Agneepath’s boldness a victory for Bollywood
Let’s get this out of the way– yes, Agneepath is yet another remake of an Amitabh Bachchan film. It is a film that didn’t receive the mainstream success many of Amitabh Bachchan’s films were famous for. Instead, it reached a status more familiar with Amol Palekar’s films– it became a cult classic.
Karan Johar, whose father produced the original Agneepath in 1990, said that his goal was to remake this film and give the story the limelight it deserved. Meaning—he didn’t want a cult classic, he wanted a box office hit. I am not against remakes, but when I heard of Johar’s hand in the film, I got a bit nervous. The filmmaker usually represents the Bollywood that I think audiences have, or should, outgrow– the glossy over-the-top melodramas. Aside from Johar’s few attempts at supporting fresh, innovative film like Wake up Sid, I didn’t have much faith in the filmmaker—I didn’t believe he would be able to capture the darkness that a film like Agneepath demanded. In this case, I am glad I was wrong.
Agneepath worked for me. Yes, it was an all-out Bollywood film. It had the drama, the love story, the songs, the villains, the very attractive actor and actress. And yes, it is impossible for the film to live up to one of Amitabh’s greatest performances as Vijay Chauhan. But the film worked, and here is why.
The creators of this film took a really bold step in avoiding copying the movie frame by frame. They also avoided doing what Farhan Akthar did with another Bachchan remake, Don, where the classic film was taken and made modern and slick. Agneepath was actually the opposite– the film was more authentic, more grim, and more real than the original– even more than most Bollywood films.
The 1990 Agneepath did break a lot of barriers, and it may have been the reason the movie failed at that time. It was a time in Bollywood where Madhuri Dixit was on the rise, where feel-good family dramas like Maine Pyar Kiya and Mr. India were attracting mass audiences. But it still remained within the industry’s parameters—the film didn’t try to get too dark, too real.
The strength of the original Agneepath was the dialogue story, and more than that, the delivery. Few can match the style, mannerisms and acting of Bachchan’s Vijay Chauhan. There also wasn’t a ridiculously awesome scene where Bachchan randomly splashes out of the ocean. Hrithik Roshan and the filmmakers were smart in avoiding any attempts of replicating that. They put their energy in the script– and that was the smartest thing they did.
The film plays out like a Shakespearean tragedy– a son watches his self-respecting idealist father, who wanted to open a salt factory and make the community more educated and self-sufficient, murdered by the people from that village for a crime he did not commit. He was framed by a man, Kancha, who also wanted to open a factory, but wanted to produce cocaine.
This son grows up to be Vijay Chauhan. From an early age, Vijay embarks on a path to regain the village he and his family were forced to leave. His goal wasn’t to get rid of the evil around him (which there was plenty of– he actually works for an evil underwold gangster, Rauf Lala). Vijay had a less-than-noble desire to get his village back, a village that was ripe with his father’s memories. Vijay’s mother saw the dangerous road her son had chosen, and she leaves with her young daughter and asks Vijay to keep his distance.
Today’s Agneepath has something to offer that the original didn’t. The movie wasn’t afraid to go places Bollywood has avoided. Rishi Kapoor’s commanding performance as Rauf Lala, an underworld don, showed his character in the business of selling young girls– a concept rarely shown in Bollywood, yet one that is a reality in India. The original rape scene in which the protagonist’s father is seen with a prostitute is changed to a young girl with a leg brace, who is raped and killed. The film freely showed prostitutes, transvestites, and both in a positive light.
Then, there is Kancha. The 2012 chief antagonist was much creepier, deranged, and more psychotic than the original. The contrast from the 1990 Danny Denzongpa’s Kancha was wonderful—Sanjay Dutt’s Kancha wasn’t an aviator-clad white suit-wearing villian, but rather a scary hairless man who couldn’t stand the sight of himself. He wasn’t suave, he wasn’t handsome– he was pure evil.
My favorite aspect of the script is the nuances of Vijay’s character. Is he good? Or not? On the one hand, he kills ruthlessly to gain his village back. He does anything in the name of gaining Mandwa– even takes part in an underworld lord’s evil doings for several years. On the other, he risks everything for a cop, a cop who would arrest him if he had the proof. But Vijay choose to protect him—the policeman’s self-respecting and moral ways remind him of his own father.
In Bollywood, films are usually black and white– there isn’t much room for a gray area. That is probably the reason why the original Agneepath failed at the box office, but nevertheless gained cult status. In the remake, the filmmakers didn’t shy away from exploring territory that is more or less uncharted in the Hindi film industry. Bollywood has often been criticized of avoiding the “other” India. In Agneepath, here it was, in a high-budget star-studded motion picture.
The performances were noteworthy, the songs were authentic (created by local Marathi musicians), but there were still some over-the-top moments, too many unnecessary subplots, and the film could have been about an hour shorter. Nevertheless– it went where few mainstream Bollywood films go. It had a protagonist who was angry, lost, maybe mistaken– not your typical Bollywood golden boy. It was a film that challenged the Hindi film industry’s precious image of India, and it still provided entertaining, yet intense cinema.
If the filmmakers made the film with a lower budget, less drama, fewer songs, no Katrina Kaif item number—it would have made for great cinema. But this is Bollywood, and this is also still a film produced by Karan Johar. With all that in mind, I commend the filmmakers for avoiding the fluffy, safe route and taking a risk. And for that, Agneepath is a good step for Bollywood.
Waiting for Mani’s Magic
Mani Ratnam is one director who was able to make films that not only gained box office success, had musical blockbusters, but were also applauded by critics.
His second Bollywood film Roja (he was primarily making Tamil films before) made it to the 10 best soundtracks of all time list by Time Magazine, and his Tamil film Nayagan made it to the All-Time 100 Best Movies.
Here’s a song from the film Roja:
Ratnam’s film Dil Se, which released in 1998, dove into the terror-stricken region of Northeast India. The female lead in the film (SPOILER) was raped by soldiers as a child and witnessed the death of her family. She was also a terrorist– hard to find in Bollywood. The movie also produced one of India’s most famous songs: Chaiya Chaiya. (All of Ratnam’s Bollywood films have music composed by A.R. Rahman.)
Ratnam was able to eloquently address and convey major issues in India that were mostly ignored by the rest of the film industry, But, unlike the more independent film makers, he used Bollywood’s techniques to convey the message, which made his otherwise independent films mainstream. His films had dances, songs, famous actors, and love stories. But, the songs were interwoven in the plot, the scripts made sense and lacked major holes, and the acting was usually impressive.
He didn’t shy away from controversial issues, but embraced them. His stories represented a greater complex situation that were often extremely relevant and real in India. His film Bombay portrayed communal riots in the city through the eyes of a Muslim-Hindu couple. Yuva showed the different facets of India’s youth- some were itching to leave India for the promise of America, and some were ready to change the system by entering politics. The lessons Bollywood must remember from Ratnam’s films are:
1. An original story is a good thing.
2. Producers should learn that serious issues don’t repel audiences.
3. A director’s job is only to think of the artistic merit of the film, not box office potential.
4. Music made for a film is even better when it blends beautifully with the script.
Ratnam’s last Bollywood film, Guru, was a biopic of Dhirubhai Ambani, who was amongst the most powerful and richest men in the world. Although his story is appealing and touching, the film lacked the darkness that his other films usually had. It wasn’t a complete disappointment, but compared to his prior work, was less than stellar. Ratnam wasn’t quite able to find the voice that touched on the chord that connected to the greater issue in India. It was more a rags-to-riches fable and played up Ambani’s story.
His next film, Raavan, is all set to release. But going forward, Ratnam should remember that:
1. Famous actors aren’t necessary for a film’s success.
2. Not every movie needs six songs
3. Be careful not to fall in love with The Bachchans. We know it’s hard, but try and resist. A little.
4. Maybe the films can be a little shorter. Yes, we understand that your films already break many Bollywood norms, but a movie with a length less than two hours would be our favorite new Ratnam standard.
Ratnam’s latest film is an interpretation of the The Ramayana, an ancient epic originally written in Sanskrit. In a major part of the story, the demon, Raavan, kidnaps Lord Ram’s wife, Sita. But in this version, Raavan isn’t so bad, and Sita isn’t so savitry (pure). Here’s the promo:
To be honest: the promo worries me a little. But just a little. I have faith that Ratnam will return to his former glory and teach Bollywood that mainstream films are allowed to have some intellect and originality.
And even if he fails, don’t worry: the music will probably be worth waiting for.
Amitabh: use that Beautiful Voice of Yours
Amitabh Bachchan should know it’s his time to speak up, if only to stop Bal Thackeray from speaking in his defense.
Bachchan, one of the most popular movie stars in India and in the world, was asked to become the Brand Ambassador to Gujarat. What’s the controversy in that, you might ask? Bachchan was Brand Ambassador for Uttar Pradesh, his home state, not long ago.
The problem stems from Gujarat’s government. The Bharatiya Janata Party (right wing) Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, has been harshly criticized for his Hindu fundamental stands, most notably for his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, one of the most violent events in post-partition India. The United States revoked his Visa the following year, and calls for his resignation were continuously made in the aftermath.
Bachchan was once the darling of the left wing, secular Nationalist Congress Party. He was pals with Rajeev Gandhi and was even a member of Parliament in the 1980’s. He now campaigns for the Samajwadi Party, a popular one in U.P and amongst his fellow Bollywood colleagues. Consequently, the superstar has been harshly criticized by Congress Party members for his endorsement of their main competition (Samajwadi doesn’t align itself with BJP or Congress, but is not a right wing party).
Congress has constantly raised one question: Does Bachchan’s endorsement of Gujarat translate into his support for Modi’s actions during the 2002 communal riots?
Bachchan is usually comfortable sitting on the sidelines during major controversies– the latest was his silence on the Shahrukh Khan- Thackeray debacle. Before that in 2008, Raj Thackeray, another Shiv Sena member and Bal Thackeray’s nephew, accused Bachchan of caring more for his home state, UP, over Maharashtra. This criticism was made during a series of attacks on immigrants in Maharashtra. Bachchan chose to stay mum on the whole issue.
While Congress is being a bit dramatic over his endorsement, Modi himself said anyone who questioned Bachchan’s action were “The Taliban of public life.”
Bachchan hasn’t specifically stated his rejection of Modi’s politics or previous actions; he simply stated that he is a fan of Gujarat’s culture, and is acting as a public servant.
It’s time for Bachchan to speak up. As one of the world’s most popular actors, all of his actions receive immense speculation, and sometimes criticism. Like columnist Vir Sanghvi, I don’t give in to Bachchan’s notion that supporting Gujarat and supporting Modi are that different.
If Bachchan supports Modi, that’s fine. It’s his right. But he shouldn’t keep hiding from every controversy that comes his way. His popularity wouldn’t wane if he was vocal– take Khan’s stance against Thackeray, for instance. He spoke agaisnt Bal Thackeray, and the film industry supported him. Bachchan, like Khan, needs to start addressing uncomfortable situations, whether it be over Congress’s silliness or Thackeray’s absurdity. Especially with that enchanting voice of his, the world would listen.
If Congress thinks that Bachchan will publicly renounce Modi, they shouldn’t hold their breath. It’s not Bachchan’s style. It seems as though all the ruckus Congress has created is because they are afraid of permanently losing the superstar to the right wing. Don’t worry too much, Congress– you still have Govinda.
Subscribe