Naseeruddin Shah’s memoir is unflinching, evocative, witty, even if feels somewhat incomplete.
Sometime during the “bone-wrenchingly boring six-month shoot” of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Naseeruddin Shah began to type out what would become a memoir. In the book, titled And Then One Day, Shah explains why. “For me it’s an exorcism of sorts, and it’s for my children if they wish to understand me better.” And so we begin with his birth in Barabanki, a town near Lucknow. The date could be July 1949. Or maybe it was August 1950. No one seems to know for sure. What’s certain, though, is that the boy shared a seesawing relationship with his parents. Very early on, he says of his mother, “The most soothing sensation I have ever felt in my life is the touch of the breath-warmed corner of her dupatta on my eyelids.” Later, once he moved to Bombay (“the mother-in-law of all Indian cities”): “I hadn’t missed home for a second… not once did I find myself thinking of my parents. That was a closed chapter, I thought, I was done with them forever.” Then, when he visited home again: “I was surprised at how comforted I felt hearing her voice again.” About his father, we get, at one point: “I had never cared for him just as he had never cared for me.” Elsewhere, on learning that his father, after an illness, wanted him to stay on another day, Shah exults, “He actually wanted my company.”
At least with women, his feelings weren’t as complicated – he loved them, and the picture of this lofty actor as something of a ladies’ man, who had sex before he learnt to masturbate, is one of the book’s happiest surprises. There’s “R,” who, after a while, left for the US and encouraged Shah to apply for a course in America, so that they could be together. I laughed hard – almost as hard as when I read the part about Shah, post Nishant, appearing in a commercial for Gulab agarbatti – at his gripe at having to sit for a “bloody TOEFL and GRE exam.” Then there’s Ratna, his wife, of whom he writes glowingly. But before Ratna, Shah was married to a Pakistani named Purveen, who was in India on a student visa. The birth of their child, Heeba, results in the book’s most self-flagellating passages. “At that age I had no fondness whatsoever for children, no fondness in fact for anything but myself.” Shah speaks of the “crushing disappointment” on learning it was a daughter, and “later when she was being fed and I was being ignored I, like all immature fathers, experienced the most intense jealousy…” His neglect still shames him, all these decades later. Shah wasn’t kidding about the book being some sort of exorcism.
The memoir, seen one way, is the record of a series of unhealthy relationships – with Rajendra Jaspal, a classmate from the National School of Drama; with cigarettes, marijuana and LSD; and, most importantly, with commercial Hindi cinema. Shah writes of his love for Dara Singh and Shammi Kapoor; his first appearance on screen, as an extra in the Rajendra Kumar-starrer Aman; his unsubmitted application for the Filmfare-United Producers’ Talent Contest (the winner was a 21-year-old who went by the name of Rajesh Khanna); and, incessantly, his contempt for the commercial idiom. He reserves special fury for Sholay, which he says conformed strictly to “the abysmal pattern of so-called Indian action movies.” (The fact that, years later, he accepted a part in Karma, Subhash Ghai’s unofficial Sholay remake, is surely one of life’s quaint little ironies.)
How did an actor with such attitude put himself through the paces of mainstream cinema? At least the likes of Jalwa and Hero Hiralal we can assume were projects he took on because of the directors (Pankaj Parashar, Ketan Mehta) with whom he shared a sensibility. But Tridev? Mohra? And, yes, Karma? At times, Shah seems to say that he didn’t mind the commercial stuff all that much, and that his vitriol was really sour grapes. “My attitude to Hindi cinema turned even more condescending, possibly because I couldn’t see myself fitting in in it. I was resentful in advance of being cast in roles it would hurt my ego to play… Though I have to say the thought that I was not qualified to be the lead in popular movies pinched greatly, so this reaction was very possibly my defence mechanism working in advance to counter the rejection I anticipated…” Later, he admits that “the only two who could make the schmaltzy Hindi film dialogue and ersatz situations believable were Dilip Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan and I was nowhere in their league.”
I wish Shah had expanded on these experiences. What, for instance, did he feel while wearing a dhoti and a Stetson and cooing “oye oye” into Sonam’s ear during the shooting of Tirchhi topi wale, the song that finally made him the kind of marquee name none of his acclaimed art films did? Tridev isn’t even mentioned. A representative of the publishers said that Shah stopped at a particular point because he didn’t think that life after that had anything interesting to offer the reader – but that’s a tragedy. Among other things, after his well-documented disillusionment with the parallel cinema of the 1980s, it would have been interesting to know what he felt about its transmogrification into the multiplex cinema of the 2000s, which gave him some of his juiciest roles (Maqbool, Ishqiya, Finding Fanny). Even the portions about working with Shyam Benegal don’t seem enough. Shabana Azmi makes a guest appearance when Shah professes his admiration for her while also noting the “somewhat smug reverence she has for her own acting and her tendency to perform with background music playing inside her head.” Smita Patil barely gets a mention. Bhavni Bhavai gets two pages. Masoom gets one. When Shah speaks fondly of the latter film, I wondered if this story of a man struggling to connect with his son – and this man really, really wants a son – connected at a deeper level with an actor who felt a “crushing disappointment” on the birth of his daughter and couldn’t connect her. With his keen and merciless introspection, what else might Shah have told us, had he chosen to dwell on these details from a time when there was “no relentless TV coverage of every fart, burp and nose-pick by actors”?
But perhaps the point is that cinema never meant as much to Shah as theatre did, as acting did. The latter is cue for another whiplash: “It does seem to be like an aberration of behaviour to want to be someone else all the time, and I think it happens to people who, like me, can find no self-worth early in life, and thus find fulfilment in hiding behind make-believe.” Shah recalls his mentors – Ebrahim Alkazi, Raushan Taneja, Satyadev Dubey. He tells us how impressed he was with how “real” Spencer Tracy looked in The Old Man and the Sea, and how much he respected Geoffrey Kendal and his troupe Shakespeareana. He tells us how astonished he was by Om Puri in the theatre days. He tells us about his ear for the spoken word (“I can still actually recall the grains in a voice I have heard fifty years ago”) and the limiting nature of “realistic acting.” He tells us how, while putting up with the “Vesuvian snores” of roommate Kulbhushan Kharbanda, he shaped his performances in his great early films – Nishant, Manthan, Junoon.
And he tells us that his first love – maybe his only love – is theatre. His earliest memory is that of a performance, probably a nautanki or a Ram Leela. “What has stayed burned into my mind is the thickly painted face of a person up there…” And in boarding school, when he was part of a group that enacted scenes from The Merchant of Venice, he discovered the high of being on stage. “[It] was like being submerged in warm rose water. I didn’t want to ever get off.” He practically dismisses the Method, for “giving the actor nothing except a momentary high of wallowing in memories,” and he scoffs at student actors, who are “only too happy to listen for hours to esotericisms spouted by acting teachers and are obsessed only with getting employment, not with understanding the mechanics of their work.” Shah can afford to indulge in these sermons from the moral high ground because he is as clear-eyed about his own failings as an actor, and because he never stopped striving to better himself. Even after he became an established name in the film industry, he flew to Poland to participate in a workshop by the theatre god Jerzy Grotowski, to acquire new abilities.
It’s fitting, then, that we now see another evolution, that of actor to writer –And Then One Day suggests that this was no phoned-in performance either. Shah writes unflinchingly, evocatively, wittily. Distant memories become vibrant scenes on the page, as in the episode where he waved his brother goodbye as the latter departed by train to boarding school. “And we saw a myriad white hankies waving back. Among the list of compulsory requirements for each departing boy was ‘one white handkerchief’… those white hankies waving from every window is an indelible memory, and though at a different time I suppose this very sight could evoke a giant washing line as well…” About a tonga ride home, he writes, “the horse would invariably crap on the way (an ability I’ve always envied, to be able to do that while running full pelt).” And when faced with the choice of becoming a cricketer or being in the movies, he says, “Cricketers were godlike creatures with special gifts, besides there were so few. There were many more actors, so I plumped for the easier alternative.” Easier? We’ll allow him this modesty even if he seems to be angling for a compliment. Really, who can deny him?
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2014 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.&
Santosh Kumar T K
October 5, 2014
Any interview, or a “self flagellatory exercise” such as this of this man unearths out a newer shade of douchebaggery in him, perhaps only surpassed by a post 2000s’ Anurag Kashyap in his limitless sourness. Interviewers – only happy with the anti-Bachchan, anti-establishment, anti-mainstream bites that they will be offered – play to the standard question template however well refined.
BR, what do you make of Shah’s performance in Mira Nair’s ‘Monsoon Wedding’ (2001)? It’s a delight when I find actors such as Puri, Shah tear the screen apart when they play these everyday, normal, modern day, urban roles with such effortlessness, and charm not hiding behind any masks. (Pawan Malhotra’s role in VB’s Blood Brothers (2007) also comes to mind.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abhirup
October 6, 2014
I concur wholeheartedly with what Santosh Kumar T K says in the first paragraph of his comment. The excellence of naseeruddin shah as an actor is undeniable. His meanness and unpleasantness, at least when faced with topics like Amitabh Bachchan and ‘Sholay’, is equally so. I am happy that in this book (which I haven’t read yet) he has at least admitted that his “resentment” towards stars and films like Bachchan and ‘Sholay’ stem from his “sour grapes” realization that he can never be a star of Bachchan’s stature, or be a part of a film as legendary as ‘Sholay’. I wonder, has he, in this book, given any actual, detailed reason as to why he holds ‘Sholay’ in such low regard? Because he certainly never did so in the past, in the interviews I have read or seen on youtube, where, when asked about ‘Sholay’, he starts behaving like a petulant brat, saying such ridiculous things as it is no better as a film than ‘Sadhu Aur Shaitaan’, without ever bothering to say WHY he thinks so. His ire for Bachchan sounds similarly silly. He criticizes Big B for the latter’s choice of roles…when shah’s own recent choice of roles consists of things like ‘jackpot’ and ‘sona spa’ (to name only two of the many abominable movies he has appeared in).
Anyway, I shouldn’t say much without reading the book. Though, I am not sure I want to.
PS.- Mr. Rangan, you have, correctly, said that ‘Karma’ is an unofficial remake of ‘Sholay’. Has shah bothered to say why he appeared in it, given how much he despises the actual source?
LikeLike
Ankur
October 6, 2014
Hmm – a minor point re: the Filmfare-United Producers’ Talent Contest …there is 8 years’ difference between Naseer and Rajesh Khanna’s age, if RK was 21 then, did Naseer apply for this when he was 13-14? Something seems off…
LikeLike
brangan
October 6, 2014
Santosh Kumar T K: I love watching strong actors in “ordinary” roles, and I loved Naseer in “Monsoon Wedding.” It’s also why I am so looking forward to seeing Kamal in “Papanasam,” interesting though “Uthama Villain” and “Viswaroopam 2” look.
Abhirup: He says the same things, that it’s a low-grade action movie etc. But it doesn’t wash. I mean, if he thinks it’s a “copy” of famous Westerns etc., then how could he, with any conscience, agree to be part of “Jalwa,” which was directly “inspired” by “Beverly Hills Cop”?
And no, he doesn’t get as far as “Karma” in the book. Stops around the “Masoom” stage.
Ankur: Good point, must let them know 🙂
LikeLike
Abhirup
October 6, 2014
But has he said WHY he thinks it is a “low-grade action movie”? I mean, if ‘Sholay’ is “low-grade”, there must be such a thing as “high-grade action movies.” How does he decide which is which? Also, yeah, the “copy” argument is hardly valid.
LikeLike
Silverambrosia
October 6, 2014
Agreed. Superb actor, but otherwise he just comes off as this massive fount of bitterness and nastiness. Wouldn’t even want to spend a day with the guy, would end up feeling poisoned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
venkatesh
October 6, 2014
Hmm , interesting comments.
He also didn’t have very complimentary words to say about Farhan Akhthar in BMB , but i personally find him refreshing. He is one of the few who seems to actually say the _wrong_ things. He makes for more interesting copy than anyone else.
BR: It’s also why I am so looking forward to seeing Kamal in “Papanasam,”
– I bet it will turn out to be a _non-normal superhuman being_ type performance ala Unnaipol Oruvan. None of the frailties of the original character will remain.
LikeLike
nkb
October 6, 2014
I think Shah’s bitterness regarding Sholay, Bollywood and Bachchan have been misunderstood as have his appearance the movies like Karma. I like to think that his bitterness is not for the movie Sholay or the person that is Bachchan but for what society has made them to be. Sholay isnt a cinematic masterpiece that everyones so fawns about and Bachchan is not that great an actor.( i know its a cardinal sin for many to think this but a lot of people including myself think so) So I think Shah’s is lamenting an industry and a society that has tastes which catapults Sholay and Bachchan into such greatness which he thinks he deserves too and is bitter he didnt get it. If one was to compare looks very ordinary looking men like AB and SRK have made it and godawful actors with no acting skills have made it too.Don’t we all harbour some kind of bitterness in life? I have no problems with Shah’s bitterness at all. His appearance in bad movies is also justifiable, after all one has to survive. And why are we so judgmental about him doing bad movies but ok with Amir Khan doing a Mela? Somewhere, I think it is our bias against the actor and his opinions that we have of him vis a vis our idea of Bollywood so it doesn’t settle properly with our perceived notions of cinema and acting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Duke
October 7, 2014
Just finished the book.. He is so right to stop at the 80s cos his work after that would be stream of slightly acclaimed roles here and there with a LOT more potboilers.. the 80s wave ending.. and considering how fun the book is , i dont think he would have been able to justify the high professional moral ground he has taken with liberal doses of personal self flagellation if he continued in the same vain.. so he stopped where it seemed right with the tone of the book.. obviosuly we would have loved a little more of the trivia gossip of movies we have seen in 90s .. but heck.. a super fun read..
LikeLike
Santa
October 7, 2014
This is the first time I am hearing of his contempt for Sholay, and was frankly a bit surprised considering some of his own repertoire. Coincidentally, there was an interview with Ratna Pathak Shah on Rediff this week on which she too excoriated Sholay calling it an ’embarrasment’. My shock at that was minuscule compared to when she called Satyajit Ray’s work ‘barely tolerable’. Some high standards those are!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abhirup
October 7, 2014
nkb, shah has every right to think little of ‘Sholay’ or Bachchan, as do you or anyone else. I won’t be happy to hear somebody say less-than-positive things about that film or that actor, given my belief that ‘Sholay’ is among the very best films ever made in India (and has remained virtually unsurpassed in the years since) and that Bachchan is among the five greatest living actors, but I shall admit that these are my personal views and that others are free to think otherwise. What is boundlessly irritating, though, is shah’s refusal/inability to provide any proper reason as to why he thinks ‘Sholay’ is a poor movie or why Bachchan is undeserving of his fame. Merely saying “‘Sholay’ is no better than ‘Sadhu Aur Shaitaan'” is quite silly. A claim like that has to be backed up with explanations and arguments, or else it is little more than babbling. I would have understood shah’s views on ‘Sholay’ even without sharing them if he had bothered to give us those explanations. But he doesn’t. So, I think it is entirely proper to treat his views on the film as insignificant and pointless.
As for Bachchan, shah thinks he–that is, Bachchan–has not chosen good roles in his career. Again, this claim sounds silly for several reasons. Firstly, Bachchan’s roles in the Salim-Javed scripted films, or in those directed by Hrishikesh Mukherjee, are rich ones, as are some of his latter day parts. If shah thinks otherwise, again, that’s his right, but he has to say WHY. He doesn’t. Secondly, shah’s own choice of roles leave much to be desired, so I am not sure he is in a position to castigate others for it. And if his appearance in those terrible movies is understandable because “after all one has to survive”, then that rationale is applicable to other actors too, isn’t it? You said, “And why are we so judgmental about him doing bad movies but ok with Amir Khan doing a Mela?” Well, I wouldn’t be judgmental about shah acting in bad movies if he were not judgmental about the other actors doing so. When one castigates others for doing what he has himself done, the folly of it has to be pointed out to him.
The bitterness of shah is vexing to me because it is mean-spirited. What he says essentially boils down to “I have not been as successful as some others have been, so I am going to badmouth them, in such a way as to make it appear that I am engaging in film/acting criticism, when it is really no more than a case of sour grapes.” I do find that detestable. Very detestable.
Finally, “So I think Shah’s is lamenting an industry and a society that has tastes which catapults Sholay and Bachchan into such greatness”
So, because shah doesn’t think much of ‘Sholay’ and Bachchan, the “industry” and the “society” must follow suit? Is shah’s ‘taste’ so impeccable that it must be the standard the “industry” and the “society” must aspire to? If shah is so entitled to his ‘taste’, why aren’t the rest of us? Why should the view that ‘Sholay’ and Bachchan don’t have any “greatness” be treated as a marker of good ‘taste’ rather than shah’s personal view (which is what it is?) Really, I don’t think there’s much else in his views about these topics than bitterness and enviousness, and while these are things we are all guilty of, that still doesn’t make them any less silly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bunny
October 7, 2014
“And why are we so judgmental about him doing bad movies but ok with Amir Khan doing a Mela?”
Because Aamir Khan followed Mela with cinematic giants like Lagaan and Dil Chahta Hai. Whereas, Naseer just lapsed into potboilers after a bad film or two.
But, yeah, I agree that there’s no point in questioning his involvement in masala films like Tridev or Karma since he had to be pragmatic enough to fill his coffers. Besides, he doesn’t think highly of his commercial films.
LikeLike
Madan
October 8, 2014
Actually an Aamir being part of a DCH (or Kamal in Anbe Sivam) is quite praiseworthy as they are stars and don’t HAVE to take such risks. On the flipside, for Naseer to be part of a commercial film and then ham outrageously to make his contempt for the medium plain (esp Krissh, Dirty Picture which was quite middle of the road if anything) is very annoying. Sure he does it for the money but as a professional actor he owes it to his crew and the audience to make the most of his role. Gary Oldman didn’t make viewers cringe just because he was cast in a Batman film and if Naseer really thinks he belongs in some universe that even the likes of Oldman can’t get to, godspeed. In Naseer’s case, the love of art cinema would appear to have crossed well and truly over into the realms of pretension. It’s not enough that he enacts ‘characters’ in small films, he must necessarily simultaneously strike this pose of “hey look at me, how intelligent I am”. Not that it diminishes my respect for his work but looking at the above comments I am not alone in finding this aspect irritating.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nkb
October 8, 2014
Abhirup, Sholay? Really?? (here come the brickbats!) Maybe I have sympathy with Shah because I also lament the fact that a film like Sholay is considered a great cinema. I like to think of Sholay as a ‘curry Western’ owing everything to the spagetti Westerns of that time.It has nothing original or outstanding. It does have parts better than its whole sum but that’s that. And I still don’t get why Shah has to keep explaining his ground when no one else gets cross questioned like that. Amitabh’s last good movies for me was in the 70’s. He like Shah has tried anything and everything and now found a comfort zone where only his baritone seems to do any sort of emoting. Can we really say that Bachchan has contributed to a genre of cinema like Shah or Om Puri have? At least for me its a no. Parallel cinema owes so much to a few whereas I think Bollywood would not have been different without Bachchan, having already seen luminous acclaimed actors like Dilip Kumar,Dev Anand and Rajesh Khanna. Yes he is a stalwart of Bollywood but somewhere he didn’t lead or was not a major player in a movement, if you get my gist. Shah’s recent interview on NDTVwhere he praises Bachchan for being such a legend and yet having that common touch seemed to me without any bitterness and of genuine praise. Can you really say that mainstream Bollywood the one that Bachchan is closer to are good cinema? And just because Shah himself has not done the best of roles does not mean he unwish his desire for good cinema, especially from people who have the connections and talent to make such work. So to round it up I think Shah is echoing a frustration with Bachchan because he really could have been a force for far more meaningful and good cinema. He is a force, but just by himself. He could have been so much more.
p.s. Sholay for lots of people, me included, is really no better than Sadhu or Shaitan or many many such movies.
@ Bunny, Hasn’t Shah followed the Tridev with Monsoon Wedding, A Wednesday? etc Many actors don’t think highly of their films. I watched Abhishek Bachchan saying he was deeply embarrassed of his early works and we cant even use the logic of pragmatism here! So what’s new?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abhirup
October 8, 2014
“I like to think of Sholay as a ‘curry Western’ owing everything to the spagetti Westerns of that time.”
“Everything”? Sorry, but no. I don’t think the makers and the stars of ‘Sholay’ have ever denied that they have been inspired by spaghetti westerns. But the tropes have been sufficiently Indianized to make it a distinct film in its own right.
“It has nothing original or outstanding.”
“Original” is a very vague concept. The overwhelming majority of films are not “original”, not even much of the parallel cinema that shah appeared in, which borrowed a lot from foreign cinema. Every director out there has had his sensibilities shaped by other films, and the influence of those films invariably find their way into their own films. That is not necessarily lack of originality. As for the “outstanding” part, that is completely subjective. You don’t find ‘Sholay’ outstanding; countless others do. So, no point in discussing this. Also, I can’t help but note that you are essentially doing what shah does: criticizing ‘Sholay’ without bothering to give explanations or arguments to back up your views. Pointless, that.
“And I still don’t get why Shah has to keep explaining his ground when no one else gets cross questioned like that.”
Of course shah, or anyone else for that matter, has to “keep explaining his ground.” I would demand those explanations from other people too if they said about ‘Sholay’ and Amitabh Bachchan the things that shah has said about them. You can’t simply say something and expect everybody to lap it up, as though the mere fact that you have uttered something makes it gospel truth. You have to, you must, back up you views. This I shall insist on.
“He like Shah has tried anything and everything and now found a comfort zone where only his baritone seems to do any sort of emoting.”
Again, a view expressed without explanations. Also, I think Bachchan has done anything but remain in a comfort zone. He has tried out a variety of roles, from mob bosses to progeria patients to eccentric teachers to old men in love with young women. I know all of these movies are not equally good, but they show a star-actor trying out new roles instead of sticking to any one kind of part.
“Can we really say that Bachchan has contributed to a genre of cinema like Shah or Om Puri have? At least for me its a no.”
And for me, the answer is a resounding “yeah.” As I said, these things are subjective; I don’t see the point of your declarations of your personal views, especially given your shah-like refusal/inability to give explanations for the same.
“Parallel cinema owes so much to a few whereas I think Bollywood would not have been different without Bachchan, having already seen luminous acclaimed actors like Dilip Kumar,Dev Anand and Rajesh Khanna.”
So the fact that there have been other stars before Bachchan means that he is insignificant? By that token, there have been other gifted character actors before (and after) shah, so does that make him unimportant as well?
“Yes he is a stalwart of Bollywood but somewhere he didn’t lead or was not a major player in a movement, if you get my gist.”
Why does he have to lead any movements to be regarded as a great actor?
“Can you really say that mainstream Bollywood the one that Bachchan is closer to are good cinema?”
Yeah, I happen to think that many mainstream films, including quite a few that star Bachchan, are good, even brilliant, films. Conversely, I also find some movies of parallel cinema pretty unwatchable.
“And just because Shah himself has not done the best of roles does not mean he unwish his desire for good cinema, especially from people who have the connections and talent to make such work.”
Firstly, while shah does indeed have the right to wish for good cinema, his berating other actors for their choice of roles is uncalled for, given his own choice of parts. You simply can’t decry others for what you are yourself guilty of. Secondly, and here I am repeating myself, why should shah’s understanding of what constitutes “good cinema” be accepted by all and sundry? Maybe Bachchan considers the films he has acted in, especially in his heyday, to be good cinema, and given how widely these films are still watched and fondly remembered, a lot of others think so as well. Why should the views of shah about what “good cinema” is be considered superior to the views of these numerous other people? Also, given how long he has been a part of the film industry, I am sure shah has developed some “connections” as well. Maybe not on the same level as Bachchan, but he has. I wonder, has he put his connections to good use and to make good cinema? What good use has he put his influences to? I don’t think he can boast of much.
“Sholay for lots of people, me included, is really no better than Sadhu or Shaitan or many many such movies.”
A lot of others, on the other hand, consider it the best Hindi film ever made. Again, I don’t see the point of these declarations, unless they come with the associated and necessary explanations for the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
October 8, 2014
Parallel cinema owes so much to a few whereas I think Bollywood would not have been different without Bachchan, having already seen luminous acclaimed actors like Dilip Kumar,Dev Anand and Rajesh Khanna. Yes he is a stalwart of Bollywood but somewhere he didn’t lead or was not a major player in a movement –
Um, the whole angry young man, anti-hero genre in Bollywood owes its existence to the success those AB films of the mid-late 70s like Deewar or Trishul had. If anything, it was AB who completely recast the idea of a Bollywood hero as a rugged, even ugly man with fire in the belly rather than just a charming gentleman with more emphasis on looks. Even as late as Baazigar, Shah Rukh Khan’s role had a bit of a hangover of the angry young man era. If you are discerning, then the boy cleaning taxis in the opening scenes is itself a big hint as to the influence. Other than that, of course, SRK playing avenging angel and ends justifying the means in the inherently unjust Indian social set up, a theme that pervaded angry young man films from Deewar all the way upon to Agneepath. Now you may well choose to sit in judgment of this genre, as perhaps Naseer himself seems to?, as to whether it has any quality at all, but you can hardly claim it was not an influential development in Hindi cinema and much less deny AB’s own contribution to it. Yes, films like Deewar may have had their flaws but if the alternative meant more films like Yaadon Ki Baarat or HKKN, then I would gladly take Deewar, thank you very much. It was practically the only phase in Hindi cinema where the biggest superstar actually touched a chord with people’s lives and enacted to some extent their own miseries and sufferings, rather than personifying an almost wholly superficial, aspirational vehicle, which is what KJo eventually reduced SRK to and which is where mainstream Bolly largely seems to be stuck at to this day. In other words, he did about as much as a superstar could have to re-bridge the gap between commercial and popular cinema. And before you accuse me of that, let me clarify that I am no fanboy of AB, I like Dileep Kumar about the same and Sanjeev Kumar more than both and do not consider Sholay my all time favourite Hindi film, though I do love it.
LikeLike
nkb
October 9, 2014
Abhirup, since you INSIST upon me explaining why I don’t like Sholay, which I am quite amused by, for why must I explain why I don’t like a certain movie when the very reasons I disliked may be the ones you like. Still, I found Sholay cringe worthy, the sets, the people the way they talk, the character of Sanjeev Kapoor , the barrenness of the movie in general. Nothing in that movie remotely touched me and I was very very surprised when I came to know what Sholay was in the stature of Hindi cinema. Its a personal journey but I saw Masoom a little later and connected even when i was all but 10 years old. But as I have said earlier it is quite enjoyable in parts and better than the whole sum. Now if this is not enough, I can arrange a date with a shrink and ask why I am wired in such a way. In a forum as this I thought it was adequate that saying that I didn’t like a certain movie was enough, after all I am not a child who said no to a candy on a whim. How can one explain why one did or didn’t like the movie. It is as you say so subjective. Now Sadhu or Shaitan I have not seen and I am not even going to bother googling because since you are lumping it with Sholay, how good can it be eh?
And no I certainly do not think what I think is gospel, it is you who insists on explanations other wise your version is in fact gospel. I am merely giving my view on it. Now if you think Lal Badshah and the garbage that Bachchan did is good cinema, we frankly do not have much of a discussion do we? I standby what I said of Bachchan, he was and still is not the force he could have been and of course its his choice. But there is a massive difference in pointing out whats good or could be rather that doing anything and everything and saying its all good. Its not. I was simply saying that Shah has the right to be bitter because he is not lacking in anything that his peers who soared above him have.
“So the fact that there have been other stars before Bachchan means that he is insignificant? By that token, there have been other gifted character actors before (and after) shah, so does that make him unimportant as well?”
I did not mean that at all, but I do think that Shah’s produce as an actor is weightier for the lack of a better word in the fewer films than Bachchan’s output with his star wattage, but maybe its his star power that weighs him down in doing Shah like roles, like Monsoon Wedding.
And my Shah like inability to give an explanation, well hey…maybe its infectious?
And no he does not have to lead a movement to be considered a good actor but Jadugar isn’t all that don’t you think?
Finally, all I am saying is Shah is a good actor and did everything the others did ( dance around trees to stints in masala) to completely different careers. So it’s only logical for him to think and ask why was it different with me??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abhirup
October 9, 2014
“Abhirup, since you INSIST upon me explaining why I don’t like Sholay, which I am quite amused by”
Your ‘amusement’ is merely your inability to support your views with explanations. You may use euphemisms like “amused” to hide it, but all that it boils down to is that you are incapable of coherently thinking out and expressing why you feel a particular way about a film.
“Still, I found Sholay cringe worthy, the sets, the people the way they talk, the character of Sanjeev Kapoor , the barrenness of the movie in general.”
This doesn’t mean anything. What is it about the sets that bothered you? What was inaccurate about the way the people spoke? What aspect of Sanjeev Kumar’s character was ill-developed? Unless you can provide proper answers to these questions, your criticisms are pointless.
“Now if this is not enough, I can arrange a date with a shrink and ask why I am wired in such a way.”
If that was an attempt at humour, I am afraid it turned out to be quite unfunny.
“How can one explain why one did or didn’t like the movie.”
By speaking about the various aspects of a film: its writing, the performances of the cast, the pacing, the way the characters have been shaped, the technical factors, the music, the mood, the themes and how they have been tackled. Those are but a few of the things that make a film, and while you may think it’s impossible, a proper analysis of a film is one where these factors, or at least most of them, are taken into detailed consideration, and only after that is the conclusion (as to whether the person concerned has liked the movie or not) drawn. If you can’t/won’t do that, your views won’t be taken very seriously.
” Now Sadhu or Shaitan I have not seen and I am not even going to bother googling because since you are lumping it with Sholay, how good can it be eh?”
I wonder, can you read? It’s not me who is “lumping” ‘Sadhu Aur Shaitaan’ with ‘Sholay’. It’s shah who said that, and never bothered to say why he thinks so. Which, of course, makes his view pointless.
“And no I certainly do not think what I think is gospel, it is you who insists on explanations other wise your version is in fact gospel.”
I do insist on explanations, yeah, because views not backed up by those are of no use, but never have I said that my “version” is gospel. You are simply putting words into my mouth.
“Now if you think Lal Badshah and the garbage that Bachchan did is good cinema, we frankly do not have much of a discussion do we?”
Again, you put in my mouth words I have never said. I don’t remember saying a word of praise for ‘Lal Badshah’ in my entire life. So I don’t know why you bring that movie up. I must add, though, that ‘Lal Badshah’ is not all that there is to Amitabh Bachchan’s career; in fact, it is not even a representative movie of his oeuvre. Also, hasn’t shah done his fair share of ‘Lal Badshah’-like movies? Have you seen ‘jackpot’ and ‘sona spa’, to name only two of his recent, nightmarish outings? They almost make ‘Lal Badshah’ look award-worthy in comparison.
“I standby what I said of Bachchan”
Without bothering to give explanations for it. So, again, your views are meaningless.
“But there is a massive difference in pointing out whats good or could be rather that doing anything and everything and saying its all good.”
I don’t even know what this sentence means.
“I was simply saying that Shah has the right to be bitter because he is not lacking in anything that his peers who soared above him have.”
In every profession, there are people who soar above the others in that profession, in spite of those others having the same talent. It’s not fair, but that’s life. And yeah, these people do have a right to be bitter. But when that bitterness finds expression in the form of mean, unpleasant, vitriolic and unfair comments on one’s fellow actors for the simple reason that those fellow actors have been more successful, then it’s no more than a case of sour grapes. And that’s not very admirable.
“but I do think that Shah’s produce as an actor is weightier for the lack of a better word in the fewer films than Bachchan’s output with his star wattage”
You have the right to think that. Others, myself included, has the right to think otherwise.
“And no he does not have to lead a movement to be considered a good actor but Jadugar isn’t all that don’t you think?”
Again, not sure at all what this sentence means.
“Finally, all I am saying is Shah is a good actor and did everything the others did ( dance around trees to stints in masala) to completely different careers. So it’s only logical for him to think and ask why was it different with me??”
It’s one thing to ask “Why was it different with me?” It’s very different, on the other hand, to badmouth others out of spite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
duke
October 9, 2014
On second thought, actually looking at his filmography closely you cant fault the man for not trying “hatke” films no matter how the final product turned out.. even Sona Spa was deliriously weird, I think in mid late 80s and mid 90s(a horrendous period cinema wise) was where he did a lot of shitty stuff for banking the money.. Rajiv Rai movies(fun except Asambhav), a lot of films where he played elder brother/father or a cop, even in some ordinary movies like Sir and Chaahat he was outstanding..imp thing is he did not go the way of Ashish Vidyarthi, Anupam Kher, paresh rawal or Om Puri who have done some really abominable and degrading stuff(Buddha Mar Gaya anyone??) so this guy deserves a little more respect and it is not exactly sour grapes..he maintained his leading man persona enough to not do generic character roles of babuji or police commissioner.. Irrfan comes closest to being restrained in saying yes to a fat paycheck (not counting his pre maqbool days – 100% man and some shit like that)
LikeLike
Rohan Nair
October 11, 2014
Thanks – definitely picking this book up. I love how straight-talking Naseeruddin Shah is. Forget what he is saying about Sholay and the rest of it, look at just the first line:
Sometime during the “bone-wrenchingly boring six-month shoot” of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Naseeruddin Shah began to type out what would become a memoir.
How many Indian actors (or just Indians period) would be asked to act in an international film with international stars, then come back and call a spade a spade (“gut wrenchingly boring”) like Shah has here? Most of us Indians would not be able to stop basking in the glow of being asked to act in a western film, leave alone criticise it.
Refreshing, I say, this man and his views.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chanakya
July 18, 2015
Ankur & BR: I’ve just finished reading that chapter of the book. He was actually 14 or 15 years old when that contest happened. He just finished school and it happened during summer holidays after tenth grade.
LikeLike