Why are B-Town’s ‘heroes’ looking at Tamil and Telugu films for villainous roles?

Much before he donned the costume for Shankar’s 2.0, where he played the antagonist, we had asked Akshay Kumar why he said yes to playing a negative role in the Rajinikanth starrer. “Because villains ke award mein lobbying nahin hoti hain!” he had responded with a loud laugh. The superstar might have been kidding about his villainous turn, but the fact remains that his negative act coupled with Rajinikanth’s might have helped the sci-fi film’s final collection for all formats to reach a massive Rs 655.81 crore!

Honestly, the idea of a conventional hero playing a villain is not new to Hindi cinema. Akshay himself played a man with amoral values in 2001’s Ajnabee. Shah Rukh Khan, who is looked upon as the king of romance, ironically played the anti-hero in more than one film — Baazigar (1993), Darr (1993), Anjaam (1994), Duplicate (1998) and Don (2006). In fact, the shahenshah of all heroes — Amitabh Bachchan, too, could not resist the lure of playing a baddie in movies such as Faraar (1975), Parwana (1971), Aankhen (2002) and Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag (2007). Actors like Aamir Khan, Ajay Devgn, Saif Ali Khan, Hrithik Roshan and John Abraham among others, too, have explored their darker sides. Last year, it was Ranveer Singh who got the maximum applause in Padmaavat, even though he played the cruel ruler Alauddin Khilji.

While these villainous portrayals were few and far between, lately, the grey shade seems to be holding quite an appeal for B-Town’s heroes. Prateik Babbar has recently been named the antagonist in AR Murugadoss’s Darbar featuring superstar Rajinikanth as a cop. And if rumours are to be believed, SRK will once again play the bad man in his Tamil debut, actor Vijay’s upcoming film Thalapathy 63. 

HEROISM IS OVERRATED

How does a hero prove that he’s a hero if there isn’t a villain to make his life hell? Akshay, who knows this quite well, told another publication why he took on the role of the shape-shifting antagonist Pakshirajan in 2.0. “Many people asked me why I wanted to play a villain and I told them, ‘Why not?’ A hero exists only when there’s a villain.”

Shah Rukh, who has seen success in both his avatars — heroic as well as villainous — has, in the past, been vocal about the lure of the darker side. “Evil or devil, black or little grey characters, be it in books, stories, films or television, have some sort of attraction... I enjoy doing it. I am in no way glorifying negative characters. These are stories and characters. But as an actor, it is one of the greatest highs to play a villain. It is a different kind of a high for an actor,” he has been quoted as saying.

Prateik Babbar will be the antagonist in AR Murugadoss’ Darbar (left); Vivek Oberoi

EYEING THE SOUTH

The other notable thing that seems to be happening is that a number of these ‘switchovers’ are happening in the South film industry. While AK’s 2.0 was a Tamil film, Vivek Oberoi has become a sought-after actor in the South after playing a villain successfully in movies such as Vivegam (Tamil) and Lucifer (Malayalam). Darbar, in which Prateik will be crossing swords with Rajinikanth, too, is a Tamil project. It might be a co-incidence but the fact remains that including a Hindi cinema star to a South film lends the movie a pan-India appeal. Also, there is curiosity about what the combination of two stars from two different film industries will bring to the table. Take 2.0, for instance. While Rajinikanth is a superstar in every sense of the word, the Khiladi is undisputedly one of the most successful actors in Bollywood today, with the ability to pull in the masses. His presence in the film ensured that the Hindi version became the fifth-highest Hindi grosser of 2018, netting Rs189.85 crore at the domestic box office. 

Trade analyst Taran Adarsh agrees that a movie starring a Bollywood actor in a South film does have its charms. “People are bound to give it a second look because of curiosity. Also, the pan-India appeal makes it viewer-friendly,” he says. However, he doesn’t believe that the South connection is a major factor when it comes to actors making the switch. “Maybe the offers they received were lucrative. It all boils down to the content. Roles are not defined anymore and the lines have blurred. Actors, today, want to do all kinds of roles to showcase their range and versatility. If they are getting an opportunity to do that in a South film, why not?” he concludes.