Post ‘Lagaan’, Aamir Khan has reinvented the big, fat, pre-multiplex era Indian movie for the modern day.
In the Koffee with Karan episode featuring Aamir Khan last December, aired before the release of Dangal, Karan Johar asked his guest about the ghost-directing accusations that have often been flung at him. As some conspiracy theorists claim, what else explains certain filmmakers (Ashutosh Gowariker, Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra) making their best film with Aamir Khan – quality-wise, reception-wise, box office-wise, op-ed worthiness-wise, post-release legendariness-wise – and failing to repeat this with other actors? Khan refuted the theory. He said something to this effect: “The director is the one whose vision we are all following. I believe in helping the director achieve that vision, [and] not having my own vision and going off on another route. If I was following only my own vision, then all my films would have been very similar.”
There is some truth here – at least post Lagaan, which is usually seen as the film that demarcates the two eras of Aamir Khan, the point where he’s generally perceived to have transformed from actor for hire to shaper of cinematic destinies of his projects. Each of the post-Lagaan films is, at least on the surface, different. We have masala thrillers (Fanaa, Ghajini, Dhoom 3), investigative mood pieces (Talaash), social-issue dramas (Taare Zameen Par, 3 Idiots), satirical comedy (pk), underdog sports sagas (Lagaan, Dangal), (quasi) historicals (Mangal Pandey: The Rising, Rang De Basanti), and, of course, the engenderer of the modern-day multiplex movie (Dil Chahta Hai). No other Indian star-actor has such a jaw-dropping hit rate with such a diverse range of films. (Akshay Kumar, in recent times, comes close, but his hits aren’t that big, and his films aren’t that unique.)
But dig deeper, and you find commonalities. Each of these films is an “Indian” film – the beats are Indian in a way they aren’t in most of today’s multiplex films. In the Koffee with Karan episode, Aamir revealed that his favourite song was Oh re taal miley nadi ke jal mein, from Anokhi Raat (1968) – it’s a very “Indian” song, and it’s not something you instantly see many actors claiming as their favourite. But it makes sense. The song has the qualities you see in a Dangal: a charming folksy-philosophical air; pronounced dashes of noble-mindedness and do-gooderism; and an implicit trust in a higher purpose (if not intelligent design). In other words, the ingredients that make up our pre-multiplex-era commercial cinema.
Dangal, in fact, is the rousing masala movie we’ve almost forgotten how to make. (I use the term ‘masala’ rather loosely, as a kind of catch-all for our pre-multiplex-era commercial cinema.) It features a hero (Mahavir Phogat) on a mythical quest (a gold for India). It has an ideologically opposed villain (the sports coach). It has a long-suffering wife/mother. It has a scenario of separation/reunion (Mahavir and daughter Geeta), even if it’s not the “lost-and-found” situation from the Manmohan Desai movies. It features a prodigal child (Geeta) who loses her way from the good path, the right path – her father’s path – realises her mistake and returns to the fold. It has a comic sidekick (Geeta’s cousin), who’s always getting slapped like a clown in a circus. And look at the songs. What is Hanikarak bapu but a variation on Na main bhagwan hoon from Mother India? If the latter “cutifies” Sunil Dutt’s “bad deeds” (stealing, gambling, smoking pot), the former makes Mahavir Phogat seem less like a tyrant, more like a lovable eccentric.
The genius of the Aamir Khan movie is in reshaping these Old Hindi Cinema elements in a way palatable to fans of “Bollywood”. Take Taare Zameen Par. The broad narrative arc is that of the archetypal masala movie (say, Mera Gaon Mera Desh): white knight charges in to save the oppressed from dacoit’s den/boarding school. But the narrative style is more multiplex-y. The filmmaking is muted (more “realistic,” if you will). The soundtrack has a rock-album feel. The surroundings look posh. The lines don’t smack of ornate dialogue-baazi. The film looks classy and appeals to snobbish multiplex crowds that would sneer at a Mera Gaon Mera Desh, and yet, because of the inherent Indian beats, it reaches out to the single-screen audience as well (at least, to a greater extent than the average rom-commy multiplex product).
Whether Aamir Khan’s films work for you or not, it’s fascinating to see how they play around with archetypal stories and characters. In Dangal, for instance, we get a hero with grey shades we recognise from the real world – but the villain is more from the world of cartoons. In Dhoom 3, we get an antihero from the Salim-Javed days, a man out to avenge the wrongs done to a parent – but the film is set in a James Bond universe. In pk, a stranger rids a place of long-festering evil. It’s the classic Yojimbo narrative – but played as comedy, and with the stranger a very literal outsider, from outside earth. And depending on how you look at it, Talaash is either Madhumati or yet another Salim-Javed tale of a hero with a history of loss, out to set right a wrong. Only, the helpful Pran character is now a ghost.
The major difference between these older films and the Aamir Khan movie is that the former were overtly hero-centric whereas the latter often situates the hero amidst a “team” (whether a literal team as in Lagaan, or a figurative one in Dangal, where the family works as a team towards a goal, or even 3 Idiots, with its trio of friends that turns into a duo on a mission). So there are long stretches where the hero isn’t on screen at all (unheard of in our older commercial films), and yet, these stretches are still about the hero: about locating him (3 Idiots), about winning a medal for him (Dangal), about the wait for him (Taare Zameen Par). Aamir Khan has reshaped the hero as a terrorist (Fanaa), as a modern-day Manoj Kumar (Mangal Pandey: The Rising), as an amnesiac (Ghajini, remade from Tamil), as even a supporting character (Rang De Basanti).
Yes, there are films like Dil Chahta Hai that yank at the chain of this narrative, and even this contention of Aamir Khan updating the commercial/masala movie needs more analysis. For instance: Does this “updating” end up diluting these narratives? After all, the Aamir Khan brand of cinema does not pack the subversive punch of the Bachchan-era masala movie, which was more single-minded in conception and execution. Aamir’s subversions are more on the surface. His films are smoothies to Bachchan’s tequila shots. But I go back to his favourite song, its feel-good simplicity that appeals to everyone (even if they don’t want to delve into the deeper meanings), and its very “Indian” sentiments that cut across single-screen and multiplex audiences (in the sense that even if this very song doesn’t find many takers today, then a modernised, or Aamir-ised, version of it certainly will). Aamir Khan may not be ghost-directing his films. He may be guided entirely by the director’s vision. But his films, at the end, are very much his.
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2017 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
jungle of words
January 7, 2017
somehow, I have always felt that, Amir Khan owns the film (sometimes, literally as a producer, or sometimes being a superstar.) so each film comes out as his statement about something. though he has been telling people not to focus on him, but people do keep searching him in the frame. what makes him, different, is that he at least consciously tries to strike a new chord. He is capable of introducing whole new narratives, but he is a smart dude, so he also knows what will keep him in the news. I do appreciate his efforts post Lagaan, but I also feel that he should walk the needed extra mile, to help him grow and to help cinema reinvent its roots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Satyam
January 7, 2017
This is an excellent and necessary piece Baradwaj. One that in a sense some of us have been waiting for. Your framing of Aamir’s post-Lagaan career not only provides the right contexts but I also like (and agree with) the implied subversion — inasmuch as Aamir’s experiment seems singular in contemporary ‘Bollywood’ it is ironically so because even as he appeals to multiplex audiences he does so by resuscitating an older sense of ‘rootedness’. Your piece is where authentic debates about Aamir’s career, or certainly this phase, should begin.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rahul
January 7, 2017
Aamir first got his shit together as an actor in Ramu`s Rangeela , for a director who has since lost his shit. His choice of films have always been deliberate, focused on script and not based on camps/reputation of production houses etc. I think, over the years, he has honed his sense of cinema to a point that he knows what will work across a broad variety of viewers, and so, the success of his films is getting bigger.
Rangeela is not a hero centric film – and I think its success was due to Urmila , ARR ,Ramu and Aamir in that order. Farhan was the architect of DCH. What Aamir has always done is consistently pick good scripts with committed directors and then let the chips fall where they may. By the way, he was doing multiplex-y movies like Raakh and Deewana Mujh sa Nahi way back in the day.
I guess , my point is , that i do not see the demarcation in terms of two eras in terms of something deliberate done by Aamir. Aamir has gotten better but his approach is the same. Around him, things have changed. Bollywood has gotten bigger, the stars have become fewer and there is a lot more analysis of and exposure on their movies. This, to me, is the major reason that stars have become bearers of the destinies of their movies. I do concede that his sincere, philanthropic Satyamev Jayate persona may have affected his choice of movies and has changed the way audience has perceived him , but I think this is a minor factor.
An interesting point about his favorite song – it is metaphysical musing about complex questions but not a word that cannot be understood by a common man, and is sung in a scale that can be hummed by any (non) singer – much like his movies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heramba
January 7, 2017
Brangan Sir , I have a doubt ?? Take Vijay sethupathi for instance , ppl enter the movie hall as VIJAY SETHUPATHI MOVIE BUT AFTER 2 WEEKS FROM THE release it becomes director’s movie .Why is it not the same as far as aamir khan or ranbir kapoor movie is concerned .
LikeLike
Abhishek
January 7, 2017
About Aamir i will say this, if you want to make a documentary on pesticides and make it work at the box office then make it with Aamir khan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chhottesaab
January 7, 2017
Post-Lagaan, Aamir Khan’s professional and personal life changed completely ….. maybe there is a connection there ? Maybe Kiran Rao has had some influence in the choice and execution of the films ? Or maybe, post-Lagaan, He was a crossroads and he decided, that’s it …. professionally and personally I’m doing what I want. As far as his movies being realistic or substantial but only at the surface, could it be because he had seen his dad suffering as a producer and hence has made a conscious decision to push the boundaries but still do everything possible to ensure the box office success so that the producer never suffers ….. ?
Very very interesting piece. Loved it.
LikeLike
Chhottesaab
January 7, 2017
*at crossroads
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 7, 2017
As Aamir said when questioned about his nationalism, he offered up the fact that he’s the possibly the only person in the top rung of stars who does not own a home abroad. It is also more than that, however. I think Aamir is quintessentially ‘Indian’, in his thinking, his vision, his approach to cinema. It is this rootedness to his Indian roots that comes through in his films, whether they are aimed for the multiplex or not. Except for Dil Chahta Hai, which was urban in its characters and its grammar, every one of his films strikes a chord somewhere in the heart of India, whether multiplex or single-screen.
He is the archetypal storyteller, and there’s a sense of someone extremely grounded – and very comfortable in his own skin – when you meet him. He’s not trying to be someone he’s not. When he says that Salman Khan is a bigger superstar than he is, he genuinely believes it. When he says he cannot do what SRK does and be successful at it, he means it. For what it’s worth, every single one of his co-stars, from the main leads to the supporting characters, talk about his amazing generosity in sharing screen space. People I have talked to (way back when) mention how, to him, it was the scene that was important, not whether the camera focused on him, or whether he was good in it. He was willing to rehearse/retake as many times as they needed. That is a huge encomium for a ‘star’.
For me, I go to watch an Aamir Khan movie because I know I will see good, old-fashioned story telling, with an attention to detail that many films do not bother about. And honestly? Today, (in his post-Mela phase) any movie starring Aamir Khan, whether produced by him or not, is – to me – an ‘Aamir’ film. He leaves his stamp on it, and it is a stamp of quality. I know, flaws or not, the film will be good. I haven’t been disappointed, so far.
LikeLiked by 12 people
Altman
January 8, 2017
Aamir Khan has also produced films like Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na, Delhi Belly, Peepli Live, Dhobi Ghat etc, which seems to be exclusively targeted at multiplex audience. He has even appeared in some of these films but yeah, the movies that he’s known for, the ones he gets top billing, are mainstream movies with a wide appeal.
The similarities between Aamir’s films and older Hindi films, as you have adeptly pointed out, are of structural and narrative arcs. As in, how the screenplay and characterizations are alike, how the hero embarks on the same journey and so. But you are very much aware of the fact that for the majority of moviegoers in our country, a movie is about it’s theme rather than it’s structure. To borrow your phrase, It’s the what not how that is vital for the audience.
Themes like dyslexia, youth rebellion, educational reform, organised religion, hit and run, women empowerment are distinctly modern in our movies. I know you are gonna say Mother India dealt with women empowerment long before Dangal and you might be right. My point is that these themes in their entirety are western concepts which are being discussed a lot in our movies today. Whether it’s multiplex or single screen the audience are watching Aamir Khan movies as a challenge to conventional beliefs. As someone said earlier it’s not just him, Bollywood is changing rapidly hence we can expect a lot of films in such vein. Will they be as effective as his works is a different topic.
LikeLike
Madan Mohan
January 8, 2017
Where does Fanaa slot among these films? I haven’t watched it (nor Dangal…yet) hence asking. I see a different kind of theme (apart from those characteristics you mentioned) linking at least three of his films (all three being blockbusters and firmly setting him apart from the other Khans) namely TZP, 3 Idiots and PK. There is a message that AK wants to give and he always places himself in the role of the messenger. Usually there’s not much attempt to modulate the delivery of the message such that it doesn’t feel preachy, because AK wants to provoke conversation on the issues raised in the film and to that end he wouldn’t like to take chances by making it too subtle. He usually adopts a charming, urbane and gentle personality, whether he is supposed to be an alien or the brilliant college rebel, to make himself likable to multiplex audiences. Not saying you have said so, but the oft expressed notion that multiplex audiences want something sophisticated reeks a bit of self-flattery. What they really want is something feel good and without the noisy dishum dishum drama of old school masala films. That is what AK delivers. I can’t judge Dangal but with each new instalment of the archetypal new Aamir film, I have grown less enthusiastic about watching the next. The somewhat docu, almost Discovery like tone of TZP worked in the particular context of that film but less so (for me) on 3 Idiots and with PK, it felt like a litany of stating the obvious. In the meantime, he has also captured the imagination of the public with Satyameva Jayate so it’s not surprising that there’s some convergence in tone between that show and his films.
LikeLike
brangan
January 8, 2017
Madan Mohan: “the oft expressed notion that multiplex audiences want something sophisticated…”
I am not saying that at all. I am saying exactly what you imply:
“But the narrative style is more multiplex-y. The filmmaking is muted (more “realistic,” if you will). The soundtrack has a rock-album feel. The surroundings look posh. The lines don’t smack of ornate dialogue-baazi. The film looks classy and appeals to snobbish multiplex crowds that would sneer at a Mera Gaon Mera Desh…”
It’s exactly what you say: “What they really want is something feel good and without the noisy dishum dishum drama of old school masala films. ”
But there’s something more. When I call something a multiplex film, I refer not to ” a film that is released in a multiplex” (which includes just about every film) but “a film that is not released in single screens.”
This audience — in a handful of urban centres — IS a relatively sophisticated audience, in that they like films that experiment with tone and format and content. The combination of this audience and the increased ticket rates is the thing that has made possible a Kapoor & Sons, a Dear Zindagi, etc.
And Aamir Khan doesn’t make films for just this audience but for the others too.
Also, a point about “he always places himself in the role of the messenger”
He never places HIMSELF in that role. The films are messagey but the character isn’t like someone in, say, a preachy Tamil film who wags a finger and preaches to the audience. His character is part of the narrative tapestry that allows for this message to be told.
Take Rang De Basanti. The most explicitly messagey scene in the film is the following scene and it unfolds entirely between Siddharth and Madhavan/Soha. Aamir is just a wisecracking bystander.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan Mohan
January 8, 2017
“I am not saying that at all. ” – Yes, and I already said you didn’t. 😀 But moving on…
“This audience — in a handful of urban centres — IS a relatively sophisticated audience, in that they like films that experiment with tone and format and content. ” – But it’s not the same audience that watches both films, that is, say Kapoor & Sons and 3 Idiots. I have seen KS, 3 Idiots, TZP and PK all in theater. KS attracts typical multiplex audience while AK films attract the audience that you used to see in single screen theaters. The most interesting was when I saw mostly English speaking youngsters turn up to watch Neerja set in the 80s and with a decidedly Indian tone. And I saw both Neerja and PK at the same theater – Sterling cineplex. So while I agree that there is an audience for adventurous films in urban centers and who go to multiplexes, they are not the ones who make an AK film a hit. They may or may not watch his films but he is painting over a much larger canvass and doesn’t need them.
“He never places HIMSELF in that role.” I disagree again.In all three films I mentioned, it is the character played by Aamir Khan that sets out to educate the people around him and, by implication, the audience. It surely cannot be a coincidence. And as you have noted, AK also casts himself in the old school spotless masala hero tradition so that he is indeed the one who has not sinned (and therefore cast the first stone and point out our flaws).
I agree with you about RDB but then I also felt Mehra retained much more control over the final product in this instance. There is a certain preachiness or messagey element inherent in Hirani’s films so it goes well with AK as the protagonist (on the other hand, I preferred the incongruity of casting a goonda on the mend in the position of messenger).
LikeLike
Ravi K
January 8, 2017
I suspect that even though Aamir isn’t ghost-directing his films, he has the ability to pick up on what it is in those films that will strike a chord with the audience, and gives valuable input to highlight those things or to make beneficial changes. He may not be a a writer or director himself, but he seems to be able to choose good material created by others and/or give his input. For the most part. I didn’t see Dhoom 3, but that struck me as a mercenary choice.
I’m still impressed that for his first production, Aamir chose a nearly four-hour-long period piece that combined sports and colonialism, in a dialect not often heard in Hindi cinema, shot in some remote village, written and directed by someone without a particularly noteworthy track record.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apan
January 8, 2017
There is this thing I have often thought about, which is the difference between a protagonist and a hero, and I feel this will be relevant here in context of Aamir Khan’s roles. So a hero would be someone who doesn’t really have any major personal conflicts that get resolved or are dealt with during the course of a film, their purpose in the film is towards fixing things towards other characters, or a situation, and audience are expected to look up to a hero. On the other hand, protagonist is someone who needs a resolution, with whom audience can directly relate to, their conflict is resolved or dealt with in the film, with or without a hero. Of course there maybe overlap, like when a protagonist becomes a hero(Hrithik’s character in Lakshya).
Now talking of Aamir’s characters in various films, since Lagaan, I feel it is quite a mixture.
In Lagaan he was clearly a hero, as he had to get others on his side. Since he was a lead, and to earn a viewer’s support, you need some human flaw, which in the film was his over-enthusiastic, almost foolish innocent bravery.
In Dil Chahta Hai, a protagonist(who maybe thought of himself as a hero)
In Mangal Pandey, a protagonist who turns into a hero
In Rang De Basanti, a protagonist who despite ‘heroism’ in the end remains a protagonist.
In Fanaa, a hero who turns into a protagonist. Kajol was a protagonist throughout
In Taare Zameen Par, an out and out hero. Since he wasn’t a lead, the film still works despite his character not being peppered with flaws to make it more relatable.
In Ghajini, a protagonist who had to turn into a hero(It was his personal quest)
In 3 Idiots, surely a hero(with Sharman & Madhavan as protagonists), but since he was in lead, he couldn’t be all righteous so did all the ‘naughty’ things to make him likeable. This I feel is particularly challenging, to be the hero(unreal) and still be relatable.
In Dhobi Ghat, a protagonist who could not have been a hero for his helplessness.
In Talaash, a protagonist on whom the task of heroism expected of him was more of a burden.
In Dhoom 3, a hero(In Dhoom Universe villain is the hero), who had to also be a protagonist(s). Basically a lot of confusion.
In PK, he starts as a protagonist, becomes a hero by circumstances. Unlike 3 Idiots, he wasn’t too conscious of it, and needed Anushka’s push and support.
Now coming to Dangal, which I find a very interesting case. On the face of it, he is a hero, who got her daughters to succeed against all odds. However if we look closely, Aamir played it as a protagonist more than as a hero, who seemed conflicted, for whom we were rooting for, and felt emotionally attached to, and who had a personal motivation to do it, as it was his unfulfilled dream. I feel he was a protagonist throughout the film, which is why his pre-final sermon to Geeta, came across as jarring.
PS: This is a very rough assessment, but I felt like sharing as otherwise in pursuit of writing a detailed piece, would have just been forgotten. Would love to know if this resonates with others here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sev
January 8, 2017
Nice one, rangan. I do not care for AK or any of the big lords of Bwood but i can appreciate that unlike the rest of the really big movie stars, AK at least makes the most noise about the job he is paid to do: acting and movies. For the rest of the stars, it is all about off-screen shenanigans and such dipshit. But hey, i thought you would be one of those who’d write on the complex, fascinating actor we just lost: Mr. Om Puri. I mean, when i think of him, i recall the fiery inspector in Ardh Satya and the silent sufferer inAkrosh. There was such pain in those movies and he reflected it like no other. That is why i could never get myself to watch them again. And so flawed and human in his personal life, and since he wasn’t straddled by the baggage of mainstream stardom, he was so refreshingly open about it.
LikeLike
TJ
January 8, 2017
Hello Sir
I have read so many of your reviews before without actually realising you have been on WordPress.
I enjoy reading your views on cinema and I have learnt so much by spending time actually understand what you were trying to say.
I just wanted to say ask you with all humbleness if i could get a few pointers on writing.
I started a film blog of my own and it is pedestrian at best at the moment. I would like to learn and learning from the best might be the best way to go about it.
I know time is of the essence in your field and my “thing” might be quite the inconvenience but if you could spare a few minutes, it would mean the world to me.
Kindly oblige.
Thanks and Regards
Tejas
LikeLike
நவீன்
January 9, 2017
Key for non-hindi subjects
LikeLike
csimumbai
January 9, 2017
Great piece Rangan. I’ll add another reason for AK’s “jaw dropping success rate” – he reads and has a feel for the literary. Unlike most of his contemporaries, he reads the script and also listens to it. In the 1990s the stories of his penchant for a bound script were legendary. I think the written word helps in facilitating a different sort of engagement with an idea. It helps him make concrete contributions to the script. Moreover, he has the confidence and the ability to suggest changes to the script. That explains partly why Gowarikar et all did their best work with him – he made them write more drafts of the script and provided his literary inputs. It also means that he is not generally in awe of the director/script writer. Working with relatively newer directors/writers makes the process that much easier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
vijay
January 14, 2017
The fact that he shares some of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s genes might partially explain his Satyameva Jayate-type endeavors and Lagaan, Rang De Basanti-type films I guess, besides good business sense.
LikeLike
Bharathi Shevgoor
January 20, 2017
What a pleasure it was to read your take on the phenomenon called Aamir Khan! The comments were insightful as well.
One of his earlier movies that I enjoyed hugely was ‘Sarfarosh’. I did not see any mention of that in your writing, nor in the comments, though it is possible I might have missed it. An analysis of that movie might have been interesting and revealing.
LikeLike