Sudershan (Chimpanzee) Superstar

[issuu width=643 height=490 printButtonEnabled=false backgroundColor=%23222222 documentId=121204112635-e60805f9965c47ee9674e909b2e92781 name=sudershanchimpanzee-extract username=tbip tag=india unit=px v=2 showHtmlLink=false]

Sudershan (Chimpanzee) is a graphic novel about a primate who became a movie star. Here is an excerpt that tells the tale of his ascent through the Bombay film industry’s underbelly in the 1960s. Written by Rajesh Devraj. Illustrated by Meren Imchen

This extract from Sudershan (Chimpanzee) is reproduced courtesy of Hachette India

Buy the book, and read the full story of Sudershan here

Cinema’s Most Iconic Fashion Moment

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

“The movie Unzipped, an artistic account of a fashion designer in Manhattan, is filled with superb fashion moments that a fashion designer goes through in the course of creating a fashion collection. (Isaac) Mizrahi at his best performance— perhaps the only well documented insider’s view of how fashion is created.”

Raghavendra Rathore is a leading Indian fashion designer. His label, Rathore Jodhpur, is known for having reinvented traditional royal designs from Rajasthan for a modern, global aficionado.

 

Scene from Unzipped— Isaac Mizrahi on putting together the pieces of the fashion puzzle

 

Scene from Unzipped— Mizrahi outlines his creative vision for his 1994 Fall show 

 

Scene from Unzipped— On the ramp and backstage with supermodels at Mizrahi’s show

 

Indie Show Down: Onir responds

In October TBIP took a petition to save indie cinema, by some of India’s most acclaimed filmmakers, to the I&B Ministry, and published its initial reactions. Filmmaker Onir, who drafted this petition, responds

Firstly, this petition to save indie cinema is not about criticizing anyone. The whole idea is that we can do this together. You are our government. This is our money. You can help us. How much ever you say we can’t do anything, we feel you can. The most important thing, in all of this, is the will. The desire to do something to change things that can be changed, instead of looking negatively at things that can’t.

Secondly, this petition is not about a power structure or power games between filmmakers, or between the state and centre. It’s not about a few people taking charge of the whole. It’s not about a person, or persons, controlling the funds allocated and dictating where it goes and why. It’s about collaboration. A collaboration between the states, and the centre. Between filmmakers and other members of the artistic community: painters, sculptors, musicians, writers…

A question has been raised as to who will decide the films to be shown in theatres for indie cinema that we’re asking the state to allocate funds for. Or the indie films that will be aired on Doordarshan? You can have a decentralized system by which bodies comprising luminaries of the film fraternity, or respected names from the other arts, are selected by the government in each region or state. The members of such bodies can be changed from time to time. They can vote to decide which films from their state or region will be exhibited, or aired. The I&B ministry cannot possibly be alien to the idea of such a structure. It has under its jurisdiction the NFDC which has centres throughout the country, with a script selection committee comprising known names from cinema and the arts. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC, more commonly referred to as the censor board) also functions in such a manner, with separate screening committees, deciding which films can be shown in different regions. Will this system be perfect? Perhaps not. But it will be something.

Another question has been raised as to the unavailability of, and difficulty in acquiring, land or properties that can be used as theatres to show such independent cinema. I have placed my faith in this petition because it is an issue I am passionate about. So naturally some thought has gone into it. I have travelled throughout this country and observed the paucity of exhibition spaces in cities and states outside of the metros. Andaman doesn’t have a single theatre. Manipur has just one. Shillong got one theatre, only last year. Srinagar has just one. These are places where land or property can be acquired at a fraction of what it would cost in Mumbai or Delhi. And these are the places that need such theatres the most, because their people don’t have many other ways of accessing independent cinema. Also, since the tickets won’t be priced that high, these films will be available to a large cross-section of society.

I’d like to reiterate here that we’re not asking for swanky multiplexes. We’re talking about basic spaces, hundred to two hundred seaters, where there will be digital projection, which will serve as theatres as well as centres for discussion, interaction and debate— film clubs of sorts. Among spaces you can use are university auditoriums. Colleges in such places have huge areas of land that can be utilized.

In the big cities or metros too there are so many properties that are lying unused. Let’s take the example of Delhi. We have four auditoriums that come to mind: the Meghdoot Auditorium on Copernicus Marg, the Films Division Auditorium at Mahadev Road, near Connaught Place, and two small theatres at Siri Fort Road that lie unused through most of the year. Mumbai has the Films Division auditorium. And the Y B Chawan and Nehru Centre Auditoriums. Similarly the I&B Ministry has well equipped, or moderately equipped cinemas in major cities throughout the country. Kolkata has an unused state theatre at Dakshinapan. Lucknow has theatres that are just lying unused. Since we’re spending money on so many things to celebrate this hundredth year of Indian cinema, I’m sure we can revive these auditoriums too. Do we have the will to?

Solutions can be found if there’s a desire to change things. Funds have been allocated already, the I&B Ministry says. But if this is what people need we can go back and re-look at this allocation. Because what is more important is that funds are used for the right things, and for long-lasting effects.

Another concern raised has been who will manage these theatres. Here we have to look at collaborating again. We could involve those who are in this business. A PVR can be involved. Greater support for films like the ones shown in PVR Director’s Rare (an initiative to promote independent cinema) may not be viable in the financial scheme of things at the multiplexes. But maybe they could be asked to run and manage these theatres for the government, instead? Or other private exhibitors can be brought in.

Finally, when it comes to showing independent films on Doordarshan, obviously these films won’t garner a lot of ads to begin with, because the audience for such cinema has been destroyed over the years. But it can be rebuilt.

These measures can make independent cinema available to all, let it breathe, give it a chance to be saved.

 

Also Read:

Delhi 5

Mihir Pandya tells you about 5 Delhi films that you must watch, and why

The Plea: Ab Dilli Door Nahin, 1957 

Many regard 1957 as a watershed year in Hindi cinema. One of the films released that year, along with Naya Daur, Pyaasa, Do Ankhen Barah Haath and Mother India was Ab Dilli Door Nahin.

Produced by Raj Kapoor and directed by Amar Kumar, Ab Dilli Door Nahin is a perfect example of a film made and set in a young nation-state. It is the 10th year of Indian independence. The state is slowly beginning to establish its authority over a new citizenry. And for that the state’s justice system becomes its primary tool. You can read other famous Raj Kapoor films like Awara, Shree 420 and Jis Desh Mein Ganga Bahti Hai along similar lines as Ab Dilli Door Nahin.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru has become the symbol of hope for an entire nation. His elusive promise of Justice For All becomes a personal ray of hope for Ratan, a small boy living in a village. He begins to believe Nehru’s promise is his only chance to save his father Hariram’s life, who has been falsely implicated in a murder case. Holding on to his faith, Ratan (played by Master Romi) embarks on a long journey to Delhi, the capital of the promised nation, with a plea for his father’s innocence.

Here’s a conversation that establishes the enormous significance of Delhi, and Nehru, in those days. In the scene Ghasita (Yaqub), a kind-hearted pick-pocket who accompanies Ratan to Delhi, is talking to Mukunda (Anwar Hussain), the real culprit of the murder, and Ratan. Ghasita is witness to the fact that Ratan’s father was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing, but the local police refuse to take his word for this because of his own dubious criminal record.

Ghasita: Come on, we’ll go to Delhi.

Mukunda: Delhi? Do you even know anyone there?

Ghasita: Yes, our Masita (another character) lives there.

Mukunda: The way you’re saying it, one would think you knew Pandit Nehru.

Ghasita: Who doesn’t know Pandit Nehru? He’s like a father to all of us. If he doesn’t listen to us, then who will he listen to? I’ll fall at his feet first, then beg for justice. I’ll tell him how, with an emperor of justice like him around, a child is being treated so unfairly. (To Ratan) Come on, we’ll free your father and send the real murderer to the gallows.

Ghasita goes on to say: What’s Delhi? I’ll go all the way to God if I have to.

The film also has memorable music by Dattaram with lyrics penned by Shailendra and Hasrat Jaipuri. Songs like Chun Chun Karti Aayi Chidiya (that used animation way ahead of its times), Ye Chaman Hamara Apna Hai and Lo Har Cheez Le Lo Zamaane Ke Logon are all markers of their times.

The Delhi that Ratan finally reaches has trees lining the India Gate and a visibly clean Yamuna coursing its veins. Here he meets Nehru finally, presents Ghasita as a witness, and secures a pardon for his father.

Raj Kapoor had initially persuaded Nehru to appear in this last scene of the film, where the child met him. His son Rishi Kapoor recalled in an interview that his father had said to Nehru that this would put his new government “on a high pedestal, and bring the desired credibility”. However, when it came to shooting the scene Nehru backed out for “reasons”, according to Rishi, that were “best known to him”. Instead, stock shots of Nehru were used for the film. Rishi Kapoor believes this took away considerably from the film. “As the whole film was based on the child’s meeting with the PM which didn’t happen, the film fell flat. Obviously no one could empathise with it”, he said.

The Capital Is For The Young: Tere Ghar Ke Samne, 1963 

Vijay Anand’s 1963 classic Tere Ghar Ke Samne is one of the best urban-youth love stories to have emerged out of Hindi cinema. Like a lot of other films produced by Vijay Anand’s production house, Navketan, in its early years, this film had a distinct modern sensibility that set it apart from other great production houses of the era. The Delhi of Tere Ghar Ke Samne is a new metropolis that provides the protagonists Rakesh (Dev Anand) and Sulekha (Nutan) with the possibility of overcoming familial pressures and societal barriers.

Rakesh is an architect who is contracted to build houses, located one in front of the other, for two warring businessmen. Neither of these businessmen know that he has been contracted to build the other’s house as well and each demands that his house be better than his rival’s. Rakesh is also the son of one of these businessmen, whereas Sulekha, whom he is in love with, is the daughter of the other. When the houses are finally unveiled, they are absolutely identical. Rakesh uses the replication of architectural design as the ultimate ‘solution’ to end the one-upmanship between two families. Reflected in his tongue-in-cheek ingenuity is Nehru’s socialist ideals and his idea of his dream-project Chandigarh— a meticulously planned city with similar looking blocks of houses.

Tere Ghar Ke Saamne references Nehruvian ideology at other times as well. In one scene where Rakesh and Sulekha discuss how they can get married, when their fathers are at war, he says: “Cheeni tareeqa yeh hai ki main bandook le kar tumhare ghar mein aa jaun aur thaa thaa zabardasti tumhe tumhare maa baap se cheen loon. Hindustani tareeqa hai Panchsheel ka tareeqa pyaar ka tareeqa (The Chinese way would be me reaching your house with a gun and snatching you away from your father. The Indian way is the way of the Panchsheel… the way of love).”

It is worth mentioning that when the film was in the making our capital’s first post-independence master plan was taking shape. This was the plan according to which Delhi’s development was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s. This plan elaborated the role of the Delhi Development Authority and laid clear provisions for the formation of independent colonies that would have their own markets and schools. You see the imprint of that powerful document in this romantic drama which begins with two businessmen bidding for residential land in a new Delhi colony at a government auction.

One of the lasting images from the film is that of the protagonist Rakesh, seated on a chair, while Sulekha’s house is being constructed in the background, reading a love letter written to him by Sulekha. She writes to him from Shimla describing how she wants him to build her room and how it has to be ‘open’ from all sides. He is reading the love letter and remembering his lady love, and all this while the construction work continues behind him.

“Maahaul achcha hai”: Chashme Buddoor, 1981

Sai Paranjpye’s Chashme Buddoor is about the space- physical and mental, that Delhi once provided to a generation that was in college in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A space for friendship, love and other delightful reveries. The capital wasn’t as densely populated then as it is now, and there were many public places like parks, or spaces on Delhi’s North Campus, where couples could find spells of privacy. This is in stark contrast with the city as it is today. Sometime in the early nineties the Delhi Police began to routinely raid such public spaces and oust young couples who had come to spend time there. This ridiculous practice, that continues to this day, has been dubbed ‘Operation Majnu’ by some TV channels.

Chashme Buddoor’s Delhi, a pre-‘Operation Majnu’ Delhi, is also bereft of the crazy urban development that the city has seen in the last 20 years. But it is not the ancient city of dilapidated monuments either. It is the long lost 1980s campus city rarely documented in cinema (the only other film that talks about this Delhi is a lesser known indie film directed by Pradeep Kishen: In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones). At the heart of the film are the vast and deserted New Delhi roads, laced by lush greens.

This is the Delhi inhabited by its three protagonists – Siddharth Parashar (Farooq Shaikh), Omi (Rakesh Bedi) and Jomo (Ravi Baswani), students sharing a flat and living outside of the familial structure (the only reason we know they even have families is because they keep receiving money orders from back home). It is also home to a paan and cigarette shop owner called Lallan miyan (Saeed Jaffrey), a character replete with old world charm and painstaking diction— who still uses archaic Urdu words like andagafheel (to vanish).

An enduring scene from the film is one where one of the protagonists, Siddharth, is out on a date at an open air restaurant, that used to be at the Talkatora Gardens. “Yahaan achcha kya hai (What’s good here)?” he asks the waiter, who replies: “Maahaul achcha Hai (The ambience is good)”. I went to the spot where the restaurant used to be, after re-visiting the film in 2010. A guard at the Gardens told me it had been shut down a couple of years ago. The Talkatora Gardens themselves seem to have faded from the city’s public memory despite being located in Central Delhi. The guard said not as many people came there anymore. I looked around and found a few couples sneaking intimate moments. The guard was disapproving of this. “This isn’t a family place any more,” he said.


In Dark Times: New Delhi Times, 1986

Directed by Romesh Sharma, New Delhi Times is one of Gulzar’s best screenplays. Like Ab Dilli Door Nahin, this film represents Delhi as India’s mighty capital, except three decades later it appears to have entrenched itself as the seat of corruption, concerned with little except power and money. Ab Dilli Door Nahin‘s naive dream of the capital as a temple of justice and progressive thinking is obliterated by the gritty portrait of Delhi as a cold and cruel metropolis, up for grabs by those who are determined to ascend the slippery slope of social hierarchy in any which way.

Two tracks play out parallel to one another in the film: one in Delhi, the other in the small town of Ghazipur (a district in Eastern UP). As Journalist Vikas Pande (Shashi Kapoor) traces the murder of an MLA in Ghazipur, and subsequent riots that break out in the district, all the way to a burgeoning politician-industrialist-journalist nexus in Delhi, these tracks collide, showing us how places like Ghazipur are mere pawns for such nexuses in the big bad capital city. 

Most of the horrific events in New Delhi Times play out at night, which was possibly intended by Sharma and Gulzar as a suitable way of bringing out the city’s dark side. It is at night that a reporter who works for Pande is run over by a truck on a Delhi highway before he can tell him what he has found. It is also night when Pande and his wife Nisha (Sharmila Tagore) return home to find their beloved pet cat killed by way of a deadly warning. But Pande labors on through the dark believing he will be able to pin down an evil parliamentarian (Om Puri) who he believes is responsible for all this. Then he discovers that another political group in the city, as deadly the one he seeks to prosecute, has been using his zeal for this story to its own end. The last scene of the film has Pande writing an editorial which denounces both of these groups, resigned to the nightmare India’s first city has become.

On The Fringes: Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!, 2008 

Finally, a film that takes us into the back alleys of the formidable capital celebrated and lamented by the films listed above. In Dibakar Banerjee’s Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye! Delhi isn’t the oppressive power-centre of New Delhi Times or the idyllic campus-city of Chashme Buddoor. And it definitely hasn’t turned out to be the well planned city Tere Ghar Ke Samne willed it to be or the citadel of justice Ab Dilli Door Nahin saw it as. Oye Lucky… is Banerjee’s uncovering of a city within Delhi, just below the class divide. The rambling mess of post-partition colonies aspiring to push into the cool colonnades of middle-class life in South and Central Delhi; setting itself apart and yet trying to elbow its way into the parade of the posh; endearing itself with its distinctly delicious dialect in one minute and letting its hypocrisies swell like the open gutter in the next.

Banerjee brings this part of the city alive by looking beyond the historicity that overwhelms the capital, relegating it to a campy tourist photo of an adolescent Lucky (the titular role, played by Manjot Singh and Abhay Deol) with his closest friend, shot to make it seem like they’re touching the top of the Qutub Minar.

Lucky grows up in a lower-middle class Sikh family living in a peripheral West Delhi colony. This has narrow filthy streets, electrical wires that hang loose from lamp posts, red chillies being dried in courtyards and old-style UHF antennae on the rooftops. Here is the Delhi of real-life-master-thief Devinder Singh, alias Bunty, whose life Oye Lucky… has been inspired by; the megapolis of a melee of North Indian migrants whose characteristic Jat twang transforms ‘Rajouri Gardens’ into ‘Raj-au-ri’.

An older Lucky thieves his way through his youth in search of a place where he can belong. When his father, who beats him up and neglects him, refuses to lend him his scooter he steals a motorcycle from a garage. He takes a girl out on it to “New Amar”, a seedy West Delhi restaurant that he can ill-afford. Later, he joins a gang to rob houses, then goes solo because he is betrayed by his partners-in-crime. He steals, among other things, a Mercedes, a TV, a laptop, greeting cards, a teddy bear, a photo frame and a pomeranian. He tries to buy his way into respectability by owning a Delhi restaurant, but is cheated again. As Lucky finally gets caught he is discussing a romantic but futile getaway with his girlfriend, across balconies in a West Delhi colony, even as his loot is being seized. These moments are all he can steal to keep.

 

Mihir Pandya is author of the book Shahar Aur Cinema: Via Dilli

Turning Point

As we lead up to the centenary of Indian Cinema we ask those who’ve journeyed with it to name one significant turning point in its path.

“A turning point in Indian cinema, as in the cinema of many countries, was the advent of dubbing and playback, beginning with India’s first talkie Alam Ara in 1931. A musical, this film established song and dance as the mainstay of Indian cinema— a tradition that continues till this day. But, more importantly, dubbing and playback changed the way performance was perceived. Performances no longer had to be loud and theatrical. A character could be portrayed through acting that was ‘minimal’. The words of American actor and method-acting teacher Sanford Meisner, “an ounce of behaviour is worth a pound of words”, found new relevance in Indian cinema. The introduction of dubbing and playback also meant we were no longer reliant on actors who could sing. Instead, attention shifted to nuances in actors’ dialogue delivery or his body language. Stars like Prithviraj Kapoor and then Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor and Dev Anand were known for mannerisms and dialogue delivery specific to each of them. Later you had the phenomenon of the Angry Young Man, a character whose quiet brooding intensity would have been quite unimaginable if we didn’t have dubbing and playback. Today too, one associates an actor, such as Salman Khan or Aamir Khan, with their unique style of acting and dialogue delivery that either strikes a chord with the audience, or not.”

Salim Khan, 77, has been one of India’s best known scriptwriters. Along with Javed Akhtar he wrote some of the biggest hits of the seventies and the eighties, including Yaadon Ki Baaraat, Deewaar, Sholay and Don. Salim-Javed, as the duo came to be known, are credited with creating a new kind of protagonist—the angry young man—often played by superstar Amitabh Bachchan.

Movies & Me: Imran Khan

Actor Imran Khan has acted in 12 Hindi movies, nine of which he has played the protagonist in. The first film he appeared in was Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak. He was five then. He is 29 now. In this interview he talks about how he watches movies. He discusses the films he has watched that have left a mark on his life and his acting career. The movies he keeps going back to, and those that keep coming back to him. The two movies that he chose to talk about specifically were A Fish Called Wanda and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

How old were you when you saw A Fish Called Wanda?

I watched it when I was 13 or 14. My dad was a huge fan of Monty Python. As a result, I had an early introduction to Monty Python (a British surreal comedy group that did stage shows, TV and films) and anything else that John Cleese (star of Monty Python, who wrote and acted in A Fish Called Wanda) was doing. Fawlty Towers (also written and starred in by Cleese) and all of that.

So by the time I watched A Fish Called Wanda I had already seen Monty Python. So I knew the guys (John Cleese and Michael Palin). But over here I feel they just elevated their game. Because in Monty Python, while the stuff was all very entertaining, they were just short sketches. Here, they were sustaining that level of humour through an entire 90 to 100 minute film. And it was just one after the other. The hits keep coming. It was hilarious all the way through. And there are various styles of humour. You’ve got Kevin Kline going absolutely over the top. You have Cleese who’s doing dead pan, straight face, sarcastic. So subtle and underplayed— and yet he’s not losing ground. He’s holding his own. You’ve got Michael Palin in the middle doing what is literally farcical humour with his stutter and his repeated attempts to kill the old lady. So it’s different schools of comedy, different kinds of humour all coming together. Normally when you do a funny film, it will be a particular style. You have films that are gross-out comedies, something like American Pie. In that film everybody follows the same genre of humour, the same style of comedy. This is a film where everybody’s practicing a different style.

Obviously these are things you understand later in life as you start to watch more films. At a very young age you watch it and are amazed at how all these guys are so funny all the time. As you grow up, you appreciate the nuances.

Also, where Michael Palin and John Cleese are concerned, they were seen in far more restrained avatars in this film, as compared to their style in Monty Python…

Of course. This was a safer film. In (Monty) Pythonthey were always courting disaster, they were always on the edge. There was a film that was made a couple of years ago, a BBC film called Holy Flying Circus. In which they showed the controversy surrounding Life Of Brian (a film about a Jewish man, born next door to Jesus Christ, on the same day, and mistaken for the messiah. It drew allegations of blasphemy and was banned in some districts of the UK. It was written by Monty Python). So I think, in the early days, when these guys were young, they had that desire to really mess with people. That stuff was a lot more risqué. This stuff (A Fish Called Wanda) doesn’t go there, but it was very polished craft.

Did you watch it in the theatre… or?

I watched it at home. My dad showed it to me. I was at boarding school in South (India) then. I was, I think, visiting my dad, in Madison (Wisconsin, USA) on vacation. You know that moment when John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis are making out? And he tells her: “How can a girl like you who is like this, this and this (so fantastic… ) have a brother (played by Kevin Kline) who is so stupid”. And Kline pops into the frame and says: “Don’t call me stupid”.

laughter

That is such an unexpected moment. Because from the side of the frame he slides in, and says: “Don’t call me stupid”.

And I have this vivid memory. I was taking a sip of orange juice at the moment. I choked and sprayed the orange juice out of my nose. I fell down. And we had to pause the movie. Then there was a ten minute gap, when the movie was paused, and I had to go to the bathroom and get the orange juice out of my nose.

That scene stuck with me. The importance of comic timing, of how you deliver a line. That underlined it.

And also, the build-up. When John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis are discussing Kevin Kline’s character, and how he thinks Cleese’s character’s daughter is named Portia because they have a Porsche. 

laughter

Ya. So it’s set up, set up. set up, set up— pay off. You know, very often, in India, what you witness is the clumsy way of doing humour. Humour is always about the set up and the pay off. You set up a situation, and people are expecting what will happen. And somewhere they know what the pay off will be. And normally you have a set up and a pay off. Then another set up and another pay off. Here, it is a set up through the film. Where you’ve established that this guy’s stupid. You’ve established that he doesn’t like to be called stupid. He thinks of himself as very intelligent. And that set up, all the way through the film, pays off at this point. Again, what you realize as you get older, and more mature, is how polished the craft is. These are guys who, between them, have decades of experience doing comedy of a very high quality. So they’re at the top of their game here.

I think, beyond the obvious humour the whole bit about Kevin Kline attacking that idea of how the British are…

Ya, that whole American v/s the British. It was great.

Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels was released about a decade after this film, in 1998. When did you see it? 

In (19)98 itself. Again, I watched it at home, in Mumbai, because then films like these didn’t really release in India. I was 15. My best friend Sahil (Shah) and I watched it. It was one of those times when we went down to the video store, looked through options, and pulled out this one, saying: okay this looks interesting. And we put it in, not really knowing what it was. And it just knocked us sideways. As soon as the film ended we put it in again and watched it again. Because Lock, Stock… broke so many rules in terms of how you make a film. In terms of the narrative, in terms of the technique. Again, these are things that you begin to understand later, when you grow older. At 15, all that you know is that you’ve never seen a film that looks like this, or a film that behaves like this. The way it plays out with the surprises, the twists, the jumping back and forth narrative. It’s like the MTV video style, the advertising style, which had not really come into films at that point. At that point you were still telling stories in a very clean straight forward narrative. You’d have maybe a twist at the end, or something. But in telling the story you wouldn’t jump back in time, you wouldn’t jump perspective.

It’s interesting that you saw the movie in 1998, when you could see it for what it was worth at that time. As opposed to many others who saw it later, when they’d already seen many movies that were of this style, technique, genre…

…and which borrowed from that. So people who saw Snatch first (a later film by the same director Guy Ritchie), which had Brad Pitt in it, that’s where they discovered that style. And they found Lock, Stock… amateurish. But for me, I watched Lock, Stock… when it was brand new. And it was a hell of a thing. Simple things like how you set stuff up. Early in the film the guys were stepping into a pub. And this guy comes flying out, all aflame. They turn and look at him, and then they walk in. There’s no explanation for it, until later in the film. And then it’s an aside, where a guy’s telling a story about another guy. And that’s where we know that this guy got pissed off with this man, he threw alcohol on him, and set him on fire. And that’s when we connected: Achcha! That’s who that guy was. It’s not really relevant to the story. You could have had a scene where a guy is telling someone else: Listen this guy’s a real badass. He once set a guy on fire. Now, not only has he told us the story, we’ve seen and experienced the story ourselves— when it happened early on in the film. So it’s doubly reinforced. Little things like this. Tricks which we use now, which weren’t the norm then. I was utterly blown because I didn’t know movies could do that. I didn’t know you were allowed to break the rules.

It’s interesting that both movies you’ve chosen to talk about have been called ‘heist movies’, though each in its own way breaks the ‘heist movie’ rules. Even in A Fish Called Wanda the ‘heist’ was just in the first ten minutes of the film. This broke the traditional format of the heist movie which says that part 1 will be planning the heist, part 2 the heist itself, and part 3 the aftermath… getting away, or not. 

Yes, though A Fish Called Wanda just used the heist as set up. It was more a character driven thing as we approached the end. With Lock, Stock… it just goes all over the place. It’s heist after heist after twist after heist… it’s the story of these three guys on the one hand, then there’s the drug dealers and pot growers—who have their own story tracks going on—you’ve got Big Chris and Little Chris (debt collectors who are father and son), and their track— and all of these tracks intertwining, with every one having their own heist and their own endgame.

In fact, though the movie did well in the UK, you had a lot of critics, especially American critics, dissing it saying there’s too much going on to register. That you couldn’t just take the audience for granted. You couldn’t just put 20 characters there… 

And so many movies owe a debt to it. Today, a film like The Hangover, a film like Delhi Belly, all of these films you can trace the lineage back to Lock, Stock… especially because all of these are ‘guys’ films. The concept of a bunch of guys who get into shenanigans…

And a crazy bunch of situations that keep coming up one after the other…

Yes. And when I started working in films my fondest desire was to do something like Lock, Stock… and I knew there was never a chance I would get to do that because I work in Indian films. Then suddenly Delhi Belly came along and I read the script and said: Wow this is too good to be true. And I thought: This is a great idea, but I’m sure we’ll never pull it off. And we pulled it off, and the film turned out to be something I was very proud of. So for me, very early on, I got to live out a lifetime fantasy— the idea of doing a film with that kind of humour, that kind of camaraderie between the guys…

But why did you think that there wasn’t a chance you would be able to do something like that, because when you came in, with Jaane Tu… Ya Jaane Na, a lot of exciting films were happening. There were directors like Vishal Bhardwaj, Dibakar Banerjee… 

You know the thing is the humour in Lock, Stock… is so smooth… it’s Brit humour and, honestly, a lot of the jokes in Delhi Belly are, again, the kind of humour which is underplayed. One of my favorite scenes, it’s a scene I had to do during my screen test, is one where three of us go to interview this girl, this DJ. And she’s talking about her song I Hate You Like I Love You, and I have very few lines in that scene. It’s all reaction based. And that’s not what we normally do in India. In India the thought is: Hero ka dialogue kahaan hai? 

That you’ll be delivering the punchline…

And while delivering the punchline I have to stand up, and put my hands on my hips and wink into the camera. And here it went exactly the opposite way, where the lines are all hers and the only way to make someone laugh is through my reaction. I never thought I’d get the chance to do something this subtle. There’s a joke in the scene—I don’t know how many people got that—where she says: “I’m working on my own clothes line”. And I say: “What? You mean clothing line?” And she says: “Never mind.”

Have these films aged well for you? Now that you’ve seen so many other films, can you go back to them? Are they a place of comfort? Have you discovered more layers?

A Fish Called Wanda remains one of the three or four funniest films I’ve seen in my entire life. It still makes me wet my pants every time I watch it. So I don’t think it has aged in a way as to make it less funny. Which has happened with somethings— a lot of Mel Brook’s stuff. I loved Space Balls when I was younger. But when I re-watch it now it’s not quite as funny as it used to be.

Lock, Stock… to be honest it’s been four-five years since I last watched it, but I know every line of dialogue. If I’m pushed to it I’m pretty sure I can write out the screenplay from beginning to end. That is how many times I’ve watched it. So to me it’s still perfect.

You’re from a film family, and you acted in Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak when you were five, and Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikander when you were nine. Were you conscious of how a film might have been made, what went into it, when you watched it? When did you begin to be conscious of this? 

I think it was shortly after I watched Lock, Stock… Because it broke the rules so shamelessly, it made me really sit up and take notice. Because I was like if guys can do this, then what else have I been missing out on? What else can be done? How many other ways can one do something?

That’s when I started paying more active attention to how things are put together. For most people back then movies were about the hero, the heroine, and that was it. If you had a supporting funny actor—a fat guy who makes you laugh—all the better. But it was then that I said, wait, Lock, Stock… is shot differently from anything I know. Now I had no idea back then that the film was shot on a different format… all I knew was that it looked different. It went into slow motion, went into fast-forward, the action would freeze but the camera would move around. So I started asking how that was possible. Questions started popping up.

To this day I don’t remember most of the actor’s names, though I came to know years after I saw the film that Jason Statham, who’s a big action star now, had started off there. But to me Lock, Stock… was about Guy Ritchie (the director).

Did you know anything about either film—A Fish Called Wanda or Lock, Stock…—before you saw them? 

Lock, Stock… I have a strange recollection of seeing ads of it on Star TV, which I think was the only English channel then. That, and the fact that it had a cool title, was what prompted us to pick it up. With A Fish Called Wanda, Dad had told me that: These are the guys, he said, you know John Cleese. I’d seen him in Monty Python and Fawlty Towers, so… for me it was just that they’d done something else. There’s a film they made—the same cast—about ten years later, called Fierce Creatures. I remember thoroughly enjoying it when I watched it in the hall. Though I didn’t see it after…

Also the director of Fierce Creatures was different. Charles Crichton had passed away by then. In fact, interestingly, Crichton had made a more conventional heist film called The Lavender Hill Mob as far back in 1951, which is counted as one of the really big heist films. 

Okay.

Have the characters of A Fish Called Wanda stayed with you? Has your relationship with them evolved? 

I went in knowing only John Cleese. But that was the film in which I discovered Kevin Kline. It was spectacular, how he pulled off those gags… the times when he nearly bangs into someone’s car and screams “Asshole”. The time when he was trying to convince John Cleese’s wife he worked for the CIA— moments of utter insanity, when he’s shamelessly bluffing his way through. Or when you watch him doing something which is like pantomime and you’re like: How is he actually doing this? It’s a moment you really cherish, when you watch someone doing something you didn’t realize was possible. You get that moment in films, sometimes you get it in sports.

What about the characters of Lock, Stock… which you watched when you were a teenager?

That level of witty dialogue, where… For most people, if you wanted to insult someone, it would stop at: “You’re an idiot. Fuck you.” But the idea of those witty, lengthy insults… and when you’re that young, that impressionable, that comes to define your idea of cool. You want to be the kind of person who insults people like that, with dripping sarcasm and biting wit. It comes to define your sense of humour, shapes your personality.

If you were to introduce your kids to these films how would you do that?

Ideally as little as possible. The films that have been most important to me, for instance, all of the Dark Knight films, or anything that Nolan does, I don’t watch anything other than the first two minute trailer that comes out. Particularly for Inception I remember watching nothing. Not the TV spots, making-of, interviews— nothing. I believe, with very good films, that can be influential, you should come to them as clean as possible.

If I had to say something, I’d say for A Fish Called Wanda that it was the funniest film I have ever seen. Lock, Stock… I would say it shifted my notion of how things can be done, where you spend your entire life thinking there’s only one way of doing things, and someone comes and shows you there’s another way.

What’s your earliest memory of watching a movie?

Indiana Jones and the Raiders Of The Lost Ark in Ooty, while we were shooting for Jo Jeeta… I watched it in the hotel over there. I must have been about eight.

How did those roles for Jo Jeeta… or QSQT come about? Because you were family to those making those films, or looked like a younger Aamir Khan (younger versions of whom he played)?

A bit of both. I was available. I would work for free. And I looked like Aamir. For me it was more about getting away from school.

Did being in those films, or being a part of a film family, alter how you received the movies? 

I had a better understanding of it than some of my friends, certainly. But it didn’t alter my enjoyment of it, which is something I am very grateful for. This is something that is also true for Mansoor (Khan— a film director and producer who is also his uncle), with Aamir and for people whom I really respect as actors or directors, like Adi (Aditya) Chopra. I can’t resist clapping when something great happens. I cheer. I laugh. For me that feeling of being swept away is invaluable. A lot of people in the business are very jaded. All they’re looking at is bad chroma or the state of compositing, or continuity jerks. And it’s tragic. I feel terrible for those people.

But now that you’re in the business yourself, don’t those distractions come in?

I cannot watch my own films, because I see all the flaws and the problems. But when I’m watching a film, I invest completely. And I’m a lot more forgiving than most people are. Friends of mine, who are not industry people, often criticize a film and I find myself defending it saying I cried at a particular moment, or found a character very funny. Because if you lose that sense of wonderment for what a film can do, somewhere you’re going to lose your way. Chris Nolan still does it for me, for instance. When I’m watching Inception, when I’m watching (The) Dark Knight I start to feel like… Have you ever seen film reels of audiences in the old days? When they saw a train coming towards them they would scream and panic. Because they couldn’t separate that reality from their own. And there are still filmmakers who make me feel like that. Chris Nolan does. Peter Jackson (director of the Lord Of The Rings films) does. When I’m watching Lord Of the Rings, and I’m watching hordes of Orcs coming up the hill, my palms start to sweat. I begin to wonder if these guys will make it out alive. That is what you have to hold on to. To have the ability to create that as a film person, as an audience you have to be able to experience that.

Who influenced your film watching when you were a kid?

I think any of the funny stuff I have ever seen in my life was introduced to me by my dad. And all of the—for the lack of better words—’off-beat’, ‘indie’ stuff I discovered along with my friend Sahil, who’s been friends since I was a kid, for the last twenty years. He and I were avid movie partners. We’d go to the video store together and pick up stuff, come back and watch them back to back. I discovered Lock, Stock… with him. We discovered Kevin Smith together. The first film of Kevin Smith that we watched was Clerks. He shot it in black and white for practical purposes, because he was shooting night for day, and he had an issue with colour temperatures, so he felt this way nobody would be able to tell the difference. But because it’s black and white and gritty and grainy, when you watch it you feel like it’s something that nobody else has discovered. You always feel that you’re the first person who has seen it.

What drew you to the ‘off-beat’, ‘indie’ stuff, as you call it, in your teens? 

We (Sahil and him) started watching movies at a very young age, so by the time we were 14-15 we had seen a lot more films than other people. So while other people would rely on big releases and go for family outings, we used to seek out films, at theatres, at video stores. Our sense of cinema had already been honed a bit, so we would look at something, read the back of the cover and say, “That sounds like an interesting story”, whoever the stars were.

You didn’t have access to the internet then to look for names or descriptions of movies?

No, we didn’t. So it was literally you pick out a movie, look at the photo on the front cover, and read the description on the back. We discovered novels in the same way.

I’ve always believed there’s something really special about being in a tangible space where you can hold your movie before you rent it, as opposed to ordering it online, or on the phone. 

Ya. I have strong memories of going to the video store at Bandra. There was one guy down the hill (Pali Hill). At that time laser discs were the thing. Racks and racks of them. So you see what’s there, ask him what else he has, then look through the back-shelves to find the movies that no one wants to see. It’s like being in a library of books.

Are you moody about what films you watch when?

Strangely, in the past couple of years I have much less time for movie watching than I would like. I find myself working a lot. There’s always high stress, high drama. So I find myself steering away from films that are downers. My tastes have become a little more romanticized. I want a happy ending. And I want a film that will make me feel good at the end of it. So, where, earlier on I would search out Requiem For A Dream, today I would never watch it. When I was 17, 18, 19, 20—that’s the point when you’re in maximum rebellion mode—so I was like: This is the way! Moody! Gritty! Dark! Today I don’t have it in me to sit down and re-watch that film. I watched Black Swan. It’s spectacular filmmaking, but I wish i hadn’t watched it. I would have been happier in life if I hadn’t.

How long does it take you disconnect from a film like that?

Whether a film is really really depressing, or really really enjoyable, basically if it’s a film that has moved me, the hangover lasts for a couple of days. I keep flashing back to moments in the film.

What’s been your give and take between your movie watching, and your life as an actor? When you’re working on a role, do you avoid certain movies because they may leave you with baggage? Or are there any go-to films for you, that motivate you, or serve as universal reference points?

Films always motivate me. If I watch a film I really like, or an actor I really admire, it works as fire under your ass. Like: Shit. I have to work hard. I’ve got to get better. But I tailor my music based on the films I’m doing. The music that I listen to helps me build character, so I tweak that and build playlists accordingly. But films— absolutely anything, because somehow I’m able to separate it. I know a lot of people who get shut down. Who don’t watch good films when they’re working on a film. You’ll be surprised how many filmmakers do that.

I was asking also in the case of there being a film that’s in the same genre as the one that you’re working on. Because you want to shut out any outside influence that might tamper with your own process.

There’s a thing, that I call a creative reservoir. If you’re in a creative field—as actor, director, writer, painter—whatever it is you’re putting out there, you’re drawing upon something inside of you. You call upon that reserve and put it into your work. But that drains it, so you have to fill it up. The only way of doing this is by consuming more, reading, listening to music, watching films, traveling, having experiences, meeting and talking to people. I’m always wary of running out of this reserve. So any chance I get to ingest information or content, I take it.

Does watching films ever become a drag because it reminds you of your workplace? Or do you manage to switch off always?

No. Films for me are a complete escape. I get transported, sucked into another world. I’m out there shouting: Run Spiderman run!

Do you watch movies alone mostly or with people?

Largely with Avantika (Malik, his wife), because she’s as much of a movie nut as I am, but otherwise I don’t mind watching it alone. Because I have very stringent requirements for watching a movie. I have to have the right seat, at the centre. My phone goes off. If you’re watching a movie with too many people, somebody has to get up to go to the loo, somebody has to get chips. I can’t handle that. Avantika’s as serious about her movie watching as I am, so both of us sit down and put our phones off before the movie begins. Or I watch it alone.

Who do you discuss movies with mostly?

Avantika, because I end up watching most movies with her. Otherwise I have a gang of five or six friends who are as serious about movie watching as I am. So we’ll go and watch a film and there’ll be lengthy discussions about the movie. Ultimately, when you get to discussing it, that’s when the technical sides come in— people are talking about the VFX, how it’s shot. At that point you switch back on. But that doesn’t take away from my enjoyment of the film. Like, I just watched Skyfall. None of my friends liked it. I did. And while I could step out and see, objectively, what the flaws were, and what their issues with it were, it doesn’t take away from my enjoyment of it.

Are there any critics you follow, in India or abroad?

I read film journalists when they do interviews with filmmakers about their process. The concept of critiquing a film has never really made sense to me. You have a person who’s speaking in a void, who’s probably never been on a set, and it’s one person’s objective opinion. And it raises the question: Why should I read your opinion over someone else’s? I find it interesting to read interviews with directors, writers, to find out what they did and how they did it.

Has there been any film writing that particularly stayed with you?

Truffaut’s book on Hitchcock (HITCHCOCK TRUFFAUT A Definitive Study of Alfred Hitchcock by Francois Truffaut). I never liked Truffaut, always thought he was an ass. But I always liked Hitchcock. A lot of these greats, you don’t actually get to hear what they’re thinking, because there wasn’t as much film journalism at that point. So it’s Hitchcock speaking about his work, and it’s great to hear his voice. It coloured my taste in what to look for in terms of film journalism. So fine, it’s interesting to read a long form piece. Whereas, if you have a synopsis, or a critique of a film, it’s normally going to be a single page column. But when you actually get a thousand plus words to dedicate to a film, or an actor’s performance, or a director’s work, that is when you begin to see how they put it together, what they were trying to do.

 *Editor’s Note – Nearly 12 hours of the taped conversations between Hitchcock and Truffaut were broadcast on French radio as a 25 part series. Listen to them here.

What is a film you remember particularly for it’s use of music?

Anything Nolan does. I mean, you have theme songs, like in Star Wars or Indiana Jones, which tell you that the good guy’s coming and the bad guy’s in trouble. But the first time that I was strongly aware of the music was in The Dark Knight, with how the music changes when the Joker comes in, or when Harvey Dent is on his way to his downfall, all these elements. That’s the first time I sat up and noticed how the music was adding to everything, creating a very ominous, eerie, uncomfortable feeling. This is something I realized quite late in life. For a large part, scoring and background music were quite invisible to me.

What’s a film you remember for the level of detail?

I’ve always been a big Michael Mann fan. Of course, he’s gone a bit crazy in the recent years, but if you go back to the earlier movies—Heat and right up to Collateral, I think—he was solid. He was very good at creating tension and drama in a confined space. So in Heat you have (Al) Pacino and (Robert) De Niro sitting across a table in a diner. Or in Collateral you have (Tom) Cruise and Jamie Foxx sitting inside a cab. So you have these spaces where you don’t get to play with anything. The conventional logic will tell you that in this kind of an environment the director is redundant and now it’s the actor’s job to carry the scene. But that’s not the case. There’s a very strong director’s mark. You can see the director’s hand guiding you, saying: This is what I want you to look at right now, this is what I want you to feel right now.

It’s interesting that you say that, because I’ve always seen the scene with Pacino and De Niro in Heat as an actors’ scene. 

It really isn’t. People tend to think of it as an actors’ scene. Or think of film as an actor’s medium. But I’m a big believer in the director. As an audience I want to see the director’s hand. I want to see the director guiding me through the film. That’s why I hate 3D. 3D takes away focus, which is a very important tool for the director or the director of photography to guide me, whether as a viewer, or as an actor.

Did you see Heat after you started studying cinema, in New York, or after you started working in the industry?

No, before that. When it was just a cool action flick with Val Kilmer, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. But I revisited it later because I was a huge Mann fan. To go back to what I was saying, imagine a director who has both De Niro and Pacino in his film. Now imagine the temptation to run wild with that scene. Or to run wild with that film. If I had Aamir Khan and Salman Khan in my film I would keep both of them on camera, all the time, have them dancing or kicking ass. But here, Mann has used restraint. He’s said: I know what you’re expecting of me, but I’m not going to give you that. He’s set a scene in such a drab mundane location—it’s a diner—he doesn’t even give you the cool shots where he’s panning the camera from here to there— nothing. He’s shooting OS to OS (over-the-shoulder to over-the-shoulder, or cutting between face close-ups). It takes guts, and enough confidence in your craft, to say I’m going to let this scene breathe. Many people over direct. I’ve worked with directors who have literally laid a scene out for me and said: Walk from here to here while saying this line. At this word stop here. Turn your face this much to the left because I don’t want to see both eyes. I only want to see one eye. And then say the line. Take a pause here.

What’s a film you remember for its climax?

I ended up watching Saw, the first in the series, when I was in LA in 2004because it had turned into this big success story over there. These two guys who had just a little bit of money—one guy wanted to be an actor, another guy wanted to be a director—so they got together and said: Come on let’s make a film. They wrote it themselves, they dug up money from somewhere, and shot it largely in one location. I don’t want to spoil it for you. The film has a twist climax, which actually had me cheering and clapping, even though I was sitting alone in my living room. The film was much better than what it had the right to be. It’s torture porn, a slasher flick. But, it had higher aspirations, and for that moment they pulled it off. It wasn’t great filmmaking, and it may not go down in the annals of cinema, but at a very basic human organic level, the climax came, and I clapped.

What’s a film you remember for its characterization?

I don’t know whom to give the credit for this to, but Collateral was the first and possibly the last time when Tom Cruise was not playing Tom Cruise. He plays Tom Cruise in every single film. He’s got that million dollar smile and that twinkle in his eye. It’s Tom Cruise all the way, from Jerry Maguire to Mission Impossible. In Collateral it was not. His character’s name was Vincent, and that is not him. I don’t know who the credit goes to, but it’s a hell of a task to take, arguably, the biggest leading star in the world, and make him forget who he is.

That aside, Billy Crudup is a damn good actor—though he’s almost never the leading man. I always only realize halfway through the film that it’s him. That’s a massive compliment for an actor.

Is there a genre of film that you’re prejudiced against watching?

You have these extremely weepy women-centric melodramatic things where the woman has cancer and is dealing with children and the parents… those films I stay away from. Generically they’re called ‘Lifetime’ movies, because you have this channel in the US called Lifetime. Their tagline is: Television for Women. They’re just over-wrought. Every performance is drenched in glycerine. And every frame is soft-focus.

Is there a genre you watch more of?

Heist films I like a lot, but with a dose of comedy. If you can pull off a little bit of tension and drama and suspense with humour. Like Ocean’s 11 did, like Ocean’s 12 fails to do.

Have you ever liked a film no one did, which you had to defend?

There’s a Bruce Willis film from the early 1990s called Hudson Hawk. It was an epic flop and heavily panned by everyone. But I think it was laugh-out-loud hilarious. I haven’t watched it in a few years, but I watched it five-six times at least. And I could not, for the life of me, understand why the film failed.

A director you’re the biggest fan boy for?

Right now it’s Nolan. Guy Ritchie was the first director I was a fan of. But in recent years it’s started to decline because I’ve found his work to have become very repetitive. Michael Mann was going up, up, up, up and then boom. And then he did Miami Vice which was pretty bad. So they’re inconsistent. The most important thing to look for in a creative person is consistency. I’ve seen everything Nolan has done. I watched Memento in an art-house theatre, in the US, while I was in school there. There was a lot of buzz in school about this ‘backwards film’. I remember checking out the website. There was a viral marketing website called www.otnemem.com, which was Memento spelt backwards. I remember finding one art house theatre showing it, and convincing my dad to take me. That was when Nolan was discovered. And every film of his since, I’ve seen in the hall. Then he followed Memento up with Insomnia, which was better. Then Batman Begins, Prestige, The Dark Knight… with every film it just got better.

Which film of your own have you learnt the most from?

Matru… (Matru Ki Bijlee Ka Mandola). Which is yet to come out. Because in my career thus far, I’ve worked largely with first time directors, who’ve been my age and had as much, or less, experience than me. So it’s always been just us, holding each other’s hand, stumbling through the dark, finding our way. So you don’t get the full benefit which a seasoned director has to offer. Working with Vishal (Bhardwaj) was the first time where I had someone who has made so many films, worked with so many actors, and who has a very solid grasp on the craft. So I realized this is what I’ve been missing. There’s been tremendous growth, and tremendous learning.

Eye of the beholder: Pushpamala N

Pushpamala N (born in 1965) is a Bangalore based photography and video performance artist. Starting out as a sculptor with an interest in narrative figuration, Pushpamala N eventually took to casting her own body as various characters and personae in the medium of photo-performance. Interested in exploring photography as a medium of narrative fiction, she drew heavily from the history and traditions of cinema for her work. Recently she has also been using experimental short films, live performances and sculptural tableaux to explore the ideas that fascinate her. In this interview she talks about the synergy between movies and photographs, takes us into the fantastical and intriguing world of her art, discusses her work and traces its roots in cinema, explains her oeuvre that stands firmly in the middle-ground between film and photography and tells us that, in India, cinema and photography both created and recorded the country’s modernity.

Leisure and Longing in Mumbai

Here is the story of Aram Nagar, whose houses went from being British barracks to bungalows of leisure. The story of how it became a hub for those wanting to make it in the movies and those at the helm of a new kind of Hindi cinema. And the story of how it may all disappear

 

73 year old Balbir Singh Sandhu is in the middle of making his first film. He is stocky and has a flowing white beard. He wears a turban that is so faded that it is difficult to make out what its original color was. Today he is dressed in a loose collar t-shirt and baggy trousers which give him the appearance of a disheveled Santa Claus on a sabbatical. We are at his office in Aram Nagar 2, in Versova, Mumbai. Glossy posters of his unfinished film take up most of a large softboard. Unknown bikini clad models in and around a swimming pool. Men in suits and ties, and women with plunging necklines, who look into the camera in a medley of expressions that signify lust, suspicion, envy, rage— separately and all at once. A couple, presumably the leading pair, gaze at each other coyly in the middle of an embrace. A man reaches out towards you with a murderous glint in his eye. Just below him is the film’s title: I Will Find My Murderer. The ‘I’ is in the shape of a Christian cross, bleeding at the top.

 

Sandhu is producing the thriller under his own banner, Prabhjot Films, named after his son, who passed away in the 1970s, at a very young age. He finished writing it two years ago and began shooting it last year. But he has finished only half of it because, as he puts it: “I’m working with new actors and this always takes more time”. Accompanying the posters, on the softboard, are two photographs of Sandhu with yesteryear superstar Rajesh Khanna.

 

On another wall, behind his desk, are worn out laminated certificates of recognition for social activism. They explain a second signboard—one larger than the plate that says Prabhjot Films—both propped up on stands just outside his office. A signboard claiming that this is also the Andheri West office for the All India Human Rights Association (AIHRA), Maharashtra.

 

Sandhu tells us that he heads the district committee for the association. He insists that we refer to him as Balbir Badshah (‘Badshah’ meaning ‘king’), instead of using his actual name. He says that’s what everyone in the vicinity calls him. But he doesn’t have a specific answer for what exactly his social work involves. “I’ve been a social worker since 1954,” he says cryptically. “Even when I was young, in my hometown, I would help marry young couples and organize events for festivals.” Nowadays, he says, he helps resolve “domestic disputes”. He is also a part of protests in the area against a builder who wants to redevelop Aram Nagar by demolishing existing bungalows and cottages.

 

Cottages like the one that Sandhu lives and works out of. This is one of two spaces that he uses as offices. Despite the garish film posters, there is an air of tranquility. It is furnished simply with two small wooden tables, a desk, basic plastic and foam swivel chairs and a cramped computer workstation. Sandhu says he uses this office for his AIHRA meetings. At the other end of the house is another, more done-up room that Sandhu uses to meet people for his film. It is lit brightly. There are stained glass panels on the walls and a smooth table topped with black granite.

 

Sandhu moved to this house, from Karnal, in Punjab, 42 years ago. “I was a business man,” he says. “I was involved in many businesses, especially the business of chemicals.” He came to Bombay to become a hotelier but didn’t succeed. “Then I was also writing in the newspapers before that,” he goes on. “So, after that, as a writer, I entered films.” He wrote a film called Vaishya (Prostitute), which was directed by Syed Hussain, whom he calls his guru. But the film did not see a release. Then Sandhu wrote Aashiana (Home), a 1974 film, also directed by Hussain, which had a very young Neetu Singh, who would go on to become one of the biggest stars of the decade. Sandhu says he did some more “uncredited writing” in the 1970s, and then stopped. His “many businesses” kept him going. His daughter got married and settled in the UK. His wife passed away.

 

Outside Sandhu’s house a tin roof, held up by iron poles, forms a makeshift garage for his silver colored car— a Hyundai Accent. The house itself seems to be a squat, smallish structure. But it has been improvised. A section of the porch has been covered by thick tarpaulin, straw mats, and the kind of cloth used in shamianas (tent shelters used for outdoor parties and feasts) to fashion a room out of it. It is hard to imagine that this house was once one of many structures used to house British soldiers during the Second World War.

 

***

 

Sandhu’s house is one of 367 in Aram Nagar, an area divided into Parts 1 and 2 and spread out over 40 acres of land in Versova, a locality in the suburb of Andheri, in North-West Mumbai. In the 1930s, when the country was under British rule, these buildings were British Army barracks. Today they contain, among other occupants, many photography and casting studios and the offices of some of the leading lights of the Hindi film industry. In fact, the area has become a hub for what is loosely called ‘new Bollywood’. A Bollywood that makes saleable films which steer away from its more formulaic and starry big-budget productions, and has a greater consideration for meaningful cinema. The advent of filmwallahs in the area initially met with resistance from the older residents but they eventually reconciled. Today Aram Nagar faces a new threat. A state authority called the Maharashtra Housing And Development Association (MHADA) wants to demolish most of the houses and build apartment blocks in their place. They have appointed a private construction company to do so.

 

***

 

“They were single storied brick buildings, with asbestos roofs,” says 78 year old Hynginus D’Lima about the barracks that have become Aram Nagar. “The area where the Bhavan’s college complex stands today also had British barracks,” he adds. He has been born and brought up in Andheri and as such is the one of the oldest and most authoritative voices on the history of the suburb. He draws up a rough map to explain the topography of the land in the 1930s. “Versova was not thought to be a part of Andheri then,” he explains. “And neither Versova, nor Andheri, were a part of Bombay.” Before the barracks came, in the area where Bhavan’s College is now, there was a Japanese golf course and club. “They had to leave during the war, because Japan allied with Germany— the enemy,” D’Lima says. We are at his house, a single storied building called ‘Herwish’, in Andheri Gaonthan, Lane 1, where D’Lima has lived all his life. Her-wish, because this was a house his mother really wanted. “There was a narrow strip of road through marshy land which connected Andheri to Versova,” D’Lima continues. This marshy land is what is now known as Four Bungalows and Seven Bungalows. “A bus service was begun on this road,” says D’Lima. “Connecting the two areas.” But because the buses were double deckers, and the road too narrow, they would often keel over. The only other means of transport was a kind of bullock cart that had rubber tyres.

 

After Independence, in 1947, the barracks were used to house Sindhi refugees who came in from Pakistan after the Partition, many of whom extended the basic brick structures into more comfortable housing. By the 1960s many of the refugees had moved out from here to more central locales in the city of Bombay, and the state government took over the land and allotted these homes as permanent housing to Class 4 employees (the junior-most grade in government service). Eventually, a lot of them moved out too. Many of the current residents have had the leases of the previous occupants transferred to their names, and have stayed on as tenants of the state. “They beatified the houses,” says D’Lima referring perhaps to the tacky embellishments to be found on most houses in the area. Some tenants believe that their long stay here has given them rights of ownership. The State believes otherwise.

 

As roads in the area got better, and Versova was absorbed into Andheri, and Andheri into Bombay, which became Mumbai, the builders came. Robust skyscrapers now loom threateningly over the midget bungalows of Aram Nagar. The bungalows and cottages themselves, however, are still connected to one another by a maze of dirt tracks, which can be a nightmare to navigate. The tracks get flooded during the monsoons and sprout greenery immediately after, giving the locality the eerie feel of a hamlet in the middle of Mumbai, that does not belong, yet has been forever. The only thing that makes sense in all of this is its name whose origins no one can trace. Aram Nagar, or the ‘Township Of Leisure’.

 

To complicate the paradox of this space, Bollywood began to move in in the 1990’s. Photographer Jagdish Mali, known for his portraits of Hindi film stars, remembers taking a walk here with a friend after a meal in 1992. He was struck by “the atmosphere of the place, the calm and the greenery”. And by the houses that seemed to belong to a different era altogether. He set up his studio there in the same year. A few years ago he moved out but not without casting his influence. His assistant, Rajesh Gaunde, set up his own photography studio in 1997. Gaunde was also the first person in Andheri to offer his studio, named Studio 2000, up for film auditions. “At that time the only other big casting studio for ad film auditions was Famous Studios in Mahalaxmi (roughly a 90 minutes drive away),” he says. “Hardly two to three auditions used to happen at my place in those days.” Only if an actor lived in the suburbs, too far away from the heart of the city, was he or she asked to audition at Gaunde’s studio.

 

Over time, more and more advertising agencies began to set shop in the suburbs. Actors and models too began shifting to the Northern parts of the city. (Today Andheri is the hub of aspiring models and actors). With these changes the demand for cheaper and nearer spaces to conduct auditions in went up and business boomed for Gaunde. Many more photography studios and audition centers began to come up as well. The quiet lanes of Aram Nagar were suddenly swarming with ‘strugglers’— as acting and modeling aspirants are known in these parts. Young girls wearing layers of makeup and boys in skin tight t-shirts, older men and women too, who wanted to be cast in their dream roles. It took the long-term residents of the area a while to get used to the sight of a model teetering off her stilettos into a puddle or, occasionally, a leading Bollywood director stuck in his car in a waterlogged Aram Nagar gully in the oppressive Mumbai monsoons.

 

A few years after Gaunde opened Studio 2000, the Aram Nagar Resident’s Association had demanded that he shut it down. They were concerned that the models and actors, with their flashy and skimpy clothes and boisterous manners, would be an untoward influence on their children. Gaunde called a meeting of the association at the end of which they agreed to let the studio be. A resident who was at the meeting lets out that Gaunde had agreed to shut his studio on condition that other residents who ran commercial establishments or offices from within their homes, without a license, would shut shop too. Many residents of Aram Nagar, often even retired ones, run some sort of business from their homes. This could mean an office space for their enterprise, or a shop selling homemade foodstuff, or could simply imply sub-letting a section of their bungalow to a business concern. As many of these establishments don’t have the necessary license, they are not entirely within the law. The objections to Gaunde’s studio were withdrawn quickly in the wake of his veiled threat to report the liberties his neighbours had been taking with the law. And they haven’t been raised since.

 

A crowd of actors gathers outside Studio 2000 to audition for an HDFC Bank ad. The filmmakers want to cast a man who is above 60, and a woman in her 20s. Casting calls have been sent out through text messages and through casting coordinators, who extract up to 10% of the actor’s fee as commission for getting them the role. Auditions are held for one to five days for an ad, and can go on for months for a film. The hall in which auditions take place is lit brightly with lights on stands and is bare except for a curtain, that is used as a backdrop, and a camera hooked up to a TV screen. Actors are handed a white board on which they write their name, age, height and mobile number, and hold it up to their chests as the camera zooms in on them. They introduce themselves to the camera, flash a smile, and look left and right so their profiles register. Then they act out a scene they have been asked to perform. They are allowed two to three takes. Studio 2000 does 50 to 100 such auditions in a day.

 

64 year old Purushottam Mulani has just completed his audition. He’s tall and fair, with a round face and salt and pepper hair. He’s asking the cameraman who filmed him to give him feedback on his performance. Mulani claims all the cameramen say to him, every time, is “very good” and “excellent” but there’s no genuine feedback. The cameraman says this isn’t true. He’s up-front with those who don’t make the cut. A man came in earlier today and the casting crew had to spend half an hour explaining the scene to him. They gave up on him when he still did not seem to get it. Sometimes, when actors insist on auditioning, even when the crew tells them they don’t fit the part, the casting crew does what they call a ‘Kodak’. This is a fake take, where the cameraman turns on the camera, but doesn’t record the audition.

 

Mulani has appeared in all sorts of films, from action blockbusters like Ghajini to No One Killed Jessica (a thriller based on a real murder trial) to Miss Lovely, an independent film that made it to the Festival de Cannes. Casting directors claim he’s got the “good father look”. He owns a building in Lokhandwala, nearby, whose flats he rents out to actors. The same actors tell him about casting opportunities and he turns up for an audition when he feels there’s a suitable role. He says he doesn’t do it for the money. “I am looking for something substantial that will test my acting skills,” he explains.

 

The casting and photography studios were only the first phase in Aram Nagar’s live-in relationship with Bollywood. In 2006 Ajay Rai, a producer with UTV Motion Pictures, one of India’s biggest film production houses, rented an office for the director and the creative team of the film Mumbai Meri Jaan (Mumbai, My Life— a film on the aftermath of the 2006 Mumbai train blasts) to work out of. “It was very well connected— you could easily find autos, and there was so much space for parking,” are reasons Rai gives for why he chose the locality. “And it’s so reasonably priced too.”

 

He returned the office to the broker after work on the film was completed, but came back to Aram Nagar, in 2009, as executive producer with UTV Spotboy, UTV Motion Picture’s new offbeat film division, to set up office for a children’s film called Chillar Party. The offices for most UTV Motion Pictures and UTV Spotboy productions over the next few years were rented in Aram Nagar. In the last five years UTV Motion Pictures and UTV Spotboy have produced films by new directors who have ushered in a new kind of Hindi movie— experimental but deferent to commercial concerns. Directors like Anurag Kashyap, Raj Kumar Gupta, Tigmanshu Dhulia and Dibakar Banerjee. Kashyap has since then set up his own production company, Anurag Kashyap Films Production Ltd (AKFPL), that has two offices in Aram Nagar as well. Tigmanshu Dhulia has his office in the area too. Eventually Rai left UTV to start his own production house Jar Pictures but he did not leave Aram Nagar. Meanwhile, the UTV Spotboy office he established has shut. Vikas Bahl, the creative head of UTV Spotboy, left the company to start a new venture called Phantom Films with Kashyap and director Vikramaditya Motwane. The Phantom office stands where the UTV Spotboy office once was— at 121, Aram Nagar 2.

 

With the advent of a new kind of cinema, the profile of the aspiring actor has changed too. Now Aram Nagar is thronged not just by fair, light-eyed young men and women with gym-sculpted bodies but also plainer looking aspirants, from small towns throughout the country, who believe they can be Aram Nagar’s next big find. Their role model is not so much Hrithik Roshan as Nawazuddin Siddiqui, the star of Kashyap’s last film, an epic revenge saga called Gangs Of Wasseypur. The ‘strugglers’ fill up cafes just outside Aram Nagar on Yari road, where they chat endlessly about the possibilities this new kind of cinema has opened up for them. They loiter around the dirt tracks, breaking into impromptu performances to attract the attention of some casting director who might happen to notice them, or for practice, or fun.

 

55 year old Kevin Martyres lives opposite Studio 2000. He has lived here all his life and has witnessed closely Aram Nagar’s transition into a moviemaker’s hub. Martyres works out of home. He supplies steamed corn to multiplexes across the country. His office comprises a foldable table and chair, and a filing cabinet. He is worried that the safety of the area has been put at stake because of the tremendous number of visitors the film production offices and studios solicit. This is especially worrying because Aram Nagar is not a gated colony, and there are too many entries and exits to actually keep track of who is coming in, or leaving. “It’s a nice sight to watch beautiful women,” he says. “But I have the right to protect my family. I don’t want so many strangers around.” Also, he doesn’t like so many people “roaming about, smoking, eating, littering and peeping into my house”. He also complains that the actors create a lot of noise while rehearsing for their auditions.

 

But his principal grouse is with the parking space these visitors occupy. It is an issue that seems to overwhelm Martyres. “They park their vehicles haphazardly,” he says. “There have been numerous fights between these commercial establishments and the residents because of parking.” He goes on to add: “If there is a Third World War, it will be because of parking.” It is hard to get him to talk about anything else. When asked about his relationship with people he knows from the film industry, he says: “I have a good relationship with all the filmi people. But if there is a parking issue, I will be the first one to fight.” We ask him if he has ever interacted with a film star. He recalls having met 1990s’ action hero Suniel Shetty once. “He was very well spoken,” he recalls. “I told him he couldn’t park here and he got his car removed.” He reiterates: “If you want peace, there has to be war.”

 

Yet Martyres agrees that “there is no industry bigger, more colourful, than the film industry.” Or more incestuous. While Aram Nagar prides itself on being home to a whole new breed of directors, the incestuousness associated with the film industry has seeped into its by-lanes in its own way. Take Martyres’ son, 21 year old Stefan, who has just graduated and is working for Actor Sohail Khan’s PR agency which is just a few blocks down the lane. He has worked, before this, as an assistant director on Muskurake Dekh Zara (Look At Me With A Smile), a 2010 film produced by Ram Gopal Varma ( one of the first big directors who defied formulaic conventions of Hindi cinema) and directed by Varma’s cousin P. Som Shekar. Shekar stays a few blocks away from Martyres too.

 

While the older generation in Aram Nagar still seem a world removed from Bollywood, their children or grandchildren are not. Their lives reiterate Frigyes Karinthy’s ‘six degrees of separation’, often whittling the degrees down to three or two. A friend of Stefan’s, for instance, is 22 year old Prateek Agarwal. His family has been living in Aram Nagar since the 1940s. His father and grandfather are timber merchants. But Prateek is an event manager who wants to manage celebrities instead. The family is not star-struck by Aram Nagar’s new inhabitants. Only once does Prateek remember his folks being excited— when Dharmendra visited the area. “But he’s Dharmendra,” he says by way of explanation. His mother Uma is more concerned about the restaurants and cafes that have come up around the area, particularly those close to their home. They add exponentially to the litter and noise, she tells us. Their house is a two-storeyed structure where Prateek’s uncles, grandparents and parents all live together. It is a stone’s throw away from Cafe Mangii, a high end Italian restaurant that serves as a lunch spot and meeting place for film folk. It is also very close to the AKFPL office.

 

Anurag Kashyap’s office shows no signs of the activity that one would expect of a bustling production house. It is surrounded by a six feet high wall. Inside there are framed posters of most of Kashyap’s films— Dev D, Shaitaan, Black Friday, Gangs Of Wasseypur and Return Of Hanuman, an animated children’s film he had directed in 2007. Several Assistant Directors sit chatting, sipping tea or working on their laptops in the foyer. There is a large picnic table and benches where people smoke and talk shop or exchange gossip. Kashyap’s own room, just as you enter the office, seems as if it is rarely used. There is a black desk and chairs. There are no papers or stationery on the desk. Most of the work happens in the inner rooms where the production and post-production teams work. On the day that we visit the office space is being renovated and workers are walking back and forth with plywood and electric drills and saws. Karuna Dutt, one of Kashyap’s assistant directors, describes the experience of working in the office as idyllic. “We listen to music, people start singing in the middle of work,” she says. “And then we realize we have deadlines to meet, and get back to work. It is like our own space, really.”

 

Down the lane from the office is the Holy Cross Convent. A large one-storied structure, it houses nuns from the Sisters of Mercy order of the Holy Cross. A gravel path leads from a formidable iron gate to the front door with small faded letters that say: “Jesus, Bless This House”. There are flower beds and small plants on either side. We are led into a waiting room with a couch and tables with matching blue tablecloths that have yellow flowers on them. The room also has an altar and a large portrait of Christ on one wall.

 

The building has belonged to the order for 37 years. Previously, it was owned by a group of ornithologists, who used it as their office. 20 nuns lived at the convent once, and worked at the Holy Spirit and Vimala Hospitals nearby. But most of them have now moved to Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, for missionary work in the villages. Two nuns—Sister Mary Margaret and Sister Christine—stay at the convent currently. The house is used as a creche for the children of domestic workers until three pm every day. There are 30 children and three helpers. Also, the dormitory rooms, which used to house the nuns once, is now a subsidized paying guest accommodation for unmarried women, earning minimum wage, who can stay for up to two years. Only eight of the 15 beds in these rooms are occupied.

 

The nuns say that many of the women who leave their children at the creche, or who stay at the dormitory, are victims of domestic violence. Sister Mary Margaret narrates the tale of a pair of twin girls who has been left with them for a few months. She had been beaten and mistreated by her husband’s family because she delivered twins who were girls. When she was pregnant again she fled their home for fear of the abuse she would have to endure if she gave birth to a female child again. She went to stay at her parents house, away from the city. To spite her, and because he didn’t particularly care for the twins she had given birth to, her husband left his daughters with the nuns at the convent. She delivered a boy. Now, the family she had married into wanted her back. Her husband came to the convent to reclaim his daughters, drunk, at night. The nuns refused to let him in. Eventually the woman went back to him, with her children.

 

The nuns maintain neighbourly relations with Kashyap’s office next-door. The watchman alerts them, for instance, if he sees any of the children straying out of the gate. Once, when a man had created a scene outside the convent and collapsed, drunk, at its gate, the watchman had helped remove him. Portions of the AKFPL film Shaitaan (The Devil), a dark psychological thriller directed by Bejoy Nambiar, were shot outside the convent. The crew asked for permission to shoot inside, but the nuns refused. They haven’t seen any of AKFPL’s films, or any recent films for that matter. “We don’t have the time,” says Sister Mary Margaret. “We only watch about half an hour of TV in the evening everyday.”

 

***

 

Filmmaker Tigmanshu Dhulia set up office here in 2009. He had been looking for an office in Bandra or Lokhandwala, but couldn’t afford it back then. His first office in the area was rented by UTV, so he could work on their production Paan Singh Tomar, a biopic based on an athlete turned dacoit, which he was directing. But he has rented another office and stayed on even after the film was done. He was taken in by “the open spaces and the greenery” of Aram Nagar, he says. Dhulia relishes the fact that a place like this can exist in Mumbai, and that he works from it. The dirt tracks of Aram Nagar may be filthy and a breeding ground for diseases, especially in the monsoon. The bungalows may seem tacky and awkward. But to Dhulia, and many other people, this is the best escape from the many anxieties of the city. “We feel really cut-off here,” he adds. “It doesn’t even look like Bombay.”

 

He asserts that, unlike so many other people’s offices, his office is “not a flat, it’s a cottage”, which is not something Bandra or Lokhandwala would have been able to afford him. There is a lemon yellow gate that leads you into the small courtyard, partly covered by a tin-shed, where there are some plastic chairs, a table tennis table, that is folded, but in working condition, and a poster of Paan Singh Tomar. Two stray dogs, adopted by Dhulia, saunter about the place freely. The walls have been painted bright blue but something about the ‘cottage’ is still reminiscent of the army barracks long gone.

 

The table tennis table has become a sort of rallying point for people who are working with Dhulia, or an indicator for those who will end up doing so. Karan Bhutani, Dhulia’s associate director, remembers how Actor Randeep Hooda used to come in the evenings to play table tennis there when he had no work. On one such evening Dhulia and his team came up with the idea of Saheb, Biwi Aur Gangster (The Master, Wife and The Gangser). The title of the film (a take on legendary filmmaker Guru Dutt’s classic Sahib, Bibi aur Ghulam or ‘The Master, Wife and The Slave’) was thought of first, then they worked out a script and the locale. Hooda, who happened to be there, playing table tennis, was cast as the ‘gangster’ in the movie. The film, made on a shoestring budget, went on to win a lot of acclaim. Now they’re making a sequel— Saheb Biwi Aur Gangster Returns in which they’ve cast Actor Pravesh Rana. “He plays table tennis here too,” says Bhutani. This transition of Aram Nagar into a kind of freewheeling commune for filmwallahs suits Dhulia just fine. He often bumps into acquaintances, old and new, at the locality. “In Bombay, you only end up meeting your colleagues in parties or premieres normally”, he says. “Here, I can just walk around and you’ll bump into Sunil (Bohra- a prominent film producer). Or Sudhir bhai (Mishra, an acclaimed filmmaker). Or an old friend from NSD (the National School of Drama, where Dhulia had studied theatre) who’s working with films now.” Bhutani, only 23, is looking to start his own office here soon, and make his first film.

 

Dhulia also believes that there is an unmistakable sense of community that exists between filmwallahs in Aram Nagar and its older residents. He shares a warm relationship with his elderly neighbors, 85 year old K S Hariharan and his wife Vishalakshi, who live next door. “They’re an elderly couple,” he says. “They feel secure because my office boys are here all the time. This place is very lonely in the night and we have some dubious happenings at times. There have been instances of petty theft at my office.” Someone stole the iron lid off the water storage tank at his cottage. “It weighed six kilos,” he says. “There are some drug addicts who roam around the area at night. It was probably them. So all this shit happens. But it’s alright.” The couple call his office boys if they need help around their house. And bring back sweets and packets of banana chips for Dhulia whenever they visit their hometown in Kerala.

 

Hariharan’s courtyard has a small Tulsi plant in the middle. The porch of the house has been covered because, says Hariharan, “the crows would bring in non-veg food”. He moved here 50 years ago. He used to work as a secretary with Bharat Petroleum, but he’s long retired. He’s wearing a white mundu (a traditional sarong like garment worn around the waist in South India) with a golden border. We’re at his study, sipping sweet Kerala filter coffee from steel tumblers.

 

Dhulia is the only filmwallah in the area whom Hariharan interacts with. He doesn’t approve of today’s movies, not even the films made by Dhulia. Their violence, their brazen use of swear words, their amoral depiction of reality, make him recoil. “Films should mould children’s minds, catch them young,” he reasons. “These days both parents work mostly, so children are left alone at home. Movies they watch have a huge influence on them.”

 

***

 

In the room adjoining Hariharan’s study is a cabinet that is filled with files and documents related to the proposed redevelopment of Aram Nagar. At the heart of the issue lies the fact that the State of Maharashtra claims that the land on which Aram Nagar lies belongs to it, and that it has the right to break down the bungalows and cottages to build low-cost apartment complexes in their place. It has appointed a real estate developer called RNA Builders to carry out this task.

 

The residents will be compensated in lieu of this and be given a flat in the new buildings. The High Court, in 2010, ruled in favour of the land being redeveloped by MHADA. The residents have asked for a revision of this ruling on the grounds that the developer has actually not obtained consent from the residents of Aram Nagar (70 percent of the residents need to provide consent). The person in charge of the Aram Nagar project at RNA Builders is Sudhir Pillai. Despite repeated phone calls to his office over the last one and a half months he has been unavailable for comment. Phone calls to the legal department of RNA Builders have yielded the same result.

 

Those living or working in Aram Nagar are divided into three groups by way of their reaction to this stand:

 

One group of residents, which Hariharan is a member of, believes that they own their houses by virtue of having lived in them for so long. They do not want the area on which their houses are to be redeveloped and have fought a long drawn case against the government on this front. They cite a government resolution of 1987 which was applied to similar properties, where tenants were allowed to buy their houses from the government at subsidized rates—where the houses had been allotted to them by the government itself—or at premiums, where the tenants had bought the leases to such homes from the state allottees.

 

Another group of residents, such as Martyres and Sandhu, are open to the idea of Aram Nagar’s redevelopment but have taken umbrage to the way it has been orchestrated so far. They believe the real estate developer for the project should have been appointed with their consent. “The developer was chosen by a committee of 13 members from the Aram Nagar Tenant’s Welfare Association,” says Nitin Mavani, the Secretary of this association. He refrains from commenting on how these 13 members were chosen, despite repeated phone calls and SMSes.

Another contention of this group of residents is that the consent to redevelop the area has actually not been obtained from 70 % of the residents. Here, Hariharan claims that the residents have gotten hold of a report filed by MHADA to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, which says that only  “62%” of the residents consented to the redevelopment. They obtained a copy of this report by filing a Right To Information (RTI) petition. So this group of residents believe this move to redevelop the area should be scrapped and begun anew.

 

A third group comprises of people who work here but live elsewhere. A lot of them are from the film industry. They see themselves as tenants with no real rights over the land, or voice in the issue. “They’ve got a stay order, how long it will last?” asks Karan Bhutani, Dhulia’s assistant. “There is no saying whether the builder will win the case eventually or no. In any case we can’t do anything about it. At the end of the day we are working here on a rental basis.”

 

Some residents hope that the film personalities who have their offices, or residence, here will be able to deter the authorities. Bhutani subscribes to the theory that the filmwallahs might be able to wield their clout. “Suniel Shetty and Javed Jaffrey have offices here”, he tells us. “They own property. So they will fight to prevent the redevelopment.”When we contacted Shetty to get his take on the issue, he claimed he has “moved out of Aram Nagar” and so can’t really comment on the situation. Hariharan too praises Jaffrey and his wife Bina for their support. Yet all this support has meant is that they have provided a “means of transport” (a car) to members of the group when they’ve had meetings with lawyers or the authorities. A petition against redevelopment was filed in the High Court in 2010 by, among others filmmaker Guddu Dhanoa, Cinematographer Rakesh Shreshtha and photographer Subi Samuel. When contacted Subi Samuel too chooses not to comment on the issue. Evidently, despite its influence the Hindi film industry has not taken a firm stand against redevelopment, perhaps because, legally, it is a complicated matter and the industry is not known to stick its neck out for complex social or political concerns. Or maybe because the idea of home in Mumbai is transient and takes a few decades to take shape. The strongest petitioners against the area’s redevelopment remain an older, more traditional lot, who cherish the British barracks they have lived in, and transformed in their own modest ways. Their cottages of leisure, in a city that decries the idea.

The TBIP Take

Eat, Drink, Shoot, Cycle

Should any movie take its own McGuffins seriously? If it does, you could end up with Student of the Year. And its Ayn Randish undercurrents. The bicycle race in Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikandar was dead serious but Mansoor Khan never really bothered explaining why, and that somehow made it more plausible. SOTY takes itself so seriously that there isn’t a single memorable song or dance in a movie choreographed by Farah Khan (whose first outing and best outing were high school musicals) and Vaibhavi Merchant.

So seriously that we end with a gay Hunger Games, in the climax of which Sudo (Kayoze Irani) seems to be accusing the Dean (Rishi Kapoor) of punishing the students because his gayness has made him lonely, bitter and without entertainment options. No wonder the Dean retired after this particular batch. If Sudo doesn’t understand that life doesn’t get better than watching Siddharth Malhotra emerge like Botticelli’s Venus from a swimming pool in Thailand, the education system has failed him.

How seriously should a revolution-movie take its revolution? When it’s eighty years after the fact and is in its second cinematic iteration, I suppose it’s quite okay for a movie to take its revolution seriously. Instead, Chittagong fails to ask a single question of received jingoistic history and (like SOTY) fails to create a single scene that you haven’t already seen over and over again in dozens of movies. An earnest soundtrack and dead bodies are not the same as seriousness, although it might be easy to mistake one for the other.

So now we come to it. Hormones and radicalism are alright, but the question we all want answered is: How seriously should a food movie take food?

Not as seriously as Director Anwar Rasheed and Writer Anjali Menon. The Malayalam movie Ustad Hotel begins swiftly, surefooted, funny and poised, at its best in a wicked postcard shot of four young sisters drinking tea under a patio umbrella against the Dubai skyline. It’s SATC: Hijab Edition. In its cool subversiveness, this shot beats hands down even the fetching heroine Shahana’s (Nithya Menen) sudden appearance as a rocker in a headscarf.

Ustad Hotel had so much going for it. It was going to be one of our few food movies. It was also going to be that movie with Muslim characters you were waiting for: no one is suspected of being a terrorist, no one has anxiety about being a Muslim, and as far as I can recall, there are no tense namaaz scenes. My concentration only began to fail when I realised that the Malayali Muslim uber-social I was hoping for was getting all Sufi on me. After poor Thilakan (in his last appearance) started talking about dargahs and fez-wearing dervishes began twirling on the Kozhikode beach in front of TV cameras, I needed to lie down for the feeling to pass.

So what do we have? Faizi (Dulquer Salmaan) has been brought up by his four ithathas after his mother died. Growing up in Dubai in the household of a stern and money-minded father, he wasn’t really prepared for the loneliness of life after his four sisters got married. He cons his father into sending him to study in Switzerland. A few years later, when his father has engineered an alliance between Faizi and the daughter of another Kozhikode tycoon, the cat’s let out of the bag: all those years of hanging out with his sisters in the kitchen made Faizi really passionate about cooking and so, no, he wasn’t earning a Swiss MBA all this while. He was in culinary school.

His father, still smarting from his own childhood embarrassment of being the son of a beachfront restaurant owner, explodes. No way is he going to let Faizi take up a position in a London restaurant. And without his passport and credit cards, where is his son going to run to anyway? As it turns out, pretty Faizi has a small plan. He runs for temporary refuge to his grandfather who runs Ustad Hotel — the source of Faizi’s father’s shame.

That we barely get to see the four ithathas again is part of the problem, but mostly the problem is that old food-movie problem. Ustad Hotels biryani is not just biryani. It’s how Faizi becomes a man, gets wild and gets a life. He might think for a while that making fusion cuisine is his thing but in the end he opts out of London and nouvelle vague in favour of his grandfather’s legacy. Food movies refuse to admit that sometimes a sulaimani is just a sulaimani is just a glass of black tea. Paul Giamatti goggling at glasses of Pinot Noir gets old and so do descending arcs of tea framed by sunsets on the beach. To be fair, not everybody feels suicidal in the middle of Masterchef Season 55 when the participants are talking gravely of their mistakes and ‘learnings’ from Season 34. So, maybe, it’s just me.

I didn’t go to Luv Shuv Tey Chicken Khurana expecting to see a great food movie— one that’s about food but isn’t about foodies. And what a humbling I’ve had. Director Sameer Sharma navigated Luv Shuv… cleverly and far, far away from the disastrous shoals of the genre—no Debbie Does Saladstyle shots of paranthas and butter here—and except for one instance (more of which later), he resists drawing any homilies from cooking.

Like Ustad Hotel, Luv Shuv has a grandfather (Vinod Nagpal) who owns a famous dhaba, a London-loving grandson and a local girl with chutzpah. But what a subcontinent of difference. Ustad Hotel takes a bizarre sidetour of poverty in Tamil Nadu and gives the grandfather those qawwali feelings to keep us warm at night. Luv Shuv… gives the elder Mr Khurana senile dementia and a tendency to fart. Faizi walks about sweetly and has London sous chef and Paris exec chef jobs falling into his lap. Our Punjabi hero Omi Khurana chloroformed his grandfather to get to London and would chloroform him again to return to London and his subsistence-gangster lifestyle. And now that his grandfather is no longer in the world of the sentient there is no one in the Khurana family who can cook at all. Omi’s chachiji is the first chachiji in the history of chachijis who cannot cook.

When Luv Shuv… does a ‘colourful’ cast, it doesn’t do generic boys with generic Rasta ambitions on Kozhikode beach.  Ustad Hotel becomes a tourist trap of visual cliches while Luv Shuv… is so confidently grounded in its small-town Punjab locale that it can afford to carelessly toss in an odd Bengali widow (best widow since Kati Patang); parochial murmurs were rising from the audience—What is this bangalan doing here?—long before the movie did any explaining. And just as Ustad Hotel would benefit from a spinoff called Ithathas and CoLuv Shuv… could easily branch into a movie about Lovely (the heroine’s brother), his kachcha business and his real estate ambitions.

***

Food movies have a tendency to turn us on with the elaborate and decadent, and then tell us that life is actually about the simplest of tastes: Roux‘s hot chocolate in Chocolat, Auguste Gusteau’s eponymous Ratatouille, or the eggs and bread in Big Night that the brothers eat after making complicated timpano. But Luv Shuv… doesn’t even fetishise simplicity like the brilliant new documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi, where viewers drink the Kool-Aid so quickly and so deeply that we are united in our scorn for ignorant customers who walk in and ask Jiro for dessert (die, infidel, die!).

In Luv Shuv… the characters eat ordinary meals without looking like, to borrow a phrase, Orgasmo-Adulto-Escape from the Zoo. They chop onions without sounding like Kahlil Gibran. Kunal Kapoor and Huma Qureshi cook together without succumbing to marinated chicken a la the pottery scene from Ghost. Sameer Sharma must have the self-control of a zen master. Well, almost.

Here’s the bit in which Sharma (sorry) chickens out. Most food movies also become treasure hunts for the secret ingredient. And the secret ingredient is always love. This is true of Ustad Hotel (every sulaimani needs a bit of mohabbat in it, the stars are God’s daisy chain, etc.) and most other food movies.

Luv Shuv… has an audacious, thrilling secret ingredient that makes Chicken Khurana brilliant (it isn’t heeng, you loser, stop guessing). But Luv Shuv… takes this triumph of plot and then decides that its secret ingredient should be love too— in case love felt bad and went home. This momentary cowardice apart, this is a prince among food movies, made by people who’ve perhaps actually stood in front of a stove trying to make sure the scrambled eggs aren’t too wet, too dry or burnt their phulkas or destroyed their crème brûlée with a pint-sized flamethrower. They know that the secret ingredient of cooking isn’t love. It’s Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hours of practice. It’s why Julia didn’t want to speak with Julie. And it’s why Omi Khurana’s chicken is alright in the end, not great. And that’s the best thing about the movie.

Iran, Islam and The Movies.

Prof. Hamid Dabashi, 61, was born into a working class family in Ahvaz, Iran. Currently he is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York, the oldest and most prestigious Chair in this field. He is also a founding member of the Institute for Comparative Literature and Society and the Center for Palestine Studies at the same University.  

The writer of 25 books on a gamut of subjects, Dabashi is one of America’s most prominent, and sometimes controversial, liberal voices on politics, philosophy and culture. Banned from entering Iran, for his criticism of its government, he is equally reproachful of American policies towards his home state. A celebrated speaker, he is known for his razor-sharp one liners: ” …even if [Barack Obama] has sold his soul, … he used to have one. That is not the case with McCain.”

Dabashi also writes prolifically on cinema. He is credited with having brought to the fore the work of many luminary Iranian filmmakers. Mohsen Makhmalbaf has called him “a rare cultural critic”. His involvement with cinema extends to participating in international film festivals as a jury member and advising filmmakers such as Hany Abu-Assad (on Paradise Now) and Ridley Scott (on Kingdom Of Heaven). When Scott was attacked for recreating the war between Christian crusaders and Saladin in Kingdom Of Heaven he defended himself by saying he had the approval of “one very important Muslim in New York”.

When I meet Dabashi for a chat at The Imperial’s coffee shop in New Delhi, he cuts a formidable figure. In the middle of Delhi’s sweltering summer, with spectacles and a respectably grey beard, he sits upright in a neatly worn jacket which gives off a distinct Ivy League air. It is a clear Sunday morning. He and his wife, Dr. Golbarg Bashi, have just finished breakfast. He gets ready to field my questions as she sifts through some papers on the same table. He refuses to take coffee during this interview. For him, conversation is serious business. 

 

You’ve spoken and written about politics and art, especially with reference to cinema. While cinema from Iran has won accolades around the world what impact does the cinema of, say, Abbas Kiarostami and Jafar Panahi, have on the people of Iran themselves?

This is a very good question. There are two sides to this. One side is that it’s not limited to Iranian cinema. The more a cinema, whether of India or Iran or China, is incorporated into the global film festival circuit the more distant it becomes from its own people. And the best examples are in the Iranian case. Filmmakers like, most recently, Abbas Kiarostami or (Mohsen) Makhmalbaf have for one reason or another not been able to make films in their own country and that has affected their cinema. They continue to be celebrated in film festivals, but their films are scarcely seen inside Iran, let alone have an impact.

Satyajit Ray, perhaps the greatest Indian filmmaker ever, was more loved and admired in the global context. But he was loved and admired in India too, because he continued to be nourished in his own country.

But despite the fact that these films are not seen, they can be tuned to the aesthetic intuition of the people. They emerge out of the cultural subconscious of the people. And they continue to be nourished by it, even if they are not permitted by state censorship to give back. But the circularity of creativity is exhausted by the censorial policies of the state.

Still, given the condition of the modern media, it is possible for at least a significant proportion of people to continue to see this cinema. I’m persona non grata in Iran because of my very clear political position. I can’t go to Iran. But I constantly see Iranian cinema in film festivals or when filmmakers send me their DVDs— and there are a number of other possibilities that ensure films get circulated. If films are banned in Iran, it doesn’t mean they are not seen. In fact, if a film is banned that itself is a good reason for us to go on and see it. So states are no longer as capable of censoring cinema as they once were.

But nevertheless the point remains that these censorial policies are crippling the subconscious of the people of Iran. This has always been the case, even under the former Pahlavi regime.

Let’s talk about popular and art cinema. In the case of Ray, it took a while for his cinema to be accepted by the people, but he finally found his local audience, at least among the people of West Bengal, if not India. In Iran, there has been a popular cinema. Besides the censorship there is the concern that if something is too meaningful or complex it won’t have a wide popular reach…

That is not a problem and again that is not endemic to Iran. Take the case of the US— when people think of American cinema they don’t think of Jim Jarmusch, they think of Hollywood. Proportionately as many Iranians know about their cinema as art as Indians do, or as Americans do. How many Indians know of Mani Kaul? If a statistically significant portion of the society: the political community, the hermeneutic circle and public intellectuals, recognizes the significance of a work of art, and continues to write about it, that becomes a conduit.

The difference between India and Iran is that India is a healthy society that’s allowed to grow. Iran is a healthy society, but has a sick government that doesn’t allow the natural growth of its hermeneutic circle. When there’s a movie by Abbas Kiarostami or Makhmalbaf one critic likes it, another critic does not, and they can both write their opinion. Then society at large becomes a beneficiary because word goes out. Some people pay attention to it and some people do not, but word goes out.

India is the perfect model of that society. It doesn’t mean that the state doesn’t have its problems and India doesn’t have censorial policies or there’s no repression. It does. But judging by the fact that you can have a film festival like the Osian’s Cinefan Film Festival in the capital, it is a healthy society. Filmmakers make their films. Some are good. Some are bad. They have issues— sex, politics, violence. But it is the hermeneutic community around a work of art that recommends what should be seen, or not. Sometimes one person likes a film, another person doesn’t like it, and you get both views. It is not for one state bureaucrat to decide what seventy five million human beings should or should not see.

During the 2009 Iran protests, you gave a speech in a seminar that you ended with an allegory from The Godfather. You referenced Don Corleone telling his son Michael that whoever would come to him with a deal would be the traitor. Similarly, you said, whoever said that these protests would lead to a regime change in Iran would be lying. Is there anything that can lead to a regime change in Iran, according to you? And can cinema play any role in this at all? Something like the cinephile movement (of France in 1968)… ?

The metaphor that I use for the democratic movement in Iran is that of an adolescent growing body that has clothes on it that don’t fit. Those clothes are the state. The growth of the body politic of Iran is apace. A very young and ambitious population is manifested in its cinema, poetry, drama, journalism and public intellectuals. And the state that is governing it is outdated and condemned to the dustbin of history. But, as with all other oppressive regimes, the state continues to use violence to stay in power. This social movement predates the formation of the Islamic republic, and will outlast it. The Islamic republic will either adjust to this growing body and remain, or not adjust and be discarded in time.

The society, which is a public sphere will continue to be enriched by one form of cultural expression or the other. Cinema is integral to this but that doesn’t mean that it will remain integral. The reason is that the cultural manifestations of a society are promiscuous, not monogamous. The cultural manifestation of Iranian society used to be poetry. Then it became fiction. Then it became cinema. Right now it is blogging and underground music which, in fact, are more in tune with the pulse of the society than cinema. But that has less to do with censorial policies and more to do with the inner dynamics and inner episteme of cultural manifestation— that one manifestation hits a plateau. In my book Masters And Masterpieces Of Iranian Cinema I posit a semi-formation around twelve films at the end of which I conclude that that epistemic synergy has exhausted itself where cinema is concerned and has now moved into other directions, possibly underground music and blogging. But that doesn’t mean it will remain there either, it keeps evolving.

Let’s discuss this plateau you’re talking about that cinema has reached. What is the reason for cinema to have given way to underground music or blogging as primary forms of cultural expression today?

To me cultural expressions of a society vary and are decided by two forces. One is societal forces that change it. And another is the inner dynamics of cultural expression, whether it is poetry or cinema or drama or whatever. My argument has been that since the constitutional revolution in Iran, which took place between 1905 and 1907, poetry became the most important modus operandi of culture in relation to politics. This continued until the 1930s when fiction and prose picked up and then in the 1960s cinema took over. And in the course of the (Islamic) revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, the trauma of these gave a volcanic outburst to Iranian cinema in the 1980s. These are the social conditions.

But then in Masters And Masterpieces Of Iranian Cinema I go through the various formations of realism. I don’t call the whole thing neorealism. The realism of Kiarostami is different from Makhmalbaf which is different from (Dariush) Mehrjui which is different from (Amir) Naderi. But they’re all different forms of realism. And by tabulating and theorizing those forms of realism in Iranian cinema, I argue that that epistemic mode of realistic cinematic production has exhausted itself. It’s not that Makhmalbaf or Kiarostami or Panahi will not continue to create fantastic films. But my proposition is that they will be more on the model of a post Koker-trilogy of Kiarostami where they will keep repeating themselves. There will be no inroads to new discovery until something happens. In the Osian film festival I saw a fantastic film called Modest Reception which I think has new possibilities. But a cinematic movement doesn’t show itself with just one film. One has to be patient and watch. But the sense that I get now, after the proliferation of underground music and blogging, is that these are the forms of cultural expression to watch out for where Iranian society is concerned.

Though cinema ultimately is the most complete medium. It has stories, it has fiction, it has poetry, it has drama, it has everything. So as with the rise of cinema in the ’60s with filmmakers who were the beneficiary of every other art form I wouldn’t be surprised if the emerging cinema became a beneficiary of underground music. Forugh Farrokhzad, for instance, was an important filmmaker as well as a big poet in the 1960s. Similarly Bahman Ghobadi’s No One Knows About Persian Cats today is a film which tries to come to terms with the underground music movement in Iran.

But I do provide an argument in Masters And Masterpieces… that that particular kind of cinema that began with Forugh Farrokhzad and came to the forefront with people like Naderi and (Bahram) Beizai, then came to full fruition with the cinema of Kiarostami and Makhmalbaf, has completed its cycle.

You’re involved in a Palestinian film festival called Dreams Of A Nation. What do you hope to achieve with this?

When it comes to Dreams Of A Nation, my responsibility is that of an archivist. Like everybody else I have my ideas on Palestinian cinema, of preferring one filmmaker to another filmmaker— but here because of the absence of archives, because of the trampling of the archives by the Israelis in every way conceivable, and because of the scattered nature of where Palestinian filmmakers are I would like to fulfill my role as an archivist first. Palestinians don’t have any cine-clubs, they don’t have any infrastructure or a foundation on which to build a cinema culture, they don’t have any major source of funding. And till very recently there was not even one movie theatre in East Jerusalem where they could show their films.

But, of course, it is impossible to imagine in a condition like the Palestinian condition for cinema not to have an immediate impact on its people. I observed inside Palestine that Palestinians were extremely attracted and connected to their cinema – perhaps precisely because they don’t have the infrastructure. So people were projecting a film in the Sakakini Foundation (The Khalil Sakakini Cultural Centre Foundation) in Ramallah under very harsh circumstances while the Israeli army jeeps are driving by. The projector here was not even a proper projector and circumstances were very dire, but that made the experience far more significant than watching a movie in a fantastic movie theatre in Tel Aviv. This political condition is momentous and of extraordinary significance to Palestinian cinema.

However, this creates an aesthetic crisis. How do you represent something which is unrepresentable, where reality out-exaggerates any fiction, where fiction cannot out-exaggerate reality, in order to show it.

They have what I call a mimetic crisis in Palestinian cinema. And the creativity and genius of Palestinian filmmakers, particularly someone like Elia Suleiman is how to train that mimetic crisis into something positive. To me, in fact, the aesthetic particularity of a filmmaker like Elia Suleiman, whom I consider one of the greatest living filmmakers, would not be possible without that mimetic crisis. A particularity such as a certain kind of non-linear narrative, for instance.

Six years ago you were very critical of a book called Reading Lolita In Tehran, a personal account of a woman’s journey in post-revolution Iran, and you actually compared the author Azar Nafisi to an American soldier abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib. When you look back do you feel you were too harsh?

Listen, I wrote that essay at a moment when we were in a very critical condition of impending military strike against Iran. I’m very critical of the Ahmadinejad regime which misrepresents the political culture of Iran and is repressive. But I’m against military strike. And I’m against putting economic sanctions on Iran. So when I look at the issues from the perspective of someone living in New York, and not only someone who is anti-war against Iran, but anti-war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Libya as well—I’m consistent on my position—and when I feel eventual manufacturing of consent, as Noam Chomsky says, by use of human rights, or women’s rights, or repression or torture, I become critical. All of these things are true. But who is to be at the forefront of fighting against them? Not an expatriate professor of English in Washington DC who frequents the White House and frequents the State Department, but the Iranian people.

So I think that our responsibility when we live in the United States is a double edged sword. You should never let go of criticizing Islamic republics severely as they deserve to be criticized. But you need to be simultaneously, in the same sentence, critical of the aggressive, violent, new cochonnerie of the right wing in the United States and their warmongers. And when I see one is gung-ho on one and silent on the other I become critical. I’m equally critical of people who never say anything of the oppression in Iran. Was my language harsh? When I think now, many years later, perhaps. What was my thinking? What I just said.

Besides bringing Palestinian stories to the fore, does cinema in Palestine also make its citizens question themselves? What role does cinema play among the people in the country?

Yes, but here again we have to consider the absence of infrastructure. Palestinians are in occupied territories and also in refugee camps outside their country. I went to a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon. And I took a backpack full of Palestinian films to show them, in really disheartening conditions. There was no electricity. There was mismatched equipment. We were projecting onto walls. At this stage, the conditions are so dire that the sheer attempt is to remind Palestinians that they have a cinema, and filmmakers. That there are people who care about them who are Palestinians, or Palestinian at heart, and who go through the thick and thin of the world’s politics to document their condition. This is a huge support that they need. Hopefully cinema will eventually enable them to see their state and reflect on it, and talk about it. At this stage, Palestinians who are not under occupation— who are outside Palestine or live in Europe and North America etc. are really miniscule in number.

However, through avenues such as Al Jazeera, and through international film festivals—like right here in Delhi (in the Osian Cinefan’s Film Festival) we watched a Palestinian film and we had a filmmaker in the jury who just finished her new film—it is possible to create a simulacrum of a space where Palestinians can show their films to Palestinians and get feedback. But at this stage in Palestine, when they have a nation but no nation state and hardly any infrastructure, it is very difficult.

You have often said that we should try to be ‘cosmopolitan’ not ‘secular’.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Tomorrow we have a conversation with Prof. (Ashis) Nandy. His thoughts are very similar to mine. He has written against secularism. I don’t write against secularism. I just don’t have any use of the word ‘secular’ because it glosses over a reality that creates a false binary between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’.

The one thing I like about Islamic society, culture and history is that it has always been in conversation within itself and without itself. Within itself the Islam of the mystic is different from the Islam of a jurist or of a philosopher. And in the course of history, Muslim philosophers and Muslim jurists have been in conversation and conflict with each other too. And the definition of Islam has benefited from this conversation. And Islam will always be in conversation with realities outside it. Islamic philosophy became possible because of conversation with Greek philosophy. Islamic aestheticism became possible because of conversation with Christian and Buddhist aestheticism. Islamic theology arose out of conversation with Jewish theology. And I call that reality cosmopolitan worldliness that crossed over the last two hundred years, after which you have a transformation of the Islamic cosmopolitan worldliness into a singular site of ideological conversation with the West. And my point, now, is that this period of binary opposition of Islam and the West has fortunately exhausted itself and entered a new phase. What is that new phase? The retrieval of cosmopolitan worldliness not by way of an antiquarian interest in it, but by recognizing the contemporary world.

Can American popular cinema play a role in influencing the way the West perceives the Muslim World? To rid people’s minds of Samuel P. Huntington’s idea of the ‘Clash Of Civilizations’ for instance?

Officially it can. But movies that constitute popular culture like the movie 300 or, of late, the last movie in the Batman trilogy (The Dark Knight Rises), their kind of cinematic allegory is in fact conducive to the constitution of the Muslim other as the absolute, unconditional enemy of the state, of the empire. This is an unconditional and vicious demonization of the Muslim other.

Can it play a corrective role? Yes of course it can. And there are many American films that ease this Islamophobia. But popular culture, because it caters to the basic and most common denominator— the gut feeling of the society, it continues to vacillate.

Is there a way to counter this? You’ve been ‘chief adviser’ to Ridley Scott on his characterization of Saladin for the film Kingdom Of Heaven

That is but one example. The thing is that even before he made Kingdom Of Heaven the script that he had was so brilliant. Not because of William Monahan (the screenwriter) or because I was a consultant, but because of the character of Saladin. It would have been practically impossible to destroy who Saladin was, and his magnanimity and generosity of spirit.

But the fact that Sir Ridley went to the character of Saladin, that Monahan wrote that fantastic script, and that between the two of them they approached somebody like me to become their consultant, all points to the fact that there are countervailing forces who can go through the period of history, find a positive character and make a fantastic epic. But despite Kingdom Of Heaven being critically acclaimed, making a lot of money and becoming very popular it comes nowhere near the significance of the Batman trilogy or 300, which became a cult movie.

But in that case isn’t there need for a more co-ordinated effort or forum to exchange ideas on this issue with the makers of popular Hollywood films?

Yes of course there is. The thing is Muslims in United States or in the Arab world— they don’t have the wherewithal to mobilize such a thing. So the best we can do is with critical intimacy.

There are two aspects. If you just say Hollywood is demonic, it doesn’t work. You need to have critical intimacy with popular culture, with Hollywood. Critical, but intimate at the same time. And it is through that that you can have great impact. Another great movie was the movie Crash where you have multiple representations of not just Muslims, but other minority groups in the United States— a very loving caring depiction, yet interwoven in a complicated way. So that no one comes across as evil, or angelic.

Coming back to Iran, there have been films, world over, which have sparked off movements of protest by engaging with a public mood. Has there been any such film in Iran? If not do you see the possibility of such a film?

Not in recent times. The movie A Separation, was a great movie, and had a great reception outside Iran— but became more of a global hoopla than it was in Iran. Partially because the difference between the Pahlavi regime and the Islamist republic is the difference between an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian regime. In the authoritarian regime of Pahlavi there was room for the possibility of virulent discussion. In the totalitarian regime of the Islamic republic, they are very conscious of not letting anything of that sort emerge. A movie such as Amir Naderi’s Saz Dahani (Harmonica) became what you said, where people stormed out of movie theaters after it and there were rallies and demonstration. But that was in 1974. Nothing of that sort is possible under the Islamic republic, that took over in 1979, because it is so totalitarian, so conscious of its own absence of legitimacy, that it kills everything in the bud.

But even in a movie like A Separation that has nothing to do with the state directly, there are implications: Why is it that the wife wants to leave Iran? Why is it that the husband is not disagreeing? Why do they want to leave the country, even when he has a father that they have to take care of? Or in the case of (Asghar) Farhadi’s (the director of A Separation) Oscar acceptance speech in Hollywood, that very act becomes an occasion for people to express their solidarities with a filmmaker, their hopes for a better life, and their defiance of the censorial policy. And, as you know, the speech was altered and dubbed by the government and they had him make a statement about the Iranian nuclear program, something he had not, of course, said. Any such occasion becomes a point of protestation between the society and the state. So I’m not waiting to see something like what you mentioned to happen because I realize that notes of dissatisfaction within society can have multiple expression.