Ramesh Sippy offers a whirlwind tour through his career as Baradwaj Rangan listens.
‘Ramesh Sippy, who was in Chennai for the hundredth-year-of-Indian cinema celebrations, wouldn’t talk about the film he has in mind – the “sweet, small, cute, different” film that he plans to direct next year. “It’s too early,” he said. He wouldn’t talk about the autobiography he plans to write, either. “I’m at that stage of my life where if I don’t sit down and do something about it now, I never will. But again, it’s too early to say anything.” And because he won’t talk about what the future holds, and because there isn’t much to talk about in the present, we spoke about the past.
We spoke about 1969, when the filmmaker, barely into his twenties, approached Shammi Kapoor with the story of a widow and a widower. Shammi said, “You know what I’m popular for. I’m a dancing star. I’m a rebel star. That’s what I’m known for. You want to make this kind of film with me?” Sippy said, “Don’t you want a make a film like this?” Shammi said, “Yeah, for me, as an actor, it’s something different. I’d like to do it. But are you sure that you want to start your career with this film?” Sippy said, “Yes, I’ve decided I’m going to make a film with you. And I’m not going to make the kind of film you’ve been making all the time.”
“People had made films about widows earlier,” Sippy told me, “but I wanted to tell this story in a commercial format. I didn’t want to make an ‘issue movie.’ It was never my desire to make very arty films or things that defined a different space. I wanted to make good commercial cinema, with an edge. I saw Andaz as an entertaining film, but with characters carrying some baggage. And I felt Shammi Kapoor had reached a point in career where he needed to do more mature roles.” The film, released in 1971, was a hit.
He wanted Nutan, at first, because he saw the heroine as a mature woman with a child. But he was advised against casting a heroine who was “at a mature phase of her career,” when the hero, too, was getting along in age. And so a young actress named Hema Malini was roped in. She went on star in a double role in Sippy’s next film, Seeta Aur Geeta, and played a talkative tangewali in the film that followed, Sholay. Sippy said that the way the industry works, he could have never made the film today. “Seeta Aur Geeta cost 40 lakh, but with Sholay, I wanted a bigger budget. I wanted to make the film a certain way, with no compromises, and I gave myself one crore. It ended up costing three crores. By the time the first 50 lakh was spent, with hardly two reels in hand, the corporates would have stopped the shooting.”
I asked him if he was sick of being asked to talk about Sholay. He said, “It’s the defining film as far as my career is concerned – with respect to performances, technique, and the box office, which ultimately outweighs everything else. It’s the biggest blockbuster of all time. That’s one crown that belongs to me. I don’t mind talking about it.” I asked him if the film was one of the biggest hits of all time or is it was the biggest. “The arithmetic would probably come out that way,” he said, “because tickets, then, were two, three, four rupees, and the entertainment tax was 150 per cent, whereas today it’s only 20 to 30 per cent. Who’s going to sit down and compare and do the mathematics on all this?”
But he admitted that the film’s staggering success cast a long shadow over the rest of his career. His subsequent films – Shaan, Shakti, Saagar – were seen as disappointments. “At cost of 6 crore, Shaan doing business worth 12 crore is nothing when Sholay, a film costing 3 crore, does something like 25 crore in its first run. Today, you invest 3 crore and get back 5 crore and you’re called successful.”
We spoke, then, about the actors he worked with. “Amitabh Bachchan” he said, “knows what he has to do, and I know what he’s going to do – because it’s what I’ve asked him to do – and yet, when he enacts it, you’re completely mesmerised. He did a seven-minute scene in Shakti – about 700 feet of film – in one take.” And then he spoke about another kind of actor, who came up to him and said, “If you don’t mind, I’m going to do this in half-a-dozen ways. You decide what you want. If you think it’s crap, then that’s fine, but let me have the satisfaction of showing you.”
That actor was Kamal Haasan, who was in cast in Saagar because Sippy wanted to make a love triangle with the pair from Bobby and “that fabulous actor from the south.” He said that that was extent of the plot when they announced the film. “Those days, we could afford to launch a film without a script. I knew that the film would be following a line of this sort. I cast the actors and then we wrote a script to contain them.”
After Saagar, Sippy went on to do the popular television serial Buniyaad. And then things haven’t been quite the same. The films that came afterwards – Bhrashtachar, Akayla, Zamana Deewana – made no ripples either creatively or commercially, though he said, “Bhrashtachar was a commission earner. All the distributors made money. It was not a blockbuster and it was not a Ramesh Sippy film, but if I’d made only those kinds of films I’d still be making films. Churning them out wouldn’t have been a problem.”
He was talking about films that catered to the lowest-common-denominator audience, “because that was the only audience coming to the theatres. I was used to much wider audience, from all classes . I find I have done my best work when there is a certain amount of challenge, but with these films, I made them very basic, to cater to these audiences. I thought I could package something quickly. Something happened to me in that phase.” And that something was probably triggered by a visit to a cinema hall, where an audience member in the balcony turned towards Sippy and spat onto the floor.
And so, after Zamana Deewana in 1995, he decided to step back and return only when ready. He’s ready now. He just doesn’t want to talk about it.
An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2013 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
MANK
October 6, 2013
He was talking about films that catered to the lowest-common-denominator audience
But i thought that movies like sholay,Shaan etc was also catering to the LCD.Perhaps shakti was not Even Saagar which was quite an upmarket film for much of its running time had scenes like dimple’s infamous nude shot or the jaane do na song which was meant to cater to front benches.I was shocked to hear that shaan cost 6crs in 1980 rs. Even though it is a visually rich film ,still i think it was too much .Wikipedia puts the budget at 3crs i think,Not that i believe in Wikipedia, Anyway its his money i guess
That actor was Kamal Haasan, who was cast in Saagar
I was disappointed that you did not take the discussion on Kamal Haasan any further. particularly about his lack of success in the hindi film ind. in spite of being so talented(I’m going to do this in half-a-dozen ways).Also about the inordinate time he takes for making a movie,Sholay and saagar took 3 years while shaan took 5
a visit to a cinema hall, where an audience member in the balcony turned towards Sippy and spat onto the floor.
Did he mention which film it was?, My guess is that it was saagar
LikeLike
Vishak Bharadwaj
October 6, 2013
And that something was probably triggered by a visit to a cinema hall, where an audience member in the balcony turned towards Sippy and spat onto the floor.
could you elaborate on that BR?
LikeLike
MANK
October 6, 2013
One more thing , he did not mention anything about directing Dilip Kumar? Or bringing dilip kumar and AB together ?
LikeLike
venkatesh
October 6, 2013
MANK : Kamal had the Hindi film industry eating out of his hand after “Ek Duuje Ke Liye” but he didn’t want to end up playing the “Lover Boy” , he had already done more than a 100 films in the South and was looking to do other things.
Even in Saagar by all accounts (and being in the North at that time) – he walked away with the film. It was his film.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
October 8, 2013
Kamal was awful in saagar. He is known for his over the top performances but this one takes the cake. I am sure that even he will be embarrassed if he sees this film now.
LikeLike
MANK
October 8, 2013
Kamal was awful in saagar
That is too harsh a statement. True there are some truly over the top moments in the film from him but still there are some really terrific scenes as well , like the moment when he realizes dimple’s love for rishi, and the following scene with Nadira. Also scenes where dimple confronts him while chopping wood are all improvised in typically brilliant Kamal fashion. He really stole the film from rishi & dimple who were suppose to reignite the bobby magic. For that crime he was practically exiled from bollywood.
LikeLike
brangan
October 8, 2013
MANK: No, films like “Sholay” catered to all audiences, high-class, low-class, whatever – and he was talking about the films that catered only to the LCD.
I was disappointed that you did not take the discussion on Kamal Haasan any further
Just because you don’t see something in an interview doesn’t mean we didn’t talk about it. It’s just that he had nothing overly interesting to say, so you just leave it. I keep getting asked the same thing about my book, about why I never asked MR anything about Mohanlal. I did. And again, it’s just that what he said (“terrific actor” etc.) was a little too generic and we left it while editing.
Vishak Bharadwaj: He was talking about the audience that used to come to the cinema halls in the 1980s (because the “class audiences” had begun to stay at home and watch VCRs and TV) – and even in the balcony, he found a guy spitting. And he said that really turned his head, and he ended up making “Bhrashtachar” and so on.
venkatesh: It’s also likely that he did not want to give up his huge career in the South. All those heroines who made it big moved to Bombay. That signals to the producers, etc., that you’re serious, and you get to do all the PR and networking that you couldn’t do from Madras in the 80s.
LikeLike
venkatesh
October 9, 2013
BR: True – thats another aspect to it. Its ironic now that Rajini and Kamal both have sizeable releases happening at this stage of their career in Hindi.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
October 9, 2013
MANK, couple of scenes maybe. But overall, a cringe-worthy performance.
LikeLike
MANK
October 10, 2013
BR: its true that kamal did not want to give up his huge career in the South. Also he had spoken about the case of a lobby that was working against him at the time in Bollywood that wanted him out of there and deliberately sabotaged his films, You see after ek duje ke liye , Apart from saagar he never got a worthy film in Bollywood . Also there was the case about underworld threats as well, the mumbai underworld literally taking hold of bollywood in the 80’s.
Venkatesh:The reason why they are having so many releases in hindi today is because the tamil films have got rid of their parochialism and are going pan indian\global(for better or worse). You see vishwaroop, endiran etc doesn’t have any intrinsic connection to tamil compared with tevar makan ,guna,yajaman,padayappa, muttu etc. Also the media has grown so big with the explosion of internet and all that.One kolaveri song by danush going viral on internet makes him a star all over India. It is tragic that Kamal and Rajni just didnt have the kind of media exposure in the 80’s
LikeLike
venkatesh
October 10, 2013
MANK: True that – Kamal in his prime would have eaten up the 80’s hindi cinema , he had the looks, panache and the language skills, not to mention acting, dancing and so on.
LikeLike
Madan
October 11, 2013
I am struggling to understand why Sholay cost Rs. 3 crores to make (at 70s price levels). It does not appear to be a particularly ostentatious or extravagant film. Perhaps several scenes were reshot before Sippy could achieve his vision?
LikeLike
brangan
October 12, 2013
Madan: But it’s a supremely well-made film, practically unlike anything shot until then. Just hiring the equipment and stuff over a long shooting period would have jacked up the cost. I mean, the Guru Dutt films — to take the obviously cliched example — are beautifully shot, but they are primarily indoor films, chamber pieces. Here, you have all that action photography, crane shots… Expense isn’t always about extravagance.
It’s been a while since I read that Anupama Chopra book, and I wonder if there’s an answer to your question there.
LikeLike
Madan
October 12, 2013
I get that expense is not only about extravagance….and of course, it’s a wonderfully well made film. I just couldn’t understand how and where the money would have been spent. Yes, maybe I should read Anupama Chopra’s book for details. It was a question made out of curiosity rather than to criticize Sippy for his approach.
LikeLike
MANK
October 13, 2013
Madan: It took 3 years to shoot the picture on location . That itself is a costly proposition you see debts and interest on debts piling up. Also it was the first time that hollywood stunt people and hollywood equipments were used at a long stretch . they sometimes cost almost 10 times more than the indian stuntmen and equipments. Of course sippy’s perfectionist streak did not help either. One scene involving jaya bhaduri lighting a lamp was shot over a period of 3 years and umpteen times because he wanted the light to be perfect. That kind of perfectionism in a movie that lasts 200 mns sure cost as hell. I agree with BR that it’s a supremely well-made film, practically unlike anything shot until then, If you see the other pics made around the time you will see the difference in terms of both visuals and sound.
LikeLike
Madan
October 13, 2013
One scene involving jaya bhaduri lighting a lamp was shot over a period of 3 years and umpteen times because he wanted the light to be perfect. – Yes, this is what I was wondering about. So this was at least one factor. And yes I ignored the importation aspect, it was very difficult in those days, both the cost and the very availability of it.
LikeLike
venkatesh
October 14, 2013
Madan , MANK : I am surprised no one has talked about the first train scene fight ., that single scene alone shows the calibre of the film-making. Its equivalent to anything else shot in that time period.
LikeLike