Starship Enterprise (Outlook Survey) and Bachchan’s Interview — Outlook Covery Story

May 11th, 2008Related|Filed Under

(Note the crucial ‘most accomplished actor’ question where Aamir comes right after Bachchan and SRK isn’t on the list at all. Meanwhile he follows Bachchan in the ‘favorite actor’ category but there’s a huge gap. Here also note Hrithik registers exactly as much as Akshay.)

here’s the interview
(LINK)

‘It’s Unfair To Say Today’s Stars Have A Lesser Aura’
Amitabh Bachchan emerged the winner in our Favourite Star of All Times poll. What does the icon himself think of stardom?
Namrata Joshi interviews Amitabh Bachchan

He is 65 years old, with more than 150 films on his resume. His latest, Bhootnath, hits the screens this weekend. Next year, he will complete his 40th year in the Hindi film industry. In what, for others, would be the twilight of their careers, Amitabh Bachchan marches on—splendidly. He emerged the winner in our Favourite Star of All Times poll, beating his usual competitor Shahrukh Khan, by a huge margin. What does the icon himself think of stardom? Well, he thinks he is not an icon at all. Excerpts from an e-mail interview from London with Namrata Joshi:

You have emerged the winner in the Outlook poll—by a big margin. Your response.
After four decades in the business, it surprises me that the poll conducted by Outlook should make me emerge as a winner! I am obviously humbled and terribly flattered.

‘I am not an icon by any stretch of imagination. I don’t accept the term stardom as well.’

I would have imagined that the younger stars of this generation would have featured higher up than me, particularly since most sections of the media, in the recent past, have repeatedly expressed their opinion on my declining status.

How
would you define star quality in general and your own star appeal in particular?
I guess star appeal and quality comes from the desire of the audience to love, appreciate and support their favourite. When the audience expresses their love and support, it translates into better commerce, better box office and star rating.

What has been the single biggest advantage and disadvantage, for you, of being an icon?
I am not an icon by any stretch of imagination and this question therefore is redundant.

How does stardom impinge on your daily life?
I do not accept the term ’stardom’, but even if I were to, why do you assume it would impinge on daily life? At the end of the day, we are all normal human beings, having an equal share of normal human faults, desires and shortcomings. If these were to impinge on the lives of normal humans, so would they on ours.

The ladies in cinema you’ve admired?
Waheedaji, Meena Kumari, Nargisji, Jaya.

Who are the young actors/actresses you can see as stars of the future?
They’re all very talented and impressive.

How has the notion of stardom changed over a period of time? How have you adapted to it?
Not admitting to stardom myself, it is difficult to comment on this, but I believe each decade and each passage of time brings about changes, as it should. The mystique of film stars, their larger-than-life image, primarily due to the larger-than-life acts they performed on screen was, in times of limited access to communication, perhaps greater than today’s, because of instant availability, through the media—both print and electronic. And with time, adaptation is important (for an actor). That is if there still is a desire to continue. So, whatever medium prevails, you accept it, contribute to it.

There is a complaint that the younger stars don’t have the aura of the older stars; that they are spread too thin and are all over the media. Does it cut down their star appeal?
The aura came from mystique: the mystique, from limited information on the stars and, even greater, non-visibility. With changing times and technology, and access to greater mediums of communication, it is rather unfair to state that the stars of today have a lesser aura. All the top stars of today—Shahrukh, Akshay, Salman, Aamir, Hrithik, Saif—command huge fan following and hysteria. It is wrong to imagine that there has been any cut in their star appeal.

When it comes to defining your appeal, people talk of your longevity, the fact that you could reinvent yourself. How did you work at it?
Never believed in it; never worked at it.Things have just happened. People have been kind; God, kinder.

Everyone has a favourite Amitabh persona: the angry young man, the romantic poet, the funny man, the entertainer, the KBC host, the patriarch of Baghban…. What’s your own favourite Big B persona?
A little bit of all of them!

Who are the people who have had a hand in the making of the Bachchan persona besides you yourself?
My personality was built by my parents, both genetically and through their upbringing.

What would you consider the turning point films in your long career?
Every film of mine has led me into respecting the medium, its fraternity, its endless craft, its vulnerability and the acceptance, of how meagre our contribution has been in this vast field.

There Are 50 Responses So Far. »

Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

Interesting!!! Aamir is giving tough competition to Bachchan in the most accomplished actor category though I feel actors like Naseer,Dilip Kumar and Sanjeev should have got more votes than Aamir.

as far as all-time favourite male star is concerned it was pretty obvious that Bachchan and SRK would hold the first two positions respectively.

surprised to see Johnny Lever taking the first place in the best funny man category, my vote would have gone to Mehmmood. or Paresh Rawal.
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

iF i were to make a list of the 5 best actors Bollywood, it would have been:

Naseerudhin Shah
Amitabh Bachchan
Balraaj Sahani
Dilip Kumar
Sanjeev Kumar
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

matrix: Some very interesting articles in Outlook. The two most surprising results from the polls were Aamir coming a close second to Amitabh in most accomplished actor category (36% to 33%) and the choice of Kajol as the most accomplished actress that too by a huge margin.

Not surprising at all Matrix. I’ve been saying forever that Aamir’s prestige is greater than everyone else’s including Bachchan’s except that the latter’s history probably saves him. But skeptic is right. Another TZP and you’d see him ahead!

I think the issue here is that Aamir’s films instantly suggest quality to the audience the way Bachchan’s do not. For one people are not sure what Bachchan shows up in which film. Aamir doesn’t just do ‘prestigious’ films but also keeps up a narrative alive, that he has in fact been building up for the longest time. More often than not there is continuity to the roles he does.

But Aamir’s prestige is unquestionably the highest at this point (though I should hasten to add that outside the major metros there’s probably less of the same). He’s certainly left SRK in the dust in this sense. You know SRK comes closer to Bachchan in these polls in terms of popularity if you just poll the top 3-4 metros. But even the audience that puts him just below Bachchan in terms of popularity is not willing to put him (necessarily) in the top 8 when it comes to ‘accomplished actors’! People forget how SRK started out and how he was perceived for a few years. he was considered a better actor than Aamir at one point. He’s just deconstructed himself totally in recent years. And this also exposes the hollowness of all those CDI claims many made here and so forth. Clearly a Swades or a CDI did not even get SRK into the top 8!

In many ways Abhishek today is following the Aamir model most closely. All his upcoming films indicate this. There is constant variety, there are interesting roles in prestige films, and finally Abhishek is trying to build some continuity in terms of the characters he plays. Incidentally Bachchan himself did this through the late 70s. Which is why becoming too successful is sometimes a kind of curse for a star. Bachchan became so big that it became harder and harder for him to do Mukerjee. Conversely since even the flop made money there was no reason for directors to even try and make good films with him beyond a point! Ironically again, because we’ve just been through the 90s where precisely ‘poor’ films were celebrated as great cinema you see today many of Bachchan’s decidedly inferior 80s films loved as much as his far superior 70s works.
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

By the way I see this silliness being constantly perpetrated about Bachchan not being on top after ‘85. Empires even in decline are still empires and cannot be compared to vassal states!

Bachchan in ‘85 had Mard which outgrossed Ram Teri Ganga Maili and then also had Geraftaar which was a very good grosser. His ‘86 the one film he had, Aakhree Raasta, was the top grosser of the year along with Karma. He then left for politics and didn’t return till ‘88. He was considered a superstar in exile at that point. With Shahenshah the decline was apparent in a real sense because his films could never match the expectations and it was increasingly harder for him to get big hits. In the meantime Anil Kapoor and Boney Kapoor ran a propaganda campaign to offer him as the alternative but it never sold with the audiences. Bachchan’s film generated by far the biggest initials and excitement. the Hum frenzy is one of the unique moments in Bollywood history. Aaj ka Arjun around roughly the same time was a superhit at the height of the Rath Yatra riots. Through 1992 he was by far the top star even if as I’ve suggested an ‘empire in decline’ and a star in need of reinvention. when he then took a 5 year gap and returned without any serious thought at reinvention it cost him dearly.

Of course even more absurd than the above notion is the idea that Dharam was even in the same universe as Bachchan at any point post-Zanjeer. If anything in the late 70s/early 80s it was Vinod Khanna who was considered the closest competitor. But really the box office reveals that to even suggest that Bachchan was 1-10 as people often did at the time was to perhaps underrate him. Bachchan was n ‘event’, a ‘revolution’ and you don’t compare revolutions with changes in parliamentary government! Dharam was light years away from Bachchan in every sense and again one can see every top director of that age simply clinging to Bachchan beyond a point.

I will say this: if one wants to believe in this fantasy version of history BOI is the site to go to!
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

have to agree with Satyam here!! the kinda works Aamir has done post 2000 is something hard to beat and will make any actor envy of and that is precisely the reason why we are seeing him as a close second to Bachchan in the most accomplished category.He may not be a great actor, certainly there are some who are better than him, it is primarily Aamir’s choice of films which has made the pendulum swinging in his favor.
Comment by jayshah on 11 May 2008:

Interesting stuff on the list, but some of the results to put into question the validity of the survey. For example, Kajol winning most accomplished actress.

Quality is associated with Aamir so it isn’t surprising he scored well though quite surprised how well he did actually score.

‘if one wants to believe in this fantasy version of history BOI is the site to go to!’

For this decade possibly but anything before perception and wisdom is much better!
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

Of course the dating of Bachchan’s career by wau of the ‘calendrical’ misses the point completely. The Bachchan event ‘transcends’ such traditional dating which is why it’s an event. If Bachchan’s peak period was ‘73-’86 and if his decline began in ‘88 it’s lasted with all it’s relative ups and downs for about 20 years! And he’s still dominating audience consciousness! This is the very definition of ‘empire’!
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

Jay: LOL!

Of course I would rely on ‘wisdom’ more than ‘perception’ because the latter is a quality much more in flux!
Comment by jeegs on 11 May 2008:

a sample of 1045 people . when sample of some 18000 people coudlnot give right results for the general elections 04 or any elections how can one say this as conclusion in general .
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

Som: But it’s not just about quality. Aamir hasn’t just done ‘good’ films but projected a certain persona within these films. He’s advanced a certain kind of politics in his own way. He is the star least likely to be criticized on any side of the political divide in India. This when he even took on Modi in the most direct sense! Even those who do not share his politics have grudging admiration for what they see as his authenticity. In an increasinly superficial or consumerist age ‘authenticity’ becomes much in demand! And Aamir suggests this more than anyone else. It is therefore not at all surprising that he was selected for the Olympic torch over a SRK who’s far more in bed with the Congress! I have been lionizing Aamir for a long time on NG for a reason. It’s not about just doing good films (he certainly is doing this) but also about what he does in those films. Just take a Fanaa, which is underrated by many. This is first of all the truest masala film of this age in many ways. But also within the Yashraj format it is harder to think of a film that shuns Yahsraj ‘principles’ more than this one. Yes more than the other ‘different’ stuff they’ve been trying. Plus within the film there is a marriage of the 60s (second half) andthe 70s (first half) formats. finally there is enough 90s here too around the edges (Kajol was a great casting choice in this regard). People don’t like this one but I think that people miss the point that this isn’t just ‘any’ film.
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

Jeegs: This is actually a scientific poll.. leaving this aside one should be willing to dismiss all polls for the reason you’ve pointed out! But in any case there’s a difference between ‘predictive’ polls and ‘descriptive’ ones. People can change their minds when they walk into a polling booth but they’re unlikely to change their minds about whether they think Aamir is a more accomplished actor or SRK!
Comment by jeegs on 11 May 2008:

“It is therefore not at all surprising that he was selected for the Olympic torch over a SRK who’s far more in bed with the Congress! I have been lionizing Aamir for a long time on NG for a reason.”

i thought he was selected automatically as he was brand ambassador of coke .
Comment by jeegs on 11 May 2008:

“People can change their minds when they walk into a polling booth but they’re unlikely to change their minds about whether they think Aamir is a more accomplished actor or SRK!”

its not about changing the mind its just its too small a sample to generalise imo .
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

Jeegs: you made a valid point. the bigger is the size of the population,the better would be the generalization and lesser prone to statistical error.the sample size does play a significant role in the final outcome.

.
Comment by jeegs on 11 May 2008:

LINK

Coke were official sponsors for torch relay and Aamir is ambassador of coke thus he was selected not due to prestige or anything .
Comment by jayshah on 11 May 2008:

Satyam I think Aamir’s reluctance to in a way have all the characteristics of a major star (media attention, awards, concerts etc) means that when he does speak people sit up and take note. He is taken seriously as an actor and speaker and an example is the India Concave (I think thats what it was called) where he shared a stage with Shekar Kapoor and talked about Indian cinema in particular. This is something very few of the current major stars would be able or even asked to do simply because they don’t project such seriousness in such a forum.

This persona is also reflective of the kind of films he chooses. Sarforosh, Earth, MP, RDB & TZP all have an element of the social or seriousness. Also he carries himself pretty well in media when speaking, there isn’t the spunky attitude or amazing humour on display - but rather thoughtful opinions. He’s had the perfectionist and thinking actor since late 90’s so it is not at all surprising that people associate ‘quality’ with him even if ‘quality’ is not in the offering in terms of Mela’s or Fanaa’s or percieved disasters like Mangal Pandey. This persona is hard to burst really, unless he just goes on a poor run of script choices or BO performance.

But I think the key to it is his reluctance for attention and when he does comment, it usually is thoughtful/insightful. Some may call it pretty calculated aswell!
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

“He is taken seriously as an actor and speaker and an example is the India Concave (I think thats what it was called) where he shared a stage with Shekar Kapoor and talked about Indian cinema in particular. This is something very few of the current major stars would be able or even asked to do simply because they don’t project such seriousness in such a forum.”

yeah, it was indeed at the India Today concave. every year they invite someone from Bollywood who is vastly experienced to speak on Indian cinema.Amitabh,SRK and Naseerudhin shah all have been a part of the concave before.
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

Aishwarya, Karan Johar and Javed Akhtar too have been a part of this conclave.
Comment by jayshah on 11 May 2008:

LOL som, my point goes now since you mentioned K-Jo

Anyway that discussion was a fairly long and interesting one and I find it difficult to pin-point many current stars who’d be able to speak that thoughtfully or authenticity. In a way the kind of films one does can be reflective of the kind of person/behavior one has.
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

Abhishek was supposed to come and speak on indian cinema this year, but could not be a part of because of some reasons.
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

recently there was a poll on a newz channel about who is the biggest among the Khans.the sample had surveyed 571 people out of which Salman got 39%,SRK got 34% and Aamir got 27%.here one could have easily generalized Salman is a bigger star than the other two khans which IMO would be wrong.the result will definitely vary when they get to survey more and more number of people.
Comment by jayshah on 11 May 2008:

matrix: Satyam, I agree that Aamir today is synonymous with Prestige. I also understand that this prestige factor translates to him being considered a better actor. Still his coming so close to the top is little incomprehensible to me. My reading of this whole thing is People started associating Aamir with good quality cinema from the mid-nineties (around the time of Rangeela, though there were Raja Hindustani, Ishq, Mann and Mela after it), thanks in large part to his one movie/yr policy. He took the *Prestige* bit to another stratosphere with Lagaan. Along the way a people started twinning his movies and performances. I think he was good and indeed very good in these projects, but nothing spectacular to be considered second best actor.

matrix- hard to disagree overall. I agree with the point of when this started (and why) and how twinning is possible. I don’t think many claim Aamir to be an extra-ordinary actor, but an extremely compotent one who generally does slip into the character he plays. There maybe confusion, but I also feel Aamir is a ‘function’ of his movies and why they do work. So the theory proposed by some is his movies work because they have great stories. I find this charge unfair because he is a ‘function’ of the movie. It cannot be mere coincidence after the run he’s had this decade! There is possibly a bit of both that he is overated by some, but then really its all relative. Many before him have been called very good, and they may well be just plain mediocre overall!
Comment by jayshah on 11 May 2008:

And to extend the point further, some actors are extra-ordinary or very superb…Aamir is more an actor who doesn’t make errors. Even comparing his box office graph with say SRK or Hrithik, he doesn’t have the magnitude overall BUT he makes less errors of judgement. You could say as an actor he knows his limits and plays in them, not stretching beyond them too far.
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

Jay: I don’t really believe with the notion that if someone does not make good films, cant say/share anything substantial on Indian cinema.I have seen Aish making some insightful and thoughtful comments last year or the year before.IMO if a person is well read about Indian cinema and has closely followed indian films, Bollywood and Regional can authentically give some articulate views.
Comment by jayshah on 11 May 2008:

‘I don’t really believe with the notion that if someone does not make good films, cant say/share anything substantial on Indian cinema’

I was pointing to perception on the whole.

On Aish, she has continually been involved with prestige projects. In fact I don’t really think in the last decade, any of the biggest female stars carry prestige as much as her. And I do think she gives of much of a ’serious’ vibe vs others.

I agree with what you said, but perception is important. I find it unlikely likes of Govinda or Sallu are taken nearly as seriously as Aamir or Ajay and part of it is the characteristics they carry in the media but also types of films chosen in general over career.
Comment by jayshah on 11 May 2008:

And also this persona Aamir carries does work against him now and then. When he does a Fanaa, his blog has fans questioning the choice. He has on record said he likes movies like Partner and No Entry and would love to do them. For some of his fans, they’ll go after him for such choices. However, if he does an AAA sequel it might work for him because this carried a cult following and some recognition in comedy format. Really he’s got to be seen doing thoughtful or meaningful or performance orientated stuff now, and a Mela type film would hurt him badly, more so then any other major star.
Comment by rks on 11 May 2008:

Any poll makes sense only if the sample is representative of population. So if you do a sample in Kolkatta only and pass it as all Inida survey then it is wrong. And choosing a person for a poll is a Science in itself. I don’t think most of the channels or magazines have wherewithal to do that.
Comment by rks on 11 May 2008:

For above reason our psephologist fail most of time in predicting the winners.
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

Jeegs: Aamir was assuredly not selected for the Coke connection. The Congress government wouldn’t have let a sponsor decide this and I know what happened!
Comment by jayshah on 11 May 2008:

Satyam on Fanaa, I think Aamir somewhat took a calculated risk here and won it (a risk on prestige). The film overall is not great, hardly good to be honest BUT because it had a first time pairing with Kajol, there was an element of buzz about it and I think for the audience the pairing worked overall. Prestige probably not for the film, but having the unique pairing, first time ever deal it worked. For example doing the film with an actress he’d been opposite before would have made it a fairly poor choice. Hence, agree with you the choice of Kajol was a great one. The only others that would have carried the same buzz would have been a returning Mads, Aish or possibly Rani.
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

Som: Abhishek was at the most recent conclave with Johar and Mira Nair. I put up the video here at the time. Not sure if you’re referring to something else after this.
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

Jay: agree with many of your points on Aamir.

I think partly all of us err to a degree when we take box office numbers to be the absolute truth on a star. leaving aside disagreements on the numbers perception does not always match proportionately with these. So while a Hrithik might on average enjoy more magnitude of success than an Aamir (an idea I contest but I’ll accept it for the sake of argument) the question is whether this means more than everything else. Of course you’ve also been getting at precisely this point in your responses but it’s clear that Aamir’s prestige, however one defines it, overrides purely box office considerations. A minimal graph is of course always assumed for a star of a certain magnitude.

And this works in different ways for different stars. Take Akshay Kumar. The idea that he is one of the very top stars at the moment is the narrative that matters. Not how much Welcome made relative to HB. Most of the audience isn’t involved in number crunching. Then there’s the question of segments. A Cheeni Kum does half of what PHP does but it does so within a certain segment of the audience, a fact which has consequences. Because one of the realities of the post-Bachchan system in any case is that it is hard for any star to keep delivering truly universal hits and hence any star’s box office graph must be calibrated accordingly. Taking Aamir/Hrithik once again doesn’t the fate of JA establish the very point we’ve been making for a long time. The success of JA proves precisely what a complete failure wouldn’t have. That outside his comfort zone Hrithik cannot really outinitial or outgross Aamir. We have seen this in any case with SRK!

So because no one really rules the box office in that absolute sense these other factors become important. But also because this is partly a result of the Hollywood system. Yes an average Cruise films grosses more than an average Brad Pitt film. And people might even accept Cruise as the bigger star if really pushed but at the end of the day this really doesn’t mean very much. Also being in the former group also has its disadavantages. Cruise doesn’t have the Pitt kind of prestige and meanwhile Will Smith is beating him in box office terms! Similarly Aamir’s position is always least affected by whoever else is considered to be the top star because he’s never been dependent on that sort of deal.

On Fanaa I disagree a touch. I quite like Fanaa to be honest but the larger point here is that within a formula format Aamir tinkers around with things. I tend not to attribute much to Kajol here because Kajol’s base in terms of an audience is really negligible in my view outside Bombay. And Fanaa really roared in the North though it was strong everywhere. SRK-Kajol is a different matter because here the pair introduces a whole set of associations in terms of genre and format and so forth. By the way note that Kajol’s Hum Aapke Dil Main Rehte Hain with Anil Kapoor also did best in Bombay.

But overall it’s hard to argue with most of your points. The idea that Aamir is not extraordinary but makes less errors is certainly an astute one, even if I think that as actor he’s taken enormous leaps since the 90s.
Comment by satyam on 11 May 2008:

Rks: Any sample is of course limited but some polls are scientifically done and have a more sound basis. In this poll note they have cities like Bombay, Delhi but also something like Lucknow. Note that if you move away from the very major metros Bachchan would develop an even larger gap in terms of the competition! I think Aamir would remain stable as well. SRK for example is that high up among favorite actors because of the major metros, otherwise he would be lower. Hrithik is in any case lower and tied with Akshay (which means as I’ve argued before that the prestige argument for him is a bit hollow).

Incidentally no one has pointed out that Abhishek does not figure at all on any of these lists. Now who will unpack this riddle?! I have an answer..

In general I should say that Aamir’s position was not at all surprising here. What surprised me was SRK not being present at all on a list of ‘accomplished actors’!

Devgan has done very well on some previous polls I’ve seen. He’s the poor man’s Aamir in some ways though he hasn’t had anything worthwhile in quite some time.

But here’s the thing. No serious poll gives SRK or Hrithik the kind of advantage over Aamir (let alone Bachchan) that many here argue for. If anything an India Today poll done before Guru had Abhishek as a more likely top star in the future than either SRK or Hrithik!
Comment by rks on 11 May 2008:

“In general I should say that Aamir’s position was not at all surprising here. What surprised me was SRK not being present at all on a list of ‘accomplished actors’!”

That is surprising considering the fact the most of the people hardly distinguish between popular and acting.
Comment by Jesse on 11 May 2008:

“a sample of 1045 people . when sample of some 18000 people coudlnot give right results for the general elections 04 or any elections how can one say this as conclusion in general .”

If a poll of that size was not accurate in predicting results, I would place more doubt on the how the poll was taken over the sample size itself (picking a “true” random sample may be the problem). Once we reach a certain point in sample size, the amount of error starts to decrease less. This is why most polls taken usually don’t pass 1500 in sample size.

http://www.whyfiles.org/009poll/math_primer.html
Comment by N I T E S H on 11 May 2008:

‘The most surprising results from the polls were Aamir coming a close second to Amitabh in most accomplished actor category (36% to 33%)’

While SRK follows bachchan in stardom, aamir follows bachchan as an accomplished actor in the poll.

what is surprising in this? This was as expected.

Akshay tops as the best action hero and lead by a considerable margin despite not doing any action film since last five years. Hardly surprising. But what is slightly surprising is that with just over an year of instant stardom, he has matched Hrithik’s popularity grown over the years.

The most surprising revealation imo, is Aish being voted All time favourite star over Madhuri. Sridevi comes at the end and gets only 2% vote. Madhubala too is languishing at the bottom of the pyramid.

I wonder why none of the debate is hovering around this aspect and as has been the trend on NG, has been used once again to bash SRK on one aspect of the poll while completely ignoring his other achievement.
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

“Abhishek was at the most recent conclave with Johar and Mira Nair. I put up the video here at the time. Not sure if you’re referring to something else after this.”

was he at the India Today Cocnclave ,Satyam?I thought only Aamir and Preity Zinta from Bollywood were there and spoke.

was he just there along with Johar or did speak something on India Cinema??
Comment by henry on 11 May 2008:

Nitesh, Aish should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Madhuri. The voters in this poll probably had a short memory and could not remember Madhuri’s vastly superior performances.
Comment by Fari on 11 May 2008:

Ash was voted most popular female star. Not too surprising because she has always been very popular. She doesn’t figure on the list as favorite actress where it is Kajol who figures over everyone.
Figure that one out.

Som, Abhishek spoke at India Conclave last year.
Comment by Simply Som on 11 May 2008:

“Som, Abhishek spoke at India Conclave last year”

Yeah I guessed so.. thanks!!

“Nitesh, Aish should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Madhuri. The voters in this poll probably had a short memory and could not remember Madhuri’s vastly superior performances.”

agree henry!!I found it indeed surprising not to see Madhuri at the top place when it comes to the favorite female star.I guess as she is not doing any work these days, people have somehow forgotten her past achievements and the craze,euphoria she managed to create at her peak period.
Comment by Myna on 11 May 2008:

Any poll whether scientifically done or not, is only a fun read for me and just a timepass. But I’ll not take the results of a single poll too seriously and think thats what the wide perception is in general. Ofcourse few people tend to take some polls seriously especially when the results match their opinion.
Comment by mgs on 11 May 2008:

“Who is the most accomplished of these actresses?”

this was the only question that had the word “these” in it…does that mean it was a multiple choice question?

and how is akshay kumar in the top 5 worst dressed?
Comment by Julie on 12 May 2008:

“I wonder why none of the debate is hovering around this aspect and as has been the trend on NG, has been used once again to bash SRK on one aspect of the poll while completely ignoring his other achievement.”

Very well spoken Nitesh. You show immense balance in your diagnosis as usual. Indeed, the results are being used to castigate one and only i.e. SRK and no thought has been put in either analyzing the rest of the results for ex. Ash emerging on the top and Madhuri as close No.2. Ash has only been in the news for good reasons since the past 1 and a half years only. 2 years back no one even considered her seriously. Besides a sample of 1045 is hardly a reliable sample. The results as I can see can be vastly spurious, no matter how scientifically the way polls are carried out. In a country with a population in excess of 1.2 bn, this sample indeed can give a very erroneous statistic.
Comment by jayshah on 12 May 2008:

‘Nitesh, Aish should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Madhuri.’

Agree which is why polls can be taken with a pinch of salt.
Comment by rudresh on 12 May 2008:

yes the method can have many problem as exact methodology is never told by the magazines.
but how the sample colletced and proportions of different age groups, how the questions were asked is not clarified.
I highly doubt that any resonable study can put kajol as most accomplished actress.
Comment by rudresh on 12 May 2008:

I belong to young INDIA and even then one can hardly forget nutan, wahida, smita and sabana azami leave aside the highly popular actresses.
Comment by jayshah on 12 May 2008:

‘Any poll whether scientifically done or not, is only a fun read for me and just a timepass. But I’ll not take the results of a single poll too seriously and think thats what the wide perception is in general. Ofcourse few people tend to take some polls seriously especially when the results match their opinion.’

Myna I do agree and really the discussion was more about ‘why’ such results were possible rather than saying everything is true! My first comment in relation to the poll related to the Kajol question and puts the results into dubious state.
Comment by jayshah on 12 May 2008:

‘I think partly all of us err to a degree when we take box office numbers to be the absolute truth on a star. leaving aside disagreements on the numbers perception does not always match proportionately with these.’

Absolutely. I remember the Film Journal or Film Info article on Karz not being a hit. Really as a novice to that generation of movies and not even being born, my perception thru media, mags, online, public whatever is the film’s a hit. And if the sample size of this survey is low, the actual number of people who follow the number crunching of movies is damn low aswell! ‘Perception’ or whatever one may call it is very important. It is very much like how well film’s age, hindsight or after thought. And really the public opinion will always be the most important when concerned with box office or positioning of star. The numbers can be used to further a debate, or evidence a particular debate, but if all the media articles are saying Akshay is #1 or SRK is #1, and by in large public opinion is the same, but numbers point to Hrithik (hypothetical example) then one can throw the numbers out the door!
Comment by satyam on 12 May 2008:

True…

I also agree that any such poll is always just a snapshot.. of course this is not going to be the first poll where I start questioning its credibility unlike some here!

I would however disagree on Madhuri/Ash. Not to underrate the Madhuri phenomenon at all (I am among the fans!) but Ash has occupied a rather unique role in Indian urban consciousness (one could argue whether she’s been universal or not in this sense) for quite some time now. I think she has symbolically been more potent than Madhuri ever was. But it was also Madhuri’s misfortune to be rather late to really capitalize on an earlier masala trope and too early to be part of the Yashraj wave. She was caught in between. But certainly she was more loved than most other top actresses.
Comment by satyam on 12 May 2008:

The other thing is that Madhuri never really got the films deserving of her talent and charms (excepting a few) because she had her peak years in one of the most impoverished ages of Hindi cinema. Watching Aaja Nachley I think she could still be used very well in a number of subjects. Unfortunately no one’s done this so far.