The commercial vs. art debate

Just because a film is slow, niche, or in the "art" space, it doesn't automatically become a good film. A commercial actor doing a niche film on a taboo subject doesn't mean his act would be flawless. Just because a film focuses on social issues it doesn't escape criticism. I think most of us would agree about these statements.

Is the corollary also true?

If a film is blatantly commercial or in-your-face, does it automatically become a bad film? Can an actor's performance be measured by the same yardstick there? Is it possible to deliver world-class performances in a commercial film?

For example, Deepika and SRK in Chennai Express displayed pitch-perfect comic timing and elevated the film. But when we talk about best performances, rarely would anyone take Chennai Express's name in both SRK and Deepika filmographies.

Discuss.

I found both Deepika and SRK cringeworthy in CE. Deepika looked beautiful but it surprises me when anyone praises their acting in that movie.

Originally posted by: Rhimjhimsawan

I found both Deepika and SRK cringeworthy in CE. Deepika looked beautiful but it surprises me when anyone praises their acting in that movie.

I’ve said from day 1 a character being deaf or blind or dumb sitting alone in a room contemplating meaning of life maybe fodder for some. But it falls flat with me. I’d watch Salman or Govinda any day 😆

Originally posted by: Rhimjhimsawan

I found both Deepika and SRK cringeworthy in CE. Deepika looked beautiful but it surprises me when anyone praises their acting in that movie.

I find Tripti Dimri an under average performer. It makes me puke when someone praises her.

Originally posted by: colossial2015

I find Tripti Dimri an under average performer. It makes me puke when someone praises her.

She has a big head 😆