Role call: Biopics, a tricky business

Nonika Singh

Advertisement

EACH time a biopic is announced, there is excitement, buzz and finally, more often than not, censure. As ‘Sam Bahadur’ hit the screens, one expected critics to bare their fangs to dismiss the film as yet another hagiography, a term they so love to shoot down real-to-reel adaptations. Lo and behold, many reviews have panned the film for not showing grey shades of the war hero Sam Manekshaw. Never mind that in interview after interview, director Meghna Gulzar has reiterated that the film leaves no scope to villianise or disrespect the memory of the first Field Marshal of India. Indeed, why should it be cinematically important to show our heroes as flawed human beings?

If the West can paint innumerable flattering cinematic portraits of Winston Churchill without making him the villain as Indians see him — especially for his central role in the Bengal famine, which killed over 30 lakh people — what is wrong if we too hero-worship our inspirational figures? In fact, the reason why films are made on historical, political and mythological figures is because they merit attention. Pankaj Tripathi, who will soon be seen as Atal Bihari Vajpayee in the biopic ‘Main Atal Hoon’, said in an interview, “What’s wrong with hero-worshipping? If the person is awe-inspiring, he/she deserves to be looked at with respect.” Similar thoughts have been expressed by veteran director Shyam Benegal, who has made more than one biopic, the most recent being Indo-Bangla production ‘Mujib: The Making of a Nation’. The director, who has given us superlative biopics like the ‘The Making of the Mahatma’ and ‘Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The Forgotten Hero’, does not feel the need to be unnecessarily critical, especially when the subject of interest is the man voted as ‘The Greatest Bengali of All Time’ by a BBC poll in 2004. Benegal can be credited with making National Award-winning biopics and Tigmanshu Dhulia for the sterling and compelling ‘Paan Singh Tomar’ without unnecessary glorification of the seven-time national steeplechase champion-turned-brigand. Yet, it was Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra who truly set the ball rolling in the mainstream space. ‘Bhaag Milkha Bhaag’ set the cash registers ringing and led to a spate of biopics.

India has been rather slow in taking up biopics. The first on one of our most important figures, Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi, too, was West-driven. Today, Richard Attenborough’s ‘Gandhi’ figures eminently in the list of most memorable biopics. Yet another Indian who finds glory in the international hall of biopics is Shekhar Kapur, who gave us ‘Bandit Queen’. He also directed ‘Elizabeth’. However, it’s ‘Gandhi’ that not only remains one of the best and well-rounded portrayals of the great national leader, but also a reference point for gifted makers like Shoojit Sircar. He agrees that “we have taken our own sweet time to move into this space”, but quips, “Better late than never.” His biopic on Sardar Udham Singh took some 20 years in the making. “The biggest challenge undisputedly,” Sircar insists, “is getting the right information and from the right source.” However, though he deluged his writers with documents and articles for minute details, the idea always was to allow viewers a peep into Udham’s heart and soul.

At the end of the day, a biopic, like any other film, is not a collation of facts but the art of engaging storytelling. Abhay Pannu, who brought to life legendary scientists Vikram Sarabhai and Homi Bhabha in the OTT series ‘Rocket Boys’, believes, “Never let facts come in the way of a good story.”

Rajit Kapur, who has played every conceivable politician of note, from Mahatma Gandhi to Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi (‘Uri’), says, “A biographical film can’t be a leaf out of Wikipedia. Why should I watch what I can read? The cinematic adaptation has to be visually charged, just as ‘Oppenheimer’, an experiential and immersive film, was.” Indeed, biographical stories can’t be a linear insipid arc or a cut-and-dried CV leaping on to screen. Above all, he feels, “There has to be a new perspective. It has to tell something people have not heard before.” As he will soon be seen as Sardar Patel in an upcoming project directed by Dayal Nihalani backed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, he promises to show us the human being behind the ‘Iron Man’. Similarly, Tripathi shares how in ‘Main Atal Hoon’, we will see “a poet who was also a great statesman”.

Does the political climate dictate the kind of biopics being made? Would a film on Vajpayee or one on Emergency, and most significantly on Veer Savarkar, be possible under another government at the Centre? More importantly, can these films dare to be even mildly disapproving of figures seemingly on the right side of the powers-that-be?

Lytton Strachey said, “Discretion is not the better part of biography,” yet directors tend to brush unsavoury truths under the carpet unless it is a convenient ploy to win brownie points. Experts say more and more films on hyper-nationalism and war heroes suiting the prevailing sentiment are being made. But can we say the same about ‘Sam Bahadur’, that delves into a period when the present dispensation was not around? “Yes,” says Atul Mohan, a trade and film analyst, “who is ruling defines the mood of the nation and right now, the flavour of cinema is patriotism.” As long as that feeling is in sync with the ‘we are proud Indians’ consciousness, ‘Sam Bahadur’ can depict the triumph of 1971 and ‘Rocket Boys’ show the Nehruvian era in a favourable light.

Without getting into the politics of who is ruling at what time, Shoojit observes, “Ultimately, it is the integrity of the filmmaker which will decide the subject and slant of the film.” Ideally, he thinks, a maker should be unbiased and present facts as they were/are. But can cinema ever be an objective point of view or factual to the T? Mohan opines, “If a biographical drama has to be successful, it invariably has to follow the 70:30 ratio of fact versus fiction. Mere realistic narration will have too many dull moments to be of interest to the viewers.” Often, even when the story at hand is potent and dramatic enough, writers do mint some fictional subplots. At times, what appears fictional as the over-enthused Sikh fans in Kabir Khan’s ‘83’ need not be a figment of imagination. Even if some characters are not rooted in reality or the timeline is shifted, it does not take away from the essence of the film.

Ketan Mehta, who made ‘Mangal Pandey: The Rising’ and ‘Manjhi — The Mountain Man’, once said, “What matters is the idea at play. For, a biopic is much more than just an arc of the person in focus.” For Kabir Khan, who relived the slice of cricket history when India won the 1983 Cricket World Cup, sports dramas are not so much about the sport per se as the triumph of human spirit. Precisely why though Ranveer Singh nailed it as Kapil Dev, the casting choices can be fluid and physical similarity not a prerequisite. Indeed, Vicky Kaushal might be a few inches taller than Sam Manekshaw and a few shades less fair, yet both critics and netizens have hailed his emulation. Rajit bears no likeness to the stalwarts he has played. Yet, be it Gandhi or Nehru, he gets the mannerisms, nuances and body language right each time as he is always looking for that something new in the character. As he puts it, “It’s not about imitation, the idea is to get into the person’s mind.”

How an actor prepares and rises to the challenge of becoming the real person is often as interesting as the dramatic simulation of facts. For ‘The Making of the Mahatma’, which focuses on 20 years of a young Gandhi’s struggle in South Africa, ‘My Experiments with Truth’ became Rajit’s Bible. Vicky has shot with real soldiers, done military drills with IMA cadets, even had over 200 Sam Manekshaw photos as a ready reckoner to get his posture right. During the making of ‘Sardar Udham’, he shared how an actor has to imbibe the character in a holistic fashion, but more than the person, ‘Sardar Udham’ is about his timeless soch.

Can timelessness and going back in time exist in the same frame? Not always. Mohan asserts that making biopics is a tricky business. He shares, “Statistically, political biopics rarely work at the box office.” A cinegoer is an altogether different beast whose only loyalty is towards entertainment. Thus, Prime Minister Modi might be one of the most popular political figures, but that is no guarantee that a film on him will not tank as ‘PM Narendra Modi’ did. Viewers are drawn to larger-than-life figures only if they are packaged well. Biopics need to get all their quotients and course character development right. Add to it yet another factor, the star power. Mohan elucidates, “In the star-driven business of cinema, having stars in the driving seat is not merely an embellishment but a viable proposition. Sadly, star actors are only a handful, which explains why too many real-life inspirational stories cannot be made.”

Rowena Baweja, an upcoming filmmaker, explains why India missed the biopics’ bus to begin with: “For a young nation, the common man was the hero. And then the line between commercial and art cinema became very distinct. It’s only in 2000s, with the arrival of multiplexes and now OTT, that an equal opportunity to make biopics and historical films has presented itself.”

Coming up

Arun Khetarpal biopic

‘Andhadhun’ director Sriram Raghavan will recount the tale of the 1971 PVC recipient.

Maidan

Ajay Devgn essays the part of Syed Abdul Rahim, the football coach who

revolutionised the sport in India.

Mark Twain felt “biographies are but the clothes and buttons of the man, the biography of the man himself cannot be written”. Biopics, however, will continue to reimagine our role models, and why not? As industrialist Anand Mahindra tweeted, “There is a powerful virtuous cycle created when a country produces movies which tell the stories of their heroes… More heroes emerge when people know their courage will be feted.” So, let our heroes shine. On screen, most certainly.