BILLBOARD
MAKING WAVES
SHORT TAKES
SOUTHERN SPICE
ROUGH CUTS
MEMORIES
ARCHIVES
MOVIES CHAT

'If I can have my cake and eat it too...'

Shyamaprasad. Click for bigger pic!

Agnisakshi in Malayalam is Shyamaprasad's first feature film even though he has made quite a few telefilms for Doordarshan when he was an employee there. And they have all been appreciated and his Nilavu Ariyunnu won a special prize at the Golden Crest festival in Bulgaria.

It also does credit to the young director that his first feature film was among the few selected for the Indian Panorama section at the International Film Festival last year at Hyderabad.

And such is his reticence to rely on anything but talent that few know Shyamaprasad is the son of senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader O Rajagopal. Excerpts from an interview with Shobha Warrier:

There was a time when Malayalam films were made based on novels and short stories. Not any more. Now stories are written with superstars in mind. But you have made your first film based on Lalithambika Antharjanam's famous novel,Agnisakshi. Why did you choose to make a film based on a creative work?

I have always made films based on very famous novels and short stories.

But those were telefilms...

Rajat Kapur and Shobhana in Agnisakshi. Click for bigger pic!

Yes, they were telefilms. But when I decided to make a feature film, the same impulse ruled me. I believe literature is the greatest source of inspiration for any film-maker. And I don't think I'm good enough to put together a story of my own and make a film based on that. Two minds function in a film. One is that of a story-teller or the creative writer, who gives you insight into human minds. The director's job is to create a visual format with those insights.

In my case, I am only trying to mature in film-making, By that I mean the visualisation aspect of film-making. I want a very strong base so that visualisation is possible in a much more confident way. I don't want to spend my energy and time on creating a story about which I am not very sure of myself now.

How difficult was it to recreate a creative work that was already read and visualised by many?

It's always easy, provided the story is true enough. I use the word 'true' in a deeper sense. True enough also mean strong enough, relevant enough and modern enough. If the characters and situations of the story are good enough in their realistic and tangible form, it has some truth in it.

Whenever I read a good novel, an honest novel, a novel with an aura which is true and which is necessary for society, I am influenced. Then I cannot resist myself from visualising such works. It just happens. I've never found it difficult to visualise novels or short stories.

Agnisakshi is a masterpiece and many film-makers wanted to film it, but none did. Probably they were scared. The aura surrounding the novel is so great that if you touch it and spoil it, you will be criticised a lot.

I am quite comfortable with creative works. And this is my basic style of functioning. What attracted me was neither the aura surrounding the novel nor its grandeur, but the human dilemma, the traumas that the characters in the novel face and the emotions they go through. I felt all those emotions are relevant, even though the story happens in the forties.

Yes, it has a very important place in our society history. You can even call it a social document. but that was not what attracted me.

The novel and the novelist have a very significant place in the history of Malayalam literature. The period also was a turning point in the social history of Kerala. Were you scared, at least in the beginning, to recreate the work and the period?

No, that was mainly because the soul of the novel affected me, influenced me immensely. I had been carrying in my mind a desire to give it a visual format for the last ten years. So, I was internalising the work all these years. After a point the image of the creative writer, Lalithamabika Antharjanam slowly faded away from my mind and the story became mine, the feelings and emotion of the characters also became mine.

When I became one with the story and the characters, I was totally unconscious about the fact that I was recreating a novel and the characters were fictional.

At no point did I intend to make a period film. The Namboodiri household, its ambience, the rituals they followed, the Indian freedom struggle all were in out of focus. I tried to focus only the two individuals, Unni and Devaki, and their wasted tragic lives. Despite having proper understanding, love and respect for each other, they moved in two different directions.

I think the soul of the novel was the loneliness of the two individuals, and the social and political happenings contributed only the structure. What had happened to those two individuals could happen to any two individuals, any two professionals, at any time.

How satisfying was the experience of making the film?

Click for bigger pic!

It was quite satisfying for me. Well, nothing is perfect in this world.

Did you make compromises? I have seen your telefilms earlier and when I saw the film, I felt you have tried to add some commercial ingredients...

You are quite right. The major difference, I feel, between television and film, is the way in which they reach and relate to the audience. For television, there's always an audience but in cinema, you have to draw them to the theatres.

Do you feel you can draw people to the theatre with ingredients like songs and dance?

Yes, songs are a major promotional device in today's visual world. Even if songs are not included in Hollywood movies, an album is released along with the movie. I just cannot overlook that fact, since I want to reach as many people as possible. Having said that let me also add that I haven't compromised on the concept or the complexity of the theme. I have not diluted the values in the film.

When you have commercial ingredients like songs in the film when they are not really needed, won't it automatically dilute the strength of the theme?

I don't know whether the soul will get diluted because you have songs in the film!

What about the flow of the film?

I agree. Yes, when you have songs, the structure may loose some of its pristine quality. But I feel only a few people will feel that. I don't think it is a big issue as far as the general audience is concerned. Only the very discerning audience will feel the effect. What is essential is to reach more people.

Click for bigger pic!

What is more important to you, mass appreciation of your film or critical acclaim?

I need both. I want both.

Will you be able to achieve both?

If I can have my cake and eat it too, why not? Why did I take Shobhana? I should have had a newcomer. I took Shobhana because her name carries some weight that can draw people to the theatres. And I feel that in art circles everyone compromises in some way or the other. This is not a perfect world. Even Adoor Gopalkrishnan makes his own kind of compromises for his own kind of market.

Ultimately, what is more important for a director, creative satisfaction or marketability of his movie?

If a movie of yours is not seen, what's the point in creating it? The more the people who see your film, the better it is. But you should not compromise on the essential quality of the film, the soul of the film.

But generally we see that a very highly acclaimed piece of art is not liked or appreciated by all sections of the people. So, is it possible for everyone to appreciate a real artistic movie?

Unfortunately it's not, even though every artist likes to reach the maximum number of people. Yes, the reality is that there are more people with not-so-great tastes. For example, there are more readers for the Manorama weekly than the Mathrubhumi. But I don't think it's a crime to reach out to the maximum number of people.

Oh no, I didn't say it was a crime. But, as a creative person, don't you feel bad when you have to compromise?

I feel bad. But you cannot see all this in absolute terms. It is better to have a film with a few compromises than having no film at all. Films are a very expensive business. It is quite different from writing a story or painting.

Your telefilms were based on the short stories of Sartre, Camus, Kamala Das, etc. How different was making films from making telefilms?

Since an audience is guaranteed for a television product, the creator is affected positively. But as far as cinema is concerned, the relationship between the audience and the creator is that of a consumer and a supplier. People pay money, buy the ticket, go to the theatre to see the product. So the product has to satisfy him. This isn't the equation in television. An audience is there to watch what you make. So the creator has an upper hand.

So is there more creative satisfaction on television?

Much more. Much, much more.

Then why did you decide to make a feature film? Is it because of the size of the canvas?

Click for bigger pic!

It is not because of the size of the canvas at all. Then I will tell you about the other side of the television too. It isn't paradise. It is getting more and more commercialised these days. But it isn't as bad as the film world. If you are working outside, you have dance to the tune of the producers. You have to satisfy the channel. There is less money, less glamour and less projection of you. Above all, television is not taken as a creative art even now.

But it is, isn't it?

It is. Absolutely. I am one of the few lucky ones who could do some substantial creative work in that media. That's the only reason why people take me somewhat seriously. Even then, it's very difficult to do really meaningful work in television. In films, it is possible to some extent. Again, if you want to reach the market, you have to play to the needs of the market.

Do you believe in categorising films into commercial cinema and art cinema? These days, everybody says there are no commercial and art films, just good and bad films.

Even if I don't believe in commercial and art films, the industry very much believes in them. Let us not forget that the distributors and exhibitors have very clear-cut ideas about what a real commercial film is and what is a deceptively arty film. We can idealistically say that there are only good films and bad films. But the forces operating the market know a real commercial film when they see it.

How would you like to be known? As an art film director like Satyajit Ray or Mrinal Sen or a commercial film director in the mould of, say, Priyadarshan or David Dhawan? Please don't think that I'm trying to put you in a slot. I was providing some examples.

I refused to belong to both categories. Let me tell you one thing. Ray was making films in the sixties and seventies and not in the nineties. I feel, had he been working in the nineties, he would have made a different set of films, not ones like Pather Panchali, Aparajito or Apu Sansar. I am certain about it.

Click for bigger pic!

He would have been making a different kind of quality film. Ray also would not have had an idealistic attitude about a mass media like cinema today. I'm sorry to say that. See the world has changed.

Take for example, living film-makers like Mrinal Sen. What is he doing now? All those new wave art film-makers like Gautam Ghosh, Ketan Mehta etc are making huge compromises. Mani Kaul is an exception. Kumar Sahni too. Have you seen the latest film of Gautam Ghosh, Gudia? It is all because we are living in a different world now. The status of film media as an absolute art has diminished.

Is that not a tragedy if you've been looking at cinema as a creative art?

Yes, it is. Unfortunately cinema is a very expensive business and unless the state funds you all the time you can't make pure artistic works. It's impossible. So, the alternative is to make sensible, intelligent, relevant movies.

Don't you feel that the standard of Malayalam films -- for that matter, all Indian films -- has deteriorated?

Yes. What is coming out now is rubbish.

Who is to blame, the audience or the film-makers?

People go to see rotten movies only because they have no other choice. I feel that unless the creator takes the initiative, the situation cannot change or improve. There are pressures in this field too, like there are pressures in other fields. But the basic responsibility is on the creator's side.

You cannot blame the audience: they have no choice. I don't like those films made for the sake of entertainment alone. I don't believe in purposeless products. I don't like making films just for the heck of it.

EARLIER FEATURE:
War of the worlds