|
|
|
In her true element
Film-maker Deepa Mehta, perhaps best known for her ‘elemental trilogy’ – Fire, Earth 1947 and Water — recently visited Karachi for the screening of the latter. Organized by the KaraFilm Society, the screening was followed by a question and answer session with Deepa. Despite her tight schedule, Images caught up with her for an interesting tête-à-tête.
Q. What are your impressions of Karachi?
A.: When I arrived at the airport, I immediately felt that Karachi was familiar and yet not so, at the same time. I think part of being Indian/Canadian means having a desire to know Pakistan, whether it’s due to the nostalgia handed down from my parents or friends who really rave about Pakistan. I’ve been to Saddar, and it was quite an experience. The exhibition, Jewel in the Crown: Karachi under the Raj (1843-1947) was superb and I spent three hours there, but would love to spend three days there. There were so many pictures of Jinnah that I had never seen before, and they made him human. It’s very important to make leaders human because then you accept their flaws as well.
Q. You’ve been making movies for the last 15 years or so, but as is the case with most people, you must have changed during this period. How have your movies mirrored this change. Or has time further strengthened your initial beliefs?
A.: Yes, I think that’s what it’s done. If you have seen my films, they are all people-oriented. They are about people, my concern, my curiosity about what makes certain people — men or women — in certain situations react the way they do if the pressure is from the outside, especially from the social or political realm. So as I grew in age that same focus became slightly more non-exclusive, more about politics and human beings — mostly women.
Q. Many critics feel that your movies portray a negative and controversial side of India with certain issues highlighted just because they are controversial. Why have you chosen the subjects that you have?
A.: I think that as human beings it is very important for us to know and understand where we come from. It’s the point of history. I believe that if you don’t know where you’re coming from, you don’t know where you are going. And to put that into context is very important. As far as that criticism is concerned, they are welcome to think whatever they want. Even Satyajit Ray, one of the most eminent film-makers of all time, was criticized severely. They said he was projecting the poverty in India just to get awards in the West. If they can criticize him, who am I?
Q. In Fire you explore female sexuality, in Earth the Partition era and in Water the plight of widows. So what is the common thread in all three?
A.: Politics. The politics of sexuality, the politics of sectarian war. Bapsi (Sidhwa) wrote a mind-blowing line in one of her books: All wars are fought on women’s bodies. And that’s true. So essentially, the common thread in all the films is the politics of war, how they affect women, the politics of religion as they affect women. They are very specific, and yet they are very universal. And I think that because they are specific, they can be universal.
Q. So how do you choose your subjects?
A.: Curiosity. Something that concerns me, but that doesn’t mean that my concerns or my curiosities are a burden that I impose on my audience, or that I want them to react in a certain way. Or a burden that I am going to impose on my script. It’s the questioning of it, it’s the process of trying to understand something, so it’s more ambiguous than saying that this is my aim.
Q. Do you have a particular aim with your movies?
A.: No, I don’t. I am realistic and know that it is not possible to know what sort of reaction my films will spur, which is why I don’t think of their reaction while or before making a film. Someone asked me if they thought my films changed things, and I said, I don’t think my films change something, but they may make an impact, and that leads to a dialogue. And dialogue is where any change really begins. Because it’s about awareness.
A Pakistani told me that he watched Earth in Chicago with his Indian friends. And though they were very close, when they came out they hugged each other and said they won’t let politics mar their relationship. Some people also hated it. Someone cornered me at the Delhi airport and said: “How could you make such a movie? It’s so anti-Hindu and so pro-Muslim.” And when someone says something like that it’s best to say ‘theek hai. Have a nice day’.
‘I don’t think my films change something, but they may make an impact, and that leads to a dialogue. A Pakistani told me that he watched Earth in Chicago with his Indian friends. When they came out they hugged each other and said they won’t let politics mar their relationship,’ says Deepa Mehta
Q. Did you, at any point, tell yourself to forget about Water because of the difficulties you faced?
A. : That was never an option. The question was ‘when’. But I never thought about putting it aside, not even for a second.
Q. Since Water took so long to make, did the script change during this period?
A.: No, the script didn’t change. I had changed in my ideas, with experience, with growing up and by self-questioning. Because when Water was shut down for the first time, I went through a very tumultuous time. That sort of experience makes you really re-question yourself, how much do you know about your own country and how much you look at it through rose-coloured glasses. I don’t look at India through rose-coloured glasses anymore. Since I don’t have that romanticized notion of India, I appreciate it more than I ever did. Pieces of reality, as opposed to romanticism.
I don’t know if you understand what I mean. Neither do I, because respecting or loving something despite its flaws is much harder and substantial than loving the image that you have created. It is the same with a person. If you love a person or a country despite the flaws, it means that you really care about them. So it’s been an interesting journey. I changed, but the script remained the same, but the way I looked at it changed. The characters had much more dimension in the way I projected them when I directed them as opposed to the earlier position. It was no longer important for me to spell it all out.
Yes, Water is very understated. There’s not much of hue and cry in the movie, despite the fact that it deals with such an emotional topic. But despite being implicit, people still got it. You see, people do get it. You have to have confidence in your audience’s intelligence, you have to trust them. If they get it, fine, and if they don’t, that’s fine, too. A lot of film-makers compromise their work because they feel that the audience will not be able to understand what they are saying. I have never done that. It was just very lovely to throw away dialogue. That’s why the dialogue is very sparse but the message is still conveyed.
Q. There were some scenes in Water that were left unexplained. The scene where the widows light lanterns so the souls of their husbands can be free. How can you put a dialogue that explains it all. Is it important?
A.: It’s not about a bunch of women lighting lanterns, you can find out about such things on the Internet (laughs). The important part is that Chuyia is changing, she is getting comfortable living at the widows’ home, which causes Shakuntala to ask her: ‘No more tantrums?’
Q. Which of your films do you consider your best work?
A. : As a film-maker I really loved Water. It’s not like I love my other movies less, but objectively I can look at Water and say, “That’s not bad.”
Q. Which film-makers have inspired you? Which films remain close to your heart?
A.: Satyajit Ray who made one of the best films of all time, Pathar Panchali. Commercial film-makers who were influential such as Guru Dutt, who was mind blowing. His Kaghaz kay Phool remains one of my favourite films. Bimal Roy who made Sujata and Bandini. I think that before, people made movies with lovely songs and stars, movies that became popular with the public while being socially relevant and meaningful at the same time.
Q. What are you working on these days? A.: A movie called Full Exclusive. It’s about the history as far as us brown folks are concerned in Canada, and Amitabh Bachchan has said that he really wants to do it. So let’s see. If he does, it would be lovely. There are so many books I would like to adapt if I had time. I’m also writing the script on Bapsi” The Croweaters, so that’s a possibility. I’d like to do that shoot in Lahore.
Q. What other activities other than film-making take up your time?
A.: Well, being a mother is a full-time job. I love reading and gardening. I do a lot of yoga, and I am trying to give up smoking. Having humour in life is very important for me.
Water is the third and concluding film of Deepa Mehta’s elemental trilogy, following Fire and Earth — 1947. Like the latter, it also takes place in the past, and like the former, it focuses on issues pertaining specifically to women.Set in 1938 Benares, India, during Gandhi’s rise to power, the movie deals with the plight of widows who were considered untouchables and forced to live sterile lives in an ashram.
Water begins with Chuyia (played by a precocious Sarala), an eight-year-old girl who is sent to live in the ashram after her husband dies. Spirited and mischievous, she is unable to understand why she has been forced to live at an ashram with other widows since she barely remembers her marriage, let alone her husband.
At the ashram, she meets Shakuntala (Seema Biswas), a widow who is trying very hard to justify the religion and faith she has unquestionably accepted. Chuyia also befriends the beauteous Kalyani (Lisa Ray) the ashram belle, who is forced to prostitute herself, and the amusing yet tragic ‘auntie’ — an aged widow whose thirst for laddoos is finally quenched prior to her death.
However, the characters are not limited to the ashram widows. The idealistic and affluent Narayan (John Abraham) who, somewhat unexplainably, falls in love with Kalyani, plays a pivotal role and Waheeda Rehman, as his mother, adds to the memorable tapestry of characters.
Mehta’s maturity and heightened sensitivity as a film-maker is immensely apparent in Water. Despite the fact that the movie deals with such a controversial and tragic topic, Mehta does not resort to long, overly melodramatic scenes in order to communicate her characters’ emotions, inner conflicts and feelings. Instead, she chooses to utilize their expressions and hidden nuances. Many scenes are left to the audiences’ individual interpretation, which is refreshing given the rather explicit movies — be they from Hollywood or Bollywood — that have sadly become the norm.
Furthermore, the breathtaking scenery coupled with the harsh realities that the movie focuses on add to the complexity of the film. The performances, for the most part, stand out. Biswas plays her role with maturity and conviction; Sarala is exceptional. Ray is seemingly competent, albeit stiff. Abraham, however, doesn’t quite seem to be as convincing as he fails, at times, to convey the romanticism that his character requires. Rehman and Kulbushan Kharbander, despite short roles, manage to make their presence felt. Manorama’s portrayal of Madhumati, the villainous caretaker of the ashram, is also a delight to watch.
Ultimately, although a tad tedious and lengthy at times, Water is a movie that is spellbinding, mesmerizing and memorable. And like the water that runs through various streams and rivers over the course of many years before finally reaching the ocean, it is crystal-clear that the five years that Water took to reach the audience were, undoubtedly, worth the wait. — M.M.A
|
|
|
|
