Author: Amborish Roychoudhury

  • A legend called Renu Saluja

    A legend called Renu Saluja

    What’s common between Parinda and Ardh Satya? Or Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro and Hyderabad Blues, Pardes and 1942: A Love Story? Her name was Renu Saluja. Renu was the creative force behind at least a quarter of all “parallel” movies made in the 80s and 90s. As a point of fact, her roster as a film editor is more illustrious than many filmmakers. Like Naseeruddin Shah said at the launch of the aptly-named book on her called Invisible: The Art of Renu Saluja, “She was much more than an editor. She was a filmmaker.”

    Renu Saluja is like a mythical figure who features prominently in any discussion around serious cinema in the 80s. She features in every book, every interview, every scrap of text ever written about those films and their makers. But she was on the sidelines of most of those stories. Everyone mentioned her, every anecdote featured her, but she never became as well-known as many of her collaborators. Film editing has never been a well-regarded craft in this country.

    An editor is someone who translates the director’s vision to the screen, in effect almost “making” a film all over again. Satyajit Ray had once said, “Editing is the stage where a film really begins to come to life.” And yet, in the rich century-old history of cinema in this country, editors never became stars the way directors, music directors, lyricists, even some cinematographers did. For the most part, they remained obscure. Precious few would know or even care that Sholay was edited by M. S. Shinde, Mother India by Shamsudin Qadri, and Mughal-E-Azam by this gentleman named Dharamvir. Probably the only star editor the industry has seen was Hrishikesh Mukherjee, but that was more because of his successful shift to directing. Again, a lesser-known fact: the last film Hrishikesh Mukherjee edited was Manmohan Desai’s Coolie.

    In this eclectic mix is thrown Renu Saluja. Unlike most of her male counterparts – she was likely India’s first female film editor – her work has been spoken and written about extensively. And yet, she remains a familiar name outside the fraternity only amongst film buffs. Renu has not only edited the likes of Albert Pinto ko Gussa Kyon Aata Hai, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro, Ardh Satya, Parinda, she has also been instrumental in the making of many of these indie classics. One of the most pertinent examples is Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro. Renu had been involved since the time the film was a germ in Kundan Shah’s beautiful brain. Kundan was assisting Saeed Mirza on Albert Pinto and Renu was editing. This is when Kundan, Sudhir Mishra, Vidhu Vinod Chopra and his wife Renu Saluja started hanging out. At the pre-natal stage, it was Renu along with her husband who kept encouraging Kundan, listened to early narrations, gave constant feedback and brought co-writer Ranjit Kapoor on board.

    Renu was present on the sets every single day, ensuring she never becomes a hindrance and helping out wherever she could. She even played a cameo as one of the burqa-clad women whose veil Pankaj Kapur lifts if she were the dead Demello and gets a resounding slap in return. When there were doubts over Pankaj’s suitability of playing a man older than he was, it was Renu who went out looking for glasses for him. But on top of all that, she came in with a certain amount of smarts as an editor, which helped the film immensely. As Naseer liked to say, the amount of footage that was discarded would have made a whole other film! Renu was also credited as assistant director on Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro. She continued the practice of going to sets every day for most of the projects. Saeed Mirza used to shoot at places like Dongri, Kamathipura and Nagpada where they were constantly surrounded by tough men and often anti-social elements. But Renu didn’t once flinch. She wasn’t scared or intimidated by anyone, nor did she look down upon any of them.

    A film’s raw footage can often appear messy and disjointed. The editor’s impact on this kind of material is quite magical. She can transform it into a timeless classic. Vidhu Vinod Chopra said during an interview: “Some films I saw before they were cut and after they were cut. A film like Bandit Queen, I saw the five-hour thing and I thought it was okay. It made no impression on me. Ardh Satya made no impression on me, when it was at that stage. Her contribution was absolutely immense. I think she put those films where they deserved to be. She was very good at what she was doing, because that’s what she was living for.”

    While reminiscing about her in Invisible: The Art of Renu Saluja, Om Puri wrote, “She once complained that we actors had no sense of continuity and that she had a tough time whilst editing Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro. I murmured sheepishly that we were new then.” Renu Saluja had received the National Film Award for editing not once or twice, but four times:  for Parinda, Dharavi, Sardar and Godmother. Interestingly, when it all started, Renu was a staunch mainstream film fan, listening to Hindi songs constantly and playing Antakshari all the time. She followed her sister to FTII. He sister Radha Saluja was an actress, having worked in films like Haar Jeet (1972), Ek mutthi Aasmaan (1973), and Aaj Ki Taaza Khabar (1973). Contrary to popular perception, Renu’s first credit in Hindi films was as an assistant director on Aaj ki Taaza Khabar, much before she went to FTII. It was her intention at this point to learn film direction. But she couldn’t be accommodated in the direction course and ended up enrolling for the editing course. By the time she graduated, the scenario in Hindi cinema was in for major overhaul. While the old guard still remained, a whole new generation came into the movies hoping to change it for the better.

    Renu Saluja was at the heart of these changes, and she was working with most of this new gang of directors: Sudhir Mishra (Yeh Woh Manzil To Nahin, Main Zinda Hoon, Dharavi), Vidhu Vinod Chopra (Murder at Monkey Hill, Sazaye Maut, Khamosh, Parinda, Kareeb, 1942: A Love Story), Saeed Mirza (Albert Pinto ko Guzza Kyon Aata Hai, Mohan Joshi Hazir Ho), Mahesh Bhatt (Janam), and subsequently Shekhar Kapur (Bandit Queen), Dev Benegal (Split Wide Open) and Nagesh Kukunoor (Hyderabad Blues, Rockford, Bollywood Calling). It is safe to say that all of these films were significantly impacted by Saluja’s skill as a talented editor.

    Another great legacy of Renu Saluja lies in the stardom of Shah Rukh Khan. When Shah Rukh was at the very beginning of his career and scouting for work, it was Renu who spotted the talent in this boy on seeing his TV serial Fauji and kept recommending him to everyone she knew. Everyone including Ketan Mehta, Kundan Shah and Aziz Mirza had considered Shah Rukh for their films because, among other things, it was the great Renu Saluja who was recommending. Shah Rukh was flabbergasted with this name he kept hearing. Who was Renu? He didn’t know her. Many years later they might have encountered each other on the sets of Pardes. But Shah Rukh regretted not taking out the time to spend more time with her, get to know this incredible woman who kept asking everyone around them to bet on a newcomer who she didn’t even know personally.

    When she passed away due to cancer at just 48, Renu Saluja left broken hearts and classic films in her wake. It’s been 22 years since her demise, and it’s high time she is recognized for the legend that she truly was.

     

    Renu Saluja (Jul 5, 1952 – Aug 16, 2000)
    
    
  • Ritwik Ghatak and the Lost Art of Self-Destruction

    Ritwik Ghatak and the Lost Art of Self-Destruction

    This was around 1955. Ritwik Ghatak was in Bombay, sharing his living quarters with Hrishikesh Mukherjee. Producer Shashadhar Mukherjee had him employed at Filmistan Studios, writing stories and scripts for them. Ritwik had just been married to Surama Bhattacharjee. He wrote to his young bride, who was working at a school in the northeastern hill station of Shillong:

    “…it’s upsetting when I see the way they work. Truth be told, there is no work at all, I just have to write a bit of rubbish once in a way and go sit in office from 10 AM to 5 PM…. I just have to grit my teeth and keep trying to earn some money. I don’t know if I’ll be successful, but nothing else is possible here. Doing good work, doing my kind of work, showing what I am capable of and trying to establish myself, all of that looks out of reach right now. I just have to find a way to earn a monthly salary….look, Lokkhi, this life is not for us. Working for money is not something I have done before and it’s disgusting to me. Somehow, if I can pay off my debt of around Rs.1000 and be in a position to pay Bhupathi 100 Rs. month for a year or so, I will leave all this. This can’t go on. I look around me and see that even people who earn three or four thousand rupees a month are not happy. But I have found peace in doing the kind of work I like without earning so much as a paisa.”

    Having just married, the couple planned to start a new life, with her earning a salary as a school teacher, and him encashing his storytelling skills working in Filmistan. But the ‘job’ was tugging away at his gut. He was told he should try and write something that was more ‘Bombay-like’. Ritwik was disgusted. But he kept at it, trying to keep his head down and just do the work he was being paid for, like millions of people did every day – and still do. He was also biding his time till he could save enough and return to Calcutta and be back to ‘struggling’ as an independent artist. Struggle. A favourite word of the leftist intellectual, especially back in those days. And Ritwik Ghatak was a walking, talking, breathing embodiment of this.

    He ended up righting stories for his friend and roommate Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s debut directorial venture, Musafir (1957) and for his revered Bimal Da’s Madhumati (1958). Bimal Da, who broke into the scene with Udayer Pathe/ Humrahi (1944), a production of New Theatres, Calcutta and marked for its unusual representation of caste disparity. And then, the moment he created his own banner, he created the seminal Do Bigha Zameen (1953), which was a spiritual descendant to Vittorio De Sica’s Bicycle Thieves (1948). It followed that the young rebellious filmmakers and playwrights would look up to him. Bimal Roy was a poster boy for them. Was Ritwik’s anguish also caused by this giant of a filmmaker hiring him and having him write a reincarnation love story? He indicates in other letters to ‘Lokkhi’, which was Surama’s nickname, a number of concepts that germinated in his head but had to be nipped in the bud because they were not commercial enough, not ‘Bombay enough’.

    “I have planned a story for Filmistaan. I like it very much. An atomic research scientist falls asleep while doing his research, dreaming about a future world where a universal scientific community has taken shape. Of course, I have to keep space for a lot of song and dance and romance, and melodrama; I have to put in all the ingredients of a Bombay film.” He even wanted to consult legendary astrophysicist Dr. Meghnad Saha, so that his story had that ring of authenticity. But we know such a film never saw the light of the day. Shashadhar Mukherjee didn’t approve of it. There’s also an apocryphal story of him going to watch a trial show of Madhumati, which sealed the deal for Ritwik’s future career prospects in Bombay. He had just entered the theatre. The show had begun. One glance at the film and he knew this life wasn’t for him. There was no point in lying to himself anymore. He returned to Calcutta, bag and baggage. If he stayed back, he’d have seen the phenomenal success of Madhumati, and the untold riches and fame that would have obviously followed. And here’s the rub: Ritwik Ghatak hated ‘success’ with a vengeance. And in 2020, this is not any easier to understand than it was back then, in the 1950s. Every serious film director worth their salt has waxed eloquent on how Art is about not giving in to the system, about avoiding compromise at all costs. But Ritwik is probably the only filmmaker who took it all the way.

    Upon returning to Calcutta, he made a bevy of films where he gave vent to his maverick spirit and uncompromising vision. Partition was a tragedy that had left deep scars in his soul. To him, it was a tragedy his fellow Bengalis, especially those from East Bengal, never quite recovered from. Each of his characters was reeling from the rootlessness he experienced all his life. But also his disillusionment and anger. In a scene from Subarnarekha (1962), Abhiram, who writes about the pain, filth and sadness he sees around him, has been turned down by an editor for the umpteenth time. He says to his wife, “Everyone is willing to suffer. You can see it all around. But try to tell them about it, and they run away.” Ritwik himself had similar things to say in his classic meditation on filmmaking, Cinema and I:

    “My coming to films has nothing to do with making money. Rather, it is out of a volition for expressing my pangs and agonies about my suffering people. That is why I have come to cinema. I do not believe in ‘entertainment’ as they say it, or slogan mongering. Rather I believe in thinking deeply of the universe, the world at large, the international situations, my country and finally my own people. I make films for them. I may be a failure. That is for the people to judge..” And he didn’t care much whether the audience loved his work. Expressing what he wanted to say was more important. He said in an interview, “I have never made films for others. Truth be told, I don’t care if you dislike my films. I will do what I want to do, I will not go beyond that….Till I am alive, I can never compromise. Had it been possible, I would have done it much earlier, and would have sat pretty like a good boy. But I have not been able to do it so far, and nor will I ever be able to do it in the future. I will either live like that, or die trying.”

    Whether it’s Bimal in Ajantrik (1958), Nita in Meghe Dhaka Tara (1960) or Ishwar in Subarnarekha, each one of his major protagonists go through unspeakable pain and yet don’t quite achieve what they set out to achieve. When Ishwar (Abhi Bhattacharya) tries to hang himself, his old friend Haraprasad (Bijon Bhattacharjee) barges in. Later Haraprasad tells him – “Our failure is complete. We cannot even kill ourselves.” And just like his characters, Ritwik kept writhing in pain. Surama left him and took the kids along. It was obviously impossible to live with a man like that, who refuses to make even the basic adjustments necessary for survival. He drank country hooch and smoked beedi. Nabarun Bhattacharjee, the son of his friend Bijon and ace litterateur Mahashweta Devi, once spoke of how Ritwik shamelessly asked money to buy alcohol. Nabarun had just 18 paise left in his pocket. “What can you buy with this?”…”One peg of country liquor!” pat came the reply. His friend Bijon Bhattacharya often was the most striking aspect of his films. He would play Ritwik Ghatak’s stand-in, and say with a lot of pathos the things that Ritwik wanted to verbalise himself. He steps in as Nita’s father in Meghe Dhaka Tara, one of the theatre actors in Komol Gandhar (1961), and Ishwar’s friend Haraprasad in Subarnarekha. A brilliant actor, Bijon would prance about the frame, fuming and spouting poetry, mythology, chants and everyday truths – every time the camera fell short to express the things Ritwik wanted to talk about.

    In his last film Jukti Takko aar Golpo (Reason, Debate and a Story; 1974), Nilkantha (played by Ritwik himself) frustrates his wife so much with his idealism that she has to leave him. Much like his real life counterpart, Ritwik’s Nilkantha is left alone, licking his wounds and drinking himself to oblivion. There was a time he lived with Biswajeet Chatterjee (Bengali superstar Prosenjit’s father, he had a fairly successful run as a leading man in 1960s Bollywood). Biswajeet offered to remake Meghe Dhaka Tara, Ghatak’s most successful film, in Hindi. Plenty of moneys were offered. But Ritwik dragged his feet at the last hour. He refused for his film to be made in Hindi. It is said that even Rajesh Khanna, of all people, approached him with an offer, but was turned down. Ironically, Meghe Dhaka Tara inspired Tamil filmmaker K. Balachander to make his own version of it, Aval Oru Thodar Kathai (She is a Never-ending Story; 1974), with substantial modifications. The film was so successful that it gave rise to a franchise of its own, with it being remade in a number of languages, each version a huge box office draw. The Balachander version had a Hindi remake, Jeevan Dhara(1982) as well as a Bengali remake, Kabita (1977), featuring Kamal Hassan in his only appearance in a Bengali film. Ritwik of course didn’t live to see any of this. But he did live long enough to witness his protégé Mani Kaul being successful. By his own admission, the most glorious years of Ritwik Ghatak’s life were spent in the Pune Film Institute (FTII, Pune, now) where his shadow still looms large. Stories abound of how he used to sit under the Wisdom Tree with his talented chelas like Mani Kaul and Kumar Shahani, sharing with them the secrets of the universe. But when has a tiger changed its stripes? He used to turn up for screenings drunk, and when a good scene came up, he used to raise a din. It was for his students to make note of the great scene. He was made a director of the Institute. He was getting the recognition, the respect he craved, and there was money too. This would have turned the tide of his life. But he couldn’t stand it.

    When Ritwik joined Surama in Shillong, she thought he was there to take them along to Pune. The news of him getting on well at FTII had filled her with hope. But he revealed he had resigned from his post and left Pune for good. Surama was crestfallen. Around the late 60s, Ritwik’s alcoholism had intensified and his mind had started unraveling. He reported hallucinating women covered with blood. Women he referred to as the ‘Spirit of Bangladesh’. He was being given electric shock therapy. Ritwik Ghatak was an extraordinary man, and his extraordinariness had finally caught up with him and he spiralled into insanity. There were extended periods of lucidity where he gave the impression of having been cured. It was during these intervals that he made Titash Ekti Nodir Naam (1973) and Jukti Takko aar Goppo, the latter representing exceptional heights of creativity. And yet Jukti Takko aar Goppo depicted him the way he was. Around early 1976, Ritwik Ghatak was admitted to Calcutta Medical Hospital. But Surama had seen too much of this by now. She refused to come. On 6 February 1976, Ritwik Ghatak’s journey culminated, finally. He was at peace.

    Editor-filmmaker Arjun Gourisaria reminisced to online film magazine Cinemaazi that when he used to walk through the FTII campus as a new student, the seniors would say, “Zameen pe nazar rakh ke chal, yahan Ghatak chala karta thha!” (Keep your eyes on the ground, Ghatak used to walk here.) Such is the legend, the cult of the man. But despite all the aura around him as a filmmaker, Ritwik didn’t particularly care about the medium of film either. He said, “Looking back I can say that I have no love lost with the film medium. I just want to convey whatever I feel about the reality around me and I want to shout. Cinema still seems to be the ideal medium for this because it can reach umpteen billions once the work is done. That is why I make films—not for their own sake but for the sake of my people. They say that television may soon take its place. It may reach out to millions more. Then I will kick the cinema over and turn to T.V.!”

     

    Ritwik Ghatak (Nov 04, 1925 – Feb 06, 1976)

    https://filmcriticscircle.com/journal/ritwik-ghatak/

     

  • Dogged Intensity—the biopics of Richard Attenborough

    Dogged Intensity—the biopics of Richard Attenborough

    Out of the twelve films Richard Attenborough directed in his lifetime, seven were biographical pictures, a genre that has come to be labeled as the ‘biopic’. In a marathon interview given to John Gallagher in the year 1992, Attenborough explains his fixation with the genre: “I’m fascinated by the people who have changed our attitude towards accepted authority, accepted criteria in relation to the manner in which we conduct our lives and our supposed civilised society. I’m fascinated by those who’ve revealed things to us in terms of human relationship in the way we view each other’s problems and so on…”

    Attenborough had debuted as an actor at the age of 18 in the British propaganda war film In Which We Serve (1942). Actor, composer and playwright Noel Coward was hell-bent on directing the film. Since he didn’t have any experience in directing, it was suggested that he hire a remarkable editor. The best editor in all of England at the time was a young man named David Lean. Eventually Noel was bowled over by David’s talent, enough to co-direct the film with him. And that’s how David Lean and Richard Attenborough debuted with the same film. Both prolific directors, both known for their obsession with the Orient. But they never worked together again.

    Richard Attenborough’s life and work was a series of serendipities that fuelled his energies and his talent. His depiction of the sinister conman Pinkie Brown in Brighton Rock (1948), a film noir, made him a star overnight. The next two decades were filled with one classic role after another – I’m All Right Jack (1959), The Great Escape (1963), Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964), and Guns at Batasi (1964). He set up a film production company with his friend and fellow actor Bryan Forbes under which they made films that allowed Attenborough to attempt new kind of roles, like in The League of Gentlemen (1959) and The Angry Silence (1961). He happened upon a biography of Mahatma Gandhi by Louis Fischer. He was deeply affected by Gandhi’s life and work. He was reminded of his father, who also was an admirer of Gandhi and who, many years previously, had taken little Richard to watch a newsreel of Gandhi’s visit to India. This was when he started obsessing over making a film about Gandhi. Motilal Kothari, an Indian civil servant who worked with the Indian High Commission at London, got in touch with Attenborough to discuss a project on Gandhi. Attenborough, who was already primed for it, jumped at the idea. He was 39 and a successful producer but hadn’t started directing yet. He began developing the script. He was so consumed by the idea that he told everyone including his co-stars. Shirley Maclaine, his colleague from The Bliss of Mrs. Blossom (1968), said in an interview that Attenborough kept discussing Gandhi throughout the time they spent off screen. In fact he was spending so much money on developing the project that he said he could “barely pay the gas bill”.

    Attenborough also met the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, with the script on which he was working. Nehru encouraged him, but with a word of caution. He said, “Make a film… don’t deify him. That’s all we do in India. He’s too great a man to be deified… but make a film about him. He was a man, not a god or a saint!” On a side note, Nehru said this in the early 60s. But even today, more than 50 years later, most Indian biopics are just that —deified eulogies.

    It was around this time that he got a call from actor John Mills about directing a film called Oh! What a Lovely War (1969). Attenborough loved the script but he was curious: why him? John said, “We either ought to have a director who knew everything, or one who knew absolutely nothing!”

    In the meanwhile, Nehru, who Attenborough was counting on to help with the film on Gandhi, passed away in 1964. Within a span of just 6 years, Motilal Kothari also breathed his last. Under the circumstances, it might have been prudent to give up on the biopic altogether. But Richard Attenborough kept at it, and was more determined than ever to realise his dream project.

    But it was Attenborough’s second directorial feature that would become his first attempt at a biopic. Young Winston (1972) followed the exploits of a young Winston Churchill, based in part on his own book My Early Life. For the titlular role, he chose a relatively unknown stage actor named Simon Ward. The film starts with him in India, in the middle of the Sikhs and the British fighting Pashtuns in the Northwest Frontier Province in 1897. There is a flashback to his childhood years, followed by scenes of Churchill in battles in Sudan and later in South Africa. The film was a great success, and the leading man Simon Ward became a star. Simon went on to appear in a number of roles in the next 46 years, the most recent one being as Bishop Stephen Gardiner in the historical television drama The Tudors.

    As he completed two more films, A Bridge Too Far (1977) and Magic (1978), Attenborough renewed his attempt at making Gandhi. The script was almost ready, but financing the film proved to be a bottleneck. Warner Brothers and MGM Studios had agreed to back the project, but eventually backed out. The newly-formed National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) stepped up and with the backing of D.V.S. Raju, the chairman of NFDC, the film eventually secured financing. By the time Attenborough was ready to roll cameras, it was November 1980.

    The fact that Richard Attenborough, a major Hollywood star (While his directorial work was reasonably well-received, at this point Attenborough was more of an A-list Hollywood actor rather than a star director. This was soon going to change.) was making a film on Mahatma Gandhi had spread through the by-lanes of Indian filmdom. When he was casting for the film, a young Naseeruddin Shah was considered for the role of Gandhi. He was given a ticket to London, where the audition was supposed to happen. Shah said in an interview that he was confident that he would bag the role. Where else will they get a better actor who suits the part? In fact, the Indian media flashed it on the headlines that Naseer had actually got the role. This further reinforced Naseer’s confidence. This was the first time he had been to London, and he had a blast. He was made to stay in a hotel in Oxford street and travel in a Rolls Royce, and was given some money to spend. When Naseer was taken to Shepperton Studios for the test, he met Ben Kingsley for the first time. As soon as he set his eyes on Ben, Naseer knew he was the right man for the part. A test was conducted, but by this time Naseer was convinced that Ben looked more like Gandhi than himself, and he was indeed more suited to portray the role. He also watched Ben’s audition, which further confirmed his thoughts. Naseer admitted later that he didn’t think he could do a better job than Ben Kingsley at that time.

    Ben Kingsley’s (born Krishna Bhanji) paternal family was from the Indian state of Gujarat, the same state Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was from. Ben Kingsley prepared for his role by studying newsreel footage of Gandhi, reading books on and by the man, dieting, losing weight, practicing Yoga and learning to spin thread just as Gandhi did. It was Michael Attenborough, Richard Attenborough’s son, who recommended Ben Kingsley to his father. Some other casting choices were interesting.

    Daniel Day Lewis played a street-smart ruffian named Colin who bullies Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi when he was in South Africa. It was Lewis’ second film. Exactly 30 years later, he played another giant of world politics, Abraham Lincoln, in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012).

    Martin Sheen, the star of major Hollywood films like Apocalypse Now, The Departed, Spider Man and Catch Me If You Can, played the role of American reporter Vince Walker. The character was fictional, and was partly based on real life journalist and war correspondent Webb Miller.

    Attenborough’s doggedness which kept him attached to the project regardless of the setbacks, also reflected in his storytelling and approach to directing. There were some light moments as well. Quite literally. There was much concern expressed about how such a revered figure as Gandhi, a virtual deity to many Indians, would or should be portrayed on screen. Someone, in all seriousness, suggested that Gandhi should only be shown as a brilliant white light moving across the screen(!) An exasperated Attenborough snapped back: “I am not making a film about bloody Tinkerbell!”

    The shoot was so detailed and so elaborate that every actor, including the extras, was checked for whether they were wearing any modern garments or footwear, and everyone was given 1930s style haircuts. The hairdressers were mostly women, and many of the men (who were villagers) objected to this as they were not used to strange women touching them. Amongst all the hoopla and idiosyncrasies, the film was eventually made and released in December 1982. It became an instant sensation. It became one of the highest grossing foreign films of all time in India. Critics gave sparkling reviews, and it swept the Oscars the next year, winning as many as 8 awards in various categories. When Richard Attenborough left England to make Gandhi, he was a great star who happened to be a good director. By the time he went back, he was an internationally acclaimed filmmaker.

    Attenborough made five more films on historical characters, three of which could be said to conform with the form and feel of a biopic: Shadowlands, Grey Owl and Chaplin. Shadowlands (1993) is about C.S. Lewis, the writer of the fantasy series The Chronicles of Narnia, and his relationship with Joy Davidman Gresham, an American Poet. Grey Owl (1999) talks about a British man who becomes a Native American trapper, played by an early Pierce Brosnan. But after Gandhi if there’s one biopic that matched it brilliance and earned Attenborough great fanfare and admiration, it was Chaplin (1992). Robert Downey Jr. is primarily known today for playing a certain ‘genius, playboy, billionaire, philanthropist’, but the film that turned the tide of RDJ’s career was Chaplin. After hitting the marquee as a teen actor with films like Weird Science (1985), RDJ became the darling of primetime television when he played the romantic interest of the lead character in Ally McBeal. But even before that, Attenborough surprised everyone by casting the 27 year-old Downey Jr. as Chaplin. The studio wanted better bets like Robin Williams or Billy Crystal. Even the virtually unknown stand-up comedian-turned-actor Jim Carrey was also considered for the role. But it was Attenborough’s doggedness at play again. He stuck to his guns, and Robert Downey Jr. became a brilliant Chaplin. He infused the character with verve, charm and flamboyance to such an extent that even today, post-Iron Man, it is inconceivable of any other actor playing Charlie Chaplin on-screen. Other than Chaplin himself.

     


    Photo credits
    Richard Attenborough at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival

     

  • Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay — Vagabond Messiah

    Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay — Vagabond Messiah

    Which author holds the distinction of being the most adapted writer in the cinema of India? Shakespeare? Tagore? Premchand? Or, perhaps, Dharmvir Bharati? We Indians have never demonstrated excessive love for adaptations. Thus, if one were to list the most iconic litterateurs of the subcontinent, it would be noticed that quite a few of them, such as C. Rajagopalachari, Sarojini Naidu, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, Suryakant Tripathi, Amitav Ghosh, and Anita Desai have not a single proper film adaptation to their name. There is however [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]one Indian writer whose works have been incessantly adapted, in multiple languages, and across the country — Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay.[/highlight]

    IMDB lists 77 titles with Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay credited as writer. It includes films in five languages, spanning 97 years and encompassing filmmakers as diverse as Bimal Roy, Mehul Kumar, Crossbelt Mani, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Anurag Kashyap, Basu Chatterjee, Ajoy Kar, and Adurthi Subba Rao. In fact, in just two years’ time, Sarat Chandra adaptations would have completed a whole century in the film industry.

    Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay
    Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay

    Sarat himself led a spectacularly fascinating life. During his early days at Bhagalpur, he was so enamoured by the writings of English authors like Charles Dickens, Henry Wood and Marie Corelli, that he himself adopted the pseudonym “St. C. Lara”. Apparently, the St. and C referred to his first name Sarat and middle name Chandra. His mother Bubanmohini Debi passed away when he was only 19. By then, the bug of writing had bit him hard, and he started penning stories in Bengali for local magazines. His father Motilal Chattopadhyay, of extremely humble means, managed to get him a job at the local zamindar’s estate. But Sarat wasn’t at all happy with the work, and following an argument with his father, the former left home.

    Sometime later, [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay was discovered in the guise of a sanyasi, standing in the Muzaffarpur office of a popular magazine those days, called Bharatvarsha. In flawless Hindi, he requested to be furnished with writing materials. He was out of pen and paper.[/highlight] He was carrying a notebook, and the pages of that notebook were filled with countless stories. He was shipped back to his hometown.

    Radharani Devi. Photo courtesy: https://www.anandabazar.com

    Around this time, certain accounts mention a lover, a young widow who had captured his imagination. He kept alluding to her in various letters, without explicitly revealing who she was. Apparently, at the behest of this lady love, Sarat sailed for Rangoon in search of a livelihood. According to Radharani Devi, a close confidante of Sarat Chandra and a fiery feminist (back in the early 20th century, she wrote pieces on whether the “dignity” of a woman could be tied to her being a virgin), this mystery woman in Sarat’s live was probably Nirupama Devi, who was widowed as a child and spent a lifetime of rituals and strict rules that were painfully inflicted on Brahmin widows of the time. In his own writings, notably, Charitraheen and Srikanto, Sarat portrayed the state of young widows in Bengal but always fell short of getting them married. It has been hinted that this was because the woman he was in love with never got a chance at such liberation.

    Sarat Chandra remained in Rangoon till 1916, and it was during this phase that he got married to Shanti Devi. They were blessed with their first child, a son. But within a year, Shanti Devi and her infant child were claimed by the great plague of 1908. Two years later, Sarat got married again, this time to a widow. They were childless and stayed married till the end of his days. [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]It was after his second marriage that Sarat truly flourished as a literary genius. His new bride, Hironmoyee, was an illiterate but provided the fuel for his creative output.[/highlight] Saratchandra was in his late 30s. In an incredible burst of prolificity, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay produced some of his best works in the next 25 years. Even while in Rangoon, in just the first two years he wrote works like Ramer Shumoti, Bindur Chhele, Naarir Mulyo and Charitraheen. Almost all of these books had formidable women characters, and the male characters seemed to pale in comparison. This remained a hallmark of Sarat’s writing throughout his oeuvre.

    Sarat was back in Bengal and within a few years, the stage adaptations began. It was the golden age of Bengali theatre, and the great theatrical genius Sisir Kumar Bhaduri was prancing about on the stages of Calcutta. Sisir Kumar adapted his story Shoroshi for the theatre and it was a raging hit. Sarat later wrote about it to his soul-sister Radharani Devi, speaking about Sisir in glowing terms. The first film adaptation of his work—Andhare Alo (1922)—was also directed by Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. The silent film was co-directed by Naresh Mitra, who within six years made the first adaptation of Devdas (1928). This was followed by Dhirendranath Ganguly’s adaptation of Charitraheen (1931).

    This was the time when a young filmmaker from Assam, Pramathesh Chandra Barua, was experimenting with the new technology of “talkie” films, in Calcutta, and for the first time there was the question of which language to make films in. Barua made the first “talkie” adaptation of Devdas (1935) in Bengali, with him playing the eponymous character. It was an instant sensation. In the following year, Barua directed the Hindi version, with singer-actor Kundan Lal Saigal playing the hero. The Hindi version was an even bigger hit. A Tamil version was made in the year after that. Danseuse and filmmaker Vedantam Raghavaiah made a Telugu/ Tamil bilingual in 1953. It had Telugu superstar Akkineni Nageswara Rao reprising the iconic role. The film became a milestone. Devdas Mukherjee, a jolted, ill-fated lover with a penchant for self-harm, had become the darling of the masses.

    But Sarat himself did not think too highly of this work. While he was in Rangoon, his friend Pramathanath Bhattacharya tried to coax him into publishing Devdas, which he had written way back in 1901. Sarat responded, “Don’t even think of it. It was written in a drunken state. I am ashamed of the book now. It is immoral…” But Pramathanath convinced him and eventually it was published in the former’s magazine, Bharatvarsha, in 1917.

    [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]It has been more than a hundred years, but Indian cinema’s obsession with the character hasn’t dissipated.[/highlight] The cinematographer of P.C. Barua’s Devdas, a young cameraman called Bimal Roy, adapted his version of the story in 1955. It still remains the most iconic of the lot, and stars Dilip Kumar, Vyjayanthimala and Suchitra Sen. Devdas has been made in Bengali (India and Bangladesh), Telugu, Tamil, Assamese and Malayalam. There was even an Urdu version made in Pakistan, a film that was supposedly a “tribute to Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Bimal Roy and The Great Dilip Kumar”, but the lead actor Nadeem Shah kept aping Shah Rukh Khan, who himself featured in a much-maligned-but-loved adaptation by Sanjay Leela Bhansali in 2002. Even Anurag Kashyap, who, much like Sarat himself, disliked the story, filmed a re-imagination called Dev D in 2009. Bimal Roy’s protege Gulzar planned an adaptation with Dharmendra, Hema Malini and Sharmila Tagore but it never did come to fruition.

    Gulzar with his Devdas cast. Photo: https://twitter.com/FilmHistoryPic

    Gulzar did however adapt Sarat Chandra’s Pondit Moshai as Khushboo (1975). Basu Chatterjee filmed three adaptations—Swami (1977), Apne Paraye (1980) and Zevar (1987). Bimal Roy directed as many as three adaptations, including Parineeta (1953) and Biraj Bahu (1954). Hrishikesh Mukherjee made Majhli Didi (1950). There were too a number of Telugu superhits starring Akkineni Nageswara Rao, and Tamil films like Manamalai (1958), Maalaiyitta Mangai (1958), and Kaanal Neer (1961).

    Sarat Chandra stands tall in the Indian literary pantheon. He wrote only in Bengali, but [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]his translated works are so native to North India that many of his works are considered a part of Hindi literature.[/highlight] Hindi writer Vishnu Prabhakar wrote a biography called Awara Maseeha, which is a veritable classic. Malayali poet Dr. Ottaplakkal Neelakandan Velu Kurup a.k.a. O.N.V. Kurup once said, “Sarat Chandra’s name is cherished as dearly as the names of eminent Malayalam novelists. His name has been a household word.” In a similar vein, his Marathi translations became native to Maharashtra.

    Almost all his works are marked by complex and layered female characters and flawed heroes. His almost-autobiographical Srikanto, in its original unedited version, begins with the protagonist writing while in an opium-intoxicated stupor. The portion had to be excised later. Since he showed an upper-class Brahmin widow fall in love in Charitraheen copies of his books were burned in front of his house. His novel Pother Dabi was banned by the British Raj for the depiction of armed revolutionaries.

    But while Devdas, admittedly Sarat’s weakest work, has been adapted with great fanfare, [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]his magnum opus Srikanto, which displays fascinating glimpses of his personal life and includes some awe-inspiring women, is yet to be adapted in its entirety.[/highlight] Some portions of the latter have been brought to the screen in Bengali, and there was, in the 80s, a television serial featuring Farooq Sheikh as Shrikant. One would think that there is scope for a delightfully complex and layered adaptation of this book, now that we are in the middle of The Great Streaming Wars.

  • Naseeruddin Shah: The Angel of Chaos

    Naseeruddin Shah: The Angel of Chaos

    Have you ever had the opportunity to observe an actor observing himself? Naseeruddin Shah: The Angel of Chaos

    Early Noughties, Mumbai.
    In a sultry Mumbai studio, poet extraordinaire Gulzar’s face flickers on a mounted screen. He’s paying a tribute to Naseeruddin Shah, today’s guest on the sets of Jeena Isi ka Naam Hai, one of Zee TV’s most popular shows. Gulzar’s cheerful visage is replaced by a wizened face of a man who lived almost two centuries ago. The man weeps copiously as Jagjit Singh’s velvety voice wafts in:

    Zulmat kade mein mere
    Shab-e-gham ka josh hai
    Ik shamma hai daleel-e-sahar
    So khamosh hai…

    Daagh-e-firaq-e-sohbat-e-shab ki jali hui
    Ik shamma reh gayee hai so woh bhi khamosh hai

    Naseer looks at his two hundred year-old face and his eyes brim with a salty liquid, threatening to spill out. He stifles it.

    1960s, St. Anselm’s School, Ajmer
    The boy put together a group to enact scenes from William Shakespeare’s revered play Merchant of Venice. Even at that age, he is tempted to play Shylock, one of world literature’s most scorned villains. But in his mind he was exactly sure how he wanted to play it. He wanted to emulate his guru, the master that he had learned the most from. Day after day, the boy had observed the great Geoffrey Kendal prance about like a primal beast on stage, reproducing one Shakespearean character after another.

    a[highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]The shy boy who found it incredibly difficult to talk to people, went up on stage with dozens of heads staring at him, judging him. But there were bright lights on him and he couldn’t see anything. Till he could only see the abyss. He stared at the black void in front of him and started speaking. That one night was to transform that boy completely.[/highlight]

    1983, a seedy restaurant, Mumbai’s Underbelly.
    Inspector Anant Velankar had had his fill for the evening. This was the only place he could afford to eat regularly. He’d freshened up and folding his wet kerchief into a neat bundle when he heard a clamour. The manager was engaged in a scuffle with a man who looked like a cross between a poet and a ruffian. Velankar intervened and was told this man ate and drank to his heart’s content but was now refusing to pay as he had no money. Anant pays for him. The trouble maker introduces himself, in flawless English, “Lobo. Inspector Mike Lobo. At present under suspension for being under the influence of alcohol while on duty. Under ssuspension ssince ’79.” He says this with his head held high, and fire in his eyes. But then it is extinguished immediately when he switches to “..well officer I happen to have no money on my person. Can you lend me some? Thank you..thank you very much..it will be returned, whenever you choose to meet me next time..you care to join me for a drink, officer? Somewhere else?..I thought so. God bless you.”

    A few days later. Anant and his colleagues are exiting a bar, a part of Anant’s earnest struggles to fit in, to comply. As they board a taxi, Mike Lobo emerges out of the darkness and hammers at the glass window, “Excuse me gentlemen, excuse me gentlemen! One minute please..can you lend me some money please? My wife died just this evening, and I don’t even have the money to bury her! Please help a good cause! Anything counts, fifty rupees or even five..please help a good cause gentlemen..” He leers at the notes that Anant counts and mutters again, “My wife died”. Anant’s colleague says as Mike leaves hurriedly after grabbing the money and thanking them, “Kya thha, kya ho gaya. Chup chaap naukri karta rehta toh aaj kahan se kahan hota.”

    February 2014, a Digital Advertising Agency, Santacruz
    He was just offered a book to write about Naseeruddin Shah. It was the beginning of a story he can still barely comprehend. He had bagged the contract and somehow with considerable effort, managed to get the star’s phone number as well.

    After much deliberation, without hoping for replies, an SMS went out. Exactly 90 minutes later, his response came in.

    Here’s what transpired then –

    N: You will have to write it without my help

    [Pause, quick chat with colleagues]

    A: Would you be willing to read it once it’s done?

    N: Maybe

    The wannabe author was crestfallen. The battle hadn’t yet begun and there was blood splattered all over the floor.
    Like friends walking in uninvited, an idea peeked in and lodged itself firmly inside his cranium. It made sense.

    A: Sir, to give you a little more perspective & to share an article I wrote about you, can I have your email id?

    This time it took an hour, but the email address was received.

    This was February 6, 2014. Just about a year earlier, I (yes, that switch to first person was intentional and intended for dramatic effect) had written an impassioned piece on Naseer and his work, for a film magazine. I worked on it for days, researching as extensively as possible. The magazine, however, chose to modify the piece in a way that it looked different and read different. I decided to show the article to him – not the magazine article. The one I had written. I emailed it to him.

    Next morning, Naseeruddin Shah wrote back. To the man’s immeasurable largesse, he even explained himself. I quote –

    “Reason for my curt responses is because a few people have approached me earlier also, but all expect to be spoon fed the information. I like your article….I have completed my book it will be out by x mas but we can meet.”

    Before I could gather my bearings, there was a text message as well – “Liked your article. Have emailed a reply.”

    Utterly needless to say, I was over the moon. In two days time I’d be standing at the door of his apartment, sweating profusely. He answered the door. Shit.

    Late 1970s, London
    Richard Attenborough had been planning a film on Gandhi since 1962, when he conceived the project for the first time. Nehru reportedly told him, “Make a film. Don’t deify him. That’s all we do in India. He’s too great a man to be deified. But make a film about him. He was a man, not a god or a saint.”

    The project kept getting delayed, and Attenborough made three films in the mean time: Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964), Oh! What a Lovely War (1969), and Young Winston (1972). As he researched on his material for Gandhi, he kept looking for an actor who could pull off the title role with conviction.

    Naseeruddin ShahNaseeruddin Shah was considered for the role of Gandhi. He was given a ticket to London, where the audition was supposed to happen. Shah said in an interview that he was confident that he would bag the role. Where else will they get a better actor who suits the part? In fact, the Indian media flashed it on the headlines that Naseer had actually got the role. This further reinforced Naseer’s confidence. This was the first time he had been to London, and he had a blast. He was made to stay in a hotel in Oxford street and travel in a Rolls Royce, and was given some money to spend. When Naseer was taken to Shepperton Studios for the test, that’s when he met Ben Kingsley for the first time. As soon as he set his eyes on Ben, Naseer knew he was the right man for the part. A test was conducted, but by this time Naseer was convinced that Ben looked more like Gandhi than himself, and he was indeed more suited to portray the role. He also watched Ben’s audition, which further confirmed his thoughts. Naseer admitted later that he didn’t think he could do a better job than Ben Kingsley at that time.

    Between David Copperfield and Dara Singh
    The first chapter of Naseer’s memoir And then One Day is called ‘All that David Copperfield kind of crap’. It bothered him no end that some people didn’t get the Salinger reference. He would deprecate Sholay, and in the same breath sing paeans in praise of Dara Singh, his favourite star. He hates masala films with a vengeance, but is a fan of Shammi Kapoor and has immense respect for Farah Khan. [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]He’d do era-defining work and then feature in the crappiest of films, admitting without any qualms that he did it for the money, or to repay a favour he owed.[/highlight] He reads my book which has chapters on Kaagaz Ke Phool, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro and Katha but reacts by saying: “I absolutely LOVED the articles on Joginder and the Ramsays! I love the B-movies and I’ve seen Bindiya aur Bandook, Teen Ikkay and Pandit aur Pathan..I’ve seen Ramsay’s Rustom Sohrab several times. It’s got great songs.” He can also go on and on about his love for Spencer Tracy. Both him and Cinema has given each other a lot. But the Stage remains his eternal lover.

    Naseer turned 70 today. For over 45 years, he has been deftly shapeshifting into one role after another, allowing that boy from St. Anselm’s a window to express himself. And you start welling up, as you observe him observing himself playing Mirza Ghalib, staring at the abyss, trying to speak.

     

    [divider top=”yes” anchor=”#” style=”default” divider_color=”#999999″ link_color=”#999999″ size=”2″ margin=”0″]

    Naseeruddin Shah on IMDB

    [youtube_advanced url=”https://youtu.be/YIarLexsnSw?t=1812″ width=”300″ height=”200″ responsive=”no” controls=”yes” autohide=”alt” autoplay=”no” mute=”no” loop=”no” rel=”yes” fs=”yes” modestbranding=”no” theme=”dark” playsinline=”no”]

     

  • Muzaffar Ali — Opulent Decadence

    Muzaffar Ali — Opulent Decadence

    When renowned poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz watched Gaman (1978), he was overcome by so many emotions that it was nearly impossible not to say anything about it. He wrote a letter to Muzaffar Ali, the 34 year-old adman who had directed the film. Faiz wrote, “Gaman is a poem in visuals. Its tragic lyricism and muted eloquence is deeply perceptive. It is a sensitively conceived and truthfully captured slice of reality around us, the beauty and the heartbreak of the human situation makes it a sheer delight, a veritable tour de force.”

    Mumbai is the Indian version of the American Dream. The proverbial land of opportunities, where thousands converge every year in search of livelihood and a better life. By the mid-19th century, Bombay had become one of India’s most significant ports and trading hubs, which attracted a significant number of migrants from different parts of the world. In 1947, during Independence, more than 50% of Bombay’s population comprised of migrants. For those uprooting themselves from their homes in other states, it represented an erosion of their own societies. In Gaman, Ghulam Hassan (Farooq Sheikh) leaves his wife Khairun (Smita Patil) and his mother back in the village, and lands up in Bombay at the insistence of his friend Lallulal Tiwari (Jalal Agha), who was already pursuing his dreams in the city. The film chronicles the lives of migrants from Lakhimpur Kheri, Muzaffar Ali’s own backyard.

    Rajah Muzaffar Ali of the Royal Muslim Rajput family of Kotwara. oocities.org

    Muzaffar Ali grew up in the UP township of Lakhimpur Kheri, and the culture of Awadh, along with the age-old tradition of Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb deeply fascinated him. While studying at Aligrah Muslim University, this fascination only got deeper and richer. He was influenced by the poetry of revered Urdu poets like Dr. Rahi Masoom Reza, Shahryar, Ali Rahman Azmi, Makhdoom Mohiuddin, and Faiz Ahmed Faiz. These poets at the turn of the century were concerned with a breakdown of what they referred to as “Muaashra”, a construct that is representative of a way of life — the closest English equivalent is ’society’. While consuming their verbiage at an impressionable age, Muzaffar shared their worries about erosion of this way of life. But eventually when his career brought him to the bustling metropolis of Bombay, it was finally clear to him what all this was leading towards. Scores of migrant labourers flocked to the city, disillusioned by rising unemployment in their hometowns. This nudged him in the direction of his first film, Gaman, in which he chronicled the migrant experience. Muzaffar’s Ghulam Hassan finds himself trapped inside the massive belly of the all-encompassing metropolis, finally earning a living but unsure whether he’d be able to leave the city even if he wanted. The City of Dreams had devoured him whole, as evinced by these lines by Shahryar:

    Seene mein jalan, aankhon mein toofan sa kyon hai

    Iss shahar mein har shaks pareshaan sa kyon hai

    Tanhayi ki yeh kaun si manzil hai, rafeekon

    Ta-hadd-e-nazar ek bayabaan sa kyon hai

    (What is this burning inside the chest…

    What is this fire in the eyes…

    Why is every person in this city so distressed?

    How lonely is this place, friends,

    That it’s wilderness as far as the eye can see?)

    One film that weaves both his obsessions — poetry and the Awadhi culture — into an elegant bundle of storytelling — is Umrao Jaan, Muzaffar Ali’s magnum opus.

    Mirza Hadi Ruswa, a man literally born at the cusp of history, in 1857, produced an abundance of Urdu pulp fiction, had a whirlwind affair with a Frenchwoman named Sophia Augustine, got his heart broken, and carried on amorous adventures with the courtesans of Lucknow. But the man would be known in history for a novel that he insisted was inspired from personal experience, Umrao Jaan Ada. According to Ruswa, an ageing Umrao Jaan herself narrated her life story to him. Sometime in the 70s, Muzaffar Ali, a young advertising executive and budding filmmaker, happened upon the book, which painted a picture of decadence, the last breath of Awadh’s opulence, lyricism and debauchery. Muzaffar recorded the whole book on an audiocassette and listened to it in his car every day. There were moments in the story that he seemed to have experienced in his own life. The resonance was uncanny, and he felt these ‘moments’ could be recreated on film.

    Rekha in Muzaffar Ali’s Umrao Jaan

    Spotting Rekha — her face and her eyes — on the cover of a magazine, sealed it for Muzaffar that she should be his Umrao. Poet Shahryar was flown in from Aligarh, and Muzaffar Ali hosted him in his own house at Juhu. Music director Khayyam too stayed just around the corner. They sat together for hours, trying to weave the poetry that became the soul of Umrao Jaan. It took them about a year and a half to compose all the songs. Khayyam himself researched extensively on the raagas and singing styles of the 19th century which the courtesans of Lucknow regaled their patrons with. Much like Ghulam Hassan, who had to leave his village to come to an alien Bombay, Amiran is forced to leave her home and end up in a city of boundless exploitation, soul-stirring poetry, exquisite beauty and a promise of love that’s never quite realised. This uprooting was just as painful and Amiran somehow finds it in herself to transform into Umrao Jaan, the queen of a thousand hearts. But unlike Ghulam Hassan from Gaman, she is able to express herself through her art. Shahryar reimagines this soulful quest through the dazzling ghazals encapsulated in the film, with Asha Bhsole breaking form to venture into a domain she had never quite tried before. Rekha completely internalised the alienation, the pain and ultimately the redemption of Umrao Jaan. It had a stellar cast of spectacular actors, all in the prime of their careers: Naseeruddin Shah, Farooq Sheikh, and Raj Babbar. Umrao Jaan swept the National Film Awards and Filmfare Awards announced next year.

    After Umrao Jaan, Muzaffar Ali continued exploring themes of alienation and breaking down of communities. Aagaman (1982) is an antithesis to Gaman in the sense that one of its protagonists, Mohan (Suresh Oberoi), comes back to the village after being educated in the city, and tries to unite sugarcane farmers so their exploitation by the mill-owners can stop. The film introduced a talented young actor by the name of Anupam Kher, who played Mohan’s father Ramprasad. With Anjuman (1986), Muzaffar Ali went back to old Lucknow and the erosion of old-world values. And like migrants in Gaman, courtesans in Umrao Jaan, sugarcane farmers in Aagaman, Muzaffar Ali adopted the milieu of chikankaari artisans of Lucknow.

    In the 80s, many trips to Kashmir endeared Muzaffar to the concept of Sufism and Sufi philosophy. Intrigued by the enigmatic Kashmiri poetess from the 17th century called Habba Khatun, he mounted his dream project Zooni on an epic scale. Dimple Kapadia was cast in the titular role, and Vinod Khanna in a role opposite her. Dimple and Vinod had just returned from their respective sabbaticals and their casting caused plenty of media attention. But Muzaffar’s lofty vision for the film, his perfectionism, insurgency in Kashmir, lackadaisical attitude of the government and similar logistical challenges kept stalling the project. Muzaffar Ali kept trying to revive the film till as late as 1997, but to no avail. His dream remains unfulfilled, much like his muse Umrao Jaan Ada, who lamented,

    Justajoo jiski thhi, usko toh na paaya humne

    Iss bahaane se magar dekh li duniya humne

    Tujhko ruswa na kiya, khud bhi pashemaan na huye

    Ishq ki rasm ko iss tarha nibhaaya humne

    (I could not get the one I coveted

    But I did find what the world was all about

    I neither dishonoured you, nor shamed myself

    And thus did I fulfil the demands of Love)

     

  • Sushant Singh Rajput — the tyranny of solitude

    Sushant Singh Rajput — the tyranny of solitude

    In an interview during his television days, Sushant Singh Rajput was asked about his favourite book. He sheepishly replied that he wasn’t into reading, but if he were to pick one he’d pick his Physics text book, because he didn’t understand it at one go, and had to spend a lot of time with it.

    Half a decade later, he had launched a Twitter handle exclusively to discuss books with fellow bibliophiles. Most of his recommendations were books on Quantum Mechanics and the nature of existence. He was espousing Nietschze and Einstein to his friends. His Instagram bio read “Photon in a double-slit”, referring to a famous experiment about the wave behaviour of light and matter. A lot had changed. As if he was on a different quest than when he started.

    It all probably begun when he was studying engineering.

    Sushant was an introvert, and the world doesn’t take kindly to introverts. The writer of this piece can say this from personal experience. Introverts are often seen as arrogant and people hate them with a vengeance. One has to adopt a veneer of gregariousness in order to be accepted. It was during his engineering college days that Sushant discovered how acting was a more efficient way for a shy person to communicate, and speak their mind. Naseeruddin Shah has spoken about this on numerous occasions, and so has Irrfan Khan. Acting, especially acting on stage, is a tool for introverts to express themselves.

    First Shiamak’s dance troupe and then Barry John. Theatre had captured his imagination, relegating academics to the background. Sushant had been bright and perceptive. He had aced almost all the exams he wrote. A great academic career lay ahead. Anyone in their right mind would stay the course, play by the rules. But there was a fork in the road and [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]he chose the road less traveled by.[/highlight] Sushant dropped out of college and plunged into the world of theatre.

    Nadira Babbar’s theatre group Ekjute became his home and he pranced about on the stage of Prithvi Theatre, squeezing a bit of himself in every performance. He was spotted at one of the plays, and landed a role in Balaji Telefilms’ Kis Desh Mein Hai Mera Dil, and then moved on to Pavitra Rishta with his breakout role as Manav. He was Manav and Manav was him. He was finally a star. It was the golden age of soaps and TV stars had a formidable following. Sticking around would mean money, fame and continued success. Another fork in the road—and once again, Sushant chose the untrodden path. At the prime of his TV stardom, he chose to leave it all behind and ship out to UCLA to learn acting.

    A chance encounter with Mukesh Chhabra swiftly got him to the sets of Kai Po Che. And he worked harder than ever before. Even in a film with Rajkummar Rao who had already worked with the Anurags and Dibakars of the world, a boy from the saas-bahu universe received rave reviews. “He has all the trappings of a star”, said Taran Adarsh in his review. Rajeev Masand, for once, agreed: “But it’s Sushant Singh Rajput, making his film debut as Ishaan, who it’s hard to take your eyes off. The actor has an indescribable presence, and it’s clear from his confidence and distinct likability that a star is born”. Raja Sen said, “Rajput gives a new meaning to the expression, ‘the idealism of the youth’”.

    Remember Shuddh Desi Romance and PK? They were his second and third movies, respectively. I had to go back to his filmography and verify this because by this time Sushant had seasoned so well that it was inconceivable that he wasn’t 8 or 9 films old. It was all the more evident in his fourth, Detective Byomkesh Bakshy. Dibakar Bannerjee was as perfectionist a director as it could possibly get, and going against all conventional wisdom, he had cast a 29 year-old mainstream actor to play a Bengali detective from the 1940s. But Sushant prepped like a maniac. Bannerjee showed him Satyajit Ray’s Chiriyakhana (in which Uttam Kumar plays an older Byomkesh)—his brief was for Sushant to extrapolate from this a young man, unsure of himself, who’s destined to grow old into Uttam’s version of the character. In the resultant film, Sushant Singh Rajput was a sight for sore eyes. It was like a feral animal had been let loose. He was primal. But this well-crafted gem of a film didn’t get the audience it deserved.

    He was also being offered Paani with Shekhar Kapur. He was elated. In the company of artists like Dibakar and Shekhar, his mind was expanding. He would befriend Anand Gandhi, the maverick director of Ship of Theseus, who shared his enthusiasm about science and the secrets of the universe.

    M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story is probably Sushant’s most widely accepted film. He did play Cricket at school but to play a master cricketer he had to be really good at it. Ex-cricketer Kiran More coached him for months and by the time he was shooting, Sushant Singh Rajput was almost a cricketer himself. He got it to a T, even the iconic Helicopter Shot. The film was a huge success. He received critical acclaim, and won over hardcore Cricket fans as well. This was Sushant Singh Rajput’s fifth movie overall. I know it’s stupid to compare, but [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]Amitabh Bachchan’s fifth movie was Reshma Aur Shera, Dilip Kumar’s was Nadiya Ke Paar, and Aamir’s fifth was a snake-filled spectacle called Tum Mere Ho.[/highlight]

    Sushant Singh Rajput had a powerful telescope—a Meade 14 LX600—in his study, a few feet away from the books on philosophy and quantum mechanics that he consumed so intently. One would imagine that as he enriched his inner world, his distance with the real world around him was growing longer and longer. He was an “outsider” in almost every sense of the term. And I’m not talking about the industry here. We live in a world that scoffs at the word “intellectual”. It’s almost a bad word, an abuse. Those who think deeply are a tough burden for our society to bear. True talent is so unbearable that we make life unbearable for them. Remember Guru Dutt? Ritwik Ghatak, Sukanta Bhattacharya, Saadat Hassan Manto, the list is long.

    Sonchiriya, Abhishek Chaubey’s follow-up to Udta Punjab, was about dacoits of the Chambal ravines in the 1970s. Sushant played Lakhan Singh, a young member of a gang who seemed to have his heart in the right place. It was a fantastic film—gritty, realistic and true to its roots. By his own admission, it was his most “different experience”. He, like everyone else in the film, was speaking the dialect of Bundelkhand. His co-star Manoj Bajpayee explained later how relentlessly this fellow actor from Bihar would work on his craft, trying to perfect his gait, his run, his emphasis on words. Manoj also spoke about the books of Quantum Mechanics on Sushant’s side table. [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]Sushant carried his telescope to the sets, spent hours gazing at the stars and invited everybody else to join him.[/highlight] He chatted with Manoj on a host of subjects ranging from Astronomy and Astrology to Physics and human conflict. While this childlike curiosity prevailed off camera, Sushant played the dacoit with unparalleled ferocity. But like all his great work, the film didn’t get audience support. Nobody saw it.

    Nitesh Tiwari was making a campus film after the astronomical success of Dangal. He was looking for an actor who could play a college-going kid and the father of a college-going kid with equal ease. Sushant Singh Rajput seemed to fit the bill perfectly. Chhichhore was warmly received, and became the second film of his, after MS Dhoni, which grossed more than Rs. 200 crores at the box office.

    [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]In a career spanning 7 years, Sushant Singh Rajput had 10 releases, of which at least 5 were memorable films. That’s a 50% strike rate, a staggering number. Throughout the world, barely a handful of actors will probably be able to meet those standards.[/highlight] Which doesn’t essentially mean he was better than all of them. He was a sincere craftsman, and he chose his projects incredibly well.

    We Indians are one of the most hospitable peoples on this planet, but we are also capable of great cruelty. Tying crackers on the tails of dogs is a popular pastime of kids in small towns. People use all manner of sticks and twigs to poke at animals in cages. But we reserve the most despicable savagery for our fellow humans.

    Two of Shushant’s pet projects were Shekhar Kapur’s Paani and a space movie called Chanda Mama Door Ke for which he actually trained at NASA. Those projects were considered unviable since Sushant’s credibility to shoulder big budget projects was suspect. But before training our guns at Bollywood lobbies and dropping the N bomb at the slightest provocation, it may be important to stop and introspect why we choose the banality of Baaghi 2 and Dhoom 3 over honest, experimental films. And it’s this culture of rejecting what’s different and off the beaten path that may have had a bigger hand in the ostracization of Sushant Singh Rajput and the likes of him. And in our angry reaction to his death, we are probably unknowingly pushing other Sushants over the edge.

     

     

    Sushant was being treated for clinical depression, a condition that is unsurprisingly common today. Many amongst us suffer in silence. And there need not be a “reason” for it in the conventional sense. It’s crucial to be cognizant of this. If there is one thing we should teach ourselves in the wake of this tragedy, it is this: “Be kind”. It will avert plenty of heartburn, and more such tragedies.

    [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]Here was a sensitive, erudite and curious man, wise beyond his years.[/highlight] But it’s sad that it took his death for the world to realise this. To paraphrase Rabindranath Tagore, “Moriya proman korilo je shey morey nai” (“He proved by dying that he did not die”).

     

  • Rishi Kapoor —  Tujh mein kya hai deewane

    Rishi Kapoor — Tujh mein kya hai deewane

    Rishi Kapoor — Tujh mein kya hai deewane
    A Bengali film buff growing up in 1980s small town India was overwhelmed with a plethora of influences. On the one hand there was the Shyam Benegal and Govind Nihalani universe. Sunday afternoons were about “regional cinema”, where one was gradually getting exposed to names like Adoor Gopalakrishnan and Aravindan. And the works of Ray, Ghatak and Mrinal Sen were like a rite of passage for any Bong kid. We were of course bored to death with some of it but unwittingly, it was all seeping into our bones.

    On the other extreme end were Sunday evenings and VHS sessions. While Amitabh Bachchan was like this benevolent God who kept on giving, he was less ‘accessible’, only to be found on video cassettes. For some reason, the national broadcaster rarely showed his films. The weekly shows on Sunday evenings (and later Saturdays and Tuesday afternoons) were reserved for Dev Anand, Rajesh Khanna, Dharmendra, Joy Mukherjee, Biswajeet and… [highlight background=”#f79126″ color=”#ffffff”]Rishi Kapoor[/highlight]. While Bachchan had completely engulfed us, Rishi was the only other actor we truly enjoyed watching on screen. That smile could melt mountains. Bachchan with his swag and super-heroic invulnerability was a natural pull for kids our age, but Rishi managed to keep us engaged without any of these shenanigans. Because he was, contrary to popular (including his own) perception, a great actor even back then.

    Adaakari

    The mainstream Hindi film industry (“Bollywood” as a term wasn’t in circulation yet) was experiencing its worst phase back in the 1980s. So much so that many were declaring it dead. The middle class had all but given up on this form of entertainment, barring reruns on TV and video rentals. Nobody went to theatres anymore. Precious few films were able to recover their investment, even fewer reported hits at the box office. In the middle of this dry spell, Rishi Kapoor had a blockbuster in Nagina (1986).

    It was around this time that Rishi appeared in an interview for a Canadian television channel, which remains his only televised interview from that time.

    ”Jo cheez badi routine ho, usey aap ek novel tareeke se karke dikhaaye, uss cheez ko main bahut maanta hoon kyonki main khud ek spontaneous kism ka actor hoon”

    He was, of course, referring to his approach to acting. Nobody at the time bothered too much about “the craft”. Nobody spoke about it, nobody wanted to hear about it. But here Rishi Kapoor, a “commercial cinema” actor, was talking about his “craft”. And this brings to light another aspect that was unique about that era.

    Like in the rest of the world, the cinema of India was undergoing a shift in the 70s. A commitment to realism and what was seen as an emphasis on substance rather than form, gave rise to the Parallel Cinema movement. While its foundations were laid in the 50s, the movement gained wide acceptance in the 70s and 80s with the likes of Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani, Saeed Mirza, Kumar Shahani and Mani Kaul doing their thing. This created a schism between the “commercial” cinema of the day and the so-called “art films”. These categories were neatly divided and the filmmakers and patrons of either kind of cinema would scoff at the other. But a curious fallout of this was that the so-called commercial cinema actors—like Rishi Kapoor—were seen with derision. Since they sang and danced and fought, they were perceived as bad actors. And that is what Kapoor was referencing in his interview. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    Mainstream Hindi cinema has had a lingua franca of its own that it has evolved over the years. And while it cannot be blamed for making the audience “think”, it has left indelible impressions on the Indian psyche. It exists in its own Universe, with its own Reality. Loud, gesticulative acting is a hallmark of this kind of cinema. But there are some actors who have—while staying true to this universe—figured out their own “method” of infusing their performances with a certain sense of naturalism. Sanjeev Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Rekha and Rishi Kapoor are prime examples. Rishi for one has never dabbled in serious cinema—with the exception of the very unsure Ek Chadar Maili Si – and nor did he actively partake in the Kapoor family tradition of theatre.

    But pick up the silliest of titles from his filmography, and Rishi’s acting in it is characterised by a sincerity that is present in some of his better known work as well. Consider Tawaif (1985), a B.R. Chopra film where Rishi plays Dawood, a wannabe writer who ends up having to live-in with a courtesan when she lands on his doorstep one night. Playing the template Muslim youngster commonly seen in “Muslim Socials” those days, not only is his Urdu diction flawless, he plays the part with a felicity mostly seen in actors trained on the stage: using space efficiently, interacting with props, economy of movement, impeccable timing. And the same elements can be seen in Ravi Tandon’s Rahi Badal Gaye (1985), where he plays dual roles, one of them visibly older. Rishi uses merely his body language to convey one person to have seen more years and the other being more effervescent and youthful. And then there was Duniya (1984), where he was pitted against Dilip Kumar. All these were uni-dimensional characters cut-out from cardboards. He almost never had meticulously written roles. But Rishi played them with a vitality not even expected of him in these parts. If you see him in these roles, it is inconceivable that he was doing multiple shifts a day, hopping from set to set.

    And that’s why back in 1987 when his colleagues never spoke of such things, Rishi said in that interview: ”Main koi designed, created ya koi engineered acting nahi karta hoon. Main inn cheezon ko maanta nahin hoon. Jaise cheezen aati hain woh kar leta hoon, jo nahin aati woh nahi kar paata..”

    Doosra Janam Rishi Kapoor

    Around the year 2000, a new generation of filmmakers were bringing about a change in the way mainstream cinema was made. The parallel cinema movement had all but died, leaving offsprings in the shape of prodigious directors like Anurag Kashyap, Imtiaz Ali and Vishal Bharadwaj. Ashutosh Gowariker and Farhan Akhtar were demonstrating that socially conscious and realistic cinema can be made without alienating those seeking entertainment in the movies. The two cinemas were coming closer and closer until inevitably, they were fused together.

    In this new world, “commercial actors” like Rishi Kapoor who had never set foot inside FTII or worked with Gulzar or Hrishikesh Mukherjee, should have found themselves at sea. But something unexpected happened. It was like he had suddenly been set free. All those years of animated gestures and loud dialogue deliveries and the flamboyance seemed to have been a solid grounding for the eccentric parts he was expected to play now, especially Romi Rolly in Luck By Chance (2009), Santosh Duggal in Do Dooni Chaar (2010), Rauf Lala in Agneepath, and the grandfather in Kapoor & Sons (2016). Notably, the new breed of directors employing him now had all grown up on the same commercial masala films Rishi Kapoor was a part of. They were all film buffs—and smart ones at that, so they knew how to play to his strengths.

    But this wasn’t a 2.0. It was the same set of skills, he was just employing them more consciously. He was more liberated. He took flight. Like he wrote in his autobiography ‘Khullam Khulla’, acting to him was ‘putting in effort to show effortlessness’. Unlike most movie critics and reviewers, Rishi Kapoor’s fans were not shocked or even surprised at what he was able to do now. We always knew. We were just having a ball seeing him have a ball.

    This year he was about to reinterpret Robert De Niro’s role from The Intern, and team up with Juhi Chawla after 20 years for a film called Sharmaji Namkeen.

    And the man had hardly even reached his prime. For all we know, Rishi Kapoor was just getting started.

     

    [divider text=”Go to TOP” size=”1″ margin=”0″]

    IMDB link of Rishi Kapoor

    [youtube_advanced url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ds8oM_u70″ width” width=”300″ height=”200″ responsive=”no” controls=”alt” autoplay=”no”]

     

  • John Abraham, a donkey and the bottle

    John Abraham, a donkey and the bottle

    I know that you are no more.

    But I am, alive for you

    Believe me.

    When the seventh seal is opened

    I will use my camera as my gun

    and I am sure the echo of the sound

    will reverberate in your bones,

    and feed back to me for my inspiration.

    – John Abraham about Ritwik Ghatak

     

    John Abraham and Ritwik Ghatak. That combination sounds blasphemous already. But it shouldn’t. Because the John I am talking about blazed a trail through Indian cinema that nobody since has had the gall to follow. This is how Jacob Levich distinguished Ghatak from Ray: “Satyajit Ray is the suitable boy of Indian film, presentable, career-oriented, and reliably tasteful. Ghatak, by contrast, is an undesirable guest: he lacks respect, has “views”, makes a mess, disdains decorum” Pick up those colourful words used for Ghatak, and use them on John Abraham. Every word fits with equal resonance.

    John Abraham was the Enfant terrible of Malayalam cinema. His work, like his mentor’s, was marked with a blatant disregard for established mores, while displaying a longing for days gone by. The rebellious streak was a constant in him, till the day he breathed his last. Even during his FTII days, John had been suspended from the hallowed halls of the institute. Not once, not twice, but four times. And yet he graduated with a gold medal in direction and screenwriting. This contrast permeated through his as well as his mentor Ritwik Ghatak’s life.

    Ritwik Ghatak joined FTII in the year 1965. He had already made six of his most acclaimed films, had had a brief and rather unsavoury brush with what we know as Bollywood today. It was Ritwik’s brother, Sudhish Ghatak, who had wielded the camera for the venerable Phani Majumdar’s Street Singer, was responsible for Bimal Roy getting into New Theatres Studios as a camera assistant, back in the 1930s. Later Ritwik started his stint in filmdom by assisting him in Roy’s early works like Tathapi, where Ghatak was chief assistant. After Ritwik got married to his wife Surama Ghatak, a fiery revolutionary an active IPTA member, he was looking for stability by way of gainful employment and landed up in Bombay, working for Bimal Roy Productions. Ghatak wrote Bimal Roy’s classic Madhumati as well as Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s debut venture, Musafir. But despite the box office success of these films (or maybe, because of it) he was disillusioned and left the glitter of Bombay behind and returned to the grime of Calcutta. Back to the bottle, back to the endless Sunday sessions at Coffee House with the likes of Utpal Dutta, Satyajit Ray, Tapan Sinha. Meghe Dhaka Tara brought in acclaim and recognition, but Komol Gandhar floundered at the box office.

    Ghatak household was mired in financial insecurity. Ritwik and Surama were facing a bad patch in their conjugal life, and were living separately. The fact that he admitted to her of falling love with another woman, wasn’t helping. Ritwik’s life is like a series of self-destructive indulgences, punctuated by short bursts of lucidity, something which us lesser mortals will perceive as “normalcy”. During one of these phases, Ghatak decided to make things up with Surama and obtain a secured employment. That is when he took up the teaching job at FTII. There are fables about Ritwik Ghatak at the institute. One of them is about him dishing profound philosophy on life and cinema in a state of drunken stupor, to his disciples sitting under the Wisdom Tree. There were the likes of Mani Kaul, Kumar Shahani, Vidhu Vinod Chopra and Subhash Ghai. And then there was John.

    Ghai and Chopra never tired of speaking about the master and his influence on their lives. Ghai says he was the one helping Ghatak to his room after the drinking binges. Chopra tells stories of how Ritwik rambled to him in Bengali, and eventually suggested the moniker “Vidhu”, permanently added to his name. Mani Kaul and Kumar Shahani built their own oeuvre, with a distinct world view. But it was John Abraham from Kerala who ultimately carried the mantle of Ritwik Ghatak. If Ghatak had a cinematic heir, it would without a doubt be John.

    John Abraham wasn’t just a wide-eyed youngster who crowded into Pune Film Institute (as FTII was referred to back then) merely to make a career in the movies. He was barely 12 years younger to Ghatak, and was well in his mid-30s by the time he graduated. John was kind of wandering across disparate career opportunities when he chose to abandon everything and enrol for film school. He had been teaching in college, and worked briefly for Life Insurance Corporation as well. Which means this move must have been well thought out and extremely risky at the same time. John’s IMDB lists three diploma films he was associated with: Koyna Nagar, Priya and Hides and Strings. This is not unusual. Students have been known to work in others’ diploma films even after they had graduated. Also, Ritwik made some changes in the curriculum of the institute to emphasise on practice rather than theory.

    Not only Ritwik’s pedagogy, but his politics, worldview and philosophy had a great impact on John Abraham. And John was primed for it, having had his formal education in politics and history from the Mar Thoma College at Thiruvalla. Both Ritwik and John were short story writers. And just like his mentor, John had a brief brush with Bollywood. He assisted on a Waheeda Rehman starrer called Trisandhya but unlike Ghatak, John’s film probably never saw the light of the day. But in 1969, he would get the opportunity to work on another Hindi film, Mani Kaul’s Uski Roti – which pretty much set the stage for ‘Parallel Cinema’ in India. John not only assisted his friend, but also appeared in a minor role.

    John Abraham’s directorial debut was a rather conventional and tame Vidyarthikale Ithile Ithile, featuring mainstream Malayalam movie stars like Madhu aka Madhavan Nair and Jayabharathi. It was with his second film that he truly came into his own.

    Agraharathil Kazhutai is about an ill-fated donkey that finds himself in a neighbourhood dominated by chaste Brahmins. Though initially some kind souls treat the beast with some affection, he faces bullying for the most part (among others, at the hands of some students who draw Nietzsche-in parallels with the “Ass”). Eventually, scared of the ill-luck brought about by the animal, the donkey is killed off by the residents. Displaying John’s almost-brutal capacity of pitch-dark humour, the donkey’s murder unleashes death and destruction in the Brahminical village. And then, miracles start manifesting themselves.

    John was even more Ritwik than Ritwik, in some ways. Barring a couple of documentaries, Ghatak didn’t do any work outside of Bengali, the language and milieu he was most comfortable with. John’s breakout film Agraharathil Kazhutai was a Tamil film, though he primarily identified as a Malayali filmmaker. The film created waves. Earned a National Award, among other things. John Abraham also innovated an early example of crowdfunding in cinema. He launched the Odessa Collective in 1984, which went around campuses, small towns and villages in Kerala, staging street plays and screening old films, collecting money from people who volunteered to pay for the experience. The resultant money was utilised towards production and distribution of tightly budgeted indie films. One of them was Amma Ariyan, which has become the other definitive John Abraham film. Amma Ariyan, literally meaning a letter to mother, is about a man traveling with the dead body of a stranger, trying to take him to his mother. The lead was played by Joy Matthew who in 2012 created waves with his Malayalam film Shutter, inspiring remakes in Tamil, Telugu, Punjabi, Tulu and Marathi.

    John’s persona, much like his master, attained mythical status. His quirk, his spontaneous refusal to comply, an outrageously self-destructive streak, all of this added to the allure, perhaps. Anecdotes abound to establish this. Amma Ariyan was being screened at the Flaiano film festival and John was waiting for his flight to Italy. His partners in crime, when they reached the airport, noticed John had forgotten his shoes. He right there, standing barefoot, waiting for his flight to Italy! Similarly, on another occasion, he took off his pants and gifted them to a rickshaw driver when the man complimented him on his jeans.

    A 50-year-old Ritwik Ghatak died, derelict, consumed by the bottle and in the mouth of madness. Little more than a decade later, on 31 May 1987, John Abraham fell from the terrace during a party. He had been drinking copiously. He died a day later, two months short of his 50th birthday.

     

    “I have lived on the lip

    of insanity, wanting to know reasons,

    knocking on a door. It opens.

    I’ve been knocking from the inside.”

    – Rumi

     

    [divider text=”Go to TOP” size=”1″ margin=”0″]

    IMDB link of John Abraham

    [youtube_advanced url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJHrYokoE1A” width” width=”300″ height=”200″ responsive=”no” controls=”alt” autoplay=”yes”]