AJAY DEVGN INTERVIEW / A SHORTER VERSION APPEARED IN MAXIM

“India’s biggest superstar, Rajinikanth, moves around without hair & doesn’t care. But on screen he’s completely different. You just need to be right on screen”

Ajay Devgn is in a happy place right now. His last film Drishyam was a hit. His co-production Parched was premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival 2015. And he is currently working on his most expensive film till date as a producer, Shivaay, which he is also directing and acting in. It’s enough to get him talking although, as he says in this exclusive interview, he does “not like to talk too much”.

By Anna MM Vetticad

Congratulations on the success of Drishyam. Before the release you had described it as a small film. How did you arrive at that categorisation?

Thank you so much. I called it small only in terms of the budgetary requirements of a film of that nature. A family drama with very strong content but without action scenes, locations and songs is a small film budgetwise, not contentwise. You can’t expect a Rs 200 crore business from it. The masses are not ready to accept it in a way, so the business is slow. If the costing of such a film is in control it’s easier for it to succeed financially. Such a film won’t easily get a great opening but of course in terms of content it may be bigger than many of my other films, which is why it lasted in theatres for so many weeks, a phenomenon that is unheard of in this day and time when the trend is for films to be over and done with after two weeks. 

Outsiders assume that the industry sees a film as big or small based on whether the star in the film is big or small. So you’re saying that’s not true?

Yes. It’s always based on the content and its budgetary requirement. Of course when you cast a star, that star comes with a certain price so the budget becomes higher. As a star then you have to decide how much you should be taking for such a film. 

Kamal Haasan told me in an interview, “I’m constrained by the size of my stardom in the kind of movies I can do… Sometimes I’m told not to make a small film. I’m told: It will shrink your market.” Does this happen to you too? 

Yes, all stars have these pressures. A lot of people who are not very sensible and who are just business-driven tell you you should not do small films because the industry expects a certain kind of collection from your film. I tell them, “Look, it depends on what I feel like doing.” Sometimes you want to do a content-driven film. They told me this before Drishyam but the film attracted the kind of audiences who have not seen Hindi films for years because of the word of mouth it received for its content. It’s not that in the first week it did great business and then it dropped. It just remained steady for weeks on end. So in the eyes of the audience, the film is not small and the actor has become bigger. 

But these so-called trade people always say, you should do bigger films because your image is larger than life. I agree my image is larger than life and I knew that a certain kind of audience,  which is technically my audience, I would say the masses, will not come for Drishyam because they don’t want to see Ajay Devgn getting beaten up. 

If you look at it literally your character may have been getting beaten up in the film, but in truth he beats everyone including the system without raising a fist.

This is what I kept saying in my interviews, that the character is not weak, he is much stronger than a Singham because he fights with his brains, not his hands. That is why I think the film has worked. A certain kind of audience which likes just action and high drama hasn’t come in for sure, we do face that problem as stars, but it’s not very difficult to break it. 

See, in any industry people will tell you that the right way to do things is how other people did it and made it. But you find your own path and when you succeed, those same people turn round and say, “We always knew this film would work.” 

So in that sense, does stardom give you more freedom or does it place more constraints on you? 

Both. It gives you more freedom in the sense that you can do big films that are also not bad cinema. Nowadays a balance between great content and big action is what works big time all over the world. Like Iron Man. Even Bond is not the same Bond who was at one time just about gadgets. They’ve made even Bond very real. Big entertainers these days need to have sensibilities that go with today’s times. A star can afford to do such big films. 

Is it true that you’ve taken a year-long break from acting to prepare for your next film Shivaay?

Kind of, yes, except for 40-45 days of shooting for Drishyam in between. 

Why did you feel the need to take this break? 

I needed to prep for Shivaay because I’m directing it myself. It’s a difficult film to make. We’re shooting in very difficult terrain. The kind of action and drama it has requires a lot of detailing. There’s huge action in the Balkans in minus 15 degrees temperature. It is not easy preparing for it. 

So you acted in Drishyam, which is an understated thriller. You are producing, directing and acting in Shivaay, which is a big-budget commercial venture. And you’ve produced Parched, which was screened at the Toronto International Film Festival 2015. That’s a lot of departments of filmmaking and a lot of genres of films. What kind of mix are you trying to achieve in your career right now?

I think a good-cinema mix. Shivaay is a commercial film but it has strong content too. That’s the path I’m taking. That is the only way to show the world we make films that have brilliant content and are technically strong. Russell Carpenter, the cameraman of Titanic, has done Parched. We could afford him only because he cut down his price for passion, for the script. There too they do some films out of passion for the project and some for the money. That’s what I’m trying to do too. 

What is your personal style? 

If I attend a function where it’s not compulsory to wear a tie, I would not. (Laughs) I would wear something like jeans and a jacket. I’m in that zone where I want to be comfortable. I’m not much into suits and things like that.

  

Would you agree that even looking casual can take a great deal of effort?

It does. The bottomline is that if you stay fit anything sobre works on your body because it falls right. Even the most expensive clothes won’t suit you if you don’t have a toned, fit body. 

Has your attitude to style and styling changed over the years?

I have everything in my cupboard, but you know what I wear when I go off to shoot in the morning? Shorts or jeans, a T-shirt and my chappals. Because I’ve to go there, dress up for the film, pack up and come back home (laughs) so I don’t really care about what I wear. 

Have you not become more style-aware after you married Kajol? 

She’s never bothered. (laughs)

She’s also been known as someone who is not overly conscious of how she dresses. Would you agree that that typifies her style?

Ya, she is also casual about it. 

Is it possible for a person to be a film star in this day and age without being at least slightly conscious of their style and styling?

You are conscious only when you are in front of the camera. That’s why you have designers and others to dress you up according to the character. Apart from that I don’t think it makes any difference. Look at the biggest superstar in the country, Rajinikanth. He moves around without hair and he doesn’t care. But when he comes on screen he’s completely different.  

Then why are so many stars so conscious of what they wear on red carpets and at other public appearances? 

They want to compete and I’m not saying it’s wrong. It’s good to dress well. If I’m walking on a red carpet I would be also wearing something decent, I just wouldn’t be very very conscious and going mad over what to wear. I guess for some there is an insecurity too as a result of which they feel they have to look good all the time. I just feel that once people have accepted you and like you, they like you the way you are. You just need to be right on screen. 

Your daughter is 12, an age at which today’s parents have to be vigilant about the use of gadgets and the Internet because of all the information out there. How are you handling that?

We’re trying our best. It’s very tough because they have access in school and at home, and there’s wi-fi everywhere. We have blocked a lot of things, we talk to her and – touchwood – she does understand what she should and should not be seeing but the fact is that at 12, today’s kids know as much as we knew when we were 25. You can’t change that. All you can do is explain to them what is right and wrong. You can’t sit on their heads for 24 hours looking at what they’re doing on their laptops, computers and telephones. So the best way is to talk it out. 

So is the key then to be the kind of parent they feel they can always speak to? 

Yes, and that’s what my daughter does. Even if she sees something stupid, she would come and tell me that she saw something by mistake or she went to the wrong site. She’s very sensible that ways. Talking really really helps. And talking not at the age of 12, you need to start at the age of five or six.

But in most Indian families, if a child told her parents that she ended up seeing something she knows her parents wouldn’t want her to see, parents would say “tumhe aisi cheezein nahin dekhni chahiye (you shouldn’t see such things)” and end the conversation. 

But you need to explain to them why. If any parent today thinks that at the age of 12 or 13 your child does not know what sex is and how they were born, they are just shutting their eyes to facts. Kids know everything these days so it’s better that before they come to know from outside in a different manner and in a negative manner, you talk it out with them. 

You have Twitter and Facebook accounts. How comfortable are you with the social media?

Not great. I try to do a little bit of whatever I can, but I’m not very active. 

Is that a reflection of the kind of person you are, who tends to want to keep to himself? 

Ya ya that is the kind of person I am. I do not like to share too much, I do not like to talk too much, I don’t have anything to say when I have nothing to say. (laughs)

When stars first started taking to Twitter and FB, many from the older generation felt the social media is killing stardom as we know it because it destroys the mystique once considered essential to stardom. What’s your take on that? 

I also somewhere believe in that. That is another reason why I maintain a distance. 

Do you absolutely have to be on the social media to be successful these days?

Not really. I don’t believe that. 

In that case, considering the kind of person you are, why are you making the effort at all? 

Some things are required for film promotions because film promotions have gone haywire. It’s also a means through which fan clubs can stay connected to you. Earlier there were letters and fan mail, but things have changed. So if you are on social media, it makes them happy. But I’m not there to say, “Okay I just had a shower and just now I’m out doing this and that.” You will see one tweet from me in 2-3 days. So for instance, if they all wished my son a happy birthday I was moved and I thanked them. 

Do you consider yourself tech-savvy?

Where technology about films is concerned, if you talk about CGI or how to operate a camera, I can beat anybody hands down. But where computers or other gadgets are concerned, I’ve never bothered. 

Why not? 

I have enough on my hands. So if there’s something that I don’t know how to do on my I-Pad, I ask my daughter, “Can you do this for me?” (laughs)

Do you learn more from your failures or successes?

Both. And from other people’s failures and successes. Sometimes a film has worked but you know there was something wrong with it, so you tell yourself it should not happen again. Every day you learn. Even when it comes to films for which I’ve got national awards or people have appreciated my work, I don’t want to watch myself. I feel like, what shit work I’ve done yaar, I could have done it better. So I get embarrassed. 

What did the box-office fate of Action Jackson (2014) and Himmatwala (2013) teach you?

To follow your heart. In the past, when on the first day of shooting I’ve realised a film is not going the way I thought it would, I have not stopped the film there itself because it harms the producers. I don’t know if I can do it in future, but I would like to. Because I do realise in the first one or two days whether the film is going to work or not. That’s also why I’ve become very wary. I’m done with these kinds of mediocre films, doing films for the sake of doing films. That’s why I’m doing films like Shivaay, Parched and Drishyam. Now I’m doing films I really believe in and for which I don’t have to depend much on others.

But when you read the scripts of Action Jackson and Himmatwala were you convinced? 

With Himmatwala (a remake of the 1983 film of the same name starring Jeetendra and Sridevi) I was convinced in the sense that Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai (2010) had worked big time so I thought the director of Himmatwala (Sajid Khan) is going to the same zone. I thought he’s picking up the base from the original and he’s going to make it contemporary. But on the first day of shooting, looking at the way he asked me to perform and the way he put up the set, I was like, “Why are you doing this?” and he said, “Let people see what was made in the ’80s” and I was like, “Okay we’re screwed ya.” I won’t blame anybody much for Action Jackson because just as we were about to start shooting we came to know that our script completely resembles Dhoom 3 which was about to release in the next three months. So I delayed the film by a month, they started reworking the script, I still wasn’t happy but the set was put up and it was costing money to the producer, so I went ahead and did it. There I wouldn’t blame Prabhu (director Prabhudheva). 

What about the fact that he made you dance a lot in Action Jackson? 

I kept telling him that people do not expect this of me, but he had this issue that “Okay I want to show the world that I can make you dance”. (laughs) 

Is it just that people don’t want to see you dancing or that dancing is not your strength?

It is not my strength. I also got a lot of flak for Rascals (2011) from people who told me very nicely: “Look, we don’t expect vulgarity from you. We like to see you in films like Gangaajal (2003), Singham (2011) or clean comedies like Golmaal (2006). We connect with you not as a star but as a person who’s just right on screen.” That was when I decided not do anything vulgar or which kids can’t watch. That is also when I realised that I should not try to be somebody else, I should be me because that is what people like. That’s where I knew an Action Jackson was going wrong because I knew people don’t like to see me dancing, they would like to see me doing what I’m good at. So now I follow that. That’s why I did Drishyam.  

You seem to have great clarity about your strengths and weaknesses. Where does that come from?

From being honest to yourself? 

When you are a big star, do you not get surrounded by people who are…

I never let them. My second line after “from being honest to yourself” was going to be, and from knowing why people are around you. You should know why people are around you, what they want and why. If you are sensible enough to know what is not working but they’re saying it’s working, that means they’re lying to you. You should know who are the right people and who are the wrong people. I think I know. I have a lot of people around me who are very honest and critical about what I do. They don’t have to bother if I’ll feel bad or good. If you see me on film sets, I would be sitting alone, I wouldn’t have 20 people surrounding me and chatting because I don’t have time for that. If the shot is done and I have time, I go to my van and do my own thing. From the beginning I’ve been very grounded that way. I give my father (action director Veeru Devgan) the credit for this, because when I’ve visited him I used to go on the sets and I’ve seen all this happening to other stars. I understood from my father, so I’ve never let that happen to me. 

So one of the rules of stardom for you is no sycophants, no chamchas?

Ya. That is how it has always been. 

Give me more rules of stardom from your book. 

(Long pause) I don’t know. I don’t even think of myself as a star. I mean I just get up and go for work, as insecure as anybody else.

Maybe that’s one of the rules?

Ya, maybe that’s one of the rules. Even today, after 25 years of being in films, before giving a shot I don’t know if I’ll be able to pull it off. That insecurity helps you to grow. 

And? 

And always be aware of what is happening in the world around you. That too will help you to grow, and to know when you’re being fooled and when you’re not. 

(A shorter version of this interview by Anna MM Vetticad appeared in the November 2015 issue of Maxim magazine)

Photographs courtesy: https://www.facebook.com/AjayDevgn/ 

Note: These photographs were not published in Maxim 

FAQs FOR FILM CRITICS / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

SHOULD I WATCH THIS FILM?

Should I watch this film? Who cares about your review? …And other questions most frequently asked to critics by readers and viewers.

By Anna MM Vetticad

Should I watch this film? Not only is this the question most frequently asked of critics, it’s also the toughest to answer. Because people expect to hear a “yes” or “no”, whereas the logical reply is this: “That depends on your taste in cinema. If your interests and tastes match mine, the answer is X. If not, the answer is Y. I would suggest though that you read my review because so many things that matter to me may not bother you and vice versa.”

You see, it’s not the job of critics to tell potential viewers whether or not to watch a film, though an individual critic may choose to do so if she or he wishes. The critic’s primary job, however, is to give people a considered, well-informed assessment of a film and put it in perspective keeping in mind the socio-political and cultural context in which it has been made (Is it misogynistic? Is it sucking up to the government? Does it do justice to the book on which it’s based?), that particular team’s body of work and other factors.

When I explain this to those who have the patience to listen, the next question invariably is this: with so many contradictory reviews, how do I decide which films to watch?

That’s easy. There are some stars and directors to whom we are so committed that the harshest review in the world couldn’t dissuade us from watching their work. For the general mass of films though, a discerning consumer of reviews could perhaps follow a number of critics over a length of time, find one or two whose views tend to match theirs and then heed those critiques.

Over the years, I’ve gathered a list of other FAQs directed at critics. Here they are:

Can I take my kids for it?

I love parents who are responsible enough to make this inquiry. My friend Ravi says I should introduce a parental guide on my blog for concerned dads like him. The only reason why I have not yet done so is that like the previous question, there is no simple answer to this one. It depends on what you are willing to expose your children to. Some people don’t want their children to see even a brief kiss, others are anxious about long smooches, yet others draw the line at explicit sex. Me? I worry about violence and prejudice.

Will it be a hit?

I don’t know. A film may get a great response from everyone who sees it, but they could be small in number because it was released at exam time when families were staying away from theatres. Box-office success is a combination of so many factors beyond our personal opinions about a film’s quality.

Who cares about your review?

This one comes only from angry fans if you’ve dissed their favourite star’s film.

Is this your review or your personal opinion?

I do not understand this one. Of course it is my personal opinion. A fellow critic once told me he watches films with the public rather than at press previews so that he can decide his review based on audience reactions. This approach completely misses the point that our reactions to films are governed by our backgrounds, the exposure we’ve had to the arts and so on. Besides, one person who adores a film may hoot, whistle and dance in a hall, another may smile quietly to herself. Responses may differ from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. It’s hard to tell what purpose a review serves if you cannot even stand by it, since it’s not your own viewpoint.

Do reviews make a difference to collections?

Yes. Most people agree that small films get a boost from positive reviews. Big mainstream films with major stars and massive marketing are less likely to be affected, and yet reviews obviously contribute to the buzz surrounding a film. If negative reviews combine with poor audience feedback, even a huge film’s collections could possibly suffer after the first day or weekend, as producers may tell you in their more honest moments. Likewise, if a team that traditionally gets negative reviews were to suddenly earn positive comments, this too could generate curiosity. Without doubt, Salman Khan was catapulted to a different league altogether — from having his own committed fan following to attracting the interest of those who weren’t traditionally his fans — when Wanted and Dabangg unexpectedly received good reviews from at least some critics who had not previously shown a fondness for his work.

Anyway, don’t take my word for this. Ask Rohit Shetty, director of blockbusters such as Chennai Express and Singham. When I interviewed him for my book, The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic, Shetty spent a considerable part of the conversation cursing critics and telling me how little we know about what the audience wants. He also insisted that critics should publish reviews on Monday, instead of on the Friday of a film’s release. If you think there is a major disconnect between what critics say and what audiences like, then it should not make a difference to you, I said. He replied: “I’m saying, ho sakta hai ek crore ka business aap log kha jaate ho. Ho sakta hai na? (It’s possible that you jeopardise a crore worth of business. Isn’t it possible?)”

Yes it is.

(Anna MM Vetticad is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)

(This column by Anna MM Vetticad was first published in The Hindu Businessline newspaper on December 27, 2014)

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingaa

Note: This photograph did not appear in The Hindu Businessline

REVIEW 284: SINGHAM RETURNS

Release date:	August 15, 2014
Director:	Rohit Shetty
Cast: Language:	Ajay Devgn, Kareena Kapoor Khan, Amole Gupte, Zakir Hussain, Mahesh Manjrekar, Anupam Kher, Dayanand Shetty, Sharat Saxena, Ashwini Kalsekar Hindi

READ AT YOUR OWN RISK: LONG REVIEW AHEAD, FILLED WITH SPOILERS

“Meri zaroorte kam hai, isliye mere zameer mein dum hai.” Remember the hero Bajirao Singham’s signature line in director Rohit Shetty’s blockbuster Singham? Or the villain’s equally memorable, melodramatic trademark utterance, “Sab kuchh karne ka, lekin Jaykanth Shikre ka ego hurt nahin karne ka”? I kept waiting for killer dialoguebaazi like that to pop up in the film’s sequel, Singham Returns, that’s now in theatres. What came instead was Singham telling a group of errant youngsters, “Tumhari zaroorat jail ko nahin, desh ko hai,” and telling us how “tareeka nahin, taakat” is what he needs to vanquish a corrupt Maharashtra politician and a dishonest sadhu. Comparatively thanda, as you can see. Singham in this film also repeats some of the more successful lines from Part 1, such as his iconic Marathi dialogue: “Aata maajhi satakli.”

That, in a nutshell, encapsulates this film: it’s fun but it lacks the imagination and the novelty value of its prequel. Singham was the Hindi remake of writer-director Hari’s highly successful Tamil film Singam starring southern Indian screen siren and superstar Suriya. Shetty’s Bollywood version with Ajay Devgn in the lead was a virtual carbon copy of the Tamil original, combining enjoyably unrealistic 1970s/80s-style filmic conversations reminiscent of Amitabh Bachchan’s biggest hits, with equally unrealistic, high-octane, imaginatively choreographed action scenes, at an unrelenting pace. For those who don’t mind the required suspension of disbelief, Singham was a thoroughly entertaining experience. Singham Returns is based on Shetty’s own original story with a screenplay by Yunus Sajawal, dialogues by Farhad-Sajid and action by Shetty himself, Jai Singh Nijjar and Sunil Rodrigues. The decline in quality is a reminder of how much Singham owed the writer/s and action director of the Tamil film.

Singham was the story of a politician avenging his insult at the hands of an honest policeman in a small town on the border of Goa and Maharashtra. In Singham Returns, the Mumbai-based DCP Bajirao Singham is caught in the crosshairs of a coalition government battle between the honest Maharashtra Chief Minister (Mahesh Manjrekar) and his idealistic mentor (Anupam Kher) pitted against the corrupt neta Prabhakar Rao (Zakir Hussain) and a holy man (Amole Gupte) whose sabhas with his devotees are a cover for a black money racket.

There’s enough meat in that basic storyline to sustain Singham Returns’ two hour-plus running time for those in an indulgent mood. What’s lacking is the punch and pizzazz of Singham’s stunts and dialogues with their delightfully unapologetic over-the-top-ness. There are a couple of well-designed shootouts here, one scene in which Bajirao Singham flies out from behind a vehicle in slow motion to shoot down a bunch of bad guys even while his body is still suspended in mid-air, and another in which he coolly jumps over a wall; scenes that had me half-giggling, half-wanting-to-whistle. But there’s just not enough where that came from.

If you found the first film troublesome for its unthinking justification of police atrocities, be warned: this one takes that attitude several notches higher. In Singham Returns’ uni-dimensional world, all police personnel are squeaky clean, encounters are a justifiable method of policing, and unbridled power must be placed in the hands of these great men because, you see, there’s no question of any of these flawless, angelic creatures misusing their powers.

This lack of nuance is nothing but laziness in writing from a man who is capable of more. Yes please, it may be intellectually fashionable to brush aside all Shetty’s work as mindless, but that’s actually not the case. Note how, for instance, with Chennai Express, he got all of north India to watch a film in which about 40 per cent of the dialogues were in Tamil without subtitles. The Marathi dialogues in the Singham series are not as many (there was even some Tulu in the first film), but they’re still enough for the determined lack of subtitles to be noticeable.

Notice too the thread of secularism neatly woven into Singham Returns. During a song filmed at Maqdoom Shah Baba’s dargah – a regular haunt of the Mumbai police force, we are told – Singham wears a Muslim skullcap while at prayer. The significance of that scene cannot be lost on an India debating Narendra Modi’s refusal to wear a skullcap offered by a friendly maulvi although he gladly wears the headgear of all other communities, including the Sikh turban. While filming that scene, wonder if Team Shetty was conscious of Devgn’s known closeness to Modi.

The ever-reliable actor delivers an effective performance as Singham. Kareena Kapoor Khan in the limited role of his gluttonous, drama queen of a girlfriend displays her flair for comedy that has been poorly exploited by Bollywood outside Shetty’s Golmaal series. It’s sad though to see a female star of her stature playing fifth fiddle to a major male star in yet another film. For what it’s worth, Shetty’s directorial hand is evident here in her friendly on-screen equation with the hero, a far cry from the amusing tepidity of their pairing in Prakash Jha’s Satyagraha last year.

Instead of glossing over the 12-year age difference between the stars, the screenplay even has her teasing him about dyeing his hair to hide his age, while he tells her in turn that she “looks like a married woman” even though she is young. Elsewhere, one of his juniors says: “Shaadi kar lijiye saab, aapki umar nikal rahi hai.” The refusal to act with women their age continues, but at least some – though not all – of our 40-plus male stars are acknowledging their age on screen.

Singham Returns is a fine example of the dispensability of women in Bollywood sequels. The hero’s girlfriend Kavya (Kajal Aggarwal) in Singham is casually replaced here by Kareena’s Avni. This is standard practice in Hindi film franchises (read: Hera Pheri, Phir Hera Pheri, Race, Race 2), but it’s disappointing coming from the director who gave us the fiercely feisty Meenamma (Deepika Padukone), equal partner to SRK’s Rahul in Chennai Express last year.

The pick of the supporting cast in this film is Amole Gupte playing the evil Babaji who swills alcohol in shorts and Celtics / Dope Chef T-shirts in the confines of his home. Gupte shows flashes of brilliance in his performance, but the writing of Babaji is not as well-rounded as the characterisation of Jaykanth Shikre in Singham. Dayanand Shetty as Singham’s colleague Daya is an interesting addition to the cast. His role as Daya in the iconic teleserial CID gives Singham Returns one of its best lines. An over-made-up Ashwini Kalsekar is laughable as a TV journalist.

DoP Dudley’s cinematography is eye-catching, giving us sweeping aerial shots of Maharashtra’s bridges and water bodies and capturing Mumbai’s Gateway of India rather beautifully. After a while though, those overhead shots become repetitive. As for the music, the title track playing in the background replete with Sanskrit shlokas and throbbing beats remains as catchy as it was when first used in the 2011 film. However, the original songs composed for this film are dull.

Dullness is excusable, not so the deeply disturbing picturisation of Yo Yo Honey Singh’s Aata maajhi satakli accompanying the end credits. It’s bad enough that television dance contests sexualise children. Ajay, Kareena and the controversial singer-musician dance to the song accompanied by a large troupe of children mimicking Ajay’s body language of fury from the rest of the film. Singham Returns, like its predecessor, is an extremely violent film and Ajay’s “Aata maajhi satakli” dialogue signifies his hot-headedness and penchant for fisticuffs. The gore could be passed off with a caveat for adult viewers, but it is decidedly distasteful to try and sweeten the after-effects of bloodletting with the irritatingly precocious dance moves of little kids.

It’s unlikely that Shetty and his team of writers thought that through. Equally poorly developed is the means of protest used by the police in an extended sequence in the film: they take off their uniform shirts in front of the boss and march down the streets in banians. In a country where the male-dominated mass audience sees actresses primarily as sex objects, in an industry where actresses are primarily used as glamourous asides, it would have been clear to the writers that they couldn’t show women taking off their shirts in the same fashion without drawing leery wolf whistles from sections of the audience and lending a whole different dimension to that scene. What is Singham Returns’ solution? It excludes women completely from the protagonists’ immediate team. Later in the crowd a few policewomen are shown in loose white tees instead of uniform shirts, but the secondariness of the women in the entire protest is unmistakable. This scene is reminiscent of the manner in which girls were erased from the underwear protest in the children’s film Chillar Party. As it is in filmmaking, so it is in other areas of life too. If the presence of women in a scenario throws up challenges, we tend not to look for a solution to the challenge; we exclude women from that scenario instead. Easy, no?

A nip here, a tuck there, a tweak here, a touch there, and this could have been a much better and even a much more entertaining film. Those tweaks and tucks would have required more time invested in writing though, which perhaps was considered unnecessary in a film that could make money merely from resting on the laurels of its prequel. Ah well, as it is now, Singham Returns is good enough for a single watch. Fun but unremarkable and unmemorable, that’s what it is.

Rating (out of five stars): **1/2

CBFC Rating (India):	U/A
Running time:	142 minutes

Photograph courtesy: Effective Communication