'Of course, there are art and commercial movies. Just because you do not want to compartmentalise films does not mean that there are no art and commercial movies.'
|
Hariharan. Click for bigger pic!
|
See, the mood of an art film is different from a totally commercial film. If you are making an art film, you need not even think how others would react to it, it can just be the treatment thought about by the writer and director alone. When you are making a commercial film, you have to think whether the film has the strength to sustain the interests of the audience.
Don't you have to compromise a lot then?
Of course, if you want to make a commercial film, you have to make some compromises, at least some.
Do you feel unhappy when you have to compromise?
Definitely. It never gives you any satisfaction. Even when I am talking about my dissatisfaction, let me tell you something else which many forget. In today's world, it is not easy to make movies -- it involves a lot of money.
We were spending money in lakhs (hundred thousands) once, but now it has soared to crores (tens of millions) of rupees. So we have a responsibility to the person who spends money on a film. We cannot shirk that responsibility. Who will spend that much money without expecting any return? They expect and we -- the film-makers -- have to consider their interests too. That does not mean that we are obliged to make masala movies. If we make films intelligently, we can make them successful both commercially and artistically.
These days many film-makers do not like to compartmentalise films into commercial and art categories. Do you feel there are art and commercial movies?
Of course, there are art and commercial movies. Just because you do not want to compartmentalise films does not mean that there are no art and commercial movies. It is a fact and you cannot escape it. For example, the movies of Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen, Budhdev Dasgupta are not made with an eye on commercial success. They make movies the way they want to without making any compromises, without thinking about or bothering about what others think. Their films are their personal products.
But at the same time we cannot say that only this is good cinema and the other is bad. Art is art and nobody can change that. I make a movie within the limitations of my artistic outlook. My artistic view may not agree with somebody else's. And people make both kinds of movies too.
Why is it that we label the movies appreciated by the minority or the so-called intelligentsia as artistic movies and the one liked by the vast majority as commercial movies?
It is true that most of the commercially successful movies are not artistically made. The commercial movies follow the same pattern, follow almost the same story and even the treatment is same. In short, they are all repetitive. Artistically inclined film makers always try to find out new themes, use new techniques,
portray different characters in different ambience. They make or try to make the movies different from what has been made earlier.
Why is it that such movies are accepted and appreciated by only a minority? Is it because the majority lacks artistic awareness?
|
Mohini in Parinayam. Click for bigger pic!
|
Like I said earlier, even educated and intelligent people look at films as an entertainment medium only. They say they go to a theatre for relaxation and not for cerebral or artistic experience. From my interaction with people, I found that many from the not-so-educated, not-so-intelligent group look at cinema very seriously. To them films are an enlightening exercise.
So, it is not education that makes a person appreciate films intelligently.
Those who have surprised me are rickshaw drivers and people like that. We look at them as very ordinary people but they are not. I have found that there are people in both the educated and the non-educated sections of the society who take cinema very seriously.
These days, films have become a good packaged product laced with good location, exquisite photography, catchy songs, etc. with practically no importance to stories. What in your opinion is more important -- a good storyline or this paraphernalia?
I will say strongly that what comes first is the story. Yes, I agree that both story and treatment are important. If you have a different and new story but if your treatment is bad, the film is bad. But if a good story is treated well, a good film is born.
It is better not to talk about today's films. They are crazy. Nobody wants to present a new story, nobody wants to enact a new character. Above all, do we see characters in today's films? See, I am not talking about Malayalam films alone, this is the state all Indian cinema has reached now. You see only artists these days, and not characters. You cannot blame artists for this, the blame should lie with the film-makers.
Yes, now we see only Mammootty, Mohanlal or Suresh Gopi on screen and not characters. How was it earlier, say a few years back?
It was not so earlier. Till the sixties, we saw quite a few very good characters. Now you see the same faces, same make-up, same costume in the same way again and again. We see only artists on screen.
Why did it happen? Is it because of the dearth of good stories?
I do not know whether people will like my observation. I came into movies in the year 1965. In those days, very famous and popular dramas, popular novels and popular short stories were made into movies.
Those novels and dramas were written by creative writers. They looked deep into the society, they understood human beings and their feelings, naturally all those characters had roots in the society. They were real and they had life.
Take for example, the dramas of Thoppil Bhasi (the most famous is Ningalenne Communistaki -- You made me a Communist), novels by Thakazhi, M T, Kesavadev, etc. See, the list is very, very long. You know very well that their characters were strong and full of life. Can you see such characters these days?
Now you create characters with an artist in mind. You just want to exploit his talent, his looks and his abilities. So, such characters have no bearings with real life, they have no artistic value. This is not confined to Malayalam films alone, this is happening all over India.
|
Hariharan. Click for bigger pic!
|
Who is responsible for this state? Lack of good stories or the undue importance given to artists?
It is not because of the lack of good stories. Cinema has deteriorated into a medium to just exploit artists. Writers are writing good stores but nobody wants to make films from good stories. When you are making a film based on a very good story, you cannot use it to exploit artists. In such cases, the story comes first and the artists later. In my new film, Ende Swantham Janakikutty, a 14-year-old is the main character. I searched for a young girl who could act as Janakikutty. Can we make a film with a superstar if the central character in the story is a 60-year-old? No.
Have you always selected a story first and then chosen the actor accordingly?
Yes, I always did that. But during my early days in the industry, I tried to choose stories which could accommodate stars like Prem Nazir. But in those days, nobody made films with Prem Nazir filling all the frames. Actors like Prem Nazir, Madhu, Sarada, Jayabharati got equal importance in many films. Quite different from what you see today. Now everybody wants to concentrate on one hero alone.
Was it because of the emergence of superstars that we face this situation today?
Didn't we have superstars then? Prem Nazir was a superstar. I will not blame the superstars. It is because the film-makers are not ready to experiment with ideas, stories and treatment.
Why are they scared to experiment? Is it because of the high cost?
No. They just are just not ready to experiment, that's all. They are scared of failure. See, Fazil made Aniyathipravu, which was totally different from the run-of-the-mill movie. But was it not a huge success? You should be ready to take risks. Do we get to see films these days which will remain in our minds for long? You forget about these packaged products the moment you are out of the theatre. The funniest aspect is that not all of them are successful.
In many of your successful movies like Sargam, Panchagni etc, you had Shaji N Karun as your cinematographer. How much can a sensitive and understanding cinematographer help a director shape a good film?
Quite a lot. Shaji and myself made a good combination. A good cinematographer will understand what exactly a director wants, what kind of light he prefers, what angle is good. As far as I am concerned, Shaji and I vibe very well.
In your earlier days, you made a lot of comedies. Later on you switched onto very serious films. When and how did this transition take place?
I made a lot of comedies with Prem Nazir but after some time I wanted a change. So, I made some serious films with Prem Nazir. Again I yearned for a change. Whatever changes that have taken place in the way I made films, it was intentional.
|
Rambha in Sargam. Click for bigger pic!
|
Do you call these changes as the growth of you as a film-maker?
Definitely. From comedy to serious to very serious. Thus goes my growth.
What are the landmark movies in your growth?
After making a lot of commercial movies, I wanted to make a film based on MT's script. I wanted to know whether I could do it. So, I made Idavazhiyile Poocha Minda Poocha. After that I made a lot of films based on MT's scripts.
In Kerala, it is accepted that the MT-Hariharan combination will produce only very good movies. How did this friendship begin?
I knew MT earlier itself as both of us are from the same place. After I made a lot of commercially successful films, MT advised me to do something different. He promised to write a script for me. Even when I was making commercial films for various producers, my taste was for good films, like the ones made by people like Satyajit Ray.
I came into the field to make good films but the moment I entered I understood that money plays a major role in film-making. I also understood that as a director I have a responsibility to the man who invests in films. I found that it is not easy to make the kind of movies you like.
So did you feel bad when you had to make comedies?
Of course, I felt extremely bad. But then, I looked at my work from a professional point of view. It was just a profession for me.
I have heard that your new film Ende Swantham Janakikutty is not a success. Is that true?
How do you define success? What yardstick do you use to measure success?
I meant commercial success. Unlike the other MT-Hariharan films, this was not a success commercially, I've heard.
Parinayam was made based on MT's script. It was not a success commercially. I made the movie not to attract the masses but it was highly appreciated and won several awards. It was the inaugural film at the Indian panorama. Will you say it was not a success?
In the same way, my new film also was not made to drag people to the theatre. I wanted to make it differently. So it was not a shock to me when it did not do well commercially. You cannot judge a film based on collection records. If that is so, many of our great film-makers are not successful. If a film is not successful both commercially and artistically, I'll call it a failure.
How important are awards to you?
Very, very important. It is an appreciation for your creative talent. You will be remembered later only if your film is artistically good and well appreciated. That's why awards are very important. Everybody remembers a film which has won a national award but nobody remembers a film which broke all collection records.
|