RIP Remakes?

Most of us winced when we heard that Zanjeer was being remade. (When it was going to happen to Sholay,there was of course just plain outrage) Why would anyone want to tinker with these films? Why not just let them remain in our memory as they were.

Films work for a complex set of reasons. While a good film usually does have a good script backing it,all good scripts don’t necessarily translate into good films. The caliber of the filmmaker,the talent and charisma of the star,the freshness of the cinematic style,and other historical elements contribute to its appeal.

It isn’t that either Zanjeer or Sholay had an unusual plot,of a kind that hadn’t been done earlier or later. In fact,such plots have often been called “formula” stories. Honest cop,hounded by the system,eventually routs the villain single-handedly. Hired vigilantes liberate an oppressed village from an evil bandit.

Take Zanjeer. More than the story,its USP came from the intensity of the hero’s characterisation. The constantly bubbling volcano of anger within him threatening to explode any moment gave the film its gripping tension. I’d say that this treatment came from the restive and rebellious personalities of its two authors. And then there was of course Mr Bachchan’s portrayal of that angry man. How were such factors expect to be replicated?

In any case,remaking a film isn’t as easy as it looks. Unless you pick an innocuous gem,chances are that in a bid to cash in on the brand-appeal of the original,you end up handicapping yourself. The goodwill that Sholay carries would easily overwhelm any remake. If Zanjeer was remade exactly as it was,it would have in any case paled before the original,since one can’t carry forward the USPs. On the other hand,if you reinterpret it,then you’re in danger of losing the very energy that made it work in the first place.

Fortunately there are enough original competently-written scripts available these days raring to put their skills to work. Why not just give those a shot?

Karan Malhotra

Director,Agneepath

On the outset I don’t think the success of the original should determine the success of a remake. In the case of Don: The Chase Begins Again,Farhan Akhtar would have connected with the basic thought of Don when he made the remake. For me,when I made Agneepath it was recreating the world from that time. You want to readapt a film and you want to tread that path.

I was so inspired by the film that I did not want it to be a frame-to-frame copy. When they saw Agneepath they saw a new film,so I don’t like to call it a remake. But I have no problem with filmmakers if they call their films remakes.

As a fan of the original Agneepath,I got a chance to tell a story. My idea was to contribute from my side and that is what was important. Thinking of recreating that film was a scary proposition but at the same time,the fear was an exciting one and made me overcome

my hurdles. But the point of commercial success of such films is a case of hit and miss as they are subject to the same pitfalls with films at the box office. Using the term “remake” might attract people to theatres,but it has to work on its individual merit too. The hysteria of using the phrase “remake” will stop within the first two days. Today’s producers will not stop at anything to title their film a remake and sometimes it backfires. When you see the trailer of a remake of a film it can backfire,so you have to be conscious that you are playing with fire. If a film was made 20 years ago,people know the impact of it through dinner conversations,but have not seen the movie.

So why can’t I or even any other filmmaker revisit the story with their own interpretation of that cult classic? Today’s generation will not buy a DVD of that classic or download a film of that generation. I know people who are 20-25

years-old and have not seen the original Agneepath. As long as you are challenging yourself as a filmmaker it is fine but if you are making a cut-copy-paste of the film then what is the point.

Debate conducted by Debesh Banerjee