Twenty years hence and he must have packed in many more outstanding performances to reach far beyond that first 100. It is no great surprise that the versatile actor with God- Alone-Knows how many awards should have been picked to deliver Satyajit Ray Memorial address recently in Kolkata, the subject of his speech being “The Honest Actor.” This writer found Naseeruddin a changed man, more mature not only in years, but also in experience. He has become more cerebral on the one hand and cynical on the other. Let us try to understand ‘why’. Shoma A. Chatterjee in conversation with Naseeruddin Shah.
You have been hand-picked for the Satyajit Memorial Address. But you have never acted in his film. What is your response to this anomaly? I consider it a great honour to have been chosen to deliver this address. Not having worked under the directorial baton of the great Ray is one of the biggest regrets of my life. I saw him just twice in person. When I was around 12, I saw his picture in a magazine. Later, when I was in my second year at the National School of Drama (NSD), he had come to watch Ingmar Bergman’s Silences. When I saw this enormous figure seated in front of me, I was so mesmerised by his very presence that my attention was more on this great man than on the screen. The second and last time I saw him was at the International Film Festival of India in Delhi. After Ketan Mehta’s Mirch Masala was screened in which I portrayed an important character, he came up to me and shook my hand. It is my bad luck that he did not choose me to act in any of his films. That is all the more reason I cherish this day in my life.
You failed to find work when you first came to Bombay in 1968 and you went back more determined to definitely come back and become an actor. It was Shyam Benegal who took you in his fold. What was the experience like?
After my NSD Diploma, I followed this up with the acting course at Film and Television Institute of India. Girish Karnad who taught us recommended me to Shyam Benegal. I was screen-tested for my role in Nishaant. The film came and went, and no producer lined up outside my door. I went on acting in one Benegal film after another: Bhoomika, Manthan, Godhuli and Junoon. Working with Shyam was a wonderful experience. Since NSD had armed me with considerable stage experience, I was not at all cameraconscious. I loved the easy pace with which Shyam functions. I learnt a lot and after Manthan, outside producers began to pour in, even for roles in mainstream films.
You’ve had your share of mainstream films and middle-of-the-road films. What is your take on these films?
Every young man or woman who wants to become an actor wants to be a part of mainstream cinema, and I would be lying if I said I was any different. You become an actor because you want to be famous. It was not my doing that I got associated with serious cinema. I would’ve taken whatever came to me. If I had been offered the lousiest role in a lousy commercial film, I would have done that also because I needed work. But I was very lucky that these films were being made, so I did not need to do lousy commercial films.
How do you look back on some of these commercial films?
I never believed Tridev would run for a day. Yet, it prolonged my career by 10 years. I am grateful to Rajiv Rai for having taken me in the film. But it gave me a box office hit I had never experienced over 10 years in the industry. Ten years later it gave me another one, Mohra, again by Rajiv Rai. And 10 years later it gave me The Dirty Picture. In fact, my dossier has more commercial films than all the art films I did put together. I worked in Mahesh Bhatt’s Sir, Dharmesh Darshan’s Lootere, Karma with Dilip Kumar and Boney Kapoor’s Rajkumar in which I did a double role.
But some of them were disastrous. How do you explain your choices?
Earlier, it was entirely based on instinct. I had just to feel like doing a role and that was all. Sometimes I have proved myself wrong. But it was all in the game. Today, I value the qualitative worth of a total project rather than just my own role in it. Occasionally, I take on roles in films I genuinely feel ought to be made, such as Govind’s Droh Kaal. I have discovered that every script reveals itself within the first 10 pages. I do not need to read further. If I like it, I read further. When I’ve read the script, I try to work out whether this is going to be fun or not. I have acted in some films no one has even heard of, much less seen, such as Zinda Jala Doonga. But the experience makes it worth the while. Have you heard of a film called Dil Aakhir Dil Hai? I bet you haven’t. By the time I realised my mistake, it was too late.
How would you expound on the term ‘the honest actor’?
An ‘honest’ actor is a contradiction in terms. When you are playing someone you are not and are never going to be, how can you be honest? An ‘honest actor’ according to me, is a work in progress, an ongoing struggle for an actor. Honesty in acting by its very nature is false. There just cannot be anything such as a ‘dishonest’ actor because honesty in an actor is a ‘given’ and not a gift or a blessing for the audience or for the director. The world is made up of every kind of actor – the confident actor, the selfish actor, the generous actor, the plodding actor, the clever actor and the diffident actor. Acting is a craft and the actor must be an honest craftsman and it his responsibility to remain honest to his craft which will transfer this honesty to his audience. As an actor having spent around four decades in the trade, I feel it is my responsibility to give back to the next generation a bit of what I have learnt and imbibed from the craft. And if acting is a craft then there is nothing remotely metaphysical about it. I do this through workshops and lec-dems (lecture-demonstrations) I am invited to from time to time.
Has the cut-throat competition today brought down the quality of acting and the honesty in an actor?
There are conditions over which an actor has little or no control. How can one expect a person to be objective when he has to convey someone else’s ideas, concepts, ideologies? The audience for example cannot distinguish between real tears and glycerine-induced tears. But sometimes, for some actors, glycerine induced tears can be more effective than natural tears in another actor. The blame should be squarely placed on people who are making films. The minute the price of an actor began to be determined by his ability to hold the audience captive, the star was born and acting became secondary to the star. I look at the current quality of actors’ output to be abysmal. The audience should begin to demand fresh and new films and then we might begin to talk about an ‘honest’ approach. The refinement and the restraint we saw in films like Kagaz Ke Phool and Do Bigha Zameen is lost to time forever. Sometimes, I sincerely feel that some of the acting we see today could be said to be on the verge of being labelled ‘grotesque.’ But again, the poor quality of acting is a reflection of poor writing and the poor quality of vision around it. Marlon Brando excelled in films based on Tenessee Williams’ work. He did not excel in all films so there you are…