Great actor vs Film star: Unpopular Opinion

Recently, on a filmi forum on Facebook, I saw people pay rich tribute to the late Irrfan Khan. All of them, without exception, were glowing in their description and called him a ‘great actor’. I disagree.

Irrfan Khan had a towering screen presence and a star quality about him, both off and on screen. His humility, his baritone, his sense of humour, his height, his droopy eyes, his way of speaking, his ability to carry himself with grace and elegance, all of these exuded star power, perhaps not in the same way as say, an Amitabh Bachchan or SRK, but similar. I’d have been starstruck if I had ever met him. I have no doubts. I loved him in Lunch Box and Paan Singh Tomar, in Life of Pi and Slumdog Millionaire, in Hindi Medium and The Namesake, in Maqbool and Haider, in Salaam Bombay and even Chocolate.

But, and I know I am going to bring upon myself the wrath of all those who know and have studied films and cinema, acting and storytelling, and entertainment and drama, far more than I can even begin to imagine, who will tell me I am wrong, that I am ignorant, and that I lack taste, I must put forth my contention that Irrfan was never a great actor.

He was a star, for sure, in more senses of that word than the most obvious. So, he was great. And he was an actor, for sure. But a great actor? No.

He was repetitive, bland, and literally the same person, Irrfan, with that bored expression, with the deep deadpan voice, with the casual delivery, in every single frame he has ever appeared in. In every film, all we saw was Irrfan. Or at least, I did. I know I know nothing of art or performance. So, take my opinion for what it is, an opinion, and form your own.

Who then, in my uneducated and uncultured opinion, is a great actor? Oh, many. Boman Irani, for example. When he plays a Dr Asthana or a Viru Sahastrabuddhe or a Nikhil Sharma or a Dr Vijay Bhalerao or a Lucky Singh or a Khurana or a Vardhaan, you see those characters on screen, not Boman. Ditto Aamir Khan, who I remember as Bhuvan or ACP Rathore or Rancho or Akash Malhotra and not as just Aamir. Then, there is Sanjeev Kumar, there’s Abhay Deol, there’s Ayushmann Khurrana, there’s Rajkumar Rao, there’s Om Puri, there’s Naseeruddin Shah, and these are just a small selection of the males (because we are speaking of Irrfan). Agreed that all of them have also done some dumb stuff where they haven’t given it their all. But all-in-all, many of the characters they’ve played have been very different from themselves in real life. It is the characters people remember from their films.

These are great actors. They subsume their persona and personality into the character. They burn their egos. They cease to exist. Only their character does.

A star very rarely manages this temporary suicide successfully (there are, of course, exceptions, like SRK in Chak De!, just as one example). By and large, stars remain themselves: Salman and Chulbul Pandey aren’t two separate people, ditto SRK and Rahul or Amitabh and Vijay. They are stars, nay, superstars. Cinema lives on (and off) them. People love them. I love them. But they are not great actors. They don’t have to be, to be able to do their job brilliantly.

Irrfan was, and continues to be in my heart, an amazing human and a superstar who elevated every scene he was in, whether the cameras were running or not (Tom Hanks has gone on record to state he was jealous of his mere presence). And I shall see him on screen with the fondness I reserve for those who have the ability to touch my heart.

But, I must confess, he wasn’t a great actor. He didn’t need to be to make a difference to the lives of his audience and fans.

P.S.: Remember here that I am not saying he wasn’t a gifted performer or a good actor. I am not even critiquing him or his style in some technical manner. I am merely stating that his fans calling him a ‘great actor’ may be overreacting and, in the process, cheapening his legacy and contribution to Indian and world cinema. The title of ‘great’ must be conferred with great reluctance and in very rare and exceptional circumstances. By throwing it about to everyone we like, we are disrespecting the word ‘great’ as well as ‘actor’, not to mention harming the real and tangible legacy of the person we place this mistaken (and unnecessary) crown on. I think, in fact, that the person in question himself would have found this whole brouhaha laughable. It is like everyone calling Andre Agassi the GOAT, and someone (even a fan of Agassi) taking objection to that. Not acceding that Agassi is the GOAT does not take away from his 8 Grand Slams. He remains a brilliant tennis player. Just not the GOAT. Would someone saying that while Agassi was a fantastic athlete and tennis player, calling him the GOAT is doing a disservice to say, Serena or Djokovic or Federer mean that they are being disrespectful of Agassi? So, what’s this kerfuffle about then? Bloody storm in a teacup.

Afterword

The Admin of the Facebook filmi group I mentioned at the start declined my post (above) with the following comment.

So many questions: How is my post going to hurt his family? It is literally the mildest way to critique not the actor, but his fans. Is even that not allowed? Is one now not allowed to talk about an artist on a platform specifically populated with people who love this specific art form? Is only flattery the acceptable form of criticism now? How is my post insensitive to ‘dead folks’? What does ‘we will speak about his shortcomings when history will judge him’ even mean? Why not now? What shortcomings did I speak of anyway? Is not being a ‘great actor’ a shortcoming? This is truly confusing.

Why are we so sensitive and thin-skinned nowadays? Or have I become particularly abrasive and rude?

Sigh!