The past month has seen the deaths of many film performers, most famously Elizabeth Taylor, who was everyone’s idea of what a Movie Star should be: someone who is the natural centre of every frame she appears in. Stories about Taylor’s screen presence – right from the time she was a little girl, in films like National Velvet – are the stuff of legend, and her most high-profile film as an adult, the bloated, forever-in-the-making Cleopatra, often seemed to be more about the actress and the media carnival surrounding her than about the Egyptian queen.
But two honourable “sideshow performers” also left us recently: one was Navin Nischol, who had a short stint as a leading man in the early 1970s – even playing the inconspicuous hero in the film Parwana, where Amitabh Bachchan had the (more interesting) negative role. [The poster on the left tells a story: Amitabh - looking nothing like he did in Parwana - occupies centrestage, and there is even space for Shatrughan Sinha, who made a guest appearance in the film. But Nischol, the hero, is missing.] The other was the American Farley Granger, a good-looking man (with somewhat exotic and effete features by classical Hollywood standards) and a competent actor if well-cast and directed, but best remembered today for films that didn’t rest on his shoulders.
But two honourable “sideshow performers” also left us recently: one was Navin Nischol, who had a short stint as a leading man in the early 1970s – even playing the inconspicuous hero in the film Parwana, where Amitabh Bachchan had the (more interesting) negative role. [The poster on the left tells a story: Amitabh - looking nothing like he did in Parwana - occupies centrestage, and there is even space for Shatrughan Sinha, who made a guest appearance in the film. But Nischol, the hero, is missing.] The other was the American Farley Granger, a good-looking man (with somewhat exotic and effete features by classical Hollywood standards) and a competent actor if well-cast and directed, but best remembered today for films that didn’t rest on his shoulders.
The “Best Farley Granger Film” (defined as a judicious balance between the importance of his role, the quality of his performance and the overall quality of the film itself) is probably Nicholas Ray’s film noir They Live By Night, about a couple on the run from the law. And Granger did play lead in a couple of other notable movies, such as Luchino Visconti’s Senso. But the two best-known films he appeared in were directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and in both he was an effective second fiddle. In Rope (famous for Hitchcock’s use of long unbroken takes), he was the more passive of two young men who commit a murder “for kicks”, and in Strangers on a Train he was the limp-wristed Guy Haines (just your regular Guy) – the perfect foil and chump for the film’s charismatic bad boy Bruno. In my view, both films benefit from his casting: Strangers on a Train is particularly disturbing and effective because the villain is more interesting than the hero, and because Granger isn’t the strong Hollywood leading man who takes control of proceedings and compels the viewer to root for him.
It’s harder to make something out of Nischol’s older movies. To be honest, I don’t even remember most of them well: apart from Parwana, there was the atmospheric Dhund – where Danny Denzongpa stole the show as a sadistic, wheelchair-bound murder victim(!) – and the Ramsay Brothers’ quasi-horror movie Hotel. By the 1980s, it was more typical for Nischol to be cast in a 10-minute part as "Doctor" in a star-studded film like The Burning Train (a.k.a. The Turning Brain).
Still, he did have one intriguing late-career role in Nagesh Kukunoor’s amusing but trite Bollywood Calling, about an American actor coming to India and getting involved with an assembly-line Bollywood production. Here, he played an ageing, megalomaniacal superstar named Manu Kapoor, pointedly addressed only as Manu-ji by the fawners around him, and there was something poignant about this casting – for Manu was exactly the kind of star that Nischol never became in real life (and the kind of star that the man who played a supporting role in Parwana DID become).
Though star power has been central to cinema’s mass popularity almost from the beginning, the movies could scarcely get by without their side-heroes: the comic foils whose double takes could make the lead comedian look even funnier; the supporting actors who tried to be stars but fell back into stock character roles; the players who managed leading parts in B-movies but never quite crossed over to the mainstream. Granger and Nischol are among the countless performers who shone for a brief period (even developing small cult followings along the way) and then faded, or turned to smaller roles or television shows. Their careers are a reminder of the inscrutable nature of movie stardom – how, for reasons beyond our full understanding, one personality might light a spark with an audience in a particular place and time while another simply doesn’t.
Though star power has been central to cinema’s mass popularity almost from the beginning, the movies could scarcely get by without their side-heroes: the comic foils whose double takes could make the lead comedian look even funnier; the supporting actors who tried to be stars but fell back into stock character roles; the players who managed leading parts in B-movies but never quite crossed over to the mainstream. Granger and Nischol are among the countless performers who shone for a brief period (even developing small cult followings along the way) and then faded, or turned to smaller roles or television shows. Their careers are a reminder of the inscrutable nature of movie stardom – how, for reasons beyond our full understanding, one personality might light a spark with an audience in a particular place and time while another simply doesn’t.
I liked Navin Nishchol. He was very handsome in his youth. Remember him from 'Parwana', 'Buddha Mil Gaya', 'Dekh Bhai Dekh' and 'Khosla Ka Ghosla' (liked his "aap chup rehne ke liye kya lenge?" dialogue). He wasn't very old, was he? May his soul rest in peace.
ReplyDeleteRIP, Navin.
ReplyDeleteHe certainly was handsome. One of my childhood crushes.
Interesting how you don't mention Khosla ka Ghosla at all, and here I am thinking that was by far his most memorable role in recent times - never seen any of his other movies - except Bollywood Calling, which I personally thought was forgettable. But he was perfect as 'NRI Sethi' from Dubai. Ah well. RIP to them all
ReplyDeletePhoenix: still haven't seen Khosla ka Ghosla in its entirety - saw it in bits and pieces during a flight (on one of those overhead screens), and Nischol didn't register much.
ReplyDeleteHansda: no, he was only 65 or so.
No mention of 'Aastha', where he was responsible for Rekha's sexual awakening?
ReplyDeleteAbout 'Bollywood Calling': To my mind, the role played by Nischol was a proxy to Rajesh Khanna (rather than to Amitabh Bachhan) - the ageing, barely in control, but ego-intact ex-superstar. And that was incidentally apt because even in his initial years, he did seem to model himself on Rajesh Khanna, the prevailing 'romantic hero' of the times. In fact, as a kid, I remember getting confused between him, Khanna, and Rakesh Roshan (when without mustache, like in this film with some good songs - 'Paraya Dhan').
ReplyDeleteBut in spite of getting to doctor/inspector roles so soon, he did feature in many great songs in his initial years (which also tells us HOW good those times were for the film music): Sawan Bhadon, Budhha Mil Gaya, Hanste Zakhm, and Victoria No. 203...all great albums for relatively mediocre films.
Jai, if you haven't watched "Khosla ka Ghosla", u really are missing something. It's a wonderful movie with a layered narrative, where apparent humor cloaks a more subtle, underlying narrative, which becomes more apparent in Dibakar's Oye Lucky ..... do watch it in its entirety; the movie deserves that much !
ReplyDeleteAnd Nischol wud definitely register !
Jai, why the slightly tangential references to Granger's sexuality? "Limp-wristed", "more passive", "effete", etc? Perhaps you think his sexuality is irrelevant, but there's a gay subtext to several of his major roles which you mention. And somehow once you throw in those coded signifiers, it looks like you are aware of the subtext and are somehow uncomfortable with it, so prefer not to say the word, so to speak. :)
ReplyDeleteI have to say I find this sort of "discreet" silencing offensive, as if to imply that being gay is something to only be hinted at, never spoken about. Love that dare not speak it's name and all. I'm sure it's unintended, but I expected better.
Varun: excellent comment, thanks. I didn't intend to suggest that Nischol modeled himself on AB - but when Bollywood Calling was being made (around 2002), Amitabh's career hadn't quite entered its resurgence period yet. Memories of the bad old days (pre-KBC) were still alive and it was possible to see him as an old man trying desperately to prolong his glory days when he should really have called it a day. Manu Kapoor seemed like a reference to that.
ReplyDeleteSatish: haven't seen Aastha (though I've seen posters of Om Puri and Rekha with expressions that suggest either extreme pain or extreme ecstasy or both).
sd268: you're overanalysing my post (the same way I get accused of overanalysing films!). Those weren't meant to be "coded signifiers", they were simple descriptions - I didn't think writing about Granger's (on-screen or off-screen) sexuality was necessary to this slim post. (In any case, homosexuality isn't just a subtext in Rope - it's central to the film. Read Robin Wood's very personal essay on the film.)
ReplyDeleteAs for this I find this sort of "discreet" silencing offensive, as if to imply that being gay is something to only be hinted at, never spoken about - well, you clearly need to trawl the archives of this blog!
Jai: Surprisingly you didn't mention that Robert Walker (the twisted murderer in Strangers...) died long before Granger-just like in the film. Also, depite his untimely demise, he is more popular than Granger-it does remind me of Heath Ledger's death. It seems that some greatly performed negative roles are a jinx...
ReplyDeleteHmm, not sure you got my point or perhaps I was unclear.
ReplyDeleteThe point was that if the "gayness" of the roles in question merited mention - and I see no other way to read the use of standard stereotypical phases such as limp-wristed, effete, etc - then it comes across as if you're skating around the issue.
For instance, if you were writing about Lena Horne and picked her most memorable roles as being ones where she was somehow angry at being an outsider, wouldn't it be odd to not at least speculate about whether her being black had something to do with the kind of work she is best remembered for?
n the case of Granger and the kind of roles he is most memorable in, don't you think you're being a bit disingenuous by saying his sexuality was irrelevant to them? At the very least, one suspects that the reason he got/did/shone at these roles had at least something to do with his being a gay man.
Perhaps you disagree, but I don't see how the consideration is entirely irrelevant, even if you disagree with the reasoning.
Cheers!
PS: I think the broader point is that when it comes to stuff like this, "not mentioning because I think irrelevant" LOOKS like intended exclusion because skating around this stuff is the norm. (Even if you, necessarily, have not contributed to this norm in the past).
ReplyDeleteAfter posts like this and this, I'm accused of skating around gay subtexts? It makes me feel so, so...emasculated.
ReplyDeletesd268: again, just clarifying, I wasn't intentionally skating around anything. This was a short post (a spin-off from an even shorter column I had to write) where the focus was on something else entirely: the coincidence of Nischol and Granger both having a legacy of also-rans. If it makes you feel happier, I'll try to find the time to do a whole separate post on the gay subtexts in FG's movie roles!
ReplyDeleteI have never said anything about your avoiding of gay stuff in general - not having read your blog except occasionally, I have no grounds on which to judge!
ReplyDeleteI'm just pointing out what jumped out at me about this post, that I suspect it's entirely unintentional, and why I think it is relevant and therefore an odd omission.
So there's no need to take it as an attack on your, err, entire "body" (of work)! :)
Jai - not sure you read through my first comment, where I said "I'm sure it's unintended" - so not sure why you feel the need to clarify that it's unintentional! :)
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly you didn't mention that Robert Walker (the twisted murderer in Strangers...) died long before Granger-just like in the film
ReplyDeleterantingsofadelusionalmind: well, since we're all now counting the things I didn't mention in this post, what about the stories about Hitchcock's cruel jokes on his gay leading men such as Ivor Novello and Montgomery Clift? And about a million other things, many of which have no connection to cinema at all!
Not sure why it's surprising that I didn't mention Walker's early demise in a post about a tenuous link between Farley Granger and Navin Nischol. (It IS mentioned in my old Strangers on a Train post though.)
despite his untimely demise, he is more popular than Granger
True, but it would have been interesting to see if that fame had lasted if he had lived to a ripe old age (while never becoming a big star).
sd268: in your first comment you said "i'm sure its unintended" but you also said "it looks like you are aware of the subtext and are somehow uncomfortable with it" - that's a mixed signal, to say the least, and I addressed your comment the way I thought appropriate.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, since we've both clarified our stances, let's put this to rest now and perhaps talk about something more edifying: do you think Nischol had a secret crush on Amitabh?
Jai, in many musings you tend to mention a lot of trivia which enriches the post, which is why I thought that this was something you might have included.
ReplyDeleteAlso, although the stances have been clarified about the supposed undertones of homosexuality, the exchange of thoughts did remind me of a Russell Peters act, where he said joked about how much of taboo it is to call a black person, "black". Same with homosexuality, I feel it is more of a taboo to call someone a homosexual, than it is to be homosexual yourself!
Jai, an off topic question. There was a promising Hollywood actor, slightly overweight, in the 60s probably. He had charisma but due his weight didn't get many leading roles. When he tried to lose weight unfortunately he suffered a heart attack and he died.
ReplyDeleteHis name slips me. Do you know who he is?
chris FARLEY HOLLYWOOD NINJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
ReplyDeleteNavin nishchol was the leading man of quite a few 70 s films and not just a song appearance..movies like Buddha mil Gaya, Victoria no 203, and last but not the least. Hanste zakhm .... To name a few !
ReplyDeleteAfter some concerted googling , I found the man.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laird_Cregar
Rahul: yes, Cregar was an interesting actor (definitely not 1960s though) - he played the Devil in Lubitsch's Heaven Can Wait, which I mentioned here.
ReplyDeleteGranger's death means that there's hardly any lead actor still alive who was active in late 40s Hollywood, besides the Havilland sisters.
ReplyDeleteTalking of They Live by Night, his co-star in Rope, John Dall, acted in a very similar couple-on-the-run film around the same time - Gun Crazy.
Both these films, along with Lang's You Only Live Once are worthy, underrated precursors to Arthur Penn's much celebrated Bonny and Clyde.
And yes, Nick Ray's They Live by Night is a strong contender to being regarded as "the second best debut film by a director ever". No prizes for guessing the best debut film ever!
his co-star in Rope, John Dall, acted in a very similar couple-on-the-run film around the same time - Gun Crazy.
ReplyDeleteShrikanth: think we've discussed this in another context before, right? Perhaps in the comments of an earlier post. (Incidentally the original short story "Gun Crazy" is included in this noir anthology. Quite different from the film.)
About second-best debut film: I'd probably go with Night of the Hunter. There are a few non-American candidates too, Breathless and The 400 Blows among them.
And heck, what about Olivier's Henry V?
Badlands. MASH. And that little indie called Citizen Kane
ReplyDeleteYes indeed my memory was playing tricks on me.I remember seeing Hangover Square a few years ago and going Woah! why isn't this guy well known? And then learnt of his untimely death.
ReplyDeleteSorry Sri, missed the "second best" bit. Should have known Kane was unlikely to have slipped through unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteThis Sporting Life. Un Chien Andalou.
A fan apart: MASH wasn't Altman's first feature. And if we're including Un Chien Andalou, we'll have to include other short films made by directors before their feature-length debuts.
ReplyDeleteBunuel's L'Age D'Or would be a worthy candidate though.
Lovely read as always
ReplyDeleteJai: Whoops. Always thought Altman started with MASH.
ReplyDeleteRoeg, with Walkabout (or Performance, as co-director).
Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron?
Jabberwock, i think sd286 is your secret imaginary friend! sd286!!? hahaha
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJai: Yeah. Night of the Hunter and Breathless are surely much stronger contenders than They Live by Night.
ReplyDeleteAs always, my myopic studio-era centric view caused me to overlook the "continental" candidates.
Haven't seen any of Olivier's Shakespeare adaptations.
Granger's casting in Strangers on a Train was a brilliant, inspired move! However, I remember reading Hitchcock saying that he would've preferred a more "robust" actor like William Holden! That would've spoilt the film for me.
I sometimes wonder if Hitchcock deliberately made an attempt to sound stupid in interviews!
Kits: thanks!
ReplyDeleteA fan apart: Jaane bhi do Yaaro - aargh! Will take a pass on that one for now. Though seriously, if we're talking about Indian cinema, Pather Panchali before anything else.
I sometimes wonder if Hitchcock deliberately made an attempt to sound stupid in interviews!
shrikanth: you're hardly the first to wonder. I mentioned that Holden thing in my Strangers post. It would have diminished the film for sure, even if Holden had found a way to play Guy as um, limp-wristed.
sd268: belatedly re-addressing your comment with something I should have made clear much earlier: in the first place, I don't automatically associate homosexuality with qualities like "limp-wristed" and "effete" in men. I have those qualities to varying degrees myself, and I'm hetero (or was last I checked).
ReplyDeleteNavin Nishchol also appeared opposite Amitabh in "Desh Premee" (that Amit Kumar/Kishore Kumar number "Ja Jaldi Bhag Ja" is filmed on the two of them). Of course, I'll probably remember him most for being the actor lip syncing to that unforgettable Kishore Kumar number "Raat Kali Ek Khwab Mein Aai".
ReplyDeleteJust read this post - you have to watch Khosla Ka Ghosla, an excellent film that dusted the cobwebs off Navin Nishchol (whom I found good-looking but effete during my teen years!) for me.
ReplyDeleteCheers