Could/Can Madhuri play subtle roles with SOFT dialogue delivery ? - Page 2

Originally posted by: harun98

I think you mean to say can madhuri come of looking cute and innocent which the role demands, answer she can try but she won’t look convincing the way Manisha looked in 1942 Love story, Manisha was the perfect fit for this role and she was beautiful in her initial years. Sridevi would of been a perfect fit but she’s getting old and concentrated on different roles.

Below is the answer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiOimjucxow

Originally posted by: tanya_91

Below is the answer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiOimjucxow

Originally posted by: harun98

I’m talking of natural innocence not attempted innocence, Manisha had that natural innocence inherent in her and she used it to full advantage in the roles she played.

Manisha was the only one having that quality been inherited NATURALLY. so why single out only Madhuri ? none from her lot had that natural innocence & softness unlike Manisha be it karishma, sri, juhi, kajol, raveena or anyone else..... only Sonali comes closer.

Having NATURALLY SOFT FEATURES and innocent face is not something one has achieved or accomplished.

So ATTEMPTING it is a bigger challenge and should be applause worthy....isn't it?

-------------------------------

Originally posted by: tanya_91

Manisha was the only one having that quality been inherited NATURALLY. so why single out only Madhuri ? none from her lot had that natural innocence & softness unlike Manisha be it karishma, sri, juhi, kajol, raveena or anyone else..... only Sonali comes closer.

Having NATURALLY SOFT FEATURES and innocent face is not something one has achieved or accomplished.

So ATTEMPTING it is a bigger challenge and should be applause worthy....isn't it?

-------------------------------

Talking about expressions not just on the face but whole body, madhuri mouthing dialogues doesn’t make her act convincing. She did decent but not realistic and convincing

Madhuri is the best bollywood actor.she could play any role.she herself left that boring movie.love the way she always plays confident woman.

About 1942 a Love Story

Like most of major films in 90's Madhuri Dixit was the first choice for 1942 and was finalized for the role of Rajeshwari. Flushed with the critical acclaim of Parinda, Vidhu Vinod Chopra had expected Madhuri Dixit to immediately give him dates to start the shoot but Madhuri Dixit had already allocated dates for quite a few films and she had already began shooting for those films. An always ethical actor, Dixit refused to replace those films with 1942 and requested Chopra to wait for some time. But Chopra was full of himself , he not only refused to wait(which was his right) but also made some unsavoury comments about Dixit . Dixit then decided never to work with Chopra again. AFAIK, it has been 25 years and Dixit has never ever worked with Chopra even once after that. So all this talk of somebody being chosen for their innocence or soft talk or subtlety is incorretc.

Madhuri Dixit is as innocent on screen as any other good actor is.

And as far subtlety is concerned people should watch her films, not just 'claim' to have watched her films. It is obvious from their comments that they have not watched her films. I mean she is perhaps the only female actor to have played a triple role in a film in Bollywood and that film too did well.

Originally posted by: surajhere

About 1942 a Love Story

Like most of major films in 90's Madhuri Dixit was the first choice for 1942 and was finalized for the role of Rajeshwari. Flushed with the critical acclaim of Parinda, Vidhu Vinod Chopra had expected Madhuri Dixit to immediately give him dates to start the shoot but Madhuri Dixit had already allocated dates for quite a few films and she had already began shooting for those films. An always ethical actor, Dixit refused to replace those films with 1942 and requested Chopra to wait for some time. But Chopra was full of himself , he not only refused to wait(which was his right) but also made some unsavoury comments about Dixit . Dixit then decided never to work with Chopra again. AFAIK, it has been 25 years and Dixit has never ever worked with Chopra even once after that. So all this talk of somebody being chosen for their innocence or soft talk or subtlety is incorretc.

Madhuri Dixit is as innocent on screen as any other good actor is.

And as far subtlety is concerned people should watch her films, not just 'claim' to have watched her films. It is obvious from their comments that they have not watched her films. I mean she is perhaps the only female actor to have played a triple role in a film in Bollywood and that film too did well.

This, so effing much.

And the cherry on the cake is that asshat Chopra got his comeuppance. 1942 flopped miserably. Apparently, Manisha's innocence wasn't convincing enough. LOL Which reminds me how obsessed people are with innocence - somehow it's the most important thing actresses are supposed to portray (rather than, you know, the characters envisaged in the script). Such a nonjudgmental, non-misogynist category. No wonder Bollywood cinema is lagging behind.

Originally posted by: dedh

This, so effing much.

And the cherry on the cake is that asshat Chopra got his comeuppance. 1942 flopped miserably. Apparently, Manisha's innocence wasn't convincing enough. LOL Which reminds me how obsessed people are with innocence - somehow it's the most important thing actresses are supposed to portray (rather than, you know, the characters envisaged in the script). Such a nonjudgmental, non-misogynist category. No wonder Bollywood cinema is lagging behind.

Yup. But the soundtrack was fantastic. Pancham gave some of his best in 1942.

Chopra's fall, though is amazing, from Parinda to Eklavya. He is fortunate to have found Hirani else it would have been difficult for him.

Its not obsession, the role demand innocence and Manisha was suitable choice than Madhuri, if its about strong women then Madhuri would of fitted better.

Originally posted by: surajhere

Yup. But the soundtrack was fantastic. Pancham gave some of his best in 1942.

Chopra's fall, though is amazing, from Parinda to Eklavya. He is fortunate to have found Hirani else it would have been difficult for him.

Karma hasn't bitten him enough, I guess.