Christopher Nolanburst into the cultural zeitgeist with his magnificent second-effortMemento, a gripping tale about a man who must find the perpetrator to his wife’s murder, whose efforts are hampered by a rare form of short-term memory loss. Critics have hailed it as one of the best films of 2001, and it has gone on to receive universal acclaim, as well as raking in the box-office profits. The film’s success had one qualm to it: it was inevitably going to be a target for a Bollywood remake. Notorious for its lazy recreations, Bollywood decided to produce its own version of the acclaimed film, and was even remade a second time by its filmmakerAR Murugadoss. The news of the prosperous results of the second remake fell onto Nolan’s ears, which opened up a lot of issues concerning its ethical implications, as well as film authorship as a whole.
‘Memento’ and ‘Ghajini’s Similarities and Differences
There are a lot of similarities with Nolan’sMementoand Murugadoss’Ghajini. Both of these films’ main characters have been experiencing some sort of condition leading to memory loss. Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) and Sanjay Singhania (Aamir Khan) both utilize Polaroid cameras, notes, and go through intense circumstances to retrieve their memories, and help find their spouse’s killers. There are more instances where both films are strikingly similar in presentation of the plot, but the execution of it is whereGhajinicompletely falls off the rails.
RELATED:This Bollywood Western Is the Perfect Entry into Indian Cinema
The Bollywood production isn’t exactly a shot-for-shot remake of Nolan’s classic. Murugadoss has taken certain liberties in delivering his piece, especially since this is supposed to be tailored to an Indian audience. As characteristic of Bollywood remakes, it is easier to digest, made to be palatable to a massive audience.Mementowas a gripping neo-noir that traverses time, truth, and memory. WhileGhajinigoes to great lengths to replicate this feeling, it often goes in the other direction, appearing more romantic than suspenseful. It reiterates the signature campy and entertaining Bollywood style, and loses the magnificence ofMemento.There is no astounding narrative sequence to this film, one that has been the foundation ofMemento’s acclaim. One of its striking differences is the memorable tattoo scene present inMementoand noticeably omitted fromGhajini.Perhaps it could be chalked up to different cultural tastes, but it is representative of what Murugadoss' effort is lacking in general: depth and complexity.
When the news of the film’s success reached the radar of Christopher Nolan, he wasn’t particularly pleased about it. Bollywood actor and producerAnil Kapoorreportedly had an interaction with the British filmmaker. Nolanvoiced his displeasure about the situation, and was disappointed that he failed to receive any credit. For an actor that looks up to the filmmaker, especially sincehe auditioned for a roleinInceptionand asked for his autograph, this must have been a very awkward interaction.
Bollywood and Its Affinity For Remakes
Nolan’s displeasure is one of the many stories around the issues on Bollywood pictures. Bollywood, whose name is literally a portmanteau of Bombay Cinema and Hollywood, has been no stranger to remaking successful western films. It is a tale as old as time, and has brought a reputation that has continued to harm the prestige of Bollywood around the world. It isn’t even limited to just western movies, but alsomovies and TV shows from their own production lines. The copies are continuing to proliferate, and the branches are almost impossible to track. It would appear that this is a systemic issue.Rushed production schedules and fundshave pressured the underpaid staff, resulting in haphazardly copying existing cultural products. Partnered with the notion of using a formulaic approach hopefully achieve the same, if not greater success in their home turf, and you have a powder-keg of plagiaristic tendencies that is waiting to explode.
For a moment, it actually blew up. In 2009,Twentieth Century Foxfiled a lawsuit against BR films, a Mumbai based production company who created a “substantial reproduction” ofMy Cousin VinnycalledBindaas Hai (This Guy Is Fearless).The case was settledfor a sum of $200,000, to which BR films subsequently misunderstood as a go signal to continue production of the film. Fox sued again, and the film remains unreleased up to this very day. The decision was a landmark case, which ultimately failed to make any significant contribution since Bollywood copies continue to thrive in the cinematic landscape.
The law may be one thing, but the pressing issue is the ethics concerning this activity. To pay homage or to formulate pastiche is one thing.Quentin Tarantinohas repeatedly used this to his benefit.Reservoir Dogs' (which ironically has a Bollywood remake itself inKaante) cinematic tribute toRingo Lam’sCity on Fireis a shining example of this artistic method. Bollywood’s remakes have traditionally been crossing the line from tribute to plagiarism, a behavior that is not only ethically questionable, but also destructive to the medium of cinema. Yes, films in general have always stood on the shoulders of the works that came before them, but to lazily copy a work without acknowledging the contributions of its maker is a completely different animal. It is detrimental to the very idea of a filmmaker, and the very mention of it would haveFrançois Truffautand the entireCahiers du Cinémagang rolling over in their graves.
The Significance of Nolan’s Response
In recent times, other western production companies have followed suit in taking Bollywood copies to court.Warner Bros.sent a cease and desist letterto filmmakerVipul Shahwhen he was reportedly making a remake ofThe Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Come to think of it, Christopher Nolan was quite subtle in his response. Neither he nor his production company Summit Entertainment pressed charges or took any legal action regarding the twoGhajinimovies.
Only he can know the reason behind this lack of action, but it is significant in a sense. Perhaps he wants to let them understand his displeasure, and that they should be taking responsibility for their own actions. Bollywood hasthe ability to produce wonderful works of art, which it has proven time and time again. Cheapening their acts by copying established films would only continue to stain their image. Christopher Nolan’s remarks should serve as a reminder for them to do better, which would be a benefit to the world of cinema.
