[ad_1]
‘Pan-India’ is a currency much in demand these days with filmmakers across India desperate to add the tag to their films’ resumes. However, the term has irked actors like Dulquer Salmaan and Siddharth. In an interview with Deccan Herald, Siddharth explained why he finds the term disrespectful, “…because the term is being used to describe a regional film means there is something called an Indian film, which comes from Bollywood. It means that you don’t have to qualify Hindi films with any word… That is nonsense!”
]On the contrary, even Bollywood filmmakers are after the coveted tag in recent times. Only recently, Brahmastra director Ayan Mukerji thanked Nagarjuna for coming on board the project, making it a pan-Indian film. Thus, the term remains vague. But when you look at the projects that are now regarded as pan-Indian films, they all share a few similar traits: a huge budget, actors from North and South film industries, and a story that could be set anywhere. Incidentally, all these traits are found in the films of director Shankar, who has been making pan-Indian films even before they became a thing.
One of the defining attributes of Shankar’s films has been the huge budget. As a sarcastic remark about his penchant for grandeur, director-actor Parthiban once said that if Shankar were to remake Titanic, before constructing the set of the ship, he would make a set of the ocean. It’s not far from the truth. The director introduced the concept of “spend money to make money” in Tamil cinema. Be it painting an entire village for the Rendakka song from Anniyan, or traveling to seven wonders of the world to shoot the Adhisayam song from Jeans (which went on to become the official Indian submission at Academy Awards 1999), or building a 360-degree set for Vaaji Vaaji in Sivaji, Shankar likes to make a splash with everything. Despite having no relevance to the narratives, the songs have a reputation that they shock and awe the audience.
Not just with the production design, even the stories of Shankar’s films were larger than life. His films operate at the macro level, except for titles such as Kadhalan, Boys Jeans, and Boys. The rest of his filmography dealt with bigger issues of corruption, and what’s more pan-Indian than that? With his debut film Gentleman (1993), Shankar tried to explore the corrupt practices in educational institutions (the film was, however, panned for its take on reservations). Then came his collaboration with Kamal Haasan, Indian. The title pretty much drives the point home. I mean, it just lacks the three-lettered prefix.
A yardstick to know the nationwide palatability of regional cinema is to see whether or not the film gets remade in Hindi. Shankar’s Nayakan is one such example. The wacky idea of “one-day chief minister” can work in any state across India irrespective of the language. No wonder the film was remade as Nayak with Anil Kapoor reprising the role. Anniyan is reportedly getting remade with Ranveer Singh in the lead role. This despite the Hindi dubbed version, Aparichit, having a cult following.
One cannot help but talk about Shankar’s contribution to Indian cinema in terms of visual effects – another common element in almost all these pan-Indian films. His creative unrest to experiment with special effects can be seen right from Gentleman in the song Chikku Bukku Railey. With Enthiran and 2.0, he pushed the limits. SS Rajamouli, in an interview with Behindwoods, said, “Even when visual effects had not become a tool for filmmaking, in Telugu, Shyam Prasad Reddy sir used it for enhancing the emotion of the film. After that, Shankar sir was the one to use it to increase the magnanimity of the film. Now, if any contemporary director uses visual effects, irrespective of the purpose, it is inspired by these two people.”
So, now, with the market ripe for pan-Indian films, which is evidently what he has been doing all this while, one can’t help but look forward to what he has in store with Ram Charan’s yet-untitled film and Kamal Haasan’s Indian 2.
[ad_2]
Source link