Reported By:
| Edited By: Yogesh Pawar |Source: DNA |Updated: Feb 11, 2018, 08:45 AM IST
It's about finding the true essence of love in the times of social networking. Today we have WhatsApp, Facebook, Tinder, Grindr, Snapchat and what have you… So even when two people meet face-to-face, their attention is more riveted to what’s happening on the phone than the person with them. And yet we can't discount the immense benefits it has brought in its wake, in terms of creating safe, enabling spaces for people to meet and interact with those they otherwise might not have connected with. The film, in an interesting way, looks at how “clichéd” real-world romance and dating play out in the virtual world.
Well, the story was a kind of a different space from my other films. So the treatment and feel had to be appropriate to its mood.
I was auditioning for Shab in Delhi when Zain came for the audition. He wasn't appropriate for Shab but I knew that he had magic in him and is a very talented boy. He trained as an assistant under me during Shab. We did a lot of workshops and signed him up for Anticlock Films as I was sure I wanted to do a feature film with him. For Zain to become Alfaaz I had worked with him not to act but understand the history of the character and live it. He had to forget thinking about his good looks.
I didn't choose the subject. When Abhishek Chatterjee came to me with the story I fell in love with it...maybe, because it’s also about people who are marginalised. I think Archie is a beautiful character and she is not about her spots.
Apu played by Shray, needed to be adorable, and having worked with him in Shab, I knew he was appropriate. You also know that there is no chemistry between him and Archie, but a lot between Alfaaz and her. I wanted Apu to be not the typical, stupid bad looking guy, but charming in his own way and yet someone who can't share “her silence.” As for Mona, apart from being a fantastic actor, she also has hair similar to Archie.
After so many years of filmmaking, one thing I’ve learnt is to always be excited about my films. If it weren’t the case, why would I make them? This is my 6th film as a director and I've realised that a film’s destiny doesn't change me as a person. As an independent filmmaker, I do what I want, when I want to. Through the history of filmmaking, you see films made with much love that haven't done well. Filmmakers too are human and make mistakes. Just because there are ups and downs doesn't mean that makes/breaks you. The box office doesn't define my happiness/confidence. I began shooting KBA barely a week after Shab released. And while it was a happy experience shooting a bright love story like this, I'm already thinking of my next. Basically, I like to keep telling my stories.
If there came a time when I didn’t make enough to make my next film, that would really worry me. But I think I make films within certain economics that ensure in the long run it breaks even. I'm not in a space where my films make someone lose Rs 50 cr or make Rs 200 cr. (Laughs) so it doesn’t change my approach. I like to tell my story like I want to tell it and I'm happy there have always been people who believed in me.
If that wasn't how I reacted I would’ve stopped making films long ago. None of my films have set the box office on fire. Whether My Brother Nikhil (MBN), which is still cherished or I Am that got two national awards, their modus of recovery is very different from the mainstream. My films have travelled the world and three are currently showing on Star Gold. So their shelf life is really long. They're anything, but your regular movies that have a three-week run at the box office, then a week or two on TV, and then are forgotten. The Museum of Houston is showing MBN, I Am and Shab as a trilogy in May. I'm happy my films find their space despite being different. And I'm confident that will happen with KBA too.
That’s not right at all. MBN (2005), Bas Ek Pal (2006), Sorry Bhai (2008) came in quick succession. The latter suffered as it came a week after 26/11. It was a huge financial setback as an independent filmmaker, since nobody went to the theatres. They were scared and glued to the TV. This meant a fund crunch; I had to crowdfund and it took until 2011 for my next project Chauranga – a debut by filmmaker Bikas Ranjan Mishra – that I produced. I realise filmmakers don't have the time and money to chase stars, and decided to trace talent instead, groom them and give them a break in my films. That's how Shab was made in 2016, followed by KBA made in 2017. In 12 years, six films as a director and seven as a producer is not a bad record.
One senses that. Today companies like Drishyam and Saregama back good content. Look at Newton and Bareilly Ki Barfi. This gives me hope. For me, telling stories is more important than making a killing at the box office. So I had to find a way to get funding. It isn't easy, but it makes you less complacent and keeps you on your toes.
None. I came from a small-town, middle-class family and all I wanted was to make films, which I'm getting to do. I still take the train to town. When I see people commuting two hours up and down for a job that makes them unhappy and going back to lives they don't like, I feel blessed to be among the tiny minority, who get to work and live on their own terms. It also has to do with the fact that I'm an extremely happy person. I see hurdles as empowering.
I've stopped telling people what to do with their lives. There is nothing like pure entertainment. Every film conveys something – progressive or regressive. Given what a beautiful, powerful tool this medium is, it will be nice to use it positively.
I make it point to watch almost every kind of film, especially by independent filmmakers whom I've heard good things about. In recent times, I've liked Monsoon Shootout, Newton, Lipstick Under My Burkha and Mukti Bhawan. I also enjoyed Secret Superstar thoroughly. Earlier if it was a Shyam Benegal/Ketan Mehta/Ram Gopal Varma film I went for it without bothering with the title/subject. In Hollywood, you still look forward to a Spielberg or a Scorcese film, but here the star system has completely taken over. Now, you get excited only if it's an Aamir Khan or Shah Rukh Khan film. Also, we've reached a stage where if a film clicks, everybody wants to make similar ones.
We forget history. People should remember that reactions were almost similar when TV happened. BR Chopra, Gulzar, Shyam Benegal were all making content for TV. Of course, it is a huge medium which went to lakhs of people but it is not cinema. But it didn't stop filmmakers from making cinema. The idea of watching films on a big screen can't be compared to watching them on tv screens/laptops. TV as a medium should feel more threatened than cinema with web content which is often cheaper and reaches a wider audience.
I'll be lying if I say I don't feel tempted, especially because of its lack of censorship. But given how selfish I am making content with great recall and longevity, I wonder if it will happen. Without looking down on the web as a medium, I admit I'm more partial to the big screen.
Despite section 377 and widespread homophobia, I did get the national award for I Am. And I found that hugely empowering. Of course, it did not figure in any mainstream awards at all. Neither did MBN. But isn't that expected?
The industry runs on commerce and that dictates how any community: women, LGBTQIA or others are portrayed. Whether it is item numbers or comedy that targets someone, it’s done with the hope that it'll rake in money. So how Bollywood treats LGBTQIA subjects is less about homophobia in the industry and more about the homophobia in society that will not support such subjects. For example, despite two national awards I Am couldn’t find any takers for six years on TV because of this mindset. It’s great for people to say why don't people make films on such themes, but when an independent filmmaker like me does, every media house wants money to write about it.
Where am I going to get that kind of a P&A budget? Your voice gets stifled by the media itself. Big TV anchors want me on their chat shows and panels to discuss gay rights or Sec 377, but when my film on a similar subject comes, they are just not there to support it. I think it got worse with time. MBN got so much support then. And I know individually, journalists want to still do that, but their senior editors under pressure from marketing teams and corporate owners stop them. So you have bigger coverage of who has bought a fancy car, house or even a pair of expensive designer shoes than a film that has travelled to 20 festivals.
Expecting the LGBTQIA community to be free from discriminatory tendencies on the basis of caste, class or religion is erroneous. They come from the same country and will come with the same bag of prejudices.
Whether it’s the Dalit rights movement, the Muslim organisations or any other, they all speak of discrimination, but don't want to accept the discriminations they themselves practise. We'll have to fix basics like food, clothing and shelter for all before we get into a more evolved approach in our movements.
I had in the beginning but my parents told me that they know the truth and accept I was being framed. So I fought for the truth to emerge and it did. I believe that if you're driving and a drunk driver hits you, you don't stop driving, do you?
