Actor Amitabh Bachchan has completed his 50th year in Hindi cinema. A five-decade-long career is not a common event in any profession, especially in cinema. To last this long and still be one of the most sought after is even rarer. His career in Bollywood is more of public history now. What started in 1969 is the country’s legacy today.
Just four years into his career, when Amitabh Bachchan was still not a dominant force, he did his second film alongside the reigning superstar, Rajesh Khanna, in Namak Haraam. But in spite of the latter’s dizzying popularity, the film doesn’t eclipse Amitabh Bachchan’s performance.
Director Hrishikesh Mukherjee had managed to bring the two together again after the now-cult Anand (which had released two years earlier in 1971). In Anand too, Amitabh Bachchan plays the perfectly stoic foil to Rajesh Khanna’s dramatics.
More a didactic political argument than anything else, Namak Haraam was unlike any other Hrishikesh Mukherjee film. The director of gentle comedies or sensitive character studies had made a decidedly political film.
Even as it was a successful venture at its time, Namak Haraam gained more prominence retrospectively mainly because of the signifier it became in the careers of both Amitabh Bachchan and Rajesh Khanna. Coming after a record number of successes, Khanna’s halo had just started to fade a little. Bachchan’s stock had just started to rise — Prakash Mehra’s Zanjeer had released earlier that same year and there was no looking back.
These completely external factors make Namak Haraam a strange viewing experience today because the film is primarily an exercise in pitting two men opposite each other.
Also read: Aradhana propelled Rajesh Khanna to his ‘15 hits in a row’ superstardom
Set against the backdrop of the ongoing conflict between the industrial mills and workers’ union across the country, the 1973 film is about two best friends who find themselves on the opposite sides of the moral and ideological line separating the mill workers and the mill owner.
Vicky (Bachchan), the only possible name for rich on-screen brats before the Malhotras arrived, and Somu (Khanna), a curiously unique name for a Hindi film character, take their arcs from the Indian legend of Krishna and Sudama.
Playing the poor-little-rich-boy, Vicky lives a wealthy but lonely life and craves affection and friendship, both suitably taken care of by Somu, a lower-middle-class boy, and his family.
The plot kicks in when Vicky, asked by his father to run the family-owned mill, is ‘insulted’ by union leader Bipin Lal (A.K. Hangal, being his usual genial self). Vicky’s ‘hurt’ is so severe that he cries in front of Somu who can’t see anything but his friend’s tears. So, he plots revenge. He takes up an undercover job at the mill and slowly wins the trust of the workers only to dislodge Lal. That’s it.
Except, by the time he cunningly sends Lal packing his bags, he has seen too much poverty and misery to turn his gaze away. This evolution frames the film’s argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PleWU2pdK-I
Bombay, as the city was called then, had seen a violent decade in the 1960s (refer Anurag Kashyap’s underseen Bombay Velvet) owing to a vicious battle between mill owners and workers’ unions. In its overt and stated outlook, the Mumbai film establishment was unequivocally socialist till the early 2000s, never mind the subtext suggesting a wish for a more capitalist system. Mukherjee, like his mentor Bimal Roy, was also a socialist.
While most of his cinema was personal in nature, Namak Haraam was an outlier, and frankly, not much of an original comment either. It was simplistic even by Hindi film standards.
But close to five decades later, it’s still a reasonably fun watch, although not necessarily in the manner conceived.
Before he became the face of India’s angst as the Angry Young Man, the character to which Somu was a precursor, Bachchan was struggling to find his own space. Even then, he appeared head and shoulders above his contemporaries. Nowhere was that more evident than in Namak Haraam. Khanna was a ‘stylist’ and that style, despite its unprecedented popularity, became staid very quickly.
Also read: No jobs then, no jobs now: Gulzar’s 1971 film Mere Apne still rings an unfortunate bell
The Khanna-vehicle Anand seems to be years removed from Namak Haraam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17AXtxleQZk
In a film as moralising as this, where characters mouth lines that don’t necessarily sound life-like and the pitch is always too elevated, it’s easy to turn in a performance like Khanna did. Give what people want — the bobbing head, the twinkling eyes, the ‘mannerisms’.
But Bachchan, in a ‘supporting’ part, stood out because he could latch on to the heavy pitch of the film with his now-trademark baritone and a difficult-to-manage subtlety without sacrificing character. The charisma was inbuilt. So even when the twists become too jarring, one remains invested.
Khanna was the lead in Namak Haraam in the conventional sense — he got all the musical hits in the film from composer R.D. Burman who was then at the peak of his powers. (From ‘Diye Jalte Hain’ to ‘Main Shayar Badnaam’, it was a Kishore Kumar festival, the film.)
But Amitabh Bachchan ‘stole’ the film, and given how life played out later, one might say the crown as well.
One must appreciate both of them instead of taking sides. The world has always had times when two or more personalaties vie for the top honour whether in sport or otherwise .In tennis you have Federer vs Nadal same in soccer you have Messi vs Ronaldo in cricket you had Sachin vs Lara today you have Smith vs Kohli let us appreciate the wondeful talent we have experienced and enjoy all thier performances
The role of Rajesh Khanna in Namak Haram was more difficult to play . Amitabh’s role was easier , involving shouting and yelling. There can be no comparison between the 2 . Rajesh Khanna was a much greater actor. He had seen such stardom and had carried 10’s of movies as a solo star to be super hits that after 5-6 years of hysteria , some audiences wanted a change . Hence some of his movies were doing average business, after these hysterical years , which were considered flops since every movie was expected to be a platinum jubilee – hence he was considered finished . But after 2-3 years of fewer hits he came back with still big hits. The kind of stardom seen by Rajesh Khanna , has never been seen before or since . Actually Amitabh was going back after his initial flops , but after sharing screen space with Rajesh in Anand got noticed . The film industry was in general jealous with RK as he was such a big star and no one could control him. One has to have lived in that era to understand .
Genuine…100% perfect analysis
Rajesh Khanna is the most versatile and the greatest actor in Indian Cinema. Despite his heartthrob status, he did a lot of variety roles whereas Amitabh has done tailor- made roles which were written for him by script writers keeping his limited acting talent in mind.. either angry young man or comedy. He was good at delivering dialogues in raised voice so may be he was appreciated but he lacked versatility.
There is only one superstar in this millennium and that’s Rajesh khanna. The title superstar was coined for him only because of his unprecedented stardom! According to Bachchan, the title superstar shall always be Rajesh Khanna’s and no others’ because it is impossible to describe or understand his phenomena! It was something never witnessed before him or after! Salim Khan also quoted the same sometime ago. Khanna’s expressions, dialogue delivery in warm and silky soft voice, body language – everything was excellent! The Anand dialogue where he says” tujhe kya ashirwad doon bahen, yeh bhi to nahin keh sakta meri umar tujhe lag jaye” – no matter how many times I watch, it never failed to make my eyes teary!
Anand, Khamoshi,, Bawarchi , Dushman., Do Raaste, Amar Prem.. Aavishkar…there are so many incredible and unforgettable films he has done and it’s just sheer joy to watch his beautiful performances!
Hindi cinema is blessed to have star in its orbit like Rajesh Khanna! There shall never be another like him!
We miss one point here. The character played by Rajesh Khanna and Amitabh demanded a certain type of acting and both did justice to the character they played. Normally in films people tend to appreciate loud acting and try to undermine underplay. Rajesh Khanna was victim of underplay. The same Rajesh Khanna outshines Shammi Kapoor in Andaz even as he plays a role of special appearance. Shammiji was no less an actor but his role was softer whereas Rajesh’s role was more dramatic and vibrant. There are many such examples.
absolutely true RajeshKhanna as an actor was 2nd to none perhaps the best in emotional scenes . The writer here has gone well overboard stating Amitab Bachchan’s acting .RajeshKhanna in Namak Haram was brilliant & restrained. The more no of times one watches this particular film the more evident is RajeshKhanna’s class
I remember debating this film adnauseum with college mates then. Dont forget Amtabh was truly a junior partner to kaka. Rajesh khanna had almost 30 solo jubilee hits already while Amit had one. Ofcourse there was great buzz about him but track record wise at that time Navin Nischol was better. Considering all this, Kaka deserves immense praise for sharing the screen equitably with him. Both performed superbly but all the nuances are in Kaka’s performance. Every feature of his personality from playfulness to pathos plays out in one scene or the other while Amit as Vijay says – shouts,screams and smoulders and then repeats and then repeats. But he does it well , ofcourse. Its a truly great adaptation. One other film these two should have done is Khudgarz.
Rajesh’s was a superb sohisticated performance modelled on Richard Burton’s in Beckett. Amit was relatively stilll raw and definitely the junior partner and stuck to his patented scream and shout and smoulder formula that he maintained from Zanjeer to Jaadugar. He performed with great commitment and class but it was similar to all his other roles thereafter. Kaka was the god like king of Bollywood then and he underplayed magnificently. Alas , the mass audience in India only considers grandstanding as one upmanship! Neither Kaka nor Amit were trying to do that . They were both faithful to the original material. Please see an insightful writeup on this film by anaad22 by googling Namak haraam in Rajesh khanna forum at Topix.net.. Two great actors directed by a great director from a great script . I dont think they both had anything against each other. Like kamal and rajini they became too commercially big to fit in one film after NH. Thats all.
Please see the definitive comment and article on this clash of giants in Rajesh Khanna forum on http://www.topix.com.
Rajesh has a softer role and Amit had the louder role. . Rajesh role was multi dimensional and Amit’s was the usual angry young man. Could the roles have been reversed ? Maybe in kakas case but not so for Amit. So don’t applaud loudness for great oneupman ship in acting.
No doubt, Rajesh khanna in leading role, but Amitabh bachchan stole the entire film that is why he is the greatest superstar of Indian cinema.
At the premier show, Rajesh Khanna commented, ” aaj ek aur superstar paida ho gaya”. That says it all! Amitabh, the tehspian was finding his feet.
Indeed mr Sunil,time has proven again and again that AB is incomparable to anyone.
Amitabh bachan can never be compared to rajesh khanna. Mr khannas personality and charisma is incomparable.
It was a landmark movie with a subtle message on capitalism.socialism…
The interaction between Vicky and Somu/Chander are good but the interaction between Vicky and his father is super….
Even the character of Simi Garewal also leaves a message on capitalism…