His father made the most successful Hindi film of all time but Rohan Sippy is not trying to recreate the magic of "Sholay". Instead, he's busy making his own brand of film and having fun while doing it.
The director is ready with his third film "Dum Maaro Dum", which takes a hard look at the narcotics trade in the tourist haven of Goa and features his childhood friend Abhishek Bachchan.
The Stanford-educated Sippy spoke to Reuters about the film and the controversy surrounding the film's portrayal of Goa.
Q: What was it that made you want to make this film? A: "Well, it was a combination of things. It was a very interesting story that Sridhar (Raghavan, the screenwriter), sent to me in the form of a 40-50 page novella. The plot twists, the characters and the backdrop of Goa which was unique. We'd never seen this genre of film before except for a movie like ‘Jalwa’, which was a good 25 years ago. So I thought it would be fun, exciting to do.”
Q: Were there any precautions you took when dealing with the subjects of drugs and Goa?
A: "First of all, it's a work of fiction. We're not making a documentary. There are innumerable instances of setting fictional films against real places – you wouldn't be able to make films otherwise. Secondly, once you see the film you will realise there is nothing anti-Goa in this film. In the 70s there were films on gold smugglers and in this case we've chosen the backdrop of the drug mafia. And the audience is intelligent enough in these matters.”
Q: Were you surprised when the controversy broke out?
A: "Yes, I was. Unfortunately, films become soft targets and you learn to ignore. The whole point is that they want publicity and by talking about it, we are only furthering their interests.”
Q: Was there a particular aspect of the drug trade that you wanted to focus on?
A: "No, we don't go into too much detail. Like I said, it's not a documentary. The most important thing is that it's a Hindi film. The idea is to keep it at that level of entertainment, with drama, emotion and action. We're not trying to educate people about how the drug trade is carried out. The premise is about a cop who is up against the drug mafia and tries to overcome them.”
Q: There has been a 6-year gap between your last film and this one. Why is that?
A: "I was caught up producing a couple of films and there was a film that I was trying to put together that never took off. It turned out to be far too daunting and the budget wasn’t right. A lot of time went into that. And then Sridhar came to me with this story two years ago.”
Q: All three of your films have been of different genres. Has that been deliberate? Isn't there comfort in familiarity?
A: "Yes, but familiarity also breeds contempt (Laughs). I think you also exhaust yourself of the genre by the end of it. I'm quite ready to think about things in a different way. You have to approach each script with a lot of humility and discover it along the way. If you do the same thing over and over again, there will be a complacency that sets in and ultimately shows in your work.”
Q: In your interviews, on Twitter, you come across as someone who is very educated about films. Is that a fair observation?
A: "I've been crippled with an education in philosophy so my brain is hardwired to look at things in a certain way. And the lovely thing about philosophy is that it can be applied to anything. Our industry is as chaotic and beautiful a place as any.”
Q: Do you look at success and failure in the same philosophical way too?
A: "Filmmaking is a strange thing. This film that we started two years back. My work on it ramped up and it got really hectic. Now the results will come in another week. You enjoy the fact that people enjoy your work, but you are also strangely detached from it all. For me, the most important thing is the process. Of course, commercial success is important because it will affect the kind of freedom and budgets I will get for my next film. But the dream is that you can and will make something that many people will love.”
Q: So did you feel restricted by the success or failure of your last film while making this one?
A: "Human nature is a funny thing. The best time to catch a guy is when he is down and hungry and the worst time to catch a guy is when he is at the top. But we still do it the other way round. After my first film didn't do well, we realised there were quite a few delays in production. So I wanted to make a good film, but also wanted to prove I could make a film in the given budget. I liked the script of ‘Bluffmaster’ but it was also a film that wasn't overly ambitious in terms of production. It had smart writing, interesting characters, but not expensive to shoot. Earlier, there was a lot of common sense employed when it came to budgets but now that it's someone else's money, that's a little trickier to enforce.”
Q: Coming from a film family, does that kind of tight budgeting come naturally or are you inclined to over-spend?
A: "It's about putting the money on the screen, so to speak. You have to make something that is interesting to watch. You learn that growing up in a film family. But like my ring tone says, "sabse bada rupaiya" (money is the only thing that matters). Finally, if you want to make a career in this business, you have to recover the producer's money. And hopefully out of that, you find something to be creatively satisfied about.”
