Why ‘Al Pacino’ ?
(In which I officially start a new WTF category)
On the occasion of his birthday, Rediff calls Kamalhasan the ‘Al Pacino’ of Indian cinema. Apart from the idiotic – but widespread in the Indian media – compulsion to seek validation from the West (Hollywood in this case), I wonder why particularly Al Pacino ? Why not Jack Nicholson, De Niro, or quite possibly, Tom Hanks ? Pacino, while arguably an incredible actor, has mostly restricted himself to unidimensional dramatic roles. KH on the other hand, has not only essayed a variety of characters, but also ventured into other aspects of film-making. Not totally unexpected shoddy work from Rediff.
The comments section, as usual, is a treasure-trove of invaluable laughter, such as:
HES ONLY D ACTOR FRM D SOUTH TO MAKE A MARIK IN BOLLYWOOD FAR BETTER THEN RAJNIKANT. WHEN HE CAME TO BOLLYWOOD HE DIDNT KNEW A WORD IN HINDI BUT D WAY HE SPOKE HE WAS SO FLUENT. HES D BEST ACTOR IN INDIA BUT A VERY EGOISTIC N CHALU INSAAN USNE SAB HEROINES PE CHANCE MARA HAI
and this one, bound to start some flame wars:
CURRENTLY TELUGU CINEMA RULES IN INDIA AFTER BOLLYWOOD. TAMIL IS PANI KAM
(in both cases, CAPs are original)