Mary Kom to Haseena: Bollywood’s Problem With Getting the ‘Look’

The problem that ails biopics like ‘Mary Kom’ & ‘Sarbjit’ is that the makers are sold out on having saleable stars.

“What??!!” was my reaction when I learnt that Priyanka Chopra would be playing Mary Kom in the boxer’s bio pic. “How??!!” was what went on in my head when I heard that Aishwarya Rai would be playing, Sarabjit Singh’s sister Dalbir Kaur in Sarbjit. This incredulity just sky rocketed with the news of Shraddha Kapoor playing Dawood’s sister Haseena.

Bollywood definitely doesn’t give a damn when it comes to getting a real life person’s look right on the big screen in a biopic or in a film based on real life. How else will you explain a Punjabi, wide-eyed Priyanka playing the Manipuri Mary Kom with clear Central Asian features? Or a Manglorean Aishwarya Rai playing the rustic Dalbir from Punjab’s Tarn Taran in Sarbjit? Or now the svelte Shraddha Kapoor playing the fierce and heavy-set Haseena Parkar in Haseena?

The immediate excuse is of course that the film needs a saleable star, but the big question is - at what cost? How much will a filmmaker’s desire to ensure that his film gets a decent opening, overrule his integrity to stay true to the subject of his film?

Did Mary Kom not deserve an actress from the North-East (if not from Manipur) to front it?

We crib about the marginalisation of the north-eastern states, the discrimination the people face, and the first opportunity you get to cinematically celebrate a Manipuri national hero is symbolically decimated by choosing a Priyanka Chopra to do the job.

And again, the makers seem to be indirectly indicating that the name of the original sportsperson - Mary Kom, is not big enough to draw an interest in the film which they’ve set out to make, precisely because they felt that hers was a story that needed to be told.

So the producers would rather invest in prosthetics and visual effects to make Priyanka look like Mary Kom, than take up the tougher task of roping in and grooming someone like a Geetanjali Thapa for the role.

In the case of Sarbjit again, how could the makers place Aishwarya Rai in the worn out chappals of Sarabjit Singh’s sister Dalbir? I am not being racist or a regional chauvinist when I say that it’s best that a Punjabi plays a role that is specifically written for a Punjabi. Because, looks apart, getting the tonal quality of the voice right, speaking Hindi with the right emphasis on certain words originating from a natural Punjabi accent can’t be taught or trained by a language coach.

This problem extends to purely fictional portrayals in Hindi films too. Dibakar Banerjee wanted to pass on Abhay Deol as a south Indian IAS officer, Krishnan, in Shanghai. Despite an impressive effort, Deol’s Tamil accented Hindi was inconsistent throughout the film.

Again, when you make a film like 2 States, where regional differences between the couple plays a major factor, why would you present Alia Bhatt as a Tamilian instead of signing on a Tamil actress? Would Ek Duje Ke Liye be the same if we replace Kamal Haasan with Rishi or Anil Kapoor, faking it as a guy from the south?

So if you try to sell me a petite South Indian Aishwarya as the robust, hardened Bhikiwind born Dalbir, sorry, I’m not buying it. Richa Chadha would’ve been the better choice.

It’s an easy and predictable thing to say, but hell, look at Hollywood. I’m just going to place 5 pictures down here and you’d agree that the likeness of the actor to the character he or she is portraying is striking.

Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote

Sean Penn as Harvey Milk

Natalie Portman as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe

Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs

Coming back to Haseena, I would’ve probably paid to watch Supriya Pathak play the role of Dawood’s sister. Sure, the film wouldn’t get as much money or buzz if the makers had indeed signed on the 56-year-old actor for the role, but at least you would have an accomplished talent who looked like the formidable person being brought to life on the big screen.

But why let authenticity get in the way of what is largely seen as a commercial venture? The point also being that, if the makers were to take someone like a Supriya Pathak for the lead, they would also have to work really hard to make a brilliant film, which would be critically acclaimed, get great word-of-mouth and eventually bring success to the film. Taking a saleable star, just makes their work easier.

Imagine Hollywood doing a biopic on Obama and signing on Ryan Gosling to play the lead because, box-office!