Master Frames: Sujoy Ghosh

Master Frames is a new series on the craft of cinema, in which we invite filmmakers, technicians and actors to deconstruct their processes for you. The people featured on this series are doing some of the most remarkable work happening in Indian cinema today and have a lot to offer to those who wish to learn from them or those who would simply like a backstage tour.

Here, filmmaker and screenwriter, Sujoy Ghosh talks about the making of his movies and his oeuvre.

 

Video Excerpts

 ON DIRECTING AND MANAGING ACTORS

 ON FINDING THE RIGHT STORY  

 ON FUNDING A FILM AND OTHER STRUGGLES

ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDITING AND DIRECTION  

ON SELF-CENSORSHIP 

ON INVOLVEMENT WITH  MARKETING AND PUBLICITY 

 

How do you find your stories? Where do you find them? How do you know you’ve found something to make into a film?

 

Mostly, it all depends on what excites you, and what predominantly allows you to give your visual representation, in terms of a concept, right? So there are a lot of stories going around you, which you really can’t use. But if you find the story; like, three friends at different points in life, work in an office, play music by the night. But then how do you visually represent that? So once you have cracked that, when you have a story and you can pack the visual representation of the story and you’re equally excited after having cracked that, that’s when you find the story. You need to know whether you’re willing to give your whole life to make that story. Does it have something you really want to say? Something you want to take a stand on as a filmmaker?

 

Which brings me to the question of when you write stories. Is it the story first, and then the telling, or is your story written like a proto-screenplay? Or is it written like a novella that you then make into a screenplay?

 

Except Home Delivery (: Aapko… Ghar Tak), I think most of the time, I write a story first. It’s like a four pager that I write. So I know why my characters are… I know where they came from; I know where they’re going. For example, if Vidya (Balan) is working with me, I should be in a position to tell her that: Okay, right now she’s sitting in a police station… but where she was three days back or what she was doing an hour ago. So I should be able to know the whole universe of my story. The bits that I pick and choose to tell, that is different, that is selectively used in my screenplay.

 

So that’s a separate step for you?

 

Absolutely. I see a lot of new people coming to me with stories; most of the stories that they write, they’re actually writing a screenplay. But stories are never screenplays. You never write a story to make a film. You just write a story. And then you take bits from the story, you add to the story, you delete from the story, you change the story, you mould it to whatever is needed in order to give you that visual representation.

 

Where have you learnt to write stories, where have you learnt how to tell them?

 

I keep my benchmark as my grandmother; my Dida was the best in terms of captivating my attention. I don’t know if it was my age, or whether it was my absolute zero knowledge of the environment around me. Whatever it was, I would like to be in that position, you know, where I am telling you a story and I totally have your attention.

 

But what about the story itself— the structure of the story etc. Where have you got those lessons from?

 

Yeah, I never had any formal training as such, but my biggest advantage was that when I was growing up I didn’t have anything like the internet. I just had books. So I read a lot. That was my only proper pastime, you know; whether I was in a toilet or in my room, or if I was eating, I always read. And, I think somewhere that probably helped me structure, in terms of the beginning, the middle and the end. Lot of people come to me and tell me all these fundamental things like Act 1, Act 2, Act 3, like fuck I know what they are! In a story, I try to see what it is that I’m seeking. What is it that’s exciting me? Whose story is it that I’m trying to tell. Once I’ve cracked that, then it’s quite an easy thing for me.

 

Do you still read a lot?

 

I try to. I don’t get that kind of time, but I try. I read a book, very recently, which was very nice, called Chanakya’s Chant (by Ashwin Sanghi). I also take a lot from graphic novels. It helps me to visualize, it helps me to tell a story in a manner which is more visual. I keep looking for things which help me represent emotions on screen.

 

 So do you generally like writers who are also very visual?

 

I mean the last incredibly visual book that I had read was probably the first Harry Potter (and the Philosopher’s Stone) by (J. K.) Rowling. And the seventh one (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) too was visual; the seventh one was actually like a screenplay. Wait, the last such book was actually (The) Hunger Games (by Suzanne Collins), not Harry Potter

 

You’ve often said you’ve learnt by watching films. Give me specifics of techniques you’ve learnt from films and filmmakers.

 

For example, I’ve learnt by watching (Alfred) Hitchcock, or reading Hitchcock, that food helps to calm you down. In the most intense moment, if you see food, food is a very natural thing to calm you down. So in Kahaani, you’ll see a lot of food. You feel comfortable when you’re seeing things which are very known, like Hakka noodles. So that really helps you. Then for example I wanted to establish the character of Vidya Bagchi as somebody who’s a little more exotic than what Rana has been seeing in terms of the women around him. Now he comes from a very average middle class family. He’s a mama’s boy. So he hasn’t really been exposed to too many women, right? So what we do is, from what I’ve learnt, you use a set up. You give him a computer, which he’s been struggling with. In comes Vidya, and in a matter of a seconds, helps him defeat the computer. And in the process, she becomes a heroine in Rana’s eyes. This is a technique (Satyajit) Ray used. The set up.

Also Sonny Corleone (in Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather). He was the best set up in cinema. Why did they need three sons? Why couldn’t they have four sons, five sons or one son? It was a damn good set up because Sonny was the perfect heir to the empire. So Michael’s journey becomes so much more difficult for him, compared to Sonny, and then you start actually investing in Michael, which is the most predominant thing in the story. You need a hook. You need an investment.

 

What about pure technique, I mean, say something like a camera movement, or something like a shot or a framing?

 

My only framing reference till date has been a film called Mahanagar by Ray, which was filmed by Subrata Mitra.

 

What about the framing? The framing or the mise-en-scène?

 

The framing! Just the framing. I don’t believe in mise-en-scène or master shots or any of that rubbish.

 

When you say you don’t believe in all that, you mean you don’t look at your film through those…

 

No, I don’t understand them. Those terms are too by the book.

 

But mise-en-scène can be very simple also. It can just be what is in a frame. I mean if you look at the very basic of a mise-en-scène, it’s basically what is in your frame.

 

I guess, yeah. But you know, it’s like I remember in the beginning, I never believed in a master shot. Okay? But ADs (assistant directors) were always going on about master shots. But the problem is, the moment you take a master shot you give in to all those clichés: “master shot yeh-woh hai (whether a master shot is this or that). So I can’t think like that. I need to think as I work. Probably I’m wrong, because I‘ve gone wrong a couple of times…

 

But it’s interesting to me, because in Kahaani I felt like you were telling the story. The whole idea of mise-en-scène being that the frame tells the story, right? Your frame was telling the story as well, and I can’t believe it’s not conscious, you know?

 

Yeah, you know, it was… I just go with the flow. Like I never ever… how do I say it? It’s planned, but not to that extent.

 

So how do you determine your frame? Simply by the emotional or aesthetic need of the story, or also to add layers to it?

 

My frame is always about telling the story. My frame is always about the emotion in that moment. It is about what I really need to see. I used a lot of close-ups in Kahaani. I needed to stay with Vidya. Whereas in Aladin I didn’t mind a little wide shot because I wanted to show off my sets, how clever I am in creating this city. So it is more pertaining to the storytelling than anything else.

 

 You have doffed your hat to the filmmakers you have learnt from in your films. Like the ‘running hot and cold water’ joke from (Ray’s) Joi Baba Felunath that you used in Kahaani. Can you remember other examples?

 

Aise bahut kuch tha! I mean, I have to now delve into the past… There were little references in Jhankaar (Beats), when that guy comes and says “I’ve seen hyenas in China” (from Ray’s Sonar Kella). So those are the little dialogues of Ray I have taken. So again in Jhankaar…when Rahul (Bose) just falls back on his bed, that’s my tribute to (Martin Scorsese’s) Mean Streets. But nobody will know. There’s a heavy background score, that’s Harvey Keitel falling. I mean, these are little things I do, but they’re too obscure to get…

 

Any books by directors that you recommend?

 

I’ve read of lot of Ray’s books like Our Films Their Films. It was a nice interpretation of things, in terms of analyzing cinema and everything. Not that I understood much of it. But it was a nice read. I like reading books by makers on how they made a film; the process they went through, the journey they went through, the small details.

 

Name three filmmakers whom you’d like to talk to about their process, other than Ray.

 

I’d love to… most of them are dead.

 

Yeah, that’s fine.

 

I would have loved to have a chat with Tapan Sinha. And who else? Probably (Steven) Spielberg, if I was given an opportunity, because I like the kind of stuff he does. And probably Rohit Shetty. I really want to know how he does that.

 

Where do you write? Do you have any writing rituals?

 

Recently, what’s happening is, I’m not getting the space to write because of my fucking mobile phone. If I do write, I like to go out a little. Even if I could lock myself in this room, I can get it done.

 

Do you have some amount of your story already concretely in your head, before you start putting it down on paper?

 

A lot of it, yes. At the back of my head. Like now I’m doing Badla. Badla has been there at the back of my head for a long time. And the thought keeps developing, little by little. Once I have a beginning and an end, you know, and a very vague journey. For example, the woman (in Kahaani) comes, she goes through things, lands up in Calcutta… the fact that she lands in Calcutta and not Bombay or Delhi, etc. Once I have sorted all that out, then I start writing.

 

Have you collaborated with any other writers on your scripts?

 

Yeah, only on Jhankaar… I didn’t collaborate with anybody.

 

 What is the process like?

 

The process is I write a first draft. Then I bounce it off my standard army of writers and then they add their bits to it. And then we keep going back and forth until finally it takes a shape to which we say: “Yes, this is awesome,” or: “No, this is not happening.”

 

So you collaborate more on the story stage?

 

Yes, screenplay I do not collaborate on. I’m very selfish about screenplay. It’s what I bring to the table as the director. And it’s an incredibly enjoyable process for me, writing the screenplay.

 

Once the script is ready, how much feedback do you take on your script? Or when you’re writing it?

 

The way I work, I have some fulcrums on which I sort of structure my script. For example, most of the time—and it’s a very bad habit, so I wouldn’t recommend it—I have an actor in mind for certain roles. So these people, I bounce it off.

 

Why are you saying it’s a bad habit?

 

Because sometimes you can get stuck. Like if I write a script for one actor and they can’t do it.

 

But it’s a gamble. And if it pays off then does it make your script better?

 

It’s a gamble, yeah. If you can pull it off, nothing like it. But the film shouldn’t be for the actor. So when I have an idea that X actor will fit into a role, I go to that actor. Once my script is ready, say Kahaani, I ask Vidya: “What do you think?” If she likes it then I’m sorted. Then I keep the script as it is. Then all the improvisation, all the deletions, all the changes, I prefer them to be organic on the sets. Where, maybe, my DOP comes with suggestions and ADs come with suggestions or the actors or any of the technicians.

Asking for feedback at the script level can be tricky. Like I remember when I was doing Jhankaar… , that  time Kaho Naa… (Pyaar Hai) had released and Hrithik (Roshan) was a phenomenon. So some people told me, why don’t you change R. D. Burman to Hrithik Roshan?

 

What?!

 

Yeah. You know, everybody has an opinion and I’m not going to sit here and waste my time arguing with you. So if you have an opinion, great, I’ll hear it. But I will only change something when it’s worth changing.

 

So there are no people outside the people you’re working with, to whom you narrate the story or your script to get feedback?

 

Earlier, no. But now I go to my aunt in Kolkata or get my mother to read. It’s very important because they are the audience. When I got my mother to read Kahaani, in the initial part she was a little confused, “Arey ki hochche (What’s happening?), I don’t understand this, or that.” And then I try to tweak it a little, not much, though I like this process.

 

Everything is critical in a film but every filmmaker has certain elements that are more critical to him than the others. How critical is dialogue to you?

 

It can be very critical. I’ll give you an example. Like this book I was telling you about, Chanakya’s Chant, that I just read. Now if I was to make that into a film, dialogues would be the most crucial part for me in that film. I would not even touch that film unless I know I am the world’s best dialogue writer for that film. Because language is central to that vision for me. The captivating stuff of dialogues.

Whereas, in a movie like Aladin, where I have other things to play with, in terms of the visuals and special effects, dialogues may not be that important. I can balance it off against my editing, against my background score, against gimmicks.

 

So you’re saying that it’s dictated by the film.

 

What I’m trying to say is, for me the battle is to captivate your attention and for winning that battle I have various means. I have dialogues, I have background score, I have my editing, I have my cinematography. So it’s what I use in what proportion. Like if I have a weak scene, I spice it up with a bit of background score, I try to camouflage it with some flashy editing.

 

Can you think of a scene from one of your movies which you feel, in retrospect, could have been made better if the dialogue was slightly better? And the flipside, a scene which you feel like the dialogue brings a lot to?

 

Yeah, I think the first 15 minutes of Home Delivery… , where I felt the dialogue should have been much crisper. You know what happens is… I think one of my biggest faults is that I write in English. Now the punch lines are in English— when you try to put them in Hindi, one line becomes four lines. And I think that’s where I probably went wrong, in terms of the dialogues of Home Delivery… because I was trying to Hindify in English. And as a process, some scenes dragged.

 

And the flipside?

 

My personal favourite, I think is, where Rana (in Kahaani) asks Nawaz (Nawazuddin Siddiqui), you know, “What is the difference between me and Milan Damji?” And he (Siddiqui) said: “There is no difference. We are for the law, he is against the law. That’s where we are right and he is wrong.” As a filmmaker I was really proud of that statement that I could make out there.

 

How do you name your characters?

 

That’s very difficult! This is probably the toughest part of writing, finding names. But I do a little bit of work. Like, for example, in Aladin, the word ‘genius’ came from the word genie. So we called Mr. (Amitabh) Bachchan Genius. And then we took the easy way out of calling Sanjay Dutt the Ringmaster because he looked like one. When I was doing Jhankaar… , the only name I thought of was Shanti. That name had a meaning in the whole movie. Apart from that I thought a bit about Shayan (Munshi)’s character, because I wanted a name which would sound both English and Hindi, so I called him Neel.

 

What about calling Vidya ‘Vidya’?

 

That actually was because of her own name, which is known as ‘Bidya Balone’ in Kolkata. Venkatesh came from a friend of mine, Soumya Venkateshan. And Soumya’s husband is called Arnab Basu. So I took her husband’s name too and put it in and Milan Damji came from the name of a hotel, some Damji. I remember seeing some Damji hotel when I used to go from Malad to Churchgate everyday. That’s where I got the surname and Milan was from Milan Luthria. Bob Biswas— I had a teacher in St. James (Ghosh’s school) called Mrs. Biswas and her husband was called Robert. Life is the best place to steal from.

 

But do you think it matters?

 

On hindsight it does. I try to give characters a name which somewhere shows a little bit of their character. Like when I wrote a script called Borivali, which had Mr. (Amitabh) Bachchan. His name was Pratap in that film because his character was like a ‘Pratap’. He was tall, he was arrogant, he had a lot of pent-up anger. So that name sort of fitted very well.

 

How do you name films?

 

I put in a lot of work on it. The name should define the film. It’s like a human being. A film, for me, is my child. So it’s like I have to give my child a name. So, that name will identify what the film is all about. So I put a lot of thought in the name. For me, a name is very important. I get the name of a film first. Like Badla, I waited to get that title for so long.

 

Was it hard to get the title? I’m assuming other people had registered Badla.

 

Yeah, it was very hard because people had the title and you have to wait till they let go of it before you can get it.

 

So why did you call Jhankaar Beats ‘Jhankaar Beats’?

 

The whole concept was about taking some old song, some boring melodious tune and adding a bit of spice to it. That’s what Jhankaar Beats was all about. Adding a bit of spice to your life. I got a huge amount of opposition to that name. You have no idea how people fought with me.

 

I can imagine.

 

That’s one thing I’m very grateful to Pakistan for, introducing Jhankaar Beats. First time I heard, it came from Pakistan, and I was blown.

 

It came from Pakistan? Really?!

 

Yeah.

 

And why is Kahaani called Kahaani ?

 

It was like they were playing chess with stories. She was telling a story, he was telling a story… The whole thing was a game of stories.

 

Okay, and why Home Delivery… ?

 

Home Delivery… because it’s about a man who has sort of deviated from his path, so it was like delivering a man back to his home.

 

Can you think of something you took from life and used to shape a character?

 

Most of my characters are from real life. For example, the whole concept of Juhi (Chawla) in Jhankaar… was created out of these keys my grandmother used to have at the end of her sari. Those keys signified her stature, those keys signified her standing and those keys signified some amount of unity. So my whole idea of Juhi’s character was those keys. I saw her as a woman who would have those keys, who would hold everything together. No matter what the calamity is, no matter what shit is going on, she would hold it together. And hence she was named Shanti also. Even Deep and Rishi, they’re also people I know, in Calcutta. I mean like, little things here and there. Rishi is like most of the people I meet. Like people who have become entrapped in their own doings. People who have to be funny all the time, even when they don’t want to be. But it’s the character they have built, they’re the funny guys, the clowns, so they have to keep cracking those one liners, you have no escape, because you’re your own monster. (Vidya) Balan’s character was totally based on my mother.

 

Can you think of something you might have borrowed from another film?

 

The image of Mr. (Amitabh) Bachchan and Raakhee (Gulzar) walking in the rain in Kaala Patthar has stayed in my head. It’s raining, there’s this Parikshit Sahni singing Jageya… And they are just walking and there’s no dialogue. That for me is the best love story ever, on screen. That somewhere is what you see between Rana and Vidya (in Kahaani). It’s all silent. It’s all about one lady just putting the lamps off and one man playing the mouth organ and watching her putting the lamps off. Those are very doomed love stories and they are awesome. Love in the truest sense. There’s no expectation in that relationship.

One more thing which probably stayed in my head is the character of Vijay in Deewaar. A man who would never step into a temple. But then he steps into a temple for his mother. That act has stayed with me. I think that’s probably what you see in Bishnu in Kahaani, when the kid gives the radio. I think that’s a great gesture, a selfless gesture.

 

Is there an image from real life that might have got stuck in your head, and might have found a way into your films?

 

Yeah. In Kolkata, during the (Durga) Puja what happens is, those four days you’re totally immersed in the pujo. Then the fourth day of the pujo totally fucks you up— when you realize it’s going to end. And, like you like your articles to end, I wanted Kahaani to end on a highly emotional note. And the only emotion that I could think of was the thought of Ma Durga going away. I’ve seen that. I’ve seen people crying. I’ve seen my elders breaking down and crying.

 

I get that because I’m from Calcutta, but were you afraid that it might not be universally relatable as a cultural experience?

 

Yes and no. For me that was the best representation and I took it straight out of my life. Somewhere I was confident that it would work because, at the end of the day, it evokes the mother. And ‘mother’ is universal. Like Mr. Manmohan Desai has taught us— ‘nothing in this world works better than a mother’. But it was a risk, you’re absolutely right.

 

How well should a director know his story before he starts shooting?

 

I personally need to know it inside out. I need to know every damn thing about every character of mine. That’s the only way I can work with my actors. I mean, if Nawaz says, “Why small Gold Flake?” I should be able to explain to him why I am asking him to carry a small packet of Gold Flake.

 

How do you do that? Do you write back stories?

 

The back stories are very important to me. It’s very important for me to know that Khan came up the hard way, that he was as simple as you and me, in terms of lifestyle. He worked his ass off, and had nobody to defend him. The only person he ever depended on was himself and hence the arrogance. Because whatever he’s done, he’s done it himself and he has a strong sense of loyalty. So the cigarette that he smoked back in the days, the cheapest cigarette that can be your best friend when you’re struggling, he still holds onto them and that loyalty is also reflected in the fact that he totally loves his country. So he says: “Fuck it! If I have to kill Vidya Bagchi, I will.”

 

How detailed are your back stories? Do your characters have birthdays?

 

Not yet. I know them from their childhood but that kind of detailing I haven’t done till now. Maybe in the future I will.

 

You were with Reuters once. Has journalism brought anything to your storytelling?

 

The whole Reuters process actually fucked me up. A wire service has a lot of responsibilities. Because based on what you are dispensing a lot of decisions are made. These are crucial decisions. There is a serious rigmarole, a procedure within Reuters wherein you have to verify everything. Facts were very important. Somewhere that stayed with me. When I do something I do tend to try to verify it as much as I can. I don’t take things on face value.

 

Give me an example.

 

Aladin, for example. When I created the world of Aladin, when I created Khwaish (a fictional city), I made sure that I did it by the book. So, in the absence of existing laws, I create for myself a set of laws like they do in journalism. Like we will not report bullshit. And I stuck to rules I made. So, in Aladin, the streets are cobbled, all the houses are heritage, so there’ll be no paint on any houses because heritage houses can’t have paint.

 

A belief in authenticity?

 

Yeah.

 

Do you write with an interval in mind?

 

Yes, I do. You have to.

 

The screenplay or the story?

 

A screenplay, not the story.

 

How do you feel about the interval as a filmmaker and as a writer?

 

I would be happy without an interval but then I’d prefer my film to be one and a half hour to one hour forty minutes. With an interval I do get the advantage of making my film up to two hours. I’ve grown up with intervals, so it’s sort of a part of my system and it doesn’t bother me.

 

Let’s talk about your team. You’ve said that you’ve chosen entirely new teams, other than your music directors, because you really wanted to be on your toes. I wanted to understand that a little better.

 

As a director, my main job is to manage people. I manage people. To bring out the best in people, whether it’s my DOP or whether it’s my editor. But if I’m doing it with the same people over and over again, then I don’t have any credibility. I should be able to do that with every team that I’ve been given. I should be able to do it with every new DOP. I should be able to do it with every new editor.

 

 

 

But didn’t that make it slightly more risky given that you’ve spoken about how Kahaani was do or die for you?

 

It’s risky! Yeah! I was going all out. So I thought, if I have to, let me go all out. I thought I was getting a little complacent. I could feel it. So I wanted to get out. I wanted to push myself into a little bit of an unsafe zone.

 

So, your film is only as good as your team or your film is only as good as you handle your team?

 

As I handle my team. I’m sorry, I’m not trying to bring it all back to myself. But the thing is, at the end of the day, you have to manage people. You have to maintain harmony.

 

What is your best quality as a director?

 

I can manage people very well.

 

What are some of things that you have or would like to change about yourself as a person, which you feel might make you a better filmmaker?

 

I really don’t know. I wish I knew. If I could crack that, I would be a better filmmaker tomorrow. I only keep learning with every film, and I’m quite happy about that because every film is a search, which is great fun.

 

What have you learnt on the job about directing actors?

 

Do not interfere. This is what I try to follow most of the time. When we make a film, it’s in blocks, in terms of scenes. Now each scene has a takeaway. Each scene has an emotional moment. Each requires an actor to act in a certain way, in order to convey that message to the audience. Like after this scene, the audience should know, the boy and girl have fallen in love, or they hate each other, or boy has stabbed the girl to death. So what I do is I tell them what I need, in terms of the take away, in terms of the emotion, and then I let them take it. Because I can’t tell them how to act, that’s what they bring to the table. What I can do is let them do it and I keep looking out for the emotion. And the minute it clicks, that’s the take.

 

So, if Vidya asks me, “I’m sitting on a chair in the police station. How I should be?” All I can tell her is that:“You’ve been travelling. You’re coming from London. You’ve been sitting on that economy class seat for the last 12 hours, in between, you probably took a break in Dubai. And in Dubai also you sat for 4 hours for a connecting flight, maybe you had a cup of tea, maybe you went to the loo. You probably got off at the airport there. The airport loos are very dirty, so you haven’t been to the loo. As a pregnant woman, you need to go the loo quite often. In the police station… like fuck if you’re going to the loo there.” So I give whatever I can, in terms of life, in terms of cueing them. Then it’s up to them. How much of it do they want to use. You remember that scene where Bob pushes her, right? And then he talks to her, she’s running and he’s talking to her. That scene wasn’t happening. So I told Bob (played by Saswata Chatterjee) that when we’re talking like this, it’s very comfortable, but if I come on your lap and start talking to you, and you don’t know me, you’d be very, very uncomfortable. Proximity is the key. So he keeps pushing her. He comes almost to her face, and that actually unnerves her. So it gives her a better cue. It helps her. We didn’t tell Vidya, that we’re going to do it. Like when Param (Parambrata Chatterjee) came in and Nawaz said, “Get the fuck out!” and all those expletives which he used, you should have seen Vidya’s face, which is absolutely in shock! And that’s a real take. Because she couldn’t believe that Nawaz could treat Param like that, because, she wasn’t told about that. So sometimes we employ these tricks and it’s great fun.

 

Have you ever suggested a quirk to actors? The one thing that stands out in your films is that you have a lot of interesting smaller characters.

 

I need to, because that’s how they stand out. I try to make them stand out. I try to write each character as a hero. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don’t. Like that stupid character we created (in Home Delivery… )called… that ‘Page 3 Psycho’, who had a wooden pen killing people. Stupid! But we did it. Then Mahima (Chaudhry, who plays Maya), in Home Delivery. We didn’t know what trait to give her. The only thing we could think of, is let her sari keep falling off…

Rana for example, is that Bengali boy thing who touches feet and he does pronaam. So those little things I tell them. And sometimes it works more organically, for example, that whole tram sequence. In Kahaani, that’s the sequence I was scared of the most because I was treading on very thin ice with that sequence.

 

You’re talking about the footsie.

 

Yes, the footsie sequence. I was shitting bricks with that sequence. I told Vidya but she insisted that: “No, let’s do it”. Rana (Parambrata Chatterjee) went along. It was a very organic thing we did. But it was important, because you have to make things a bit interesting. How long can you see a woman be morose and depressed.

 

You were scared because you thought you were stepping across the line?

 

Going over the line about the romance between them. I had a chance of being misinterpreted by the audience there. I was really insecure about that scene.

 

About Vidya’s character or their relationship?

 

Vidya’s character and subsequently the relationship. So I was a little iffy on that. And I didn’t know whether that scene was needed in that film. I have to also think of my audience, make sure I’m not confusing them. They should be on track. I shouldn’t be straying them to some other place.

 

But can you always control that? It’s about who understands certain subtleties and who doesn’t.

 

No, you absolutely cannot. The rest of the unit was absolutely confident. It was just me shitting bricks.

 

How much do you workshop and rehearse directors?

 

None. I just read scripts. Woh sab mein mujhe mazaa nahin aata (I don’t really enjoy doing all of that). I read the script with them once, or a couple of times.

 

Okay. Fair enough. What advice would you give to a first time filmmaker about pre-production?

 

I think it’s extremely important and I think that’s the process where you should spend the maximum time, as much as you can, given your budget, given your time. Because that’s the process in which you build the world in which you’re setting your film. And unless that world is believable, your movie won’t work.

 

How involved are you in the song making process? You’ve only worked with Vishal-Shekhar so far.

 

It kept changing with films. For example, in Jhankaar… , the songs were a part of the narrative. The songs actually helped me to take the story further. So that’s how I described it when Vishal (Dadlani) and Shekhar (Ravjiani) and I sat together. So they knew the situations, they knew what we had to say in that situation to further the story. And then you also work on the design of the song, in terms of, if you think within the song where Juhi (Chawla) is going to come, and she’s going to find the girl Shayan (Munshi) is in love with and we are going to establish how Juhi  is a really nice character; even when she’s pregnant she gives her seat to somebody else. That designing we have to do.

 

With the music?

 

With the music. For example, in Home Delivery we know this kid is trying to sing to impress her brother. She doesn’t get it right. So that works very well in terms of a song which plays as a narrative within your film. Kahaani, however, was a different beast. That is an album complementary to the film. It wasn’t necessarily in the film but if you hear the album, it will reflect the sentiment, it will echo the characters, it will take you on the same journey which Vidya is taking in the film. And that’s what I told them I need, and then they created the songs on their own, to which I said yes or no. So Kahaani was a more independent process for them.

 

 And how would you give feedback to them?

 

I tell them it’s not working. Do another one. Don’t be lazy.

 

That’s it?

 

Yeah.

 

And they’re fine with that?

 

Yeah. They’ll go and do another one. Because, you know, as a director or a father or a husband, or a son, or a brother, or whatever, one of my main jobs is to make decisions. And a lot of times I make my decisions based on gut. I have to. I don’t always have the requisite information around me to take an informed and educated call. My gut is all I have got. So when I see Nawaz and I think this could be Khan (the character he plays in Kahaani), I go with it. I could have gone wrong and I could have gone right.

 

What about background score? How well do you know what you want in your sound design?

 

Oh, very well! Fucking well! I’m crystal clear on that.

 

Is it a part of your screenplay?

 

No. It’s what I decide after I’ve shot my film. See, because a lot of things change. On a screenplay you can have a basic meter. Obviously when I give my script to the sound guys to read, they see: Okay this scene is set during Durga Puja, so we have the basic dhaak sound etc. But then when I’m editing, I’m getting to do my film again. So it is with my sound design. Even my colour correction. So every step I’m given a chance to make my film. And I utilize all these chances as well as I can.

 

So, you approach it more as layers. Separate layers that you add to. What is the ideal relationship between a filmmaker and an editor?

 

Stay the fuck away!

 

Really?

 

Yeah. They know their work. That’s why you are employing these people. You need to trust your people. You need to trust your army.

 

So you stay away in phase one…

 

I stay away in phase one. Let them make the film. They might interpret it in a totally different way. It might be better than what I have written.

 

 How much brief do you give them before just letting them be?

 

They have the script. I don’t talk to them. They have a script.

 

What have you learnt in the process of editing four films?

 

Wastage.

 

Okay?

 

In terms of how not to waste footage. On my first day of Jhankaar… I had no clue what I was doing. I didn’t know when I should be calling cut, because everything was nice and fine. They were acting well and I thought why should I cut the damn thing. Let it go. Finish the full movie in one take kind of a thing. But then I realized the need for editing. So I went and bought a book. Somebody told me you have to call ‘cut’. I needed to understand why should I call a cut, at what point should I call a cut. And what is this cut? So I went and I bought a book. And I learnt about editing and I learnt how and why people edit. So now I know how to shoot.

 

From an editor’s point of view? And is that something you do?

 

I do. But I never impose that on my editor. I can easily shoot a film in a manner in which you will have no option but to join it like I want to join it. I would want the editor to join it. Because if you shoot it in a particular way you have no option because this bit can only come after this bit. But we don’t do that.

 

Do you shoot in sequence?

 

In terms of… what sequence?

 

In terms of scenes like the first scene, then the second one, like that…

 

No you don’t have the luxury. It’s very hard because of locations and everything. So if you go to a location you have to finish off all the sequences. The only time I had that flexibility was in Home Delivery, where the whole thing was set in a house. So I could actually do it scene-wise.

 

Did that help?

 

I think it somewhere helps the character. It helps the character in terms of the actors and it helps the continuity. Otherwise it is not a must. I am not too fussy about it.

 

When you see the first cut your editor makes, what do you expect? Your vision plus something?

 

Yes, they have to take it a notch higher. Otherwise there’s no point having an editor. They have to give me all the emotions that have been transcribed in the script. And if they’ve done it in a manner that’s engrossing, I’m good with it. I may suggest a change sometimes, like Kahaani, I had the biggest fight with (editor) Namrata (Rao) over expressions. In one scene Kharajda (Kharaj Mukherjee, playing a police inspector) questions her (Vidya) about firewalls. So she says that firewalls protect the computer. And he says like how the police protect the society. And she gives a very… a tired smile. Now Namrata was totally against it. She said that why should she smile at this point. Her thought process is: I need to get my husband. Why would she smile? My thought process was— she was trying to ease this police officer. So somewhere she’s being a little politically correct. So if this man has made a joke, it becomes mandatory for her to just smile at that joke. So those kind of things we have little fights over, otherwise we move on. But it’s great, as it helps you to see the character. Gives you an insight into the character.

 

In one of your interviews you said that your biggest learning from Kahaani has been that the story is paramount. Explain that?

 

Did I say that? Because for me, as a director, I don’t bring a story to the table. I bring the storytelling to the table. I invest in pre-production, in detailing characters, in giving my actors and technicians a better understanding of the world of the film. Even the dubbing process is important. For example, in Kahaani, when Rana is saying things to Mrs. Bagchi, he may be saying one thing, but in his head he may be thinking something else, because he’s working for Khan. So that has to come out in his dialogue. Then a lot of things get added at the screenplay level. For example, Bishnu never existed. Bob never existed to a certain extent in that format in the story. What I’m trying to say is, let me just articulate myself, Aladin probably didn’t work, not because of the story, but because of how I told the story.

 

What about the storytelling didn’t work in Aladin?

 

I think I failed to get people to believe in the world that I was creating. That world of ‘Khwaish’, was probably too alien for people. Of course, I can’t really take a call, on behalf of the audience, as to what was wrong. All I know is, I tried to say something and I failed to say it.

 

Home Delivery, Jhankaar Beats and Kahaani are all intimate, character driven films. Is that your comfort zone?

 

Yeah.

 

And can you leave the comfort zone?

 

Very easily. If I’m attracted to a story, I’ll move out of my comfort zone.

 

Is there any kind of film you feel you won’t be able to make?

 

I will not make any film that I can’t run away from. For example, I saw this film The Whistleblower. If I had made The Whistleblower I would have never made a movie again because I don’t know how to delve into a subject like that, understand it, and then just walk away from it. I would not be able to walk away.

 

When you look back at your films, do they also reflect what phase of life you were in when you made them?

 

When I look back, yes. But that wasn’t the intention. I don’t think I would have been able to handle Kahaani, when I was making Jhankaar… , in terms of understanding the characters. It doesn’t necessarily reflect what I was going through at that point of time but what I saw around me, yes. When I was thinking of Kahaani, I saw love had changed hugely as a concept, in terms of how the youth today understands it, from what it was when I was making Jhankaar... And that is something I wanted to explore. Today’s kids will accept a younger man falling in love with an older, pregnant woman more easily. It isn’t a radical idea for them.

 

You’re saying love has changed, or the moral codes have changed?

 

I think acceptance has changed, in terms of the various forms of love. There are no boundaries like sex (only) post marriage, (no) living-in etc. For example, when I was doing Home Delivery, I wanted to show a live-in relationship. In the film Vivek (Oberoi)’s character is living in with Ayesha (Takia)’s character. At the time I did that I believed it would be accepted. Earlier that would not have been the case. She would have been seen as a slut. But now all these thoughts are changing. I mean I’ll be stupid to stick to those norms which existed once, you know. I have to keep changing with the thoughts of what my audience is… of what I think at least, of what they are.

 

So your film is not about your thoughts or ideas on love at that point.

 

No, it’s not. I may believe in something totally different about love. See, somewhere the film is also a product. I have to sell it. As much as possible, I would like to make my product palatable to your taste as an audience, because I serve you. So if you come to my house, because I love double egg chicken roll, I’m not going to force you to have it. I crave good reviews. I crave awards. So I do pick things that are palatable to the audience. I do cheat.

 

Okay, so let me put it this way. How far would you stray from something you strongly believe in for commercial reasons, in a film?

 

Enough to convince myself that I can pull it off, that I can tell the story with conviction. It all depends on the script. I suppose it would differ from issue to issue, from subject to subject. I remember I was offered a huge amount of money to direct an ad for TV. The concept was that this man, who is trying to get his daughter married off, suddenly he sees this TV showcase. He buys the TV, gives it to the family of this prospective groom, and the daughter gets married. I wanted to slap the… My blood was boiling when I read this. How can you even allow scripts like this? So, I can only react violently, or however I react, once I have the idea in front of me. Then there are certain things I absolutely do not believe in. For example, you can offer me anything— I’m never going to do an ad for a fairness cream.

 

How involved are you in marketing and publicity?

 

Before I used to think I know about it. Now, I just don’t get into it. Because I think there are a set of people who are very well equipped, informed and very capable of handling that side of the business. The best thing is, unless and until they are totally projecting your product in a wrong manner, you should let them do it. I learnt this from Kahaani, actually. What happens is, when you make a film and once it’s ready, you are eager to show it as soon as possible. But the fact is, in Bengali we have this word called ‘sthankaalpatro’—there is the time, the people, the place—and they are all factors. You have to release it at the right time, in order to get the maximum possible advantage out of that product. With Kahaani what they did was, they waited for The Dirty Picture to release, which actually gave us a huge amount of boost. And then they released it after that. So it actually worked. Whereas I was thinking— why, why, why is The Dirty Picture getting the benefit of Vidya’s previous releases: No One Killed Jessica, Paa and Ishqiya. She had goodwill at that point and I wanted that goodwill for myself. They asked me to calm down. You know, that is the first rule of filmmaking— calm the fuck down. That’s all you need to do.

 

Do you cut your own trailers?

 

No. I don’t know how to. I try to shoot a couple of scenes which will help in making the trailer. But placing those scenes, whether the scenes can be placed in the trailer, I leave it to them. Cutting a trailer is a very specific and specialized job. Maybe there are directors who can cut a very good trailer. I know Sanjay Gupta cuts the most awesome trailers ever. He can take anything and make it look good. This time, I tried something different with Kahaani which actually worked. I give them the script at the same time as I gave it to everybody else on the team. I told them to think over it and let me know if they wanted me to shoot something in particular for the trailer. A trailer is my trick to get you into the hall, so I don’t care. It is a place where you can really cheat and con and do all kinds of horrible manipulations.

 

Have you found yourself self-censoring due to the fear of either state censorship or ‘hurting people’s sentiments’?

 

At times I have succumbed. In Kahaani, for example, there were a lot of cuss words. Basically, lots of fucks and bhenchods and all that. And we took it out, because we realized that even if it does add a little bit of tanginess to Nawaz’s character it’s not really doing anything. So we took it out. And it worked equally well. However, in JhankaarJhankaar… was an adult film. Did you know that?

 

No.

 

Jhankaar… was an adult film, because it had the first ever blowjob in Hindi cinema. So we were having this meeting with the Censor Board and they said “If you take out those 12 frames, you get a U certificate”. I’m really proud of my producer, Pritish Nandy, because he let me keep those frames. I really didn’t want to cut them. Because that, for me, defined the film, that blowjob. It defined those characters. So it was a choice of 12 frames or an A certificate. An A certificate means you limit your audience. There are other commercial impacts too. But we took an A. So sometimes I have given in but sometimes I didn’t.

 

Can you think of one or two “Aha!” moments you’ve had about directing? It either comes in the form of acting or a visual. Any. But it has to be while filming, not after.

 

For example, in Kahaani when Bishnu gives the radio to Vidya, I knew the moment I saw the boy’s smile that I had my scene. Even till the giving of the radio I wasn’t sure of the scene. But the moment he smiled on camera, I was like dead fucking certain I had the scene. That scene was very crucial for me. I needed to get it right because without it the sequence was feeling incomplete.

 

What about moments that fulfill you, not just as a director but also personally?

 

The last shot of Kahaani. You have no idea how tough that was to shoot. To get the angle right, to get the floating of the idol right. But when I was watching it on screen it was hugely satisfying. I had got it. I knew it.

 

Can you think of really bad moments while filming?

 

Bad moments never happen while filming for me. I’m sure things have… you know, everything is bad probably in hindsight. But at that point of time, I don’t have the luxury to sit and analyze if anything does go wrong. It’s a part and parcel of life. I love my work… wake up happy. If I didn’t wake up happy, I would never go to work.

 

You enjoy yourself too much?

 

Yeah, yeah,yeah.

 

Final question on directing, there’s one concept of being the master of your film and then there is the idea of leaving the door open for organic possibilities. Have you figured out ways to strike a balance between the two?

 

That’s the deepest question I’ve ever faced. I don’t know, that’s my honest answer to this whole thing because… I really don’t have an answer to that.

 

Tell us about the struggles you’ve faced to raise money for your films. You said in an interview that you were ‘jugaadoo’ in that respect. How did you mean?

 

I did not mean it like it was carried in that interview. Raising money is the brass tacks of filmmaking. You have to convince someone to part with it. Now if you were the one with the money, and if I came to you saying, “Look, I have two flops behind me. I want to make a film with a pregnant woman; a thriller. The movie costs 16 crores on paper but I can make it for one third that price.” There’s a huge chance you won’t believe me. It was harder for me to sell Kahaani, whereas it was easier for me to sell a Home Delivery because Jhankaar Beats was a success. So it all depends on the baggage you’re carrying at thatpoint. Similarly, after Home Delivery, Aladin was a big challenge. It was a very expensive project butthankfully what has happened till date is I’ve always had the support of the actors. And that hugelyhelps in our industry.

 

 

 

You turned producer with Aladin?

 

Home Delivery...

 

Out of necessity or choice?

 

Necessity. I have done everything out of necessity— directing, producing… everything, except writing.

 

You became a director out of necessity?

 

Yeah, because nobody was ready to direct Jhankaar

 

Has becoming a producer made you a better filmmaker, or is it an obstacle in the creative process?

 

I think producing has helped me to respect other people’s money. As a director, you do tend to get carried away— your needs, your greed, and rightfully so. As a director you would always want the best for your film. But as a producer, I can curtail those thoughts in my head. But what really helps, being a producer and a director, is when I write, I can write to satisfy the producer and the director without compromising. I would know, for example, if I’m writing a scene, and if it needs a bit of VFX, I can cut it down, in terms of writing it. Or I can write a complicated scene and use VFX to make that scene easier to shoot.

 

Is there a disadvantage as well?

 

Maybe somewhere in your head you do compromise. I don’t know.

 

How did you approach casting Calcutta as one of the characters in your film?

 

People get very “Aah! Kolkata!” when they watch Kahaani and rightfully so because it predominates the film. The thing is, when normally people shoot in Calcutta, usually there is no more than 5 minutes of it in a film. Now, why do people know Bombay so well? Because the movies that are set in Bombay introduce you to the people of Bombay. For me, if you want to know a city, you need to know its people. For that you need time and I had two hours to do this. I could show you the city in terms of the people who make it what it is, which in totality gives you a very good feel of Kolkata. I did not want to just fleetingly shoot the iconic images which help you to establish that this is Kolkata and leave it at that.

 

What is your personal relationship with Calcutta like?

 

For me, it’s a very secure piece of land. I can go in there and it’s my security blanket. My Calcutta is predominantly people… and I think, maybe, in hindsight, when you’re asking me about this, it could be that I left Calcutta when I was in Class 10 and at that time everything was very romantic. You know, people were beautiful, life was beautiful, you were in love and life was trouble-free. Probably I didn’t get to see the complicated side of Kolkata which I may have seen if I had stayed on longer. So it is that Calcutta that stays with me.

 

It gets more complicated when you try to work there.

 

Correct, you’re absolutely right. I never thought of it like that. But now that you say it… when I left Calcutta, I had a very romantic image of the city. And when I go back now I probably still live in that image.

 

What is the Calcutta of your mind like?

 

My Kolkata is still, you know, every evening, there is a shankh that sounds three times, people do pronaam. That is my Kolkata. I had a huge fight with all the reporters in Kolkata. “No! That is a very clichéd Kolkata,” they said. But that is my Kolkata. For me Kolkata is also food, huge amounts of food. Kolkata is chilly chicken for me. Nobody in the world makes chilly chicken like they do in Kolkata.

 

What are your places in Calcutta?

 

You really want to know? There’s a little rock in front of my house. That’s my place.

 

Where is your house?

 

Beltala road. I can sit there for days at a stretch. When we were in Kolkata, we used to regularly go to the temple. I don’t know why and we still do— to Kalighat. I still go to Vivekananda Park to have puchkas. And, all my bookshops, starting from Gariahat (road) to Bhowanipore to College Street.

 

Your parents had an unlikely and unusual marriage. What influences did they bring to your life?

 

Their marriage was proof to me that if you believe in something, you can do it. Even though my mother is a doctor and my father was a taxi driver, they were both quite similar. Both of them wanted just one thing of me— that I study. They used to just tell me this one thing— that we’re not going to be here forever. So I think that’s what really got my goat after a while. So that’s why I felt I had to study and make them happy. And I think somewhere because I saw them coming together, I saw them struggling, I saw them really working incredibly hard to give me a life, it sort of rooted me to a certain extent. I’ve seen a very hard side of life and then as I grew up I saw a very lavish side of life as well. I’ve come from living in a slum to living in England to making films.

 

A lot of filmmakers that you admire—in particular Ray—in several phases of his life have been intensely political in their films. Do you have a political consciousness when you’re making a film?

 

Zero.

 

I could tell. Why is that?

 

I’m not a political person from any angle. I don’t understand politics. I do not want to understand politics.

 

How many films do you watch? Do you watch a lot of films?

 

I do. I try to watch something every day. Initially it used to be a film a night. But now I watch a film and I watch a TV series. So that eats into my time.

 

What kind of films do you watch?

 

Anything. I’m not fussy about films in general, but it takes me a little bit of mental preparation to watch a black and white film. I can’t handle black and white films for some weird reason.

 

Who do you discuss films with the most?

 

You know, on Twitter, that’s the only place where I find people who actually respond with that enthusiasm.

See, I’m more of an audience than a filmmaker. I’ve been an audience a longer part of my life, and what happens now, I’ve realized, is that I’m not allowed to be an audience, like a sweet maker is not supposed to eat his sweets. I can’t be too vocal, for whatever reasons. I mean I can slice apart a Hollywood film but if I am critical about an Indian film I’ll get lynched or I’ll hurt sentiments which I don’t want to because at the end of the day, we’re all in the same family. But I do talk films with people like Sajid Khan and Sanjay Gupta who genuinely love films. If somebody knows films better than me it’s them. I can see you have a big smile on your face.

 

No, sure! I mean how you consume films can be entirely different from what films you make.

 

I can discuss films with them without getting too intense and analytical. Once someone, I can’t name the person, came up to me said, “Have you seen The Mirror?” And I really didn’t know what they were talking about. Some (Andrei) Tarkovsky film, as it turned out. And I thought he was talking about an actual mirror, and I generally on principle don’t have a mirror in my house. So we were both having totally different conversations.

 

Why don’t you have a mirror in your house?

 

I don’t believe in mirrors. They distract you.

 

Making movies or watching movies— which would be easier to give up?

 

Making movies.

 

You spoke about an image from a movie earlier; Amitabh Bachchan and Raakhee in Kaala Patthar walking together. Can you think of any other cinematic images that are lodged in your head?

 

I’m trying to think. One is a poster of Ganga Jamuna, where Dilip Kumar is screaming and Vyjayanthimala is dancing. The image of Jaya Bhaduri putting out that lamp in Sholay, and that one image in Mohabbatein where Shah Rukh (Khan) is just standing, holding his hand out and you don’t know why he’s holding his hand out.

 

One from your own film?

 

It’s from Kahaani. You’ll blink and you’ll miss it. This is where Vidya is crossing the street and she just steps back. You don’t see her face. It’s in the montage.

 

Okay.

 

Are you not going to ask me what it was like to work with Vidya Balan? Every interviewer asks me that.

 

Not yet. (Martin) Scorsese had said that there comes an age when (French film critic and theorist) Andre Bazin’s question—“What is cinema?”—becomes relevant and then it becomes irrelevant again. Is this question relevant today, to your generation of filmmakers?

 

I think that question is relevant at all points of time. I don’t know any deep or meaningful answers to this question but for me cinema is first of all, entertainment. It could also be a form of dispensing some kind of message to your audience, given the kind of maker you are, and what your take on society, the world, or individual things is. I think that changes from time to time. Also it changes with your audience. With time the audience becomes more accepting of different topics or different subjects or they travel more. Like when I was growing up, my mother was the only person I knew who had gone to England. Today everybody and their uncle and their uncle’s uncle have travelled much more than that. So your mind is expanding. Your acceptance is expanding. Cinema will keep changing to suit those tastes. At any given point, if you ask a maker ‘what is cinema?’ I’m sure he or she will have his/ her own interpretation of that.

 

What, according to you, is the most interesting about the era in which you’re making films, in India specifically?

 

The whole concept of the taste of audienceI don’t know if taste is the right wordbut acceptance of various subjects. I love the fact that they’re exposed to much more now. So there are a lot of different stories that you can play with. There are a lot of forms that you can play with. The audience is willing to give you a chance.

 

Are you sure it’s that? There can be the classic chicken and egg argument about this. That the audience was always ready but there were no films being made to show that.

 

It could be that we have been using the audience as an excuse. In the past, films used to subscribe to some sort of success strategy or the other. But I think now, the appetite for taking risks is increasing, especially within the people who are financing films, which is the key thing. Because all this while, in our country, we never had any structured finance which was one of the reasons why films couldn’t get made. Films that used to get made, got stuck and never saw a release. But now, we are getting structured finance, we are getting people whose risk-taking appetite is larger and simultaneously we can present to them subjects which they believe the audience is more willing to accept.

 

So you’re saying that basically what matters is not whether the chicken came first or the egg, but what the people financing films believe.

 

To a certain extent, yes.

 

What is your biggest fear as a filmmaker?

 

Flops.

 

What is your biggest fear as a person?

 

I think if I lost the respect of my kids. That would be my biggest fear.

 

Okay, here goes, the question you don’t quite seem to like but anticipate nonetheless— what was it like to work with Vidya Balan?

 

Oh, fantastic! I’ve been looking forward to working with Vidya since I was that small. Finally got my chance and it was awesome— a sparkling moment. It was like one of those Happydent ads when she met me. Things lit up.

 

Is this an answer different from your usual answer?

 

Yeah, I never used Happydent before. I thought it was a good analogy. Thought I could sneak that in. I hope Happydent ads last as long as this interview did.

(video credits – Produced by Kavi Bhansali, Editing – Khushboo Agarwal Raj, Associate Editor – Chetan Motiwaras, Titles – Amrita Bagchi, Music Design – Naran Chandavarkar

Inhi Logon Ne

Meena Kumari and all that was lost with her.

 

The Vinod Mehta memoir Lucknow Boy has this anecdote about Meena Kumari saying “raat gayi baat gayi” to someone she fucked but failed to recognize the next day despite the poor man’s pleas. That rumour, right there, is the reason why good little Bunt girls like Aishwarya Rai wouldn’t even have fantasized about a career as an actress till the seventies, and it would have saved us much of our present nostalgia for ‘good actresses’ if she’d been born a couple of decades earlier. So what a majority of the 50 plus and some Doordarshan-era children in their 30s, like me, are really nostalgic about is not some golden era of magnificent heroines. It is simply about a time when young girls were being austerely trained in well codified arts of bodily enchantment to seek good patronage on the one hand and, on the other, the visual language of representing such feminine beauty in cinema was being borrowed as much from the very same aristocratic tawaif cultures. Colonial disbelief at the publicness of such an erotic culture anddhoti-suited reformist zeal had already driven many of these performers into the supposedly rehabilitating world of Indian theatre in the early 1900s. But the rituals of domestic riyazzat (ritualized training) ensured that it would take much more than these killjoys to erase this stylization of adas and nakhras.

 

To be an actress in these early decades of Hindi cinema, it helped if your mother was a well-established jaan or bai in the business. This held true for many actresses till the sixties. Today, if we were to sniff this happening in our neighbourhoods, we would probably be calling the local television channel to complain of ‘illegal activities’ and crying foul with vocabulary recently acquired from Satyamev Jayate. Meanwhile, patronage, devoid of all its painstakingly enacted règle du jeu of feudal tehzeeb, has transformed into the more concealed, democratic casting couch.

 

While film studies scholarship has largely concerned itself with nationalist narratives of cinema cultures it has only rarely traced older performance cultures within it. The lesser recorded spectatorship practice in relation to actresses like Meena Kumari or Nargis is the slowly established democratization of feudal classical performance cultures. The modern cinema was a place where any person who could buy a ticket was able to watch performances of women artists who traced a lineage to high-class tawaifs— a privilege previously reserved for aristocrats. Through these performances, films afforded the newly minted ‘ordinary citizen’ a glimpse of the life that their antecedents would possibly only have had access to as gossip.

 

And all this within the socially sanctioned modern space of the cinema theatre; even if it was a hard won sanction carved from self censorship (by an industry that, among other things, substituted two roses for an on-screen kiss by the 1950s). This effectively made the theatres a schizophrenic place, one tracing and making space for an older erotic economy and another that was attempting to censor it through reformism. A space where your identification was caught in between Nargis’ Mother India and Meena Kumari’s threatening erotic desires in Pakeezah. Or, if you will, between Bidda Bagchi and Silk.

 

Born in the late seventies, my familiarity with actresses like Meena Kumari was through the VHS tapes of the nineties and the black and white Archies posters and its hawked copies. But a growing-up-gay narrative that I acquired in my late teens had me recast a distant memory of watching Meena Kumari in Pakeezah; a memory retroactively built to fashion a homosexual persona. The bare bones of it involves my parents nearly leaving for the film without me, then, hearing  my wails from the end of the street, returning to sandwich me on our Vespa and taking me to watch the film. The punch line: “They ought to have known right then!”

 

Reading Hoshang Merchant a few years later in his introduction to Yaarana, an anthology of gay writing from South Asia, made me recognize that this identification with the troubled in-exile figure of Meena Kumari was a narrative trope of homosexual life in the sub-continent. I was that homosexual who “loves women martyred like themselves, their mothers, or Meena Kumari…”

 

Why not a recent diva? Why not Bhansali’s Madhuri as Chandramukhi or Priyanka Chopra in Fashion? But the thing is that even these two figures are modeled on the real or cinematic life of Meena Kumari. Madhuri is wafting fragrant dhoop into her hair when we first see her in Devdas; a scene lifted right out of Pakeezah. So I wonder if this is not just an anachronism on my part but simply a trace of the tawaif that determines to this day a certain aesthetic performance and appreciation of tragic feminine love.

 

Merchant tells us that it’s no accident that icons like her “have gay image-makers,” and that “they are literally an invention of the homosexual man, viz., the dress designer, hair stylist, choreographer, the make-up man… ” or even the director. While Merchant might be overstating the case, the point is that the performance and appreciation of femininity in Indian film is hardly wrought through a Stanislavian meditation of some internal female psyche by a woman actor. It seems to have more to do with a quiet quiver of the lips or a heavily lifted eye; and this seems hardcoded into the ways we learn about feminine beauty. So much so that even after years of post-liberalized wooden models colonizing our visual landscape, Sridevi’s classical abhinaya still wins at the box office.

 

The queer spectator’s identification with Meena Kumari was contracted on a plane where her on screen characters seamlessly merged with her real life which was suitably more dramatic than her languid screen tragedies. This pact is sealed perfectly in her most memorable role as Chhoti Bahu in Guru Dutt’s Sahib, Bibi Aur Ghulam (1962) where she played a feudal wife who bears the grind of a narrative axe that symbolizes a dying feudal system, preferring the company of a young man and turning to alcoholism in the face of a ruinous marriage to her zamindar husband who prefers the company of a kothewaali. Because what endeared her as Chhoti Bahu had as much to do with the well publicized parallels to her own estranged marriage to filmmaker Kamal Amrohi and her seeking of solace in expensive whiskey, a young Dharmendra, and penning self-deprecatory shayari. And as she lifts her eyes into the first notes of Naa Jaao Saiyaan, we know she is preparing us for the hopelessness of love by making that hopelessness the most desirable state of union. We’re there intensely watching her, identifying with every single gesture, there is no world outside of you and you as her on screen; lonely, tragic, yet so enthralling and so so perfect.

 

This desire for the melancholia of the one exiled from love is the masochistic flint in the eye of post-liberalization cultural representations; of lovers happily consuming product placements while rushing towards parochial marital unions.

 

The tawaif, or dancewaali as she is known today, be it Chand in Ishaqzaade or Silk in The Dirty Picture, and their desire to be desired, causes enough anxiety in the narratives of these films, so much that their real-life personas try hard to cover up the act. While the maamis and mamas whistled at Silk all twatted-up to pick her award in the filmic narrative of The Dirty Picture, they wouldn’t be so kind if good girl Vidya Balan were to wear anything but her Kancheevarams to pick up the real ones. Because if she didn’t, then we wouldn’t have good girls in cinema anymore and god forbid poor sluts get a bit of the meaty pie that is the Hindi film industry today!

 

But in the face of the real life tragedies shifting to the bodies of dance bar girls and other similar women represented in the new wave of non-fiction writing, my desire for the melancholic will make me return to Meena Kumari. Her voice, sharpened to cut, calls to us, leading us into an enchanted world of languid pleasurable pain and, despite the second wave feminist film scholar in me protesting loudly, I am guilty of wanting my bad girls to die on screen—ghungroos slicing into soft skin, stain upon stain of scarlet blood, a face draining into pallid death—and for me to die with them, once more, forever.

 

Outtakes

“This picture was shot on the sets of director Sudhir Mishra’s Khoya Khoya Chand (2007). For the climax the director wanted to recreate a storm. One of the Assistant Directors would call ‘action’ by giving a clap and immediately two gigantic fans would start to roar setting off dry leaves stacked in gunny bags places in front of the fans and in no time the set was overcome with a simulated storm. The AD who was giving the claps would not be able to get out of the way in time. All he had to shield himself from the storm was his clapboard.”

– Fawzan Husain

The Sanjay Dutt Fandango

Dilip D’Souza on the lessons learnt from a two decade old case and why it is not really an accurate measure of law and justice in India

 

Let’s get a few things out of the way right at the start.

 

First, I have no sympathy for Sanjay Dutt. He violated the Arms Act in 1993 by his purchase and possession of a gun. He was arrested, tried and sentenced for that offence. Yes, the process took years. But that’s the way trials go. It took a few more years because Dutt appealed his sentence— which the Supreme Court has just upheld. That his time behind bars will result in losses for Bollywood, that other Bollywood stars are saddened by this news, is so much irrelevant gravy.

 

Second, let’s remember that Dutt was not found guilty of involvement in the bomb blasts of March 1993. The crime he has been convicted for is the possession of a deadly weapon. Period. Of course, a hundred others were found guilty for the blasts after a lengthy trial. The two prime accused, Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim, were never even arrested, because they are “absconding”.

 

Third, Dutt is a rich and famous man. But being so, he only feeds the shibboleths we like to mouth even knowing how empty they are— “nobody is above the law”, and “the law will take its own course”: you know, corny stuff like that. He’s a scapegoat for the truth we simply don’t want to face up to and accept: the really powerful people in this country never get punished for their crimes. Never.

 

Those three done and dusted, here’s a short recap of what has brought Sanjay Dutt to where he is today and his curious fandango with a political party called Shiv Sena.

 

On March 12, 1993, a series of bombs went off in Bombay, killing over 250 people. While investigating that atrocity, the police arrested and questioned two film producers and distributors, Hanif Lakdawala (also referred to in various reports as Kadawala and Kandawala) and Samir Hingora. They told the police that they had sold an AK-56 assault rifle to Dutt.

 

This is why Dutt was arrested in April that year, why his home was searched, and why he was tried over the next dozen odd years.

 

Immediately after his arrest, the Shiv Sena’s leader, Bal Thackeray, declared a “ban” on his films and his party activists began disrupting their screening, especially the just-released and ironically-named Khal Nayak (Villain). The ban did not last long. In May, theatres resumed screening Khal Nayak. Naaz, on Lamington Road, did so with a sign in front acknowledging the “kind permission of Shri Balasaheb Thackeray.” Two years later, when Dutt was still behind bars and under trial, Thackeray attacked the CBI for being “vindictive” and keeping this “innocent young man” from a family of “patriotic Indians” in jail. There had, after all, been reports of visits by members of the Dutt family to Thackeray’s home. Thackeray was also worried about the loss—Rs 20 crore, he said—the film industry had suffered because of Dutt’s incarceration (as you can see, this trope of loss has a long pedigree). Soon after, Dutt was released on bail. From his jail cell, he went straight to Thackeray’s home to pay his respects. But the renewed bond was also temporary. In 2002, transcripts came to light of Dutt’s phone conversations with the gangster Chhota Shakeel. Thackeray now pronounced that the actor should not be defended “at any cost”.

 

But the fandango goes beyond this on-again, off-again game of footsie between the Dutt family and the late Sena supremo. Let’s go back to April 1993, and Hingora and Lakdawala. Here are two excerpts from news reports that month:

 

* “Top stars, MLAs got arms from Dawood” (Afternoon Despatch & Courier, April 12, 1993): “The Bombay Police have stumbled upon the names of several film personalities, MLAs and corporators, who owned illegal arms allegedly supplied by the underworld don, Dawood Ibrahim. The arms were either gifted by Dawood or sold to these persons at cheap rates. Interrogation of suspects… has thrown up names of film personalities such as Sanjay Dutt [and also] Shiv Sena MLA Madhukar Sarpotdar among nine politicians who acquired arms from the D-gang or his henchmen. The arms were mainly sophisticated revolvers.”

 

* “Sanjay Dutt arrested” (Indian Express, April 20, 1993): [Chief Minister Sharad Pawar told the Maharashtra Legislative Council that] “the suspect who named Sanjay [also] revealed several other names including that of Madhukar Sarpotdar. But we have not pressed charges against all.”

 

Writing in When Bombay Burned, the Times of India compendium of reports from the 1992-93 riots and blasts, the film critic Khalid Mohamed also recounted Pawar’s statement, adding: “Sarpotdar’s house was also not searched.”

 

Digest this: the same investigation—the very same one—that implicated Dutt, also implicated the prominent Shiv Sena politician Madhukar Sarpotdar, and in precisely the same way. No less than the head of the state government announced this, and in the state’s Assembly. Dutt has spent twenty years on trial for his offence. Sarpotdar? No charges under the Arms Act. Not even a search of his home.

 

Tell me about nobody being above the law.

 

There is more. On January 11, 1993—possibly at the height of the carnage during the Bombay riots, and two months before the blasts—the Army stopped a car that was roaming the city streets. Also from When Bombay Burned, here’s how journalists Clarence Fernandez and Naresh Fernandes reported this incident:

 

* “[T]he Army detained the Shiv Sena MLA Madhukar Sarpotdar in the troubled suburb of Nirmal Nagar late on Monday night and searched his car to find two revolvers and several other weapons… Travelling with Sarpotdar was his son Atul, carrying an unlicensed Spanish revolver. Though [Madhukar] Sarpotdar had a license for his gun, he too was breaking the law by carrying it during the riots. Also [with them] was one Anil Parab. [T]he police commissioner [refused] to indicate whether this man was the notorious gangster of the same name, the hitman of the Dawood gang.”

 

More to digest: Dutt’s offence was the illegal possession of a gun. Sarpotdar was also found in illegal possession of a gun. So it’s not just that Hingora and Lakdawala sold guns to both Dutt and Sarpotdar. No, Sarpotdar openly toted guns during the riots, and he was captured doing so by no less an authority than the Indian Army.

 

Yet Sarpotdar was never tried for this offence. Far from it. In February 1995, he ran for election as MLA and won. In 1996 and 1998, he ran for election to Parliament, winning both times. As if to drive home the irony, he stood and won from the same constituency that Sanjay Dutt’s father, Sunil Dutt, represented, that his sister now represents; more appalling than ironic to me personally, this is my constituency.

 

Forget being tried for violating our laws. For years after 1993, this man was actually making laws for us all. (For what it’s worth, the Dawood hitman Anil Parab himself was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and other crimes, only weeks before Dutt was convicted).

 

What was that again about nobody being above the law?

 

There’s plenty more to say about Sarpotdar, including his shifty appearance before the Srikrishna Commission that inquired into the riots. Unfortunately, delving into all that will need a book, not just several hundred words on TBIP. Let’s leave it at this: Sarpotdar died in 2010, gone to the great riot in the sky without having spent a day in jail. That, and not Dutt’s sentence, is the really accurate measure of how justice and law operate in India.

 

What do we learn, looking back at the two decades Dutt has spent in trial? In no particular order, here are some of my takeaways.

 

* This has little to do with left or right wing politics. Instead, it has everything to do with power. The Shiv Sena has grown into an entity that nobody can touch; this is itself the fount of its power and appeal in Maharashtra. Thackeray is now gone, but his legacy is not one, but two equally virulent Senas. Sarpotdar is also gone, but his party is filled with others with similar records of public service.

 

* Thackeray actively drew prominent film stars into his fold. Ever wondered why Amitabh Bachchan, for example, has never suggested that Sarpotdar be treated as Dutt has been?

 

* Sanjay Dutt will do his time. I now don’t doubt that. But I have no illusions that this punishment will rid us of terrorism, or even slow it down. Because as long as we hide behind shibboleths, as long as we shy away from punishing the guilty whoever they are, we nurture terrorism.

 

In a song in Sanjay Dutt’s Lage Raho Munna Bhai, listen for these words aimed at a certain Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: “Jhoot ka badhta jaye raj, O Bapu/ Apne hi ho gaye dhokebaaz.”

 

Think of it as an entirely telling epitaph for the fandango of Sanjay Dutt, circa 2013.

 

Of Arms and a Man

A legal analysis of the Sanjay Dutt verdict

The question one has to ask oneself is: If Sanjay Dutt was arrested for the same offence, and it had no connection with the Bombay Serial Bomb Blasts, would the Court’s verdict still be the same?

 

On Thursday, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India confirmed the conviction of Sanjay Dutt, and two of his other accomplices, but reduced the sentence awarded by the Special Court by one year. Sanjay Dutt, who has already spent 18 months in custody, after the verdict has roughly three and a half years of jail term left to serve. Should Sanjay Dutt because of his background and stature in society, or because of his Munna Bhai avatar, be treated differently for the offence which he has been charged with and found guilty of? The obvious answer is no. But still there is a sense of unease in accepting his condemnation.

 

Sanjay Dutt was charged with offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for the terrorist act of causing serial bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993, its conspiracy, abetting; harbouring and concealing terrorists; and the membership of a terrorist gang. In addition to this, he was also tried for offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Explosive Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. However, the Special Court, formed under the TADA, found him guilty only for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1-A) and (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for six years, along with a fine of Rs. 25,000 (in default of which he was to further undergo RI for a period of 6 months). It is relevant to mention that the findings of the Special Court have not been challenged by the State and, therefore, Sanjay Dutt has been acquitted of other charges under the TADA, the IPC, the Explosives Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

 

Conversely speaking, if we accept the Special Court’s verdict, Sanjay Dutt had no role whatsoever in the Bombay Serial Blasts, or was aware of any conspiracy hatched by other accused persons. What the apex court had before it were the offences relating to the possession of unlicensed weapons on a particular day which was during bad times (in the months after the infamous Bombay Riots).

 

The court’s verdict raises two primary legal concerns. Firstly, Sanjay Dutt’s conviction is almost entirely based on his confessions and the confessions of the other accused. Almost half of the 147 pages of the verdict are devoted to the court discussing the confessional statements made by the accused persons and the law that pertains to this. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution declares that “no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”, thus, incorporating the principle of protection against self-incrimination under duress or otherwise. However, under the TADA, which now stands repealed, confessions made by the accused before a police-officer are admissible as evidence in the trial.

 

A five judge bench of the Supreme Court in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994), has upheld the validity of the provision that allows for confessional statements to be admissible as evidence. However, we need to remember that confessions as a form of evidence in trial can be extremely dangerous. There are several situations under which an accused can confess to a crime which he has not committed. The obvious objection to the use of a confessional statement is the use of torture by police officers to obtain confessions from the accused persons. However, recent research shows that people confess for many other reasons (eg. duress, coercion , intoxication, diminished capacity, mental impairment, ignorance of the law,  the threat of a harsh sentence, misunderstanding the situation etc) and not just because of torture, or its threat.

 

In Sanjay Dutt’s case too there was a confession, to a police officer, which was later retracted by him but, since the retraction came many months after the confession, the Supreme Court refused to remove it from the evidence against him.

 

But even if we are to assume that Sanjay Dutt’s confession was true, that it was made out of his own volition, the fact remains that the confession was made under the provisions of the TADA, for which he was acquitted. The senior counsel arguing on behalf of Sanjay Dutt correctly pointed out that the confessions made under the TADA cannot be used to convict Sanjay Dutt under the Arms Act, especially when he has been acquitted of all terror charges. He further pointed out that if a confession to the police becomes admissible irrespective of the fate of the TADA charge, then it would lead to invidious discrimination between the accused, who were charged (but acquitted) under the TADA along with other offences and those who were accused only of non-TADA offences.  However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention based on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case’s reasoning (State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nalini, 1999) and held that confessions made under the TADA would continue to remain admissible in the case of other offences, under any other law, which were tried along with the TADA offences, no matter that the accused was acquitted of offences under the TADA in that trial.

 

The second concern with this verdict is the sentencing. The question of what makes for an adequate yet appropriate sentence has always been a very difficult question. Sentencing, in India, is mainly on the discretion of the judges. There are several, often competing factors that must be taken into account before arriving at a just sentence. The Constitutional Bench in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) has held that in fixing the degree of punishment or making the choice of sentences for various offences including one under section 302, the court should not confine its consideration principally or merely to the circumstances connected with a particular crime but also give due consideration to the circumstances of the criminal.

 

Various theories of punishment, from deterrence (for the accused and the public at large) to rehabilitation to reformation to re-absorption in the society, need to be adjusted in a libertarian Constitution. The objective is that the accused must realize that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he is an integral part but is also harmful to his own future— both as an individual and as a member of the society. (This view has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Goswami BC vs. Delhi Administration, 1973).

 

Sanjay Dutt was held guilty of offences under the Arms Act for which the maximum sentence prescribed is of 10 years, and the minimum sentence of 5 years, and he shall also be liable to fine. In a way, while passing the verdict on conviction the hands of the Court were tied and they could not have gone beyond the statutory prescribed jail term. However, what the Supreme Court could have done is given him the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. To clarify, putting an accused on probation does not mean he is not guilty of the offences he has committed, in fact it is the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him (Rattan Lal vs. State of Punjab, 1979). When the Court decides to put an accused on Probation, the Court can prescribe any condition (like regularly reporting to the probation officer or informing the police station when leaving the country etc.) and give a chance to the accused to reform himself. If the accused does not fulfill the conditions he can be recalled and sentenced as per the provisions of law.

 

In Sanjay Dutt’s case, and in my respectful disagreement with the verdict, I think the Court overlooked the idea of reformation as an objective of punishment. His offence is an offence which has no victim, and all the charges of being a terrorist have been done away with. In fact, even the State agrees with the findings of the trial court and has not appealed against the acquittal. There has been no previous conviction of the accused, which means that this instance is his first ‘offence’. The verdict further records that there has been no complaint either from the lower court, or any subsequent criminal offence committed by the accused during the period of trial. In such a scenario, the accused deserved the benefit of probation. There is no doubt that the court has discretion in deciding whether to give an offender the benefit of probation or not. In deciding so the Court has to give regard to the circumstances of the cases, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. However, in the absence of any set objective standard the discretion of the judge becomes subjective with each case.

 

Recently, in Sunder @ Sundararajan vs. State Tr.Insp. Of Police on February 5, 2013, the Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty of an accused for killing a child for ransom. While upholding the death penalty the Court observed, “Kidnapping the only male child was to induce maximum fear in the mind of his parents. Purposefully killing the sole male child, has grave repercussions for the parents of the deceased. Agony for parents for the loss of their only male child, who would have carried further the family lineage, and is expected to see them through their old age, is unfathomable.” Whereas, on January 28, 2013, Mohinder Singh vs. State Of Punjab, commuted a life sentence where a man, already convicted of raping his daughter, killed his wife and daughter in the most gruesome manner after breaking parole. What I am suggesting here is not the death penalty for the latter case, but a set objective and mandates for crucial decisions like sentencing, parole, or probation.

 

In Sanjay Dutt’s case there was need to observe in a more reasoned manner the nature of the crime and also the implication of a conviction that would come almost 20 years after. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of every accused. A verdict of conviction without any probation after over 19 years of trial, for an offence which had no victim, especially when the main accused for the serial blasts of 1993 have still not been apprehended, is a sort of harshness, not justice.

Eye of the Beholder: Musharraf Ali Farooqi

Translator and novelist Musharraf Ali Farooqi talks movies.

 

The first film you remember watching.

The Monkey’s Uncle.

 

One thing you miss about the way in which you saw movies as a child.

Drinking Fanta during the intermission.

 

The worst book to film adaptation.

I maintain that if a book is trash but the movie is good, the director has been unfaithful to the book.

 

If you were to adapt a film to a book, it would be… 

 Kaagaz Ke Phool directed by Guru Dutt.

 

A sequence/ character/ plot in either of your books that might be
inspired by cinema (by the medium itself or a particular film).
 

Not directly, but to understand the character of Gohar Jan (in Between Clay and Dust) I have very closely watched Maria Callas’ performance videos to learn how a very proud and accomplished artiste comports herself.

 

Do you read film reviews? What good are they? 

I do not remember having ever read a film review.

 

In a movie version of your life who would play you? Who would you have liked to play you? 

I think I will have to step in. No actor can quite connect with my perfidiously villainous nature.

 

What book of yours could be made into a film? 

All of them (Please! Now!).


Who would you like it to be directed by?

Some famous zombie.

 

Who would you cast as who (you could name any or all characters)?

I think Deepti Naval will look good in the role of Mona Ahmad the protagonist of The Story of a Widow. I haven’t really thought about others.

 

One male actor you’ve idolized. 

Peter Falk of Columbo.

 

One actress you absolutely adore.

Meryl Streep.


What fictional characters would you like to see both of the above play?

Popeye and Olive Oyl.


One writer whose biopic would definitely be A-Rated.

Charles Dickens.

 

A writer whose biopic you want to see. 

Charles Dickens.

 

One non-fiction title that could make for a good film. 

Basic Electrical Engineering.

 

One thing that the novel can do which a film can’t. 

Introduce you to the taste of obsessive passions.


One thing the film can do that a novel can’t.

Show sex scenes more plausibly.


A film that made you very happy.

Amélie.

 

A film that made you cry. 

Every second film makes me cry.

 

A film every writer must see.

Character, Babette’s Feast, The Story of the Weeping Camel.

 

Your favourite film on writing/a writer.

 Henry & June.

 

If you ever made a film…

 It would be a slapstick comedy, a genre I love.


A film script you would like to read.

The Little Prince.

 

A film you wish you had written.

In the Mood for Love.

 

One underrated film.

The Story of the Weeping Camel.


One highly rated film that did not work for you.

All of them worked for me, I think, because if they were boring I just got up and left.

 

Musharraf Ali Farooqi is an author, novelist and translator. His latest novel, Between Clay and Dust, was shortlisted for The Man Asian Literary Prize 2012 and longlisted for the 2013 DSC Prize for South Asian Literature. Farooqi’s first novel The Story of a Widow was shortlisted for the DSC Prize for South Asian Literature. He has also written an illustrated novel, Rabbit Rap (with art by his wife, Michelle Farooqi), and Tik-Tik, The Master of Time for children and translated The Adventures of Amir Hamza and the first book of a projected 24-volume magical fantasy epic, Hoshruba. 

 

Also read:

Maula JattThe Foot-Worshipper’s Guide to Watching Maula Jatt

 

 

 

 

 

The Foot-Worshipper’s Guide to Watching Maula Jatt

Musharraf Ali Farooqi on the secret subtext of a cult Pakistani film

Sometime in the 1970s the elders of a secret, Punjab-based foot-worshipping cult met at their Lahore headquarters. At issue was the recent decline in new recruits to the faith. One of the underlying reasons for this trend was the non-availability of the teachings in printed format that can be handed out to potential converts. But the publication of the long awaited Foot Worshippers’ Bible had been delayed again for security reasons. It was a difficult time for all minorities and smaller creeds. A lot of blood had been spilled in Punjab not too long ago over the religion issue. The elders had reason to be nervous. The publication of the book would draw unnecessary attention toward their small, vulnerable and select community.

There were no easy solutions to the dilemma being faced by the cult. Just when the elders were going to adjourn to reflect some more on the issue, a member offered a thought: as a way of getting their message out to the masses, the sum total of the ideology should be embedded in a love story and made into a cinematic production. This Manichean idea struck a chord with the elders. This unconventional but clever, avant-garde method of subliminally disseminating their message was just the thing to get them out of their predicament. The converts would follow in large bunches.

A vote was taken. The minor disagreement in the group showed in the few ‘no votes’ that were cast, but the majority were in favor. And so it was decided.

Embedding the foot, the leg and other associated symbols into this love story of unrequited love between two men was not easy, but it was not a challenge the highly creative elders could not overcome when they put their minds to it. By the time they congregated for their next meeting, they had found a way to do it. Fooling the Censor Board did not require much inventiveness but it was best to observe caution: relevant tactics were carefully discussed before they were adopted. The producer and the director were vetted and brought on board next.

The rest is well documented. Upon its release in 1979 the movie titled Maula Jatt was an instant box office hit. The elders were successful beyond their wildest dreams. Millions were converted to the faith. But intolerance had risen in the society, and the ever careful elders decided that the members of the cult must continue to observe secrecy about their identity. Even today, one would find millions who would profess to be Maula Jatt fans, but not one of them would admit to being a closet foot-worshipper. As a result, there have been no proper studies that tell us about the underlying symbolism of the movie. A lot of questions remain unanswered.

The author of this essay does not by any means profess it to be a comprehensive study of the kind needed on the subject. It is but a humble attempt which he hopes will set the path and pave the way for future scholars to carry out more detailed work. The questions that require in-depth analysis of the movie and its sub-plots and which were beyond the scope of this essay are listed at the end. Those who mistake it for a film review will be invariably disappointed.

 

*

 

From the opening scene, the supremacy of the human foot is established when a certain lady in distress in a tight-fitting blue dress outruns a horse on which a villain is pursuing her. He manages to catch up with her only when she trips and falls.

But she has reached a safe haven. A protector has been found in the person of the mother of Maula Jatt. When the villain named Makha who is brother to the notorious Nuri Nutt perseveres in his evil intentions, Maula Jatt’s mother calls out to her son for help.

We have our first, feet-first introduction to Maula Jatt. We do not see his face, only his feet in stirrups. This style of introduction in which a character enters the movie feet first is based on the concept of breech birth when the child exits the birth canal feet first and would be repeated for another two powerful male characters.

Maula Jatt accosts Makha and passes his judgment after witnessing the situation: Makha had broken the peace pact between the Jatt and Nutt clans; therefore he must marry the lady in the tight-fitting blue dress (whom Maula Jatt has just now made his sister). Moreover, Makha Jatt must give his sister in marriage to someone in Maula Jatt’s clan. When Makha makes light of the demands, Maula Jatt’s best friend Mooda beats him up.

The lady in blue now delivers a powerful kick to Makha herself, and breaks into a bout of hysterical laughter. Then, after pounding the ground powerfully in a joyous dance, she gratuitously falls dead due to excessive bleeding from her feet. Thus, shortly after the feet-first birth of a character, we witness a character exiting the stage by dying through the feet.

Maula Jatt tells Makha that he had escaped his punishment; he should return and make preparations for his sister’s marriage, for Maula Jatt would be coming soon with Mooda in a wedding procession to bring her away as a bride. Makha returns home with his tail between his legs, only to be shot dead by his trigger-happy sister Daro (the lady in the tight-fitting pink dress with the rifle) for his sheer inability in kidnapping and raping a girl. She gallops away to kill Maula Jatt herself, and is accosted by Mooda along the way. She asks him to follow on his bullocks cart so that he could help her carry away Maula Jatt’s corpse. When Mooda learns that she is Nuri Nutt’s sister, he informs her that he is set to become Nuri Nutt’s brother-in-law himself. Daro trains her rifle at him but before she could give him a fitting reply, an unfortunate incident occurs. Police arrives on the scene and Daro is arrested on the charges of murdering her brother.

It is time to introduce the person who would complete the heroic presence in the movie. Enter Nuri Nutt, feet-first, walking in leg irons.

He is in jail. The search of a worthy adversary has defined Nuri Nutt’s life so far. He has searched every jail but never met any mighty champion who can be his match. He clearly states that he wants someone who would mark his skin. Someone whose name would give him shivers and keep him awake at night. But alas such a one is nowhere to be found.

Cut to Maula Jatt. We learn that a certain lady named Makho is in love with him.

Lady Makho ambushes Maula Jatt in an empty garden by locking her feet around his neck and moving them vigorously, her ankle-bells creating a violent symphony. Then she performs a dance number for him, employing her feet and hips. We notice that Maula Jatt watches intently the pounding of her feet but moves away disinterestedly when she begins grinding her hips. This is a very important scene. In its earlier part Makho leads us to believe that she knows about Maula Jatt’s preferences, then disappoints us. One may legitimately ask Makho what she was thinking when she offered Maula Jatt the swaying offering of her hips. This scene conclusively proves that Makho’s love for Maula Jatt is not a mature love.

Upon hearing of Daro’s killing her brother, Maula Jatt goes running to post Daro’s bail but does not reveal his identity. She comes out of the jail and tells him that the one who has come to post her bail would do her a greater favour by bringing her Maula Jatt’s tongue as a Happy Release gift. Maula Jatt begins to understand the lady. He accompanies her to the precincts of her village and hastily returns home. But Daro has not forgotten her duty. She snatches a gun and sets out to kill Maula Jatt. But this time too she is foiled. She first runs into lady Makho and then the irascible Mooda. This martial lady even goes through the humiliation of Mooda doing a song and dance number for her. She curses her luck that Nuri Nutt is still in jail.

Cut to Nuri Nutt. He has done his time and about to be set free.

Upon leaving the jail Nuri Nutt earnestly hopes that he finds an adversary who would throw him down and tear him in apart by his legs. He turns up at another police station and makes a statement about how his feet have become embarrassed searching everywhere for an adversary.

He earnestly hopes that he may find a worthy one who may kill him and release him from his quest, or else he would have to kill the adversary and return to the jail. He sets out once again in his quest and heads to the house of Malik Haku, who has the reputation of being a tough, to see if he would give him satisfaction.

Malik Haku is tough, alright. Why? Because we see him feet first. But we immediately suspect that Malik Haku is a spent force. Why that? Firstly, from Nuri Nutt’s expression of dissatisfaction when he first beholds him. But mainly, because Malik Haku is coming down a staircase, not ascending one. Malik Haku himself verifies our suspicions. He confesses that he is no longer as tough as he was in the good old days. Some years ago a Jatt was born who began populating the graveyard with members of Malik Haku’s estate, and Malik Haku gave up his activities as a tough after losing his near and dear ones. Nuri Nutt demands to know the name of Malik Haku’s enemy but he refuses to divulge it.

After making a sarcastic comment, Nuri Nutt leaves him and decides to head to a fair where rough baddies of all sorts would come from among whom he hopes to find one tough enough to satisfy him. There too Nuri Nutt is disappointed as the goons participating in the fair are no match for him. He expresses great dissatisfaction with the land of Punjab that had stopped giving birth to strong men.

He next calls on his sister who tells him all that had transpired while he was locked up and also gives him Maula Jatt’s name. Nuri Nutt learns from Miss Daro about the Maula Jatt phenomenon and what a pest Mooda has been. Nuri Nutt demands to know if the sun still rises from the east, because his ears are not used to tales of such humiliation of his family.

He gallops off to Maula Jatt’s village to sort out a few urgent issues, only to find his way blocked by an oxen cart which had been stuck on a bridge. Nuri Nutt yokes himself and tries to pull the cart out but fails despite putting the very best effort of his legendary strength. Then suddenly, the cart moves. Startled, Nuri Nutt looks and sees that sharing the yoke with him is a fine mustachio.

Cut to Maula Jatt, admiring Nuri Nutt with a similar expression.

And here we must pause to savour the fireworks. The flame of love that unmistakably lights up in their hearts can be clearly seen in the glow of the looks of mutual admiration they exchange. Nuri Nutt demands to know Maula Jatt’s name but he does not give it to him. But we know that a friendship has been struck. They part after shaking hands and each making friendly promises to eliminate the other with his entire tribe.

Nuri Nutt enters Maula Jatt’s village and is challenged by Mooda. Nuri Nutt demands Maula Jatt’s tongue on the platter of his hand because he had defiled his sister by uttering her name in public. Then he revises his demands and asks for Maula Jatt’s hand as well because it had been raised on his brother. Here Mooda pipes up that it was not Maula Jatt’s hand but his own foot that had marked Makha. Nuri Nutt urgently demands Mooda to make him an offering of his foot and place it on his hand. Mooda suggests that if Nuri is not careful the same foot could also defile his nose. As an afterthought he also asks him to take good care of his hand with which he has to put his sister in her doli. Nuri delivers Mooda a fine beating.

Then Nuri Nutt proceeds to break an item of utmost dignity that must never have been harmed or desecrated: Mooda’s foot. Not only that, he makes a statement of great significance: “Now when you walk with the help of crutch, it would not make the sound of tak, tak, tak, but the sound of Nuri Nutt, Nutt, Nutt!” This is a stark reminder to everyone that the human identity resides in the foot and when one becomes weak, the appropriation and colonization of the supreme bodily asset may occur to a degree where the colonized completely loses its identity to the colonizer.

Maula Jatt’s mother does what she does best. She calls out to Maula Jatt, censures him and informs him of Nuri Nutt’s arrival. Maula Jatt goes to his father’s grave and digs up the gandasa which he had buried after the peace pact between the two clans. He heads to Nuri’s village where he disembowels some men for practice and proceeds onwards.

Maula and Nuri finally meet again and learn each others’ identities. Maula Jatt demands Nuri Nutt’s foot on the platter of his hand (in compensation for Mooda’s broken foot) so that the feud can be settled. Nuri Nutt asks him to hold it while he takes a good look at Maula Jatt. Then he thinks aloud that it is too much for a creature with two legs, two arms and a head to make such a demand of a member of a Nutt clan. He demands Maula Jatt to cut off his tongue and give it to him. Maula Jatt retorts that Nuri should cut off his tongue instead and give that to him with one hand, and his foot with the other. This leads to a skirmish of sorts in which Nuri Nutt is wounded before another unfortunate accident occurs, when the police arrive and break up the fight.

The two continue their friendly verbal exchange in their own manner at the police station. Now accompanied by a number of midgets and policemen, the two men leave the police station for jail in a procession of tongas. We hear what is perhaps the first love song between two men in a Punjabi movie, sung by the midgets and the supporters of the two men, while they fondle each other with sidelong glances.

Before they part we see some midgets riding piggy back who break into a fight before the scene ends. Finally, to maintain peace in the area, it is decided that both Maula Jatt and Nuri Nutt should be put under house arrest.

For all we know, Maula Jatt would have bided his time in peace but he is not destined to. Lady Makho decides to make the most of his confinement by resuming her songful gyrations. Mooda also keeps limping up and down in plain sight of him. Maula Jatt just can’t take it. He breaks his confinement and runs away.

On the other end Nuri Nutt is keeping his wound fresh by daily opening it up with his axe. He is not a home body. Daro also wants him to be out and about collecting tongues and feet. Meanwhile she has found a fiancé, Akkoo, and he is deputed on similar duties. Before ennui claims him Nuri Nutt also runs away from home by breaking the police cordon.

The police contingents are in pursuit of the two absconders and their bullet ridden bodies fall close to each other. They creep towards each other and their outstretched hands meet. They smile and repeat their oft repeated vows of severing each other’s choice parts.

Cut to the hospital ward where our heroes lie, in the pink again and exchanging manly pleasantries separated by doctors and police.

Nuri suggests that Maula Jatt should make his ablutions before the next fight because nobody would give the last bath to the single piece of meat that would be left of him when he is done with him. Meanwhile Daro and Makho enter the ward, exchange slaps and are admitted into the room where they exchange more slaps before settling down.

The two men decide that the best way to get rid of the police is to pretend to have reached a peace accord. The police are easily fooled and set them free. Meanwhile Daro has enlisted her fiancé to bring her Maula Jatt’s mother to use as her maid in their future home. Akkoo is unable to carry away Maula Jatt’s very fat mother on his horse. She raises the alarm and Maula Jatt answers the call by killing Akkoo. He declares that instead of mehndi, Daro’s hands should be painted with Akkoo’s blood on the wedding day. He sends sweets and Akkoo’s body to Nuri Nutt’s house and prepares to take the wedding procession on the day of the full moon.

Nuri Nutt and Daro receive the sweets and Akkoo’s body and prepare to convert Maula Jatt and Mooda’s wedding procession into a mass funeral.

Mooda’s wedding procession leaves from one end and Nuri Nutt’s warrior force from the other. They meet in the middle and Maula Jatt announces to Nuri that he has not come as an enemy but as justice: to claim a foot for a foot and a sister for a sister. Nuri Nutt asks him to stop talking and start pulling out his tongue. A free-for-all follows in which many are killed from the Nutt tribe. The sight greatly pleases Nuri and he enters the fray himself only to be beaten up by Maula Jatt. Just as he is about to collect Nuri Nutt’s leg himself with the help of his gandasa, the martial Daro melts and asks for mercy for her brother. While Maula Jatt relents and refrains from cutting off Nuri’s leg, Nuri cannot take this insult to his dignity. He quickly severs his leg with his own hand and offers it to Maula Jatt saying, “I would not even accept heaven if it was given to me in charity. This is but a leg! Take this as your justice, and I will think of this as a reward for your bravery and forget all about it! Go Maula, take a piece of my heart (Daro) and a part of my body (the leg)!”

Maula Jatt now throws away his gandasa once more and asks for it to be buried and a plaque that should read, “Humanity does not want revenge. It wants justice!”

In that as in everything else that has gone before, both he and Nuri are on the same page.

 

*

 

The author of this essay is cognizant of the fact that it leaves a number of questions unanswered. For example:

1. Both Maula Jatt and Nuri Nutt are fettered in a way when they are first seen. Maula Jatt by his stirrups and Nuri Nutt by his leg irons. While the author could not decipher the symbolism behind it, he could venture that because Maula Jatt is first seen with his feet in the stirrups and dangling, it perhaps is symbolic of a fanciful disposition. By the same token Nuri Nutt walking on the ground in leg irons could be symbolic of his having a more earthy disposition. How these symbols play out and influence the course of the movie and the libido of the two heroes should be carefully studied.

2. How did two non-Punjabi males – the Urdu speaking Sultan Rahi in the role of Maula Jatt, and Sindhi speaking Mustafa Qureshi in the role of Nuri Nutt – become the two iconic Punjabi male symbols? Was Mustafa Qureshi’s earlier dialogue a part of the script, in which he lamented that the land of Punjab had stopped giving birth to strong men, or was it inserted by him as a snide remark? The many drafts of the scripts should be studied and the prompter’s accounts documented to get to the bottom of this mystery.

3. The movie begins with a female foot. But clearly the theme changes to become all about the male foot. What does this tell us about the religious preferences and biases of the cult, and how do these biases play out in the movie?

4. What is the role and significance of midgets in the foot-worshippers’ cult?

5. If we view the story as a quest for the villain Nuri Nutt’s foot, what is the ultimate message of the movie? Why is it not a quest for Maula Jatt’s foot?

6. What becomes of Nuri Nutt’s leg and who has the greater claim on it? It was demanded as compensation for Mooda’s leg, and was bestowed as a medal of bravery by Nuri Nutt on Maula Jatt. But would it decorate Maula Jatt’s house or Mooda and Daro’s home? They both have equal claim on it. Nuri Nutt has complicated affairs by rewarding it to Maula Jatt at the same time.

7. Regardless of who takes the foot home, we know that it should be displayed conspicuously. But would it be displayed when Nuri Nutt calls on Maula Jatt, or visits Daro and Mooda to have tea with them?

The essay was first published in The Popcorn Essayists: What Movies do to Writers by Tranquebar/ Westland. 

Also read:

Musharraf-Ali-FarooqiEYE OF THE BEHOLDER: MUSHARRAF ALI FAROOQI 

An interview with the author

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inshallah, Kashmir

Today Oscar nominated filmmaker Ashvin Kumar won a National Award for Best Investigative Film for Inshallah, Kashmir. This is his second National Award. His first win, for Best Film On Social Issues, was in 2012 for Inshallah, Football, his first film on Kashmir, which was followed by Inshallah, Kashmir. Despite two National Awards Kumar has still not been able to show his films in Srinagar. The film has now been made available to the public for free viewing and therefore a one of its kind opportunity for it to reach a wider audience in Kashmir.

 

DIRECTOR’S NOTE:

 

I made this film to throw light on the deep distrust and misconception of the Kashmiri and his aspirations for self-governance, as well as highlight the unacceptable, institutional abuse of individual human rights in the valley. The film questions the legitimacy and human cost of sustaining India’s occupation of Kashmir for over two decades and it does so through the telling of stories of terror and fear that haunt ordinary Kashmiri folk.

The testimonies in this film are those that the mainstream media keeps away from its audiences in India. Till we Indians understand and acknowledge the pain and suffering of our Kashmiri brethren, and what is happening in the name of India in Kashmir, no solution can ever be found. We need to evolve a new idiom based on the reality of what has happened in the past twenty five years. I hope InshallahKashmir provides one such reference point.

Cinema’s Most Iconic Fashion Moment

We ask fashion designers to share their favourite fashion moment or style statement from the movies

“Tippi Hedren in The Birds. Alfred Hitchcock insisted that Hedren wear only blue or green clothes throughout the film. For the famous crows chase sequence, when costume designer Edith Head had to create a green dress, that allowed Hedren to run in it, she re-designed the green eau de nil suit she had done for Grace Kelly in Rear Window, taking inspiration from Chanel’s new suits at the time.”

—Gaurav Gupta is a Delhi based fashion designer.

FICCI Frames 2013 Live Blog

TBIP@FICCI

The 14th FICCI Frames, a three day annual media and entertainment conclave is on in Mumbai. FICCI Frames is hosted by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry’s (FICCI’s) Entertainment Division.

The theme of this year’s conclave is “A tryst with destiny: Engaging a billion consumers.”

 

Day 3. March 14, 2013

(See Day 2 and Day 1 Below)

 

5:15 pm to 7:00 pm A valedictory address by Manish Tewari, Minister of Information and Broadcasting (I&B). A keynote address by Ronnie Screwvala, MD, Disney-UTV. And speeches by Uday Kumar Varma, Secretary I&B, and Uday Shankar (Chairman, FICCI-Media & Entertainment Committee). Also on the stage are Karan Johar, Filmmaker and actor Kamal Haasan, and actor Prosenjit Chatterjee. 

Uday Shankar delivers an opening speech where he highlights the role of the Government in the Entertainment and Media industry. Although Manish Tewari isn’t able to attend the conference, I&B Secretary Uday Kumar Varma has been able to fly down from Delhi to represent the government at this last session at FICCI Frames, 2013.

Tewari’s recorded address is played where he apologizes for not being there as the parliament is in session. He addresses the issues raised by Shankar in the inaugural speech. He says, “This industry has the potential of absorbing the creative intellect of our youth.”  The government should ensure that the growth of this industry is greater than before. He acknowledges the film industry’s role in contributing to India’s soft power. “The Indian film industry has grown not because of the government but in spite of it,” says Tewari. He assures a more expedient process for obtaining permissions for both intentional and domestic productions to do location shooting. He also acknowledges the crisis of talent in the media and entertainment industry and sees public-private partnerships as the way forward. He says that it is the private sector that should ensure adequate training in the technical aspects of film and broadcast. On the topic of freedom of speech and expression, Tewari says that his stand is that freedom of speech should include the freedom to offend but he adds that the Indian Constitution also imposes reasonable restrictions.

Ronnie Screwvala’s Keynote address follows. He notes that the industry has had a 12% growth but also that this is still less than that of other “sunrise industries”. One of the key subjects of discussion during the conference has been the digitization of TV, which Screwvala says will take us three to four years to monetize. He also says that 2012 was an interesting year for cinema, where good storytelling was seen, alongside big blockbusters. He says that our regional markets have grown significantly. However, he feels the industry lacks a unanimous voice. “What we need is a lot more innovation and disruptiveness,” he says. About the Rs 1000 crore box office target, Screwvala says we have the potential to achieve this target, but we can’t increase ticket prices to meet it. The challenge cinema faces is that it has to make us want to come out and watch it.

Uday Kumar Varma acknowledges the film industry’s disappointment with the recent budget. “My ministry is with the film industry,” he says. With regard to the completion of 100 years of cinema, Varma announces that a part of the National Museum of cinema is complete. He also says that ‘National Film Heritage Mission’ will be formally announced soon to ensure film preservation and restoration and “to make sure nothing is lost to posterity.” He says that plans are also being made for a ‘Film Shooting and Facilitation Board’ to enable a single window for the multiple permissions needed for film shoots, and to make the process easier for domestic and international producers. He says that India can become a digital hub “in terms of production.” He calls for the industry to align interests and efforts with the government in this regard.

Uday Shankar thanks the attendees, the delegates, the media, the organizing committee and his co-chair Karan Johar. He also thanks Bangladesh’s Information Minister, Hasanul Haq Inu for attending the event. He reiterates the importance of evolving a suitable regulatory framework for the industry. In this regard he announces on behalf of FICCI, the ‘Centre for Regulatory Excellence’ for suggesting policy changes in any regulatory framework to the government. He says that while this Centre will focus on pushing for a regulatory framework for the media and entertainment sector, it will also be open to consult other sectors.

 

4:45 pm to 5:15 pm Valedictory Session. Filmmaker Karan Johar in conversation with actor Kajol. 

The actor is attending FICCI Frames for the first time. The conversation plays out like a live version of Johar’s popular TV show, Koffee with Karan. They cover topics ranging from social media, her motherhood, film lineage, item numbers, brand endorsements to controversies. Kajol calls herself “controversy-free”. On the current crop of actors she says: “Acting has a lot to do with the kind of films you are given.” She believes that the actors have a long time to go before one can decide how good or bad they are. On how her motherhood has changed the roles she plays on screen: “There are some things that you cannot do. That is okay.”

The actor fields several questions from the audience on her comeback, her plans for the future and her relationship with Yash Raj Films. A filmmaker in the audience grabs the opportunity to offer her a role: “I thought: No one fits the role better than Kajol.”

 

3:45 pm to 5:00 pm “The Creative Impact of HD, 4K and Beyond: A masterclass by Tony Cacciarelli, Product Marketing Manager, AJA Systems.”

Tony Cacciarelli begins his masterclass with a presentation on AJA Systems’ Ki Pro Quad, and the HD and 4K formats. The presentation looks at the process of working in the 4K format  from shooting till editing the video. He says the move to HD led to improvements in compression technology.

The Ki Pro Quad can record video directly in a higher resolution. This allows for easier and quicker editing. The work flow is easier allowing for a single cable to carry raw data from the camera to the Ki Pro system. The same work flow applies to HD. “This means you can work in 4K in an affordable way, very fast,” says Cacciarelli.

The presentation is followed by a demo of the Ki Pro Quad. The raw footage can go directly to editing without converting it into another format. The 4K resolution doesn’t tax the system as much. Cacciarelli says that the 4K format is still a few years away from being widely employed in the US and the UK. They’re looking at the format being available at home in 2015. Japan is looking to do it in the next year. India is maybe three to four years away, he says. But it is possible to anticipate it and prepare for it, it is possible for systems to benefit from 4K for other formats. Cacciarelli adds: “I don’t like it when technology takes over the creative process.” The Ki Pro system costs approximately $ 3396.

 

3:45 pm to 4:45 pm “Media and Entertainment: Unleashing the power of Social and Economic Change.”

The panelists are Filmmakers Mahesh Bhatt and Goutam Ghose, Jonathan Taplin (Director of Annenberg Innovation Lab, University of South Carolina), Colin Maclay (Managing Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University) and actor Kiran Joneja. Sandra de Castro Buffington, Director, ‘Hollywood, Health & Society’ (a program of the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center that leverages the power of the entertainment industry to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities worldwide), moderates the session.

Buffington shows clips from two TV series— Private Practice and Numb3rs. She cites these shows as examples of using the medium of television to successfully educate audiences on issues such as alcohol, drug abuse, breast cancer and organ donation. “These efforts create impact”, she says. “Around 10 percent of the audience of Numb3rs became organ donors.” She talks about her program ‘Hollywood, Health and Society’ at the University of South Carolina collaborating with Asian Center for Entertainment Education on a project called The Third Eye, to do the same with Bollywood and other entertainment avenues in India. Bhatt and Ghose express support for this endeavor. Bhatt says: “It is our duty to act and act we will.” Joneja feels that it is necessary to use entertainment to bring in this awareness “without the audience feeling like they are being lectured.”

Maclay says: “It is a challenge to the creative industry, to not just put the story out there but to see how do you tell the story in a way that there is robust digestion and engagement with the audience.”

 

2:15 pm to 3:30 pm “Opportunities for creative collaboration between India and the UK— case studies and new developments.”

The moderator is Mark Leaver (Consultant & Creative Industries Specialist, United Kingdom Trade and Investment- UKTI). Other panelists are Samantha Perahia (Senior Production Executive, British Film Commission), Sumedha Saraogi (Sr. Vice President Global Business Dev/Co-productions at DQ Entertainment), A. K. Madhavan (CEO, Crest Animation) and Merzin Tavaria, Chief Creative Director and Co-Founder, Prime Focus.

Madhavan says that the UK would be the best option for India when it came to co-productions for animation as the UK gives Indian companies a chance to co-create and co-own intellectual property. Also the UK government grants support to productions, unlike the US where there is no support from the government. Moreover there is a greater cultural connect between India and the UK.

Saraogi says that the UK has a store of classic stories. “There is a huge potential in intellectual property, sitting there, waiting to be rebooted,” she says. She adds that India complements the UK in terms of bringing the right scale to co-productions.

Tavaria says that his experience in dealing with the UK has been great. Moreover the UK has a huge advertising and commercials community, which has demanded a lot of creative input and a lot of animation, which makes it a perfect business destination for Indian animation companies.

Perahia mentions that so far collaborations have mostly been limited to Indian film crews coming to shoot a portion of their movies, on location in London. The Indo-UK co-production treaty which is already in place hasn’t been used a great deal. Madhavan asks Perahia about possibility of funding for co productions. She speaks about various funds that outside productions could avail of if they want to make films in U.K. There is funding from banks as well, but the majority of banks shied away from film funding when the financial crisis hit. The question of distribution is also put forward. Leaver talks about how the British population spends more time and money on mobiles than any other country in the world and that Indian animation companies could look at it as a possible platform. Tavaria cites Prime Focus’s work with Youtube to get a mobile feed for IPL as an example.

They examine things that may pose challenges to Indo-British collaborations. Madhavan says: “You need deep pockets to create new Intellectual Property.” Says Tavaria: “There needs to be a greater seriousness towards animation in the country. There needs to be more investment in animation in India.” An audience member asks him if he would prefer to go to countries like Singapore and Malaysia as they give better incentives to animation rather than the UK. “My answer is an emphatic ‘no’,” says Tavaria. “The UK is where the heart of animation is because it’s where the studios and clients are. These countries (like Singapore and Malaysia) haven’t created instantly recognizable properties yet.” Saraogi says the company (DQ Entertainment) is waiting to see what the effect of the new treaty is before they go ahead with their planned co-productions in animation.

 

2:15 pm to 3:30 pm “Unleashing the Power of Data.”

The panelists are Louise Chater (Audience Research Consultant and former Head of Movie Market Research, Walt Disney Studios), Nick Burfitt (Global Director of RPD services, Kantar Media), Atul Phadnis (Founder and Chief Executive, What’s-On-India), Anandshiv Paramatma (Senior Vice President Consumer Insights, Star India), Rajesh A Rao, (Partner, IBM Global Business Services) and Ashish Khanna (Executive Vice President and Managing Partner, Communications and High Tech Group at Accenture India). The discussion is moderated by LV Krishnan, (CEO, TAM Media Research).

Chater says that audience research and testing is over 35 years old but it is only in recent years that the studios have paid attention to this data and used it to tweak the films they are making. Today, from script-testing to exit polls after the film’s release, there are six to seven tests done for each film. “Nothing goes out into the market that hasn’t been tested,” Chater says. Paramatma talks about how each medium has a different set of metrics and frequency for measuring the data generated: “Print is yearly, internet gives data every second and TV is weekly.” Fusing this data can provide significant socio-economic trends and insight.

Phadnis says that the audience’s search pattern on TV correlates with consumption patterns in a big way: “We get to know the ‘intent to view’ which indicates the direction of future consumption.” Chater says: “That is ultimately the (kind of) measure you want.” She feels that Hollywood is yet to crack this in their audience research. Nick Burfitt, says that UK’s television service Sky has been using such data to modify the viewing behaviour of audiences. The panelists agree that the large sample sizes and data are key to understanding the complex consumption patterns of audiences and modifying content to suit their preferences.

 

12:30 pm to 1:30 pm “Single Window Clearance: Making India easier for Film makers.”

The panelists are Colin Brown, Former British Film Commissioner, Graham Broadbent, producer of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Uday Singh (MD, Motion Picture Distributor’s Association, India—a subsidiary of the MPA— which represents the interests of the six big Hollywood studios in India), filmmaker Mukesh Bhatt (also President, Film & TV Producer Guild), Catherine McDonnell (Head, Business and Legal Affairs, Fox Studios Australia) and Colin Burrows (CEO Special Treats), who is moderating the session.

Bhatt suggests that tourism in india can be given a great boost through location filming. He cites the example of Bollywood and Switzerland. He also recommends a partnership between filmmakers and the government towards this end. Broadbent speaks about his experience while filming The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. Although he didn’t face any problems while getting initial shooting permissions, he was hampered by various government obstacles when it came to renewing shooting permissions after the permissions lapsed due to delays between pre-production and the shoots. This also had an effect on visas. The director was in India on a business visa. Casting was incomplete and yet the director was unable to leave the country because he didn’t know whether he would get a visa to return. “There was no single place (or officer in the government) to go to have a conversation with,” he says. However the actual production experience was very good. “Make it simple to come here, because we’re going to spend millions of dollars here,” Broadbent says.

McDonnell speaks about her work with Australia Film,  an organization that works to make Australia a production destination. She claims it is now known as the one place to go to if the filmmaker has a problem shooting elsewhere. She also says there is a need to have a presence in LA for any country to pitch themselves as a production location. And she talks about the cost of visas in India. “I spent 450 dollars for a business visa for one week,” she says.

Burrows asks Bhatt about the government’s interest in how India projects itself on the screen. Bhatt replies, “They call us cultural ambassadors, but I don’t know what they mean about that. There’s nothing done from state or government levels— just sweet talk, they haven’t done anything.” Brown takes out a report on the British film industry and begins to read findings from it. In 2010 the film industry was responsible for a one billion dollars worth of investment in one year. “Government officials can be impervious to the charm of cinema, but they can’t be impervious to the net benefit to the economy. This is the big hammer you beat them over the head with,” he says as he holds the report up for people to see.

Singh says they are working on getting business visas ready in 48 hours. “With that and post production facilities, next time he (Broadbent) can walk out of the country with a film (that’s ready to be shown),” he says.

 

11:30 am to 12:30 pm “India— a celebrated award winning global VFX hub.”

The panelists are Akhauri Sinha (Managing Director, The Moving Picture Company, Bangalore), Gaurav Gupta, CEO (FutureWorks Media Ltd and Merzin Tavaria), Chief Creative Director and Co-founder, Prime Focus. The discussion is moderated by Biren Ghose (Country Head, Technicolor). It was also to be attended by Keitan Yadav, (COO RedChillies.vfx), but he is not present.

The panelists discuss India’s arrival on the global VFX stage. Sinha says that 10 out of 12 films in the ‘billion dollar club’ have VFX behind them: “They are the heroes of the films.” Gupta adds: “In the global stage if there is any VFX film being made, I’m sure India has a part in it”. Merzin Tavaria says: “VFX is now part of ‘production’, not just ‘post’ (production).” According to Gupta, this has happened only post 2007. But within the country itself, the use of VFX is just getting started. Tavaria: “India has to evolve into using VFX.”

VFX is an industry that evolves every day and Sinha believes Indian VFX companies are moving forward from just doing back-end work on Hollywood films. “Shots are being finalized in companies in India now.” Comparing the present scenario with what happened five years ago, Ghose says walking through the studios is like “walking in dreamland”. “There are animals, mutants and superheroes.”

But the space needs a lot more investment and Sinha illustrates exactly how much with this example: “One shot of Life of Pi took more space (digital storage space, which means more money) than an entire Harry Potter film”. Tavaria, however, believes that India needs stories which allow filmmakers to use VFX creatively. Sinha agrees: “It (VFX) has to be thought of by the writers and directors in India.” But he believes that things are moving in the right direction. “Ten years ago, there was no storyboarding in (Indian) films,” he says.

 

11.45 am to 12.30 pm Skills in M&E (Media and Entertainment)— The Next Big Leap Towards Creating Greater Talent.” 

The Panel has Teri Schwartz (Dean, UCLA School of Theatre, Film &Television, USA), Jonathan Taplin (Director, Annenberg Center for Innovation, University of Southern California School of Communications & Journalism). Colin Maclay (MD, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University), Sanjay Gupta (COO, Star India Pvt. Ltd), D J Narain (Director, FTII) Meghna Ghai Puri (President, Whistling Woods International). The moderator is Sunit Tandon, Director General, IIMC.

Schwartz opens the panel by stating the need for a more inter-disciplinary media education. She calls digital movie making “a game changer” which has led to new ways of telling stories. She also says that sometimes the curriculum itself prevents the students from forming new inter-disciplinary partnerships. She says: “DIY creativity and entrepreneurship is at a high. Everyone is a media creator.” However she says there is “no getting away from one critical fact: the story matters.”

Taplin says the issue which Annenberg is concerned with is “how do we create a next generation of people who have taste and ideas.” He sees Mumbai as being one of the “scenes”  for developing great content. Maclay, calls himself the only “non-film person” on the panel and says that media and entertainment industries have much to learn from the digital world. He warns against dismissing film people from the digital world as that is where much of the interesting content is being created presently.

Schwartz, Maclay and Taplin together speak about the importance of collaboration, community and innovation in the new media world. Gupta offers his perspective as an employer: the industry currently employs 15 lakh people but need 60 lakh more people to join the industry. “We need very high quality talent and in very high numbers,” he says. He lists three main problems facing media employers: the Human Resources practices are informal, the industry is incestuous (hiring from within itself) and there is a need to excite people about joining the industry.

He says media companies must hire people outside of Mumbai. ” Mumbai isn’t a hub, it’s a fort,” Gupta says. Narain speaks of a major urban-rural divide and a serious lack of infrastructure. The media industry doesn’t work in a bottom up direction. This is creating social tension. He also stresses the need for media literacy to be a part of school curriculum.

 

10:30 am to 11:30 am “Between Worlds: The International Indian Filmmaker.”

Mira Nair is in conversation with Zoya Akhtar. Nair discusses the early years of her filmmaking career, the continuing legacy of Salaam Bombay!, where her sense of belonging come from with a life and career spread across 3 continents, Maisha, her film school in East Africa, the other projects that she is working on and her upcoming film The Reluctant Fundamentalist.

Akhtar who assisted Nair in Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love, talks about the best advice that she has received on filmmaking from her: “You don’t need to lose your femininity to do this job” and “don’t hook up with the actors.” Nair talks about beginning her foray into the arts with the questions “Is it possible to change the world with art?” and “Is it possible to make art and still be sane?” She discusses the recurring theme of migration that runs through her films, and about “distance (for the subject) giving (her) clarity” in making these films. She also feels that perhaps “the duplicity is captured much better by film than literature” in dealing with this theme.

Nair also talks about how she gets her way in making the film she wants to make by spreading the financing of a film between two to three financiers: “So there is no one boss and I get final cut.”

 

9:30 am A video address by India’s Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tewari

The video address by I&B minister Manish Tewari was called off due to “technical difficulties”.  The chairs for the session, Naina Lal Kidwai (Country head, HSBC India and FICCI President) and Uday Shankar (CEO, Star India and Chairman of FICCI’s Media and Entertainment Committee), expressed embarrassment and apologized to the audience. The speech given by Tewari will be recorded and played later in the day.

Day 2. March 13, 2013 
(See Day 1 Below)

 

5:45 pm to 6:30 pm “100 years of Cinema and Beyond.”

The panelists are filmmakers Anurag Kashyap, Zoya Akhtar, Dibakar Banerjee and Karan Johar. The discussion is being moderated by film critic Rajeev Masand.

The discussion covers various topics right from 100 crore films, how healthy India’s film industry is, the sexuality of men and women on screen, as well as the responsibilities of cinema and its makers, the need for a diversity and quality of content, intelligent blockbusters and the scope for animation films in India.

Karan Johar says: “We as a fraternity didn’t coin the term ‘100 crore film'”. But he admits that everyone plays a part in the circus that ensues from this idea: “The brilliance and flaws of a film are not discussed.” Dibakar Banerjee: “I am thankful to films like Rowdy Rathore. They give strength to studios to put in three to four crore in an LSD (Love Sex aur Dhokha) or a Gangs (of Wasseypur). Helps us cockroaches survive. I don’t want that to change. Bless you Salman!” Kashyap agrees with him: “We survive because of those blockbusters.”

Zoya Akhtar rejects the notion that cinema is the reason for increased crimes in society. “Cinema is the softest target,” she says. “We’re not the police.” She also points to the under representation in cinema of subjects such as “disability, alternate sexuality.” “We don’t discuss bad filmmaking,” she adds. Banerjee says that the content of a country’s cinema is reflective of its system: “Our system is oppressive and our entertainment is designed to make us forget the oppression.”

The filmmakers also talk about the short films they directed for Bombay Talkies, a film anthology project backed by Viacom 18 Motion Pictures in celebration of 100 years of Indian cinema. Kashyap calls Johar’s film “the bravest of the lot.”

 

4:45 pm to 5:45 pm “Creating Compelling Content: The Power of a Story.”

The panelists are writer Jerry Pinto, filmmaker-writers Vijay Singh, Rajshree Ojha and Manish Gupta, and Kamal Jain, Group CFO-India, Eros International Media Ltd. The discussion is moderated by author Samit Basu.

A lively discussion ensues on writers in the industry and what place good stories have. Pinto professes love for Bollywood but hits out hard against stars ruining the space for stories within the industry: “Once you have started to perceive yourself as someone important, as a cultural icon, it is the death of the story. I don’t think anyone is actually looking at the story.” Singh agrees with him about the importance of writers and says: “There is a need for investment in writers, in time and money” Ojha says that there’s change happening in the industry: “baby steps, but it is happening.”

Jain cites Shirin Farhad Ki Nikal Padi, Ferrari Ki Sawaari, Vicky Donor and English Vinglish as examples of content driven cinema coming to the fore. He asks the panelists arguing the case for good stories: “Where are the good writers?” Gupta answers this with how difficult it is for a writer to have a viable career in the industry: “In India, writers are taken for granted. When the same person becomes a director, he is taken much more seriously.” Citing his own shift from writing to making films, Gupta says: “I was paid Rs 5 lakhs as a writer for Sarkar but I directed three flop films and I was paid Rs 30 lakhs. Where is the sense in that?”

The panelists seem to agree that a way forward could be the script departments of companies like Viacom and Disney-UTV.

 

2:15 pm to 4:45 pm. “Engaging Diasporic Audiences.” A masterclass with filmmaker Gurinder Chadha.

Gurinder Chadha preferred to go for a Q&A session with the audience directly. On challenges she faces as an international Indian origin director she says it was difficult to make a decent budget film (according to her this would be about $ 15 million plus) with Indian content without having a good role for an English actor in it, or without an English storyline.

Secondly, she says that films with lead female roles aren’t deemed commercially successful.”It is not an insurmountable challenge,” she says. “But it is tedious and boring because you have to have to keep reinventing the wheel.” She discovered that Bride and Prejudice was the number 1 sleepover film for girls in the US after being treated to an impromptu dance recital of Balle Balle from a business acquaintance’s young god daughter.

She also speaks about the backlash against Aishwarya Rai: “People felt she was being over ambitious, trying to leave India behind and go global.” Chadha believes she has changed race relations in Britain by making her community feel “mainstream” in Britain. A young Sikh man in the audience thanks her for making Bend It Like Beckham because it helped him convince his family about his own dreams, although it “lead to some other problems as the film was about a girl.”

She says: “My whole purpose as a filmmaker is to show people who look like me and talk like me on the screen. Multi-cultural people in a world which is largely mono-lingual.” She also speaks about her musical version of Bend it Like Beckham, which she calls “‘A Fiddler on the Roof’ for now.”

 

3:15 pm to 4:45 pm “Planning and Making a 1000 crore blockbuster.”

The panelists for this session are Greg Foster (Chairman and President at Filmed Entertainment, IMAX), Vijay Singh, (CEO, Fox Star Studios, India), Siddharth Roy Kapur (Managing Director, Studios, Disney-UTV), Ajay Bijli (Chairman and Managing Director, PVR Ltd) and Vikram Malhotra (COO, Viacom 18 Motion Pictures). Filmmaker Karan Johar (also Co-Chair of FICCI’s Media and Entertainment Committee) is moderating the discussion.

Ekta Kapoor, Creative and Joint Managing Director, Balaji Telefilms, and filmmaker Ramesh Sippy (also Co-Chair, FICCI’s M&E Committee) were to attend this session but they aren’t present.

The session begins with a keynote by Foster on IMAX’s increasing presence in India, on tying up with Yash Raj Films for three films: Dhoom 3Paani and a third that is yet to be decided on. He emphasizes the importance of building relationships with filmmakers in Bollywood because they have been “the ambassadors of IMAX’s success”.

The panel members are unanimous in the feeling that hitting the Rs 1000 crore mark for an Indian film is not far off. Singh says that this target roughly translates into “Combining the domestic collection of Ek Tha Tiger with the international business of My Name is Khan.” Malhotra reiterates something he had said at a FICCI Frames panel discussion yesterday: the need to focus on unique footfalls in theatres and improving the film viewing experience. Kapur talks about the country being “under-screened” as a big problem: “A state like UP, with 18 crore people has only 150 screens.” Ajay Bijli feels that the high entertainment taxes along with the tough regulatory environment are key challenges to be met on the way to doing a business of Rs 1000 crores.

Karan Johar, in reply to a question from a writer-filmmaker in the audience, says that there is no formula to hitting that Rs 1000 crore or even Rs 100 crore mark. Films that have done legendary business in Indian film history have ranged from a revenge drama like Sholay to a family entertainer Hum Aapke Hain Kaun to the most recent 3 Idiots, “so perhaps what works is films with a universal theme that everyone connects with.”

 

12:30 pm to 1:15 pm “The effective use of music in cinema.” A masterclass by Seymour Stein, Vice President of Warner Bros. Records, on the effective use of music in cinema. 

Seymour Stein begins with talking about how the world music scene has evolved in the last few decades and how the popularity of Hollywood music is not very old. But his talk is soon interrupted by enthusiastic audience members asking for advice on “the independent music scene for composers in India”, the western classical music scene in Hollywood, help for marketing music from India in Hollywood and a tutorial on scoring background in films. The session conversation seems a little awkward at first with only a handful of people in the audience, but the man who is said to have discovered Madonna is genial.

On the Indian music scene he says: “More than most places India has a formula for films that works for Bollywood. I met Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy. These guys are talented. There’s lots more they can do… and still (continue to) do what they do for Bollywood”. He is always on the look out for new music and says good music will always come out: “I’m going to go in the evening to look for the indie bands here.” As he leaves the stage and is ambushed with more questions on film music, he says “I love films but I’m not in the film business. I’m in the music business.”

 

11:30 am to 12:30 pm “Indian Studio Infrastructure: Are We Ready for the Next Century.”

The panelists are Andy Weltman (EVP, Pinewood Studios Group), Venkatesh Roddam (CEO, Film & Media, Reliance Media Works), Vijay Singh (CEO, Fox Star, India), Vikram Malhotra (Chief Operating Officer, Viacom 18 Motion Pictures), and Colin Burrows (CEO, Special Treats Productions). They discuss issues facing studios and Film and TV production service providers in India. They talk about the need to spread awareness about this particular Indian service market throughout the world.

Roddam speaks on the current state of production services and infrastructure in India. “There are pockets of excellence emerging in the market here,” he says. “But that isn’t known globally.” He says we are on par with foreign safety standards but studio sizes are relatively smaller, and facilities are fewer, which forces bigger movies to shoot on location.

They also discuss filming on location and the need for state governments to be proactive in providing incentives to filmmakers in order to attract Hollywood to shoot here. Or as Weltman puts it: “Location filming is like online dating, you have to match the production with the incentive.”

He adds: “Nowadays no films are made in LA– Only TV is being shot. Very few films on the lot of Fox, Disney. (This is) because they’re going around the world to film.” The panelists also speak of the need to diversify in the kind of services provided and of the need to provide a skilled labour force to support these services. Singh says, “This (industry) is where IT industry was at the time of Y2K. People are only beginning to look at entertainment as a mainstream industry now.”

 

11:30 am to 12:30 pm “Let me tell you a story… What kids want and how to engage them.” A masterclass by Glenn Bartlett, Creative Director at Turner International Asia Pacific.

The masterclass covers animation, the art of storytelling, and how brands use them to engage their audience and consumers. Glenn Bartlett discusses how to convey a specific story in a few minutes, or just a few seconds, with the idea of not just entertaining the audience and making them laugh “but to gain the interest of the audience and get them to go out and do something”. He talks about working for the Cartoon Network and his love for the character Wile. E. Coyote. “I hated the damn Road Runner (Coyote’s adversary),” he says. He shows clips from the Road Runner Show.

Bartlett also talks about the how brands build or reinvent themselves. “Today, brands engage on all platforms”. He considers the question of “how to put the consumer in the middle of all that you want to say”. He shows clips from TNT’s “Your Daily Dose of Drama” and Coca Cola’s Skyfall advertisements. He also says that storytelling is changing today, with crowdsourcing and Youtube enabling anyone to be a storyteller.

 

10:30 am to 11:30 am “Sound and picture— together telling the story.” A masterclass by Ioan Allen, Senior Vice President, Dolby Laboratories .

Ioan Allen delivers a talk that charts the history of Dolby with respect to the changing nature of the image— from traditional film to the digital revoultion. He predicts that the film format will be completely gone from the US, and that all theatres will be digital, by late 2013.

He is then joined by filmmaker Rohan Sippy for a discussion on how technology affects the style of filmmaking. They talk about the changing nature of the Indian audience— especially whether the audience is actually younger today than before.

They also discuss the future of 3D in India. Sippy cites the example of ABCD which was in 3D, and had no stars but which was still very popular. Yet he can only think of a few 3D films which have been successful in the country. A younger children’s audience may be more open to it, he feels. Also, he feels that films need to be made specifically for the format. They discuss how the premium pricing of 3D has made it difficult to sustain the format in the U.S.

Allen says he doesn’t necessarily want to see an upsurge of Dolby Atmos (a surround sound technology that was introduced by Dolby Laboratories last year) in theatres in the US. He’d prefer that they had higher collections via more seat occupancy (Dolby Atmos tickets are more expensive).

 

10:30 am to 11:30 am “The Gag Order: Are we stifling creative expression?”

 

The Panelists are Baijayant ‘Jay’ Panda (Minister of Parliament, Lok Sabha), Actor and filmmaker Kamal Haasan, Actor Rahul Bose, Director Mahesh Bhatt. The panel is being moderated by Shoma Chaudhury (Managing Editor, Tehelka).This plays out as a freewheeling discussion around the roles of artists, society and the Indian government in ensuring artistic freedom and the freedom of speech and expression— especially in India’s current landscape of timidity and fear. Also, the role of the burgeoning middle class in shaping protests for and against this freedom. The panelists agree that the middle class is selective about who it stands up for. Haasan says: “Sensibility can come from anywhere. It is not the bastion of the middle class”. Panda: “It is the job of leaders to resist lynch mobs which they have been pandering to for decades.” Panda also speaks of the need to understand where this lynch mob mentality stems from. Bose feels that there is a need for artists to organize themselves and come together to be “the vanguard for any movement”. Bhatt disagrees. “Filmmakers are not underground guerrillas,” he says. Chaudhury winds up the discussion by saying there’s a need to narrow the definition of what restriction of freedom can stand for, and that we need to find our own levels of cultural acceptability as a mature society.

 

 

Day 1. March 12, 2013 

 

10 am to 11:30 am The Inaugural Session

Inaugural addresses are by Naina Lal Kidwai (Country head, HSBC India and FICCI President) and Uday Shankar (CEO, Star India and Chairman of FICCI’s Media and Entertainment Committee). “Our endeavor is to develop and engage with a varied consumer base,” says Kidwai. “The FICCI FRAMES report this year has outlined tremendous growth for the sector with one of the key drivers for change being digitization.” The report, which has been prepared by FICCI and KPMG, is released. It predicts that the Media and Entertainment (M&E) industry will grow 11.8 % to Rs 917 billion this year, from Rs 820 billion in 2012, helped by digitization, growing regional media and the upcoming elections. Also, that the M&E industry will touch Rs 1600 billion in 5 years.

Shankar notes that the $15 billion industry employs millions. “The lens often used to look at this industry is largely one of glamour and propaganda and the biggest debate is on how to control and contain it,” he says. “As a result, the growth of M&E has not been supported by policy and regulatory initiatives.”

Also at the inauguration, are filmmakers Karan Johar and Ramesh Sippy, India’s Minister of State for External Affairs Preneet Kaur, Dr. Soon Tae Park (Deputy Minister, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, Republic of Korea), Andy Bird (Chairman, Walt Disney International) and actor Kareena Kapoor. Bird says Disney is creating an “Indian Walt Disney channel, not a Walt Disney channel in India.” Subhash Chandra, Chairman Zee Ltd., is felicitated by Johar for two decades of contribution to the broadcast industry. His son Punit Goenka accepts the honour on his behalf.

 

2:00 pm to 3:15 pm “Engaging a Billion Consumers in the media and entertainment industry.”

The panel comprises Uday Shankar, CEO Star India Pvt. Ltd., Ravi Dhariwal (CEO publishing Bennett Coleman), Punit Goenka (MD & CEO, ZEE Entertainment), Siddharth Roy Kapur, MD (Studios) Disney UTV, Sudhanshu Vats (Group CEO Viacom 18 Media), Rahul Johri (Senior VP & GM, South Asia-Discovery Networks Asia Pacific), Shailesh Rao (VP, International Operations, Twitter Inc.). Shankar, who is moderating the panel, says in jest: “If anything has to happen at this industry it has to be through this panel, the bad news is that if we fail there is no hope for this industry.”

Vats sees a need to segment the audience and then target them. He sees two trends emerge as urbanization grows— a more “massy” content and a more “me-centred” niche content. He points to the proliferation of multiple screen theatres and predicts their continued prominence in the coming years. Kapur says there is a huge gap in infrastructure that needs to be bridged, in terms of too many viewers for too few screens available to show the content. Both Rao and Kapur speak in favour of new platforms, especially on the internet, as a means of distributing more content. The panelists agree that a problem faced by the entertainment industry as a whole is regulations in pricing which makes it necessary for them to resort to economies of scale to ensure profitability and cater to the lowest common denominator in terms of content.

 

3:15 pm to 4:45 pm “Gatecrashers who made the party: The Out of Towners in Bollywood.”

The panel comprises filmmakers Karan Johar, Sujoy Ghosh, Kabir Khan and Gauri Shinde, and actor Amit Sadh. Actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui and director Anurag Basu were supposed to be on the panel too, but they aren’t present. The panelists discuss how each of them broke into the film industry and whether it is easier for newcomers now than before.

Khan has an interesting story about when he was at FICCI Frames some years ago with his script. He says what he had found difficult then was the “lingo” of the place. He met a producer here with whom he set up a meeting later. After giving him a half-hour narration for the film, he was asked by the producer for his proposal. “Isn’t that what I just said for the last 30 minutes?” Khan had said to him. The producer then asked him for the names of the stars he would use, and a territory-wise revenue break-up, and the estimated box-office and satellite revenue numbers. “I thought: But isn’t that your job?” Khan says. “I asked him: When do you listen to scripts?” The producer said: “Monday to Friday, proposals. Saturday is for scripts.” Then he said to Khan: “There are two types of films- pre-Friday films and post-Friday films. Pre-Friday films are those which are sold before the film is released and we have already recovered our revenue. Post-Friday films are sold after the film’s release. Yours is a post-Friday film and we don’t make those.”

A filmmaking student in the audience asks how it is possible to bridge the gap between content creators like directors and those launching such talent (producers).

Khan acknowledges the gap and says that he remains open to meeting people. Sadh suggests that it is here, perhaps, that a credible institution can play a strong role. More film institutes like the Film and Television Institute of India that ‘stamp’ one’s talent.

 

3:15 pm to 4:45 pm “Ways to build strategic partnerships between the creative industries of Korea and India.”

The panel is led by Biren Ghose (Country head, Technicolor India) and has Mr. Hangon Kim (Vice President, KOCCA or Korea Creative Content Agency), Mr. Jonathan Hyong-Joon Kim (Executive Advisor, CJ E&M), Mr. Kum-Pyoung Kim (Director, Korean Cultural Centre, India), Mr. Charles Lim (Deputy Director, Korea Tourism Organization), Mr. Harry Yoon (Vice President, SAMG Animation), Mr. Vijay Shankar (MD, Karnataka Biotechnology and Information Technology Services, or KBITS).

Vijay Shankar says the KBITS has “a lot of plans for this year that include starting digital art centres, PPP projects and joint ventures with foreign collaborators. We are also very keen to ensure that there is a permanent linkage with Korea.” The Korean government currently provides Indian movies shot there a 30% rebate on the cost of shooting the film in Korea. Kim says: “A solid infrastructure for content expansion has helped us achieve a stable environment for foreign investment.” He adds: “India as a content market is rapidly growing, with an average scale of 14.3%, and the gap between Indian and Korean content markets (the latter is growing at an average of 4.2%) is getting smaller.”

 

3:15 pm to 4:45 pm “The Second Phase of TV Digitization.”

The panelists are Parameswaran N. (Principal Advisor, TRAI), Sameer Manchanda (Chairman & Managing Director, DEN), Sunil Lulla (MD & CEO Times Television Network), Manjit Singh (CEO Multi Screen Media), Raman Kalra (Partner & Industry Leader, Media & Entertainment Practice, IBM Global Business Services), Tarun Katial (CEO, Reliance Broadcast), Anuj Gandhi (Group CEO, India Cast). They discuss the best way to execute the second phase of TV digitization that will span 38 cities by March 31, 2013.

They speak about effective business models that would make this phase a success for all stakeholders concerned. “We need to ensure from day one that all systems are working and there is a multi-prong approach,” says Parameswaran. “Moreover, there is no regulation in the pricing of HD, 3D channels and broadcasters can charge as much as they want for these channels.”

Says Kalra: “It is not enough to go digital. It is important for the industry to keep a parallel strategy for incremental money upsell. Consumers are happy to pay the extra money but there should be micro-segmentation of consumers and content should be developed to cater to each set of consumers.”

 

4:45 pm to 5:45 pm “The SAARC Minister’s Panel- Forging Enduring Ties.”

The panel has Dr. Keheliya Rambukwella, Minister of Mass Media and Information, Sri Lanka, Raj Kishor Yadav, Minister, Information and Communication, Nepal, Din Mohammad Mobariz Rashidi, Deputy Minister for Information and Culture, Afghanistan, Vikramjit Singh Sahani, President, Chambers of Commerce & Industry of SAARC, filmmaker Mukesh Bhatt and Film Federation of India President Bijay Khemka.

“It is the right time to work together to take the SAARC film industry into the global space,” says Yadav. Sahani suggests that “Media and entertainment can connect the South Asian countries in a way in which even the governments of these countries cannot.” Bhatt adds: “When the Berlin Wall can come down, why can’t boundaries between SAARC nations be brought down.’’ Khemka rues that cross border issues with regard to films, faced by West Bengal and Bangladesh in the East, and Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka in the South, are entangled in government red tape.

 

4:45 pm to 5:45 pm “Film Distribution & Exhibition: Challenges and the Way Forward.”

The panelists are Vikram Malhotra (COO, Viacom 18 Motion Pictures), film distributor Anil Thadani, Rajesh Mishra (CEO, UFO Moviez India Ltd.), Senthil Kumar (Founder & CEO, Real Image Media Technologies), and the moderator Ashish Saksena (COO, Reliance BIG Cinemas).

Mishra talks about how digitization has changed the film distribution business, as 500 to 600 prints play across 2500 to 3000 screens today: “The cost of distribution has become one-fifth of what it used to be, but the reach has gone up by five times.” “In the next one year,” he says. “It will be the end of print era.”

Yet, the number of screens remains at 9000 (of which 7000 are digitized). Kumar compares this with countries like the US where a population of 320 million has 38000 screens. In India 1.2 billion people have only 9000 screens . “We have one-sixteenth the screen density of the US,” he says. “UK has 8 times more (screen density) with 60 million people and 3000 screens. China added 5000 screens last year, with one chain alone adding 1000 screens.” He also says that half the screens are located in four of the Southern states which means that in some parts of India the screen density is pretty abysmal. The panelists also discuss how digitization has helped combat piracy and how the lack of transparent data with respect to a film’s box office figures is a huge issue. “We release 18 to19 films a year but we still don’t know what the optimal release size is,” says Malhotra. Instead, he feels, “a film is defined by its release”, instead of the other way round.

There is a discussion on raising ticket prices to bring them on par with those in most other South Asian countries. Thadani points out this might be a mistake. High ticket prices would limit the repetition of film goers and increase piracy of films. He quotes the example of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge: ” It had 30 prints in Bombay with tickets priced at Rs 30 and Rs 50. The revenue was collected along the same range as now. It adds to the longevity of the film.”

 

5:45 pm to 6:30 pm “Trends in Children’s Entertainment: What are our children watching?”

The panel comprises Pradeep Hejmadi (Senior VP, TAM), Ashish Karnad (Group Business Director, Media and Panel Group, IMRB International), Krishna Desai (Director Content, South Asia, Turner International India Pvt. Ltd.), Harpreet S. Tibb (Marketing Director, India & South Asia, Kellogg), Vijay Subramaniam (Executive Director, Kids Network, Disney-UTV) and the moderator Devendra Deshpande (Director-inventions, Mindshare). The panel speaks on the various aspects of the children’s entertainment industry and why there were not as many huge successes for animation in India as there have been in other countries. Also, the panelists discuss merchandising and licensing and why sometimes the merchandise for a children’s TV show does well when the show itself doesn’t, and vice-versa.

Says Subramaniam of Disney-UTV: “Everything we do we put through a simple straightforward filter which is: Is this compelling enough for them (children) to consume this? Once they start consuming this, will they be able to engage with this? Once they begin engaging with it, do they like the experience? Now that they like the experience does it create a memory?” He also emphasizes the need for balancing local flavor with a universal appeal, through, say, using “family content”, or simply by effective dubbing.