On good actors in not-so-good movies. Or sometimes downright terrible ones, like “Kick”.
It’s sometimes a bit of a shock to see a good actor in a bad movie – and it’s always actors that make us feel this way. We say nothing when a famous lawyer takes on a case that doesn’t deserve his experience or time, or when a renowned painter, for a lark, accepts a cartooning commission – but with actors we sigh, “What is he doing in this crappy movie?” We ask this (rhetorical) question despite knowing the probable answers, that the actor is (a) acting, which is what he’s supposed to do, (b) making money, which is what all of us want (and most of us have) to do, (c) keeping himself from getting rusty (or going mad) by sitting at home and waiting for the perfect project, (d) participating in projects that will help him make contacts, get a foot in the door of the “camps” we keep hearing about, and (e) maybe just having some fun.
Still, it’s not easy to reconcile our image of, say Laura Linney, with the part that she played in Congo, whose plot was eloquently summed up by Rotten Tomatoes as “Good gorillas meet bad gorillas while human beings search for treasure…” In order to make sense, today, of this good actress’s presence in this far-from-good movie (though it certainly has its so-bad-it’s-good moments), we have to consider the point in her career she was then, in 1995, when Congo was released. She had played “Young Teacher” in Lorenzo’s Oil, “School Teacher” in Searching for Bobby Fischer, and in the oddly prescient Dave, she played the cute young thing the president of the United States was having an affair with. Her only major role till then had been in the television miniseries based on Armistead Maupin’s Tales of the City books. You can see why she took off to the African jungles with a vengeance. It was a question of visibility – and look at the films that followed: Primal Fear, the well-regarded Richard Gere drama, Absolute Power, directed by Clint Eastwood, and The Truman Show.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are the cases of actors who have truly arrived and yet take on parts that some would consider beneath them. Consider Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, or Cate Blanchett as the campy villainess in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of the Crystal Skull. From the production’s point of view, the presence of these “serious” actors classes up the project, and from the actors’ viewpoint, these films offer the opportunity to cut loose. When Blanchett made Crystal Skull, she was coming off playing prickly parts in Little Fish (heroin addict), Babel (bad marriage, dead child, mortal wound), The Good German (a Jew in Nazi Germany), Notes on a Scandal (student seducer, victim of blackmail), Elizabeth: The Golden Age (beleaguered royal) and I’m Not There (Bob Dylan, enough said). You can see why she wanted to go skull-hunting while bellowing in a Rrrraashan accent.
These thoughts sprang to mind after watching Kick, the Salman Khan starrer which really didn’t need anyone else – after all, it’s the hero the adoring fans are coming to watch – but still managed to rope in a superb supporting cast. There’s Rajit Kapur in a white coat, pretending to be a doctor. There’s Saurabh Shukla, playing the heroine’s father and the fool, in that order. (In one scene, he’s stumped seeing Salman Khan at the door and forgets to invite him in. Khan asks if this is his idea of hospitality. A flustered Shukla says, “Please come to the hospital.”) Sanjay Mishra, who was the centre of the superb Ankhon Dekhi, gets to play a cop who’s reduced to standing in his underpants. Randeep Hooda, at first, has nothing to do but listen to stories of Khan’s exploits and respond with oh-that’s-amazing reaction shots. And Nawazuddin Siddiqui hams it up as the villain.
What a powerhouse cast. These actors could be the ensemble in a terrific offbeat film – but here, they’re satellites around the hero. One scene unintentionally comments on where they stand with respect to him. Hooda is on the streets, looking for Khan, who is on a nearby bridge. Khan looks down at Hooda and says, “Tu hamesha mere neeche hoga aur main tere oopar.” (“You will always be beneath me, and I’ll always be above you.”) For a minute, I felt bad for Hooda, but then he has everything to gain from this film – a lot more people will end up watching him, and he’ll get a lot more money than he usually does, which will hopefully help him make the kind of films he really wants to make. The best wisdom about this subject was delivered by Michael Caine, to whom, apparently, no movie was low enough to refuse. A year after winning the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Hannah and her Sisters, he starred in Jaws IV: The Revenge. Asked about the film, he said, “I have never seen it but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.”
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2014 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
venkatesh
August 1, 2014
And that’s the reason why Michael Caine is an absolute treasure;. BTW Naseeruddin Shah said something very very similar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nishanth
August 1, 2014
one thing I have never seen happen is a ‘good’ actor calling a ‘bad’ film bad. Before or after promotion and release. One way to look at this is that artists really respect their work because a lot energy goes into a ‘bad’ film as well. It is us from outside the industry who seem to flamboyantly typecast their work. With movies like kick that are not commercial flops the line is further drawn on whether one can call it bad at all in the first place
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
August 1, 2014
Brangan , great piece again,but just curious- of all actors & actresses, why Laura linney to make this point?
the best eg. of the syndrome you mentioned here is Marlon brando in everything he did after Last tango in paris(except apocalyse now ). What the hell was he doing being that huge painted creature with a bucket on his head in Island of Dr.Moreau. , or the killer dressed up as a house mama in Missouri breaks.one can go on and on …… .Also De niro in everything he did in last 15 years with the exception of Silver linings playbook.
Consider Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, or Cate Blanchett as the campy villainess in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of the Crystal Skull.
Well there was another angle to those pics George Lucas and Steven spielberg.An opportunity to work with great directors is also what spurs the actors on, no matter the project. Well Great directors making terrible movies – well that could be a subject of your next piece
“I have never seen it but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.”
House,Wasnt that a swimming pool? 🙂
Btw incredulously- In a recent TV interview- salman khan also gave the same excuse for the string of duds from early to mid 90’s that almost derailed his career..sab kuch naye ghar ke vaaste! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gradwolf
August 1, 2014
I get the larger point but why put George Lucas/Spielberg big franchise films within the same bucket? For anyone – big or small or good actor or bad actor – these are probably under sign-on-the-dotted-line-and-then-ask-questions column.
LikeLiked by 1 person
damilan
August 1, 2014
BR, I get your point but your analogies don’t fit. Cartooning & painting are two different *forms* of art, not styles, so that analogy is bad. A more apt analogy would be Padma Subramanian dancing a dappangkoothu or Unnikrishnan singing a gaana paatu (oh wait, he probably already did that) for money. This can rankle purists of the art form. So it is with cinema.
As for lawyers, let’s not even go there. They’ll do anything for money, no offense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apu
August 1, 2014
One thing that totally irritates me is when these “good” actors speak disparagingly about the “bad” film saying that they did it for money – as if it was far beneath them but they could not battle the forces of nature (or business) and so accepted it…etc. In short, they disown the film but keep the money, contacts, exposure that comes with it.
Naseeruddin Shah -let’s not go there. Everyone mentions how he has this complain with the way film industry has treated him and how he is better than most actors. Sighhhh…yes ok, but if you are giving up your “principles” and acting in “commercial movies” (as against “art” movies), you too sold yourself, right? And what about “Jackpot”?
Sorry, just a rant.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
August 1, 2014
Just curious if there is any interview of Hooda saying he wishes to do a certain kind of movie. I mean any interview that gives us a glimplse of his likes/dislikes. Can anyone share the link pls?
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
August 1, 2014
Apu, what u r talking about is true for almost every human. We belittle our job and still keep earning money from it.
LikeLike
brangan
August 2, 2014
MANK: Linney, because I wanted a second-rung actor (the equivalent of Hooda, etc.) who’s got a reputation for serious work and yet did these campy things. Brando is A-list.
LikeLike
Olemisstarana
August 2, 2014
I would go with visibility being the primary reason. It does do the heart good to see that actors I like are not starving to death.
I do wonder, however, about the opposite situation – when bad actors populate good (or potentially good) roles. Particularly in the context of smaller productions. Exhibit – see anything that Neha Dhupia has been spoiling lately, and imagine a whip crack Richa Sharma instead. Etc.
LikeLike
Cinemakkaran
August 2, 2014
A list actors are working in so many films that they are bound to act in some bad, outright terrible ones, Be it De Niro,Al Pacino, Brando and back home Bachchan, Kamal Hassan and Mohanlal etc. But those are projects made with them in mind. I guess the article is not about that.
A thing I noticed with Salman Khan ( To put it mildly is someone not known for acting prowess ) films, especially the last two is the supporting cast. Jai Ho had a supporting cast of Mukul Dev, Yash Tonk, Mohnish Behl, Mahesh Thakur, Ashmit Patel,Aditya Pancholi (Tabu was an aberration I guess) and now Kick had a supporting cast of Hooda, Nawazudhin, Rajit Kapoor, Shukla etc. So what’s changed ?. Whether the first film was Salman Khan thinking supporting actors don’t matter in his film and because it didn’t work at the BO did he decide that he will get actors of credibility as supporting actors. ( Or may be because in a Salman Khan film these things doesn’t matter).
As for me I am happy with Hoodas and Nawazudhins working in these kinda films that may help them in someway ( At least in monetary terms) and also may be it’s a way ‘shakti ka santualan’ works.
LikeLike
Sev
August 2, 2014
Thanks for use the word actress instead of the term female actor. The other popular Bwood journalists seem to be following Shabana Azmi’s Book of Grammar. Great read for other reasons as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
aandthirtyeights
August 2, 2014
I’m a lawyer, and I know of thousands of instances where we speak (in the corridors of the High Court, at least) about why so-and-so lawyer would bother with such-and-such case?
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
August 3, 2014
aandthirtyeights: Haha. My apologies.
LikeLike
Navin
August 8, 2014
BR,
Remember the Hollywood summer of 2004? In the Indian Express, you took stock of the summer releases of that year (Btw, it was, and still is, a joy reading you. For me, the Sunday Magazine of those days started from the left of the middle spread).
In the article, you compared Napoleon Dynamite and the new Harry Potter film, and said nobody would go watch a listless Idaho boy when the gang from Hogwarts was in town. Well, I did and I liked the film. But back then, there was no Facebook to tell you that you were wrong. It has been a decade since, and Napoleon has built a cult of sorts. So I might as well tell you now: Gosh, you were wrong! 😀
http://www.vulture.com/2014/08/10-years-since-napoleon-dynamite-came-out-gosh.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
August 8, 2014
Navin: You could have still written an email and said I was wrong, no? 🙂 Or commented on one of the numerous earlier blogs? 🙂
Thank you for reminding me of the Express days. Man, the kind of space I used to get. I seriously wouldn’t have gotten recognition were it not for those editors (both of whom loved cinema, thankfully) encouraging me to find my own style. Good times.
LikeLike
MANK
August 20, 2014
A relevant link related with this piece
http://www.hollywood.com/photos/movie/57258164/best-actors-worst-movies#1411616/6
LikeLike