‘Hema Malini nahi milegi’: What Sholay director Ramesh Sippy told Dharmendra when he insisted on playing Gabbar or Thakur

For what was asked of it, Seeta Aur Geeta was presented accordingly. It gave the returns accordingly. It was as wonderful an experience for me as Sholay was. I put everything into each film when I’m making it. Of course, Sholay had a bigger canvas. It was a huge 70 mm experience because of the kind of film it was — an action film set in the outdoors. If Salim-Javed could deliver in Seeta Aur Geeta, why would they not be able to deliver in Sholay? Writing is about characters, settings, and situations. Who could’ve created the character of Gabbar better?

Salim-Javed’s name is synonymous with Amitabh Bachchan as the Angry Young Man. Their first film together, Prakash Mehra’s Zanjeer (1973) had released a couple of years before Sholay. Even Yash Chopra’s Deewaar (1975) was out the same year as Sholay. Were you concerned that Bachchan wasn’t the Angry Young Man in your film?

He was a quiet man. In that sense, he wasn’t like Dharmendra ji, who was a flamboyant character. Bachchan was more subdued, but he conveyed everything with his expressions. He didn’t have to be as boisterous, except in the song “Yeh Dosti Hum Nahin”. Otherwise the lighting of the lamp — who else could convey that kind of a relationship but Jaya Bachchan and Amit ji? Silent love and admiration — keeping the distance because that was the right thing to do, while feeling the feelings they felt. What I wanted was conveyed by them beautifully.

You were convinced that Jaya Bachchan was the right choice for that silent role. But was she as convinced?

Yes, she had a certain faith in my ability. Secondly, she was cast opposite Amit ji, so she understood the canvas of the whole film. She’s an intelligent lady, so she knew it was something different and nice. And her moments are her moments. Nobody can take those away from her. You first see her as a widow. Then you go into the back story and appreciate it even more, given she was such a boisterous little girl who was prancing around and was full of life. Then the unfortunate happened. In a sense, Thakur’s revenge was for her as well. She was as angry from inside as she was soft and subtle.

Hema Malini was hesitant to play Basanti after headlining Seeta Aur Geeta. How did you convince her?

I said, “Trust me, this character will also stand out. Yes, the film isn’t centered around you. But you’ll be a very important character, you don’t worry about that.” Her highlight comes in the end when she dances on those hot, uneven rocks and shattered glass. That was the peak of her character. She was not only boisterous, but also expressive, strong, and passionate about her love. “Jab tak hai jaan, main naachungi.” She did her role brilliantly.

Hema Malini as Basanti in Sholay (1975). (Photo: National Film Archive of India/ Facebook)

Asrani, who played “angrezon ke zamane ke jailer,” said you and Salim-Javed gave Adolf Hitler as a reference to him. Where did that come from?

One had seen Hitler in Western films and heard about him. But to do a caricature of Hitler became a nice turnaround. So, Salim-Javed and I sat on it together. But the spirit was to create something together so that the satisfaction of doing something nice comes to every actor.

Did the real-life romances of Dharmendra-Hema Malini and Amitabh-Jaya Bachchan help in creating their onscreen chemistry?

I think even if there was no real romance between them, they’d have conveyed everything equally well because they’re fine actors. But maybe the actual happenings did bring on an extra dose of reality to their feelings. But as fine actors, they’d have done that anyway.

Jaya Bachchan and Amitabh Bachchan in Sholay.

You had to change the original climax of Sholay, where Thakur stomped Gabbar to death. In hindsight, do you regret that?

The censors weren’t happy with the original ending, of Thakur finishing Gabbar. I’m not sure whether that was for the best or not. Even the way the censors finally left it was enough to convey what Thakur had in mind. They just stopped the final blow, but you do know what was going to happen. So, the impact was still there. Of course, the full satisfaction would’ve been to see that final stomp. But I wouldn’t have shown the completely destroyed face anyway. All in all, what they did was because of the 1975 Emergency, so we couldn’t argue much at that time. I told them, “Look, I tried my best not to show too much of gory violence. Whatever action I’ve shot has been dealt with sensitivity and class.’ They said, ‘But sir, the way you’ve showed it has even more impact.’ So now, I shouldn’t even make it well to satisfy you? (Laughs). In their hearts of hearts, they knew I was right. But they would’ve gotten more flak then had they not done anything. So ultimately, one compromises where you feel overall, it’d be okay.

Now that the original ending is being restored by the Film Heritage Foundation, how do you think it’ll be received in this era of wokeness. It’s very satisfying for a revenge thriller, but is still technically an extrajudicial killing. Where do you stand in terms of your moral compass?. 

If you behead a villain, you’re still a hero. It’s never considered immoral. But yes, in terms of the courts of justice, you should never take the law into your hand, or your feet as was the case that time. A moviemaker has the right to convey it this way, especially if they’re doing it well and without making it gory. It’s all part of good action. Everything should be weight in terms of the context in which it’s coming on the screen. A maker should have that liberty. The authorities are now much more appreciative of that aspect. They’re also worried that there’ll be hue and cry, like there was with the sexual scenes between Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das in Deepa Mehta’s Fire (1996). But it was done so tastefully. They had the right to keep it the way they wanted to. I’m always very touchy about that. The censor board should convince other members who are not convinced. Because then what’s the difference between doing something nicely and doing it very crudely? So, you have to be appreciative and give that allowance. Yes, if someone is crude about it, then you should give them the option to reshoot it.

Did you also think of reshooting the death of Jai (Amitabh) and keeping him alive in the climax of Sholay?

No. There was a lot of criticism. But it wasn’t as much criticism as an emotional outburst over Jai’s death. So initially, when the numbers were low, the ‘critics’ said if you hadn’t killed him, it would’ve been a hit. It all settled down, and ultimately, everyone conceded that something well done is well done. His death is the very reason the audience were moved. Otherwise there’d be no take-off for the final surge of revenge from Veeru (Dharmendra). His best friend dies, which is why he finishes off everybody.

Amitabh Bachchan expressed his initial desire to play Gabbar instead of Jai. Do you think it’d have been a very different film if he had?

There’s no question that when a fine actor takes over any role, he’d have done it wonderfully. It can’t be denied. But if you look back at it now, can you see anyone else as Gabbar? Amjad Khan fitted in such a way that he’s so good! Amitabh was so good as Jai! Even Sanjeev Kumar felt he should play Gabbar. Dharam ji felt the entire story is Thakur’s and the arch villain of Gabbar is very colourful, so should he play either? In the end, I said, “Dharam ji, you can play any role, but phir Hema Malini nahi milegi.” (laughs). But I can’t see anyone else in that water tank scene. Finally, each actor accepted their role and did it with full conviction. And the result is for everyone to see.

Dharmendra and Amitabh Bachchan in Sholay.

Did the burden of having directed Sholay chase you in the rest of your directorial journey?

I never felt weighed down by that. Yes, the audience’s expectations can’t be changed because Sholay made such an impact. But a mother later came to me and said her young son had seen my film 20 times. So I thought, here goes another Sholay story. But she said, “Not Sholay, Shaan!” That gave me the satisfaction that despite the box office and impact of Shaan (1980) not being the same as Sholay, but today, a lot of reviews keep Shaan on a pedestal also and say it’s one of the finest films of that era. Saagar (1985) has its own following as a love story. Shakti (1982) was a powerful drama. Seeta Aur Geeta was a fun film. So I’ve tried to do a different film each time. The fact that they all worked makes me happy I was able to change genres and deliver each time.

Do you think Sholay can be made today?

There’s nothing in this world that can’t be done. It won’t be easy, but it wasn’t easy then. Actors always had egos, but today, it’ll be almost impossible to convince half a dozen actors to play these roles.

Is that also why you don’t direct anymore?

No such thing. I should feel motivated, and I still might. Who knows!

What do you think was the reason behind Salim-Javed’s separation because you worked with them all the way till Shakti before collaborating with Javed Akhtar alone in Saagar?

I don’t know. I guess somewhere that balance worked beautifully. They’ve admitted themselves that together, they were a force to reckon with. They did good work individually also, but it wasn’t as impactful as what they did together.

Is there a tribute to Sholay that’s stayed with you?

I guess the ultimate was Mr. Satyajit Ray when he appreciated the film. Given the position he was in across the world — and not for nothing, he had done some brilliant work — to get a sign-off from him was quite an achievement. He called Sholay a complete cinematic experience. He hadn’t spoken about other films like that. It’s a lot for him to say. I was very touched and warmly full of emotions. What else can you ask for?

Also Read — ‘First movie memory is watching Amitabh Bachchan laughing with blood on his back’: Rohan Sippy

Sholay was unofficially remade as Ram Gopal Varma ki Aag in 2007, which didn’t turn out well. Do you think your film should be left alone now?

In today’s world, you can’t control all that. Ultimately, the lure of money takes over. If Sholay goes into business hands, they will use it to maximum exploitation. So far, it hasn’t happened. If it does happen, it should be done in the right way. That’s all I can hope for.