SubscribeAgneepath’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.
Jha’s Rajneeti- a Mahabharat without the Good Guys
When I read The New York Times and The LA Times review of Rajneeti, I was a little worried that my high hopes for the film may be crushed, as they frequently are, when it comes to Bollywood. After watching the film, even Katrina Kaif’s unappealing performance couldn’t deter me from the film. In my books, it’s one of the best of 2010.
Rachel Saltz of The New York Times wrote that the film jumped from scene to scene, easily resting the blame on the the screenplay for the faulty narrative. But, for me, this very feature of the movie let it redeem itself from all the other less intriguing segments. The fast pace of the film and parallels to the Indian epic Mahabharat are the reasons I write in support of the movie.
The Mahabharat was a story of the Kuru family who ruled Hastinapur. It was about the power struggle and the fight of good and evil between two branches of the family, the Pandavs and Kauravs. Both the Pandavs and Kauravs had flaws, but the Pandavs were clearly the good guys. They stood with the truth, and had God on their side (literally). The Kauravs, on the other hand, personified evil. Samar and Prithvi (Ranbir Kapoor and Arjun Rampal) represented the Pandavs, while Veerendra and Sooraj (Manoj Bajpai and Ajay Devgan) symbolized the Kauravs. Devgan’s character in particular was an accurate reflection of Karan from the Mahabharat, who was also the illegitmate child of Kunti, the mother of the Pandavs.
Unlike the Mahabharat, it is hard to argue that one side– either the Pandavs or Kauravs, are inherently “good.” Arjun Rampal’s character was obviously flawed– his relationship with Shruti Seth’s character, his violent streak, his refusal to let a Dalit run for election and his thirst for power were all qualities that don’t match up with the famously moral Pandavs. It was unclear as to why Katrina Kaif’s character believed he had a “good” heart. His love for his brother and his failed attempt to save his brother’s girl friend did not make him a good person, but definitely a compelling character.
Samar, Ranbir Kapoor’s character, also had too many shades of darkness to be accurately matched up with the most famous Pandav, Arjun. Bajpai and Devgan together did have darker shades than their counterparts, but the stunning difference of a lack of truly moral figures from the Mahabharat is notable, and one of my favorite themes in the film. It was a deliberate and brilliant move by Jha. Frank Lovece of Film Journal International stated that the film “becomes so ridiculous and over-the-top violent that there is nobody, nobody, to root for.” For me, this was one of the saving graces of the film. Jha’s message that politics doesn’t have room for heroes was accurately conveyed, even more so, with the use of the Mahabharat.
The characters in Rajneeti played politicians, yet none showed any compassion or responsibility toward their constituents– they were all selfish, all greedy, and all power hungry. At the end, Kapoor’s character stated that politics can only bring the darkness from inside of you, and he has a point. It was a pessimistic message about Indian politics, one that differed from Mani Ratnam’s Yuva.
In Jha’s film, he conveyed that in the modern era of politics, it’s all a power struggle– there is no virtuous Yuddhishtir, no politicians who stand who work for the greater good. There are some who are more evil than others, but circumstances did play a hand (as seen through Devgan’s story). According to Jha’s film– in politics today, there are only Kauravs.
The film’s storyline and performance by Arjun Rampal were delightful. Katrina Kaif’s performance and storyline were weak and almost destroyed the film. Oh, and I must note that her character bares no significant resemblance to Sonia Gandhi.
Overall, Rajneeti was a compelling story, and due to a lackluster Bollywood year, I’m glad that a film that relied on a good script and strong performances outdid some other less deserving films that pulled strong box office numbers (cough, My Name is Khan, Housefull, cough). This movie also deserves merit because major Bollywood stars took a risk by making a dialogue-heavy film that wasn’t too commercial. It was nice to see Ranbir Kapoor, Arjun Rampal and even Katrina Kaif act in a film that was very different from anything they had done before. Kapoor’s career in particular is becoming more intriguing by the day.
Because Bollywood seems mythological obsessed these days (Raavan releases on June 19), stay tuned for a post about Kalyug, Shyam Benegal’s 1981 film starring Shashi Kapoor– also an adaption of Mahabharat.
Bollywood: Please Ignore Sajid Khan
I can’t help but dwell on the double meaning in the tile of Sajid Khan’s new film Housefull. The film is about a man who marries three women, hence the title. But the title hints at Director Sajid Khan’s real mission to make the film: to attract large audiences, reap the profits from a huge box office hit, and, to have sold out theaters with a “full house.”
Khan has been repeatedly saying that this film is made for entertainment purposes only, and is made to appeal to the masses. He says it will be a masala flick, and has in the past hated on critics for giving him bad ratings. His last film, Heyy Babyy, “borrowed”a plethora of material from Hollywood and Bollywood films, lacked an original script, and was ripe with overacting and brainless jokes. According to this review of Housefull, it seems like this film is more of the same.
In an interview with India Express, Khan said:
I know that there are 10 per cent pseudo intellectual people who like slow, boring, insignificant and non-entertaining films. But then for me, cinema is only about entertainment. It could be in any form, whether action, comedy, thriller or drama,” Sajid said.
Expressing his desire to make only entertainers, Sajid, “Nobody comes to watch a film to change their life. Has a film ever cured cancer, split an atom or changed society? Not at all. The sooner most directors realise it, the better it would be for Bollywood as it would stop delivering any flops.”
Filmmakers have proven that art and comedy can be mixed, that intelligent films can deliver box office gold. Take Jaane Tu Yah Jaane Na or the Munnabhai films. They were commercial, mainstream, but were original, inspiring and hilarious. Entertainment doesn’t mean that there’s no room for some depth.
A few years ago, the Sajid Khan- style brainless masalas were all the rage in India. The audiences loved them, and the producers loved the profit. Khan’s words may have held a lot of weight in the 90’s and early 00’s, but today, his words aren’t applicable to Bollywood. Art films are doing well, and filmmakers have begun to make smart entertainers. At some point, audiences started rejecting these cliched scripts and overacting, and began to appreciate films that were smarter, more original, and all around better films.
I’m not saying that films like Dev D. or Omkara, though both successes, are the only examples of what constitutes as a smart yet successful film. Uber-masala flicks like Wake Up Sid and Jab We Met are all great and original films that achieved box office success.
Khan’s may say his main goal is to attract audiences and to make money, but his rejection of films as art work is problematic. Alas, he was successful with his debut film, and it seems like he will be with this movie as well. That’s fine, and that’s his right. My only hope is that Bollywood filmmakers and producers don’t budge from their current progress and don’t forget that intellect and entertainment aren’t mutually exclusive.
Bollywood’s peeking out from its closet
Finally. Finally finally finally. Indian courts yesterday ruled that gay sex is no longer illegal in India, stating that “The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognizing a role in society for everyone.”
Thankfully, in this new age of Bollywood where fimmakers are actually veering away from formulaic masalas, some films did have gay characters and addressed some issues pertaining to the gay community, some better than others. Here’s a look at some of those films that made an impact:
- Honeymoon Travels, Ptd. Ltd (2007)– A light film with some heavy themes. One of them was of an gay non-resident Indian who married an Indian girl he met online. Another newlywed couple start to face problems when the husband discovers that he may be gay. The reason why the film was important is because it doesn’t portray the two gay characters as cross dressers (which is Bollywood’s default definition of homosexuality). The men are perfectly normal, and are gay. It’s not overly dramatic, it’s actually very relatable. Hats off to the director!
- Fashion (2008)– The film was another from Madhur Bhandarkar, who is famous for his films with strong female leads. The film was mainstream, thanks to the strong backing of Ronnie Screwvala (the producer), and the lead actor Priyanka Chopra, but still touched on themes that were seldom addressed in films before. One of them was homosexuality. Some men were openly gay, while another openly gay established fashion designer asked a female friend to marry him because of pressure from his mother. She does, knowing full well that he is gay. The film did a great job handling the subject because it wasn’t demeaning and it was a realistic portrayal of gay men needing to marry to appease their family.
- My Brother… Nikhil (2005)– This film came out years before any of these others. I would credit it with opening the gates for homosexuality in Bollywood. The film wasn’t like the others– it was serious, and it was a tear-jerker. Also, the main character, unlike the other films, was actually gay. The protagonist, played wonderfully by Sanjay Suri, was diagnosed with HIV. The film doesn’t show any love scenes between the two men, but it does show a type of intimacy that was never before shown between two men in Bollywood. The movie was produced by one of the most powerful production companies in India, Yash Raj Films, but the promos never touched on the gay relationship, just on the AIDS theme.
- Dostana (2008)–I saved this movie for last because it is getting all the hype when it comes to homosexuality in Bollywood. (The New York Times even referred to it in its article about the court case today.) The reason why this film is a big deal is because it is produced by Karan Johar, and stars three A-list actors. Personally, I found some of the story ridiculous (like Priyanka Chopra’s wardrobe, or why Bobby Deol was even in that film). The two leading men (Abhishek Bachchan, John Abraham) pretend to be gay so they can live in an apartment with a girl who has an overprotective aunt. It was a masala flick that was a bit different, but still did have all the songs and ridiculous wardrobe choices and overacting. Although the actors pretend to be gay, homosexuality isn’t looked down upon, and a doting mother even accepts her son and his son-in-law. I wouldn’t say that the film was revolutionary for gay rights, but it seemed to make it OK to be gay, which was definitely needed. I just wished that the characters would have actually been gay.
I have left out Straight because the film failed and didn’t really seem to make sense, but it’s worth a mention because the leading character (Viinay Pathak) thinks he might be gay. It wasn’t that revolutionary, or even that good. I didn’t include Fire because it wasn’t really a Bollywood film and was made way before the period of Bollywood I’m referring to, although it was fantastic. Movies like Girlfriend wasn’t included either because it was all skin and no depth.
Obviously, Bollywood has a long way to go. I’m hoping that Bollywood moves on from only showing cross dressers or gay characters included in the script just for comic relief. Hopefully this progressive movement by the Delhi Court ushers in an even more progressive movement from Bollywood.
-
Follow me @bollyobserver