Naseeruddin Shah in conversation with Riz Khan on Al Jazeera says, in retrospect, it was probably a good thing that he didn’t get Mahatma Gandhi‘s part in Richard Attenborough‘s film because a) he was too young for the role, and b) the Oscar campaign had begun even before Gandhi had begun to be shot, and the possibility of an Indian actor getting the Academy Award was unthinkable at the time.
“I would like to be remembered as an actor who didn’t think it necessary to show off all the time. That’ll be good enough for me…. Actors who hanker after displaying their wares all the time are people to be pitied.
“There are people for whom acting is an end in itself and it is not. You don’t act for the sake of acting however much you may enjoy it. You act because there is a purpose to it. That purpose is to convey somebody’s ideas.”
Also watch: Ben Kingsley on pomposity and pretentiousness
“You act because there is a purpose to it.”
Yes. Like earning a living. He is a good actor, but is afflicted with the same pomposity that seems to bother us in the likes of Shah Rukh Khan but not in “character” actors like Shah.
Acting is a neurotic joke of a profession.
An actor’s a guy who, if you ain’t talking about him, he ain’t listening
-Marlon Brando
@Gokulam,
There is a lot of difference between “You act because there is a purpose to it” and
“You act because there is a purpose to it. That purpose is to convey somebody’s ideas.”
comparing Naseeruddin Shah with Zaarugaan is insulting one of the very few true actors in the world..
Gandhi didn’t get the Nobel- reason he was an Indian. Shah didn’t get Gandhi’s role – Reason: it was predestined to get an Oscar and shah is an Indian.
For this Gandhi is not a lesser apostle of peace compared to any past and present Nobel peace prize winners. Likewise Shah is neither a lesser actor compared to oscar winners.
Inference- The Nobel and Oscar missed Gandhi and Shah respectively.
Agree with Gokulam. Mr. Shah speaks as though he is in the business doing probono work. Guess what he was conveying when essaying a Hero Hiralal or tirchi topi waale !
He should just let his acting talk…
What if Shah is right about the predetermined course of the Oscars in the case of “Gandhi?” India born actors are good enough for supporting roles, but not for the lead? Krishna Bhan would have been OK as a muscle bound British cop in the movie. His simpering, pious Gandhi isn’t the one we have known as Indians.
This is not to say that Shah is always good. Does anybody remember the perpetually depressed, unenlightened, tradition mongering Venkataramana in “Thabbaliyu Neenaade Magane?”
Dont forget the millions the government of India invested in the hagiologial misadventure called “Gandhi.”
All I care to remember about the movie is Lakshmi Shankar’s divine rendering of “Vaishnava Janatho.”