Originally Posted by
mappi
You’re welcome.
So as we see now, the glass is half filled - 'Vikram gets 1 right' - very glad.
I am with you until the part "There is no sense of mystery/magic to what he does", which is supposed to be the empty space in the glass, for the moment.
Lets reverse the psyche part and see :
Assuming Vikram gets that right too, how about looking into the psyche of the audience. Not all characters reach each audience the same way. A grand exemple can be found in this forum itself, where Actor 'A' fans can't even accept the better performence of their rival Actor 'B'. If you come out of this circle, then you see a clear picture of an artist trying to convey something. But still, the people around don't find any similarity in their judgement towards the character that was displayed before them. One finds it extraodinary, the other finds it faulty. So a filmy character, approaches a person how much he welcomes it.
Blaming the Artist alone is not correct is what my point is. Imagine, a guy is busy tweeting while watching the film just to achive his "First on the net" medal by giving regular updates about the film. You should have got an idea how much concentration he has put and what really is running inside him while watching the movie. Then he reviews the movie, calls himself a Critic (actually reviewer are not critics, thats entirely a different subject), and people start to quarrel amoung themselves with the half baked story he publishes, none even take a while to see the real picture. Its going as a chain reaction. He obviously did not cooperate with the artists, where the artist is left at the receiving end, his misplace, which inverts the story altogether.
As you have brought in the right matter, I could see the point you wish to make. A valid one. A performence of an artist could be weighed with certain other aspects too - right from makeup, lighting, costume, attitude of the camera, etc., and most importantly the musical piece that accompanies him. All these combined together acts as a motivation for both the artist and the audience. If any single one is missing, the artist communication gets interrupted and sometimes even misses the whole impact. A small exemple that weighs a lot is : Techinically, when a film maker calls for a close up that dures more than 5 seconds, will distract the audience. 5 seconds could become eternal, its a proven in communications. The eyes have that power which even changes its color according to the signal sent and received. So a film maker can jam this Psyche work practised by the artists. This is where the critics come in and give the deserved ones their respective credits. This breif note is to convey that Vikram alone is not to be blamed.
And also, I accept that not everytime an artist could nail it, they are also humans afterall. Vikram is one amoung the few who minimises the faults and with the cooperation of 'the' audience, excels is rendering what is asked for.
And thanks for sharing the Al Pacino titbit, could I have more information about this interview please, I would like to watch it.
Good one