Director Suparn Verma has met almost universally negative reviews with his Ek Khiladi Ek Haseena, but his overriding feeling continues to be one of sheer pride. In a conversation with Raja Sen, Verma talks about why EKEH is exactly what it should be.
What do you think about the way the world has reacted to Ek Khiladi Ek Haseena?
The audiences have liked the film. Television reviews and audience reactions have been great. I've been watching the film every day, in all kinds of Mumbai theatres. I'm not watching the film anymore, I'm watching reactions. They laugh at the right points, they react to the twists right -- I like it. This is a huge high.
What about the reviews? The press has savaged your film
Yes, the reviews have been bad. The press seems to have mixed up criticism with crucifixion, and it was stunning to read such reviews. But then that's fair game, and everyone's entitled to an opinion. I don't know what they were expecting, though. Bottom line: the audiences like the film, and that's what we all want.
Is the film doing well? Most trade publications and analysts are writing it off.
More on rediff.com !
I only know what my distributors are telling me, and they are happy. The producers are recovering money, the distributors will recover money soon, and it looks like we can make some profits in the metros. It is doing above-average and average business in Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad, etc. It is more of a multiplex film. What you need to realise is it's a low-budget film, even though I've tried to ensure it doesn't look like one. This is why it's easier for our distributors to recover costs.
Do you think the fact that the box office is currently quite empty and unchallenging has something to do with your film managing to click?
The audience rejects a film outright if they don't like it, no matter if they have options or not. Here, they are laughing at the black humour, and reacting positively to all the twists. They come out of the theatre discussing the twists. That's the biggest compliment. Word of mouth is something you cannot influence, manipulate or buy. I don't think lack of competition is a major factor.
Several people are calling your film a rip-off of the 2003 Dustin Hoffman-Edward Burns starrer, Confidence.
Yes, there are mentions of Confidence, of The Sting, and someone even mentioned (Nagarjuna's) Criminal! I just think there are moments from a lot of films There are certain similarities in the second half, but my film is not a rip-off. It's an amalgamation of several films I have loved.
Some of the reviews have been very analytical, and I appreciate that. Honest feedback is something I need right now. Yes, there are observations I notice now that I could work on, but honestly, this is exactly how I pictured my film to be. I am very proud of Ek Khiladi Ek Haseena. I stand by my film, every single frame, every single sound.
How has the transition been, from writer to director?
From a journalist to a writer was an easy transition. I just had to write, which I was doing anyway. Even as a journalist, you try to give your piece a different edge, by using different styles. That was fun, you could play around with structure, and you had many modes a diary piece, a first-person piece. That was much easier. In terms of the writing-to-direction jump, I didn't find it too hard.
As a writer, it's about writing how to make love, as a director it's actually doing it. And I found it easy because, one, I did a lot of homework on paper -- whatever I had to change, redo, I did within my 33 drafts. So when you go on the sets, you, your technicians, your actors have a very clear vision of what you want. There is no ambiguity. There is no improvisation on the sets because we have to shoot the film, complete with songs, inside 45 days, which is very, very fast. I firmly believe that you don't make a film on the editing table, you assemble it. You have the pieces ready and you put them together. At the most, you trim it a little.
The transition was easy for me, maybe because I had mentally been preparing for it for a very long time. So I knew what I wanted, exactly: every single nuance, every detail about the look of the film.
Want to be a director? Read this
Why exactly did you choose to start with a con film?
Film noir is very close to my heart, and so are con films. And both of them blend very well together. In both, you get murky moralities. It's all grey. Good guys do bad things; bad guys do good things. The women keep changing sides; you don't know who's playing what. And through all the films I have written, I've always had that element of betrayal. It's a recurrent theme somewhere in my head, and here I can play with it and actually set up the audience, making the film a magic trick.
The film is diverting attention with one hand, while doing a trick with the other, and neatly laying out the cards at the end of it. I could use details like: the lighting would be very noir-ish; lots of shadows near the characters' eyes; two predominant
Is EKEH really an original film?
It is a remake of every con film ever made, every real con you've ever read about. It's imbibed from everything I've ever seen; I am a sum of what I have experienced in my life. For me, there are so many different homages in the film that I can't even name one, and there are so many things I always wanted to do and give it my twist for example, the opening of the film is in reverse, the coin goes into the palm. For me, these shots aren't inspired by a film like Memento, but they are, in my way, a homage to a film like Memento.
Then there's a homage to Harpo Marx, through Amin Hajee's character, who whistles throughout the film. He doesn't talk. The only person who understands him is Mukul Dev, playing the Chico role in this regard. You don't reference the Marx Brothers in a film like this, but I wanted to.
It's always a tricky task to give each character in an ensemble film their own depth and quirks. What about the people who populate your film?
Fardeen's character is patterned on a whole lot of leading men, but for me, ideally, he's (French actor) Alain Delon, seen in Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Cercle Rouge and Le Samourai. He was such a rake, and you didn't know how to react to him. One minute you love him, and the next you wonder, 'How the hell did I like this b******? He's a hateful guy!' And you're sure he has a plan. That's Fardeen's character entirely -- he could be beaten up and totally out of shape, but he's always trying to manipulate.
For me, EKEH is made up of whatever I've enjoyed most in my life. I'm making a film, and I want all my old friends, the best films, to be a part of this journey. Like with Mr (Feroz) Khan, I am very close to him, so I went to him and said I was making my first film, and that he had to be a part of it. I brought a mentor along to the film. Similarly, all these great (cinematic) moments I have always looked up to, are made to fall in pattern with my story, so you might find lots of references to other con films. You end up watching so many movies, and you want to share. For me, making a movie is like sitting around a campfire, telling stories -- just that it's done in a darkened theatre. You reference from wherever you want, it does not matter if the tale is an engaging one. This does not make the film a rip-off.
Were you happy with how the films you wrote (Janasheen, Karam, Zameen) translated to the screen?
If you're writing a novel, you're happy because what you write is what it is. The journey of your creativity ends there. With a film, a journey just begins at the script. The director ends up giving a life, a trait to every character, while you might have visualised something else when writing the film. The director has to interpret it his own way. It's the director's prerogative, and should be. Two directors will make the same script in a very different fashion. Sometimes things change that you don't agree with, as a writer. Which is probably why I turned director in four years.
What about when you are asked to adapt a Hollywood script?
I have been asked to adapt a lot of Hollywood films, which I have turned down. The one I have blatantly adapted is The Rock (with Qayamat), because it was a big producer and I was getting Ajay Devgan in the film. It was a nice commercial opportunity: it makes a lot of money and looks good on your portfolio. At the end of the day, I had a body of work prior to that and after that to show I am not just a remake-writer.
What about the process of direction itself? Were you ready to direct EKEH?
There's a very nice quote from Sidney Lumet in his book, Making Movies. He says, (paraphrasing) 'All your life you want to make a movie, and finally the day comes. There you are on the set, the cameras are there, the lights are on the set, the actors are there. Everybody's looking at you for what to do next, and you're supposed to say 'Action!''
Now, Fardeen, knowing it's the first shot, would try and save it, improvise and ask for the ring again. Then, she would say, 'Sir, I can't give you the ring, but I can wish you a happy birthday!'. At which point the whole unit would join in.
Everything was set. I said action, and was waiting for the woman to keep it together. Fardeen asked for the ring, she showed him the ring, and my con was ruined. I didn't know to cut because the scene was going all right. Still, I cut the scene, we tried again, and she managed to refuse him the ring. He was stunned. And then it worked! It was fun.
Do you think you've been too risky about the film? Do you think you might alienate an audience that might not be exposed to a film like this?
No. It's a very straightforward commercial film. I've not tried to alienate the audience in any manner. It's a complete entertainer with a whole lot of twists and turns that try to involve you. You try to guess what'll happen next. The audience is involved, and you keep training the audience -- as Koena learns the tricks of the con, so does the audience. Her reactions represent my audience. So, as the film rolls, the audience knows what to expect.
Yeah. People come out of the film and they tell you the ending, and it could ruin it. But this is more of a repeat viewing kind of film. In that sense, it's more like The Sixth Sense. Basically, (Manoj Night) Shyamalan had you. That 'he was a ghost!' moment made you recap the whole film, with you trying to figure out how you never realised it, and then you unraveling the film.
This is the kind of film you watch a second time to see how they did it. It's less about giving you the spoiler, and more about 'Aaah, that's how.'