The role
of a lifetime
Actor Naseeruddin Shah discusses the vagaries of religion, the Bollywood
ethos and his future in cinema
BY AYAZ MEMON
Q: What was the reaction in Pakistan to Khuda
Kay Liye? Did you visit Pakistan after the movie was released?
A: The reaction was absolutely unbelievable. In Pakistan the
theatres are very tacky, badly equipped, there is no air conditioning and rats
run across your feet. They are like those old theatres that we still have in
towns like Aligarh and Meerut. There are no multiplexes, no places where a
person could go with the family. Yet this movie ran in theatres to packed houses
for over 100 days. It was released at the same time the Lal Masjid incident
occurred. Whether that was engineered or not, I don’t know.
Now I think the government was behind it – backing it – which is
why it overrode all objections made by the madrassas. The director and some of
the actors received threats. Therefore I credit them doubly for having the
courage to do the film. I was recognised everywhere I went in Pakistan. People
would hug me and thank me for making this film. It was more than mere sentiment
and therefore it appealed to people.
The film was well researched. I consider it to be the most
significant film I have ever made despite the brevity of the role. Initially, I
turned the film down. I turned it down because I had seen Pakistani movies. But
the scenes that were narrated to me were hair-raising and these are exactly the
things that matter to me.
I did a thorough study of Islam (for the role of a Muslim
cleric). I learnt the Koran in my childhood because I was made to. We still
don’t feel the need to tell our children the meaning of what we read. We just
memorise it like drill and recite it when there is a need to. That’s all we are
taught. This must end. Muslim children must be taught what it means. There I
was, a five-year-old child, told by the maulvi that ‘every kafir will go to
hell, every Muslim will go to hell; when you grow up you must grow your beard
and wear a pyjama’ and so on.
The movie reached more people than my other movies – such as
Nishant – did. Nishant was also human-centric. There is a worldwide
obsession with Islam. There is a hatred for Islam, which is unreasonable, biased
and unfair. What bothers me most of all as a Muslim however is this seemingly
rising awareness in youngsters of their identity as Muslims. The rising
awareness doesn’t bother me as much as their misdirection. It is almost as if
they are vigorously trying to compensate for the shortcomings in their own lives
by living in the hereafter.
It seems to be happening a lot among Muslims. You see much more
of an assertion of Muslim identity over the last 10 years, you hear many more
salaam walekums than you heard earlier, you see many more men visibly
sporting beards during namaz. I suppose the same thing is happening among the
Hindus.
I’m really curious – particularly among the young Muslim men who
are turning devout – whether there is in fact a deep study of Islam taking place
or is it just the rewards of what awaits believers after death that is
attracting them. These are the kinds of things that worry me. I think I can say
this without offending Hindus or Muslims, that you need more awareness of the
world and you must learn to interpret the vision according to the needs of the
day.
It is in fact very puzzling as to why this is happening. If
you’ve travelled to the US and have been hassled by immigration because of your
name then I can also sort of understand that angle.
Q: Do you think that – at least in India or
perhaps the subcontinent – we are ignoring the sane voice that understands the
worldliness essential for living and also understanding religion?
A: Nobody speaks up against this absurd member of parliament
who offered a crore of rupees for the head of the Danish cartoonist. Where did
this man get a crore of rupees is a question nobody has asked. That seems of no
importance. He has offended our sentiments and so he must die. The alarming
thing is that you find so many people willing to do this. It can be downright
frivolous for someone like me to stand up and talk against this person. So what
are we to do if we are not activists nor are we soldiers?
I think the start has to be made in our own lives in a small
sort of way. I think too many people obsessed with social change tend to reach
too far, too quickly. I feel that if I’m rearing my children with an awareness
of each religion as I understand it and not classifying them as Hindu or Muslim
it is a progressive step. I’m leaving them free to choose the religion that
suits them; that serves their purposes because that’s what religion is supposed
to do.
Sweeping it under the carpet and apathy are old characteristics
of our nation.
Q: This is obviously a very difficult position to
maintain, given the circumstances. Does that sometimes frighten you, the sheer
magnitude?
A: It terrifies me because I don’t know when it is going to
end. It seems that religion, which was perhaps created to unify, is serving the
opposite purpose. At the same time what also terrifies me is if my children, 20
years from now, are confronted by a mob that wants to know their religion. What
are they going to say?
But I take solace in the fact that they will not be parochial
and hide under the shelter of false hopes, of "I belong to this community and so
I am safe".
The narrowing interpretation of Islam that is taking place is
what really terrifies me because it is giving Islam a worse name than it already
has. Too many of our so-called spokesmen are aggravating the issue. This has
become clearer over the past few years.
Q: Professionally, do you feel that you are
currently at the richest stage of your life as an actor or do you feel that you
have done terrific work earlier and now it is no longer the same?
A: The environment is more conducive to doing better work. I
don’t feel like I’ve done whatever I am capable of. I don’t look back on my past
work and think it’s fantastic. There’s a lot of it I don’t like in fact and yes,
I would say the answer to that is yes. Because the craft of the filmmaker has
grown over the last 30 years their consciousness has grown too.
It is no longer fashionable to make movies on exploited peasants
about whom we know nothing. The situation is much more alive now because
filmmakers are attempting to make films on subjects they know about, subjects
they’ve seen before. I’ve always believed that you cannot calculate the success
of a movie before it is made; it should be made with conviction.
There seems to be lot more courage in today’s filmmakers. You
have, apart from a film like Khuda Kay Liye, a film like A Wednesday
and Nandita (Das)’s film Firaaq based on Godhra, which is extremely
hard-hitting and extremely well made and which I am very proud of. Even a movie
like Parzania, which it still takes an NRI to make. Still, he is an
Indian who feels for the situation.
You have directors like Anurag Basu, Rituparno Ghosh and Neeraj
Pandey – these are the people I have hope for and these are the people who have
got their craft down pat and have a socially aware mind. These are people who
want to tackle the real issues and not make fancy movies.
Among the filmmakers of the 1970s there was a bit of posturing
and it showed in the way their commitment disappeared as soon as greener
pastures arrived. As an actor too I feel it is richer ground for me. I may not
be getting great roles to display my abilities as I did in the past but that
doesn’t trouble me because to prove my worth as an actor is not of any concern
to me any more. To participate in a project which I feel is significant is what
attracts me.
Q: You were a very strong critic of the
cinema that existed even though you were a part of the industry…
A: I was a critic of the quality of work, not a critic of
the type of cinema. I’ve been misinterpreted greatly. In fact, I’ve even been
quoted somewhere as saying that I hate good cinema. Why would I be idiotic
enough to say that? My complaint was against the level of commitment of those
filmmakers and the stagnation of their craft. That’s what I was angry about and
that’s what turned me against them in the sense that I don’t want to work with
some of those filmmakers any more.
But there are plenty of youngsters who I’m still working with,
more first-time filmmakers than established ones. So perhaps it is my maturing
as an actor and my realising that acting is not an end in itself. You don’t act
to show off your acting, you act because you’ve put your abilities at the
service of somebody who helps to make a statement. As an actor you are never
making your own statement, you are a mouthpiece for others.
Q: How has the Hindi film industry, in
your opinion, progressed? Has it got better?
A: It has become more self-congratulatory. It believes the
world is sitting up and taking notice. In a way the world is sitting up and
taking notice only because of the multicoloured mithai. I don’t know if
there is true enjoyment of these movies or whether they are considered to be
anything significant. For the NRIs it is a great link to home – you get together
and eat your samosas and talk in Hindi and you cry. It is a mirage to say that
Bollywood cinema has gained acceptance worldwide. As far as the film industry is
concerned, it is exactly where it was; their concerns are still with making huge
amounts of money and satisfying the self-agenda.
Q: It must be a business kind of pursuit when the
amount of money involved is so great and so many lives are depending on it. Is
this because somebody is coughing up money and you need a return on the
investment?
A: Our cinema has modelled itself on the Hollywood of the
1940s and 1950s, with one huge difference. We are still trying to make those
kinds of musicals, those musical numbers, those basic stories – exchange babies,
boy meets girl or rich boy-poor girl – We are still making those kinds of
stories without the excellence of the old music.
You see a film like Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and
it still delights me even though it was made in the 1950s. You see the Hindi
version of it and it turns your stomach. The big difference between Hollywood
(at that time) and our industry is that even though the producers of those days
loved money and multiplying their investments they also loved movies. And even
at that time there were socially aware movies that came out once in a while. Why
can’t we do that?
I understand the love for money and I understand you want to get
your investment back and see that your family doesn’t lose its standard of
living and so on. What is preventing you from searching your conscience, from
wondering what kind of movie one should really be making with the kind of
facilities at our disposal?
It is obviously sufficient for a person in the position of
Rakesh Roshan or Subhash Ghai to continue churning out those Hollywood
imitations so that they can multiply their investments. There is a superficial
nod towards a technical finish. I think it is just the whole concept of Hindi
movies which is so shallow that a person who thrives on that kind of life, for
whom it is a part of his bloodstream, I don’t think is capable of these kinds of
thoughts. When he is asked to invest one zillionth of his fortune in a film that
will state something of importance he will not do it. It is a lamentable
situation.
Q: The audience that laps it up…
A: They will always lap it up. There are umpteen movies,
with stars and the formulae, which the audience never really went to see. The
audience is not taken into consideration. The filmmakers say they cater to the
audience but the films are not made for the audience. They are made to multiply
their own investments. And now you can recover and make a healthy profit in the
first week itself. So all you need to do is to con the audience to get in there
on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and you are sitting on a gold mine. The days of
50-week runs are gone, even the desire to make a good film is gone. You just
have some slick stuff that will pull the audience in on the first three days and
your job is done. I think they are heading down a dark end.
Q: You did make a valiant attempt to become
director…
A: The film was not accepted. It was my film producer who
completely lost faith while it was being made and then refused to do anything to
help it get noticed so it sank without a trace. I don’t feel broken up about it
because it would have been just one little straw in the wind. At least it was
made. But I do feel disappointed that I couldn’t make a better film.
I feel disappointed that the audience did not respond to it. I
don’t feel shattered and discouraged at the end of the day. I hope to attempt
another one at some point. That film was attempted, as it was the kind of
subject or script that states something or coincides with my beliefs. I had
absolutely no hesitation in doing it. There are many things that trouble me,
that trouble any man: The lack of consideration towards the common man and his
complete facelessness.
I have taken my standing as an actor too lightly. I have
participated in movies that I felt were making significant statements but it has
not been a consuming passion. I was also at a point where I was struggling to
become a popular actor. I have been through it all and survived.
At this moment what is of prime importance to me is to
participate in movies that state something and follow ideas that it was not
possible for me to do before. And hence my choice of films like Khuda Kay
Liye. I’m not someone who believes in making political statements in an
individual capacity. I am not interested in politics and politicians just turn
me off. Nor have I believed in wearing my heart on my sleeve like many actors
do. I didn’t feel the need to do it all these years and have not done it. I
finally feel the need. I am approaching what could be said is the last innings
of my career.
(Ayaz Memon is editor-at-large of the DNA. Excerpted from
an interview posted on www.dnaindia.com on August 29, 2008.)
Courtesy: www.dnaindia.com
|