Originally posted by: indranigupta
When I first saw your post I found it a pretty interesting question, one which seeks to know a lil more about the intricate relationship between acting and genre of a drama. However, when I read your post, I found it had nothing to with the question itself. Before, I explain what I mean, let me discuss about your views regarding the show being sleazy. I don't know if that label can be implied for this show but, yes it employs crass dialogues and the plot as of now deals with matters we would rather not discuss. A ghost seeking to consummate with a living person to create an army of demons/ghosts is weird and seemingly vulgar. If there are other trajectories to the plot, well, we can then discuss further on this. As of now, I would leave it by saying that the show belies its own promise with the way it started. Now we come to the main issue raised by your post.
Acting, genre and their relationship. In your post, the acting of the whole cast wasn't put under the scanner. In fact, acting chops of Deepika and Vin was ignored. Only one actor was put under the scanner and was found wanting - Namik. And in trying to insist that he was a passable actor, you included his whole oeuvre of work starting from EDKV (which doesn't fall under the same genre of a horror/supernatural and in fact, is a romantic family drama) to that of EDT and now Kawach (both falling under the same genre of horror and supernatural). Since, your post raised the question pertaining to the relation of horror and acting, your judgement of Namik's acting in relation to genre falls flat. If we disregard your academic mistake here and come to your main issue of acting vis -a- vis genre, you didnt care to give much space to other actor's credentials. Only Namik. ..This seems like your revulsion against this actor stems from an old dislike. One which can be seen in your replies to other fan/s.
Since, you took pains to explicate his lack of acting credentials from his whole body of work, let me see if I can bring in another point of view. EDKV (not a horror drama) was a show which on paper was very simple. Two friends who loved each other due to personality and other external problems couldn't articulate their love for each other till the very end. But, this simple show demanded complex psychological behavioural traits to manifest on the part of the main leads (Namik and Nikita) to portray their struggle, contradictions and a love which despite themselves made itself manifest. Despite the story and direction going downhill in the later stages of the show, Namik's characterization was not only consistent, full of raw naked passion, a portrayal of an emotionally volatile man infested with an uber sophisticated charm. The show despite not being a TRP success allowed Namik to enter into many people's consciousness as a man who could act because he believed, willed and strived.
Let's come to your next show where Namik miserably failed - EDT. A show which till about 60 episodes offered him no space to manouevre, forget to show his acting credentials. However, after 60 and note barely for only few episodes here and there and also, with a badly written script, he managed to invest the character of Shiv with warmth and a rare vulnerability not seen on ITV male leads. Notice, am not comparing his acting talents with other actors primarily because your disgust is targeted at him alone. Though you did suggest that Vikram was way better than him in this show; a comparison which was clearly unwanted and undesirable. Why you may ask? Let me ask you a question in lieu of your judgement of someone's acting. How exactly do you judge whether someone acts well? Given the space and the characterization one has been offered, one needs to make the plot, the narrative resonate in the minds of people. Vikram got a more interesting character though it turned out to be negative at the fag end of the show and yet his acting never managed to lift the story from the abyss. Poor direction and poor writing yes, but also, because Vikram unfortunately couldn't interpret the role of a psychologically challanged man who was also a lover. Or, as your post raised the question, we can blame it on the genre, where the emphasis is primarily to create suspense and fear of the unknown both of which this show was unable to sustain.
Last, Kawach, Namik initially had one shade to play - a soft romantic lover given to possessiveness as well. Did he do good here? I would say in the initial episodes, he was passable with few good scenes here and there. Later, as one possessed by a ghost, his transformation was very good. He managed to provide more colour to the persona of the ghost, who now moved beyond the representation of a lusty one. This possessed man was now funny, irreverent, devilish, cranky, and snarky simultaneously. Despite the show not raising its horror quotient or suspense element and it definitely being not much high on human emotion, you wanted to know more about his character, the ghost's and the plot itself. For a show which is uniformly one toned, this is remarkable on the part of an actor who if I may, offer an opinion, is doing a commendable job.
And last whether in such genres, do talent and abilities matter, I would say yes. Because no genre appeals till it manages to affect human sympathies and emotions. Though the stress is mostly on VFX's and all, human emotions can endear in each and every situation.
comment:
p_commentcount