"Most of my films are based on realities of life"

SHYAM BENEGAL has presided over the rise and slump of parallel cinema for over two decades now. He kick-started it in the 70s with classics such as Ankur (1974) and Manthan (1976) and went on to an intriguing versatility of themes — he chiselled some of the strongest women’s roles, made an opus on the early life of Mahatma, embarked on a Nehruvian Bharat Ek Khoj and tackled themes of Partition.

After the euphoric flurry, parallel cinema as genre began to lose its distinctive identity by the end of the 80s. Shyam Benegal has stood firm through it all. Even though his films no longesr set coffee houses aflame, he remains one of the few articulate Indian film-makers still capable of bringing magic realism to Indian cinema. He has never shied from traversing the unknown path.

Excerpts of an interview with Belu Maheshwari.

How did you develop the capacity of observation? Was it because you were a loner in your childhood?

I come from a large family of eight children. So there was no question of being lonely or alone. More than having observation instincts, I got hooked on to films very early in life. I was only six when I knew I should be a film-maker.

Which was the movie which left such a deep impact on you?

Cinema itself left a deep impression on me. As a family we used to see one movie a month. Then my elder brother and I went to cinema near my house on the sly as we made friends with the operator who let us in free. The hall was in the cantonment and there used to be two changes a week. I saw lot of cinema in my childhood.

Anything else which veered you towards films as a medium of expression?

My father was a professional photographer. He used to have a 16mm camera, on which he made home movies, every child’s growth was recorded. Our great family evenings used to consist of seeing these marvellous films about us. It was a great participatory thing. Then on one of my birthdays my father presented me with a magic lantern (it is a small projector). I used to make cuttings of films, put them together and show it to my family. My ambition of being a film-maker from childhood never changed.

How did Ankur strike you (1974)?

Ihad written a short story which was published in my school magazine. This story became the basis of my script. It was based on what I had seen, what I had observed. It had the basis of reality. I had to wait for 12 years to make my first film Ankur.

Do all your films have reality as basis, themes which have touched you?

Most of the films are based on realities of life, except those which are based on literary works of fiction like Suraj Ka Sathva Godha. As for themes or characters touching me, life is an on-going process, somewhere something leaves an impact. If a character or subject was not etched into my system, I would not have thought of making it into films.

How did you get the idea of Bhumika?

Bhumika is based on an autobiography of a well-known Marathi actress Hansa Wadkar. She wrote this very factual, seminal, feminist, extraordinary autobiography called Santayika meaning ‘Listen to what I say’. In this autobiography one could see what happens to most Indian women if they decide to find their own way in life, if they wish to try to get the type of independence that men take for granted for themselves. The story fascinated me so much that I made it into a film.

Why is it that men become insecure when women carve out niches for themselves?

In a patriarchal society like ours, men do not expect to be challenged by women. From the time they are born they are made to feel as if life revolves around them. To be challenged by women is a shattering experience.

Do you weave your stories around your actors, or do you have the character etched out and then decided on the actor?

Well, it is very difficult to say how these things happen. It is difficult to pinpoint the creative process. It can start from a tail of a monkey, or the head of a monkey. At times you have an actor in mind for a character or vice-versa.

You are supposed to be an intellectual director, how would you define yourself?

There is no fixed definition. It is the sensibilities that are finer in some and less in others, but I do not like the use of the word intellectual director. I am scared of it because in common parlance it means someone who intimidates you. I think you are either a good or not-so-good director.

Art movies the world over are on a decline. Do you think they have a future?

They may not come back in the same fashion as before, but you will always have people who will revolt against commonly accepted views and agitate against set standards of society. Normally, the commonly held views serve as a smoke-screen and do not allow you to look at reality behind it. There will always be people who will challenge it. You will have all sorts of experiences. Parallel cinema may have gone into a decline but another kind of movement may erupt. It may come in a different way. They come as waves.

A commonly held perception is that there is no money in art films. How do you manage?

There is not much money but I make a reasonable living. Not a lot but enough for myself. I have never gone hungry. My family and I are happy and don’t need to accumulate large sums of money. We live comfortably.

You are a widely travelled man. How much does it help you in sustaining your sensibilities? Does language pose a barrier?

I try to travel as a common man to imbibe life. I try not to cocoon myself in privileges so that Iam in touch with realities for my films. I have lived in remote villages recently in Madhya Pradesh where you have no amenities. As I have an ear for languages, I might not speak them but can understand them. Except Tamil and Malayalam, I manage with every other Indian language. It poses no barrier to communication.

In an interview you said our format for film is inflexible, rigid, rigorous. Can you explain the statement?

I will give you an example. A toothpaste tube is of a particular shape because of utilisation reasons and functional reasons. Most do not look beyond a particular shape. In films also, people develop certain notions as to what makes a film successful. They become axiomatic. It is only when you start challenging the set notions that you make another kind of film. There is a need not to do mindlessly what others have done. In India we follow rigid formulas generally.

Do you make films which appeal to your emotions and to those of the audiences?

Lot of things touch people. There is a formula to open the ducts of your tears. To make people laugh and cry is not difficult. You have to go beyond sentimentality. To get to the essence is important. A great film is not only about emotions.

What about your family life.

My family life is perfectly fine. I have a wife of 33 years and a daughter who is a costume designer, her latest movie is Dil Se. My wife was an editor of children’s books. My wife is boring. No excitement of Bollywood style.

How do you feel about Govind Nihalani and Prakash Jha deserting art films?

I do not know whether they have deserted it. Govind is making a film which will appeal to a larger audience than he was otherwise reaching. One has to look at that film to find out if he has assumed another sensibility in making the film than his earlier one.

Take, for instance, Guru Dutt. He used to make films within his own sensibility even though they had a form which would appeal to a much larger audience. You can make films for larger audience within your sensibility. If you cannot you will have problems, which Prakash Jha has been having recently.

Do you feel audience tastes are deteriorating?

I will not make a value judgement, I will say tastes are changing because of the changing circumstances and environment. It will be like decrying the breaking down of the joint family system in India. Yes, there was a protection mechanism in a joint family. So many features of life like childhood, old age, found security there. But with changed circumstances things have changed. There is nothing right or wrong about it. Some other proper system should come up, like after breaking of the joint family system it becomes the duty of the state to provide for welfare. Things go wrong when a proper system does not replace the old.

Do you think the state can afford to become a welfare organisation?

That is part of governance. Today we are not a welfare state, but whether we become one or not will show whether we make a success or failure of our society. As an individual we should do our best for society. Probably that also adds up to good governance.

Why is vulgarity in films on the rise?

Shedding clothes is not vulgar really. The question in our films is of obscenity, not vulgarity. There is something obscene about the high sexual suggestibility, about the kind of situations we have in our films. It would be simpler and more honest if the characters involved in sex would be less hypocritical. These suggestive scenes are also filmed because of the way our censor board operates. Prudishness is the norm. So films are made accordingly.