Forget Ram Gopal Varma Ki doused Aag, that seminal moment when Nagarjuna’s Shiva pulls out a cycle chain and wraps it around  his knuckles, still gives you gooseflesh.
Shiva is the kind of a cult film one cannot fault even in retrospect. The hero who spoke with his hooded eyes and with his fists to take on a dysfunctional system and a loose lipped, coldly menacing Bhavani (played by an unforgettable Raghuvaran), is still an indelible memory. Even sixteen years later, in the darkened lounge of PVR’s Gold Class as you watch Shiva chase a goonda down the never-ending  college corridor through the jerky gaze of a steadycam, you shiver with an almost forgotten rush of fear and excitement. When was the last time cinema did that to you? But when Ram Gopal Varma talks about revisiting the angry young man of yore in a new packaging, you wonder if he really can resurrect that magic without actors like AB, Nagarjuna and Co? Do the younger heroes have it in them to convey that hungry angst?
You ask him, hoping that he won’t take the criticism personally and he retorts because he thinks you are appropriating his right to make the films he wants. He says, “I don’t make films for you. I won’t  make another Rangeela just because you are missing a musical! I make the films I want to make.’’
Point taken but why remake Shiva or Sholay? 
He responds, “It is unfair to say that young actors (like Mohit Ahlawat) do not have what it takes. An actor is the character he plays. And acting is not such a big deal. Acting basically means imitating a feeling. An actor is an exhibitionist. Someone who does not fear the camera and can face it and has the guts to open himself to criticism. If he has this part right and the part written on paper is good, anything is possible. What is an X-factor that you are talking about?  Maybe its luck or something that cannot  be recreated but do remember that actors like Amitabh Bachchan and Rajni Kant worked in films designed to promote their stardom. Mr Bachchan has also worked in films like Mrityudata that failed.  No one can understand  Rajni Kant’s success  but if he had worked in wrong films, even he would not have become the phenomenon he is today. The vehicle is always more important than the star.’’
Has his own angst and intensity, visible in every frame of the gritty Shiva, been diluted? He thinks and says, “Maybe it has. I don’t know if that is good or bad. There was a `thehrav,’ a silence in Shiva that I cannot bring back. I am scared of holding the moment because my audience has changed. They are sitting in the theatres with mobiles, sending text messages and film makers are desperate to hold their attention. Films today have no recall value because they are made in a hurry.  Everything has been changed by consumerism. Music, books, theatre. The world is ruled by the remote control. My mind has also changed along with the audience.’’
You remind him how moments in Sarkar had inbuilt silence but he grins, “ Some people disagreed with my use of  the background music and found it  too  in the face but I used it  to supplement the silence. Otherwise Sarkar would have looked like an art film!’’
And why have women become peripheral in his films unless they are required to undulate on the beach? He laughs, “Maybe as a man, I like to see sexy women on screen but seriously, Naach was strongly female centric. So was Bhoot.’’
But why are his recent heroines only being repetitively sensual for no reason unlike in Rangeela where the heroine was sensuous within a context?  Sensuality never works unless it is thematically relevant. He nods generously,“ You are right.’’
Does he consider himself to be an anti-establishment director? He did make the comment that he feels like a small terrorist cell hoping that he would not be wiped and bombed out by the Yash Chopras and Karan Johars! He asks, “What do you think is the establishment? And why would you feel that I feel alone? I consider myself to be an alternate establishment. But if 16 years after I made my first film, people are willing to invest time, energy  and money in me, I must be doing something right. You can’t exist in this industry unless your films work. I do not make films for the critics. I don’t make hardcore, safe films. Even I am appalled that I am still here.’’
Irreverent as ever, he even swears on his mother, sister and Siddhivinayak that he has nothing against Karan Johar and infact thinks that KANK is the best film since Titanic!
Like everything else in his life, Varma demystifies film-making as well. He says, “It is no big deal. Anyone who can tell a story with clarity and has a love for  films can make films. In my time, the film-making tools were not accessible. We learnt by watching films. Now anyone can make a film with Digi camera. If tomorrow no one buys my films, I will still make them and see them myself!’’
Have multiplexes helped him? “I was making films with or without multiplexes,’’ he retorts.  He sees cinema as a library teeming with something for everyone. “All sorts of films should be made, not just one kind. None has the right to take away anyone’s right to tell a story,’’ he says.