Tuesday, June 28, 2011

In praise of naram Dharam

Saw bits of Sholay on Zee a few nights ago, through poor cable reception. Like many Indians of my generation, I can’t remember a time when this film wasn’t part of my life. And though I’ve watched so many movies from around the world -- in every genre and on every rung of the ladder of Cinematic Importance -- since that anonymous day in Bombay sometime in the early 1980s when I first saw Sholay (I’m assuming there was a first time that I saw it; logic dictates there must have been), I still can’t think of any other film in which all the parts came together so perfectly.

Most Sholay-lovers I know feel much the same way. Watching it again though, I mulled one opinion I have about the movie that no one else seems to agree with (or at least come out of the closet about). But surely I’m not the only one who thinks that the second-best performance in the film (after Amjad Khan as Gabbar; that’s something no amount of pseud revisionism can change) comes from good ol’ Dharamendra?

Always given (and this is a point that can’t be made too often) that Sholay is much greater than the sum of its parts, I’ve often guiltily felt that Dharmendra’s rakish, exuberant Veeru is the beating heart of the film. He supplies a joie de vivre the movie badly needs; take him away (or replace him with a more stereotyped, humourless macho lead) and the film might’ve tilted right over into gloom -- what with Gabbar’s evil, the Thakur’s morbid waiting for his day of revenge, the doomed relationship between the Widow and the soulful harmonica-playing second lead, the stench of waste and decay that generally hangs over the film.

The conventional opinion (alas, tired, mediocre convention!) is that the Actors’ Bout in this movie was fought between Amjad Khan and Sanjeev Kumar, as the Thakur. But this perception has more to do with the role – the Thakur is stiff and solemn, a "serious" character, not your standard romantic, fighting leading man – than with Sanjeev Kumar’s workmanlike performance. Extended, this critical myopia is also responsible for Kumar’s exaggerated reputation as one of India’s greatest actors; he was often credited for Intention -- he eschewed ‘hero’ roles for tight-lipped ‘character’ roles early in his career -- rather than for Execution. (This is a universal malaise: Nicole Kidman might have given a number of fine performances wearing her own face in mainstream movies -- check To Die For -- but put a prosthetic nose on her, dowd her down and get her to play Virginia Woolf in a dreary, deadeningly portentous film -- and wham! there’s the best actress Oscar all stitched up.)

One of the neatest pre-packaged bytes used to explain the "greatness" of Sanjeev Kumar’s performance is: it’s so difficult for an actor to emote without the use of his hands, he had to rely only on his eyes. Well, yes, Timothy, got that, profound observation, clap clap etc, but did you ever bother to stop and see what Dharmendra actually does with his hands in the ‘chakee peesing’ scene or the scene in the temple where he ‘plays God’? This is a superb physical performance by a man who – I’ll admit -- was never a consistently good actor. He is the film’s clown prince and its hero rolled into one, and he balances the two parts flawlessly.

Dharmendra’s long, many-phased career is among the most interesting in Indian cinema, and it has been shamefully neglected. In recent months we’ve seen a spate of biographies on Bollywood stars of the past, including three -- three -- on Dilip Kumar, another slightly overrated thespian who, for one reason or another, has become the Patron Saint of every Hindi film actor with "serious" aspirations. I don’t know when we’re going to see a dedicated biography of Dharmendra, one that examines his place in Hindi film history, but I suspect it won’t be anytime soon. He was relegated to non-actor status a long time ago and late in his career he made a series of incredibly puerile choices, playing a revenge-seeking, red-eyed, snorting bull in a long line of mediocre multi-starrers. His entire career seems now to have been condensed into a series of SMS jokes (Question: Why are Indian dogs so thin? Answer: Dharmendra has drunk up all their blood) and caricatured radio soundbites. (The man himself happily went along with the lampooning, in the tradition of aging Punjabis who start behaving like children when the younger generation shows any sort of interest in them. Result: statements to media like "I’ve acted with heroines in the 1960s and 1970s, then I acted opposite Sunny’s heroines and now I plan to act with Bobby’s.")

But there’s much more to his career. He may have been an average performer with a limited range, but it wasn’t as limited as legend has it. Even very early in his career, still raw, he gave a decent enough account of himself when pitted against the great Balraj Sahni in Haqeeqat. And I had myself seen far more films from Dharmendra’s "badle ki aag" phase than from his early days when I got an interesting and unexpected insight from my mother. In the late 1960s, she told me, when the Rajesh Khanna madness had just begun, the girls, at least in her school and extended friends’ circle, were decidedly polarised. Dharmendra was the serious woman’s crush, the intense, poetic hero who appealed to the mature schoolgirl, while the giggly, giddy-headed ones could have their Rajesh Khannas and their Jeetendras.

Twenty years before he committed himself to divesting dogs of their blood, Dharmendra was potentially one of Indian cinema’s great romantic heroes. Think about it, it isn’t so far-fetched. This is the man who Meena Kumari – epitome of brooding gravitas among Hindi film heroines – was involved with offscreen. And in Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s Guddi, one of mainstream Hindi cinema’s most searching commentaries on the relationship between life and art, another serious, level-headed actress, Jaya Bhaduri, played a young schoolgirl besotted with a movie star (Dharam, essentially playing himself). Bhaduri’s character was the sort of well-grounded, mature schoolgirl my mother imagined herself and her small circle of friends to be like. Try imagining Guddi with Rajesh Khanna as the object of her adoration!

There’s much more doubtless that can be said here by people who have studied trends in Hindi cinema more closely. A point can be made that even in that egregious late-1980s phase of his career Dharmendra showed he could do interesting things when challenged (I’m thinking of J P Dutta’s underrated gangland movie Hathyar in which Dharmendra, Sanjay Dutt and Rishi Kapoor were all in peak form). And of course there’s little doubt that given good direction he was an excellent comedian.

But I’m content to stick with Veeru. Still reiterating that Sholay is far greater than all its constituents; but if one does get around to analysing the individual parts, Garam Dharam shines among the brightest. It’s an iconic performance by a man who has never got the attention he deserved.

P.S. (being forced to write this by colleague holding a Swiss knife and frothing at the mouth) Sanjeev Kumar fans, I’m not saying the man wasn’t a good, (arrgh, knife cut) okay very good, actor, just that he wasn’t as good as his reputation suggests. And anyway, my point is that his finest moment might easily have come in a movie where he played the conventional, singing, dancing hero -- but if it had, it would never have been acknowledged as such, even by the actor himself.

27 comments:

  1. j, am flabbergasted you are holding forth on HINDI cinema!!! oh, bang on about dilip kumar and sanjeev kumar. they are both highly, highly over-rated (sanjeev kumar, in my opinion, was a totally constipated actor; dilip kumar - as my husband never tires of pointin out - had style and dialogue delivery at least). also, i must say this - the young dharam (esp. during the b&w days) was one of the most gorgeous men bollywood has ever seen! - ags

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry for gasting your flabber...but yes, as you know I was into Hindi films in a big way until the early 1990s, and when I’m interested in something I take it to obsessive, overanalytical extremes (real men don’t have crushes). Anyway, the Dharam blog was written largely in a drunken stupor late at night, don’t think I would’ve gotten around to it otherwise. Just refined it a bit in the morning, excised some Sanjeev Kumar-directed imprecations and posted it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting. Never thought of Dharam's contribution being a significant part of Sholay before. Nice post, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well you're damn straight Dharam Garam was 2nd only to Sanjeev Kumar in Sholay. And you're definitely right about Guddi, I still remember that film as one of Dharmendra's best.
    In Sholay Dharmendra was the Toshiro Mifune to Sanjeev Kumar's Takashi Shimura(Sholay after all being influenced by Seven Samurai). I still remember the little dance that he does when the oil drums on the train exploded and I thought, "That's mifune".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Anangbhai,
    I still stick pig-headedly to what I said about Sanjeev Kumar being overrated but that’s a very interesting observation about Mifune/Dharam. One sometimes tends to equate Mifune’s character with Bachchan’s, because of the way they both die in the end plus the retrospective knowledge that they were future superstars playing supporting roles. But yes, the buffoonish aspects of Mifune’s character were definitely channeled by Dharam in his performance. Loved the little dance on the train.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Somehow, after revisiting Dharam's old movies (of the 60's and early 70's), i now try to remember him as he was....debonair, charming, and presented with some absolutely immortal roles. Too bad he ended up going the garam way....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dharmendra's filmography.
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004429/

    I disgree about Sanjeev Kumar, he is one of the best actors bollywood has ever produced. His respresentation of the common man's sensibilities was amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dharampajee's Sholay role was indeed very good. BTW, I have seen Sholay on Big screen after I have learnt to appreciate movies.. There was a film festival sometime in late 2003, i might have blogged abou it, i have to search.., in Pune organised by the alumni of FTII with Jayajee in the lead. It was my moment.. I was told I won't get a seat, it was a first come first serve and everyone had a pass, so I went in to watch the film running before Sholay as well. Luckily it was another great movie Goutam Ghosh' Paar.. People had to sit on the aisle and everywhere to watch Sholay though.

    BTW I watch Guddi, you just mentioned it. I watched it for the first time after my kidhood.. I was just amazed at how Jaya Badhuri so comfortbly slipped in and out of Guddi and Kusum .. I din't know she acts so well.. One moment she is the bubby kid and then she suddenly matures and then back to her bubbly self...

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is indeed a shame that a versatile actor like Dharmendra has never been awarded in the best-actor category of IIFA. This is really a big sccandal. Dharmendra is truely a wonderful actor and a fine human being and definitely a much better actor with tremendous star-appeal than Amitabh Bachchan.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dharendra was an ok actor. Someone mentioned he has more star appeal than Amitabh Bachchan.

    What rubbish!!

    Amitabh is an icon of hindi cinema. Dharmendra at the most is just another actor that belongs to the hindi film industry

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cinema has to be a form of art in order to be entertaining. Comedy is a form of art too, and Dharmendra was tremendous at it. At action he is no doubt the number one. Dharmendra is indeed an actor blaised with artistic skills who has almost done every kind of roll. I therefore credit Garam Dharam higher than Big B. The media has just not being fair and just towards Dharam Singh Deol, our he-man hero of the Indian Celluloid.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dharmendra is the best actor ever. You indians areblind and biased.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I feel Dharmendra had a great deal of sensitivity & intelligence, that is why, he could attract someone like Meena Kumari. I also think, he hid his sensitive side in films as he was stuck with being a he-man.

    Have you watched Satyakam? You shoud watch it.

    Amitabh Bacchan does not have that much depth as Dharmendra.

    vvvv11

    ReplyDelete
  14. To my mind Dharamendra was probably the best actor in Indian Cinema to date. As someone else mentioned, he had tremendous sensitivity. You only have to see his restrained performances in his earlier movies to see that. I also do not agree at all that Dharamendra had limited range. In fact,if you have seen all his movies you will see that he has done all sorts of roles very convincingly. Unfortunately, I think he kind of lost interest in movies after a certain period of time and used to mock himself in his movies. I totally think Dharamendra was as good if not better than AB.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dharmendra is amongst the best actors in Indian cinema. He has displayed a wide range of emotions quite effectively. His comic timing is unparalleled, better than Amitabh's. His acting in Satyakam is better than any of Amitabh's movies. An actor's ability has to be judged by his/her versatality and in that respect Dharmendra beats Amitabh. He definitely has more star appeal than Amitabh.

    ReplyDelete
  16. i'm an ardent dharam fan he was an all rounder at one time just watch him in movies as the lover boy in pyar hi pyar, tum haseen main jawaan, raja jani and i could go on, not to mention mera goan mera desh and yes he was the he-man but his sensitivies came out in the heman roles as well you could see the depth in his eyes versatile he was he was one of the most handsome stars at one time in the world -An

    ReplyDelete
  17. Carrying on with the debate about Dharmendra and Amitabh ... Amitabh is no doubt a good actor ... But to be very frank Dharmendra is probably the most underrated actor in Hindi Cinema ... I think his performance in movies like Satyakam, Chupke Chupke, Sholay, Dost and Hathyar prove to me that he was a master of his craft, be it comedy, action or emotion .... personally I think his performance in Satyakam deserves the highest praise .... nobody could have done that role better than Dharmendra ... Also check out his performance in Krodhi, where he so convincingly portrays a smuggler who has a change of heart while on the run... and remember these roles that stand out in his carreer were off-beat roles in the stereotyped hindi filmdom of the time ... It would have taken a lot of courage to undertake roles like those .... definitely Dharmendra is of the same class as amitabh and Sanjeev Kumar, if not better.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I like your article overall. Your observations are gr8. But
    I didn't like the apologetic tone in praising Dharmendra.
    What is this?
    "He may have been an average performer with a limited range"

    I have not seen any film critic who dare to make such statement. You might criticize his films and his non-serious way towards the acting and his career. But then it doesn't mean that his range was limited or he was an average performer.

    In fact due to his limitless persona, his range was highest amongst the indian actors and when given a chance his performance was superb and uncomparable with any other actor of bollywood.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dilip Kumar, slightly overrated as an actor? Make that highly overrated and you'll be on to something.

    Completely agree with your assessment of Sanjeev Kumar. Love the man, but he was a ham all too often.

    As for Dharmendra, wasn't he wonderful in Anupama? Beautiful balancing of undeniable masculinity with humane senstivity.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This article is one of the most significant ones on Hindi cinema. Indeed, Dharmendra has been one star who is truly the common thread between the pre-1960's and the early 2000s Hindi cinema. His biography should enthrall movie-lovers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dharamendra is one of the finext actors in the film industry.

    Somewhere in the web , I read a very intersting analysis of his character portals in the films.

    60s were very sensitive ( watch Satyakam, Baharein Phir Bhi Aayengi etc), where in you will find Dharamendra in his best. Can you think of Bhachhan in those roles.

    70s were getting more violence after the initial Rajesh Khanna movies, wherein Bachhan's carrer was shaped. This continued till mid eighties, where in social films , unionism , the problems in those times were highlighted in the films.

    Tha major difference between the films which Dharmendra did are that 60's films were more of female character oriented , which completely changed in 70s and was overtaken by social/individual injustice related themes which again game impetus to Bachhan's career.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dharmendra's peak performances are a treat in movies like Chupke Chupke, Satykam and Anupama. I agree with your post entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  23. How I missed this paean to Dharmendra's talents I will never know, but better late than never. I SO agree! with everything you've said in this! Every actor in Hindi cinema was required to chew up the scenery on occasion (some more than others), but very few had as long and varied a career as Garam Dharam. Maybe his overwhelming beauty had something to do with the lack of respect that he garnered, but I have seen him deliver on the acting front too so many times I've lost count.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes dharam ji is the best. Bachan worked with finest directors like chopras & bcame succesful.however dharam worked with average directors & gave super hits.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Very nice article man!!!! Rajesh and Amitabh were super stars, and Dharmendra is Dharmendra...I don't think he needs any superlative degree to be used before his name. If we see the versatile roles played by Dharmendra in different movies, we just can not think of Amitabh to do those roles that beautifully...There is no comparison of him if you consider 60's or 70's movie...but I was amazed to see him in Apne, doing fantastic role even at the age of 74...he is just a legend...

    ReplyDelete
  26. In Anupama we saw what he could deliver under skillful direction. And then in Sholay, something so different. What range. The only reason I think he didn't become a superstar is because he didn't have the narcissism that is required for that job.

    ReplyDelete
  27. this is good,
    but we can not under astimate the rest.

    once a scorpio seller come to the village he was asked buy a costomer.
    " tell me what does this big scorpio cost,"
    100 rs he said
    " and the small one"
    same 100 Rs he again replies,
    "and the medium one"
    same
    "but they are of diffrent size"
    yes but if you touch them the pain afterward will be the same
    so all these all superstars have the capabilities.
    the stardum amitabh is having is oly for his mass communication capabilities

    otherwise he is on 10th the place after dilip kumar, dharmendra, rajesh khanna, manoj kumar, kamal hasan, rajkapoor shammilapoor,

    ReplyDelete