Dilip Kumar - the thespian

[GURBAKSHISH S BAGGA]

I read this interesting stuff in India Daily...felt like
sharing...apologies for posting it here...don't know the name of the
'movies' newsgroup.

_______________________________________________________________________

Dilip Kumar: The Tragedy King

Khalid Mohamed and Salim Khan

20 July 1995

Recently Dilip Kumar, the thespian of Indian cinema was awarded the
coveted Dadasaheb Phalke Award for his years of unparalleled
contribution to the Indian cinema. Presented below is an interview
taken by Khalid Mohamed, the renowned film critic long before the award
was announced. We have chosen this interview as it brings out many
interesting facets of Dilip Kumar's life and career.

Also presented is a tribute to the great man by Salim Khan

To audiences across the land, Dilip Kumar's performances are the
epitome of emoting. Born in Peshawar as Yusuf Khan, he came to Bombay
and was initiated into the world of arclights and grease paint by the
prime actress of his times, Devika Rani. From his debut in Jwar Bhata
in 1944, he has played a variety of characters; but nostalgiaphiles
venerate him as the monarch of tragedy. Vastly imitated, he has
survived the storms of trends and fads and continues to work in the
dream factory.

His is the face that has lunched around 60 movies through four decades.
Slender in physique once, today at the age of 72 he is inevitably
filled-out. But the charisma lingers, the eyes have the same inquiring
gaze, the voice has a cultured, mellow timbre. You cannot expect the
same doomed romantic hero of yore, the smile that was always under the
shadow of tragedy; he has done so many death scenes in the
black-and-white era. In the dark cloak of the auditorium, you often
wept with every fading breath of his before the eye of the
camera.

He switched to comedy, he gave class to tomfoolery. But he came to be
classified as a thespian. The stalwart wears his reputation well. If he
has featured in the "now" cinema bristling with violence and
vulgarity, he has stood miles ahead of the madding crowd. With Raj
Kapoor and Dev Anand, he formed that star trinity of the 1950s. His
peers went on to become directors. (Dilip Kumar turns director only now
with the under-production (Kalinga) While acting, he extended his
art-even if he was playing a police officer pummelling terrorists or a
crusading journalist bamboozled by circumstances to become a mafia
lord. The literary, solid storylines may have vanished. In the face of
the anything-goes screenplays, the sovereign actor has had to adapt to
the tumult of tacky trends.

Off-screen, you've watched him intermittently, had these on-the-run
conversations, when he'd recount tales of traders who passed through
the Khyber Pass, stressing the tang of Frontier cuisine or extolling
the sweetness of pomegranates from Quetta. Somehow, he had eluded talk
on the specifics of acting. And that's the misson today, to make him
talk about what he's done best and for which he will be always
enshrined in the memory of those who care for the pursuit of quality in
cinema.

"What's the point?" he asks. "But don't think I'm being fussy." You
tell him he is being fussy. He laughs that trademark tentative laugh,
excuses himself to give a shot for a scene splattering him with blood,
cries in anguish as his screen wife is pumped with bullets, crouches
holding her inert body in his arms. That over, he says such shots are
easy, far too easy, they don't require any special artistry.

Then he opens up:

==>Haven't you been advised to go easy with your career by the doctors?

There's no question of going easy, I've always gone slow, that's been
my principle down the decades. When I'm not acting, I tend to take on
responsibilities for my mental equilibrium, so that my feet are firmly
planted where they ought to be. Whether you're helping out an
institution, or canvassing for the setting up of a school or a
hospital, it's not too easy. That doesn't matter, I enjoy being made an
instrument for fund raising. As for my career, I've always believed
that overexposure is harmful, a sensible actor should ration himself.
If you were having Cary Grant or Marlon Brando for breakfast, lunch as
well as dinner, you'd get cheesed off.

==>At this point of your career, where do you see yourself?

It may be the fag-end of my career, to be honest I feel good. That's
because I've never had any illusions. At no point have I felt that
we've had the material to really grow up and make substantial strides
in our cinema. In fact when we look at our cinema today, we think of
tomorrow with trepidation, and we conclude that our best was yesterday.
In the past, we had relatively better scripts and people who could
nourish those scripts. As an actor, I've never reached the point of
nirvana, of satisfaction. The 1950s, I would not call a golden
period, I'd say that era gave greater promise. There was the
closely-knit, homely studio system, there was interaction between all
the different departments of film making. One could think, take-off,
compete with one's peers.

==>Didn't you have your own niche? Where was the question of
competition?

Competition not in the way gossip magazines make it out to be. So many
stories have been made up about the rivalry between Raj (Kapoor) and
me. I'd say Raj was essentially a versatile actor who later took to
comedy and then carved a niche for himself as a picture maker. In the
west there have been brilliant performers... Gary Cooper, James
Stewart, Paul Muni... but Spencer Tracy never felt threatened, he knew
what the sport was all about. The audience appreciates qualitative work
even in poor films, the actor stands out more sharply so when the
product is of superior standard. Actually, I'm quite surprised how this
entity called Dilip Kumar has endured. A whole lot of factors have been
responsible. One of them is just good luck: even if I don't think so
I'd like to say so. Then there are factors like dedication,
adjustments, re-adjustments, stubbornness and a decent reluctance to be
bought over. An actor has to be convinced that he's making the right
choices, otherwise he's just a piece of expensive merchandise.

==>You've never felt like this piece of merchandise?

Mercifully, no. There are so many pen-pushers in the garb of
journalists, crooks posing as public leaders on the rostrum. There's so
much duality in our public and private lives. We're passing through an
era that lacks a conscience. For any morally-responsible man, there's a
great deal of anxiety today, particularly so in cinema. Instead of
progressing, our creative matrix has deteriorated.

==>You refused many significant roles. Any regrets?

None at all. I didn't do Guru Dutt's Pyaasa which was offered to me, I
saw no wisdom in doing it because I was already doing Bimal Roy's
Devdas. In both the pictures I'd be drinking all the time, the
characterisations were identical, any glimmer of repetition would have
been unfair to both the directors. I've always scanned showbusiness for
a decent script. What I've refused to do is to show my wares to
financiers, that would have been too humiliating. If I haven't been
able to do anything in the parallel cinema, it's because there has
never been a serious offer. I do not approve of cinema that floats
above the head even though it may be imparting a new film grammar. What
I value deeply is the service done by New Theatres, Prabhat, Bombay
Talkies, Minerva Movietone, Mehboob Khan. I'm afraid I belong to the
old school but without bias or prejudice towards any other school. Live
and let live. Personally, I've learnt a lot from looking at Satyajit
Ray's films. I've understood some though not all of Ingmar Bergman's
oeuvre, I've admired Vittorio De Sica immensely, I've appreciated
Fellini and Truffaut.

==>What about the story that you turned down the part which was
eventually done by Omar Sharif in "Lawrence of Arabia?

There was a sort of telegraphic offer from David Lean, he said it would
be nice if I did it. I had been recommended to him by his wife Leela.
Lean's a friend, he saw the rushes of Ganga Jamuna, he even helped
us to edit its foreign version. He was charmed by the story of Sultana
Daku, thought he'd like to film it some day. But I've always had this
fear of going outside, if you make a monkey of yourself they put a
crown on your head. Moreover, I didn't have six months to spare at a
stretch. I didn't even do a remake of When the Rains Came made by 20th
Century Fox. In your own bazaar, you enjoy a certain status. What's the
point of venturing out into fields unknown where you have no say? No
contact with the subject matter. Still, I wish I had the chance to
experiment, there has always been this desire to break new ground in
acting even though that doesn't mean that I may have had the ability.

==>You haven't been sure about your acting instinct?

For the first three years, when I started, I felt I may not last long
in this field. I never felt I could bank on my talent alone. I saw For
Whom the Bells Toll at four consecutive shows on a single day. I'd
marvel at the performers from the west. I'd be awed by the vivacity of
Ingrid Bergman. I couldn't believe Paul Muni could achieve the
variations he did playing Louis Pasteur on the one hand and a fugitive
from a chain gang on the other. Variation is what I began to aim for in
my throw of dialogue. I'd shift from playing Prince Salim in
Mughal-e-Azam to the peasant in Ganga Jamuna. It's crucial never to get
fixated with one personality. Raj did a marvellous job in Gopinath and
Andaz. But once he started playing the lovable tramp, he never got
out of the mould.

==>Are you saying he got stuck with the Chaplin image?

I wouldn't remark on that, it would be too impudent.

==>But weren't you caught up in the tragedian image yourself? To get
out of it you had to go through psychoanalysis and then attempt comedy.

I did face an acute personality problem, the problem of stardom, and of
projecting myself into fictitious characters. I had to break my
hostility towards them and still keep in touch with the larger reality.
I referred this matter to drama coaches, to W.D. Nichol who gave me
psychiatric explanations for my dilemma. I went through psychoanalysis
under Dr Ramanlal Patel. I hadn't become a loony or anything. I just
needed someone to talk to me. It gave me stability and poise. I did
comedy in Azaad. After a long break I did Kohinoor and then Ram aur
Shyam. I had found it very difficult to do Devdas during the first
eight to ten days of shooting, I gradually drifted into it, bringing
Devdas closer to my own personality. Often an actor has to divorce his
personality from the character but that wouldn't have worked. No actor
is bigger than the material he is essaying, he has to give it an
interpretation from his own understanding of life, he has to blend
his experiences with the alien's.

==>You've been accused of interfering far too often with the director's
job.

I've never interfered with a competent director. When I see things
going awry, I've suggested alterations which would be more effective. I
have been willing to take no for an answer. There has to be negotiation
in a team. I wouldn't call this interference.

==>You did ghost-direct "Ganga Jamuna"?

Yes. And I ran around even after it was over to get it passed by the
censors. After six months, it was at the intervention of Morarjibhai
(Desai) that it finally saw the light of day. To make a picture, you
have to be a businessman, sign hundis, take loans at vicious rates of
interest. I know Mehboob Khan and Bimal Roy spent sleepless nights
because of financial obstacles. And how were they repaid? Take Bimalda
for instance, his property was attached soon after his death. That's
why I've never had the gumption to produce a film on my own again.

==>As an actor, have you tried to extend yourself by drawing from the
other arts like literature?

I'm afraid I'm not well-read, I only make this pretence that I've read
a lot. I'm a far cry from what others have achieved, like Laurence
Olivier was a truly great artiste. You can detect that he had
supplemented his craft with an understanding of literature. Here, we've
had literary writers like Manto, Rajinder Singh Bedi, Josh Malihabadi
and Pandit Sudarshan. But film makers have always had to adapt to the
market trends. Like Mehboob had to switch over to Aan after Andaz,
Shantaram did Jhanak Jhanak Paayal Baaje after Dr Kotnis ki Amar
Kahani. From the south there was Chandralekha. Films like Shin Shinaki
Boobla Boo were strongly criticised but there was no constructive
criticism. The tax structure is crippling, the film business
always reels under the impact of new rules and levies. If official
committees are set up to go into the grievances, they are mainly made
up of ignoramuses who can't tell the difference between a screenplay
and a ****

==>Which performances of yours do you cherish most?

As a performer, I've been comparatively better in Devdas, Shikast, in
Ganga Jamuna I was okay, in Kohinoor and Ram aur Shyam I was alright. I
like Sagina Mahato, Shakti and Duniya in parts and of course,
there was the blockbuster Karma.

==>While acting, what happens if you're opposite a co-star you can't
relate to?

That has happened quite often, it's indeed a handicap. This lack of
relating can arise out of a co-star's personal behaviour, approach to
work or simply a different chemistry. So you have to adapt yourself to
another's temperament. If nothing works, then you perform in a vacuum.
You'll be surprised but Nalini Jaywant has been the best actress I've
worked with. She'd be punctuality personified, she'd bring an extra
warmth to her performance, she'd be quite extraordinary even in the
first rehearsal. I've enjoyed the rapport with Nargis, Madhubala, Meena
Kumari. Saira (Banu) is another actress I could get along with. Some
actresses would make it heavy going, be hard on their make-up men or
fuss about their costumes. I see a lot of performers -- male and female
-- too involved with the asides. Today, a peculiarly carefree attitude
prevails. We do have some thoughtful, gifted actors and actresses. But
the atmosphere is too casual, there is ill-timed laughter and chatter.

==>How did you cultivate your famous hand movements and dialogue
delivery?

I don't know, nothing has been cultivated. Whatever I've done is from
watching other films. I've never liked attacking voices, therefore the
up and down curves. As for the playing with hands, it happens because
there are no details worked out for an actor in the script. Like you're
not told how you have to sit down on a chair or how you have to take
off a jacket. So, you're left high and dry, play around with your
fingers, rub them on the face maybe. Like Ashok Kumar used to smoke
cigarettes stylishly. Dilip Kumar attempted to use his hands.
Mannerisms have to be resorted to -- most of our actors do but I'm
afraid, quite clumsily.

==>Do you feel flattered that you're the most vastly-imitated Indian
actor?

I take that with a pinch of salt, I don't think Dilip Kumar is imitated
on the wide-scale as it is made out to be. But from time to time, yes
I've been confronted by people who use the same approach, the same
grammar and tonal rhythms as I do. In that case, I just alter my own
key.

==>Haven't you heard of this video cassette which shows how you've been
closely imitated by...

I've heard of it, haven't seen it. Amit... Amitabh Bachchan is a
complete actor in himself, a man of excellent deportment from what I've
seen. But I do feel he could have avoided getting stuck in a groove. He
gave fine performance in Zanjeer, Deewar and Chupke Chupke, he was in a
position to wear other mantles. One gets caught, one is trapped, one
doesn't get out till the audience doesn't like it any more. There's
repetition, there are gimmicks, you have bashed up so many people, you
hit, you curse, this persona becomes a cult by itself. That's what went
wrong with Amit, this is something he could have avoided.

==>The obsession with the anger and-revenge syndrome continues.

Knowing him as a I do, I don't think he has any obsessions as such. He
had a hard time arriving on the scene, he struggled, once when he got
success it was natural to try and play safe.

==>Isn't the cult of violence sickening?

It's there in all our films. Even women are involved in fisticuffs
which looks very unpleasant. In every reel there must be a couple of
fights, ding-dong battles, dances. Where's the time to nurse a story in
between? For a performance which creates a movement, you need a little
pause.

==>Do you see any hope in this scheme of things?

There's not much to look forward to. I can just hope to do something
that's happening. But there is a certain feeling of tiredness inside.
How long can I keep searching for the light? I can't deny that there is
this sense of creative despair. Then I console myself with the thought
that I'm not alone in this, there are so many people who work without
job satisfaction. Any way, looking back after being 46 years on the
crease, since I haven't done too badly, I must have done a decent job.

==>Your contribution to Indian cinema has never been really recognised.

I think of this sometimes, I'm not hurt, I am rather amused. Knowing my
standing with the people, the lack of recognition speaks more of the
authorities than about the service I may have rendered. There is
nothing they can give by way of appreciation that can exceed what I
already have from my audience. I was even made out to be a spy once --
that hurt. And the accusation was done on such a flimsy ground, just
because some youngster in Calcutta was caught and he mentioned the
names of Bimal Roy, Mehboob Khan and me. This could have ruined me,
they even searched for a transmitter, it was all so far-fetched and
absurd.I've kept out of politics per se, only venturing till the outer
fringes. I've seen the state actors-turned-politicians have been
reduced to in this country. My family had close connections with the
families of Maulana Azad, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Shanawaaz saab,
Moin-ul-haq, all nationalists, truly secular patriots. But are they
remembered the way they should be? Plus there's another problem,
perhaps associated with politics. For no sane reason, I'm victimised. I
just have to buy some property or land somewhere and it's confiscated
or put into some sort of jeopardy.

==>You've been criticised for adopting a screen name to conceal your
Muslim identity.

That accusation is childish, it makes me laugh. When I started acting
it was felt Yusuf didn't sound right. The alternatives were Jehangir,
Basudev and Dilip Kumar, I chose Dilip Kumar and that's it.

==>You've had many upheavals in your private life. How have you coped?
Do you miss not having a child?

It has been a many-splendoured affair, this life. It took me a while to
be at ease with people. I was too intense as a young man. Life's been a
great experience, delightful at times, a sprinkling of anguish and pain
at times. One thing that I regret not completing is my learning, my
scholarship. After Inter Science, I gave up. As for the more intimate
aspects of my life, all I can say is a lot of time has passed. What's
the use of talking about what could have been, what couldn't have been.
I do miss a child, yes. Like I missed not knowing my parents well. I
lost both of them at a very young age. But there have been my brothers
and sisters, my wife, I've never felt lonely.

==>What is your passion, your first love?

Soccer! It has been my first love, my passion. It inspires a spirit of
healthy combat, to lead, to work your way through the odds. There is a
grace in losing and a modesty in victory. I played football till I was
57, I insisted on playing it even when I was shooting for Devdas and
Mughal-e-Azam. Playing the game has helped me tremendously as an actor,
it has given me a pliable, flexible body. Considering my age, it is
still serving me pretty well.

==>Are you aware that you're considered a living legend?

Am I? That's news to me. Please don't make me sound like an
institution. I'm just Dilip... Dilip Kumar.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Script writer Salim Khan (of the famous Salim-Javed duo) pays his
tribute to Dilip Kumar

Dilip Kumar is Indian cinema's first 'modern' actor -- free, unbound by
conventions. He brought style to acting. Before him, acting was very
loud and exaggerated, it was considered different from what you would
do in a similar situation in real life. He didn't follow in anyone's
footsteps. There wasn't any reference point for him. But most of the
so-called great actors that we have had for the last 20 or 30 years,
have had a reference point in Dilip Kumar.

Whenever a competent actor comes on the scene, you find a lot of
similarities with Dilip Kumar. Unfortunately, we haven't had a great
actor or a very competent artist, who has his own individual style;
there will always be certain characteristics of Dilip Kumar's acting in
him -- borrowing from Dilip Kumar's tragic scenes, comic scenes,
dramatic scenes.

These actors have even had a love-hate relationship with Dilip Kumar.
They follow Dilip Kumar, consider themselves great actors in their own
right and have this undercurrent of dislike or hatred for their ideal
actor. It's like hating your own crutches. You depend on them to be
able to walk and yet you hate your own incapability. This incapability
results in a complex: they follow Dilip Kumar, imitate him and yet
refuse to admit that he is a very important influence. I have been in
the film industry for more than 30 years and I have yet to come across
one great actor who has his own original style.

Master of Metamorphosis

I have known Dilip Kumar closely, I have been a family friend, I have
known him since about 1949 when he came to shoot for Aan in Indore. He
started as a very introverted tragedian. He was very shy and
introverted in his private life, too. The withdrawn young man of 26
became the tragedian of the times, brooding and sulking. Then he came
out from his shell. It is extremely difficult for an actor to discard
his original style, but he did. He began to play comic roles with ease
and confidence. His personal lifestyle also changed simultaneously. He
started opening out as a person. He started hosting parties, which he
had never done before. He was so full of fun, he would relate unusual
incidents and make people laugh; he became the life and soul of the
parties he went to. It is extremely difficult to alter one's
personality. Many of our 'great' actors are unable to change their set
style, they play the same roles over and over again, plod on in the
same way for 30-40 years. It is the same in Hollywood. Clint Eastwood,
Charles Bronson, John Wayne, all of them played the same roles for
years.

Dilip Kumar has constantly experimented. Fear comes in the way of
actors -- the fear of breaking away, the fear whether people will
accept them in a new garb or not. Every actor plays safe. The capacity
to change from within is also very important. You can't change yourself
superficially. By changing facial expressions, hairstyles and get-ups
you can't really change from within. Dilip Kumar has mastered the
impossible art of metamorphosis , he's probably the only one who has
been able to do this in India. He switched over from the hero's role to
playing character roles. Most of our actors are still playing heroes
opposite girls half their age; it is very difficult for them to accept
the fact that they should rather play character roles, play their age.
A great romantic era. Yet he accepted the passage of time gracefully
and switched over to roles of the father and grandfather. Most actors
become victims of typecasting, very few can break out of the image that
has evolved around them, most of them don't want to.

Intelligence and Talent

Dilip Kumar is a rare combination of intelligence, talent and
discipline. In his time, actors were most often uneducated. Perhaps
talent has nothing to do with education or intelligence. Intelligence
and education even go against the kind of acting accepted in Indian
films. An intelligent actor goes through a conflict, between
what he is being made to do in the movies and what he would normally do
in a similar situation in real life. That's why acting in parallel
cinema is much easier: it is more realistic. I was quite a bad actor,
but I knew quite a bit about acting and so I can say that to act in an
art film is easier. In commercial cinema, there are situations which
are plainly ridiculous. To handle them confidently, to enact such
situation convincingly is very difficult for an intelligent person.
Being educated has, in fact, helped Dilip Kumar. I have seen a lot of
actors, whose intelligence works against them and they blame outside
factors -- that because of certain reasons which have nothing to do
with them they have not achieved the popularity which Dilip Kumar has
achieved or Rajesh Khanna has achieved or Amitabh Bachchan has
achieved. However, Dilip Kumar has used his education as a positive
force. He has been able to cross all obstacles, even playing with elan
a ridiculous slapstick scene before a mirror in Kohinoor. It is a
difficult scene for any sensible man but he did it with conviction and
it worked.

Admirably, money never tempted Dilip Kumar. There are certain artists
who just can't resist the temptation of money but Dilip Kumar would do
films only out of emotional reasons like knowing the producer for
years and of course, his fascination for a certain character. He has
understood the economics of films and set the pattern for the prices of
other actors. He was the first to demand a price which was unheard of,
it was unimaginable.

The tragedy for an actor of his caliber is that he was born in this
country. Indian mainstream cinema does not have an international
audience. If he was an American actor, he would have probably enjoyed
the same reputation as the greats like Marlon Brando and Robert De
Niro. His performance in Ganga Jamuna would give international stars a
run for their money. It is one of the finest performances that I have
ever seen, and I must have seen at least 25,000 films, if not more.
Besides that, there is within him a growth, as an actor and
as a human being. He became a very sensitive, a very aware person. He
is one person who has made acting a respectable profession. He can make
himself comfortable in any company, be it a business tycoon or a
common man. The popular impression about actors is that they are
arrogant and uneducated. Dilip Kumar has changed this opinion.

Going beyond the Script

While writing Shakti we had heard a lot of things about Dilip Kumar. We
were in awe of him and when we finalised the subject, for every role we
had an alternate choice, but for that role. We were forewarned that
he "takes over" the project, and that he interferes with the script. At
that time we used to give water-tight scripts and we used to work very
hard on every aspect, we used to feel very disturbed if someone
interfered with it. But we approached Dilip Kumar and very politely we
let our fears be known to him. He said that as an actor God had given
him tremendous recognition and respect. He said he had no interest in
becoming a writer and that he interferes with the scripts only when
circumstances force him to because there is so much incompetence in
that department. He was often left with no choice but to help out. He
said he would be very grateful if directors allowed him only to act and
relieved him of the responsibilities of looking after the production
and the finance. When he heard the script of Shakti, he said let's
shoot, he only wanted to work on his character. He only asked to be
allowed the freedom to do what he felt about the role, the emotional
aspect of the role and discover untapped emotions within him.

When we saw the rushes we knew he had moved away from the original
character. We were amazed that he had given a whole new dimension to
the character we had written. It happens very rarely that you have a
competent script and the film goes beyond what you had imagined. You
can only give good performance when you have a well-chiselled
characterisation, a good script, good situations and dialogues. But an
incompetent actor who has not understood the role will not be able to
do a good job despite a good script. Dilip Kumar understood the
character and enhanced it in his own distinct way.

The Private Man

Perhaps one can never know Dilip Kumar completely. There is a certain
barrier, you cannot become too familiar with him. He has kept quite a
bit of himself private. At the same time, he has been helpful; people
have gone to him with their problems, professional and personal. But he
never discusses his problems because he doesn't have a Dilip Kumar to
go to. He lost his parents when he was very young, he became a
father-figure to all his younger brothers and sisters and if he had
panicked or had shown his weakness, everybody else would have been
flummoxed. So he had to control himself, no matter what he was feeling
inside. When his brother died, he was the only source of consolation to
his family, without even letting them know that he was broken inside.

_______________________________________________________________________