It is my first preference to do films with social significance. Art cinema has given me credibility and status as an actor, but commercial cinema has given me a comfortable living.
For me, as an actor, there is no commercial or independent or art cinema. For me, it's a character that is given by the director. And it is a task for me that I have to fulfill it to the best of my ability regardless of the kind of film that it is.
What has helped me is my success in commercial cinema. It has given me a platform for others to cast me in their films. If I did not have the commercial success, then I wouldn't be able to do the smaller films.
Basically, I have always wanted to have an art-house cinema. A cinema where we can show films that are not necessarily the current offerings on circuit and films that are not commercial.
The third line of cinema today is neither art nor commercial but categorized as good and bad cinema. I think two films - 'Main, Meri patni aur Who' and 'Main Madhuri Dixit Banna Chahti Hoon' were the base films for this new line of cinema.
The cinema is not an art which films life: the cinema is something between art and life. Unlike painting and literature, the cinema both gives to life and takes from it, and I try to render this concept in my films. Literature and painting both exist as art from the very start; the cinema doesn't.
People know that I have a great love for cinema. Not just for commercial cinema, but for the “cinema d’auteur.” But to me, two of the great “auteurs” are actually actors and they both happen to be French. One is Alain Delon and the other is Jean-Paul Belmondo.
I watched films growing up, but no more than the next guy, really. Working on 'Hugo' made me appreciate cinema and the art of cinema a lot more.
When I get saturated by commercial films, I'll probably do another film like 'Siskiyaan.' But yes, as a viewer, I really enjoy commercial cinema; so obviously, as an actor, I would love to be a part of one.
I am the last person who has any judgement about any kind of cinema, least of all commercial cinema because I am a product of commercial cinema.
It was the old psychosomatic side-step. Everyone in my family dances it at every opportunity. You've given me a splitting headache! You've given me indigestion! You've given me crotch rot! You've given me auditory hallucinations! You've given me a heart attack! You've given me cancer!
The success of 'Dhruva' has given me more satisfaction than any of my previous hits, simply because the audience accepted the film even though it was experimental. I really hope this kind of acceptance makes experimental cinema the new mainstream cinema.
Let me be very frank. I make films keeping within the mainstream and my cinema is popular cinema. I love it this way.
People in Kolkata know me well for both commercial and art cinema.
I was a complete anomaly in this business. I didn't fit into the Hema Malini-Zeenat Aman commercial cinema mould, neither the Shabana Azmi-Smita Patil art cinema mould.
Film is pop art. It's not whether it's auteur cinema or not; that's a false distinction. Cinema is cinema.
For me, there was no great myth around the movies when I was a young child. My father was very simple about the whole thing. He did not consider cinema an art. Cinema was entertainment. Literature and music were art.