One Should Not Get Into Acting Just For Money: Pankaj

One of the finest actors working in the Hindi film industry today is Pankaj Tripathi. From featuring in a blink-and-miss role in ‘Run’ (2004) to headlining mainstream projects like ‘Mirzapur’, ‘Ludo’, ‘Kaagaz’ and ‘Criminal Justice, the 47-year-old, who hails from a village in Bihar, has definitely come a long way.

In a tete-a-tete with ANI during the 53rd International Film Festival of India (IFFI), Pankaj got candid about his journey so far and how he reached the pinnacle of his career with no godfather in the industry.
“I come from a very simple family. I belong to a village where we even struggled to get the basic facility of electricity but we were happy. I was living far from the world of acting and now my entire life is all about acting. My love for cinema developed organically. I used to watch plays in my hometown .. that’s when I actually developed a major interest in theatre and then I moved to Delhi and joined the National School Of Drama (NSD). After a few years, I went to the city of dreams Mumbai and since then I have been learning the craft of cinema and trying my best to showcase my skills via my acting on screen. This journey is beyond any dream I saw,” Pankaj said.

He feels it’s his roots that actually helped him carve a niche in the film industry.

“One should never forget his/her roots. If you forget your roots then it becomes difficult to survive. Be it a person or a story or a plant, everything in this world is rooted. Whatever I am today is all because of my roots,” Pankaj emphasised.

As today many young aspiring actors look up to Pankaj as their role model, he shared a golden piece of advice for all.

“One should never get into this profession only for money and fame. First understand why you want to come here ( in the film industry).. understand your love, and your needs. Kaam dil se karoge paisa zarur miljaega life me (Money will eventually come to you at one point),” he added, recalling his first paycheck.

“I still remember my first paycheck was of Rs 1700 for a brief TV stint,” he shared.

Over fifteen years into his film industry career, with a repertoire full of path-breaking roles, Pankaj, undoubtedly, set a benchmark in Hindi cinema. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Diminishing Dominance of Bollywood Cinema

‘Ajay Devgan’s View On Hindi Is Not Just ignorant, It Is Downright Stupid’

Moinak Guho, an alumnus of the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute in Kolkata, shares his views on the diminishing dominance of Bollywood cinema

Clearly, Ajay Devgan has made a rather stupid statement. In the first instance, it shows the desire of the Bollywood celebrity to prove his loyalty to the current regime in New Delhi. This kind of blatant alignment with the corridors of power is not new; Devgan, obviously, is one among the many who wants to rub shoulders with the powers that be.

But, on a second look, the bigger issue is of his ignorance. Hindi was never an indigenous language anyway. That it has been awarded the status of ‘national language’ by Devgan is downright foolish.

He also questions a fellow star from South India about dubbing “your mother tongue movies” in Hindi. Is Mr Devgan not aware of the fact that copying from cinema in South India, including from the block-busters, has been going on rampantly in Bollywood for decades?

It is well-known that Hindi cinema in Mumbai is doing bad business these days. There is no originality left in the cinematic work being mass produced by the Mumbai production houses. While there seems to be a certain ideological bankruptcy prevailing in big bucks Hindi cinema, a section of the industry players is falling over one another to get into the good books of the government in Delhi. One shining example of this phenomenon is The Kashmir Files. Surely, in terms of aesthetics, originality and content, this seems to be a bit problematic and will obviously impact both the script and the cinema of the years to come.

Guho and a poster of his work Ek Awprasongik Songlaap (An Irrelevant Dialogue)

With the OTT phenomena having taken over India, people are willfully choosing meaningful cinema in other languages: Malayalam, Tamil, Bengali. These industries, though without the powerful financial structures that prevails in Bollywood, is overwhelmed with talent in all branches of film-making. That Hindi should be dominating across the nation just does not work anymore – consider it history.

ALSO READ: ‘Kashmir Files’ Is A Political Ploy To Demonize Muslims

Indeed, it is difficult to remember one good film made in the Hindi language and dished out from the cash-rich box office apparatus in Mumbai, though there have been fabulous and meaningful low-budget films which have been widely appreciated across the country. A good film is, finally, a good film, and language is of no significance.

I remember watching two great films recently: Pebbles in Tamil and Nayattu in Malayalam. Both are fabulous works and language has been no barrier in their superb aesthetic rendition.

Unfortunately, when it comes to big business cinema, and the industry which revolves around grandiose commercial movies, I will cite one example. It also reflects that the days of Hindi box office movies are passé. I personally would not really like to watch Pushpa or RRR. However, two days ago, we tried to go for a movie in Kolkata. Of the 20 shows in one day in a multiplex, 10 were showing RRR, there were five shows for KGF II, four for Jersey, and, only one, yes, only one show of a Bangla movie. Thereby, hangs a tale.

Sahir – The Poet Of The Underdog

“Zulm phir zulm hai, badhta hai toh mitt jaata hai” (Atrocities are what they are, when they increase, they get obliterated)

When farmers engaged in the ongoing agitation around Delhi and their supporters passionately recite Sahir Ludhianvi, one realises that the man who modestly called himself pal-do pal ka shayar lives on. He remains relevant, a century after his birth (March 8, 1921) and four decades after his death.

For a landlord’s son who shunned riches to stay with his mother, Sahir felt close to the farmer crushed by debt. He lives on because his heart ached for the commoner, like the soldier gone to fight someone else’s war, the woman forced to sell her body, the youth frustrated by unemployment or the family living on the street.

He was different from his contemporaries in that he did not praise Khuda (God), Husn (beauty) or Jaam (wine). Instead, he wrote bitter, sensitive lyrics about the declining values of society; the senselessness of war and politics. His sorrow-filled love songs conveyed that there were starker realities. He was the “bard for the underdog”.

This tribute, by one who knows neither Urdu nor poetry, is but a selection of Sahir’s lyrics in films, his times when people also applauded Majrooh Sultanpuri, Kaifi Azmi and many others. A certain commonality of ideas they espoused through lyrics marked the Indian cinema’s “golden age”. It was also the golden age of its content, even if the films were slow-moving, simplistic in characterisation and repetitive.

Sahir’s poetry was influenced by Faiz Ahmed Faiz and like Faiz, Sahir gave Urdu poetry an intellectual element that caught the imagination of the youth of the last century. They felt he reflected their feelings.

He was controversial. He insisted on charging a rupee more than Lata Mangeshkar, the reigning singing star. An internationalist, he was critical of the Indian approach. According to Gautam Kaul, writer/researcher on cinema, Sahir is the only poet who got the goat of those who profess to remove poverty. During the Emergency (1975-77), his songs included in the film Phir Subhah Hogi (1958) were given a fresh review and one song was banned: “Cheen-O Arab hamara, Hindustan hamara, Rehne ko ghar nahi hai, Sara jahan hamara.”

ALSO READ: Forever Fragrance Of ‘Kaagaz Ke Phool’

The relevance of Sahir’s contribution lies in his vision of universal brotherhood, of a syncretic India, where people of all faiths live in harmony as depicted in mandiron mein shankh bajey, masjidon mein ho azaan (Mujhe Jeene Do) and Tu Hindu banega na Muslamaan banega, insan ki aulad hai, insan banega (Dhool Ka Phool)

To be sure, these thoughts were always difficult to visualise and practice in reality, even as they inspired when disseminated through the most popular medium of mass entertainment. In the new century, it promises to be more difficult for a number of reasons.

For one, there is less of that sensitivity needed to understand and appreciate Sahir’s words and his message. Urdu or Hindustani is enmeshed between shudh Hindi and the urbanised Anglicization. There is less of that tehzeeb that inculcated love of the language and of poetry. Frankly, there was time at hand to relax and to brood. It is lacking in the technology-driven lives we live.

Then, change in the public discourse has resolutely pushed “us versus them” political culture. It has permeated to the social plane as well. Bollywood, for all its flaws, has been a secular oasis with its unique ethos. It has been targeted, precisely for this reason, in the recent years. This has seriously damaged the content and philosophy of an inclusive society that has shaped “the idea of India.”

In the new century, the Hindi cinema is arguably less romantic. The protagonist is more worried about his livelihood (rozi-roti). Good guy is passe. The one looking to make a quick buck through means fair and foul is the hero. He/she has become city-oriented chasing, not romantic ideas or angst against the tormentor, hurtling towards material gains, always in the fast-forward mode.

The present times have ended the socialist ideals espoused by Sahir and other ‘progressives’. One who controls and multiplies money (Yeh mehlon mein baithe huwe qatil, yeh lootere) is now the job-giver and benefactor, even if he torments and exploits. Once distrusted, even maligned in literature and cinema, and at the best, seen as a necessarily evil, he now calls all the shots – political, social and of course, economic. That change came with the 1990s. Remember, Dil Chahta Hai’s ‘Hum hain naye, andaaz kyun ho purana’ that came 20 years after Sahir was gone?

This change in the way the society looks at the capitalist was inevitable. The agitator for equality in the society, and certainly the poet who spun ideas to inspire the agitator, have lost their clout with global changes. One wonders if Sahir and others like him would have continued writing at all.

ALSO READ: Unparalleled Reign Of ‘Mughal-e-Azam’

Post-Sahir, some like Gulzar and Javed Akhtar are very much into good poetry, but have had to lead the change in content and philosophy. Fact remains that in this era of fast music created by electronic instruments, with cinematic pursuit extended to television and the digital platforms, the demand-and-supply is so huge that quality suffers. Lyric is not every viewer’s cup of tea and occasionally if not often, it takes the absurd form of ‘jab tak rahega samosa mein aaloo’.

Old lyrics, and the yearning for old and meaningful has made nostalgia a big business. Music is on the internet and with songs digitized, heard more smoothly and widely than ever before. This has prompted books and music albums on Sahir and poets of his era. The generations that grew up on his lyrics have time and money to spend on re-living their youth. Sections of the young also appreciate good verse and melody.

Biopics of the famous were Bollywood’s flavour till the lockdown caused by Covid-19 was imposed. That pursuit has resumed. One reads sketchy reports of more than one film being made on Sahir that, it is claimed, are based on books written after research. One of them, by Akshay Manwani, discusses his songs and poems through the context of his life and the legacy that he has left behind. It is written with perspectives from luminaries, including Dev Anand, Yash Chopra, and Javed Akhtar.

Sahir’s relationship with poet Amrita Pritam is also part of the popular lore. Sanjay Leela Bhansali is supposed to be working on it. Names of top Bollywood actors like Abhishek Bachchan and Farhan Akhtar to play Sahir and to portray Amrita, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Deepika Padukone and Taapsi Pannu have been bandied about. An October 2020 report indicated that the project had been shelved. But biopics are an attractive proposition. It is a matter of time before it could revive.

Through all his angst, we return to Sahir’s self-evasive pal-do-pal sentiment: “Tomorrow there will be more who will narrate love poems. May be someone narrating better than me. May be someone listening better than you. Will anyone remember me? Why should anyone remember me? Why should the busy age waste its time for me?”

What would keep Sahir relevant today, tomorrow and for ever? His immortal lines, “Main zindagi ka saath nibhata chala gaya, har fiqr ko dhuen mein udata chala gaya.” Taking life in its strides. Can anything be closer to an individual?

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

India Celebrates Big B’s Golden Jubilee

If India is to be identified with a voice, arguably though when views can violently differ, it would have to be that of Amitabh Bachchan.

Arguable it was even half-a century back when first heard in a background commentary in Mrinal Sen’s Bhuvan Shome (1970). Sen used only his first name and paid Rs 300. Before that, All India Radio (AIR), the only spoken mass medium then, had rejected it.

Today, the baritone, both God-given and cultivated, resonates with an impressive filmography and an equally respectable persona of a bespectacled gone totally grey, his tall, lanky frame filled-out with age.

Amitabh continues to sign more films than actors two decades younger. He endorses products that earn him more money and visibility than films. The toast of any gathering he selectively attends, he also promotes many a noble cause while maintaining, gingerly, his proximity with politics and politicians who matter.

His golden jubilee in cinema this year is not unusual, nor the number of his films, 234 (including three in making). Malayalam cinema’s superstar Prem Nazir (1926-1989) did 720 films. Ashok Kumar had done 326 in a career spanning 61 years. Ailing occasionally but still on the roll at 76, having begun late at 27, Amitabh is unlikely to match them in screen-longevity and film numbers. In terms of earnings, too, he stands way below Salman Khan and Deepika Padukone, seventh among the richest Indian celebrities assessed by Forbes Magazine last December.     

 He has made the term Bollywood that remains his principal platform seem respectable when vigorously disputed by the marquees of India’s regional cinema. While deprecating Bollywood’s craze for Hollywood, he did a solitary Hollywood film. Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby (2013) has him playing a non-Indian Jewish character, Meyer Wolfsheim.

Many would agree that Amitabh could have ventured into Los Angeles any time with his cultured voice, acting talent and market pull among the vast Indian diaspora. Not chasing Hollywood and staying rooted in Mumbai is a clever move typical of him. Not for him bit roles playing brown man in a black-and-white milieu. And, he needs to proudly defend his stardom. 

Stardom took a while coming although was an “officially sponsored” actor, perhaps, India’s only one. On the threshold of half-a-century, he may not like this recall.

Renowned Hindi poet-scholar Harivansh Rai and Teji Bachchan were close to then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. She was said to have addressed letters to friends K A Abbas and Nargis. Amitqbh signed his first film, Reshma Aur Shera after Nargis passed on the letter to actor-filmmaker husband Sunil Dutt. Abbas asked Amitabh to get his father to telephone him before he could consider him for Saat Hindustani. Dutt’s film was delayed for want of funds and logistics difficulties in Rajasthan’s desert. Ironically, he plays a dumb, minus his baritone. Abbas’ film came first and he was noticed.

Film historian Gautam Kaul recalls that he accompanied Abbas on a talent-scouting visit to the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII). That attracted Jaya Bhaduri, a student who had been introduced by Satyajit Ray in Mahanagar (1965). That makes her his senior in cinema. They paired in Zanjeer, Amitabh’s first big hit. Married then, they remain Bollywood’s first couple.

His honing was privileged, but far from cinema. At Sherwood, a public school, he dabbled in English theater. At Delhi’s Kirori Mal College, he was one of the ‘players’. A corporate job took him to Calcutta (now Kolkata) and then Bollywood happened, not without struggle.    

At a time when India was experiencing its ‘parallel’ cinema where one risked being labeled “non-filmy” as per prevalent Bollywood parlance, Amitabh was lucky to get noticed by some of the top directors of the day. He achieved stardom before Naseeruddin Shah, Shabana Azmi and Om Puri and others from that flock. He paired with potential rival Vinod Khanna and with Rajesh Khanna, already a super-star.

He was noticed after being paired with Rajesh in ‘Anand’ and “Namak Haram”. Although a mannerism-driven Rajesh had the best dialogues and audience sympathy on dying in the climax, Amitabh overshadowed him in terms of presence and performance. Indeed, Amitabh’s rise came after Rajesh’s dizzying but meteoric rise and fall, along with that of Navin Nischol. He paired with Vinod Khanna but the latter’s forays out of cinema and into spiritualism put him out of the race. Amitabh was lucky, again.

In socialism-driven cinema of the 1970s, Amitabh emerged as the “angry young man” with ‘Zanjeer’ and ‘Deewar’. But he also sustained Bollywood’s raucous romance (Amar Akbar Anthony). The dhoti-clad poet also donned suite-boot in “Kabhi Kabhi” rendering an urban touch to Sahir Ludhianvi’s exquisite Urdu poetry. Writer-duo Salim-Javed wrote their best lines for ‘Sholay’.

His partnering contributed to the success of directors Prakash Mehra and Yash Chopra and in later years, Karan Johar, R. Balki and many a fresh talent. He is associated with some landmark films like ‘Black’(2005) ‘Pink’(2016) and ‘Pa.’(2009)

Amitabh’s political career was brief. As one who grew along with Rajiv Gandhi, he agreed (some say reluctantly) to contest parliamentary elections in 1984. He defeated H N Bahuguna, a major opposition leader.

His first day in parliament was a spectacle. Ministers and lawmakers alike thronged to get his autographs (“oh, for my grandson,” one said sheepishly). But he made no speech and would impassively watch the House proceedings, touching his face involuntarily as if missing the greasepaint.

In my only encounter with him in Parliament’s corridors, I sought his reaction to the Annual Budget. “I have no reaction.” I scolded him, almost: “A major concession is made for the film industry and you have nothing to say?” “I welcome it,” he said and rushed off.

He resigned when the Bofors gun deal scandal scalded friend Rajiv and then lamented in a Times of India interview that “politics is a cesspool.” Truth may never be known. He was among those who had let down Rajiv, critics say. The Gandhi-Bachchan breach, it is believed, remains to this day.

A serious career decline between 1988 and 1992 saw a series of flops. He looked jaded. His film production venture skidding, he went virtually bankrupt. But he climbed his way back into reckoning as actor, despite the advent of three young Khans – Aamir, Salman and Shah Rukh.

Succeeding the three post-Independence greats – Dilip Kumar, Dev Anand and Raj Kapoor and straddling the Khan era, Amitabh has played a range of characters, from Sufi, Shakespearean, suave romantic, a conman, a policeman, a soldier, a stricken child, a ghost, a drunkard — all that Bollywood offers.  Choosing favourites from among them is well-nigh impossible. He has starred opposite son Abhishek and daughter-in-law Aishwarya and outsmarted both – of course, the director and the script demand that.

A detailed narration of his career would take more space than permitted here. Roles are written for him. Whatever be the performance of others in the ventures, he does not let you down. And that is remarkable in 50th year.

His anchoring “Kaun Banega Karorpati,” the Indian version of “Who Wants To Be Millionaire”, remains a landmark in Indian television. Beginning 2000, it has had nine seasons and demand for it seems unending among advertisers and family audiences. In a way it also marks the evolution and ageing of Amitabh.

To be seen with him by the millions, is a lifetime’s achievement for the young and old, grannies and housewives. They acknowledge this gratefully, some tearfully. They narrate to him their hopes. He inculcates in them aspirations and family values.   Money-earning, although a huge motivation, becomes incidental when they are before him.  

If his success is to be measured in terms of awards and accolades, he has numerous, including four National Film Awards as Best Actor, many at international film festivals. He has won fifteen Filmfare Awards and with 41 nominations overall, is their most-nominated performer.

In 1991, he became the first to receive the Filmfare Lifetime Achievement Award established in the name of Raj Kapoor. The magazine crowned him as Superstar of the Millennium in 2000.

In 1999, he was voted the “greatest star of stage or screen” in a BBC Your Millennium online poll. The organisation noted that “Many people in the western world will not have heard of [him] … [but it] is a reflection of the huge popularity of Indian films.”

He has been conferred two honorary doctorates by the universities of Madras and Manchester. He can use Dr. as prefix, but does not.

Conferred Padma Shri (1984), Padma Bhushan (2001) and Padma Vibhushan (2015), now, Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian national award, awaits him.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com