Amitabh Bachhan, ALL ABOUT BIG-B Options

[Sharmila-Sweet]

'Rekha was ego trip for Amitabh'


Susmita Dasgupta finds Amitabh Bachchan an interesting subject to study. Here, she decodes the superstar, the subject of her PhD and a book, in an explosive, tell-all interview to Anuradha Verma

By Anuradha Verma | TNN
Posted On Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 03:59:06 PM



Amitabh Bachchan

Susmita Dasgupta finds Amitabh Bachchan an interesting subject to study. Here, she decodes the superstar, the subject of her PhD and a book, in an explosive, tell-all interview to Anuradha Verma

Is there an Amitabh ‘before’ and ‘after’ ABCL?

There is definitely a before and after ABCL Amitabh. The ABCL tragedy, like all stupendous failures have split Amitabh into a before and after image. The trauma of having failed appears to have drastically changed the person whose image was that of the invincible.

What is Amitabh, the husband, like?

As I could observe, and at that point of time I was nearly 20 years younger, that Amitabh and Jaya were ideologically apart. For Jaya, there was a distress about why Amitabh did the films that he did. Jaya would have loved it were Amitabh to remain in the Hrishikesh Mukherjee camp and graduated later to Satyajit Ray (Manik Kaku for her; Jaya is exceptionally well-connected). But Amitabh went into rather "cheap stuff" with which she was not comfortable.

To the best of my mind, this was the basic reason for a kind of stand-off. Jaya and Amitabh were dutifully husband and wife but I felt that the romance in the marriage was lacking. Also Jaya is a ‘Bong’ woman, the oldest among three sisters, and most probably the brightest, daughter to a doting father and that too an important one. She is Bhaduri, an upper caste Barendri Brahmin, who are very proud people.

But slowly as Amitabh got involved in his career, he himself became the centre of all attention which was very difficult for Jaya to swallow. After all, at the time of their marriage she was the star and he the also-ran.

The change in the power position within the marriage as Amitabh became successful also changed the soft, intense and emotional romance which Jaya and Amitabh had.

How is the superstar with his kids? Is his rapport different with Abhishek and Shweta?

With his children, Amitabh is doting, pampering, blind with affection and only pretending to be firm, but very interested to be a part of their lives and eager to go to any lengths for their well-being. The daughter is interesting, I am not so sure that she feels the same way towards her parents as they feel towards her.

I get this strange feeling that Shweta is seeking to move out of her parents’ very doting shadow and that marriage helped her have some independence that her extra protective parents robbed her of. Abhishek loves and would love to continue to be under the parents’ protection.

What about the Rekha episode? Is there reason to believe the affair happened, despite Amitabh’s denials?

Yes, it is a matter of great speculation for me as well. I always sided with Amitabh when he denied all on Rekha. But, only recently, I saw this television footage in which Amitabh suddenly got up and moved away as Rekha came near where he was seated. This makes me believe that yes, they did have an affair. The sudden getting up and moving away was a giveaway.

It was almost a pose of fleeing from Rekha... why would a man want to do that if he is not guilty of something? I believe Amitabh knew from day one that he wasn’t serious about Rekha. Also, he’s very, very class conscious... Rekha was perhaps an ego trip.

How do you think Abhishek fares, being Amitabh and Jaya's son, and now Aishwarya’s husband?

Abhishek reminds me of Prince Salim and he has the Prince Salim syndrome. In today’s world, Abhishek’s appeal lies in a certain sense of being chaperoned, someone who seeks and has security and, on the basis of an assured lifestyle, can afford to be nice to one and all.

Just as Amitabh’s image crashed with failure, Abhishek's image can crash if the shadows of persons chaperoning him are taken away. The image contains the shadows of the biggies that he nests among.

Was he behind Abhishek joining films?

Yes, he was totally behind Abhishek's joining films and if I were to have my opinion, then to push him to cinema. That’s why I say that Abhishek is prince Salim, the reluctant heir of Akbar when his heart was away in Venice, Rome and even Spain.

Amitabh is projected today as the loyal friend... what drives his friendships with the Anil Ambani and Amar Singh?

I feel that Amitabh has never been a loyal friend. Loyalty has never been his characteristic trait. Anwar Ali and Amjad Khan are at least two who Amitabh never even acknowledged. I have seen him rather stand-offish with Javed, Salim, Prakash Mehra, the persons who made him. Amitabh never attended Hrishida’s funeral. He refuses to acknowledge Desh Mukherjee or Tinnu Anand. So, he looks for friends as far as he has something to gain from them.

The Amar Singh episode is strange. He must be really gaining something out of Anil Ambani and Amar Singh and that “gain” has some connection with the “loss” in terms of money.

Why do you think he is still working? Is it insecurity, to consolidate a space for Abhishek or love of acting?

Amitabh is still working, yes, what you suggest to consolidate Abhishek’s career, but to the best of my understanding, Amitabh is Bhishma, he wishes to prove that he is immortal as a star. I think that Amitabh is seeking immortality by constantly reinventing his image to suit each new age that he lives in.

[Sharmila-Sweet]

In defence of Amitabh Bachchan's lack of convictions
By IANS, 16 February, 2010



Actor Amitabh Bachchan's decision to be Gujarat's brand ambassador has provoked many to question his political convictions, with some even going to the extent of wondering whether he has any.

'When Amitabh Bachchan advertises cement or any other commodity, we are expected to buy it because he has endorsed it; yet, when he shakes hands with Narendra Modi, he expects us to read nothing into it,' write Jatin Gandhi and Hartosh Singh Bal in the latest issue of Open magazine.

'The question is not whether Modi is better or worse than Rajiv (Gandhi), but whether there are convictions the man or the actor is willing to stand by.'

In her column for the Daily News and Analysis (DNA) high profile social activist from Gujarat and noted classical dancer Mallika Sarabhai asked: 'It has been reported that no direct fee will be paid to you for being my Brand Ambassador. So, with no monetary decision to guide you, how did you decide to say yes? Did you check on the state of the state?'

The overall tone of both these pieces is one of unconcealed derision at Bachchan's seemingly flexible political convictions and thinly disguised self-serving opportunism. This is the kind of subject where both sides can make their case quite forcefully and yet leave many unconvinced.

There is a third point of view which might explain some of the contradictions. For reasons that are hard to comprehend millions of Indians have accorded Bachchan a seriousness of purpose which he may not fully deserve or even hanker after. People confuse his celluloid persona to arrive at judgements which are far in excess of what he may be as a human being in real life. To that extent Bachchan is tested against benchmarks which are inherently unfair and unrealistic.

Bachchan is an ordinary mortal like the rest of humanity when it comes to impulses such as personal ambition and aggrandisement. His motivations, like the rest, are purely personal and familial first and then perhaps communal, national and global. People react with outrage to Bachchan's apparent lack of convictions or shifting political loyalties based on personal gain because they have formed a lofty image of his in their minds for no rational reason. And when they discover a chasm between what they perceive him to be or want him to be and what he really is, they feel let down or even betrayed.

What Bachchan really is may not even be that egregiously flawed. However, the people have given him such an exalted position, which he may not have sought himself and may not have done much to challenge either, that a slight lowering in that image causes widespread anger, indignation and disillusionment.

Why raise him on a pedestal and deify him in the first place and then rage against him if he wants to step down from time to time? It is a natural consequence of his chosen profession that he would acquire stature and influence which are often disproportionate to his actual contribution outside that profession. That is why he is able to glibly endorse a whole range of products which he may never have used in the past, nor is likely to in the future.

Because he is Amitabh Bachchan he may enjoy credibility in walks of life where he has absolutely no achievement to speak of. That reputation is as much a creation of the media as it is a product of the guileless millions who have invested unquestioning faith in him. As a purely commercial being he is merely leveraging that faith without making any distinction between endorsing a brand of cement, a bank, a car or even a state. In that sense Bachchan has perfected his personal brand as agnostic to the deeper contradictions of his endorsements.

The moment people start seeing him for what he is -- a broadly decent, unquestionably gifted, intelligent albeit occasionally obscurantist, and strongly commercially driven professional -- all the indignation, outrage and disillusionment will disappear. That he apparently has no political convictions cannot be extrapolated to mean that he has no scruples. The mercenary instinct is an inherent feature of all super celebrities globally who capitalize on their personal brand equity to sell anything -- either a product or a cause.

The only way to rationalise Bachchan's seeming lack of any permanent political loyalties or convictions is by rubbing out the aura of improbable greatness that people have come to associate with him. Once he is seen like any other hugely successful professional, whose primary motivations are necessarily selfish and feet are made of clay, his apparent lack of convictions and shifting political loyalties will appear far less incongruent, quite like they would in any other mortal extracting the most out of the opportunities that life offers.