'An actor is always very insecure'

From serenading leading ladies in argyle-patterned jerseys against scenic backdrops to playing a nonagenarian patriarch, Rishi Kapoor has essayed roles across a wide arc spanning over four decades. He has now penned his memoirs, Khullam Khulla: Rishi Kapoor Uncensored, chronicling his colourful life. He speaks to Pratibha Umashankar

'Inevitability, a Lifetime in Films', reads the title of the first chapter of Rishi Kapoor's memoir. The title, in fact, sums up his life - as the scion of the first family of Hindi cinema, ordained and privileged to wear the mantle. From a walking part as a toddler in the song sequence Pyaar Hua, Ikraar Hua in his father Raj Kapoor's 1955 blockbuster Shree 420, to a fledgling teenager in Mera Naam Joker as the young Raj Kapoor, for which he picked up a Filmfare Award in 1970, and from the 1974 mega hit, Bobby, marking his coming of age as a hero, to repeating the feat this year with the award for the Best Supporting Actor for his performance in Kapoor & Sons, he has done it all in a career studded with nearly 150 films with two successful innings. He is one of the few actors who has made the transition, replacing the lover-boy image with versatile and mature personas, exploring a range of characters, like the repentant, estranged husband of Hum Tum (2004), the dean in Student of the Year (2012), Rauf Lala, the pimp in Agneepath (2012), a don in D-Day (2013), and the naughty 90-year-old in Kapoor & Sons (2016). At 64, he has topped this with his recently-published, no-holds-barred peek into his life, in which he says, "The two phases of my career have mirrored the reality of my life as it was and is - the early, young and brash actor who had it all, and now the more grounded family man who wants to give it his all and is lucky to be able to do that."
During the launch of his book, he sidestepped questions about it, saying, "I don't want to parrot everything all over again", and spoke of other matters:

What kinds of emotions go through your mind when you are in front of the camera? What were they earlier? What are they now?
As an actor, it has never changed because, it's very challenging for an actor to hone his skills. And emotions are something that are the working tools for an actor. That has not changed, but sharpened. Perhaps what has changed is the outlook of those emotions - as a lead star, a romantic star, a musical star, as compared to today, when I'm a character actor. These days, I get a lot of roles with some meat to chew on. I'm happy that these kinds of parts are written for me and I'm happy doing them. That's the only reflective change I see over the years.

But do you still have that creative nervousness which, maybe, you used to have in the early days of your career?
Of course, those butterflies are still there in the stomach even now, before facing the camera. But such symptoms should always be there. And it's also the insecurity we as actors have.

Even now?
Yes, I'm insecure every day, every shot in my life. I don't know if I'm getting it right or not. whether I'm doing the right thing or not. I'm just hoping and thinking that I can do as much and as well as I can within my periphery and my powers. And I know I've left everything to the director and wonder if I'm being escorted through my role the right way. So, I'm always very insecure during my work. An actor is always very insecure.

But then, this creative tension or nervousness, this tautness of the nerves, is a productive thing, isn't it? Otherwise, you are on autopilot and could become complacent, since you have been in the profession for so long.
Yes. It keeps me on my toes. If you are a committed actor, yes, this kind nervousness should keep you from becoming complacent.

Do you still prepare elaborately for your role? Acting must be second nature to you by now. And is there any difference over the years in the way you prepare for a role?
No, I don't prepare. I didn't when I began acting, and I don't do it now. I don't belong to the school of method acting. I'm from the 'school of spontaneity', if you can call it that. I'm a natural actor. I like to play the part I'm essaying as naturally as possible. So, there's no preparation as such, as to what I should do on the sets and what the character should do.

You have played a wide array of roles over the decades. Is there any role you wish to play that you have not played?
I don't know. It's a question often asked. I don't know if there's any particular role I wish to play. I choose my roles as I see right. I play it by the ear.

If you want to replay any role, would you do it differently? Is there any such role?
No, I don't think so. I don't think I can do it any worse than that.

You're being modest. In your book, you have said that you pack up your role and put it away and don't bring it home. Is there any exception to this - a role that has stayed with you and haunted you after pack-up time?
Not really. Not a single role. I don't bring homework. Like I said, I'm a spontaneous actor and not a method actor. So I don't live the role.

You are a prolific tweeter. And now you are a published author. Hasn't the writing bug bitten you? Is the writer in you nagging you to wield the pen?
No, I don't think so. I've not written Khullam Khulla as a writer. I've written it as an actor. It was just my reflections of my journey, my life, my roadmap, so to speak, as an actor. And it took me three-and-a-half years, recounting all this. It was not done at one go. It took several sessions over a period of time.

With your experience, and still going strong, what would you tell actors today? Have things changed drastically?
In many ways, things have remained the same. Acting has remained the same. I don't think I'm in a position to teach people things. Each one comes with his own baggage and background... and his own thinking.

Do you think films with female-oriented themes are being made now, more than before?
Yes, they are being welcomed by a wider audience now. They were being made in my times, too. There were films where I was the hero, but they were woven around women, with even titles based on the female lead, like Bobby and Nagina, for example. And there were stories about women's emancipation.

Bollywood now is at a crossroads. Different kinds of films are being accepted today - both mainstream commercial cinema and other genres. There's space for a wide spectrum of subjects. As a person who has the vantage point, where do you think Hindi cinema is headed?
Over the years, audiences have changed and are still changing a lot. We're a much more educated lot than we were, say, in the last decade. So, we're experimenting, and better cinema is expected to be made. The sensibilities of today's multiplex audiences aren't the same as that of an autorickshaw driver. You can't make the same kind of films for both these sets. There have to be two different kinds of films made. The films catering to the autorickshaw driver will always remain. But Indian cinema has got new openings today, because people who can spend Rs300-400 for a ticket are certainly educated, well-earning people, whose acceptance of different themes have changed the scenario. So, better cinema will be made. Also, technology has changed. A lot of special effects can be experimented with. These things have played a huge part in facilitating filmmakers to make films with subjects not tried earlier. I guess it's a new horizon for filmmakers. So, yes, I think it's a very good time for Indian films in general.
wknd@khaleejtimes.com