KLF 2025: Naseeruddin Shah On Bollywood, Hyper-Masculine Films And Theatre
Calicut, Kerala; January 25: Veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah engaged in a candid conversation with actress Parvathy on the inaugural day of the Kerala Literature Festival. The discussion spanned a variety of topics, including cinema, hyper-masculinity in films, and his enduring passion for theatre. Shah’s insights, peppered with his trademark wit and depth, provided a fascinating glimpse into his worldview.
Shah began by reflecting on the role of cinema in society. “Cinema will be a record of its times,” he said. “I don’t call it an art; it’s a craft. The most important function serious cinema performs is not changing the world. I don’t think anybody believes it has, no matter how wonderful it may be. But it may help you raise a few questions. To my mind, the truly important function of cinema is to act as a record of its times. A hundred years from now, if people want to know what India of 2025 was like, and they find a Bollywood film, I think that would be a tragedy. That is why I consider it my responsibility to participate in films that are truthful, and also, I enjoy it.”
On his personal approach to acting, Shah admitted to struggling with larger-than-life characters. “I have been completely unable to play larger-than-life characters, unlike my dear friend Prakash Raj, who can play such roles while also being truthful. I envy that quality about him. There are not many who can do that successfully. For me, truth has been of maximum importance. Cinema should paint an honest picture of what we are going through today. Unfortunately, such films are fewer in number, at least in Hindi cinema.”
Shah lamented the challenges faced by films that aim to portray truth. “Films trying to paint a truthful picture often get suppressed, are not released, or find no viewers when they are released. They lack the popular ingredients of successful films. But for me, the success or failure of a movie is of no importance. What matters to me is getting across to the few people who watch it. If the work I do affects even one person in the world, that is good enough for me. Just like I was the only one in my school who was affected by Mr. Geoffrey Kendall, I hope my work can resonate with someone in a similar way.”
Critiquing filmmakers’ obsession with hyper-masculinity, Shah remarked, “It is pointless to speak to someone whose mind is not going to change. I do not approve of films that celebrate masculinity, films which debase women. As a comedian once said—I forget his name, but he’s a great comedian—‘I come from a country where we worship women in the day and gang-rape them at night.’ Sadly, that’s true. The success of such sickening films is…. I don’t know if it’s a reflection of our society or the fantasies of our society. It’s always a moot point whether cinema affects society or vice versa. I think the relationship is mutual.”
Shah continued, “Films that feed into the secret fantasies of men who, in their hearts, look down on women are very scary. It’s terrifying to see how much approval such films get from the common viewer. It explains the horrendous things that happen to women in many places in our country. Rather than femininity, I’d use the word humanity. Why should we consider women as separate? We are the same. We have equal rights, responsibilities, and strength. I consider women to be the stronger sex rather than the weaker sex.”
He encouraged women to assert their place in society. “It is high time that women stood up, fought for their rights, and found their place. If I were offered a part where I am supposed to be brutal to a woman or even to another man, I don’t think I would ever do it. I also don’t subscribe to the “hyper-patriotic, nationalistic” worldview that a lot of our films propagate. What is heartening is that not all such films are being accepted by audiences. I think people are beginning to see through the hypocrisy of these movies.”
Discussing his perspective on fatherhood, Shah reflected, “There is a saying that a child is the father of the man. What kind of father you are depends on what kind of children you have. You mould your personality according to your children’s needs, requirements, and attitude to life. I don’t think it’s the other way around. Parents don’t have as much effect on their children as they’d like to believe. A lot of parents make the mistake of trying to live their children’s lives for them.”
Shah shared personal anecdotes about fatherhood. “Each child is different, and so I adjusted my relationship with each according to their personality. Since having children, I have become a different person. I was anxious when we were expecting our first. I predicted it would be a son—not due to hyper-masculinity, but because I wanted to play football and cricket with him. Ratna, on the other hand, wanted to give him pretty little earrings. But I was nervous about the kind of father I’d be. Whatever I have become as a father is because of my children.”
Shah also commented on gender stereotypes in storytelling. “It’s unfortunate that it’s always the woman who is shown as suffering in love. I think there are many more men who suffer in love than women. Men are much more inclined to consider themselves victims. When they miss, they kick themselves. For example, I was labelled as a serious actor because my first few films were about serious, meaningful subjects, like the Gujarat milk cooperative or the oppression of peasants by zamindars. Then, when I started working in popular movies, I was invariably given a scene where I had to shout and scream for no particular reason. I’d ask, ‘Why is this scene here?’ and they’d say, ‘Because you do it very well. When you are angry, you look very good.’ I’d respond, ‘Well, I think you should ask my children about that.’”
Shah emphasised the dangers of typecasting. “Once you get labelled, it’s very hard to break out of that category. I don’t believe in categories. I believe that every actor and every human being has immense possibilities of being another kind of person. As an actor, I’ve discovered that I have many people within me. This is what I tell my students when they ask how to play a character different from themselves. I tell them, ‘No character is different from you. Try to recognise that potential within yourself.’”
He elaborated on the distinction between stars and actors. “Stars have to do what the audience desires. The audience doesn’t want surprises from a star. An actor, on the other hand, explores possibilities within themselves, even the unpleasant, ugly, and darker parts. That’s an actor’s responsibility. If you don’t explore all these possibilities, you’re not doing justice to yourself as an actor.”
Shah attributed his growth as an actor to literature and theatre. “Reading and theatre have taught me everything I know about people and the world. Literature introduces you to things you didn’t expect or know you wanted. I wasn’t fond of reading in school; I preferred cricket and watching movies. But theatre exposed me to playwrights from different countries and eras. It’s why I prefer theatre over movies—it gives you access to writers from a thousand years ago. You can perform a Sanskrit play, an ancient Greek play, or an ancient Chinese play. You don’t get that kind of literature in movies.”
Sharing a memorable theatre experience, Shah recalled, “I saw a play abroad called ‘The Lion King.’ It was magical. There were no fancy settings or gigantic sets—just pure theatre. The actors used life-sized puppets, manipulating them so skilfully that I forgot about the performers. The puppets came alive. It taught me a great lesson: when you perform, the audience should watch the character, not you. That’s the true essence of acting.”
