Zanjeer 50 Years
Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay’s Questions. Susmita Dasgupta’s Answers
Question 1: 50 years ago, Zanjeer was a new and yet typical Bollywood film. Its stark novelty broke and yet reaffirmed the Bollywood formula. Based on the image of an Angry Young Man, Amitabh Bachchan started with a new flavour for the audiences. Whose credit was this? Amitabh Bachchan himself? Or the directors? Or the screen writers?
Answer: Most of the credit of Zanjeer and the new formula around Amitabh Bachchan must be given to the writers Salim Javed. Prakash Mehra saw the point and Amitabh Bachchan expressed the story. In a star-based movie, a lot of it is based on the star’s own personality and even biography. The star does best when roles are extensions of his/her life.
Cinematographically, Zanjeer has drawn so much from Uday Shankar’s film, Kalpana. Especially because of the dream being central to the story. It was about searching for the dream in the waking world.
Question 2: Do you think that Amitabh Bachchan expressed rebellion against the order or system? Especially as Zanjeer was released in 1973 and the Emergency declared in 1975? Around that time there were many rebellions, the Naxal movement, the slew of industrial and institutional strikes? Did Amitabh Bachchan represent the general angst?
Answer: No, that’s not true. The revolutionaries, because I lived in those times, so I know firsthand, always looked upon Amitabh as a stooge of the Congress. Rumours were afloat that Mrs Gandhi was setting up the star cast in the film! The intellectuals hated him and thought of him as a pro establishment person.
Question 3: Is that not a contradiction? He is a rebel and yet pro Indira Gandhi.
Observed carefully, Amitabh Bachchan and Indira Gandhi are parallel figures, bit as Yugapurush. Indira Gandhi was a rebel, she rebelled against the elders as in the syndicalists, she broke through many elitist bastions, the nationalization of banks, collieries, sick units, the BIFR, and brought 50 laws veering India towards a socialist economy. Amitabh also represented the attacks against the stagnancies of the system.
Question 4: You have mentioned that Amitabh Bachchan’s anger was not personal, it was universal. Did it represent the anger of the people?
People are always angry with something or the other. Arts and politics, both encash on it. In case of Amitabh Bachchan, especially in Zanjeer, he is troubled by a dream, or a nightmare of the past. The dream makes up edgy and eventually angry. He is angry at the disorder, anything disorderly. That dream is a disorder, the disorder from the dream spills into the real world. Strangely, it makes him become more aware of things out of place. The dream oppresses him and hence he becomes so frenzied when he senses oppression such as the children who were crushed to death by a speeding truck.
So, this anger against disorder comes from a separation of essence, contained in the dream and his existence. The alienation of existence from essence has marked the entire journey of the image of Amitabh Bachchan.
Question 5: If Amitabh and Indira Gandhi were on the same page, then what about the rebellions which were happening around us?
The rebels, Indira Gandhi, Amitabh Bachchan were all on the same page. Rebellions are often struggles to overcome limitations. With Indira Gandhi, a new age dawned on the country. We saw expansion everywhere, education, industry, agriculture, technology, these created opportunities for the middle class. The increase in population and the spread of education brought many more candidates into the workforce. There were both huge career opportunities as well as unemployment. So, everything had to expand to sustain the increase in opportunities for the youth to seize. Everybody wanted to expand, and everybody rebelled against limitations of systems wherever those applied.
We should not make too much of the image of Zanjeer, because that was a steppingstone. It was Deewar where the image took its shape. It is perhaps Amitabh’s only political film in the waxing phase of his career. The rest were stories about the separation of the essence and existence and of angst of the hero in trying to close that.
Question 6: Where do you think that the angry young man emerged from? He had predecessors in Hindi films? What about Ashok Kumar, the antihero in Kismet?
All heroes have been angry at the same thing, namely the limitations in the system. But for Amitabh, the anger was made into a central narrative and not as something that happens by the way.
There was another thing of the ability of the hero to fight; since the Hindi film was about the protection of the middle classes and the promotion of its aspirations for existential meaning, one of the major causes of its vulnerability lay in being attacked in the streets. Middle class respectability feared violence. Amitabh’s image ended that. It was not so much the expression of frustration, but a show of strength against the roadside goons.
Question 7: You mention that for Amitabh Bachchan, the films showed the hero’s full biography, from childhood to adulthood? Why was this necessary when anger was narrativized?
The narrative around anger made the biography. If it is a momentary anger, then it is an emotion, then it cannot be narrativized. Anger as a narrative need to ride upon the biography. Also the separation between the essence and existence, central to the image of the angry young man is an existential matter.
With the expanding opportunities and education, we see a lot of upward social mobility between 1967 and 1977. The birth rate is very high, so there is an urgency for the species to proliferate. That urgency translates into the image also as anger, you want to go fast and yet caught in a traffic jam.
Besides, in times of upward social mobility the biography becomes important because you are drawing upon your inner resources to break into new grounds. No one knows who you are, and you establish yourself, you are acquiring new skills and talents, the background becomes important.
Question 8: Where has the anger disappeared in our times?
We see anger all around us and all the time. Lynching, name calling, violent speeches, personal attacks, murder. So, anger has not disappeared at all. But because this anger is person to person, mostly against your neighbour, fellow traveller, family members, colleagues, it has little value for art. Art can only accommodate the universals, about reason, about rules. The anger we see at present times is personal, not systemic, about self-gratification and not about being a creative citizen.
Question 9. What about the role of Sher Khan that Pran played? Was he made into a Pathan to foster communal harmony?
Hindi films have always promoted communal harmony. So, nothing new about that. But Sher Khan was modelled around Kabuliwallah, the role which Chhabi Biswas enacted. Pran takes on the accent, the mannerisms, and the body language of the Bengali star. Also, remember that the hero was also a child in essence because the dream never freed him from childhood.
Question 10. Can the new generation be inspired by Zanjeer?
I don’t think so. Amitabh’s appeal lay in the middle-class intelligentsia. That class was the leading social class in the 70’s. Now we are totally disempowered into a middle class consumer class; since we neither possess nor desire nor are allowed to have any decision making in the system, what use would Amitabh Bachchan be to us?