Kichcha Sudeep Interview on 'Mark': ‘Nothing Is Forever — and That Clarity Doesn’t Scare Me'

Kichcha Sudeep is persistent. He is persistent with his drive. Over his almost 30-year-run at the cinemas, the Kannada actor is among the top A-listers in the industry today, but his rise hasn’t been without early struggles. The actor is also persistent with his clarity. When asked about his sharp observation on an actor’s shelf life, he says, “Don't have so much assurance that everything is forever. Fame is important to me, and so are friends and family. At the same time, every day comes to an end, right? So why are you taking today to tomorrow?” he tells The Hollywood Reporter India in an interview. 

Ahead of his upcoming film, Mark, the actor sits down with THR India at a Bengaluru studio to discuss his love for Kannada cinema, being a pan-Indian star before the term existed, and whether he would ever return to playing a wildly enjoyable antagonist like the one in SS Rajamouli’s Eega.

Excerpts from an interview:

What makes you say yes to a film? Because I've seen you discuss the effort that goes into these scripts. For instance, you worked on the script of Max for about 8 to 12 months with the director.

It's many things. I would've seen many films and read news about certain films doing extremely well, and would've probably waited for something that excites me. But I will definitely not say yes to a film because something similar has worked in the market. I don't think that can easily make me say yes. For me, it has to excite me. It should be something I haven't done so far, and even if it is something I've done before, it should have a newer plot. 

What was the spark with Mark?

It's the same team that did Max, but here, there are more layers to the character arc. He is sarcastic, fun and animal-like. Even when he narrated the script to me, I was curious about what was going to happen next. It was worth taking a chance. 

The film isn't going to disturb lives if it doesn't work. If it does well, we're very happy, and if it doesn't do well, we're still happy. We're all safe, and it is not that kind of a budget we've thrown in that we have to be concerned about. If you're allotting me two-odd hours, trust me, I've given you something worth your time. I might not have made a Ben-Hur or a Gladiator. We didn't do that for Max, either, but we delivered. 

We have increasingly seen people take notice of local ecosystems and the specificities of regional cinema, such as Kannada. Is this a good time for the industry? 

There will always be fluctuations, and nothing is a good time or a bad time. It might be because of society's circumstances. Your job is to keep doing something persistently well. But for an industry to do well, it needs collective efforts, but done differently. If everyone does their job well individually, it collectively helps the local ecosystem.

Every language has its own strengths and loose ends. I love my language, and I will strive to do better in Kannada films. I would like to take Kannada films higher. There are a lot of actors who have the same mindset, wanting to do better in the language. There are many minds trying to take Kannada cinema higher. It is being handled by good people.

The industry has a thriving set of stars, such as yourself, who belong to a generation that has been able to attract a loyal fanbase. But do you think the industry needs more star directors like in Tamil and Telugu cinema?

Every industry needs star directors so that it helps the business and acts as an invitation to the theatre. As much as you believe that a star actor can pull a crowd, a star director can pull a crowd, too. It is important. In the last few years, I've seen a lot of newer talents, and their content is surprising. Over the years, things will be in a much better place.

I have to point out that you were one of the first actors to be a pan-Indian sensation before the term even became commonplace, with films like Naan Ee, Rann and Phoonk. How do you look at the term today? Is it overused?

It is overused. If anyone says they're making a pan-Indian film, I don't think it's making a difference at all in the market. Overused is probably an understatement because it is used so much. If anyone says the words ‘pan-Indian film,' your expression remains the same. Your eyebrows don't come together, and you don't have another curious question. When a certain film is being spoken about, and you know its value, they don't need to say it's a pan-Indian film. The potential of certain scripts is much larger than these words.

I wasn't thinking much while doing these films, and that's why I did well. Cinema did everything. I didn't think it was pan-Indian or anything. Rajamouli sir called me, RGV called me, and I did these films.

You're someone who can read a film and its fans really astutely, and you have done that over the years with a league of mass films that also have their own subtleties. How important is it for you to balance the creativity of the craft along with what audiences want?

I don't have to strike that balance because I think like an audience. As and when they're narrating the script to me, I'm imagining a film. I can't think like Sudeep, but as an audience member. You're not giving me prefixes or suffixes; I'm just sitting very vulnerable and listening to these scripts. 

You've spoken about retirements, and how any actor, no matter how big they are, needs to hang up their boots at one point. Do you think it is this clarity that drives you? 

This clarity doesn't scare me. If something is still working, then you're thankful for nature, and you can work on things with excitement. It doesn't make me take things too seriously. Don't have so much assurance that everything is forever. Fame is important to me, and so are friends and family. At the same time, every day comes to an end, so why are you taking today to tomorrow? This kind of thinking took me nowhere in my earlier days, and that's probably why I'm like this today.

You've played some deeply significant character roles apart from the exciting hero of the masses. But does stardom also come with a caveat? Do you miss playing outrageously different characters and villains, such as in Eega? 

No, I don't miss it. I don't see my character in Eega as a villain at all; he was a lead. Eega was a Joker and a Batman film. My hero was Batman, wearing a mask and flying all over the place. He didn't have a face. That's how I heard the story. The film also involved monoacting. 

That's an incredible comparison. Did you play the role thinking this?

Yes. For me, it was very easy because my character in the film imagines what eega explains. I'm reacting to my performance. The intensity of the performance was working for me. Sir [SS Rajamouli] would've given me a brief, but I would react immediately in a way. The fly was more so, many times, me only. I was imagining it in the room. 

I'm not interested in playing baddies and villains who have no purpose. Playing the antagonist also comes with a lot of freedom. The way you can portray a character in a negative role is beautiful. The greys allow you a lot of freedom. Of course, I would love to play a role like this again. Don't forget, I reject about 20 to 30 films a year, though they're hero roles. It's the same thing here. If it doesn't excite me, I say no.