Originally posted by: mintyblue
The audience has always been enamored more by beauty and glamour in actresses than just acting skills. They patronize films where the heroines look a certain way and acting skills have always come secondary.
Kajol and Alia broke this rule. They are neither of them beautiful by conventional standards and don't fit into the mould of say, a Madhuri, a Sridevi or a Katrina/Deepika.
Were they such good actresses that their acting skills took precedence over looks and attracted the audiences to them? Or were there other factors responsible for their success?
This is precisely WHY they are successful.
Every generation will have a talented actress who is known more for her performance rather than her beauty that is successful, alongside the other beauty queens.
Waheeda Rehman was not drop-dead gorgeous like her contemporaries Madhubala, Sadhana - she had quite a plain look, but her presence was so striking.
Raakhee in the 70s was also winning Best Actress awards and starring with "all the top heroes" but looks wise, she was more plain-jane.
You can probably add Shabana Azmi and Smita Patil here too for the 80s.
If we look at the 90s: Tabu, Kajol were in this space. Although they both done plenty "glam" roles too. And I do find them GORGEOUS personally.
Anushka Sharma from the previous generation! She's always had a bit of a rebellious streak.
Alia and Parineeti come to mind for more recent actresses.
But Alia has elevated herself to the hot/glam/baby doll/superstar category now.
1