GIVING THE (WRONG) DUE
The controversy surrounding Kangana Ranaut’s upcoming Simran won’t die down anytime soon. We talk to directors and actors on how often actors interfere in the creative process of the film and how much of it is tolerated
Kangana Ranaut has found herself in yet another full-blown controversy. Her upcoming film Simran, directed by Hansal Mehta, is the talk of the town with the writer, Apurva Asrani, accusing her of not only stealing his credits but also drastically changing the script.
Apurva took to Facebook to explain in a lengthy post how he was unhappy with Kangana for claiming that she cowrote the script of Simran, and that he felt “betrayed” by the actress, adding, “It was demeaning for any writer’s name to be pushed after an additional writing credit.”
Apurva’s post had initially sparked a lot of tension, and even spurred a completely new set of controversies. But when it comes to actors interfering in the creative process, how much is enough? Avinash Das, director of Anarkali
Arrahwali, says that while most actors are always giving inputs and bringing new perspectives to the table, it is up to the director to know when to draw a line. “In cases like these, the director needs to take a stand — he should know how much input is necessary and what all is excessive that needn’t be used.” He recalls how when shooting for Anarkali Arrahwali with Swara Bhaskar, the actress helped the director with a few fresh ideas. But, when offered the writing credits, she happily declined, saying that proposing a few ideas doesn’t make her the writer of the film.
Bollywood writers aren’t facing this for the first time. In the past, Amol Gupte, who was originally supposed to direct Taare Zameen Par, had to compromise with Aamir Khan eventually directing the film. Kangana’s argument is simple. In an interview she gave following the controversy, she said, “If an actor is so insignificant in the scheme of things, why put him or her on the poster?” Meaning that if the film is sold because of her face, she should have a say in what goes on as the final product.
Theatre person and director Jeff Goldberg explains how the suggestions offered by the actors can be utilised by the director. “I’m fine with actors giving me suggestions that can improve the final product.” He further explains by pointing out a key difference. “There’s a difference between ad-libbing and improvisation. Ad-libbing is making a little tweak in the dialogue, but saying more or less the same thing. But improvisation is like writing a whole new scene. An actor has to say a dialogue to create an emotional connect with the audience. However, it depends, once again, heavily on the director, who wants a dialogue to be said in a particular way,” he says.
This is exactly what even Patralekha concurs with. The actress, who worked with Hansal for the 2014 hit CityLights opposite Rajkummar Rao, says that the director does give some liberty to actors, but he also knows where to draw a line. “I am given the liberty to change the way I say the dialogue and in other cases, I am not given that liberty and the directors feel that I should be limited to the lines given as those dialogues showcase the true essence of the characters.”
She says it boils down to different perspectives offered by the two creative people. “As directors and actors, we have different viewpoints. As an actor, we have a perception of the character and as a director, they might have a different viewpoint, therefore, actors and directors should work together in bringing about a better way the character can be shown.”
Jeff concludes with the point that art is a joint venture and not the product of one mind. “All forms of art are collaborative. Actors and writers both enhance art, and therefore, both parties need to be respected.” Meanwhile, amidst all the chaos, Hansal has finally spoken his mind. When Apurva called him “spineless,” Hansal, in a Twitter post wrote, “My spine is whatever it is, weak or strong; it is only for my film and nothing else. If I chose to not speak it is for my film. And when I do speak it will only be in service of my film (sic)”
To Apurva, he said, “Don’t try to harm my film.”