The method of star’s acting

IN the world of cinematic artistry, there exists a profound legacy known as the Indian School of Method Acting, pioneered by none other than the legendary actor Dilip Kumar. Hailed as the ‘ultimate method actor’ by the much-celebrated film-maker Satyajit Ray, Dilip Kumar’s contributions to the craft of acting are nothing short of remarkable. His school of method acting stands as a trail-blazing institution in cinematic acting, a one-of-a-kind contribution to the world of cinema.

While it may not be formalised as a textbook or academically recognised, it represents the journey of an ‘acting teacher’ who developed his theory through practical demonstrations in his films. Even today, it remains the cornerstone of cinematic acting in Indian cinema. Its influence is so enduring that no newcomer in film acting, or even the stalwarts, can thrive without studying the principles of this school and incorporating elements from the master’s vast inspirational repertoire.

According to Saira Banu: ‘Dilip Sahab has, in his illustrious career, refined acting to an art form of exalted brilliance. Down the decades, every actor of calibre has held him in high respect as the reference point in acting. He went to no school of acting but created his own method of emoting long before “method acting” came to be known in India or abroad.’

Actor Anupam Kher recalls: ‘One day he asked me: “Anup (as Dilip Kumar referred to Anupam), can you tell me what method acting is? Log mujhe bolte hain ki main method acting actor hoon (People tell me that I am a method acting actor). But I have no idea what it is.” “I know that you are pulling my leg. There is a method in acting and there is no method in acting. That’s all. You have become an actor now,” I replied. “No, no,” he laughed. “No, I am always aware of the fact that I am Dilip Kumar”.’

However, producer–director Yash Chopra, who made many a film with Dilip Kumar, differs. According to him: ‘Dilip Kumar is not a method actor as many cineastes think. He is a spontaneous actor who draws from his emotional reserves when he performs those marvellous dramatic scenes. I am saying this after watching him for fifty years or more. This alone was the reason why he had to seek the help of a psychiatrist to purge himself of the melancholy that had set in after all the tragic films he did in a row at the start of his stardom. In his personal life, he was a loner till he married Saira... He spent a lot of time reading and writing and working on the interpretation of the roles and screenplays that he selected.’

Dilip Kumar himself did not know how he came to be known as a method actor. He said: ‘Marlon Brando [the acclaimed Hollywood actor] was called a method actor... The epithet was used to describe me much before it was used for Brando. [Brando started work much later — first in theatre with Elia Kazan’s Broadway hit A Streetcar Named Desire in 1946 and his debut film was The Men in 1950]. The truth is that I am an actor who evolved a method, which stood me in good stead. I learned the importance of studying the script and characters deeply and building on my own gut observations and sensations about my own and others’ characters. It was always meaningful for me to study even those characters who would be close to me or opposed to me. I was also lucky to have worked with directors who trusted me and allowed me to work without restraint. They believed as much as I did in the necessity of teamwork.’

Dilip Kumar’s method brought about a revolutionary change in the portrayal of the Indian hero. He showcased the hero in his finest form, drawing from his vast array of histrionics.

According to actor Kamal Haasan: ‘It was during a conversation with Ramesh Sippy before I started work in his film Saagar (1985), that he asked me to ‘see Gunga Jumna before you start work in Saagar. It will help you’... I have some of the scenes from the film eternally embedded in my psyche. I am and always will be amazed by the layers of emotions he evoked in the viewer. I must admit that it was after films such as Gunga Jumna, Mughal-e-Azam, Devdas, Kohinoor and many other unforgettable classics of his that I began to understand the meaning of subtlety. I was able to appreciate the Western actors and the refinement of their acting also. ’

Amitabh Bachchan explains that ‘no art in the entire universe can ever exist, flourish, or even take birth without an “unconscious assimilation” of influence that eventually propels it to its creation. Writers, poets, painters, artists of any category need stimulation from what they may have encountered during the process of their creativity. If you attribute my source of influence to be Mr Dilip Kumar, then that would be the biggest compliment you could pay me, because I believe that he is, what was and is correct, right and the best’.

Rishi Kapoor described a scene at the iconic RK Studios where he was shooting for Raj Kapoor’s Prem Rog (1982): ‘I had to bring the intense expression of a despondent lover, and as hard as I tried, Raj Kapoor the director was not getting the look he wanted, which was irritating him. Then he shouted at me, ‘Mujhe Yousaf chahiye [I want Yousaf]. I want you to give the look Yousaf would have given in this situation. I want that look when his eyes express love, his intensity, his realism.’ The unit was silent. Nobody could believe that he was talking about his professional rival Dilip Kumar. I think it was the ultimate acknowledgement of the actor-director Raj Kapoor for Yousuf uncle’s unmatched ability to portray love with all its agony and ecstasy. It was possible only because they had that kind of genuine respect and love for each other. Will you hear Shah Rukh [Khan] say that about Salman [Khan] or vice versa?’

Naseeruddin Shah, who shared the screen with Dilip Kumar in Subhash Ghai’s Karma (1986), once sparked a debate in a critical assessment of Dilip Kumar’s legacy. In an article, he recalled an incident where Kumar had advised him to abandon his film aspirations, stating, ‘People from decent families don’t join the film business.’ Yet, years later, Shah provocatively questioned whether Kumar’s example as a star was truly worth emulating. He raised the point whether Dilip Kumar genuinely pushed the boundaries of artistic progress or, instead, contributed to the industry’s decline into a culture of star-centric mediocrity — one where celebrity-eclipsed craft and stardom frequently took precedence over substance.

Method acting as a formal discipline owes its origin to Konstantin Stanislavsky, a Russian visionary, often heralded as the world’s foremost theoretician of dramatic arts. Stanislavsky’s school of method acting strove to bring characters to life by connecting with the essence of the human spirit on stage.

Whether it was Dilip Kumar’s unique Indian method or Hollywood’s iconic method acting, the dedication to his craft continued to captivate audiences, ignorant about any method acting; those were incredible scenes which are fresh in our minds even today after decades. Scenes where emotions were real, where it seemed to be all happening, where we all sang in depression and sadness as he lip-synced Mohammad Rafi’s songs, where we all had moist eyes and silently cried when he lost his love or died.

— Excerpted from ‘The Man Who Became Cinema’ by Ashok Chopra, published by Penguin Random House