His films have the reputation of being a little hard-hitting and he is often feted as one of the finest directors around. But Shankar is matter-of-fact about all these as he talks to CHITRA MAHESH on the eve of the release of ``Nayak''.
COMBINE VISION with grandeur, the latest gizmos in special effects with trendy music, a good cast and a story-line that directly appeals to the masses and you have a director whose very touch turns the film into a box-office hit. So far. And he is just in his early thirties. With plenty of time ahead of him to prove that he is indeed a man whose thoughts translate magnificently on celluloid. Is there a doubt who one is talking about?
Shankar it is - a mild mannered, soft-spoken and very talented individual whose films have touched the common man (save in a venture or two), the way not many have been able to do. Busy with the post-production work of his latest film, ``Nayak'' that he is getting ready for an August 15 release, starring Anil Kapoor and Rani Mukherjee, he is approachable despite his hectic schedule. He earnestly explains why he wanted to do his successful ``Mudhalvan'' in Hindi all over again in an age of profuse dubbing. And one topic leads to another revealing different dimensions of the now not so new kid on the block.
``Right at the start I decided I was not going to dub `Mudhalvan' in Hindi,'' Shankar begins disarmingly. ``Once the film did well, I felt it had a very good message and it should reach out all over India. Which is why I decided to put in the effort and make it again in Hindi. `Mudhalvan', with its distinct local flavour has been adapted to the North Indian ethos to make it appealing as well as convincing. I've used Maharashtrian villages as a model and portions that did not suit the North, I have changed. There is 10 to 15 per cent change in the Hindi version.''
Was Anil Kapoor a spontaneous choice for ``Nayak''?
``Anil Kapoor is a very flexible kind of personality. He can play any kind of role - he can do, comedy, play the common man or a very stylish person, and on top of everything he is extremely mature. He lends himself to any kind of role. And he has done a good job.'' Besides being happy with his performance, Shankar is also extremely happy with the way ``Nayak'' has turned out. ``I feel it is 50 per cent better than the Tamil version.''
Why is it that most of his films have a very strong socio- economic base?
Shankar explains: ``I am doing different kinds of films. After `Gentleman' which deals with a social issue, `Kadhalan' was a love story. `Indian' again was based on real issues - but then I want to provide a change each time I do a film. I don't want to be branded.''
Shankar is keen that his films relate to the common man. ``I create more for the common man. We think alike. The things that affect me reflect in my creations. This is natural for me.''
Where did it all start for this humble man who was born in Kumbakonam in Tamil Nadu?
Shankar replies with a smile: ``I have said this in several interviews and I say it again. I'm an engineer with a diploma in Mechanical engineering. I wanted to do B.E. or M.E. but was unable to get a seat. I started working as a quality control supervisor but actually hated the routine. I felt my whole life was stuck inside a factory when I wanted to do many things.''
In other words, he felt intellectually idle. So looking for outlets became a kind of obsession and opportunity came his way when the factory closed down because of a strike. He actually enjoyed the relaxed hours and shouting outside the factory along with other workers. He went to watch a play with his friends and loved the arc lights and the applause. ``I saw even small characters being applauded for dialogue which I felt I could do better.'' Endowed with a flair for mimicking, he asked the drama troupe leader for small roles and was given two - that of an arrack shop worker and a priest. Contrasts no doubt, but they were hugely appreciated and he had the audience roaring with laughter.
In the next play, he got an even bigger role and thus started his life on stage. ``I got very little money but the satisfaction was great.'' He was surer now where he wanted to head - cinema. ``Because all film personalities used to come to watch the plays - and they appreciated good acting and talent. S. A. Chandrashekar had come to a play in which I had acted and was quite impressed with my performance. After about a month he called me and asked whether I would help him with the script of his next film.'' And Shankar joined as dialogue assistant and went on to become assistant director. Still he had not given up hope of acting. He did get a role in a comedy film, which ultimately turned out to be a flop and he was finally discouraged from acting. Meanwhile he had completed 15 films as an assistant director. So what next? I decided to take up direction and that's how I came to be what I am,'' he says.
In most of his films one can see an element of grandeur. This was never more evident than in ``Jeans'', for which he captured the Seven Wonders of the world with Aishwarya Rai in a song sequence. ``I didn't actually plan it that way,'' says Shankar. For instance in `Indian' the song Pacchai Kiligal Tholodu did not demand any grandeur. The song was very simple there were no sets or dancers. It was shot in a village near Pollachi. Even in `Mudhalvan', Uppu Karuvadu was shot somewhere nearby. If I was keen on grandeur, I could have gone to some foreign location - but the situation demanded a simple song. It depends on the story. In `Jeans' it is about these guys in the U.S. - their lifestyle, their dreams are big. That's why I went for the Seven Wonders,'' he explains.
Shankar writes his own stories and all the key dialogue but uses a dialogue-writer so that all the characters do not sound the same and like him.
What is that he wants to project through his films other than his concern for the common man? ``I don't have any strategies. I'm just pushed towards something. After every film, I wonder what I should do next. I ask the filmgoer in me what I would like to see after the previous one? That's how I decide my next venture.''
Shankar's films have the reputation of being a little hard- hitting. Issues are taken up with enthusiasm and he is often feted as one of India's finest directors. Is it something he accepts, believes in or takes in his stride? ``No, I don't take all this seriously. I also do not rate myself. Let me do my job, wherever life takes me let me go there.''
After ``Nayak'', Shankar is planning a science fiction. ``It is about a robot with Kamal Hassan playing the lead.'' And why has he chosen him? ``Because the character demands it. And it has been a nice experience working with Kamal. He is such a big actor and besides he gives you 200 per cent of what I conceive.'' All talk about him interfering with the script does not happen. Shankar says that Kamal only evinces keen interest in his role and its dimensions.
Would he ever consider working with someone like Amitabh Bachchan?
``I'm very open. I would like to work with a whole lot of actors such as Mammootty, Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Hrithik Roshan... I've seen a certain energy, spark that makes me want to work with them. I limit the number of films I'm doing. In my nine years in the industry I have done only six films. Besides it also depends on the script.''
And how was it to work in Hindi? Not too bad, Shankar says. He can read and write Hindi to a certain extent. ``Besides'', he says ``it's a visual language that if I see a wrong note I can identify it and correct it''. Working in five Hindi films has also helped.
Shankar is not one to be influenced by films that come from the West for the simple reason ``I am not familiar with all the good films or big films. I am a very ordinary, middle class man who sees what the common man sees. If people say `Jaws' is very good I will go and see it. Or if they ask me to see `Sholay' I will go. I only observe. I don't want to be influenced. Whatever I do is from my heart - what I strongly feel about.''
Does he foresee doing an international project at some point with international artistes? Maybe. Because when he was shooting for ``Jeans'' in the U.S. some offers came up. It was also at a time when ``Indian'' was the official entry to the Oscars. Shankar was very much in the news and enquiries were made about whether he had scripts ready.
But the film took up all the time. ``Each hour meant a lot of money and the schedule was tight. There was no time or inclination to take a serious look at the proposals. It is 14 times more expensive over there and I have to work 24 hours a day to meet the deadlines.''
What according to him makes for a good film-maker?
``There are no norms here. It is based on one's experience. One has to make the judgment and I think it cannot be taught. It's a mind process. You need to have a mind that can translate an idea on to celluloid. Anybody can write and think, but how effectively he or she converts it into a film is the test. It's a bit of learning, seeing, reading but mostly observing.
Would he be one of those who likes making happy all's-well-that- ends-well films? ``Basically I don't like sad things. Also I want the cinegoer in me to get excited with what happens. So I should satisfy the common man or the cinegoer within me.'' Then would he say that our audiences are intelligent? ``Definitely. They are very intelligent.''
Then how would he explain the fact that some really bad films do well? Especially in the North?
``It's like this. You have to keep giving the audiences better and better films. For instance `Lagaan' is a very good sign for Hindi cinema and Indians. It's a complete film. I was so excited to see such a film. This is how we have to create a taste for better cinema.''
But are films not becoming more and more expensive? Is digital cinema the key to economical way of film-making? ``It's still in its nascent stage and the quality is to be fine-tuned. It's not as (crystal) clear as one can see in films done the usual way. There is a difference but may be in the future in about a year or two the quality will be improved and one would certainly consider this medium - if it rises to my expectations I will go for it.''
How important is music for his films?
Shankar is one who believes that our tradition is rooted in the songs and dances that have characterised even the epics, which is probably why audiences love watching song sequences. ``Why should we even compare ourselves to Hollywood where they make wonderful films without songs or sometimes with minimal music? Why should we put away what the audiences like to see? This is our way of doing things. Plus when I see a film, I need relief - this is what the others would want as well'', Shankar argues.
Right now the graph continues its upward swing - the man is full of ideas and wants to give what the masses want - but with all the technical finesse and glamour that big budget films can provide. There is really nothing to stop him from realising his dreams - for himself and for the audiences in their quest for entertainment.
