Does working on art house films makes actors better than commercial

Does working on art house films makes actors better than commercial actors?

There is this myth in India that art house actors are more talented than commercial actors. Did these so called actors venture into art cinema because they were not talented in multiple different genres so they went to art films to make themselves look better? I mean commercial actors some of the greatest talents like Aamir Khan, BigB Srk, Sridevi, Madhuri who are all round performers who can work in diverse genre and could easily do art films if they wanted, but would those art house actors pull of any genres without looking misplaced and stupid??

Originally posted by: harun98

Does working on art house films makes actors better than commercial actors?

There is this myth in India that art house actors are more talented than commercial actors. Did these so called actors venture into art cinema because they were not talented in multiple different genres so they went to art films to make themselves look better? I mean commercial actors some of the greatest talents like Aamir Khan, BigB Srk, Sridevi, Madhuri who are all round performers who can work in diverse genre and could easily do art films if they wanted, but would those art house actors pull of any genres without looking misplaced and stupid??

Big B and Sridevi yes. Possibly Aamir Khan also.

Not SRK in his current stage, and Madhuri never had a prayer of doing any serious art. Too bad about SRK because he actually had the talent when he started.

As far as indie cinema is concerned, a Nawaz or Irrfan or a Tabu can pull off pretty much anything they want. The limits are because of looks, not their acting. Just like Amitabh Bachchan can no longer play a 25 yo, the indie actors mentioned would be difficult to picture as young playboys because of factors beyond their control.

Originally posted by: MahanalayakKarn

Big B and Sridevi yes. Possibly Aamir Khan also.

Not SRK in his current stage, and Madhuri doesn't have a prayer of doing any serious art. Too bad about SRK because he actually had the talent when he started.

As far as indie cinema is concerned, a Nawaz or Irrfan or a Tabu can pull off pretty much anything they want. The limits are because of looks, not their acting.

Srk got stuck with his lover boy image but he’s still one of the best actors and unique actor. Madhuri is natural actress also but she got stuck with her dancing image.

Agree with newaz and irfan and tabu they can do other roles beside arthouse films or naseer udin shah, but I’m against people saying shabna azmi or smita patel being best actress just because they do art films but when they did commercial films they bore me, they were limited actresses and covered their ranges with art film.

Originally posted by: harun98

Does working on art house films makes actors better than commercial actors?

There is this myth in India that art house actors are more talented than commercial actors. Did these so called actors venture into art cinema because they were not talented in multiple different genres so they went to art films to make themselves look better? I mean commercial actors some of the greatest talents like Aamir Khan, BigB Srk, Sridevi, Madhuri who are all round performers who can work in diverse genre and could easily do art films if they wanted, but would those art house actors pull of any genres without looking misplaced and stupid??

A good actor is a good actor, irrespective of the type of Cinema. For instance, Dixit did roles like Mrutyudand while Naseeruddin Shah did only commercial cinema in later part of his career.

you have to act in commercial films too. Good acting is always appreciated no matter what film it is. but nowadays the script is the king. People don't pay to watch boring stories anymore even if they are art/commercial film.