Reading between the lines

The idea was really to function as a snapshot,to see how far Bollywood has gone in the time that I have been reporting. I thought it would be interesting as a history of modern Bollywood in the last 18 years. Its just interesting to look at the figures and the conversations and it is intriguing that some of the problems are still the same. We have gone so far ahead in terms of technology and distribution,the monetary situation has improved but we are still stealing stories! These are patterns that you see every couple of years and then comes one hit,and everything is forgotten. So obviously the script has not gone where it needs to.

Which were the publications that you worked for?

My first job was with Movie magazine in 1988. I then went to the United States and did my Masters in Journalism which was a three-and-a-half-year break. After I came back,I did a very short stint with Sunday magazine and then joined India Today in 1993.

Why did you choose to write on Bollywood?

I cant say that I had some grand passion for movies when I was growing up. I think it was my seven-month stint with Movie magazine that seduced me and introduced me to this magical world of movies. Strangely enough,it was a world that I had known before but it had never really interested me. My mother of course,was into itshe wrote Prem Rog for Raj Kapoor and Chandni for Yash Chopra. I remember being on the sets of Prem Rog and being very much the South Mumbai kid,I was like Okay,whatever! I wish I had paid more attention! I was watching Raj Kapoor direct but was too much of a snob to really realise what a privilege that was!

Do you think the coverage of films/ Bollywood has changed over the years?

I wanted to write on Bollywood but not the usual personality-and scandal-driven articles,so I went to the States for training. Mr Aroon Purie just thought it was bizarre that I had come back after a Masters degree in journalism from Northwestern University and a short stint at Harpers Bazaar to write on Bollywood! At India Today,which is where I worked the longest,the coverage was not the whos-sleeping-with-who variety. I was always trying to look at trends though I wasnt writing about how it affected society those connections I didnt make. I was too new,I was too raw,but it was about the movies business. The music,the numbers being sold and all of that.

How was it being a film journalist for a political newsmagazine?

Within two months of joining I did a cover story on Madhuri Dixit (in her iconic purple sari),which was huge. They were willing to give me that space so I never felt that there was a caste system,though of course,it was a political magazine and in their 23-25 years history they had carried only three covers on film personalitiesAmitabh Bcahchan,Shabana Azmi and one more. And it was a huge thing,which is very hard for us to imagine now as India Today has its own film special.

Which was your most interesting article?

One of the most interesting pieces was when I interviewed Robin Bhatt and his partner Javed Siddiqui who would blatantly lift ideas and Robin was like,My talent is in knowing what to steal. I found that very interesting.

Any film journalists that you admire?

I admire the criticism and level of writing of people like Roger Ebert or Richard Corliss,Anthony Lane at The New Yorker. You dont need to see the movies because the review itself is so brilliantly written. Some of the writers at Vanity Fair do these brilliant profiles that are not puff pieces and give you great insights. Even UK has some good writers and film critics.

Your comment on film critics in India.

Its early days for film critics. We had Khalid Mohammed for many,many years. In the States,it takes years of watching movies before becoming a critic. Even for me,I feel I should be better informed,should see way more films than I have. I exchanged emails with Richard Corliss many years ago and he talked in detail about films that Raj Kapoor had made in the 40s and 50s which even I had not seen and I was really ashamed. Here was a man sitting in New York who knew his stuff. So that is the bar to which we should aspire. But less knowledge to me is less problematic than having less integrity. Again I should hardly be speaking about it being married to a filmmaker but that church-state separation is something that should be there. Abroad,critics do not interview talent. In India most of us are doing the talent interviews and the reviews,socialising with these people which is probably not the best way to practise the craft. 3 Idiots did not get reviewed in New York Times because I know the woman who reviews Hindi films for New York Times. We are not friends but we shared a coffee when I was in New York that is the level at which they operate. It is very different,so here it is your personal standards of integrity wherein we have to set the boundaries for ourselves and be as honest as possible.

Speaking of being married to a filmmaker,how did you meet Vidhu Vinod Chopra? Was it over an interview?

My mother was one of the co-writers on 1942-A Love Story so thats how we met. I did try to interview him when I was with Movie magazine because I had these ideas about how it cant be only about stars. My editor Dinesh Raheja was very sweet and he let me carry forward my plans. I had this article in mind which was called Directors of Tomorrow because he was making Parinda and Mazhar Khan was making a film called Gang and it had Jackie Shroff. So I didnt do any research because that wasnt part of the plan (Laughs). One just picked up the phone and called people. So Vinod was like,Directors of tomorrow? Do you have any idea how many awards I have won? That I have been nominated for an Oscar? Do you know enough about my yesterday to talk about me as a director of tomorrow? (Laughs) He did not give me any interview and soon after I went off to the States. I told my mother that this man was so arrogant but I had heard such amazing things about Parinda that she should watch the film and try and meet him. Which she did. She met up with him and co-wrote 1942 A Love Story which is how we met. But I have never interviewed him. I wrote an article on the return of melody which featured 1942s music-a break away from the khatiyas and khatmals for which I spoke to him very briefly but I have never done a complete interview of Vinod.

For a film critic to be married to an eminent filmmaker must be tough.

I dont review any of his films or my sisters movies. Its also good that he doesnt have any friends. We dont have personal friends in the industry because that is problematic if you are socialising with people. Then it becomes very hard. We definitely dont socialise with people from the industry that much. As a critic what you bring to the table is how honest you are. You should be able to say,no.

Being a film critic cant be very easy either?

(Laughs) I get slammed on Twitter but nobody has said anything to my face. You do get people saying you are biased. That I like Shah Rukh,or Aamir because he acted in my husbands films. There is no way you can please everybody. Criticism has to be a two-way conversation. Your opinion is equally valid as mine and lets talk. A movie can never have just one correct way of being viewed.

Some people are extremely graceful about it,like Priyanka Chopra who I had to interview the same day on which I completely slammed Anjaana Anjaani.

She said,You didnt like my movie,did you? And completely moved on. I really appreciate it because I know how it feels when your films get slammed. Vinods Eklavya was slammed on my show. But yes,there are some people who just take it very badly (Laughs).

Would you say that members of the film industry are more sensitive to criticism than others?

I think all creative people are a little sensitive like a painter would not like his painting criticised or an author his book. It is hard because you may have given it two or three years of your life. I have a speech on my computer from Ratatouille wherein the food critic Anton Ego says that its very easy to be a critic because,We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and theirselves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism,which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth,we critics must face,is that in the grand scheme of things,the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

I agree. You have to recognise that it is somebody who has put themselves out there and even making a bad movie is a lot of work!

So what is different about Bollywood being run by the Suits?

Everything. Its hard to imagine now but Shah Rukh talks in the foreword about doing three shifts a day. At that time Cine Artistes Association had a rule that you couldnt do more than 12 films at a time. Now they choose to sit at home Ranbir Kapoor will sit at home for two months. And the whole attitude I think is far more evolved,organised and there is a greater understanding of the business. The days of the Wild-West approach when the guy in a safari suit would come with a suitcase are over. Also the level of education is far higher. People are aware and educated. They are cine-literate. Its not the jewellery shop owner who wants to stand next to the heroine and therefore says,Chalo picture banate hain.

You do not see the shady guys anywhere near the A-list stars. So all that has completely changed. That Hollywood studios are here trying to make a mark,was unthinkable. What hasnt changed are the scripts. Not enough is invested in development of stories. There is not enough respect for the writers and sourcing of stories.

And of course,the countless brand endorsements…

Absolutely. I still remember Amitabh Bachchans first ad for BPL some 15 years ago which is how recent this whole thing is. I always wonder at this kind of overexposure ads,television,stage shows,guest appearance how much does that fray your craft? And does it?

I am constantly told that it gives you a whole new craft,a freedom to pursue the films you want to because you are making so much money on this.

A-list guys in Hollywood do one ad,not 15 products! I had asked on Twitter if there is any other film industry in the world where the leading A-list stars hawk baniaans? Its amazing that every male actor at the top except Aamir perhaps,is selling undershirts. It evoked a very furious reaction. Akshay tweeted back saying somebody did endorse a Calvin Klein undershirt!

Speaking of changes within Bollywood,what has changed with its presence at Cannes?

As an industry Bollywood has made an impact. Earlier,there were just 10-15 people from India but three years ago,in the pre-recession phase,Reliance had a press conference where they announced that they are going to invest a billion dollars in entertainment and everybody who was Indian got asked,Are you from Reliance? Everyone was aware of what Bollywood is but movies,no. Udaan made it to Un Certain regard after seven years but in the main competition section we havent had a film in 17 years. Bollywood is too remote from what Cannes is looking for. Their palette and sensibility is very different. We need more films like Udaan. It cant be only about Aishwarya Rai and Sonam Kapoor walking the Red Carpet. If your presence is only about stars,its not going to do it.

Taking sides is always tough but which are your favourite Bollywood interviews ?

Thats very tough,but Shah Rukh of course,because he is just superbly articulate and very funny. There was also an interesting interview on television with Stephen Soderbergh two years ago and Werner Herzogg who I thought was like Vinod taken to the power of 100! I am always curious when we move away from the project that you are plugging and talk of things that you dont already know about.

priyanka.sinhaexpressindia.com

Excerpt from the book

I was an early convert to the cult of Govinda. When I joined India Today in June 1993,the first article I wrote was about the monster success of the Govinda-Chunky-monkey hit Aankhen. But back then,Govinda was strictly a ‘ceetee’ audience pleasure. You couldn’t admit in public,specially the rimmed-glasses,dressed-in-black,Quentin Tarantino-quoting-type public,that you were a Govinda admirer. That you believed he was a hugely talented performer,that you enjoyed his resolutely bad dress sense,his Dada Kondkeesque,earthy-bordering-on-vulgar expressions,and his absolute unselfconscious,unpretentious enjoyment of his art..

And then one day,everything changed,it;s difficult to say when Govinda crossed from coarse to cool,but suddenly mini-skirted models were jiving to ‘Teri nani mari to main kya karoon’ in discos,Shobha De declared that Govinda has ‘a native intelligence and a terrific sense of humour’,and even Parmeshwar Godrej,the high priestess of Mumbai style,bowled over by Govinda’s ishytle got him to endorse Godrej’s Ganga soaps. Naturally then,India Today,which had long resisted Govinda,decided to explore the man’s mystique. But being a believer is not the same thing as getting an interview.

Interviewing Govinda is a little like experiencing a David Dhawan film zany,funny,exasperating and unpredictable. Even the excuses offered by his confused but unfailingly polite uncles and secretary are original. ‘Of course madam,he would love to do the interview but he’s thinking of taking the family to Bangkok this evening.’ After one week of daily phone calls,I gave up.

Then came the bhabhiji phase. I’m married to a filmmaker,Vidhu Vinod Chopra. Some weeks later,Vinod spied Govinda’s white Mercedes in Film City. He stopped it,jumped out of his car and thrust a mobilephone at the very surprised star. ‘Here,speak to my wife,she’s been trying to reach you for weeks.’ I became bhabhiji,as in ‘Bhabhiji,aap kyun takleef karti hain,main aapke ghar aake struggle karunga’ (translation: I want to work with Vinod),I protested,saying that I would come over. Replied Govinda,’Kyun? Main aapke ghar nahin aa sakta? Aapko chai pilane mein koi takleef hai?’ His receptionist even called to confirm our address and warn us that Govinda was just completing his puja and would arrive within the hour. He never came.

Two months later,Kulbhushan Gupta,Govinda’s producer and family friend from his poverty-stricken Virar days,finally organised an interview. He was charming,gracious and utterly apologetic. ‘Vinodji kya sochenge. Ek interview nahin de sakta to yeh aadmi film kaise karega.’ He spoke honestly and emotionally about his life and art,about his mother and God. On the day the photo shoot was scheduled,he decided,on a whim,to have a Satyanarayan ki puja in his Madh Island bungalow. His film shootings were delayed for several hours. That can wait.’ his uncle explained,’God can’t.’ We all trudged to the far-flung location,prayed with him for several hours,ate prasad and managed to take a few photographs before he got into his car and sped away to waiting producers. ‘The problem with Govinda,’ one of his producers said to me,off the record,of course,’is that he just can’t say no. Thank God he’s not a woman.’

-Jan 1998,India Today