With the recent spate of biopics, Mirror investigates whether Indian filmmakers can strike the balance between fact and fiction
Kunal Guha (MUMBAI MIRROR; August 26, 2018)

While directing Pandit Bhimsen Joshi, a 1992 documentary on the maestro’s life, filmmaker Gulzar quizzed him on his relationship with his stepmother. This was to also understand why the renowned vocalist fled home at an early age. “He told me, ‘Woh meri roti mein ghee kam dalti thi. But I only needed an excuse to run away because I wanted to learn music and not go to school’,” says Gulzar, adding that if he had misrepresented this chapter from Joshi’s life on celluloid in order to heighten the drama, it would not have been entirely honest. “If I had made that into ‘sauteli maa zulm karti thi’, that would be wrong,” says Gulzar. “The authenticity of such incidents is important. If you try to reconstruct them just to make them emotionally-loaded, gadbad ho jati hain.”

In this season of biopics, this is a glaring pitfall many filmmakers choose to ignore. Sanju, based on actor Sanjay Dutt’s life, is a prime example. Despite raking in a whopping Rs 339.93 crore, the film has been panned for being a PR exercise, which looks at Dutt’s tumultuous life through rose-tinted glasses. Filmmaker Rajkumar Hirani’s protestations that Sanju isn’t a whitewash job, appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Evidently, the constitution of Indian biopics borders on hagiography or a glorified portrayal of a life less ordinary. As sociologist Shiv Viswanathan says, they “theoretically, degenerate between bad history and bad hagiography”. And this unique blend of fact and fiction, with a dash of sparkle dust, renders a compelling narrative of rising above circumstances. Juggling between sensitive tribute and glorified portrayal, biopics have become a box office favourite, and Bollywood biggies are leaning in to translate the lives of everyone — from celebrated astronauts to accidental politicians to controversial writers — onto the big screen. But are they accurate depictions?

Keeping it reel
Most biopics rest on three planks: Biography, myth and folklore. “For a biopic to be successful, myth and history have to reconcile in the narrative. It cannot just be a linear narrative,” says Vishwanathan, adding that “describing Sanjay Dutt as an ordinary, everyday person would result in a boring watch”. But Sanju is not the first biopic to be selective about fact and fiction. Veteran cricket writer Prem Panicker recalls Azhar, based on former Indian skipper Mohammad Azharuddin’s contentious life, as an attempt to clean up his tarnished image. The 2016 film delved into the cricketer’s life and detailed the part when he was banned from First Class cricket on match-fixing charges. “While the film’s climax acknowledges that he took money, it says he did so with the benevolent intention of exposing corruption in the sport. This transmutes it into pure fiction, as it never happened,” says Panicker, adding that Mani Ratnam’s multiple National Award-winner Nayakan (1987), was loosely based on gangster Vardarajan Mudaliar’s life “but it was never endorsed as a biopic”. When one claims to make a biopic, says Panicker, “the liberty of playing around with facts is considerably limited”.


Consensual creative liberty
Shaad Ali, who has directed Soorma, based on hockey player Sandeep Singh’s life, believes that “a filmmaker is allowed to take creative liberties if the subject is kept in the loop. But if you do it without their consent, you may end up with a breach of trust or contract.” That the hockey player was paralysed, waist down, following a freak shooting accident that threatened to end his career, provided Ali with “a readymade dramatic point”, eliminating the need to create one. But he did make minor alterations to fit his narrative. For instance, Singh’s comeback match was in the 2007 Men’s Hockey Champions Challenge, but in the film it is shown as a ‘Commonwealth Championship’. Also, Singh’s onscreen avatar (played by Diljit Dosanjh), is seen scoring three consecutive goals in the decisive final of a tournament that India didn’t even qualify for.

“If you took creative liberties, you wouldn’t be making a biographical film,” says Shyam Benegal, who directed Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The Forgotten Hero. While Netaji’s extraordinary life offered enough fodder for Benegal to not have to resort to fictionalisation, the final product didn’t go undisputed. “Quite a few people believe that Netaji hasn’t died, even to this day,” says Benegal, adding that ‘mythifying’ heroes is not unusual in Indian society. “Also, an entire political party refused to accept he was married and insisted he was a Brahmachari. This, despite his daughter being invited to attend various government events.” Clearly, even sticking strictly to facts gleaned from books doesn’t always validate a biopic.

Holding out for heroes
Why one biopic works and another doesn’t, depends on various factors. Shibasish Sarkar, CEO of Reliance Big Entertainment, feels that stories “told in an aspirational manner, do well”. His studio is backing forthcoming biopics such as Super 30 (where Hrithik Roshan will play mathematician Anand Kumar) and Chanakya (with Ajay Devgn playing the strategist). Sarkar thinks Indians have been “raised to follow idols and seek out stories of heroes”. He says: “We aspire to follow in the footsteps of heroes. Many are aware of [former Indian skipper] Dhoni’s success, but not many are aware of his journey to greatness, and that can be a great hook.” Even Krish, maker of the forthcoming Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi, feels this is an important factor to determine the success of a biopic. “Everyone knows the story of Lakshmibai, but how many know that her actual name was Manikarnika? People usually know things at a superficial level,” he says. “Everyone knows about Gandhi, but when you watch the movie, you learn so much more about his personality.”

The 39-year-old filmmaker, who is also slated to make NTR (on actor politician N T Rama Rao), feels biopics are often tinged by the larger-than-life aspect of their subjects. “NTR is treated like a prophet in Andhra Pradesh, and you cannot say anything [negative] about him. Everyone knows his story. He is both, a myth and a real person, so a film must reflect that — which means exhaustive research and treading with caution,” says Krish who considers Nag Ashwin’s Mahanati (on the life of actress Savitri) to be the “gold standard” in biopics.


Literary deductions

While working on the 1988 TV series Mirza Ghalib, Gulzar remembers how he managed to recreate the Urdu poet’s personality through his writings — his letters and published works. And Nandita Das, who will make her directorial debut with Manto, on Urdu writer Saadat Hasan Manto, followed a similar perocess. Das believes it is essential to retain the subject’s personality without whitewashing his flaws. “I have made no attempt to put Manto on a pedestal, like most biopics end up doing. He is fallible and full of contradictions, like all of us,” says Das.

But retro-fitting facts to elevate a personal account can actually be a dangerous thing. Panicker feels deliberate ‘lapses’ can be accepted by future generations unquestioningly as the truth. “What are you leaving behind as a record of your times? Why assume that art only exists in the moment, and has no resonance for the future?” Panicker asks, adding that his opinion of French courts, for instance, was partly formed by the writings of Alexandre Dumas. Viswanathan, on the other hand, feels that in India, a biopic is a clear combination of myth and history, and can never be just one or the other.

So who would make for a winning subject for a biopic? “Anyone who is a caricature of themselves,” says Vishwanathan, adding that late actor and politician Jayalalithaa would be a strong contender. “Her life as a corrupt chief minister is so sordid that it makes for great cinema. When an income tax office once raided Jayalalitha’s house and visited the bathroom, he saw that the tub was made of gold. He said, ‘I couldn’t even wash my hands as my sense of hygiene was vioilated’.” But there are those who feel sticking to facts will not render a compelling narrative. Mayank Tiwari, who is adapting Sanjaya Baru’s The Accidental Prime Minister, based on former PM Manmohan Singh, feels that “any biopic, no matter how sincere, will ultimately remain what it is: a story. But human life isn’t a story as such. I am not saying one should make up facts or create drama where there is none. But in the end, we are making a film, and the idea is to engage the viewer with as much truth and integrity as the writer/director can muster.”