For most of us the graph of acting prowess starts from ‘the good’, goes up to ‘the best’ and then rises to ‘the great’. But in reality, above all of the aforementioned categories stands the awe-inspiring Shabana Azmi. Having leapfrogged critics’ expectations with her path-breaking roles, Shabana is quite correctly called the most prominent icons of Hindi cinema.
On her recent trip to the capital to promote her upcoming film ‘Chalk N Duster’, in which Shabana will be seen playing the role of a Maharashtrian teacher, she spoke exclusively to IBNlive.com about her film ‘Arth’, ongoing Aamir Khan’s ‘Incredible India’ ambassador debate, and the different interpretations of religion. Excerpts from an interview…
While there are several films that talk about extra-marital relationships and their complexities, your film ‘Arth’, which was bold in content, was way ahead of its time…
Yes, ‘Arth’ was extremely progressive. And when the film was made, the distributors who watched it called it a beautiful film but found the end completely unacceptable. This was so because the film had an Indian woman saying no and leaving her husband after he seeks forgiveness. That’s why the distributors felt that the film won’t run a day. But Mahesh Bhatt and I dug our heels and said that was the reason why we were making the film and that was how we’ll make it. When ‘Arth’ became a huge commercial success, it came as a surprise to everybody. I think producers often underestimate how ready the audiences are for the change. Even today I feel there are certain subjects that we can push much more without depending on the wrong belief that the audiences are not ready for them. If you are making a totally mainstream film then you want to play safe. But if you are willing to push certain issues, it is absolutely possible. If ‘Arth’ is ever remade, only Vidya Balan can pull off my role. As far as Smita Patil’s character is concerned, it is no longer valid today. The time ‘Arth’ was released, there was certain demonising of the other woman – we were still living in a very conservative time. Today, the only change I would want to make in Arth is to give Smitha’s character a more rounded aspect and there was an attempt made by Mahesh Bhatt as he made the character turn out to be more neurotic and mad person.
A lot has been said about actor Aamir Khan’s intolerance remark and how many suspect it to trigger his removal as the brand ambassador of the Incredible India campaign…
It is possible (50%) that he has been removed because of the remark made and also possible (50%) as the government said which is in fact true that his contract was for a period of three years. I think, with this constant necessity to make every single thing into breaking news is really responsible for keeping society in a constant state of madness. Are we here only to fuel madness? Or are we here to have a sensible debate? And can even we have a sensible debate? If I express an opinion with which you don’t agree, and you immediately tell me, ‘You are telling a lie’ - that is wrong. Yes, you can say, ‘I disagree with you’. People can’t start calling Aamir Khan a traitor. Did they bother to hear what he has said? I have been targeted for this for more than 20 years. I have been targeted both by Hindu and Muslim extremists so I’m perfectly happy that my credentials are clears. I have been called a traitor. I have been called a terrorist, forget everything else.
Religion comes with different interpretations – both faith and threat/fear. In the current scenario don’t you think it is scary to have our identity emerge more strongly from the religion we belong to?
I think it is the construct. That isn’t the reality. If you look at India, her composite culture is her greatest reality, not her religion. But a concerted effort is being made to project one’s religion as the main source of identity - which is wrong. If you look at a Kashmiri Pandit and a Kashmiri Muslim – there religions might be different but they have much more in common – because of the factor of Kashmir. This commonality shared by the two is much more than what a Muslim from Kashmir and a Muslim from Tamil Nadu would ever share even though they share the same religion - that’s a construct. I’m 100% certain that India is a secular country and it will remain secular because the man on the streets is secular.
Do Muslims really get a fair deal in India?
It is a very loaded question because who really gets a fair deal? There are disparities in our societies – there is difference between the rich and the poor, there is difference between men and women, and there is difference between upper and lower caste. All of it exists. But what is healthy is that a strong civil society gives it as good as it gets– and says it won’t succumb to it. The hope lies there because those are the common people and they say they aren’t willing to take the constructs. In which society in the world discrimination doesn’t happen? Do you think discrimination between men and women doesn’t exist in the West? Of course it does!
Comments
0 comment