

Anil:
Sharukh Khan is an over-rated bum. He has always been acting himself, even in the early films like `Kabhi Haan, Kabhi Na`, although I think this together with `Yes Boss` and the huge flop `Duplicate` could be called his better performances.

I am surprised you say, ``This is in sharp contrast to the non-conformist, intense and edgy Shah Rukh we had come to love in ‘Deewana’, ‘Baazigar’, ‘Darr’, even ‘Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman’ - the fizz and irrepressibility of an actor devouring the screen with its nervous energy.`` I think these were non-conformist characters; if you watch his body language it is pretty much the same as in `Devdas` or `Chalte Chalte` (incidentally in `Saathiya, similar thematically to this one, Vivek Oberoi did a far better job).

Re. `Devdas, two people ruined the film -- Shahrukh Khan and Kiron Kher. Complete over-the-top performances. Dilip Kumar was far more subtle (even if he played himself, we are fortunate that he has this `suffering persona which went well with the character!) and he took a real risk with the character in `Musafir`. That was non-conformism.

I have not seen `Kal Ho Na Ho` yet.

SRK `s DEvdas was S@#$. Bhansali had a diahoria of extravangenza due to FULL support by his financer. A good director would have made 10 devdas out of the same budget. The dances were also S@#$- choreography cannot even compare Pakeeza.
Music was good- though I thought that the music arrangement and the compositions were better in HDDS.

I think SRK suffers from what has been ailing all Indian actors.............Dilip Kumar included............they sound typically themselves in film after film after initially proving their worth.
Even Chalte Chalte gave the feeling it was Shah Rukh and not Raj!
But since it was Shah Rukh, you could not help but lap it up!
Agreed that a lot rests on his shoulders but yes, its high time he makes a conscentious effort to carve a different path and experiment with roles as Aamir or Ajay.
The reviews of KHNH have been encouraging so far, in spite of the cliches, so lemme watch it for just this once and worry about what is wrong with Shah Rukh later.:)

Totally agreed! I identified this problem with Shahrukh khan with the movie ``Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Ghum`` as in that Shahrukh was the same as he was in the ``Muhabbatein``. Since the Muhabbatein, Shahrukh khan has been the same in all the movies with his larger-than-life style. I stopped watching his movies because in every movie he is ``Shahrukh Khan`` not the character of that movie. On the other hand, Aamer Khan has a different style to offer in every movie and be the character of the movie, not being ``Aamer Khan`` in every movie. Good analysis Anil!

In `Devdaas`, Shahrukh out did the performance of Dilip Kumar. Far out did the latter.