GUNTHROAT

I was planning to write about the two books which I am reading now, the biography of eminent and controversial lawyer Ram Jethmalani and The wounded civilization by Naipaul. But today I came across the blog by one of my friends which debate on a lighter subject. The issue is simple ‘’who is the better actor Sharukh Khan or Amir Khan’’. The jury is still out on whether who is the real No:1 in bollywood. But my friend unequivocally claims that it is Amir Khan who is the rightful heir to the numero uno position, reigned over by the Big B during the 80’s. But what provoked me was his mentioning a debate we had about the issue back in college. He claims that he won the debate( though I clearly remember him swearing that one day he will win the debate and prove me wrong as a swan song) by putting forth the vital point that Amir has done movies which has influenced the society for good while Shahrukh has never done those genre of movies. He goes on to elaborating that with the point he won the debate and instilled amir on the throne of king of bollywood. But I vividly remember annulling the point at one go. Let me once again bring in my logic which mainly contains two parts of which I believe the second point is my reply to all those self proclaimed critics who write off popular stars as the result of insanity in audience.
The first point is never does acting in a socially relevant movies resulting in popular uprising (or a mass movement) prove anything about the universal acceptance of the actor. Nor does it prove that the actor who played his role in a socially significant movie being superior compared to all his peers. If the theory that the actor who acted in maximum number of ‘’successful’’ socially significant movies (especially for a cause) to be considered as the top star, then MGR can be considered as the best actor in the country. Also AlPacino considered as the best actor ever by most movie buffs should be condemned for promoting crime in his magnum opus Godfather trilogy. The point is simple movies are not about reforming or bringing in social changes, they are about entertaining. Those who want to work for a cause can take up some other career like politics. The issue in our country is at most times entertainment industry tries to educate and reform the audience rather than entertain him and the politicians and social workers tries to entertain the populace rather than reform and educate them.
The second is about judgement. What is the best way to identify who is the number 1 in bollywood? Is it by checking the film review column of popular newspapers? I recently came across a review in a newspaper which gave a 3.5 rating (better than good, near to must watch) for a children’s movie which from promos itself indicate is a desi version of popular hollywood flick home alone( thus it is not at all ironic that the movie is produced by the entertainment division of the newspaper which published the review). So it is obvious that the critics are biased (these days they are called market experts). I believe the most successful and bankable actor in an industry is the No: 1 in that industry, the one who has delivered the maximum number of hits. Because he is the one who influences the lives and financial status of the workers in the industry than anyone else, the one who brought more wealth and meaning into their life. In an industry the best is the one who influences the lives of the workers in that industry. Narayana Murthy is not expected to make an impression on the life of a beggar to be considered the best in IT industry. Pele is not expected to do the maximum work than any other the footballer in the field of AIDS awareness to be considered the best footballer. So shahrukh being the actor who has delivered the maximum number of hits is the number 1 in bollywood, like Rajnikant who is the No:1 in tollywood. About the question of whether he is a better actor than amir, the question is too subjective like the question ‘’Is my home made dish more delicious than yours???”
October 4