Rajendra Kumar on Filmfare (Nov 27, 1964)

rajendrafilmfare

Advertisements

62 Responses to “Rajendra Kumar on Filmfare (Nov 27, 1964)”

  1. Rajenmaniar Says:

    Wow! SRK of his times!

    Like

    • One might call SRK the Rajendra Kumar of his times…

      Like

    • Yes, in terms of boxoffice success, outside of that, there’s no similarities…Kind of like Abhi is vinod mehra or navin nischol of this time.

      I’ve seen all of Rajendra Kumar movies mainly due to Rafi Sahab songs but I don’t see where he did movies like Darr, Chak De India, Don, Baazigar, Kabhi ha kabhi na, Swades and many more…

      Like

      • Bandra.NRI Says:

        Z

        Rajendra Kumar never piveted the Bollywood platform to newer heights/markets. Rajendra Kumar was never the second richest (read successful) worldwide star. Rajendra Kunar never owned a sports team that won two championship in three years. Rajendra Kumar was very limited in time and space. Hence when someone says he was the SRK of his times, he exhibits his intelligence (or lack of).

        But when one gets baited by nonsense then it is equally sad. In any case the person who spouts nonsense will never stand up and defend his statements, his intent is to sow chaos. Hence don’t bother, debate those that care enough or know enough, otherwise it is just a circus.

        Like

        • well there is more than a similarity between Rajendra Kumar and SRK in terms of the kind of films each did and so forth. SRK has been a more iconic star in many ways. Certainly a hugely influential figure for the new Indian moment. Sometimes though when the history has passed these things seem less important. So Rajendra Kumar too was seen as a new 60s star at the time after the 50s of that great trio. Still I’d give SRK the ‘win’ here quite easily. But whether he has ever matched Rajendra Kumar’s success relative to his age is something I find quite debatable and in any case the comparison is not a bad one at all. Again a lot of people find this odd because they’re not as aware of just how big Rajendra Kumar once was. Meanwhile the SRK types who had Bachchan dreams once (some still have him on their minds) can perhaps be credited with ambition but not much good sense to accompany it. Naturally with Aamir first of all and then others around, not to mention Bachchan as still the ultimate horizon of Bollywood (measurable in more ways than mere box office returns at his age.. which of course invites this anxiety), that old competition is a thing of the past (which is to say it has crossed its delusional stage by now) and so Rajendra Kumar seems like a comedown. But it’s not one unless one was foolish about this to begin with. In cricket terms it’s not an insult to be compared to Dilip Vengsarkar unless of course one thought one was Sachin. but there’s the small matter of ‘becoming’ this first!

          Like

          • Bandra.NRI Says:

            Using Venn Diagram to illustrate this matter, I would make Rajendra Kumar a subset of SRK. Clearly SRK is all that and much more.

            Like

          • If I might be brutally frank here I think this is buying into the media spiel. Or not being wholly aware of how dominant Rajendra Kumar was. Here’s a guy who was more successful than the great trio of the 50s in the 60s. Imagine how significant this must have seemed at the time.

            Like

        • Actually Rajendra Kumar was widely considered the richest star of his age.. and he was extremely successful for a number of years.. he wasn’t dubbed the Jubilee Kumar for nothing. Now it’s fair to say that his overall longevity cannot be compared with SRK’s but it’s not clear that longevity is really the defining feature on its own. One has to look at everything. For instance Rajesh Khanna had a very brief peak career but then he had the sort of success at the time and made the kind of cultural impact that barring Bachchan no one has ever touched. So if this is the comparison one could say that Bachchan enjoyed mass hysteria but also longevity. If I however compare Rajesh Khanna to Dharmendra the latter was a major star for a very long time and had much greater longevity than Khanna but he never touched those Khanna peaks at any point in his career. Wasn’t even close to them. All of this doesn’t mean that I deny SRK’s accomplishments (no matter how much I might like or dislike a star I don’t exactly consider the facts to be hostage to a personal attitude) but it’s important to not follow a media line on all of this or exaggerate what he’s really done. Similarly it’s equally important to be precise about the great or important stars of the past.

          Like

          • Bandra.NRI Says:

            Satyam

            I know that this response was to Z, but with your permission, I would like to take a gander.

            Mother India was a Mehboob Khan movie; it was Nargis movie; it was a Sunil Dutt movie.

            Rajendra Kumar in Mother India was at best like Vijay Arora in “Yaadon Ki Baaraat”.

            I say that Rajendra Kumar immolated his super star sheen by playing second/third fiddle in Mother India, Sangam, Jogan, Mera Naam Joker etc

            In contrast Aamir whether in Dil Chaata Hai or Dhoom 3 OR SRK in his movies, have always been THE lead.

            Like

          • Dilip Kumar was offered the Sangam role and when he refused it went to Rajendra Kumar. In Jogan it’s just Dilip Kumar though. Mother India it’s true is before Rajendra’s successful phase but my point there or with Sangam was that he wasn’t just doing fluff. And I can add other films here. Admittedly that doesn’t constitute his most iconic cinema but nor does it SRK’s. And it’s somewhat bizarre to introduce films of SRK’s which are not even Dil Se or Swades and just different from his iconic films. These are still the most commercial of genres.

            Like

          • I’d also add this here. Rajendra Kumar also represented a conservative counter-reaction to the 50s in much the same way that SRK represented something similar in the 90s. In the 60s India opened up to world in certain cultural ways. There was a huge influence of these global trends here much as in many other places. Rajendra represented the family values ‘stability’ of that period. Eventually Rajesh Khanna came along and things took a turn again. But the trio of the 50s in different ways were about the subversion of a nationalist narrative (won’t repeat everything I’ve said in the past on this). Rajendra Kumar brought things back to normal though the 60s also had its ‘id’ figure in Shammi Kapoor (much as Salman Khan has often occupied this space relative to SRK and Aamir). On the rest time might well rule in Aamir’s favor as I think will be the case. Why? Because history always privileges the greater body of work. And Aamir in any case has been Bombay’s defining star more than anyone else since Lagaan in critical and commercial ways. And this isn’t about who’s 1, 2 or 3. It’s about who’s setting the pace. Much as Salman since Dabanng has certainly his own box office claim to make. But think of another star from history who has SRK’s body of work and who now seems important. There is none! Because when you have CDs masquerading as films (as Rajendra Kumar did, or as SRK does) you become forgettable over time. Forget everything else, SRK won’t even be remembered for stuff like CE or OSO even though it’s more successful in some ways than some of his earlier stuff. Why? Because once your moment is gone you can do things to survive as a star, even a significant one but once the glow has gone nothing else suffices. CE does not do for SRK what KKHH once did for him or what YJHD does for Ranbir or Dabanng does for Salman. It certainly helps him make a certain box office case. He’d rather have OSO or CE than Don or JTHJ (or even RNDBJ). But that’s a somewhat different point. Over time you sometimes see significant stars relatively ignored or significant films not given enough attention but you never see a nothing star suddenly regarded as great. Forget everything else Shammi Kapoor has fared far better than Rajendra Kumar because he just seems like a lot more fun! Anyway I’ve said a lot of this before.

            Like

          • “I say that Rajendra Kumar immolated his super star sheen by playing second/third fiddle in Mother India, Sangam, Jogan, Mera Naam Joker etc

            In contrast Aamir whether in Dil Chaata Hai or Dhoom 3 OR SRK in his movies, have always been THE lead.”

            I think Mother India and Jogan came early in his career when he wasn’t a star and Mera Naam Joker was towards end of his stardom.

            Sagam did come during his peak and i can’t imagine aamir or srk getting sidelined like he did in that movie.

            Like

          • Bandra.NRI Says:

            Satyam

            When we think about Rajendra Kumar we are reminded of a second rate actor, who was very good at being the side hero.

            Rajendra Kumar Vis a Vis Shammi Kapoor made more socially relevant movies. But Shammi in his prime, never ever played second fiddle.

            Additionally till Hrithik and Shahid came along, no one could dance like Shammi Kapoor.

            But dancing aside, Shammi still lingers on because he was the hero, never the side hero

            Like

          • This is again the problem. A series of inaccurate claims. Rajendra Kumar was the main guy in just about every film he did. Mera Naam Joker was a different deal where Raj Kapoor’s gigantic prestige made a lot of people show up from Rajendra to Dharmendra to Manoj. Doesn’t mean they were all playing second fiddle otherwise. And Rajendra Kumar’s role in Sangam isn’t a second fiddle one by any stretch. He even has the tragic ending. But Dilip Kumar (I think rightly) felt that Raj Kapoor would steal the show again as he did all those years ago in Andaz (again no one was playing second fiddle here). There are certain films where there are clearly stars who play ‘second fiddle’ but others where the roles are roughly if not precisely parallel parts but one kind wins over the audience. Sometimes a star can run with this advantage but in almost all cases that advantage is built into the part. Mother India was before Rajendra became successful. otherwise other than Sangam (and this at a time when he was assuredly doing better than Raj Kapoor in box office terms.. as actor) was hardly a problem for his career. He had some big hits in the 60s. This is a total myth that he was playing second fiddle. Even relatively late when he was off-peak he was not doing any such thing. Again he was called the Jubilee Kumar for a reason. I am often amused when these debates involving him come up. Because some stars become so dead over time that it’s hard for anyone to believe how big they once were!

            As for Rajendra Kumar being a second rate actor do you really think history will remember SRK as a fine actor when in his very age he’s not getting the kind of attention Aamir does? And even without the competition here who has ever thought of SRK as any sort of exceptional actor. he doesn’t even have those blowout one-off moments that some of his younger peers have had.

            No one dancing like Shammi Kapoor? Really? Mithun? Govinda? Rishi Kapoor was considered quite good. Jeetendra had a reputation. and whoever called Shahid second best after Hrithik? In an age where the average dancing level is quite high.

            You’re making some pretty strange claims here..!

            Like

          • anyone who’s interested should go through all this stuff and the analogy some have offered here today (and one I agree with) will not seem strange at all.

            Like

          • I don’t know who “we” is: the primary characteristic I associate with Shashi Kapoor might be that he played the second hero a bunch of times, but that is certainly NOT how I recall Rajendra Kumar!

            Like

          • Bandra.NRI Says:

            Satyam

            The only person pre Hritikk/Shahid who (apart from Shammi Kapoor), had a distinctive dance style that had a draw was Bhagwan.

            I grant you Jeetendra was also sought after for his dancing skills. But Mithun was mainly a poor man’s Amirabh. None of these guys were landmarks dancers from the perspective of Bollywood history. I bet you even today, if they can, young stars would LOVE to copy Shammi, but how many do you think would set out to copy Mithun or Govinda ?

            I am not that gifted in Desi languages, but Shammi’s dance gives meaning to the song. Can we really say the same about others ?

            Like

          • But Mithun is even more a legend now than he was then. have you seen some of the contemporary dance shows on TV where many of the talented choreographers treat him like a god! Shammi obviously had great rhythm but it’s a very odd claim to call him a better pure dancer than either Mithun or Govinda.

            Like

      • I do agree that Rajendra Kumar doesn’t have a Bachchan remake.. also doesn’t have a B grade Hollywood remake (Baazigar-Kiss Before Dying) nor an A grade one (Cape Fear-Darr). So he has this over Rajendra Kumar. In terms of more serious stuff I’m sure you’ve heard of a film called Mother India? Check it out sometime. or you might not have heard of Sangam, Raj Kapoor’s great film of that age. There are others Rajendra Kumar has done too that are not fluff. Now having said that there are SRK films that aren’t fluff either (just not your examples!). Dil Se for instance or Swades. But they’ve not really been his signature films, whether at the box office or otherwise.

        On the Abhishek bit there is that usual childish impulse in you (‘hey if you say anything against my SRK I’ll attack Abhishek’!). LOL, you enjoy staying in the sandbox and throwing sand at other kids! But by bringing in Abhishek constantly you’re proving the opposite of what you’re literally trying to say! Anyway at least SRK and I agree on Abhishek which he why he has a double in SRK’s home production!

        Now this will again be my last comment to you for the day. Only so much one can indulge in the non-serious..!

        Like

        • Bandra.NRI Says:

          Sorry by error I posted the response above

          Like

        • How is that any different from how you downplay SRK in just about all of your posts?

          Only difference is that you’re fanatic of somebody who is by now largely considered as a boxoffice loser, outside of this blog, see how many actually talks about abhi, like he doesn’t exist.

          And i’m a fan fo somebody who is doing quite well, I must add 20+ year in to his career, still going strong…

          Like

          • ” And i’m a fan fo somebody who is doing quite well”

            Didn’t know one could only like someone based on their box office track record..! Poor Naseer wouldn’t have any fans by this yardstick. But to quote something from your favorite star’s film there’s still some film left here. And on the rest I of course don’t accept the media narrative or that of folks like yourself because you’ve had the same narrative whether it’s Guru or Raavan, BnB or D3.

            On the rest being a fanatic isn’t about liking a star intensely but about inventing your own facts for the star. Something you like many of your breed are guilty of. And I should say this is something SRK fans are uniquely guilty of as a group more than the fans of any other star. It’s not even close. So I’m not even saying this as an Abhishek fan or something. By and large the fans of any other star don’t behave like this. SRK fans are usually as a group the ‘dirtiest’ when it comes to this stuff. Sometimes unintentionally to the extent that one doesn’t plan one’s delusion.

            Oops, I had promised one response to you for today..! I’ve exceeded it. My bad..

            Like

          • Please don’t bring Naseer in, he is miles ahead of bachhans in acting.

            Well since abhi sucks big time at acting (staring at the camera looking confused isn’t acting and paying audience was quick to provide judgement on it), so I thought I would talk about boxoffice but why did I since he is even worse in that department.

            There is nothing you can do and say which will change the outcome. As far as everybody is concerned outside of 3 to 4 people on this blog, abhi is not even in top 10.

            Give credit where it’s due, you can’t continue to diss SRK, Salman, Hrithik, etc when they have accomplished so much yet try to bump up abhi who would not even get a chance in the industry if it wasn’t for his last name…

            And you can continue to make yourself feel good by creating stories about how abhi was more crucial in D3 and will be in HNY. He is nothing more then Navin Nischol in Desh Pramee at this point…

            Like

          • Given how hard you’re trying to argue against him I think he worries you more than you let on! On your first statement why am I not surprised? Scratch an anti-Abhishek guy and an anti-Amitabh guy emerges! Read you for what you were on day 1. Not that I get any credit for you. You guys are so predictably stale. But again if you really believe everything you’re saying here there’s nothing to worry about. Hey there’s some time to go before the HNY release. Try and relax till then..!

            Like

          • “You guys are so predictably stale.”

            Same can be said about you, read up your comments from naachgaan, same old crap.

            nothing has changed, SRK is still in top 3, and abhi is nowhere.

            Like

          • then why are you even here? I left NG, why have you followed me here?

            Like

      • oldgold Says:

        Then you must not have seen Kanoon which had no songs.
        I find this a top class film.
        There was also Gehra daag where he played and ex convict.
        There are quite a few not so well known films where he’s acted roles different from the usual.

        Like

  2. As much as I abhore stuff like MHN & some of his politics–

    I like giving credit where due…

    SRK is the biggest indian star achiever in the post bachchan era (all things considered) & one of the biggest indian stars ever…
    Period

    Ps: attempts at comparing srk to Rajendra Kumar are as inaccurate as comparing starson abhishrek bachchan to jacky bhagnani !!

    Like

    • If I were you I’d get upto speed on some of the very iconic Bachchan stuff (that you haven’t seen), let alone anything before this, before I started indulging in such pronouncements!

      Then again I can’t say most of these discussions have ‘informed’ folks on the other side! Not including Bandra NRI here even if I disagree with him at points.

      Like

      • Rajenmaniar Says:

        Much as I loved Shammi, he was not much of a dancer. He moved well to the beat but thats about it.

        Like

        • Bandra.NRI Says:

          Guys

          Am I missing something here ? Moving to a beat is “Dancing”. Hence, if you agree that he moved well to the beat, then you are essentially saying he danced well.

          Like

          • not really.. he had rhythm.. that’s different from being a proper dancer.. many actors can move to a beat without being dancers. Shammi had fantastic energy, a great feel for the music and so forth but he wasn’t a dancer in the sense that we normally define dancers.

            Like

          • Bandra.NRI Says:

            I have a feeling that your are cutting your definition of dancing a little too close to the bone.

            OK, he was not a ball room dancer. He was not a “Bharat Natyam’ kind of dancer. But Shammi’s moves was his dance. God bless his soul, he was good at it. Those were his moves, no less than Michael Johnson’s “Moon Walk”. No less than the Mambo or the Macarena .

            Like

          • Here I’m afraid I must radically disagree. Shammi and Jackson in the same breath? You can’t be serious! On his movies they weren’t well-defined enough to constitute a dance style. They were an extension of his gesturality. Also when you mention someone like Hrithik you are in fact talking about a pure dancer. Similarly a number of stars today dance in the proper sense. One can’t say that everything from Shammi Kapoor to Hrithik is dance. There is a Mithun step or style of dancing which is repeatable. They refer to it all the time on dance shows. Govinda was well-known as a dancer and for good reason. This becomes very obvious in his very first film.

            Like

          • Bandra.NRI Says:

            Satyam

            I don’t think this is you. Sadly this is the signs of our time. The body of Shammi is not cold yet and Mithun is now a better dancer. When, God forbid, Mithun dies, Govinda will become the gold standard. This exchange makes we wonder how long after we are gone, will society steal away even our humanity from us.

            Shammi’s steps were not so simple that they could be organized into steps. We have here here a logic Vs intuition situation. Cannot dismiss Shammi because he was complex.

            Yes, let’s end this discussion here, but I am proud to dignify the memory of Shammi by claiming that his “moves” constituted a legitimate dance style, complex not simple, but no less than a twist, or say the Gangam style.

            Like

          • On a lighter note, when the thought of “Govinda … becom[ing] the gold standard” prompts concerns about “society steal[ing] away even our humanity from us”, you know you have found a cinephile. In the truest sense of the word: someone to whom cinema MATTERS. God bless you!

            Like

          • But this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone claim that Shammi Kapoor is a better dancer than Mithun. Much as this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone question Mithun as a dancer. He’s the grandmaster of a well-known music show for a reason. But even leaving this aside I’m quite amazed you’re questioning him of all people. And Govinda for the longest time, before Hrithik debuted, was considered the best dancer in Bollywood. He started with break in Ilzaam, then he moved onto more masala stuff later on. But he really ran the gamut in certain ways. Again I’m surprised I even have to point this out.

            On Shammi Kapoor we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Complexity certainly isn’t a word I would use for his movements (I hesitate to even call it a dance style). And again I don’t mean this as a knock on him at all. My only point is that if you’re talking about pure dancers (any style) he wouldn’t make it in my books. If you’re talking about having a great individual style and a great sense of beat or whatever that’s a different matter. You can call the latter dance in some loose sense but then you shouldn’t introduce Michael Jackson into the debate!

            By the way there’s no dance style, simple or complex, that cannot be broken up into ‘steps’ or some series of constituting movements. None that at least I’m aware of.

            Like

          • On a related note, Hrithik performed very well at IIFA.
            He is outrageously good. Have not been a fan of some of his off screen stuff lately, but that guy is in a different stratosphere when it comes to dancing.

            Like

  3. MSDhoni Says:

    Just surprised to see such disdain and antipathy to comparison towards Rajendra Kumar here. Though personally I don’t subscribe to these comparisons but there was nothing wrong with Jubilee Kumar and he had caught the fancy of the nation/audience of his era. With advent of blogs/ filmy sites / internet chatter all of us are matured enough to realize being in the right place at the right time can work wonders and most of the superstardom is borne out of mindset of the filmy going audience in that era. Rajendra Kumar was great for the times he lived in and connected the way others have and that is one of the reason he was giving silver jubilees and golden jubilees.

    Rest to say one is more talented than the other is all bull and it’s subjective and now with polarized atmosphere carries a bit of politics behind it too.

    In absolute terms one can hardly count the real talents in mainstream bollywood at this point of time though. I don’t deny there must be plenty behind the scenes as technically Hindi movies are getting far superior each passing day.

    For me personally among the current lot other than a Hirani or a Irfan and somewhat Kher don’t really see much of genius and most of the projects converging towards nautanki. The bigger the better it is. Come to think of it with all the anurag kashyaps and dibankar in the world we don’t even see a movie of the caliber of Naam , Ghulami etc these days with main stream actors.

    This cynical view also stems from the fact is these days we see them on tv and read too much about the movies and actors and the novelty is lost when we see them on screen.

    Like

    • One of the important points is that there’s a difference between a subjective opinion and a factual one. One can be partial to any actor one likes. I don’t consider there to be objective standards in this case. Some stars might have overwhelming majorities behind them but stardom is never just about pure performance. It is also about the selling of an image and/or the receptivity of an audience to a star. This itself cannot be correlated with more general notions of performance. The reason this is crucial is that what one audience might consider a good performance relative to an image in a certain age might be perceived very differently by another audience in another age. Very few stars transcend their age and are able to appeal to more than their immediate audience. even when they do it’s often not for the very same set of reasons. But in any case the popularity of a movie star often means simply just the obvious. It does not at all imply something ‘special’ that takes the star to that position. The logical lapse here is to think that because ‘x’ star became successful he or she had something unique in some sense. The reality often is that ‘x’ is merely a representative for a whole set of values that the audience is ready to subscribe to. ‘y’ could do just as well as long as ‘y’ belonged to the space that ‘x’ does. Now does this mean that stars are substitutable in every case? No. Because there are clearly some stars that in terms of their physicality and/or their performance skills represent something very unusual and to the extent that one finds it hard to imagine a substitute. I can easily think of alternatives for Rajendra Kumar but I cannot easily do so for Dev Anand. One doesn’t even have to get to Amitabh Bachchan to make this point. The other thing to be said here is that we like stars for many reasons that have nothing to do with pure acting skills. And there’s nothing wrong with this either.

      It’s true that online things are always polarized but one of the reasons is that people are completely unable to separate the personal preference from the factual. And not surprisingly these are often the very same folks who have a very poor sense of Bollywood history if at all. Even if one has seen some of the relevant films one needs to invest more time and effort if one is going to come up with all sorts of claims. For instance I’ve never been much of a Dilip Kumar fan (for reasons I’ve laid out at length elsewhere) but his seminal stature for a generation or two of actors cannot be denied. The question then becomes: why was he so seminal? What was the shift he represented from the acting styles of the 40s? What did his peak cinema represent? So on and so forth. One has to engage with all of this. Another example: how was it that the same age enabled the rather staid Rajendra Kumar and the rather hyper (and crazy!) Shammi Kapoor? What did Rakesh Khanna’s hysteria really mean? How did Zanjeer change everything? When one lives through an age one witnesses a lot of this first-hand (though this doesn’t necessarily make one the best witness!), after the event it’s impossible to place oneself in that world as an emotional matter. one can do so in an intellectual sense, learning as much as one can, watching as much as possible but a gap nonetheless remains. I simply cannot describe in any personal sense what the ‘age of Rajesh Khanna’ really felt like.

      So the problem online is polarization for sure but it’s also premised on extreme ignorance most of the time. Beyond this if anything one should always take the judgments of the age one is living through or the trends of the same with a pinch of salt. In the present everything is a bit exaggerated (barring a true event, obviously this does’t apply to Amitabh Bachchan or Sachin Tendulkar and so on), we live in that moment and think the world begins and ends there. Over time things become different. But one can hazard certain guesses and one of them is that without a genuine body of work a star is unlikely to seem that important across the ages. Because style and gesture and so forth, those elements that are much more tethered to an age eventually become dated. Only a truly significant talent on both these levels can then transcend the age (Eastwood still seems as effective today in his key Westerns as he must have seemed to his audience), more commonly it is the proper actor who does or the body of work that does. Lesser stars who have been part of classics can sometimes be resuscitated and made to seem trendy for a while but this sort of thing rarely lasts. No one watches most of Rajendra Kumar’s big hits anymore. Shammi Kapoor does better because of his singular style but even in his case it’s much about the song videos than entire films. Sometimes even better work is not watched because the stars have become dated. History isn’t always ‘fair’ but it never rewards the undeserving star or the undeserving body of work. Which is why from that entire generation that emerged in the late 80s or early 90s Aamir has the best claim or perhaps even the only one. Here, whatever one thinks of those films at a personal level, one can name a great deal of stuff he’s done that one can reasonably imagine could be visited in the future. But I’m not sure who’s really going to watch Salman or SRK! It could be that they too have an afterlife in Shammi Kapoor fashion, this is always possible, but beyond this there just isn’t the work. And when I say body of work I don’t just mean hits but relatively more meaningful films.

      And yes the same holds for many of the ‘hotshot’ directors today though at least in the group you still see some genuine talent on display (even if it put at the service of mediocre products). Moreso than is the case with the actors. And I include female ones here too.

      Like

      • MSDhoni Says:

        The whole comment is so aptly stated and could not agree more with below in such a concise manner.

        “stardom is never just about pure performance. It is also about the selling of an image and/or the receptivity of an audience to a star. This itself cannot be correlated with more general notions of performance. The reason this is crucial is that what one audience might consider a good performance relative to an image in a certain age might be perceived very differently by another audience in another age”

        It would be blasphemous to bring salman here in this conversation but this partially explains his superstardom since he banks more on attitude and image to which even I subscribe to as a fan.

        Unfortunately none of the current fresh crop of actors has been able to develop this and that is the reason none have any massy following. Most of them keep in news due to their affairs which also cross dating.

        In this respect, Tiger has surprised me in his interviews and the earnest/ body language during his movie promotions on the reality shows so let us see where he heads. He needs a script to work to his advantage and he could be a huge star.

        Like

  4. MSDhoni Says:

    Lol may be getting a bit carried away and a bit harsh on talent bit and would have added Rahman and Sonu there …….but have not had a complete album from Rahman since Jaane tu ya jaane na. Sonu unfortunately has stopped singing due to music rights issue but boy what a gem he gave with Abhi mujhme kahin Baaqi thodi si hai zindagi….from the new Agneepath

    Like

    • Re: “…have not had a complete album from Rahman since Jaane tu ya jaane na.”

      Really? I found JTYJN pretty average, and Raanjhana and Highway were much superior to it…

      Like

  5. MSDhoni Says:

    Qalandar please listen to the title song of JTYJN sung by sukhwinder and also the female version of the same song…… Then the album has pappu cant dance saala , aditi and not to forget an absolute beauty nazrein milaana , kahin to hogi etc etc

    What I mean is a complete album.

    Ranjhaana and Highway etc are good in parts but you don’t hear them screaming from all corners. That way even Jab tak hai jaan has aged well too.

    Like

    • I think Raanjhanaa is definitely a mellow album, but I find it has many shades and nuances, with songs for all moods… there’s no Pappu Can’t Dance, but that song could have been made by any number of composers, it doesn’t have that Rahman touch…

      Like

  6. lol outstanding stuff and such a fun watch…..initially i thought it was aaj tak clip with those funny cartooning.

    Sorry that was Maa song from Taare Zameen Par.

    Like

  7. The Khan era is over.I dont any of the khans will be remembered like Akshay or hrithik.I think this topic has been opened to put aamir over srk,but comaprision is wrong.Rajendra Kumar is a big star of his times,but only for about 6 years.After 1970,he was playing charecter like roles.

    Like

    • you could be right, depending on which way akshay is remembered.

      Like

    • Seriously doubt that Khan era will end before they hit their mid-50s at least. They all are going to surpass the longevity of Amitabh (as a hero superstar). Unless the current crop of under-40 heroes suddenly attain a manic mass following, none of them will beat the Khan-BO stranglehold for quite some time. Ranbir/Ranvir etc need to do more work to get to that level. Hrithik is the only close contender for now.
      Wrt the 3 Khans, the only pleasure to be had is the newly attained humility of SRK fans over the past few years since Aamir and then Salman ascended.

      Like

      • jayshah Says:

        “Wrt the 3 Khans, the only pleasure to be had is the newly attained humility of SRK fans over the past few years since Aamir and then Salman ascended.”

        LOL! You are joking right?

        Like

  8. I have never understood the criticism for Rajendra Kumar not being a good actor. It is not as if Dev Anand,Shammi Kapoor and other stars of that time were great actors. Rajendra Kumar was certainly no great actor, but in keeping with the time period in which he was active, he was quite appropriate.
    He looked dashing enough, lip synced well to Rafi’s great songs ( In fact I feel Rafi’s songs for Rajendra Kumar are much much better than those for Shammi) and also had a good chemistry with most of his heroines and co stars.

    Like

    • Plus, we can rest assured that the appeal of Salman or SRK might seem as strange fifty years from now as Rajendra Kumar’s or Shammi’s seems to some today!

      Like

      • Exactly! One must always view and judge history in the time frames in which they were set. My parents still hold the firm view that Sivaji Ganesan was the best actor ever .

        Like

    • ” In fact I feel Rafi’s songs for Rajendra Kumar are much much better than those for Shammi”

      They were different types of songs. Rajendra kumar film songs were more subtle. Mere Mehboob title songs is amazing and nobody could have sung it like how Rafi did.

      Like

  9. came across this while reading rediff. Surprised to see Rajendra Kumar and Dilip Kumar at Rakesh Roshan wedding. Slide 5.

    http://www.rediff.com/movies/slide-show/slide-show-1-shah-rukh-khan-i-really-gave-rakesh-roshan-grief-during-karan-arjun/20140620.htm#5

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s