TBIP Take

Things That Go Bump in the Movies

Warning: Spoilers Ahead

Sometimes the lost possibilities of a movie are more depressing than any poignancy the movie set out to achieve. There is a half hour stretch in Ek Thi Daayan in which everything comes together to show you the movie it could have been. Bobo (Emraan Hashmi) has the feeling that the hauntings have begun again and goes to a therapist he knew as a child. Under hypnosis he remembers a time when he lived with his younger sister and nerdy college professor father (Pavan Malhotra). 11-year-old Bobo (Vishesh Tiwari) uses parlour magic to charm adults and entertain his adoring sister Misha. He is curious, chatty and quite confident. He plays around with an old lift to see whether hitting ‘6’ three times would actually take him down to hell, and only succeeds in scaring the pants off himself and his sister.

Into this wonky life comes Diana (Konkona Sen Sharma) who Bobo immediately suspects is Diana-the-daayan. Why? Just. For a while a delicious tension ensues while Bobo tries to protect his family from the double whammy of Diana’s sex appeal and maternal pretensions. Is she really a witch or is Bobo just terrified of stepmothers? Is his father just happy to be getting an afternoon quickie or is he under a spell? It’s all quite tantalizing, primarily because young Vishesh is superbly convincing. Also, I’ve never liked Konkona Sen Sharma as much as the fork-tongued moment in which she says to Misha, “So sweet. I could just eat you up.”

There is a kind of goofy-yet-thoughtful Wes Anderson air to the flashback (where young Bobo thinks viciously in the backseat that his father in the driver’s seat needs a roundhouse kick to stop letching at Diana, or when his curly head bobs disembodied above a fish tank) which is very appealing. If the register of this flashback had been the whole movie, director Kannan Iyer would have had the kind of movie that terrified generations.

The problem with the rest of the movie is not that Hashmi, (who has that Keanu Reeves blank canvas persona, which makes him quite replaceable but not objectionable) replaces Vishesh. The problem with the rest of the movie is that it is just not scary. It does not tap into any lode of fear that we carry around with us.

The irrational, ancient fear of the stepparent or any manner of attractive cuckoo (such as Diana/ Daayan) that will ruin the picture-perfect family has genuine power. Rising divorce rates in India bring us new versions of this terror. Aatma recently made a ham-handed attempt at exploring the fear of custody battles. The exorcist that Maya Verma (Bipasha Basu) consults to get rid of the ghost of her ex-husband tells her that she can only fight her husband Abhay’s (Nawazuddin Siddiqui) attempts to kill their daughter (from beyond the grave) with love. In one unintentionally hilarious sequence Bipasha finds her tiny daughter Niya on the railings of the balcony of their high-rise apartment. Her homicidal ghost husband at ground level is holding out his arms and urging Niya to jump. Bipasha is edging towards Niya begging her not to jump. Meanwhile Niya is bargaining with ghost daddy: “Mujhein Barbie Doll nahin milin. Main nahin aaoongi.” If Doyel Dhawan, who plays Niya, was a better actor (like Sara Arjun who plays Misha in Ek Thi Daayan), her mouthing the jealous, possessive insults of her dead father would have genuinely creeped parents out. Sadly, Doyel is not scary even when making demonic leaps for her mother’s throat.

An unscary child in demonic possession is an achievement by itself given how pop-culture has trained us to be scared of children (Witness this Spanish Candid Camera style show which plays a brilliant trick on hotel guests with a child actor). Really, the only moment in Aatma which is worth it is when the dead Bipasha gives dead, evil, yet hot husband a jolly good shove across the railway tracks. Why hasn’t anyone made a superhero movie with Bipasha Basu? She could save my life anytime.

But back to the missed opportunities of Ek Thi Daayan which for most of its running time wanders about. And loses an excellent cinematic head start it had in Bobo’s adult career: high-octane, spectacular magic. In one of his opening tricks in front of a huge audience, Bobo sends his assistant up a very high, mildly phallic rope and sets it on fire until she apologizes for coming late— all part of the act. His lover Tamara (Huma Qureshi) is the producer in a glass cubicle enjoying his prowess but also watchful so the show is on track. We never quite return to the flair of this sequence or ever use the exciting world of the magician to plumb our fears. What is adult Bobo scared of? Women with long plaits. I wondered whether the long plaits would resonate again in the sinuous, braided rope he makes his assistants perilously climb, but no luck there.

It is too much to expect Ek Thi Daayan to be the kind of psychological thriller that Malayattoor Ramakrishnan’s Yakshi was— where the hero disfigured by an accident wonders whether the only reason a beautiful woman is in love with him now is because she is a blood-sucking yakshi. The movie could have explored (a tiny bit) the life of a man with a difficult childhood, still stuck with his juvenile nickname (Bobo’s real, adult name Bejoy Charan Mathur is mentioned only once), who hides his fear of women under his shiny shirts, and sexy backchat with his girlfriend. Since he must be the only Hindi film hero whose dead mother does not make an appearance even in a framed photo we would have been (a tiny bit) interested.

This is a country where women and young girls are regularly murdered after being branded witches. It is a widespread, violent paranoia that the movie fails to plug into, regardless of what the Censor Board thinks. The movie instead just has a kind of mealy-mouthed, ambient fear of women that only seems like a variation of the money-grubbing, husband-oppressing viragos of Indian television ads. They can’t be zapped with credit cards but those sinuous, threatening braids can be cut off and then they will be dust. Ek Thi Daayan just mucks about in unreconstructed pentagram-waving, candle-lighting waffle about witches who return on lunar eclipses on Februrary 29 in leap years. Who knew that even Indian witches functioned according to the Gregorian calendar and had a Judeo-Christian Satan? The rules of this fictional universe are so sloppily tacked down, there is no chance for our terrors to take root. (Unlike Ragini MMS with its Marathi-spouting daayan which scared the atavistic pants off me, without ever losing its grip on the Zeitgeist— a young, horny girl, her smart-talking, horndog boyfriend, a dirty weekend away in a lonely house. And the daayan disapproves. Specific. Funny. Terrifying.)

In the one of the last sequences we see Bobo and his adopted son (Zubin, a son acquired without Bobo mixing genes with a woman) doing that ultimate act of cinematic male bonding: barbecuing outside. Bobo tells Zubin that everyone has power in them and we just have to choose whether we use it for good or evil. Sadly, Bobo’s recapturing of his inner power under a full moon and defeating of the many avatars of the daayan, in this less than enthralling context, again seems like an ad for some forgotten branch of the 1970s Men’s Movement, which practised primal scream therapy.

***

I must confess I was often distracted from the collective hotness of Bipasha Basu, Huma Qureshi and Nawazuddin Siddiqui by the alternate-universe real estate on view in these two movies. Did anyone track the square feet of Bobo and Tamara’s aalishaan bungla? Or the size of Maya Verma’s flat (“change the font and background on this design” must be a very well-paying job)? And when someone offers to pay Rs 2 crore in white, by cheque, for a Bombay flat you should call an exorcist.

To Bollywood or not to Bollywood

A report from the Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles, 2013

There’s no doubting the clout of the Indian diaspora in the United States when it comes to Indian movies. This diaspora has molded the box-office results of many commercial Indian releases in the past, so much so that it is recognized as a legitimate market now. But far from the bustle of mainstream entertainers, which the aforementioned audience usually endorses, every year in April the Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles (IFFLA) showcases, over a span of five days, diverse Indian films— mostly ones made on modest budgets, whose paths to theatrical release are littered with commercial diktats.

ArcLight Cinemas, a multiplex on Hollywood’s Sunset Boulevard, has been hosting IFFLA for the past 11 years. The festival logo—a grey and black sketch of an ‘Indian’ woman’s head, her hair in a bun, a flower near her ear and a red bindi, the only dash of colour in this portrait, on her forehead—can be seen on signs affixed to steel street lamps a few feet from the multiplex entrance, and on stands near IFFLA’s information booths. But the multiplex’s façade is too imposing, so the signs don’t quite stand out in their milieu, and are quietly absorbed. As you enter, on your left, is a sprawling yet makeshift stage, mostly used for live music and dance. On the right is a café that doubles as a sort of open lounge for the festival’s attendees to loll about in. The crowd comprises amateur filmmakers, actors, film school students, or just regular cinephiles. This is a nice place to strike up breezy conversations with filmmakers before a movie screening. It has a cosy feel. People seem accessible here, and devoid of pretence and formality.

***

Contrary to what one would expect, the IFFLA was not conceived by an NRI, rather a woman who hails from Greece, Christina Marouda. Cinema has often been extolled for its power to transcend geographical and cultural boundaries; Marouda’s story serves as a fine example. Growing up in Greece, she was enamored by Indian cinema, and did not shrug her passion even after she moved to the United States. “I had worked at a couple of international film festivals in Los Angeles, and was surprised that India had been overlooked at film festivals in the US. Considering that there’s a large South Asian population in Los Angeles, I felt Indian cinema needed a platform,” says Marouda, IFFLA’s chairperson. One fortuitous afternoon in 2001, she walked into a crowded theatre, in the heart of Los Angeles, screening Lagaan, and was convinced that Indian cinema had a market. Her interest in Indian cinema and the confirmation of its demand culminated in IFFLA. Established in 2002, the festival is now among a handful in the US that focus exclusively on Indian cinema. It is the second film festival in the country to do so, the New York Indian Film Festival (NYIFF) being its senior by a year-and-half. Outside India, the idea of an Indian film festival is still in an inchoate state. USA is the only country where Indian film festivals have begun to mushroom, albeit at a sluggish pace. Besides IFFLA and NYIFF, there are three other Indian film festivals in the US: the South Asian International Film Festival, the Indian Film Festival of Houston, and the India International Film Festival – Tampa Bay.The festivals at Houston and Tampa Bay have been around for less than five years.  

***

Filmmakers are integral to any film festival. Filmmakers who screen their films at a festival, or those who simply attend it. It would not be amiss to say that the significance of a film festival is largely a function of how it supports the film community. This year at IFFLA, filmmakers such as Mira Nair and Deepa Mehta were present for their respective movies’ screenings. Also, filmmaker Anurag Kashyap. In fact, quite a few of those present at IFFLA this year have been involved in some way or the other with Kashyap’s production house Anurag Kashyap Films Pvt. Ltd. (AKFPL), that has been credited with being at the helm of a new kind of Hindi cinema, often called ‘New Bollywood’, and whose movies have been visible of late at key festivals around the world. There is Guneet Monga, Producer at AKFPL, Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Manoj Bajpai, who have acted in AKFPL’s Gangs Of Wasseypur (directed by Kashyap) and directors Hansal Mehta and Vasan Bala, whose movies AKFPL has produced. “IFFLA is very relevant for us Indian filmmakers. It’s a place where you come to discover new Indian filmmakers. Initially, when all my films were banned, I screened Black Friday and Paanch here, and they drew a lot of attention,” says Kashyap, whose Gangs of Wasseypur opened the festival this year.

Also, the credibility of a film festival hinges a lot on the kinds of movies it espouses. The relationship is symbiotic the films feed off the visibility gained at the festival; in return accomplished movies elevate a film festival’s stature as few other things can. In the past, IFFLA has done a fine job of culling interesting, independent movies: Supermen of Malegaon, Sita Sings the Blues, Leaving Home: the Life and Music of Indian Ocean, Patang, among other notables. However, this year’s lineup is disappointingly lopsided: on the one hand, there are unreleased small independent movies that have been lauded across a wide spectrum: Miss Lovely, Ship of Theseus, Celluloid Man, Peddlers. And on the other hand, there are movies that were released commercially almost a year back: Gangs of Wasseypur, Arjun: The Warrior Prince, Eega. Film festivals are pivotal in providing visibility to movies that are still getting discovered, still finding their audience. So, it’s a bit difficult to ascertain what these done-and-dusted movies bring to the festival.

Film festivals are also significant because they facilitate a much required confluence of art and commerce. They provide many emerging, independent filmmakers the coveted opportunity to network and find suitable buyers for their movies. “Being in the heart of Los Angeles, IFFLA puts the filmmakers in touch with so many people who are looking for new interesting voices. For instance, on the first day of the festival, there were seven studio representatives and many producers,” says Kashyap. Andy Bird, Chairman, Walt Disney International (in charge of Disney’s business outside the US) had been honoured by IFFLA in 2008. This year, just over a year since Disney acquired UTV (one of India’s biggest motion picture producers), he is the keynote speaker at the festival.

IFFLA had also instituted a Film Fund Development Grant that awarded $10,000 to Kranti Kanade for his script, Against Itself, which was made into a feature length movie, Gandhi of the Month, starring Harvey Keitel. This was in 2009; since then, the award has been discontinued due to a lack of sponsorship. “I would love to see more funding coming through, more funding from India. To this date, we have hardly received any funding from India,” says Marouda.

ArcLight Cinemas is a 14 screen multiplex that usually screens mainstream Hollywood releases. During the course of the festival, two to three screens are reserved for the movies screened at IFFLA. IFFLA hardly commands any exclusivity at this venue. Its three small booths in front of the multiplex are rather inconspicuous, and the buzz around them insubstantial. Also, its efforts to attract the spotlight appear rather frivolous: Bollywood songs blare unabashedly from the booth, at times the stage is occupied by an A cappella group, and at times by a bunch of dancers prancing to the music. The dance, the music, and the overt familiarity of the set up; do you need a film festival for these bubblegum exotic reaffirmations? Especially since, ultimately, all this hoopla achieves little. Minutes before the Peddlers screening, I found myself talking to an American moviegoer outside the multiplex’s entrance. “So, are you here for the film festival?” I asked. “What film festival?” he replied.

It is not uncommon for people to equate Indian cinema to Bollywood. This parochialism is heightened outside India, where disparate regional movies seldom release. Film festivals like IFFLA can do their part to dispel this perception. But has it? In terms of its cinema, how indicatively, if not comprehensively, ‘Indian’ is IFFLA? Despite its assiduous efforts, it could do a lot more. Shrugging the Bollywood hangover could be the first step. For IFFLA, a film festival primarily interested in promoting Indian cinema, its oft-recurring feature ‘Bollywood by Night’—an event that showcases Bollywood movies—seems to be at odds with the festival’s own ambition. For those few screenings, the spotlight shifts to Bollywood; this constricts the festival’s focus, and veers it away from its original purpose. “I don’t understand some of their past movie choices. What were movies such as 3 Idiots or My Name is Khan doing at a film festival?” says Aman Segal, an independent filmmaker and a regular attendee at IFFLA.

IFFLA has also paid tribute to film personalities over the years by screening their movies at the festival. But these too have been centred around Bollywood, which is as confounding. Why would a film festival that intends to reach far and wide within the domain of Indian cinema choose to pay tribute to mainstream actors like Anil Kapoor and Madhuri Dixit? Not that their contribution to Indian cinema should be undermined, but when there’s a host of Indian film personalities to choose from, some of whom have provided a radically different dimension to the Indian motion picture, why restrict such tributes to those in the mainstream?

One can sense that IFFLA is trying hard to find a balance— between being frothy and sincere, between hosting Bollywood and truly Indian cinema, between being visible, and spoken of, and being niche, but relevant. It’s never an easy thing to do. You win some, you lose some. But the important thing is to fret over the right choices, because being small and being insignificant are two very different things.

filmflam

 

filmflam is a new monthly column on the most exciting things to do with the movies online: photographs, art, writing, blogs, websites, trailers, films, tutorials, archival material. Our custom-made curation of cinematic coolth. 

 

Ebert on a shirt, hot wheels and Punjabi pixies

 

The Roger Ebert Review I’d Like To Wear On A T-Shirt

Ten days ago, Roger Ebert left us for that great aisle seat in the sky. It’s hard to speak about the impact Roger had—on all of us who read about film—and the Internet is justifiably flooded with eulogies, tributes and lists quoting from his extensive library of reviews.

This piece from Forbes, for example, sharply highlights what makes Roger’s legacy so vital while (perhaps too snarkily) putting down other obits. And this bit by Jim Emerson, who worked closely with Roger on his website, provides some telling detail about the man— most importantly that he’d prefer we not gush maudlinly about his passing.

So we should smile. At Roger’s deliciously heady and unbelievably profane ‘interview’ with Lee Marvin; at a slugfest of an interview Playboy did with Ebert and Gene Siskel; and at that 2010 Esquire profile of Ebert which filled us with hope and wonder while snapping our collective hearts like twigs.

Like I said, there are lists everywhere: of his best reviews, his meanest putdowns, the best of his sentences, and yet more of his harshest. Heck, you probably have your own lists. We all do.

Which brings us down to my pick for The Roger Ebert Review I’d Like To Wear On A T-Shirt.

It’s for a 2004 movie called Shaolin Soccer.

You remember Shaolin Soccer, don’t you? It was that hyperkinetic Stephen Chow film about a ragtag bunch of misfit loony tunes who could make the X-Men feel unspecial. I don’t love the film (and feel Chow’s next, Kung Fu Hustle, was far more stylish and satisfying) but Roger did. But that’s not why I think this is one of his most important reviews.

I think this review matters massively because in it Roger breaks down that bane of a film critic’s existence: the star-ratings system. A film we rate three stars isn’t automatically better than a film we rate two stars; it’s apples and oranges; films are rated not merely on a sliding scale, but on one that bends and timewarps and shapeshifts and rollercoasts.

Like Roger says while giving Shaolin Soccer three stars, “it is piffle, yes, but superior piffle. If you are even considering going to see a movie where the players zoom 50 feet into the air and rotate freely in violation of everything Newton held sacred, then you do not want to know if I thought it was as good as Lost In Translation.”

It’s priceless. Trust me, if there is only one movie review you read today (and then pass along to everyone you know), make it this one. Here you go.

This subjectivity—of how there are different standards for different films—is something most people who read reviews fail to understand, and it kills those of us forced to boil our paragraphs down into an empirical ranking. (How I can possibly rate, for example, three episodes of a television sitcom better than the year’s Best Picture winner on my annual English movie list, for example.)

In 2008, Ebert wrote wonderfully about star-ratings again, unashamedly putting down purely personal reasons for giving “too many stars”, before pointing us towards a truly inspired visual rating in The San Francisco Chronicle that he called the only system that works. And, as was the norm, Roger ended the piece immaculately.

 

~~

 

Trailer of the month: Rush

(Or, if you so prefer, Thor-mula One)

I can’t believe I’m this kicked about a film directed by Ron Howard. Look, I’ve nothing against the guy; I dug Happy Days hugely in the day and think he’s incredible as the deadpan narrator of Arrested Development. But to queue up for the man who made The Da Vinci Code and Cinderella Man?

Yup.

Because this time he’s taking on Formula One. And, from the looks of it, he’s on the right track. (Sorry). In Rush, coming to theatres this September, Howard takes on one of Formula One’s most dramatic, most scintillating true-life battles: the fight between James Hunt and Niki Lauda for the 1976 World Championship. The word ‘epic’ comes to mind… and then exits mind immediately for not being nearly bombastic enough. It’s a scorcher of a story.

The film stars Chris Hemsworth as Hunt, the most glamorous and eccentric Formula One champion in history, a true character. And opposite him is the stoic Austrian hero Niki Lauda, played by Daniel Brühl, who most of us remember from Inglourious Basterds.

Perhaps most importantly, Howard’s got the right guy to write the film. British playwright and super-scribe Peter Morgan, the man behind The Deal, The Queen, The Special Relationship and—the last time he collaborated with Howard—Frost/Nixon. Oh yeah.

Shot by the ever-striking Anthony Dod Mantle (Dogville, Slumdog Millionaire, Antichrist), Rush is looking mouthwateringly good. Here, after all that ado, is the trailer: the US version gives away a bit too much, so try not to click on that, but the international version is delicious. Vroom.

 

~

 

Tumbl this: Vol 1

There are too few truly incredible tumblrs to do with Hindi cinema. There’s a smattering—Paagal Subtitle is grand, and moments of genius can be found at the irresistibly titled Feminist SRK—but all in all, the insanely amazing, amazingly insane world of Bollywood is woefully underrepresented on Tumblr.

To that end, I propose to suggest one Tumblr topic each month. One with enough meat on it so you guys can roll with it and turn it into something flabbergastingly great.

Here, then, is the one this month, taking a cue from a review I wrote a couple of days back for a trashy film. You all know what a Manic Pixie Dream Girl is, right? (Okay, it’s a highly overused character archetype, one who sassily storms into the hero’s mostly sedate existence and whirlwindily brings him to life.)

What we need to look for? The Manic Punjabi Dream Girl.

Like Kareena Kapoor’s Geet from Jab We Met. Like Kajol from Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.

Basically everything a standard MPDG is, just dialled up louder, with an exaggeratedly heavy accent and (much) flashier clothing. Go on, bring forth thy kooky kudis.

Shahid Azmi Haazir Ho

A murder, a movie, and the man in between the two

 

What’s in a name? The name ‘Shahid’ could mean ‘witness’ or ‘martyred’ in Arabic. In Urdu, Shaheed means martyred, Shahid— witness.

 

On February 11, 2010, 32 year old lawyer and activist Shahid Azmi was gunned down by four men in his office at Taximen Colony, Kurla, Mumbai. He left behind a wall riddled with bullet holes and splattered with blood.

 

Next day morning, filmmaker Hansal Mehta read of Azmi’s killing in the front page of The Times Of India. A photograph of that wall, with blood and bullet holes, is all he can remember of the article today. An hour later, Mehta had tweeted: “I have found the subject for my next film.”

 

It had only been a few days since Mehta had moved into a new flat in Oshiwara, Mumbai. Two years ago, his last film, a Bollywood potboiler called Woodstock Villa, had led Mehta to claim he was “creatively dead”, and move to a house in Lonavla, a hill station a couple of hours away. But the distance from the city wasn’t allowing him to “do justice to his work”. “Also, I was getting very retired with my whole approach to life.”

 

So Mehta bought his first house (he had lived with his parents before this) in Bombay, the city he had been born and brought up in, or Mumbai, the city it had become. Mehta claims the reason Azmi’s story appealed to him was “a growing concern about the polarized world we live in. Mumbai’s second largest community is that of Muslims. And yet Mumbai is so deeply polarized, that the attitude towards Muslims is that they should be bracketed. They’ve also begun to take this bracketing very seriously— to live in this bubble.”

 

In 2000, after Mehta released his second film Dil Pe Mat Le Yaar!!, Shiv Sena workers stormed into his office to teach him a lesson for a dialogue from the film that they felt was ‘anti-Maharashtrian’, because it described Khar-Danda, an area in Mumbai, as a place where there was “loot-maarchori (robbery, thievery)” and “ladkiyon ka adda (which implies prostitution)”. “They vandalized the office. I was thrashed,” is all Mehta says about the incident today. There is more in reports from the time and a blog post written by Mehta himself. His face was blackened with ink. He was summoned to Khar Danda to apologize to 20,000 people and 10 politicians and to kneel and touch his forehead to the feet of an elder there. (They threatened that such assaults would continue if he didn’t do this, they threatened to burn down the home of Kishore Kadam, who had acted in his movie). “There was no one to take up for me,” Mehta says. “(Mahesh) Bhatt Saab called me the day after this and said: We are with you.” The state government then was run by a coalition of the Indian National Congress (INC) and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). NCP leader Chhagan Bhujbal called to say: “We will protect you,” to which Mehta replied: “The time to protect me has gone.” He felt “really let down by Bombay.”

 

***

 

A decade later, when Mehta read about Azmi’s murder, his only contact with the lawyer had been a phone call, where Mehta had asked him about an inmate who had been imprisoned at Mumbai’s Arthur Road Jail at the same time as Azmi. “He said he didn’t have time then, and to call him later,” Mehta remembers. “Perhaps he didn’t want to revisit those days.”

 

But Mehta has tried hard to revisit those days—that bridge the gap between two points in the life of a man that are on either side of the law, the gap in between witness and martyr—in the two and a half years after he read that report. In these years, claims Mehta, “I have lived with Shahid”.

 

***

 

In the beginning, for a few months, he read everything he could find on Azmi. “I wanted to stay with the idea. Nurture it to see if and how it could be a film.”

 

Sameer Gautam Singh, an aspiring screenwriter from Delhi, had asked Mehta to take a look at a script he had written during this time. “It was a twisted love story. I didn’t quite know how to respond to it.” When he didn’t, Singh sent Mehta a “strongly worded” email with lines like “‘you might not have time for me today, but one day you’ll have a lot of time for me’… or something like that,” Mehta recalls, laughing. When Singh visited Mehta’s office the next day and asked for his script back, Mehta met him and said he didn’t really identify with the script he had written, but asked him whether he would like to work on another idea.

 

Singh and Mehta’s son Jai did most of the initial legwork (“I felt that, in the beginning, if  went, the family would see me as a person with vested interest— especially since my last movie didn’t lend itself to this kind of film.”). They interviewed Azmi’s family (his mother Rehana and brothers Tarique, Rashid, Arif and Khalid) and colleagues and spent time in the milieu Azmi had lived and worked in. Then Mehta met the family himself. Conversations with each family member opened up a new window: “Each of them had a distinct personal relationship with him.” Khalid, a lawyer himself, provided them with legal papers and pleas his brother had prepared for key cases. “They were almost entirely devoid of any legalese,” says Mehta, whose first film, …Jayate, is based on lawyers as well. “They were written in simple English.”

 

Key cases such as those of accused arrested under POTA (the Prevention of Terrorism Act) or MCOCA (the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act) which were legislations that allowed for confessions extracted from the accused in police custody—often through torture, deceit or other questionable means—to be admissible in a court of law. Such confessions, even today, result in the imprisonment of the accused in terrorism cases, for long periods, without bail. Accused like Arif Paanwala (2002 Ghatkopar Bus Bombing), later acquitted, or those accused in the 7/11 Mumbai local train blasts, the 2006 Aurangabad Arms Haul, the 2006 Malegaon Blasts. Azmi secured 17 acquittals in a short-lived legal career of only seven years. Acquittals of men who had emerged out of crazed media furors and shoddy investigation work by enforcement authorities under pressure to deliver, who would dish out mug-shots that would be plastered on TV and in print, to create our poster boys of hatred, to be hated, a few for every season of terror strikes. In defending these poster boys,Azmi became something of a poster boy himself. Standing steadfast as witness to their cries in the wild, he became their martyr. His last well-known and well-hated client was Faheem Ansari, accused of conspiracy in the 26/11 attacks. He was acquitted on 3 May, 2010. But his name was finally cleared of any complicity in the attacks by the Supreme Court on August 29, 2012, two years, six months and 18 days after Azmi’s death, and 11 days before Mehta’s Shahid premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival.

 

Raj Kumar Yadav plays Azmi, an actor, not a star, even though not casting a star meant that Mehta had to compromise significantly on the budget of the film. Yadav was made a part of the research. He accompanied the team to lower courts, where they sat in on sessions and often surreptitiously clicked reference photographs from their phones to aid the authenticity of what they would create.

 

Mehta remembers that, while researching …Jayate, it had occurred to him that courtrooms were almost exactly “like fish markets”. But in the film itself he had shown the proceedings as sanitized and respectful, as they are in Bollywood, or even Hollywood, legal dramas. In Shahid, Mehta has tried to undo this. Lower court arguments, even those involving terrorism cases, often culminate in spats between advocates, on the court floor, that you cannot help but laugh out loud at. The fact that this laughter distracts you momentarily from the fact that a human life hangs in balance, makes the trial all the more horrific when you return your attention.

 

Khalid also provided the team with material that his brother and he had studied from for their LLB exams. Not thick law books, but printed and stapled ‘notes’, that sell faster than AIRs (All India Reporters that record the judgments for each and every case) at legal book stores. These notes concise each subject into 50 odd pages. Most students around India are familiar with them, many swear by them. Mehta filmed Yadav reading these notes diligently, when he wanted to show Azmi preparing for his law exams. He filmed Yadav in the same room that Azmi had once studied in, and he filmed him in other real locations, like the Dongri office of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, an NGO providing legal aid to poor accused in terrorism cases, that Azmi fought many of his cases in consultation with.

 

***

 

The other side was trickier. Azmi is said to have joined a training camp in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir after the 1992 riots. “I had seen policemen killing people from my community. I have witnessed cold-blooded murders. This enraged me and I joined the resistance,” a 2004 report inThe Times Of India quotes him as saying. He was arrested by the Govandi Police on charges of communal violence, under TADA or the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (which was finally repealed in 1995) when he was 16 (this was despite the fact that he was a minor). Additional charges framed against him, after he was arrested, were that he was conspiring to assassinate Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray and J&K Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah. He was in jail for over five years, till 2001, when the Supreme Court acquitted him. It was in prison that he completed his graduation, as well as a post-graduate degree in Creative Writing. It was after Azmi was released that he studied law.

 

“The details about his time in Kashmir are very sketchy,” says Mehta. “No one (among his family and colleagues) talks about it.” Still, Mehta found one person, whose name he does not wish to disclose, who spoke about this time. “Especially about him missing his home, and his disillusionment with the movement,” Mehta says. Similarly, there were not many people who could recount the details of Azmi’s time in jail, though Mehta says he knows from what he has gleaned that it “transformed him”. Mehta says: “A lot of the film is based on what I imagined his journey to be.”

 

There is a scene in the film where Azmi has his face blackened by right wing goons. There is no account of this ever actually happening, though he did receive endless death threats for the cases he took up. But as Azmi saw himself in so many young men he was trying to save from unwarranted torture and imprisonment, so did Mehta see himself in Azmi. “That incident, in the film, was fiction. It was my connection with Shahid, who was persecuted in different ways,” Mehta says. “The truth of the matter is that that incident, what happened with me in 2000, has never left me. And that the violation of our basic right to expression has become even more deep-rooted today. When I see someone being violated, I go back to that incident.”

 

Mehta is happy with the fact that Khalid said, after watching the movie, that it was “95% accurate”. “When you see Raj Kumar, you do not remember him, you remember the character,” says Mehta about why he thinks Yadav has been an excellent choice for Azmi.

 

But there might be another reason. “As I listened to his words, I couldn’t help but fear for his future,” Letta Tayler, a researcher in the Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism program at the Human Rights Watch (HRW), had said about how she felt when she met Azmi in 2009. “The light he radiated seemed impossibly bright.” Perhaps the truth of the matter is that no actor, nor star, could have played Azmi. Even the best method actor would be at a loss as to how to recreate an aura that emerges out of a lifetime of pain, grit and inconceivable optimism (Azmi was not, as many self anointed saviours try to be, the light at the end of the tunnel. He was the light in it). Yadav, in his studied portrayal, has done the next best thing— paid a simple, wholehearted tribute to the man who is no more.

 

In a similar vein, Mehta’s script, which was initially non-linear and complicated (“When I showed people a linear script they felt it would be too long and boring”), was returned at the editing table to an unbroken storyline by his editor Apurva Asrani (who also has writing credits on the film). “He started a non-linear cut, then stopped, because he felt it wasn’t working,” says Mehta. “So, like with a documentary, we built the narrative on the table.”

 

Shahid‘s producer, Sunil Bohra, came to the shoot one day and asked Mehta: “What kind of director are you? There are no top-angle shots, no dolly, no rig. I’m telling you— you can take these things.” Mehta didn’t need to. “When he (Bohra) saw the film, he got it,” he says. To have stylized Shahid, this rare narrative of our times—not Gandhi, not Jodhaa Akbar, but a narrative that has been woven by us, that we continue to endure—would have been inappropriate. Mehta has played it straight. “I did not want to show off,” he says. “I did not want to manipulate the audience.” Thankfully. How much of life do we see through top-shots anyway?

 

Also thankfully, Mehta claims he hasn’t had to make any cuts to the film to have it passed by the Central Board of Film Certification (though a crew member reveals that the refusal to remove a scene that shows Azmi being tortured on arrest may have gained him an A certificate). Of course the moral police may come knocking on his door again, but “this time,” says Mehta: “I am not afraid. I will not take it lying down.”

 

So, unlike in so many other cases, once Shahid releases we may just see the same film that was lauded at so many festivals. Festivals where, in front of cinema theatres full of people, Azmi has been shot, right at the beginning of each showing. The film goes on for a gripping two hours, at the end of which the scene plays out again leaving, each time, a wall ridden with holes.

 

Who were the men who shot Shahid Azmi? Who sent them? These are the first questions Mehta has been asked by audiences at each festival. “The sad part of our investigation processes is that you never know what really happened,” he says. “There is only speculation. And there are vested interests (that misdirect the investigation).” He also says: “For me, who killed him is irrelevant. It angers me enough that someone walked into his office and killed him.” He adds: “There are mainstream films, like Kurbaan, that provide you with both the problem and the solution— often a half-baked solution. What do you take back from the theatre? Nothing!”

 

***

 

Perhaps it is just as well that Mehta didn’t delve into who killed Azmi. Doing so could have been read as a filmmaker commenting on a subject that was sub judice by the Court and, like Black Friday (directed by Anurag Kashyap, one of this film’s co-producers), Shahid’s release might have been delayed endlessly. Mehta, however denies that this was a consideration. He claims his decision was purely creative. And it pays off well. The identity of his killers, like the proverbial elephant in the room, begins to bother the viewer. The blood stained wall looms large and follows you out of the theatre. Perhaps this is Shahid‘s greatest strength. By not telling you, it makes you want to know.

 

In February, 2010, the month in which Azmi was murdered, four accused were arrested under MCOCA in connection with the case. They were Devendra Jagtap, Pintu Dagale, Hasmukh Solanki and Vinod Vichare. The police claim the accused were members of a gang run by Bharat Nepali. Four months later, in June, Azmi’s peon Inder Singh, the only key witness in the case who was present at the office, received a threat call that was traced to Gujarat. In November, the same year, a gangster was gunned down by suspected Chhota Rajan henchmen in Bangkok. The police have now confirmed this was Nepali.

 

On January 20, 2011, a MCOCA Court dropped its special charges against the accused because it found no evidence of the fact that “pecuniary gains were made in the crime, a mandatory aspect for MCOCA charges.” Then, on April 8, 2011, Crime Branch officials apprehended a man, named by the press only as ‘Munna’, with a gun and a few live cartridges at the Kala Ghoda Court. Munna had allegedly arrived there, with an accomplice, to free the four accused who were in a hearing at the Court then.

 

On July 23, 2012, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Vichare, against a personal bond of Rs 50,000, because he was not “shown to be present” during the assassination.

 

***

 

“Do you think Mohamed Atta is a big terrorist? The guy who flew the plane into the World Trade Centre?” asks Mehta, when speaking of who could have killed Azmi. “Or Kasab? The real perpetrators, who gave the orders, are sitting pretty.”

 

Azmi’s death has been clouded by its share of conspiracy theories. There is a theory that he had received phone calls from underworld dons who were Muslim, congratulating him on his work, and that this angered Hindu gangsters such as Bharat Nepali, or Chhota Rajan, who got him killed. Another rumour is that intelligence agencies weren’t happy with the way he was blowing holes into the State’s cases, and making the enforcement look bad. And that he was aware of some greater conspiracy underfoot, that they wanted to hide. And so they wanted him out of the way.

 

Unlike Oliver Stone’s JFK, Mehta’s Shahid isn’t an investigation into any of these theories. Perhaps because, unlike JFK, which was released 28 years after the president’s assassination, it has only been three years since Azmi passed away, and there is no District Attorney called Jim Garrison asking the tough questions.

 

Or maybe there’s the irony. That Azmi was our Garrison, our witness, now martyred. “Human rights are violated by the most powerful,” says Mehta. “And the people who fight it have no protection.” Shahid is not a whodunit, but about a larger picture, he says. “If you ask me,” he says. “I think we killed Shahid.”

Master Frames: Sujoy Ghosh

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

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

 

Video Excerpts

 ON DIRECTING AND MANAGING ACTORS

 ON FINDING THE RIGHT STORY  

 ON FUNDING A FILM AND OTHER STRUGGLES

ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDITING AND DIRECTION  

ON SELF-CENSORSHIP 

ON INVOLVEMENT WITH  MARKETING AND PUBLICITY 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So that’s a separate step for you?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Do you still read a lot?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Any books by directors that you recommend?

 

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

 

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

 

I’d love to… most of them are dead.

 

Yeah, that’s fine.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Have you collaborated with any other writers on your scripts?

 

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

 

 What is the process like?

 

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

 

So you collaborate more on the story stage?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Why are you saying it’s a bad habit?

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

What?!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And the flipside?

 

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

 

How do you name your characters?

 

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

 

What about calling Vidya ‘Vidya’?

 

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

 

But do you think it matters?

 

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

 

How do you name films?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I can imagine.

 

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

 

It came from Pakistan? Really?!

 

Yeah.

 

And why is Kahaani called Kahaani ?

 

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

 

Okay, and why Home Delivery… ?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Give me an example.

 

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

 

A belief in authenticity?

 

Yeah.

 

Do you write with an interval in mind?

 

Yes, I do. You have to.

 

The screenplay or the story?

 

A screenplay, not the story.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What is your best quality as a director?

 

I can manage people very well.

 

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

 

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

 

What have you learnt on the job about directing actors?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

You’re talking about the footsie.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

About Vidya’s character or their relationship?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

How much do you workshop and rehearse directors?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

With the music?

 

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

 

 And how would you give feedback to them?

 

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

 

That’s it?

 

Yeah.

 

And they’re fine with that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Is it a part of your screenplay?

 

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

 

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

 

Stay the fuck away!

 

Really?

 

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

 

So you stay away in phase one…

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Wastage.

 

Okay?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Do you shoot in sequence?

 

In terms of… what sequence?

 

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

 

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

 

Did that help?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What about the storytelling didn’t work in Aladin?

 

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

 

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

 

Yeah.

 

And can you leave the comfort zone?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

How involved are you in marketing and publicity?

 

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

 

Do you cut your own trailers?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Can you think of really bad moments while filming?

 

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

 

You enjoy yourself too much?

 

Yeah, yeah,yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

You turned producer with Aladin?

 

Home Delivery...

 

Out of necessity or choice?

 

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

 

You became a director out of necessity?

 

Yeah, because nobody was ready to direct Jhankaar

 

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

 

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

 

Is there a disadvantage as well?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What is your personal relationship with Calcutta like?

 

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

 

It gets more complicated when you try to work there.

 

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

 

What is the Calcutta of your mind like?

 

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

 

What are your places in Calcutta?

 

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

 

Where is your house?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Zero.

 

I could tell. Why is that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What kind of films do you watch?

 

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

 

Who do you discuss films with the most?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Making movies.

 

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

 

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

 

One from your own film?

 

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

 

Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

To a certain extent, yes.

 

What is your biggest fear as a filmmaker?

 

Flops.

 

What is your biggest fear as a person?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Is this an answer different from your usual answer?

 

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

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

Inhi Logon Ne

Meena Kumari and all that was lost with her.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Outtakes

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

– Fawzan Husain

The Sanjay Dutt Fandango

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tell me about nobody being above the law.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What was that again about nobody being above the law?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Of Arms and a Man

A legal analysis of the Sanjay Dutt verdict

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Eye of the Beholder: Musharraf Ali Farooqi

Translator and novelist Musharraf Ali Farooqi talks movies.

 

The first film you remember watching.

The Monkey’s Uncle.

 

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

Drinking Fanta during the intermission.

 

The worst book to film adaptation.

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

 

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

 Kaagaz Ke Phool directed by Guru Dutt.

 

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

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

 

Do you read film reviews? What good are they? 

I do not remember having ever read a film review.

 

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

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

 

What book of yours could be made into a film? 

All of them (Please! Now!).


Who would you like it to be directed by?

Some famous zombie.

 

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

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

 

One male actor you’ve idolized. 

Peter Falk of Columbo.

 

One actress you absolutely adore.

Meryl Streep.


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

Popeye and Olive Oyl.


One writer whose biopic would definitely be A-Rated.

Charles Dickens.

 

A writer whose biopic you want to see. 

Charles Dickens.

 

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

Basic Electrical Engineering.

 

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

Introduce you to the taste of obsessive passions.


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

Show sex scenes more plausibly.


A film that made you very happy.

Amélie.

 

A film that made you cry. 

Every second film makes me cry.

 

A film every writer must see.

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

 

Your favourite film on writing/a writer.

 Henry & June.

 

If you ever made a film…

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


A film script you would like to read.

The Little Prince.

 

A film you wish you had written.

In the Mood for Love.

 

One underrated film.

The Story of the Weeping Camel.


One highly rated film that did not work for you.

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

 

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

 

Also read:

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