Aamir Khan’s statements regarding the movie BLACK and the performances of the lead actors have ignited a controversy, and maybe, rightly so. Aamir Khan (AK) says that BLACK is an insensitively made film and that its performances are contrived and ineffective.
I am a fan of both Amitabh Bachchan (AB) and AK, but to me, AB will always remain THE God of emoting as far as the Hindi film industry is concerned. That, however, doesn’t mean I cannot see objectively thorough AB’s skills as a performer, or his behavior as a human being. The latter part, however, is not of much concern to me (unless he decides to do or has done a crime of immeasurable proportions). The timing of AK’s interview and his statements smack of something ulterior; if not ulterior, then definitely a bit irresponsible.
Let me make my point by citing his interview that has caused the controversy. In the interview (Mumbai Mirror, ‘The reclusive taara’, November 25) AK is asked various questions on some controversial grounds he tread on earlier in his career, mainly, his role rejection in DARR and his soured working relationship with Ram Gopal Varma. He clarifies his stand in the DARR controversy to an extent, remains almost mum on the issues with Varma, but talks about the ‘insensitivities’ of BLACK to a great depth. Why not a detailed talk on the other two issues? To conclude that AK spoke only because he was asked would actually be an insult to the man’s intelligence. After all these years, surely AK knows when and what to talk and what would/could be the consequences of his utterances. He chose BLACK and AB, and now, at the time of the release of his movie ‘Taare Zameen Par’, a fresh controversy has hit the film industry headlines. This, definitely, will grab the eyeballs, and the beneficiary will be his latest movie.
Before someone (maybe everyone!) starts accusing me of being foolish to the last hair on my body if I think AK needs such publicity, let me reiterate that any type ofcontroversy, will only add to the ever-hungry public’s curiosity. That I am writing this piece itself is a testimony to this fact and, like me, I am sure many more people have either talked verbally about this controversy or have put pen to their thoughts. This happened during FANAA too, and the winners, all the way, were AK and FANAA.
BLACK was a movie released in February of 2005, and by all yardsticks, is history. It has stayed in the public’s psyche for long, yes, and is definitely considered one of the better cinemas to come out of the oft-considered ‘strait-jacketed’ Hindi film industry. But the question is, why now? Did AK not know that making such statements about a film—which, at least, a considerable majority of the Indian public liked— and about an actor who won accolades both from the Indian and the foreign media for his portrayal, would definitely invite some controversy? This is not to say that he should not say anything at all about a movie, which, whether he wants/likes it or not, will go down in the annals of Hindi cinema as one of the better pieces to emerge. According to AB’s interview in Mid-day in response to AK’s statements, after a private screening of BLACK earlier on, AK already expressed his dislike for the movie and his opinion about the movie.
Hence, both AB and Sanjay Bhansali have received AK’s views and know his reactions and thoughts on the movie. When the interviewer from Mumbai Mirror asked him about BLACK, he could have just said that the movie didn’t work for him and could have shifted to another topic. AK had already put across his thought directly to the makers of the movie and acted conscientiously. But he chose to re-iterate his views on a public platform. And expectedly, it has snow-balled into a ‘supposed AB’s war with the other Khan’ in the media.
Coming to AK’s ‘logical’ mind, which he tries to find in every movie he acts/directs/produces, one can cite a significantly high number of examples where what he considers logic, is clearly illogical. I am bringing up this fact since AB says in his reaction (I am putting forth this argument based on AB’s interview (November 27, 2007, ‘Maybe the performances did go over’) to Mid-day; and do like to say that I do not have any source to verify whether AB is speaking the truth!!) to AK’s statements that AK did not agree with the fact that Rani Mukherjee’s character has a voice-over in BLACK, specifically since the character happens to be challenged both visually and vocally. Well, doesn’t she have feelings? How do you portray a character’s (who happens to be challenged) thoughts in a movie like BLACK? Also, isn’t she shown typing on Braille and conveying to us the story of her life? Can somebody please enlighten me as to what is particularly ‘illogical’ in this portrayal? AK also talked of ‘logic’ during the 1990s when he rejected the role of the poet in SAAJAN, which turned out to be a blockbuster. He said he found it extremely difficult (read illogical) to believe that a person could fall in love with someone without meeting him/her even once (and that love emanated and grew on the sole point of contact between the lover and the loved - poems). Now, in the first place, the whole plot of SAAJAN is ludicrous when analyzed with the tool of logic! This is a true-blue, ‘masala’, pot-boiler – albeit with amazing songs. This movie has/had to be watched with more blood in your heart than your head. AK is searching for a needle of logic in a whole damn haystack of clichés and derived moments of SAAJAN!! Isn’t it absurd? By the same logic, AK should not have been a part of FANAA. The movie is an ocean of absurdities that is lifted up only by the charisma of the lead actors and the lilting music. AK said in his blog that he did this movie because it was a movie that touched his heart; and that ‘brain’ was not a necessary organ in experiencing the cinematic pleasure of FANAA. Where was this ‘thinking’ during SAAJAN?
AB is bang-on when he says that many of the films AK is associated with have had the same ‘manipulative’ qualities that AK dislikes in BLACK. Didn’t we all jump out of our seats and clap in joy when Kachra first spinned the ball in LAGAAN? And later deliriously when the intricacies (old and new ball behaving differently to spin) of spin bowling were cleverly projected through the challenged Kachra? Maybe it was not so ‘demonstrative’ as it was in BLACK, but isn’t a murder still a murder, committed with a needle or a knife?
-- PART II on AMITABH BACHCHAN’S PERSONALITY PROFILE