Ever since the owner of this blog requested me to write about Kamal Hassan standing up to arguably the 2 greatest of actors of all time, namely - Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, I couldn't help but Chuckle at the very thought of it. I "knew" there wasn't any reason to possibly come to a conclusion that Kamal does stand a chance to overshadow these 2 actors. But private thoughts of just "Knowing" aren't just good enough, Isn't it?
Lets get to the business, Shall we?
So, the first question.
Why?, I will give you my reasons.
First up, to be even compared to these 2 actors, he should come up trumps against actors like Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Marlon Brando, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington and......... the list is endless. In fact, both these actors in question themselves have been overshadowed by the names mentioned above on some instances, Yet....the law of averages has its own advantage and it works heavily in favor of De Niro and Pacino. The comparison, IMO doesn't make sense if we pick up best movies of these actors weigh it up on a scale , and pass a judgement. So, lets us dwelve deep and do a thorough postmortem of sorts just to be sure.
Al Pacino, as we know has done some remarkable films, Some of them which I have seen are Dog Day Afternoon, Devils Advocate, Scent of a women, The God Father, Serpico, Scarface, Heat and Any Given Sunday. These are the films which made Al Pacino into what he is today. In my honest opinion, Al Pacino , in hindsight plays the "Evil" in most of his films. The man has a profound affiliation with evil, he fills the screen with uneasy tension, the self inflicted fatalism is his forte. To me Al Pacino's most enigmatic roles are from the films Dog Day Afternoon and God Father, all other films are derivates of these 2 roles. No matter how many different characters he has played the memory of the man with hand pistol and the guy sitting on the big chair with people kissing his hands linger on my mind. The "Evil" is quite evident form the man's eyes which breathes fire in every frame, Yet....we like it or not he gets stuck with that image in every role of he has portrayed so far.
So, how does Kamal Hassan match up to this line up of brilliant films?
Unlike Al Pacino , Kamal doesn't suffer from what I call the "driven fatalism". Kamal Hassan manages to paint a picture of righteous and the crooked with elan. This is something which we expect Kamal Hassan to do, just like how we expect Al Pacino to stare endlessly at us through the lens. Kamal doesn't even lack as far as creating a euphoria is concerned, Just like Al, Kamal has managed to create an aura around him which has kept him in good stead financially, But what I think puts Al ahead is the fact that Kamal himself has picked up things from Pacino and
innovated on it.
The most prominent of them being the laughter, the famous Kamal laugh. If you had been careful enough to notice the way Al says "Hah", made very popular by him in his master piece classic , "The Scent of a women". The act itself, dates back to time of Dog Day After Noon. Somehow, Kamal's laugh has a distinct similarity to the Al' way of saying " Haah , what now? you going to fuck with me?". Kamal has, IMO, definitely taken the que from Al and improvised on it and made it his own in his unique style. Well, this is what great actors do, improvise, but aren't we talking about who is the best of the best?
Kamal has infact, re invented Marlon Brando in his gangster flick "Nayagan". He reproduced the Brando effect very well, but I guess he went too far in aping Brando. The fact that he chewed tobacco just to do a "Brando" takes a good chunk away from Kamal. (Again, the best of the best?). When you make a film based on arguably the most influential films of last century, you ought to have these "Inspirations". But to be compared to pacino and Deniro and Brando, you are on your own. While brando and Al Pacino are in a war fighting with fucking Mig 319, Kamal
has a hand pistol.
I do have to say that Kamal Hassan definitely stands tall as far as Comedy is concerned but again, I have not followed Al Pacino's career as much as Kamal Hassan. Therefore, I cannot come to a conclusion if Pacino is not as good as Kamal Hassan in Comedy, because to be frank I don't even know if he has acted in a comedy film. I presume the comparison is a nonsense, yet, Let us assume Kamal is the winner there.
When we do consider the intense drama which Kamal is the most famous for, its only fair that Pacino takes the cake.
Next up is my favorite actor, the man who has just amazed me not only by acting but the sheer capacity to push the limit every time. The man, Robert De Niro who just took the world by storm with his act "You talking to me". Any article which even remotely talks about acting or remarkable films isn't complete without the mention of Raging Bull, this film possibly inspired a generation of film makers and actors for years together.
The very visual of Muscular Jake La Motta dancing in his robe at the ring side is riveting to say the least. The scene itself is so famous, that it was literally copied in the film Billa, with Ajith doing the same, this time with a sand bag. No actor in the world has an answer to the kind of work Robert has done in Raging Bull. The guy trained with boxer la Motta, got his 8 pack ab's for the role and the complete transformation can be seen as he slowly gains weight thorough out the film and you can just see his flab getting thicker and thicker. At the end, he appears as a 40 something bloated man with 40 inch paunch. The very thought is out of this world. 8 Packs and 40 inch paunch for a film? and I have not even started talking about his act in the film.
According to De Niro, there is something called "Auditioning for the film and acting in it". Auditioning is something one does to get a role in the film, acting is something one does when he does act in a film.
According to him this is how you act. Martinc Scorcese revealed that Robert Wanted to do this film more than scorcese himself. De Niro had earlier turned a taxi driver literally during the night to study what these drivers are up to, " method acting " took a whole new avatar. From then on, Raging Bull, Good fellas, Cape fear, King of Comedy, Untouchables, Heat, Casino, Awakening, The Mission, Deer Hunter, Mean Streets, GodFather,Newyork Newyork....thats some line up every actor would die to have.
Each one of those films need a write up like the one I am trying to do here, So where does Kamal stand here?
Let us see what Kamal has done that De Niro hasn't done.
Kamal has played a "dwarf", but dwarf's are also normal human beings its just that they end up staying short, and also I don't find anything uniquely intriguing in the role except for the fact that it was very convincing. For example, the way kamal tweaks his Jaws in Anbe Sivam spoke of his injury and damage to his skull is something detailed than a dwarf. I couldn't see or comprehend anything unique to Dwarf's. If they are just normal human beings, then credit should be given to director in Kamal or the art director in Kamal.
The Actor in Kamal, should be credited for his portrayal in Guna, Anbe Sivam or even Aalavandhan. Kamal has played an artist, Be it a classical dancer in Salangai Oli or a western Dance master in Punnagai Mannan, De Niro also has done his share with King of Comedy , where he plays a wanna be Stand up Comedien. He even plays a Stand up comedian in his illustrious Raging Bull.
Casino - seriously I cannot think of a performance close to this film. The arguments and Counter Arguments in the film between Nicky and Sam Rothstein are out of this world. Films where someone contests on equal footing with Kamal are Anbe Sivam and Kurudhipunal and to an extent virumaandi. But Casino wins it by a mile to spare.
Just 2 scenes are enough for me to decide that. The famous desert scene between Joe Pesci and De Niro, and the one between these 2 at Sam Rothstien's house. I.E When Pesci intimidates the officer from the bank. Its not the ease at which De Niro acts, even Kamal is effortless, its the way De Niro takes us into the lives of these men in Las Vegas that pushes it above Anbe Sivam and Kurudhipunal. While Kurudhipunal is more complete, Anbe Sivam is not.
Kamal has played a a gangster, so has De Niro. kamal has played lover boy, De Niro has never played such a role, in this case Kamal knocks De Niro down. For a Nayagan, De Niro hits back with a Good Fellas, When Kamal comes up with Sigappu Rojakkal - De Niro hits back with a Taxi Driver. When Kamal places Guna and Anbe Sivam, De Niro smashes it with his Awakening. When Kamal plays his card called Anbe Sivam and Kurudhipunal, De Niro plays an Ace called "Casino". When Kamal gets pissed off and tries to hit De Niro for a boundary with Mahanadhi and varumaiyin Niram Sigappu, De Niro hits him for a six off a no ball with Deer Hunter and Untouchable and Heat. When Kamal asks De Niro to play his card first this time around, he plays his trump card called the "Raging Bull" and Kamal forfiets after playing half a card
called "Moondram Pirai".
I take offence at people saying De Niro was just at the right place and at the right time, its as if De Niro was just plain lucky, Why couldn't Martin Scorcese do a Raging Bull again with some other actor?. The fact remains that the duo complemented each other and Raging Bull wouldn't be complete without these two.
In Tamil Industry, when Kamal was trying to break away from the main stream cinema after getting bored with it, he was alone. There wasn't one soul who would say, I want to be like Kamal. Every actor wanted to do a Rajinikanth. Everyone wanted to be a Star . This was both a boon and a bane. Boon - Because you would be the only one doing something different, and whatever little you did was deemed a "Different Effort", even a simple change in looks would have been looked upon as pioneering effort.
It was also a bane in the sense that his films could have very well lost in the scores of nonsense going around in early 90's and late eighties. Just like how a cute little Pug would be lost in a herd of pigs, his guna was lost amidst mud,filth and feces. His Hey Ram was lost in the same garbage. As we see, being Kamal in Tamil Cinema was both advantageous and disadvantageous. There is more of a disadvantage when you consider the finance part of it, not so much when you consider the recognition.
What about De Niro? It was just the opposite in Hollywood. Every fucking actor wanted to be either Brando, Pacino or De Niro. They all wanted to do a God Father, a Raging Bull. Hence we have seen some extraordinary talents like Tom Hanks, Dustin Hoffman,Russel Crowe, Denzel Washington, Di Caprio, Daniel Day lewis, Edward Norton etc.
These guys were constantly pushed, never could they rest on their laurels, they had to churn out a classic after a classic no matter how tired they were. This was a boon and Bane in itself.
Remarkable talents that Pacino and De Niro were, enjoyed the competition, reveled in it, Dug deep and made the place their own, and still came up trumps. The best of the roles weren't confined only to a few, but were distributed to a group of good actors. While an Indian could only be done by Kamal in Thamizh Cinema, it was not the same in Hollywood. De Niro still had to earn the right to play the lead in Casino. Respect had to be earned by whosoever it might be. And they also had the "Casting" director who wouldn't care to hoots while casting fora film , they wouldn't give an inch unless and until they felt so.
So, the whole idea of De Niro or pacino being an automatic choice wasn't on at all. There was a Tom Hanks to do a Terminal and Russel Crowe to do a "Beautiful mind" unlike Tamil Cinema.
Taking into consideration, all the above arguments condensing it, it seems as though Kamal still falls behind these 2 actors. While there are areas were Kamal scores over them, but as I said at the beginning the law of averages is quite arrogant and De Niro and Pacino score heavily in other areas.
A Small Digression, Recently I heard Bullet trains were to be introduced in Chennai- I was just thinking - is it not great to be proud about something we have or going to have in the near future than to think that bullet trains which we are going to have in Chennai is not as good as the latest bullet trains in Europe?
I remember those cheers
They still ring in my ears
And for years they'll remain in my thoughts
Cuz one night I took off my robe
And what'd I do
I forgot to wear shorts.
I recall every fall, every hook, every jab
The worst way a guy could get rid of his flab
As you know, my life was a jab...
Though I'd rather hear you cheer
When I delve into Shakespeare
"A Horse, a Horse, my Kingdom for a Horse,"
I haven't had a winner in six months (he lights his cigar)...
I know I'm no Olivier
But if he fought Sugar Ray
He would say
That the thing ain't the ring
It's the play.
So gimme a stage
Where this bull here can rage
And though I can fight
I'd much rather recite
That's entertainment!
That's entertainment.
I end this debate therefore.
UDHAV NAIG
Lets get to the business, Shall we?
So, the first question.
Why?, I will give you my reasons.
First up, to be even compared to these 2 actors, he should come up trumps against actors like Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Marlon Brando, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington and......... the list is endless. In fact, both these actors in question themselves have been overshadowed by the names mentioned above on some instances, Yet....the law of averages has its own advantage and it works heavily in favor of De Niro and Pacino. The comparison, IMO doesn't make sense if we pick up best movies of these actors weigh it up on a scale , and pass a judgement. So, lets us dwelve deep and do a thorough postmortem of sorts just to be sure.
Al Pacino, as we know has done some remarkable films, Some of them which I have seen are Dog Day Afternoon, Devils Advocate, Scent of a women, The God Father, Serpico, Scarface, Heat and Any Given Sunday. These are the films which made Al Pacino into what he is today. In my honest opinion, Al Pacino , in hindsight plays the "Evil" in most of his films. The man has a profound affiliation with evil, he fills the screen with uneasy tension, the self inflicted fatalism is his forte. To me Al Pacino's most enigmatic roles are from the films Dog Day Afternoon and God Father, all other films are derivates of these 2 roles. No matter how many different characters he has played the memory of the man with hand pistol and the guy sitting on the big chair with people kissing his hands linger on my mind. The "Evil" is quite evident form the man's eyes which breathes fire in every frame, Yet....we like it or not he gets stuck with that image in every role of he has portrayed so far.
So, how does Kamal Hassan match up to this line up of brilliant films?
Unlike Al Pacino , Kamal doesn't suffer from what I call the "driven fatalism". Kamal Hassan manages to paint a picture of righteous and the crooked with elan. This is something which we expect Kamal Hassan to do, just like how we expect Al Pacino to stare endlessly at us through the lens. Kamal doesn't even lack as far as creating a euphoria is concerned, Just like Al, Kamal has managed to create an aura around him which has kept him in good stead financially, But what I think puts Al ahead is the fact that Kamal himself has picked up things from Pacino and
innovated on it.
The most prominent of them being the laughter, the famous Kamal laugh. If you had been careful enough to notice the way Al says "Hah", made very popular by him in his master piece classic , "The Scent of a women". The act itself, dates back to time of Dog Day After Noon. Somehow, Kamal's laugh has a distinct similarity to the Al' way of saying " Haah , what now? you going to fuck with me?". Kamal has, IMO, definitely taken the que from Al and improvised on it and made it his own in his unique style. Well, this is what great actors do, improvise, but aren't we talking about who is the best of the best?
Kamal has infact, re invented Marlon Brando in his gangster flick "Nayagan". He reproduced the Brando effect very well, but I guess he went too far in aping Brando. The fact that he chewed tobacco just to do a "Brando" takes a good chunk away from Kamal. (Again, the best of the best?). When you make a film based on arguably the most influential films of last century, you ought to have these "Inspirations". But to be compared to pacino and Deniro and Brando, you are on your own. While brando and Al Pacino are in a war fighting with fucking Mig 319, Kamal
has a hand pistol.
I do have to say that Kamal Hassan definitely stands tall as far as Comedy is concerned but again, I have not followed Al Pacino's career as much as Kamal Hassan. Therefore, I cannot come to a conclusion if Pacino is not as good as Kamal Hassan in Comedy, because to be frank I don't even know if he has acted in a comedy film. I presume the comparison is a nonsense, yet, Let us assume Kamal is the winner there.
When we do consider the intense drama which Kamal is the most famous for, its only fair that Pacino takes the cake.
Next up is my favorite actor, the man who has just amazed me not only by acting but the sheer capacity to push the limit every time. The man, Robert De Niro who just took the world by storm with his act "You talking to me". Any article which even remotely talks about acting or remarkable films isn't complete without the mention of Raging Bull, this film possibly inspired a generation of film makers and actors for years together.
The very visual of Muscular Jake La Motta dancing in his robe at the ring side is riveting to say the least. The scene itself is so famous, that it was literally copied in the film Billa, with Ajith doing the same, this time with a sand bag. No actor in the world has an answer to the kind of work Robert has done in Raging Bull. The guy trained with boxer la Motta, got his 8 pack ab's for the role and the complete transformation can be seen as he slowly gains weight thorough out the film and you can just see his flab getting thicker and thicker. At the end, he appears as a 40 something bloated man with 40 inch paunch. The very thought is out of this world. 8 Packs and 40 inch paunch for a film? and I have not even started talking about his act in the film.
According to De Niro, there is something called "Auditioning for the film and acting in it". Auditioning is something one does to get a role in the film, acting is something one does when he does act in a film.
According to him this is how you act. Martinc Scorcese revealed that Robert Wanted to do this film more than scorcese himself. De Niro had earlier turned a taxi driver literally during the night to study what these drivers are up to, " method acting " took a whole new avatar. From then on, Raging Bull, Good fellas, Cape fear, King of Comedy, Untouchables, Heat, Casino, Awakening, The Mission, Deer Hunter, Mean Streets, GodFather,Newyork Newyork....thats some line up every actor would die to have.
Each one of those films need a write up like the one I am trying to do here, So where does Kamal stand here?
Let us see what Kamal has done that De Niro hasn't done.
Kamal has played a "dwarf", but dwarf's are also normal human beings its just that they end up staying short, and also I don't find anything uniquely intriguing in the role except for the fact that it was very convincing. For example, the way kamal tweaks his Jaws in Anbe Sivam spoke of his injury and damage to his skull is something detailed than a dwarf. I couldn't see or comprehend anything unique to Dwarf's. If they are just normal human beings, then credit should be given to director in Kamal or the art director in Kamal.
The Actor in Kamal, should be credited for his portrayal in Guna, Anbe Sivam or even Aalavandhan. Kamal has played an artist, Be it a classical dancer in Salangai Oli or a western Dance master in Punnagai Mannan, De Niro also has done his share with King of Comedy , where he plays a wanna be Stand up Comedien. He even plays a Stand up comedian in his illustrious Raging Bull.
Casino - seriously I cannot think of a performance close to this film. The arguments and Counter Arguments in the film between Nicky and Sam Rothstein are out of this world. Films where someone contests on equal footing with Kamal are Anbe Sivam and Kurudhipunal and to an extent virumaandi. But Casino wins it by a mile to spare.
Just 2 scenes are enough for me to decide that. The famous desert scene between Joe Pesci and De Niro, and the one between these 2 at Sam Rothstien's house. I.E When Pesci intimidates the officer from the bank. Its not the ease at which De Niro acts, even Kamal is effortless, its the way De Niro takes us into the lives of these men in Las Vegas that pushes it above Anbe Sivam and Kurudhipunal. While Kurudhipunal is more complete, Anbe Sivam is not.
Kamal has played a a gangster, so has De Niro. kamal has played lover boy, De Niro has never played such a role, in this case Kamal knocks De Niro down. For a Nayagan, De Niro hits back with a Good Fellas, When Kamal comes up with Sigappu Rojakkal - De Niro hits back with a Taxi Driver. When Kamal places Guna and Anbe Sivam, De Niro smashes it with his Awakening. When Kamal plays his card called Anbe Sivam and Kurudhipunal, De Niro plays an Ace called "Casino". When Kamal gets pissed off and tries to hit De Niro for a boundary with Mahanadhi and varumaiyin Niram Sigappu, De Niro hits him for a six off a no ball with Deer Hunter and Untouchable and Heat. When Kamal asks De Niro to play his card first this time around, he plays his trump card called the "Raging Bull" and Kamal forfiets after playing half a card
called "Moondram Pirai".
I take offence at people saying De Niro was just at the right place and at the right time, its as if De Niro was just plain lucky, Why couldn't Martin Scorcese do a Raging Bull again with some other actor?. The fact remains that the duo complemented each other and Raging Bull wouldn't be complete without these two.
In Tamil Industry, when Kamal was trying to break away from the main stream cinema after getting bored with it, he was alone. There wasn't one soul who would say, I want to be like Kamal. Every actor wanted to do a Rajinikanth. Everyone wanted to be a Star . This was both a boon and a bane. Boon - Because you would be the only one doing something different, and whatever little you did was deemed a "Different Effort", even a simple change in looks would have been looked upon as pioneering effort.
It was also a bane in the sense that his films could have very well lost in the scores of nonsense going around in early 90's and late eighties. Just like how a cute little Pug would be lost in a herd of pigs, his guna was lost amidst mud,filth and feces. His Hey Ram was lost in the same garbage. As we see, being Kamal in Tamil Cinema was both advantageous and disadvantageous. There is more of a disadvantage when you consider the finance part of it, not so much when you consider the recognition.
What about De Niro? It was just the opposite in Hollywood. Every fucking actor wanted to be either Brando, Pacino or De Niro. They all wanted to do a God Father, a Raging Bull. Hence we have seen some extraordinary talents like Tom Hanks, Dustin Hoffman,Russel Crowe, Denzel Washington, Di Caprio, Daniel Day lewis, Edward Norton etc.
These guys were constantly pushed, never could they rest on their laurels, they had to churn out a classic after a classic no matter how tired they were. This was a boon and Bane in itself.
Remarkable talents that Pacino and De Niro were, enjoyed the competition, reveled in it, Dug deep and made the place their own, and still came up trumps. The best of the roles weren't confined only to a few, but were distributed to a group of good actors. While an Indian could only be done by Kamal in Thamizh Cinema, it was not the same in Hollywood. De Niro still had to earn the right to play the lead in Casino. Respect had to be earned by whosoever it might be. And they also had the "Casting" director who wouldn't care to hoots while casting fora film , they wouldn't give an inch unless and until they felt so.
So, the whole idea of De Niro or pacino being an automatic choice wasn't on at all. There was a Tom Hanks to do a Terminal and Russel Crowe to do a "Beautiful mind" unlike Tamil Cinema.
Taking into consideration, all the above arguments condensing it, it seems as though Kamal still falls behind these 2 actors. While there are areas were Kamal scores over them, but as I said at the beginning the law of averages is quite arrogant and De Niro and Pacino score heavily in other areas.
A Small Digression, Recently I heard Bullet trains were to be introduced in Chennai- I was just thinking - is it not great to be proud about something we have or going to have in the near future than to think that bullet trains which we are going to have in Chennai is not as good as the latest bullet trains in Europe?
I remember those cheers
They still ring in my ears
And for years they'll remain in my thoughts
Cuz one night I took off my robe
And what'd I do
I forgot to wear shorts.
I recall every fall, every hook, every jab
The worst way a guy could get rid of his flab
As you know, my life was a jab...
Though I'd rather hear you cheer
When I delve into Shakespeare
"A Horse, a Horse, my Kingdom for a Horse,"
I haven't had a winner in six months (he lights his cigar)...
I know I'm no Olivier
But if he fought Sugar Ray
He would say
That the thing ain't the ring
It's the play.
So gimme a stage
Where this bull here can rage
And though I can fight
I'd much rather recite
That's entertainment!
That's entertainment.
I end this debate therefore.
UDHAV NAIG
7 comments:
Udhav really nice write up. . Its a pretty tough ask. All we could do is swap these actors in our own imaginations and make a comparison. To me Pacino is slightly monotonous and lacks variety. As you mentioned he is awesome in his bad ass characters. But you always see resemblances in each of his performances. You always relate him with a bad ass, slightly loud kinda characters. I always feel he never came out of that zone of his. That is where De niro scores over him. He has played a variety of roles. He is outstanding. He definetly wasnt just their in the right place at the right time but he owes his success a lot to scorsese and its vice versa. Anyways how do we actually compare actors coming completely two different industries. The intellectual/financial/geographicalboundaries that these actors had to play with was humongous when compared to what Kamal had/have. So i am not going to get into comparing these actors. Reading your article the one thing that striked me is that, Kamal has always been a lone warrior who had only himself to battle against. As you say Deniro had pacino and a whole set of other brilliant actors for their race..added they had some brilliant directors who were able to facilitate their hunger and push the envelope constantly further. Even Mohanlal had momooty for company but what about Kamal. For more than three decades he has been literally unchallenged in the acting front he hardly had directors who were able to fullfill his hunger and match his wavelength. To keep himself motivated all these years and to try relentlessly irrespective of his failures is astonishing. KB, Bharathiraja were only able to suffice the initial hunger. Looking out for new boundaries he started writing scripts that could satisfy his hunger. Another big factor is finding people to finance your movie. Just imagine if there was a producation house which is willing to put all its money behind Kamals work. No compromises made at all. We would have had 10 Hey rams by now. His potential would have only grown manifold. Most likely we wold never see the light of maruthanyagam or Marmayogi. Isnt that a sad state. Doesnt that speak of the warfield from where Kamal is waging his War. Just imagine what wonders he could make in a different platform.
will add some more thoughts later...
not sure is the comments makes complete sense related to the topic..anyways will post some more later...
Balaji
True, but you don't see the advantage kamal got from it. he has written tailor made roles to suit his style and image, that wasn't possible with De Niro or Pacino. In fact these guys auditioned for a role. Kamal wrote a great film and casted himself, where as De Niro couldn't do that.
Exactly we see the same the point in completely two different perspective. Accepted that Kamal had this great advantage of writing something which essentially had something to show off his acting talent, the frequency of that happening was considerably low. Accepted that de niro had to audition for roles but scorsese did have a case of preference for de niro. During their later part of the career both pacino and de niro wouldnt have faced the exact scrutiny that they had during their start. AS much as they had to qualify and audition for the roles atleast they were provided with plenty of opportunities and options to do so. But in case of Kamal the only option he had was to create an opportunity by himself. And the task essentially doesn't stop there as in cases of Marmayogi and Maruthanayagam
Am with you for all the praise for de niro . but you have simply under mined Kamal based on things he did the last couple of decades ...
It could look silly if I ask movie by movie basis .
But Kamal has done way too many roles for way too many years . 4 en odd decades en all . I wouldn't compare them both . But neither can be called better than the other . They are both exceptional actors .
I can not see any one from hollywood make an Ek tujhe keliye or any one do a " sathya " with ease . And moonram pirai was hardly a half a trump .
The thing about Kamal is , he grew up to do every possible character at every possible age . From being a lover boy through his ninaithalae inikum days through characters , evil and heroic , through decades with maturity and variety . You may think others could do such a movie . But they couldn't have all done all of them . Just like No one could have doen all the stuff De Niro did but maybe they could have done each characters in their lifetime .
Which is why i think they are way too similar to be compared lol
I can not see any one from hollywood make an Ek tujhe keliye or any one do a " sathya " with ease . And moonram pirai was hardly a half a trump .
Ek Tujhe Keliyae? :O
The thing about Kamal is , he grew up to do every possible character at every possible age . From being a lover boy through his ninaithalae inikum days through characters , evil and heroic , through decades with maturity and variety . You may think others could do such a movie . But they couldn't have all done all of them . Just like No one could have doen all the stuff De Niro did but maybe they could have done each characters in their lifetime .
De Niro has already done all genre's, I resorted to comparing films its way too easy to pick on which Is the best.
In fact today I saw a film called Midnight Run which if done in India, would have gone on to become a "good performance", but for De Niro its not, its another film where he has acted well.
Angel Heart, Untouchables, Good Shepehrd, Bronx tale, Brazil(I heard its a great one too), New york New york, these ar ethe films that seldom gets mentioned, cos they aren't deemed worthy enough of posing a challenge to De Niro. Had these been done by a Denzel Washington you would have saying "Fuck man", that was great, its not so with De Niro.
Yeah , Ek Tujhe Ke Liye ..
Again , you are attacking Kamal with stating more De Niro Movies while I am not saying anything about De Niro at all . He is one of the greatest actors of all time . But your version of Kamal's performance is slightly crude and limited .
There are so many many many more movies in late 70s and early 80s you haven't given all the thought to . At his time of the day , he owned the period , and despite the age and time , has has evolved and given classic after classic from mahanadi through kurudi punal to a hey ram or anbe sivam ..
There wasn't a barren period in his career . So I think I would be stupid to compare him to AL pacino or De Niro .
Post a Comment