Why is Naseeruddin Shah hellbent on ruining his legacy?

Naseeruddin Shah is a phenomenal actor; one of the best to come out of India. However he has become so bitter over the years. 

It started off with him constantly harping on about Amitabh Bachchan being a crap actor. Full disclosure, I don't like Amitabh Bachchan at all, and have always ranked the likes of Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, even Raj Babar, above him. He's an alright actor, however even I (with my immense dislike of him) can acknowledge his cultural impact is huge. 

Then I watched an interview in which he was whining about Ben Kingsley getting the Gandhi role over him, and commenting on how a white man shouldn't be playing Gahndi. He completely overlooked the fact that Ben Kingsley is in fact mixed race (his real name is Krishna Pandit Bhanji). That aside, complaining you didn't get a role 20 years after the film came out is just so pathetic especially for an actor of his stature. It just reeks of sour grapes. 

He then said Rajesh Khanna was universally responsible for 'mediocrity' in Indian cinema in the 70s. Because of course, this man single handedly decided what type of content was allowed to be produced and distributed. The prevalence of mediocrity in Indian cinema couldn't possibly be down to the Indian audience preferring formulaic feel-good, escapist cinema to the output of 'parallel cinema'.

And now, not even a month after Dilip Kumar passed away, he is saying he (Dilip) didn't 'do enough', and 'left behind no significant lessons for future actors'. I mean... really? Who makes comments like this shortly after someone passes away? And if this is the approach he's going to take, what has he done for 'cinema' beyond acting in some good films? What new talent has he introduced and 'groomed', what 'lessons' has he left behind? I don't recall him delivering masterclasses in acting. In his entire career he has directed one film, which was firmly rooted in parallel cinema and did not do well commercially. How is this helping improve the mainstream output of Indian cinema?

He's become so disappointing with age.

Amitabh is a far better actor than Naseer ever was. Naseer does not have anything over Amitabh. Amitabh can do anything on screen that Naseer can do and do it much better. I am not a fan of any of the three guys, especially Naseer but Dilip Kumar was a fine actor even though his acting became more gimmicky in the later part of his career. 

Naseeruddin Shah foul mouthed the very parallel cinema that gave him some identity, he has completely failed in commercial cinema. All he does is spout non-sense. His legacy are these non-sense interviews.  

Sajid Khan said Naseer had a disorder. He can’t say no to films. He has said yes to all the films including some d grade films 🤣🤣

Watching films like Jackpot an I agree ❤️

naseer is modi watcher obsessed so he keeps blabbering 😆 

Hmm. I agree with him on some of  those. Amitabh is kinda overrated.  Not bad for a 'mainstream' actor but his fans make him out to be something exceptional which he's not.  

Rajesh Khanna did normalise mediocrity.  I agree with you on policing what should be made and what shouldn't. But I guess it's okay to admit something is mediocre and as a good actor Shah is  allowed to talk grudginly about it.  

Ben Kingsley. Well that's complicated.  We can't pretend his whiteness ( half whiteness ) and his Western name didn't help him get the role. That movie was made for the West.  To sell the one dimensional narrative about Gandhi ..or should I say Ghaendi  ,that people love to believe in. Gandhi was a peace lover. He took his clothes off ,walked around with a stick ,refused to pay taxes and shamed the British into realising their mistake.  The British bring the innately just and righteous people they are , immediately made amends by leaving India. Yeah too bad reality is not that simple. Anyway westerners love this story and having one of their own play Gandhi would only make it easier to sell it.  Irony was never an issue for anyone.    To get to the technicalities, Gandhi was a much darker man so it would have made sense if an Indian actor played him.  Naseeruddin Shah wouldn't have been convincing though. He's too goofy looking for the part.  Gandhi had a mean face.  So yeah you could say that's a case of sour grapes 

The Dilip Kumar thing is absolutely inappropriate. Why make such comments right after his death? As a sign of respect he shouldn't have. It's cheap and petty to do that in public.  

I don't think Naseeruddin Shah is completely wrong. Amitabh Bachchan and Rajesh Khanna are mediocre actors who had phenomenal careers due to their looks, charisma, and overall presence. In some movies, they went above and beyond, but a large majority were formulaic. 

A lot of people also do believe that Gandhi should have been played by a wholly Indian actor from India. While Gandhi is still a movie, looking back the movie is bogged down by some one-dimensional writing. It's a western perception of India and Gandhi and not as authentic as it should be. 

I 100% agree that Naseeruddin is lashing out of bitterness. He was a far superior actor but never achieved stardom because he lacks the looks and persona that some of his peers possessed. I think most people allow room for some bitterness to show. 

Where he totally crossed the line is talking about Dilip Kumar immediately after he passed. Its a social faux pas of not respecting the dead. If this was a momentary lapse his legacy will be fine. But if he continues his bitterness without regard for social cues then his legacy will disappear. 

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I don't think Naseeruddin Shah is completely wrong. Amitabh Bachchan and Rajesh Khanna are mediocre actors who had phenomenal careers due to their looks, charisma, and overall presence. In some movies, they went above and beyond, but a large majority were formulaic. 

A lot of people also do believe that Gandhi should have been played by a wholly Indian actor from India. While Gandhi is still a movie, looking back the movie is bogged down by some one-dimensional writing. It's a western perception of India and Gandhi and not as authentic as it should be. 

I 100% agree that Naseeruddin is lashing out of bitterness. He was a far superior actor but never achieved stardom because he lacks the looks and persona that some of his peers possessed. I think most people allow room for some bitterness to show. 

Where he totally crossed the line is talking about Dilip Kumar immediately after he passed. Its a social faux pas of not respecting the dead. If this was a momentary lapse his legacy will be fine. But if he continues his bitterness without regard for social cues then his legacy will disappear. 

Amitabh Bachcchan and Rajesh Khanna(If he were alive) would both go in coma if they heard anybody saying they had looks. Both of them are one of the most average looking actors in the history of Bollywood. Rajesh Khanna had charm but Amitabh Bachchan did not have even that. It was pure talent. 

If Naseer had been a decent actor he would have been successful in commercial cinema too. But the fact is even in parallel cinema and middle cinema he was gobbled up by actors like Farukh Shaikh(Katha) and Om Puri whenever they were in the same movie. So much for a superior actor. 

Gandhi was a film made by Hollywood for their audience so it will have the Hollywood perspective and they did pick an actor of Indian origin he was just not Indian citizen. 

Bachchan had no looks.Has anyone seen him in Saat Hindustani or Reshma aur Shera? Didn't even have a good physique. What he had was intensity. While not a great actor, in the company of most of Hindi cinema's mediocre overactingone-note denizens, he was/is good, because he exuded conviction in the stupid things our actors are made to do. Not a fan of his stylized dialogue delivery, but he has comic timing, knows to put across his character, and can be fairly good in even non-mainstream films (Saudagar, for instance, or even Piku).

Naseer is a very good actor in the realistic genre. However, he's a bit of a travesty in commercial cinema. 

Rajesh Khanna wasn't a bad actor like say, Jeetendra (IMO), but those were the days of fluffy, predictable films, by and large. I don't think he was good looking, but my older sister swooned over him. Whatever 'it' was, he had it at the time. But holding him or anyone else singularly responsible for contributing to mediocrity is a bit much. That's due to a combination of a simple audience that only wanted entertainment and was too easily pleased, and had the hangover of regional theatre, which had loud overacting and buffoonery or overblown tragedy as the norm.

Ben Kingsley did his job. Not his fault Naseer didn't get the role, and had he, not sure he'd have done it better. Naseer is kind of spoiling his reputation by this bitter carping.

I am amused at frustration people have against Amitabh Bachchan. Or assumed he made it due to looks. Amitabh was never considered handsome. He made it purely due to his acting, charisma, voice. Rajesh was never considered handsome either. Rather some producers mocked him saying he looks like a Nepali and not Indian. He was mocked for everything from the pimples on his face to his eyes, hair and slight flab on his body. He made it purely due to his charisma. 

The only ones who call Rajesh and Amitabh overrated are frustrated lot who never achieved success themselves and cannot digest craze people have for these legends.  

Naseer and Ratna were always frustrated loudmouths who criticised anything in Indian TV and films as if they themselves did great work. They blamed even own bad choices on makers as if makers made only crap serials and films in India. Om Puri atleast made it in commercial films, TV even post 90s and gave hits in all genres. Naseer could not even do that. 

He was hoping to be cast as Gandhi but remained frustrated as Ben Kingsley got that role. 

Naseer's frustration with Amitabh is a given because he never had that height, aura or baritone and could not do action scenes at all. 

A man who has done films like Tahalka should be the LAST one to call Rajesh or Amitabh mediocre. 

He never clicked with audience. NEVER. He resents the sheer number of hits Amitabh, Rajesh have had. I bet he resents even post 2000 success of Amitabh in films and on TV. 

He is also a communal bigot. He pretends to be secular but his hate for Amitabh and Rajesh is due to their community as well. 

I remember how he did not like working with Aamir in Sarfarosh but he did not go around badmouthing him. It is strange how he cannot see candy floss stuff SRK or Salman do. But he targets only Rajesh and Amitabh. The communal envy is hard to miss. 

His so called stance against communalism is also fake. He was silent when 1984 and Hashimpura massacres happened under INC. He opens his mouth only against BJP. 

He recently spoke against those celebrating win of Taliban only to counter backlash he gets for criticising BJP. 

He will NEVER be known as icon or star. He was an art film actor and will remain one. His only memorable commercial film is also a weirdo role in Tridev where he played a dhoti wearing cowboy. 

He can keep bashing legends and audience. Nobody cares. Even in offbeat films Om Puri and Pankaj Kapur were better than him anyday. 

He will have to take next birth to match height, charisma, voice, aura, box office success of Amitabh, Rajesh, Dilip. 

Naseer nowadays holds classes at NSD, FTII. His choice. It does not mean Dilip Kumar also had to conduct acting classes or open acting school. Dilip's choice what he wanted to do with his life. Teaching is not everyone's cup of tea. Dilip anyway had more work than Naseer at his age and was giving hits like Karma and Saudagar and had no time for teaching. 

Commercially flop actors always bash audience or successful stars to release their frustration. Naseer has no credit even for success of Tridev, Mohra, Vishwatma which succeeded due to Sunny Deol, Jackie, Akshay, Amrish Puri and heroines, good music and NOT due to him.

Someone list all vulgar and mediocre roles done by this so called auteur Naseer. He FLOPPED even then. 

Originally posted by: surajhere

Amitabh is a far better actor than Naseer ever was. Naseer does not have anything over Amitabh. Amitabh can do anything on screen that Naseer can do and do it much better. I am not a fan of any of the three guys, especially Naseer but Dilip Kumar was a fine actor even though his acting became more gimmicky in the later part of his career. 

Naseeruddin Shah foul mouthed the very parallel cinema that gave him some identity, he has completely failed in commercial cinema. All he does is spout non-sense. His legacy are these non-sense interviews.  

Sorry but that's BS. Amitabh has a superstar presence and is a legend because of it. But Naseer is one of the acting greats. 

That's just the reality. It's like comparing Tom Cruise's superstardom and charisma to a Daniel Day Lewis, where the latter is pure talent and a true blue thespian.

It is only in his old age that the Big B has tried on different acts (so obviously he has grown) and he has done it admirably but Naseer has acted circles around him and everyone else since the time he came on the scene.

He may have a sharp tongue and strong opinions but I do feel he has earned his stripes, a male Kangana he is not. His legacy is fine.