In 2010, a homosexual professor, Shrinivas Ramchandra Siras was suspended from the Aligarh Muslim University because of his sexual orientation, and then found dead in his house, thereby throwing open a Pandora's Box of possibilities. While the law takes its own course in finding out the cause of Siras' death, filmmaker Hansal Mehta's film, titled Aligarh, is currently being filmed. Manoj Bajpayee plays the role of a gay professor in the film, and as is not very un-understandable from the title, the film draws inspiration from facts. About 80% of the film has been shot in Bareilly, and Aligarh comes out sometime after September this year. Quite tight-lipped about the film, Bajpayee spoke to IndiaToday.in about how he had to un-learn everything that he's known till date, in order to step into the shoes of this character, how he wanted the 'pure' story to be told to the audience, and more. Excerpts from the conversation:
In an earlier interview, you'd said that you've always limited your work, partly because you're very lazy, and partly because not everything excites you. What is it that excited you to work with Hansal Mehta this time - his National Award, the story of Aligarh?
The script. For me, it's always the script. The script which gives me the chance to do something new; that has been my prime objective ever since I started acting. There's nothing else that excites me more than that. Hansal and I had earlier given a great film, long time back, called Dil Pe Mat Le Yaar, when he had just started as a filmmaker. And then when I saw Shahid, I was completely taken by the way he treated the film; the kind of expertise he's acquired over the years.
So, is this a sort of ghar wapsi for the two of you, then; you know, working with each other again?
We've known each other for over eighteen years now. He's one of those guys who used to make serials, and we've worked together in one or two of those series. Then, when I got a bit of recognition, I told him to write a script for me, and I eventually loved the script that he and Saurabh Shukla have come up with.
So, is Aligarh basically based on Ramchandra Siras' story - the 2010 incident?
I will not go into all of that, but yes, there are references from the story. It is based on facts, to a certain extent. The film is based on a true story, and there's no apology about it. Beyond that, I can't really reveal much. At this point of time, because the world has become so touchy, I'd not like to divulge anything about this. There's too much of money going into it; there's a lot at stake… it's not really advisable for me to get into those details right now. But yes, this film is something that has given me a lot of satisfaction, as far as performing this role is concerned. I've tried something completely new as an actor. I've forgotten everything that I've learned so far and have tried to explore something new in terms of approaching a role…let's see how people find it.
To 377, then. This is probably the first time you're dabbling in this kind of a role. What is your stand on the entire LGBT debate?
India is too big a population to talk about. But I accept homosexuality. I accept homosexuals the way they are. That's all I have to say.
Talking of homosexuality in India, there's this recent incident where the Censor Board muted the word 'lesbian' in the film Dum Laga Ke Haisha. And now we have you playing a homosexual professor in Aligarh. Are you anticipating any kind of awkwardness, as far as the CBFC is concerned?
I don't think so. We'll go to any extent to get this film passed. We live in a democratic country, and I take great pride in saying that I'm from India, a country where democracy is worshipped and freedom of expression is part and parcel of any person's fundamental right. With that belief, we're making the film, and I hope we're right in doing so.
During a 2012 interview, you'd said to me that 'a lot of commercial films are not being made these days'. The lines between commercial and parallel cinema are obviously blurring, but we still have…say a Happy New Year, or any out-and-out commercial film for that matter, making hundreds of crores, while people still find it difficult to sit through a film like an Ugly. Where exactly would you place yourself vis-a-vis the commercial/parallel debate? Like, you've been a thoroughly performance-oriented actor, but what is a 'successful' film for you? Is the money an indicator; or the critical acclaim…what is it?
For me, money has never been an indicator. And it is very sad that each and every film these days is being judged by the money that it makes. It's a world that I don't want to be a part of, and I try and stay away from that. For me, when I choose a script, I put my heart and soul into it, and that is exactly what I look for in a film. A good film is a good film. And if it's a bad film, irrespective of whether it's made 300 crores or 200 crores or any amount of money, it doesn't matter to me. That's my opinion, I respect it and I completely stand by it.
You've mostly stuck to performance-oriented roles. Be it a Sardar Khan in a Gangs of Wasseypur or a Mithilesh Singh in an Aarakshan. Has a singing-dancing out-and-out hero-ish role never attracted you?
Earlier, you know, when I started getting a bit of recognition, I did try and make some middle-of-the-road cinema. And when the financers of those films pushed the directors to have those songs and dances in the films, I felt terrible doing them. Then I decided to not be a part of all of that. The songs and dances resulted in a lot of guilt for me…this is something that I'm neither really comfortable with nor convinced about. Each and every song that you put into a film, without fail, obstructs the storytelling.
So, then, as far as you're concerned, would you opt for a, say, sans song-and-dance Hollywood noir or so?
I wouldn't say Hollywood noir, because I don't have to look at Hollywood in order to see the storytelling intact. I've done many films where there are no songs, and some of them did well at the Box Office, too. You can have songs in the background; for example, the way Anurag Kashyap used those songs in Gangs of Wasseypur, and they were all very popular.
To come back to Aligarh, it's not everyday that a filmmaker makes a film which has the potential to spark a controversy, although every second film these days ends up offending someone or the other. And somewhere, ironically, having the potential to offend someone, in a way, has now become the measurement of a good film. If the film doesn't offend anyone, it sort of loses credibility, or so the prevalent notion of the day goes. Do you actually think - hope - that your film will ruffle some feathers somewhere; offend someone?
Like I'd said, I feel it's my right to express what I think is right, and I have the right to tell a story. I don't think anyone will be offended by a story. Aligarh is a very pure story, about a pure heart. It's the way we're dealing with a person on the screen…it's not the way we're dealing with the society. We're trying to show a person and his struggle, and we're not making a judgment about the society here. I don't see why anyone should be offended.
It's you know, like, you were pointing out how it's such a touchy society now…
Yes, the society is like that now. The government should come up with a concrete policy or some rules…the courts need to pass some very strict judgments about it all. Else, it will be very difficult to make films here. But having said that, we're not foreseeing all of that. We can't make a film worrying about whether or not some people will be offended. It's just a story that attracted us, and we're being very true to it…that's all I've got to say.
.png "Kumar Sangakkara :sanga")
