From the 1960s to the late 1980s, Hindi cinema was fraught with clichés. So there would be fairy tale romances unfolding between boy and girl, where they would run around trees and sing songs, and the end was always sugar coated. Or you had the hero, who finding himself wronged at the hands of somebody, set about annihilating everything that stood in his way to seek vengeance. The heroes were always larger than life, a kind of alpha male that men in the audience could only aspire to be. The women, with their chiffon saris and bizarre coiffures, were a far cry from the women we knew our mothers, wives or sisters to be. The movies themselves either represented an overt sense of hedonism (those zany Shammi Kapoor musicals) or were emotional roller coasters (Aradhana – 1969, Bobby – 1973 and Yaadon Ki Baarat - 1973). Here reality was sacrificed for the surreal.
Hrishishkesh Mukherjee’s films, though, remained an exception.
Finding his bearings
Hrishikesh could not have asked for a better apprenticeship at the beginning of his career when he served as an understudy to the legendary director Bimal Roy. Mukherjee edited some of Roy’s best works, which included the iconic Do Bigha Zameen (1953) and the hugely successful Madhumati (1958). Fittingly, Mukherjee’s stature at the end of his own career would rival his mentor’s and it was one of those few occasions where the pupil had done his teacher proud.
Hrishida, as he was affectionately called in later years, first tasted commercial success as director in 1959 with Anari. Yet, 50 years down the road, if one looks back, the film did more to further Raj Kapoor’s persona as the loveable tramp than give any immediate reason to celebrate Mukherjee’s coming of age. The same could be said of his next film Anuradha (1960), which although it won a National Award for Best Film, did not push the envelope on any cinematic front. Yet, to Mukherjee’s credit the fact that he managed to get the late Leela Naidu to star in the title role, remains a coup of sorts.
However, with Anupama (1966) Hrishida finally upped the ante. There was an element of remarkable restraint to the film and it is said that Dharmendra was so delighted with the surge in his reputation after Anupama that he brought Hrishida, Sharmila Tagore, character actor David, dialogue writer Rajinder Singh Bedi and lyricist Kaif Azmi – the same team as for Anupama - for Satyakam (1969). The result was a film, which preached a kind of morality that tugged at the collective conscience of Indian society.
1970 saw him direct Rajesh Khanna in the title role of Anand, a film that left even the most stone hearted misty in the eye. Khanna delivered the performance of a lifetime and with a tight screenplay and dialogue that tugged at the heart, Hrishikesh had created an eternal classic. Even now, sometimes when the lights go out, one can hope to hear Khanna break into that famous monologue, “Babomoshai, zindagi aur maut uparwaale ke haath hai jahaanpanah….”
Championing the Indian middle class
While this decade saw the genesis of the ‘Angry Young Man’, with almost any director worth his salt waiting to cast Amitabh Bachchan as the answer to all evils prevalent in society, Hrishikesh steered clear of the stereotype. Where audiences were being serenaded by the hyperbole (Zanjeer - 1973, Muqaddar ka Sikandar – 1978 and Mr. Natwarlal – 1979) in these films, he decided to make movies based on characters from amongst the great Indian middle class. And in doing this he reached out to you and me. Guddi (1971), Bawarchi (1972), Mili (1973) and Khubsoorat (1980) all had characters that were entirely relatable, while the stories themselves had an unmistakable air of familiarity.
But the true genius of Hrishida is best understood by his two films – Abhimaan (1973) and Chupke Chupke (1975). Abhimaan threw light on the chauvinistic psyche of the Indian male when his wife begins to court success much faster, while Chupke Chupke spoofed the Hindi language, without actually disrespecting it. Abhimaan left us with tears in our eyes, while Chupke Chupke had us in splits till our tears came out. Through them Hrishida conquered the two ends of the emotional spectrum.
With having proven his mettle for comedy in Chupke Chupke, Hrishikesh’s next successes came largely within the confines of this genre. Golmaal (1979), a parody on the generation gap, had a young Amol Palekar juggle a double role to outwit a quixotic ‘Bhavani Shankar’ (Utpal Dutt) who believed in the sanctity of the moustache over everything young and trendy. The movie remains a cult classic to this day. Then there were Naram Garam (1981), Kissi Se Na Kehna (1983) and Rang Birangi (1983), all of which tickled the funny bone without indulging in any of the double entendres that were to characterize the David Dhawan comedies of the 1990s.
All in all Mukherjee’s films, comedies or otherwise, had a distinct sensibility which were in perfect harmony with the values of the Indian middle class. It was a self imposed ‘lakshman rekha’ he never crossed.
Legacy
It is hard to think of an A list film director in Indian cinema, who directed as many films as Hrishida (43 in all). Yash Chopra directed 21 while Subhash Ghai called the shots for 18 moviess. And yet Hrishida never sacrificed quality for quantity. His characters ‘Anupama’, ‘Anand’, ‘Guddi’, ‘Raghu Bawarchi’, ‘Mili’, ‘Bhawani Shankar’ or ‘Durandhar Bhatavdekar’ (Rang Birangi) all endeared and made as laugh as well as cry. Seven Filmfare Awards that ranged from Best Editing (Naukari - 1954, Madhumati, Anand) to Best Screenplay (Anokhi Raat - 1968) to Best Story (Anand) and Best Movie (Anand and Khubsoorat) were proof of his versatility in several aspects of film making.
Long before the metro-sexual male became the flavor of the 21st century, Hrishida turned established stereotypes on their head. His lead actors, Dharmendra, Rajesh Khanna and Amitabh Bachchan were never too far away from shedding tears and giving a glimpse of their softer side (Satyakam, Anand, Mili). And he was one of the few directors in Hindi Cinema, like his mentor Bimal Roy and then his peers Gulzar and Yash Chopra, who put the woman at the centre of most of his films (Anuradha, Anupama, Guddi, Abhimaan, Mili and Khubsoorat).
And he was a very kind man, a patriarch to those working on the sets with him. For as Manju Singh, Amol Palekar’s sister in Golmaal, once said of Hrishida, "I remember him as a warm and caring person. I never felt intimidated despite being new on the sets. When I was working in Golmaal, I was a mother of two young daughters. He used to tell other senior artistes, 'I will finish her scenes first so that she can go home and be with her children'."
Hrishida’s last film as director - Jhooth Bole Kauwa Kaate (1998), failed to create much of a buzz at the box office. The story though, was in keeping with Hrishida’s school of cinema, its characters entirely likeable, with a strong moral coming across the film’s storyline. Clearly, audiences and their value systems had changed, he hadn’t.
This column first appeared in the August 2010 edition of ME
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Making sense of LeBron
A little over twenty four hours ago, LeBron James, the marquee NBA player of our times, made ‘the decision’, that was followed as closely as when football fans tuned in to hear where Cristiano Ronaldo was headed after the UEFA Champions League in 2008 drew to a close. Ronaldo, to the delight of Man United fans, on that occasion, decided to stay back with his club for one last hurrah, before heading to Real Madrid at the start of the 2009 season. James, contrastingly, spurned his NBA team of seven years, the Cleveland Cavaliers, for the sunny beaches of Miami and the star studded company of Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh.
Understandably James’ decision has left fans in Cleveland distraught. At its most extreme this consternation manifested itself in owner Dan Gilbert’s vituperative outburst directed towards LeBron. But even while Cleveland hasn’t enjoyed much success in its sporting history, with the city still reeling from Michael Jordan’s buzzer beater on Craig Ehlo in the 1989 playoffs, Gilbert’s flare-up was in absolute poor taste.
Yes, LeBron might have decided to stay back with Cleveland. But that is what the fans expected of him, he was not duty bound to do stay. At 25, LeBron, after seven years in the league, the last three of which have involved painful losses for the Cavs at crucial junctures in the playoffs, was at the crossroads. Did he want to be the main guy on the team that built its franchise around him and inched its way to a single title or did he want to be part of a better team with several star players and win multiple rings?
In an ideal world, as Charles Barkley’s reaction to Le Bron’s decision suggested, James would have chosen the former option and stuck it out with the Cavs for at least another contract. It was what would have enhanced his reputation as a man of character. A man who did not turn his back on the fans. It was what Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Reggie Miller and Patrick Ewing did with their careers. But the problem with that approach is other than for the first three names on that list, the last five headed into retirement without a single title against their names.
Sometime back, while the Boston Celtics were competing in the ’10 playoffs, Kevin Garnett was asked of what LeBron was likely to do when his contract with the Cavs would draw to a close. And Garnett, who spent most of his best years with the Minnesota Timberwolves but failed to win a single title with them, said that he had no idea what LeBron would do but he himself might have done things a little differently with his own career. At 34 Garnett has only one ring to show for his efforts.
Also with the kind of public scrutiny that follows LeBron, he was damned had he stayed with the Cavs because then analysts would have said he stayed for the money (he was due to make USD 30 million more with the Cavs over a six year contract as per current NBA rules) and he is damned now that he appears to have turned his back on the fans. But at least with having decided to go to Miami and join two very talented players, LeBron has proved that he is in the game only to win.
On that count alone, will someone please stand up for him?
Understandably James’ decision has left fans in Cleveland distraught. At its most extreme this consternation manifested itself in owner Dan Gilbert’s vituperative outburst directed towards LeBron. But even while Cleveland hasn’t enjoyed much success in its sporting history, with the city still reeling from Michael Jordan’s buzzer beater on Craig Ehlo in the 1989 playoffs, Gilbert’s flare-up was in absolute poor taste.
Yes, LeBron might have decided to stay back with Cleveland. But that is what the fans expected of him, he was not duty bound to do stay. At 25, LeBron, after seven years in the league, the last three of which have involved painful losses for the Cavs at crucial junctures in the playoffs, was at the crossroads. Did he want to be the main guy on the team that built its franchise around him and inched its way to a single title or did he want to be part of a better team with several star players and win multiple rings?
In an ideal world, as Charles Barkley’s reaction to Le Bron’s decision suggested, James would have chosen the former option and stuck it out with the Cavs for at least another contract. It was what would have enhanced his reputation as a man of character. A man who did not turn his back on the fans. It was what Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Reggie Miller and Patrick Ewing did with their careers. But the problem with that approach is other than for the first three names on that list, the last five headed into retirement without a single title against their names.
Sometime back, while the Boston Celtics were competing in the ’10 playoffs, Kevin Garnett was asked of what LeBron was likely to do when his contract with the Cavs would draw to a close. And Garnett, who spent most of his best years with the Minnesota Timberwolves but failed to win a single title with them, said that he had no idea what LeBron would do but he himself might have done things a little differently with his own career. At 34 Garnett has only one ring to show for his efforts.
Also with the kind of public scrutiny that follows LeBron, he was damned had he stayed with the Cavs because then analysts would have said he stayed for the money (he was due to make USD 30 million more with the Cavs over a six year contract as per current NBA rules) and he is damned now that he appears to have turned his back on the fans. But at least with having decided to go to Miami and join two very talented players, LeBron has proved that he is in the game only to win.
On that count alone, will someone please stand up for him?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Going around in circles
There is only one truth about Indian cricket. It is a 360 degree roller-coaster ride. There is no other way to look at it. Consistency is a concept alien to our players and administrators, applicable only so far as their string of inconsistencies are concerned. How else do you explain the events of the last 40 days? Nightmarish would be the appropriate word, a distant emotion from the frenzy surrounding the IPL nights.
Take Suresh Raina for example. The toast of IPL-3 for the Chennai Super Kings. A first T20 century in India’s second outing against a good South African bowling outfit in the ICC World Twenty20 played in the West Indies. What happens in the Zimbabwe tri-series? 83 runs from 4 innings, with a highest score of 37. Perhaps captaincy got the better of his talent. That or the more sobering thought, that after a series of failures in handling the short ball, 94 ODI games and nearly five years since making his debut, Raina is still not quite the real deal. Rohit Sharma’s twin centuries in the tri-series also provide no reason to celebrate, for Sharma’s talent go hand-in-hand with his uncanny ability to frustrate fans at the most opportune moment.
Or take that other enigma of Indian cricket, Yuvraj Singh. With less than nine months to go for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011, Yuvraj finds no place in the squad for the Asia Cup that begins on the 15th of this month. This for a man who has arguably been India’s biggest ODI match winner since Sachin Tendulkar made his debut, Sourav Ganguly notwithstanding. At 28 and with an ODI career nearly spanning a decade, Yuvraj has failed to make the transition to elder statesman, with his indiscretions off the field sure to sully his reputation as a batsman for life, should he fail to make a comeback.
The selectors too have contributed to the present state of muddle. The logic that has dictated some of their recent selections has bordered on the perverse. So Piyush Chawla plays only two games in the ICC World Twenty20 (Economy Rate – 7.85) in the West Indies. Then Amit Mishra, Pragyan Ojha and R Ashwin are announced as the new spin options for the tour to Zimbabwe. Harbhajan Singh returning to the squad for the Asia Cup would have meant that both Mishra and Ojha are persisted with, since their economy rates at 4.93 and 4.06 were better than Ashwin’s (5.00) in the tri-series. Instead, Ashwin shall partner Harbhajan and Ojha for the forthcoming tournament and Mishra, India’s second best Test spinning option, finds himself cooling his heels. With India scheduled to play three Tests and a tri-series in Sri Lanka beginning July, what good can Mishra do to bring himself back in the reckoning for those matches, since there is no domestic cricket to be played between now and then. Perhaps, if we listen hard enough, we can hear the melody playing in the background for a game of musical chairs.
The biggest onus for some serious corrective action though lies with the BCCI. Firstly, the IPL cannot be the basis of representing India in international tournaments, for our cricketers, as the ICC World Twenty20 showed, are not ready to make the transition. Murali Vijay is conclusive proof of this argument. Secondly, the IPL, with the addition of two new franchises, is in need of some serious readjustment which translates to shorter and less hectic. Sunil Gavaskar’s argument that there were no parties in the Caribbean, then why did the team not do well, has as much ring to it as a rose petal hitting a steel vessel.
With India playing non-stop cricket over the next 60 days (Asia Cup, 3 Tests against Sri Lanka and tri-series in Sri Lanka), it remains to be seen whether we continue to move in circles or march ahead with an eye on the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011.
Take Suresh Raina for example. The toast of IPL-3 for the Chennai Super Kings. A first T20 century in India’s second outing against a good South African bowling outfit in the ICC World Twenty20 played in the West Indies. What happens in the Zimbabwe tri-series? 83 runs from 4 innings, with a highest score of 37. Perhaps captaincy got the better of his talent. That or the more sobering thought, that after a series of failures in handling the short ball, 94 ODI games and nearly five years since making his debut, Raina is still not quite the real deal. Rohit Sharma’s twin centuries in the tri-series also provide no reason to celebrate, for Sharma’s talent go hand-in-hand with his uncanny ability to frustrate fans at the most opportune moment.
Or take that other enigma of Indian cricket, Yuvraj Singh. With less than nine months to go for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011, Yuvraj finds no place in the squad for the Asia Cup that begins on the 15th of this month. This for a man who has arguably been India’s biggest ODI match winner since Sachin Tendulkar made his debut, Sourav Ganguly notwithstanding. At 28 and with an ODI career nearly spanning a decade, Yuvraj has failed to make the transition to elder statesman, with his indiscretions off the field sure to sully his reputation as a batsman for life, should he fail to make a comeback.
The selectors too have contributed to the present state of muddle. The logic that has dictated some of their recent selections has bordered on the perverse. So Piyush Chawla plays only two games in the ICC World Twenty20 (Economy Rate – 7.85) in the West Indies. Then Amit Mishra, Pragyan Ojha and R Ashwin are announced as the new spin options for the tour to Zimbabwe. Harbhajan Singh returning to the squad for the Asia Cup would have meant that both Mishra and Ojha are persisted with, since their economy rates at 4.93 and 4.06 were better than Ashwin’s (5.00) in the tri-series. Instead, Ashwin shall partner Harbhajan and Ojha for the forthcoming tournament and Mishra, India’s second best Test spinning option, finds himself cooling his heels. With India scheduled to play three Tests and a tri-series in Sri Lanka beginning July, what good can Mishra do to bring himself back in the reckoning for those matches, since there is no domestic cricket to be played between now and then. Perhaps, if we listen hard enough, we can hear the melody playing in the background for a game of musical chairs.
The biggest onus for some serious corrective action though lies with the BCCI. Firstly, the IPL cannot be the basis of representing India in international tournaments, for our cricketers, as the ICC World Twenty20 showed, are not ready to make the transition. Murali Vijay is conclusive proof of this argument. Secondly, the IPL, with the addition of two new franchises, is in need of some serious readjustment which translates to shorter and less hectic. Sunil Gavaskar’s argument that there were no parties in the Caribbean, then why did the team not do well, has as much ring to it as a rose petal hitting a steel vessel.
With India playing non-stop cricket over the next 60 days (Asia Cup, 3 Tests against Sri Lanka and tri-series in Sri Lanka), it remains to be seen whether we continue to move in circles or march ahead with an eye on the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)