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

'Film as a creative medium is dying now'

Shaji Karun. Click for bigger pic!

You have travelled a lot. Do you see this phenomenon everywhere? Is it happening to all the traditional art forms of the world?

Yes, it is happening everywhere. The problem with us is, we want a result immediately. We want to enjoy everything without waiting for it to sink in. We do not want to carry a feeling for three, four days as we are in a hurry all the time. The quality of any art form changes with time and that is what we miss these days. I call this quality a concept and that concept is the real art. That is why I say we don't understand real art at all. It is all because of our fixation to money. Though we say man is a social animal, I don't think so. I feel birds and animals have more unity among them than human beings.

You mean man has become very individualistic now?

Yes. There is no difference in the attitude of those who live in Kerala or Europe. All human beings have become very individualistic.

Let's talk about Vaanaprastham now. In the film, the artist suffers from an identity crisis. An actor like Mohanlal has a superstar image and people always see him as Mohanlal and not as the character he portrays. Why did you then select him, an artist who has an image?

Mohanlal also is undergoing the same crisis like the artist in Vaanaprastham. Mohanlal's life, his health problems, yes, everything about him has become public now. Now he will not be able to go back to the life of an ordinary individual, even if he wants to.

Some may enjoy the adulation and the life of a super hero. It may be painful for the others. He just cannot live a life independent of his image. He cannot express himself in public or lead the life of an average person. Think of the state of the individual who finds all this painful. Think of the man who cannot afford all these small mercies.

I had always felt that stars like Mohanlal could never lead a normal life. But when I asked him about this, he denied having ever felt the same or faced any such crisis?

There is a difference in the way these stars see the outside world. I think they don't see the real world at all. They are not in touch with reality. What is more important is, an artist should be able to observe life. If it is not possible for an artist to observe, he becomes conceptual and there is a lot of difference between the two, observation and conceptualisation. In the process, an artist in him suffers.

A still from Piravi. Click for bigger pic!

For example, he will not know the reactions of an ordinary person inside a bus. He will never know the activities outside his area of operation. He forgets the responses of an ordinary person. Had he been just an individual and not a star, he would have learnt a lot about life and other human beings by just observing. But here the artist inside the star stagnates.

As a director, do you feel Mohanlal understood the crisis that Kunjunni faced?

Yes, he could understand the crisis very well.

Very sensitive artists may be facing the same kind of crisis in their artistic lives that Kunjunni faced in Vaanaprastham. Can an artist rise above such a crisis? Or, is it inescapable?

There is an element of submission in all of us. Otherwise, no artist will be able to perform anything. But submission is something you do unknowingly. A real artist submits himself totally to his art. If you look at the number of suicides that are committed by artists, you will find that most of them do it when they find that they are incapable of doing anything more for the art that they love.

Some people feel dissatisfied when they cannot accumulate money and some others feel disappointed when they cannot achieve something. But these artists end their lives when they find that they cannot contribute anything more to the art.

You also make many documentaries. How different is making a documentary film from a feature film? Is it less creative?

A still from Swahm. Click for bigger pic!

No, not at all. See, I don't make many feature films. I need a lot of time to make a feature film. And Vaanaprastham is only my third feature film. The difference between a documentary film and a feature film is, you already have some information with you when you are making a documentary and all you have to do is to identify whether the information is right or wrong.

But in a feature film, there is no question of you trying to find out whether something is right or wrong. You make a feature film based on your intuition.

Do you have to think logically and not creatively when you make a documentary?

Yes, one has to think logically while making a documentary but it is also a kind of relaxation for you. It can rejuvenate you too. Actually I feel the word 'documentation' itself is a wrong one. We should describe them as short films. Only in India, we look at documentaries as just a functional medium.

Everywhere else, it is very creative. Do you know you can see the signature of the creator in each and every film for they see documentaries also as creative pieces. Through those films, he explains certain things from his point of view.

Do we have proper outlets for short films here in India?

With the entry of television, people have started watching short films more. But Films Division should take the responsibility of reducing the status of short films and documentaries and giving them a rigid format. Here the bureaucracy decides the format of the documentary.

But if you take the short films that are produced in other countries, you will know the difference. It is like low cost house constructions where you forget the comforts of the individual who stays there. In fact, the language of the visual media is fast changing all over the world. So, what you need is a very open mind.

You have taken a short film on Aravindan. Is it because of your long association with him as his cinematographer that you decided to make such a film? A tribute?

A still from Piravi. Click for bigger pic!

I have done all his 10 films. Can you believe he made 10 films in 10 years? People like me cannot even think of such an output? He had tremendous energy and he was one person who believed in personalised films. With his death, a concept called personalised films also died. Many film-makers look at films as a craft but to Aravindan, film-making was a creative, personalised expression. In the film, I was trying to explain the differences between personalised film and films as a craft.

Can a medium like film be personalised? It is very different from personalised creations like a painting or a short story.

Yes, you can conceive films very personally too. It can be personal expressions of the creator. The grammar of the film changes and changes fast. It evolves as time passes. More than personalising films, I think, Aravindan contributed a lot to the language of films. You can look at it as an effort to find a new language.

See we should not have any rigidity in our minds and in our approach if we want anything to grow whether it is the language that we speak or the language of the films. If such rigidity enters the field of cinema, it is very sad. Now Hollywood films are trying to create a grammar of their own which we have to prevent at all costs. Whatever be the emotion, the Hollywood movies try to glorify them, unlike European films. They even glorify death. They exaggerate emotions.

Is it not sad that the Hollywood movies are killing other language films? It is reported that the French are a worried lot because Hollywood movies have conquered their market, which they had thought was invincible till now. What gives the Hollywood films such power?

Television is one medium that has helped them (those in Hollywood) a lot, because it is a tool through which anyone can conquer any market.

Do you see the death of European films with the entry of Hollywood films in their territory? Can we call it globalisation of films?

Yes. Globalisation or the entry of Hollywood films has already killed many language films. East European films have suffered, German films have suffered and the Japanese films too. Russia's contribution to the grammar of the films cannot be forgotten but they have also died. Hollywood films alone rule the global market now. Let me be frank. Film as a creative medium is dying now.

Shaji's photograph: Sanjay Ghosh

Back