A week before Aamir Khan was to inaugurate 11th Chennai International Film Festival, he consented to a curtain-raiser interview – and on a warm Thursday afternoon, I found myself waiting in his new sea-facing office in Bandra. The space doesn’t look finished yet, and from the things lying around no clear theme is visible. An oil painting is propped in a corner, various faces of the star from his films, all against a bright red background. There are scattered books – The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolaño, Captain Pantoja and the Special Service by Mario Vargas Llosa. There are board games – Risk, The Settlers of Catan. On the floor are several clapperboards, foremost among them the one for Rang De Basanti. There are DVDs – the 007 collection, a boxed set of Satyamev Jayate. A royal blue crystal ash tray lies on the centre table, and beside it, a box of Jackson Maruti tissues, from which a single tissue flops over like a Labrador’s ear. Elsewhere, there’s a pile of old, faded jeans and T-shirts, and alongside, a clear plastic bag filled with a pair of sneakers and a pair of flip flops. And somewhere in the midst of all this is a red baseball cap with the legend Beti Zindabad: A campaign for gender equality. At 1 pm sharp, Aamir Khan walked in and seated himself. He was in casual clothes – baseball cap, a grey T-shirt, cargo shorts, sneakers. I asked him if he wanted to change. He said, “If you want to me look all formal, it will take an hour.” So we just began to talk.
We keep hearing that the reason we don’t make the kind of cinema that other nations make is that our audience isn’t cine-literate enough, that they only want entertainment. Do you think stars have a responsibility to guide their fans towards a different kind of cinema?
The primary responsibility of a film person is to entertain. The audience comes to the theatre to be entertained. If they want a lesson in sociology they will go to a college. This entertainment, however, can come in different ways. I could entertain you by making a movie with cheap jokes, appealing to your baser instincts, or I could entertain you by making a movie which appeals to your finer sensibilities. Either way, my primary responsibility is to entertain. Having said that, I also believe that an entertainer has much larger role to play in society, one that perhaps only he/she can play best. And that is to bring grace to society, to help build the moral fibre of society, to instil higher values in young children. This can be a great contribution in nation building, and in creating a healthy progressive society. This, I believe, is the true role of an entertainer – in fact, of any creative person, whether musicians, artists or poets.
Let me put the same question a little differently. Some of your most memorable hits in the recent past – Rang De Basanti, Taare Zameen Par, 3 Idiots – have been in the genre that one might label “the sugar-coated message movie.” Have you wondered about taking away the sugar coating, the commercial trappings?
First of all, I don’t think that it is sugar-coating. In my opinion none of these movies you mention have an artificial coating of sugar or any inorganic entertainment which is alien to the subject matter of these films. 3 Idiots had a strong message and it entertained. The film changed the way parents look at their children’s education, and the way teachers look at students. Parents stopped saying “You have to do engineering.” They stopped trying to live their dreams through their children. Entertainment was an integral part of the film. Why should we remove such a beautiful and integral part of the film? If we did that we would be trying to take ourselves too seriously and also make the message we are trying to give less effective.
Is it different with television, then? Because with Satyamev Jayate, you did take yourself “too seriously,” as you put it, and that’s exactly why the programme became such a game changer in our society. Had you taken the topics behind each episode and made a series of low-budget films (like Peepli [Live]), would it have been necessary to add “entertainment”?
The kind of topics we covered in the first season of Satyamev Jayate are so important and fundamental to our lives that I feel I can’t get serious enough. Each and every topic needs to be taken utterly seriously. So yes I took Satyamev Jayate extremely seriously. But at the same time, I also made every effort to make each episode as engaging as I possibly could. The attempt was not simply to pass on information but also to touch people’s hearts. We tried to reach out to people not only through their minds but also emotionally. And that’s precisely what we attempt when we choose important and serious topics to make films on. For example in Taare Zameen Par our topic is childcare and education. And we made every effort to make the film as entertaining as possible. I must clarify here that when I use the word “entertaining” I also mean “engaging.” Some films may not entertain you, as in make you laugh or clap, but they engage you emotionally, spiritually, and are therefore “entertaining” in their own way.
In the 1970s and even in the 80s, our films used to hold up a mirror to society. We don’t see those kinds of films much any more. Does the average post-liberalisation Indian just not want to see hard-hitting films based on social and political issues?
I think there is an audience for these films. It’s not a huge audience but it’s significant. I think one of the things we need to do is have a chain of theatres across the country that only plays art-house cinema. This move will further the cause of offbeat films, and make it easier for that audience to know where to go to see the film. Independent cinema needs nurturing. If you screen the film in the same multiplex that’s playing a huge commercial film, then it will get crushed.
The same thing could be said about low-budget mainstream films, say, the ones made by and featuring newcomers.
If we want to encourage young talent in mainstream cinema then we need to change our economic policies. Currently the dice are loaded against small films and films made by new talent. I don’t know about the South, but in the Hindi circuit the revenue sharing between the theatres chains and producers/distributors is a sliding scale in favour of the theatre chains. With the passing of each week the theatre gets more and the producer/distributor gets less. There is a certain logic to this formula, but it is very detrimental to young and new talent. This formula benefits big films which rake in most of their revenue in the first two weeks. But a small film releases in fewer screens and depends on word of mouth to grow. By the time this small film is appreciated and starts to do good business – say, in the third or fourth week – the producer/distributer earns only 25% of collections. This formula almost penalises you for making a good film with new talent, effectively discouraging new talent. It’s almost like we’re telling producers not to invest in new talent.
25 years ago, you were a newcomer. Do you feel you are, today, where you set out to be?
I had no plans when I started my career, and I certainly never imagined that I would reach this far. It’s been an exciting journey. I’ve learnt a great deal. I feel very humbled and at the same time very proud that in this journey of 100 years of Indian cinema I have had the privilege of being a part of the last 25 years.
Quite a lot has changed in Indian cinema in this quarter century. What, in your opinion, is the most significant of these changes?
I feel that in the last 25 years the quality of our cinema has greatly improved – I speak about Hindi films, as I haven’t watched too many films in other languages. Earlier mainstream cinema had a very limited and narrow definition. Now there is much more variety, people experiment with different kinds of films, and audiences are also open to different kinds of cinema. We have better stories, better creative talent, better technicians, better production values. We have things like sync sound now, which is a boon to people like me, who find it difficult to recreate the magic of what happens during shooting six months later in a sterile recording studio. And we no longer have the system of working in multiple films in shifts. This means that, as an actor, I can concentrate on one film at a time. Film releases have also become much more efficient and streamlined. Earlier, we used to have staggered releases. A film would release in the Bombay territory, then go East and South and so on. We used to have films running for months and years but in fewer theatres, and they had to keep marketing the film for a long time. But now films release wide, and complete their run in a few weeks, so the promotion effort is concentrated.
Is it easier for a filmmaker to make an “uncompromised” movie now, one that’s closer to his vision?
Filmmaking is all about compromises. I could want sunlight for the shoot, but it could be a cloudy day. I have permission to shoot only on that day. What do I do? The key is to know when to compromise and when not to. Which are the small battles you are willing to lose to win the war? I believe that one should never compromise with one’s dream. One should be willing to compromise to achieve that dream – but never with the dream itself. Finally, it depends on the individual. Across the decades, you will always find people who guarded their dreams with insurmountable passion. And in some ways it’s easier to make the movie you want to make today. Earlier, if you did anything different, it would be labelled an “art movie,” and would only attract a very small audience. Now it’s possible to make a different movie within the mainstream.
In the race to get to the Rs. 100-crore club and with the constant eye on the lucrative foreign markets, do you feel big stars are less likely to take risks?
There are stars who’ve always played safe because they wanted to hold on to their stardom. And there are others who’ve taken risks. Personally I don’t care about numbers. And as far as I know, neither does the audience. I don’t know how much business Gunga Jumna or Pyaasa or Mughal-e-Azam did. I love these films, but my value for them is in the emotions they evoke in me, not in how much money they collected at the box office.
But sometimes, a project appears to be only about the numbers – like your upcoming release Dhoom 3, which looks like a preordained hit.
No film is a preordained hit. But yes, the chances of success in this case are high. And like any project, I chose this one because I loved the script. I listened to the narration and I was excited by it. And then we go back and work out the economics – how much we can spend, and so on, so that we can ensure profits for everyone down the chain, the exhibitors, the distributors, everyone. My interest in numbers is limited to the fact that I want my films to make back the money invested in them. I would like to be responsible about my creative decisions and don’t want others to lose money due to my creative excitement. Beyond that, numbers don’t interest me.
You are going to inaugurate the 11th Chennai International Film Festival. How much world cinema do you watch?
I must confess that I don’t watch too many films. I’ve always been more of a reader. On principle, I don’t watch pirated movies, and once you become a celebrity it becomes difficult to go to the theatre to watch films, and I love watching films on the large screen. But when I am abroad, I watch a lot of films. I saw this amazing documentary called Searching for Sugar Man. I loved Michael Haneke’s The White Ribbon. Asghar Faradi’s A Separation is a great film. That’s what I was saying. I wish we could have a small but dedicated chain of theatres across India which curated only art-house cinema. I believe that this would also eventually increase the audience for these films.
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.
Deepauk M
December 11, 2013
Such contrasting opinions on the dubbing studio between Vikram and Aamir!
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
December 11, 2013
That ‘compromise’ part is really inspiring. Quite a brave statement.
And being responsible about creative decision, that’s also very respectable.
This interview shows Aamir is such a positive person.
LikeLike
Raghav
December 11, 2013
Great interview BR!.one might possibly box him as a ‘socially conscious’ movie star-which is a difficult thing because every move might seem to be a publicity stunt..but good mix of questions
one question though…is he a free flowing speaker or did he have the long pauses that he usually does?.Also it would be interesting to find out if he watches/likes south movies-which ones..
LikeLike
Nish
December 11, 2013
lovely interview. he comes across so sincere without being snobbish or pseudo
LikeLike
Udhay Sankar
December 11, 2013
Lovely interview……Superb Questions(How do u frame such questions in ur mind..do u go prepared???..)loved the way it progressed..only his answers on certain questions could have been a bit more out right….
“The space doesn’t look finished yet, and from the things lying around no clear theme is visible… At 1 pm sharp, Aamir Khan walked in and seated himself. He was in casual clothes – baseball cap, a grey T-shirt, cargo shorts, sneakers.”
seems u had a lot of time to analyze the situation….you are one of the best paragraph writers that i ever know….u make it a pleasure for us to read,at the same time you keep the attraction on the point to be discussed…..now on i’m gonna read every one of your posts and comment on it…..keep writing till the end of your life brangan….
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
December 11, 2013
Thank heavens he puts his money where his mouth is. Honestly, today, I see his name associated with a project, and I will watch it. I may or may not love it, it may or may not be a ‘great’ film, but I know I will get something different, something sensible. In his own way, he has been changing the face of cinema, and that may indeed be his legacy going forth. I like the fact that he thinks about the responsibilities that come with his creative endeavours.
Thanks for the interview.
LikeLike
MANK
December 11, 2013
@BR
Its quite strange that he says that he is not much of a movie watcher but more of a reader. He sounded pretty honest in his interview.
This looks like a pretty short one. Is there an extended version of this out there?. Or did you skip much of it here because other things you discussed were pedestrian things.Has he read any of the reviews or checked out your blog?
LikeLike
Shalini
December 11, 2013
Earnest, chap. 🙂 Aamir is one of the few (possibly only) actors who can get me into a theater nowadays, but I don’t think I’ve ever truly loved or enjoyed an Aamir performance.
LikeLike
vijay
December 12, 2013
Liked the answers for some more than the questions themselves, shows a certain clarity of thought with Aamir.
BR why the sudden Vikram piece in Caravan? To coincide with something else or just like that?
LikeLike
brangan
December 12, 2013
Deepauk M: Hahaha! You’re a sharp reader, man 🙂
Raghav: Generally speaking, all interviewees tend to “ramble,” in the sense that they tend to “collect thoughts” on the fly — and his rambling wasn’t all that different from the others. But yes, he tends to give long answers. If you are interviewing him, it’s help to ask for more time. You don’t want to cut him off.
MANK: No, this was it. Oh, and speaking of being a reader, he certainly hasn’t read this chap called BR. He asked me, “Do you watch Hindi cinema?” 😀
vijay: Caravan piece not sudden. They’ve been asking me since last year. I was busy with the book. Then I started on this in May. So its been a long time coming.
LikeLike
Saurabh
December 12, 2013
Really an earnest fellow. Rajeev Masand once asked him if we can make something like Inception, Aamir’s reply was straightforward. While other stars/actors would have dodged the question by saying something like We don’t need to make an Inception for our audiences,etc, Aamir was frank to admit that we lack that imagination in our movies, a problem beyond the budget issue.
LikeLike
MANK
December 12, 2013
@BR:Do you watch Hindi cinema
LOL.Must have been a really ego busting experience.
He would have done better if he have asked the pope whether he reads the bible . 🙂
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
December 12, 2013
Aamir is an intelligent filmaker. Why the hell is he involving himself with trash like Dhoom 3.
LikeLike
Arjun
December 12, 2013
His reply to the question on sugar coating is quite delusional, to put it bluntly. The question was quite apt, but for him to say “The film changed the way parents look at their children’s education, and the way teachers look at students. Parents stopped saying “You have to do engineering.”” is rather naive and presumptuous IMO, for that certainly has not happened and more importantly the way the film dealt with the subject was extremely populist and superficial and cannot really be taken seriously. Sugar coated is THE word. There are issues with the system, yes. but clearly Bollywood simply lack the intellectual rigour to deal with such a complex subject matter.
LikeLike
Srini
December 13, 2013
@Arjun – Exactly my thought. To say that the movie changed the way parent’s look at children’s education?…that is some delusion.
But I liked is his reponse on comprise for a film. Sounds very valid.
LikeLike
auroravampiris
December 13, 2013
I think there’s a distinction to be made between FUN genre fare (I really cannot emphasize the word “FUN” more) and cynical genre fare. Cynical fare is nothing more than a cheap cash-in with no passion driving, whereas FUN genre fare is light fare with a lot of entertaining horseplay, but with technical skill and proficiency and passion driving it. It’s the difference between, say, a “Jack Reacher” and an “Abduction.” One is a genuinely fun project with a lot of talent driving it forward (Cruise and McQuarrie) and the other is a cynical project with a bunch of cliched plot notes thrown together for the “next big star”.
If Aamir thinks Dhoom 3 is more of the former than the latter, then more power to him (and for his sake, I hope it really is more FUN than exploitative).
LikeLike
LS
December 13, 2013
Loved the interview — which i’d read earlier anyway, in The Hindu, couple of days back. but great fun reading more details here, in the first para, all about his unfinished office, the books and all the mess. Aamir comes across as real.
LikeLike
Manikantan Hariharan
December 13, 2013
I love the suggestion to have a small chain of Cinemas dedicated to art house movies. I can understand a lot of people having reservations about categorising movies as art house and mainstream. But there is definitly a case for theatre chains focussed on experimental/unconventional movies. It can help foster viewership for movies that push the boundaries. At the very least it can serve as a beacon for those feeling the first pangs of hunger for more from movies that what the mainstream provides.
Currently such people have to make do with occasional film fests and Club screenings or the pirated copies from internet.
LikeLike
vikram
December 13, 2013
BR, why does Aamir Khan remind me of a cuckoo clock? He comes out only when there is a release coming up…
Good questions though….and the bit abt ‘do you watch hindi films’- priceless 🙂
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
December 13, 2013
oh I just noticed, the first para in this piece is different from what i read in The Hindu. I remembered wondering if u actually meant what was written there- aamir doing socially relevant movies and all. Now i know, it,s not what u wrote. Now i wonder, don’t you feel a little violated when they add a line or two under your name? R u comfortable with this? I think i won’t if this happens with me.
LikeLike
brangan
December 15, 2013
vikram: Well, this just happened to be around the time of “Dhoom-3”, but it was really more about the fact that he was going to be at the film festival.
ramitbajaj01: I don’t know if I feel “violated.” Once you submit something, you have no control over what happens — and this is something you make your peace with very early in your career (otherwise there’s going to be endless angst.) That’s why I put up my version on the blog and link to the “edited” version. So one can read whatever he/she wants to.
LikeLike
Madan
December 15, 2013
Nice interview. Brings out both the parts where he offers intelligent thoughts and the parts where he sounds, well, pretentious. 😛 Hearty disagreement with the very first line of his printed in the interview: “The primary responsibility of a film person is to entertain”. No, that’s simply way too generalised and there may be other filmmakers who choose to make films for entirely different reasons. From thereon, it’s bound to be downhill. It’s no surprise he doesn’t think 3 Idiots was sugarcoated but his belief that the film changed the way parents looked at college education sounds deluded. There was a bit of a ripple at that time, sure, inspired people to talk about living their dreams for about a couple of months after watching the film and that was that. It is interesting that for all the painstaking effort with which AK tries to position himself a ‘cut above’ SRK and Salman, he still sets his sights pretty low. At the same time, I liked his suggestion for a separate chain of theaters to show arthouse films, his views on compromise in films and that he cares more about how memorable a film is rather than how much money it makes.
LikeLike
Manix AJ
December 16, 2013
I don’t quite get the definition of art-house in its truest sense. Does anything mass market lacks art or any aesthetics attached to art?I reckon not …
If Tarantino dishes out some sort of a grindhouse art then it must also qualify our multi-faceted Indian movies as some form of fascinating mind-numbing art form.
LikeLike
MANK
December 16, 2013
@Madan
Agree with you about Aamir’s comments about 3 idiots. Its quite strange that actors whom we consider intelligent still hold certain delusions with regard to their work.I think RDB had a far more effect on people’s psyche.About separate chain of theaters, We discussed that subject an another post by Brangan on art cinema vs commercial cinema.The problem is that even if we have a separate chain, How to stop it from encroachment by commercial films with the battle for more and more screens getting tougher everyday.Govt. control may solve the issue to a point, Like the NFDC system that existed earlier.But the issue is whether the Govt. has the ability and willpower to sustain such an enterprise. You see the moment Govt. gets involved , Corruption,favoritism and incompetence follows.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
December 16, 2013
Very valid point that one should make peace where one has no choice. But i am rather wondering is there really no choice? For fresher i can understand, he won’t be able to make negotiations. But can’t an inexperienced journalist like you ask for more control over the content. Sure, changing some words or the other, for the sake of culturally accepted tone (like once penis was changed to bad in a tamil movie review) or for the sake of space (like in madhubala book review, some lines were omitted), but adding some lines for the sake of context is not fair, i believe. If they have assigned a task, they should understand that the journalist knows his work and would have written the article as per context itself. Or at least they can request a change from the author himself. I personally feel that it,s not right to alter the content by the editor when the article bears the name of just one author. It,s not fair to the author, and certainly not fair to the reader.
P.S.- sure, nothing much is at stake in this article, but i am speaking generally.
P.P.S.- I seem to have made some generalizations like sake of space or sake of context, but it was just to keep it simple. Ofcourse, there could be any other reasons.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
December 16, 2013
Edit: . . . space (like in Meena kumari book review, some lines were omitted) is understandable, but adding…
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
December 16, 2013
haha, why did i write ‘inexperienced journalist like you’. So sorry. I wanted to write ‘experienced’.
(if possible, please make the changes in my 1st comment itself leaving out these edits, otherwise it would take unnecessary space and time for other readers to follow)
LikeLike
harikrishnan raveendran
December 17, 2013
@madan,
Sir it’s an artform.The primary response of any art form is to entertain.From kathakali to cinematic dance.Ok,sometimes there might be methods and one should have knowledge in it inorder to enjoy it.e.g kathakali.There you have to know about “mudras”.Even so called intellectual films also entertain,but on a different level.A film communicates basically to a viewer through images and sound to a viewer irrespective of his cultural background or intellectual background.Its a matter of communication to one,s heart.If it fauls in this,how can it be termed good film?The word entertainment neednt only be applied to so called masala films.Aamir had said that he also meant engaging films
LikeLike
Abhirup
December 17, 2013
I don’t think his statement about entertainment is problematic in any sense. All worthy works of art entertain. Only, they do so in different ways. Sure, there are films and books (and other art forms) that are sobering in tone and which deal with grim, disturbing, unsettling, unusual, uncommon issues. There are works which aim at making us think and reflect. But if such a work moves me, if the the thinking/introspection I engage myself in subsequently is something I find worthwhile and fulfilling, then I would say the work has “entertained” me, in the sense that it has done for me something that I am grateful for. Too often we associate the term entertainment only with ‘masala’ films, and that’s a very limiting definition of the term. I find ‘Dabangg’ entertaining. I also find ‘Wild Strawberries’ entertaining. For different reasons. Among Aamir’s own films, I find ‘Lagaan’ and ‘Dil Chahta Hai’ entertaining, and also ‘1947 Earth’ and ‘Dhobi Ghat’. Once again, for different reasons. But entertaining they all are.
LikeLike
Abhirup
December 17, 2013
Agreed, though, that he thinks way too highly of the supposed influence of ‘3 Idiots’. There may have been individuals who have been strongly impacted by it, but to say that it has had an effect on a mass scale is simply incorrect.
LikeLike
Madan
December 18, 2013
harikrishnan raveendran: What is art? I am going through a few different definitions online and none of them define art as something that is intended to entertain. Here’s one: “the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.” It follows from such a definition that beauty being a highly subjective concept, no one can tell whether a work of art would indeed entertain. Its beauty may perhaps be evident to none other than the creator of said work himself.
I think we Indians still understand art in the sense of “koothadigal” (I presume you will understand that expression) and maybe this comes through in AK’s answer too. But not all artists are koothadis and if all of them were, it would be impossible for art to progress because somebody has to take the risk to do something that possibly opens up new frontiers of expression for the medium even if he may end up not being understood. The boundaries of our traditional arts were defined long ago and have barely been explored since (well, relative to the Western arts at any rate though I will add that dance is not my strong suit and I am thinking more about music or theater/cinema). So the need of art to mainly entertain is understandable in that context. But it also explains then why art films have a limited audience in India and general stagnation with a few touches to give a facelift once in a while (mostly derived by aping the West) is the norm. .
LikeLike