Riding two horses with elan

A `thiruvizha' inspired `Avatharam', a Vikramaditya tale got him reeling out `Devathai'.

And now, Robinhood has him excited with `Maayan'. But the story is just inspiration for content. ``The real challenge is the form. What's in a `Titanic'? You call it commercial film. But that film as a form, in terms of aesthetics, is one of the best art films of our era,'' says Nasser getting started on a special class for Sudhish Kamath on the form, art and science of cinema, theatre and histrionics.

NASSER DOES not have a choice. ``Even if I'm choosy, the choices are very few. Cinema today throws up stereotypes. And even within that, I try to do my best. Sometimes, because it's a good unit and production company... Sometimes, for money,'' he says quite candidly.

Maybe that's why he was tempted to exploit his acting skills in his directorial ventures? ``No... The films I made were not to showcase me or project my acting skills. I was not supposed to act...I couldn't get the actors I wanted and had to do the role myself. Acting and directing....riding two horses is very difficult,'' says Nasser.

`Avatharam' was slow but real, `Devathai' was a fantasy. Both were entirely different subjects but were written off as flops.

``There is huge confusion in the minds of our audience. We haven't taught them films as a form. Here, we have a conception that a good film is one which has a message. There is a conception that commercial films should be unrealistic, need not have aesthetics,'' he says.

``This is only in India... if you look at James Bond films, or other Hollywood films, you will find that they have not sacrificed aesthetics for the sake of commercialisation. `Sholay' was a milestone that took Indian cinema to some other level. Films thereon got more mythical, unreal and fantasy-based,'' explains Nasser.

Indian cinema, thanks to its roots in theatre has over the years been rich with melodrama and what critics today call ``loud acting''. And suddenly we find films, especially recent Tamil releases being realistic portrayals of youth. Does Nasser see the change?

``Thirty years back, when actors had their roots in theatre, even though they were melodramatic, they were able to sustain that kind of emotion and move the audience. How many films today can boast of that? Theatre actors have had disciplined training. And training makes an actor more than talent,'' Nasser argues.

``In the name of realistic acting or ''underplaying``, any person can become an `actor'. Acting does not just mean delivery (dialogue) or mouthing dialogues casually... okay, tell me where do actors today come from,'' the theatre-bred actor asks.

``Shallow actors make for shallow stories or films and shallow stories make for shallow actors. If you look at the structure of films today, you can see that it is light throughout, no challenging scenes for an actor, lot of comedy thrown in and finally a climax. The actor does not have the responsibility to carry the film on his shoulders. The ingredients do that for him,'' says Nasser.

``Actors don't have to be melodramatic. Actors of yesteryear, Sivaji, Baliah, M.R.Radha were able to hold you. Can our young actors match them? We will have a weaker breed of actors in the future because we don't have a training ground for actors. Today, cinema has taken over all forms of performing arts, that there is so little theatre happening,'' he adds.

``I have decided to be an actor and director. So sometimes, I act. Sometimes, direct.'' Theatre? ``There is very little theatre activity, but I need that activity to keep polishing myself, get my mind refreshed,'' he says, hinting that there is a revival that is planned and in the pipeline.

``The world has become very scientific. One has to be trained to go a long way. Even if the talent is wild, if it is not in control, it could destroy the actor,'' he says. Given that most of the stories have been told, it is the acting, the style, the form that would make for good cinema, he believes. Nasser talks of `Lion King' and how it made him realise that there was more to cinema than theories we learn in film-schools. But having said that, the director wishes critics at least had a film appreciation course to their credit and understood cinema in terms of form rather than just content.

``Don't just say it is bad. Say why it is bad,'' he pleads. ``How many critics can do that?''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Amazing dotcoms and easy buys
Next     : A summer that spelt cruelty