@Mamu0797

7 months ago

I think what he means is that the dialogues, no matter how naturally they are written, usually tend to be too perfect to emulate a real world conversation. Two very good actors can get very well into their respective characters and speak their lines effortlessly, but since a scene is "setup" to have a particular kind of feel, sometimes, it may become rhythmic. "Rhythmic" need not necessarily mean poetic or "Mugha-e-azam" type of dialogues.

Having said that, even a regular conversation between a dad and a son, when shown on the screen can become rhythmic if the actors are "over-prepared" or too committed to the lines than the scene. Let us say you are watching a scene where a son is supposed to answer his dad about his progress report. The dialogues are all already written. If the actor playing the son or the father, has focussed too much on the delivery of the dialogue and the expressions that he needs to give in that scene, it can so happen that irrespective of what the son says, the father will spit out the same prepared line with a well-prepared intonation, and vice-versa. But let us say, one the actors took an extra pause, or changed their modulation to suit a real life conversation, or modified a line a bit, the actor is forced to improv and think what his character would do in real life. Then, that scene is no longer rhythmic.

What great actors like Irrfan do is find their own ways to make the dialogue less "staged." This can be either through small pauses, or subtle expressions, which Irrfan was very good at. Or, it can be through some improvisation, which forces the other actor to break out of his/her rhythm.

I feel that versatility or taking same type of roles is not what Gulshan means here by rhythm. That is a different thing. It is more of a movie-to-movie choice.

5 | 2