Embracing the prodigal middle class hero: Amol Palekar

#20- The characters played by Amol Palekar in the 1970s is possibly the best representation of middle class mainstream ever done in Hindi film cinema.

The definitive decade of 70s did not just give rise to the ‘Angry Young Man’ of Amitabh Bacchan, but also gave us a priceless idea of a hero - one played by Amol Palekar in his movies. In this essay, we deepdive into some of his films and break them down to understand why his characters are the closest representation of middle-class-Indian on celluloid.

---

National Museum of Indian Cinema in Mumbai | Punit Paranjpe/AFP

Heroes are pivotal. They represent the best in us. They are adept at social responsibilities, emotional needs as well as creating impact, while always holding the moral compass.  We find inspiration in icons from real life - sportspeople, political leaders, business honchos and movie stars. Our need for heroes has found a constant supplier through cinema. The heroes on celluloid represent our voice, our aspirations, our vulnerabilities. Their ability to overcome conflict fuels hope in us. 

Cinema’s representation of heroism is also indicative of the times. After independence, the country sought heroes & role models to come out of the shadow of colonial rule. But whenenver we speak of celluloid hero, 1970s becomes the definitive decade. 

The young democracy turned 25 in 1972, albeit a bit bruised. The country battled challenges of poverty, geo-political wars, economic turbulence and political lows.

As the decade passed, the sentiment became gloomier. Inadequate jobs, abundant bureaucracy, unruly inflation and stifled industries were prominent. This brewed resentment. The colossal promise of post-colonial prosperity was crumbling. People felt angst - against the system, against the rich, against false promises. This reflected in our cinema as well. The old heroes were necessary, but not sufficient. People needed a new voice. 

Let us look at the arc of heroes in hindi cinema leading up to this moment. Through the back half of the 60s, cinema became escapist by easing into romantic musicals. By the end of the 60s, the leading trio of Dileep Kumar, Dev Anand and Rajesh Khanna ( along with the newfound abandon of Shammi Kapoor) represented a brand of cinema that was hopeful, almost dreamy. The cinematic choices made this life distant. These heroes could escape to the Himalayan valleys for a dream song sequence, a luxury unavailable to a common citizen. 

1950s saw stories rooted in social struggles, but they were primarily rural ( Do Bheega Zameen, Mother India). But India in the 1970s was different. Changing urban landscape posed a new set of challenges. While green revolution & white revolution had seen state’s push to make India self-sufficient to fight food deficit, similar agility was missing in the Industrial space. The urban poor needed a voice. Thus, during the 70s, narrative moved from the ‘kisaan’ ( farmer)  to the ‘mazdoor’ ( laborer).

This led to the hunger for a new brand of cinema and a quintessential leading man. A hero who was one of them, resonated their angst, held pent up rage. Someone who was heroic enough to break the shackles and avenge. Thus, we saw the rise of the ‘Angry young man’ in Amitabh Bacchan in the 1970s. This narrative peaked in the mid 70s. Movies like Zanjeer ( 1973), Deewar ( 1975), Sholay ( 1975), Trishul (1978), Kala Patthar ( 1979 ), Muqaddar Ka Sikandar ( 1978) defined the cinema of the 1970s. 

But ‘angry young man’ wasn’t the only protagonist that emerged. After all, the urban landscape was a far more heterogeneous mix. Not every common man had the gumption to rebel. Some just complained and still went about living their lives. They thrived on smaller wins, little joys. They found their voice in the cinema of Hrishikesh Mukherjee & Basu Chatterjee. Their stories were lived on the big screen by Amol Palekar.

While Amol Palekar’s work during the 70s is wide, I have taken four movies as core references. These are well-known, successful works and a fair representation of his work during the decade. The movies are Rajnigandha ( Release 1974, Amol plays Sanjay), Choti Si Baat (1976,  Arun Pradeep), Golmaal ( 1979, Ram Prasad Sharma/ Lucky Sharma) ,  Baaton Baaton mein - (1979, Tony Braganza)

Let us break these characters down and put a spotlight on key patterns that emerge. There can be exceptions to the rule, but we can infer a framework of how Amol Palekar’s characters emerged as the first true-spirited ‘ Indian- Middle-Class- Hero’ of hindi cinema.

Profile & Personality -

A big deviation from the norm was the physical representation of a ‘hero’. This hero did not symbolize striking charm or distinctive dapper demeanor. He wouldn’t have a ‘signature smile or pose’ that would get the crowd swooning. Amol’s hero was the boy next door, possibly a forgettable face in the crowd of metro cities, like most of us. He wasn’t ahead of the curve. His pace matched thousands of others in the city. He would travel in local trains or buses ( instead of his own bike/ car),jostled for space and got pushed around. One can’t imagine him to fight 10 goons together and make them beg for mercy, the way we can’t imagine ourselves doing it either.

This hero was as much the audience as a hero. There is a meta reference in these characters that made him closer to the audience. The characters would go to the theater to watch movies, get enamored with heroes and aspire for his life to unfold like theirs. In the song ‘ Jaaneman jaaneman’ from Choti si baat, Arun ( Amol) substitutes on-screen Dharmendra-Hema Malini pair to imagine him and Vidya Sinha’s character Prabha.

Another clear distinction versus the conventional hero is his nervous energy. Heroes portrayed on screen always looked so sure of everything. They had all the answers. They were fearless and emotionally well-anchored. It looked like they had it all figured out, despite the heightened conflicts. But Amol’s hero wasn’t about ‘ I -got-it-under control- bro’ swag.

This hero had a nervous energy about him. He could be under-confident ( Choti si baat), emotionally vulnerable or unavailable ( Rajnigandha), insecure ( Choti Si baat, Baaton baaton mein). This representation is logical and relatable. As the country took steps in embracing its urban identity, this generation did not have conditing or the tools to ace the uncertainties that came with it. They did not have a precedent. For example, the social fabric saw a changing gender dynamic. We saw a growing representation of women in colleges and at workplaces. This protagonist did not have the emotional conditioning for this. He relied on age-old conditioning, but also was sufficiently self-aware of its flaws. This constant internal conflict made him nervous.

Educated, working in a desk job : 

Amol’s ‘middle class’ milieu characters did not struggle for survival. They weren’t oppressed. They didn’t worry about putting food on the table. This protagonist was a working man, mostly in a private enterprise in a metro city ( Mumbai/ Delhi) - Jackson Tolaram & Sons ( Choti si baat), Bhawani Shankar’s company ( Golmaal). He could be an accountant, a clerk or a civil servant ( sometimes driven by Unionist ideas). 

Thus, these characters aren’t filled with angst and vengeance. Their purpose wasn’t to fix an atrocity. For him, like most of us, the reason for complaining changes as the date on the newspaper changes.

Enjoys an urban lifestyle : 

As the characters lead a self-sufficient life, they are not shy of relishing their accessible escapes. Like most of us, they would go to watch a movie ( Choti si baat), attend live sporting events instead of just listening on radio ( The India- Pakistan hockey test match in Golmaal), visit cafes after a day of work or over the weekend ( Baaton Baaton Mein, Rajnigandha), experiment cuisines at emerging restaurants ( The detailed reference of Samovar cafe & the Chinese restaurant in Choti Si baat). This was their idea of a date, over and above the marine drive outings.

The character wouldn’t shy to explore a lifestyle stretching his means, never breaking it though. Amol’s character was possibly the first peak into how post liberalized India would look post 1991 ( another phenomenal actor Farooq Shaikh got on the wagon to build this legacy). 

Key Conflict Points :

Like most of us, Amol Palekar’s hero did not have evil antagonists. He wasn’t subjugated by an oppressive system or immoral villains. The challenges were more circumstantial or emotional : unable to approach and speak to the woman you are fond of ( Choti si baat) ; societal pressure to get married( Baaton baaton mein) ; stuck between saving the job and the girl you love ( Golmaal). 

The challenges were social & economic in nature :  stress about that impending promotion at work ( Rajnigandha) ; respect of peers ( Choti si baat) ; salary being sufficient or not to manage rising costs ( Golmaal and later in Naram Garam); the aspiration to have your own house ( Gharaonda). 

Amol’s character along with friends would partake in commentary on society, sports and politics of the country. They would reference Hitler, Ceaser in these conversations. Their well-read cognizance made them indulge in convenient arm-chair cynicism, never getting into mainstream activism. 

P.S.- The supposed antagonist in Choti si baat ( Nagesh played by Asrani) can be the cutest possible nemesis for a hero.

The Thinking Woman

This is the most critical aspect that makes Amol Palekar’s cinema relevant even today. It was the biggest distinction to its times. A fine attribute of most of his movies is the presence of a strong female protagonist. These characters have gumption. They have agency. They are educated, make difficult choices and own them. The stories captured their point of view, some narratives in fact narrated from their point of view.

This was a refreshing change in Indian cinema, possibly a momentous movement that is not often discussed. This was the biggest distinction versus the stories of romantic heroes of the 60s. 

Rajnigandha is the best example. Based on Mannu Bhandari’s short story ‘Yehi sach hai’, this movie is from the point of view of Deepa ( Vidya Sinha). She is doing her PhD in Delhi, gets an interview call for a job in Mumbai ( away from family). She goes for the process and gets the job. The movie captures her journey of conflict - the conundrum that puts her at crossroads. She has to make a choice of a companion between two men who have their own set of strengths and weaknesses. 

It is a poignant tale, dealt with sensitivity. For all the flaws in Sanjay’s ( Amol Palekar) character, the scene when she mentions she may find a job in Mumbai, he is excited for it and volunteers to resign, so that they can build a new life. Spouse migration is the biggest form of migration in India, but statistically a massive majority of this migration is by women. Just to see the idea of a man volunteering to migrate for her, was a refreshing change in 1974.

Similarly Baaton Baaton mein shows Nancy ( Tina Munim), a working lady who restrains herself emotionally to avoid another heartbreak. She has self- reliance ( no pun intended), the gumption to process her own stages of emotional lows, holds the conviction to manage family & societal commentary, egging her to marry at the earliest. 

She likes to read, visit cafes to enjoy a good outing. She even earns more than Tony ( Amol Palekar) and both are secure about that aspect. How often have we seen this representation in cinema? A female protagonist’s earning being mentioned as well as the couple secure about her earning more than him.

Even Choti Si Baat walks on a delicate path. The movie could easily be looked at as borderline stalking, but the narrative makes clever choices. It keeps us like a fly on the wall on Prabha’s ( Vidya Sinha) POV as well.  Again she plays a working woman who likes to make her own choices. We see her being cognizant of Arun’s ( Amol Palekar) presence, and discussing it with her friend at work. She is comfortable being friends with a male colleague ( Nagesh played by Asrani), attend social gatherings, sharing a ride on a scooter.It’s her conviction in her choices that comes through, especially as the arc develops in the first half. 

Flaws & Vulnerabilities : 

While these characters played by Amol Palekar had a lot of progressive pros, they were never represented as model citizens. They had their flaws. This is what made them believable, unlike the ‘hero’ like characters who were the ‘Aadarsh balaks’, who could do no wrong.

In the social landscape, the characters that Amol played had issues and insecurities. Sanjay in Rajnigandha is emotionally selfish. He doesn’t value her time, and is a poor listener. He feels he can make up for anything by getting her favorite flowers ( Rajnigandha). We already spoke of the stalking in Choti si baat. While again part of the means used to address the transformation of Arun are questionable ( training of Captain Wilfred singh played by Ashok Kumar), it still is a journey of metaphorical transformation. He undertakes a literal journey, to elevate self-awareness, understand his insecurities better and express the humility to work on them. He keeps his ego aside, doesn’t turn toxic, but instead chooses to work on himself. 

Summary

Every hero has a role to play in society. We celebrate cinema in its ability to represent our emotions on the big screen, sprinkling larger than life effects. We have created icons like Dileep Kumar, Rajesh Khanna, Amitabh Bacchan, Shahrukh Khan, who have enjoyed superstardom of disproportionate measures.

Similarly we celebrate the impact of hard hitting cinema and the acting prowess of Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Irrfan Khan, Nawazuddin Siddiqui. 

Somewhere in between, we don’t talk enough of the contribution of actors like Amol Palekar & Farooque Shaikh. They came the closest in mirroring the sensibilities of the middle class in the country, maybe ahead of their time as well. They did not succumb to the trope of a conventional hero. This is what keeps their cinema relevant even now. They did not just represent the times that they lived in, but also sketched a path for times to follow. Their art gave a directional template to society - on emotional exploration, gender sensitivity, self awareness and the importance of being simple. They did what ‘Ayushman Khurana brand of cinema’ tries do now, sans that overt activism undertone.