ஐ - Shankar + Vikram + Amy Jackson + ARR

[venkkiram]

விக்ரம் போன்ற நடிகர்களை சரியாக பயன்படுத்த தெரியாமல் தவிக்கும் தமிழ்த் திரையுலகம்! குறைந்த காலத்தில் படத்தை முடிக்காமல் ராவணன், ஐ இரண்டு படங்களுக்குமே நேரவிரயத்தில் மாட்டிக் கொள்கிறார். வயதும் ஆகிக் கொண்டெ போகிறது. சேது என்ற நிலையை அடைவதற்கு முன் விக்ரம் செல்லாத எல்லைகள் கிடையாது. காதலன், மின்சாரக் கனவில் பிரபுதேவாவுக்கு குரல் கொடுத்திருப்பார். அப்பப்பா!

[paranitharan]

Feel Vikram hasnt been challenged enough by roles where the character grows during the film or is multilayered.

The one character that comes to mind in that regard is Samurai, although a commercial movie , had some scope in that regard.
But his performance didnt really standout there.

The truly great ones give the feeling they are going through stuff internally much more than what meets the audience's eyes in the physical acting.

He is capable of a being subtler though, he has done a few malayalam movies where he hasnt been so loud. So he can be subtle and loud.

He is great at working with certain material,a wonderful showman. He is inspirational in the way he devotes himself to his craft.
But an acting masterclass is more than just effort .

.

[sakthii]

Vikram is great actor, who can mold to what ever character the director prefer, he got great ability to observe things..Also Sharkar is.
If i am correct Shankar and Vikram are virgo, both make a great pair. Wish vikram a great success, all for this true dedication.

caught up with HULK climax in TV, think I climax would be something similar to it. sure Shankar will have his own creativity. Wish to see him directing a hollywood movie. when his close buddy ARR can, sure Shankar can make his step towards hollywood.

[mappi]

Feel Vikram hasnt been challenged enough by roles where the character grows during the film or is multilayered.

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.

[faithiu11]

Again people telling ai releasing for deepavali....ithanala kaththiku yenna loss iruka pogathu ..producer sollitar intha padam
Budget yen kathu nondra kuchuku samam nu....vijay and arm inneram salary vangi invest pannitrupanga....venumna collection divide aagi matra nadigar rasigargaluku sandai poda vasathiya irukalam ...kandipa vijay fans kaththi ya than 2 or 3 times parpanga...it impacts ai collection for sure...since its a huge budget and producer in some sort of financial trouble ai Ku than intha clash bathagama irukum nu nenaikiran

[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.

[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.

Great acting is more than "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck,"

Good one

[OnMyWay]

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

I couldnt find the whole interview online but he speaks about it in many of his interactions.

This particular snippet I could find at .

If you could, try to see his full episode on 'Inside the actors studio' ,its very good. I think its from 2006 or so.

And I strongly feel the greatest artists work irrespective of applause,the greatest in anything for that matter.
They just love the process of acting,being someone else . Mohanlal, Mamoooty,Hoffman,Anthony Hopkins anyone of their youtube interviews has their views in this regard.

I agree that camera,music,co-actors ,etc add value to a performance.
But sometimes the craft can just stands out and rises above the material,just cant be missed.
If u see some of the audition tapes some performance just stand out for eg.

Its just that I personally feel that extra intelligence ,perceptive ability is lacking in Vikram.
I have heard Vikram stays in character for his roles ,etc. Its mostly his interpretation that lacks.
To quote a counter example, there is is formulaic malayalam movie called RavanaPrabhu starring Mohanlal.
Absolutely run of the mill stuff with above average writing but there are many scenes where the older Mohanlal character just stands out .
One could feel the weight of failure and his dignified acceptance of destiny in his potrayal.

I am glad you feel that Vikram made you feel he performs at those levels. I havent seen one.
I have seen may thorough, professional performances from Vikram for sure.
I am interested to know what you might consider his best work . I would like to watch it .
Till then I guess we can agree to disagree. Anyways my opinion is just as subjective as anyone else's and just as irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

[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.

[Mahen]

King back on top..chinna pasagala..yaar kitte
https://twitter.com/SonyMusicSouth/s...66845886930944