Kamal Haasan and Mani Ratnam during the shooting.
Muktha V. Srinivasan, the producer of Nayakan, responds to Kamal
Haasan’s article ‘Of course, Velu Nayakan doesn’t dance’ (Magazine,
October 21).
Initially I wanted to make a movie inspired by the story of The Godfather.
I had narrated the story to my friend Sivaji Ganesan, who agreed to act
in the film. I also requested Kamal Haasan and Amala to act in this
movie.
I paid an advance and confirmed their dates. This was reported in
the press. However Ananthu, then an associate of Kamal Haasan, felt
that it would be a Sivaji- focused film and not a Kamal Haasan movie.
The project was dropped. Kamal later told me about Mani Ratnam. Mani
narrated a story based on the life of a don from Bombay.
He also had
written the screenplay, which was very good. The scenes and dialogues
were realistic and I liked it. Mani told us that he would complete the
shooting in 60 days and he would need 70 rolls of film. The salary for
Kamal Haasan was Rs. 17, 50,000. And the budget for the film was
estimated at Rs. 60 lakh. Yes, it was a big budget. However it became
“over-budget”, with expenses crossing Rs. 1 crore – almost twice the
original estimate.
Shooting commenced in November 1986 and the
first schedule lasted 10 days. All the scenes that were shot were
scrapped since Kamal Haasan did not like them. The screenplay had to be
rewritten. Shooting was postponed. The new screenplay had lot of
violence and I was shocked as it was a copy of The Godfather and Once Upon a Time in America.
I told Mani that a good writer and director should get inspiration from
life, and not copy from other films. I objected to the story as it
would not attract a family audience. So I created a heroine character
(the wife of Kamal Haasan) and introduced Saranya. Had Mani not listened
to Kamal and gone with the original script, it would have been an
outstanding movie.
Kamal Haasan wanted the film to be shot at
Dharavi in Bombay, which was the largest and most congested slum in
Asia. I did not want to shoot the entire movie in Bombay – but not
because I was “tightfisted,” as Kamal claims. I was always interested in
shooting in different locations.
Though it was not very easy to shoot
outside studios, those days, I had shot in Kashmir, Nepal, Shimla and
the Andamans. But when I visited Dharavi, I found that it was not
possible to shoot there, since it was thickly populated. Also, I was
concerned about the security of the crew.
Using photographs of the slum,
art director Thota Tharani created the set at Venus studios, Chennai,
which turned out three times more expensive than it would have been had
we shot at Dharavi. We had to hire thousands of junior artists to create
that atmosphere. The remaining portion was shot at Bombay.
The
movie was completed and released in October 1987. After 25 years Kamal
Haasan has suddenly chosen to talk about it, distorting the facts for
reasons best known to him, and undermining the contributions made by
everyone.
When Mani Ratnam narrated the story, he told me that he
wanted to make a realistic film with real characters, which meant no
makeup and the use of Tamil attire like the dhoti and lungi.
He was not interested in bringing in either a Hollywood stuntman or a
makeup man. I felt that Velu Naicker did not need a “Hollywood” makeup
man and costumer. In fact it was Kamal Haasan’s idea to bring such
people in. Our company had a makeup man and costumers who were all paid
by me. To state that there was no budget for makeup and costumes is
absurd.
As far as using international artist Jim Allen, he was
charging a huge amount (almost Rs. 2,00,000 per day), that too in
dollars, which was not feasible in those days. I could not concede to
this request, since it meant engaging in illegal and unethical hawala
transactions. Moreover, the stunts that Mr. Allen suggested were already
in vogue.
Mani would have come up with a better scene had Kamal not
insisted on copying from The Godfather. All the props which were used in the movie were paid for by me. As far as ittar is
concerned, Kamal Haasan never asked me for it. Had I known, I would
have bought it myself, since it is available even in Pondy bazaar.
Before
going into a shooting schedule, I had always ensured that the all the
film rolls needed for the schedule were made available so that the
shooting could go on without interruption. Mani asked for 15 rolls of
film for 10 days of shooting. On the evening of the seventh day, Mani’s
assistant director Govindarajan asked for an extra roll, since they had
exposed all the 15 rolls. Since the Kodak company opened only in the
morning, Kamal Haasan gave the film rolls that he had purchased for his
earlier movie. I paid him for these rolls. However, P.C. Sreeram did not
use it, as it was old stock.
After the completion of shooting
Kamal Haasan and Mani Ratnam had a press meet, where they made a
statement that the movie was based on Varadaraja Mudaliar’s life. After
this, the censor board at Chennai refused to permit the release of the
movie, since it was based on a living person.
I appealed to the revising
committee at Bombay. They said that they would permit us to release the
film if I got a letter stating that it was not based on Varadaraja
Mudaliar’s life. I asked Kamal Haasan to help me. He simply refused,
stating that he was busy shooting another movie. Hence, with great
difficulty, I contacted Mathiolli Shanmugam, a writer and good friend of
mine, and through him met Varadaraja Mudaliar, who gave us a letter.
Only then did the Censor appellate board at Bombay permit us to release
the film. To call the movie his “baby” and not be bothered about its
release is a reflection on Kamal Haasan’s ‘sincerity’.
A good
artist is one who gets inspired from a movie. The scene where Kamal
Haasan cries on seeing the dead body of his son is copied from The Godfather,
and he imitates Marlon Brando. This scene was booed by the audience,
because it never fit the character and lacked nativity.
When the film
was completed and the first print was shown to me, the film ran for 3
hours. Both Kamal and Mani wanted me to release the film as it was,
whereas I knew that the audience would never sit through the movie. I
told the editor Lenin to edit several unnecessary scenes. This gave life
to the movie, along with the theme music Thenpandi seemayilae. Had it not been for Ilayaraja and Lenin, the movie would have flopped.
Hi-speed negative film was introduced in India in 1985-86, and all cinematographers began to shoot in low light. Even our movie Kodai Mazhai, which came out before Nayakan,
was shot in low light. When we screened the movie in theatres, the
projector operators expressed reservations since they had to use extra
carbon, which was very expensive.
That was the reason I expressed my
apprehension. I consulted colourist Narayanan of Gemini Lab who assured
me that he would increase the brightness while printing and we had no
problem while screening the film in theatres. They are the unsung heroes
who were part of the success story.
To generate and invest Rs. 1
crore in a Tamil movie in 1986 and market and release it without any
problem was a huge task. As a senior producer, I was always interested
in seeing that the distributors who bought the movie made profits.
Making a movie is a team effort. The producer takes the entire risk and
his contribution cannot be undermined.
G. Venkateswaran bought negative
rights only after I sold all the areas. But he insisted that he would
put his name as producer and receive the awards the movie got. I had to
agree since I had suffered a loss even after selling all the areas. But
the greatest loss was when my brother died and after that I chose not to
talk about the movie. I do not know why Kamal Haasan has chosen to talk
about the film now. Calling a filmmaker as “old school” is, I think,
outdated.
I have always considered film as an art. I have been a
producer and director for more than 60 years. Without passion for
cinema, I could not have made more than 40 films with great stars like
Sivaji Ganesan, Gemini Ganesan, Rajinikanth and Jayalalithaa. I have a
reputation for producing good movies and believe that audience deserves
quality films. But it is difficult to conceive, produce and release big
budget movies.
Shooting small budget films with Digital Cameras is easy.
Filmmaking is also a business and everybody works to make money. Kamal
Haasan did not act in my movie for free. He was paid a huge sum,
amounting to almost 20 per cent of the original budget. Expecting Rs. 5
lakh as profit is not avaricious. Nayakan was purely a commercial film, and even Kamal Haasan knew this. The tragedy is that I did not make any profit.
Had Kamal Haasan allowed Mani to make the movie originally conceived by
him, it would have been his best movie. As for the reference to Mani
Ratnam’s deteriorating health, he was very healthy when he completed Nayakan. It was only when he became a producer that his health started deteriorating, which is not unusual.
I have nothing against Kamal Haasan taking credit for the success of Nayakan. But not at my cost, please.
நன்றி - த ஹிந்து
