Q1: We have heard a lot of debate on the topic ‘Art for the sake of art or art for society?’ Do you think that the ‘art for the sake of art’ argument plays an important role in preserving the dignity and aesthetic values of art, in particular, cinema?
A: Yes, undoubtedly. What you said is right is undoubtedly right in the case of any form of art. Why should we do a movie? That is a very important and fundamental question. The creative urge of a film maker which leads him to the grain of thought of a film is something which should be valued and revered. But at the same time, cinema is a very expensive art form. And this fact creates hurdles which are to be dealt with, with a serious level of deserving care.
A: Yes, undoubtedly. What you said is right is undoubtedly right in the case of any form of art. Why should we do a movie? That is a very important and fundamental question. The creative urge of a film maker which leads him to the grain of thought of a film is something which should be valued and revered. But at the same time, cinema is a very expensive art form. And this fact creates hurdles which are to be dealt with, with a serious level of deserving care.
Q2: Also when it comes to the ‘art for society’ argument, it is often mentioned that cinema should have something like a message in it which is supposed to possess potential to change the society in a desirable course and that cinema should be something more reachable to the mass rather than a targeted audience.
A: Yes. We cannot completely disagree with any of these arguments. Let it be establishing communicability with the mass or conveying a social message through the medium of cinema. It is really fine. But the problems begin when the element of art undergoes serious levels of compromise and many other irrelevant factors take charge in the name of any argument of this sort. There is no such rule that a movie should or should not have a message or anything of that sort in it. What it communicates when it speaks for itself, itself is the message of the film. I don’t intend to use the word ‘message’ here, in a very clichéd sense as narrow as taking a moral standpoint. A novel aesthetic cinematic experience which a film maker intends to provide can also be called a message. In this sense, every purposeful work of cinema has got a message in it.
Q3: In the process of film making, where does the role of a director end and where does the role of a cinematographer begin? It would be great if you clarify this from a common man’s point of view.
A: It is very difficult to give an answer to this question in one sentence. It depends on many factors like, the nature of the cameraman, the nature of the director, seniority, how well do they communicate and blend each other etc. So it is very difficult to say that the cinematographer or the director takes charge at a particular point. There are many instances like the credit goes to the director for the cameraman’s work and also vice versa. It is a personal thing. Ideally, as a film maker, the director should have a very clear vision of what he wants. The cinematographer will be more aware of the practical difficulties and possibilities of the director’s suggestions. So the visual idea that comes out finally should be a fresh idea made by amalgamating his ideas and the cinematographer’s idea.
Q4: In the current so-called “new generation scenario”, we see many gimmicks done with camera which seem to amuse both young cinema aspirants and audience, which unfortunately are done with no consideration for what the mood of the movie is or what the story demands. How do you look at that?
A: The main reason for the emergence of such a trend in Malayalam cinema is the ease which digital technology provides in the execution of cinematography. It is very simple now to execute, without a proper understanding of this art or contemplation on it. Trends keep on changing. Only real and genuine flair and aestheticism will stand apart.
Q5: People often confuse these superficial gimmicks with artistic excellence. What is your take on that?
A: It is not a new phenomenon. It has always existed. There were times when shooting in a visually appealing location was equated or confused with good cinematography. When the manually rotated camera was used, the calibre of a cameraman was considered only as the ability to rotate it in the perfect speed. The trend has changed a long way from there. So trend keeps on changing as always. People who run after trends often fade out with the trend they follow which is inevitable to the birth of a new trend. People who emphasize on the aesthetic values or those who emphasize on what the movie or the director demands tend to last long.
Q6: So how do we learn to distinguish between these superficial gimmicks and brilliant cinematography? What should the audience do to make a clear distinction regarding this matter?
A: Let alone cinema, all the art forms face this problem. For example, consider literature. Which is a good poetry and which is the bad one? The ability to judge or identify real brilliance or quality of a work of art comes from our culture & proper upbringing. It is something we should cultivate within ourselves. There is no specific technique for that purpose. We should allow ourself some time to grow, to see more and to expand our horizons by exposing ourself to what the giants who have walked through the earth before us have done.
Q7: It would be new information to many people out there that you are the grandson of the acclaimed Malayalam short story writer Karur Neelakanta Pillai. I would like to know which all authors, both in Kerala & abroad, have influenced you.
A: I had a lot of books in my home during my childhood days. We appreciate different authors at different stages of life. O.V Vijayan was one of my favourite authors those days. Khazakkinte Ithihaasam is an incredible work which hasn’t lost its novelty even now. There are only a few books like Khazakkinte Ithihaasam. I like V.S Naipaul and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. I prefer non-fiction more. So of course I like ‘The story of a shipwrecked sailor’.
Q8: Who are the major colossal figures, both from India & abroad, in cinema who have influenced you?
A: It is also something that depends on our age. During college days we appreciate the kind of movies which would probably be different from the ones we used to appreciate during our school days. And when we become a part of the industry, we appreciate cinema in a totally different level,. We would start to admire totally different aspects of cinema then. So it is very difficult to say. But still I can say that the two movies in Malayalam which have fascinated and touched me the most are ‘Nirmalyam’ and ‘Kaanchana Sita’. I have had some opportunities to watch classics from abroad through film society when I was here. But serious watching started only after going to the Pune Film Institute. I have always admired & still admire the masters like Fellini, Godard and Kurosawa.
Q9: You have had the opportunity to work with the great avant-garde film maker John Abraham in ‘Amma Ariyan’. Can share some thoughts and memories?
A: John Abraham was a very interesting person. I knew him before I associated with him. I consider it a great fortune to have worked with such a great film maker. The conviction regarding the task, of which one is going to take charge, is the most important thing and, John had that very much. And he was right in his conviction. Time has proved that. That is the reason why even now you are eager to discuss ‘Amma Ariyan’.
Q10. You have also associated with the great master director Padmarajan who has nurtured Malayalam cinema with a handful of masterpieces like Moonnam pakkam, Aparan, Namukku paarkkan munthirithoppukal, Arappatta kettiya gramathil, season, Njan Gandharvan etc, of which you were a part. It would be great if you share your memories about working with him.
A: I have done a lot of films with Padmarajan. He was my closest friend in Trivandrum. I had a lot of movies at that time. After completing each shoot he was the first person I used to call on the telephone and meet. We were always together while working on each stage of a movie, let it be discussing a script or story or whatever. We also used to travel together in search of locations. We had a lot of common topics of interest to chat, we shared similar tastes. We had a great intellectual proximity and friendship. One of his major qualities as a film maker was the diversity of the subjects he chose for his films. None of his movies were similar to the other in terms of story or premises.
Q11: About ‘Daya’ as your directorial debut...
A: Daya is a 100% M.T Vasudevan Nair project I should say. M.T Sir asked me to direct the movie. It was a great experience as a debutant director even though the story was not my idea. The shooting went really interesting and enjoyed a lot.
A: Daya is a 100% M.T Vasudevan Nair project I should say. M.T Sir asked me to direct the movie. It was a great experience as a debutant director even though the story was not my idea. The shooting went really interesting and enjoyed a lot.
Q12: Munnariyippu was your second venture. Along with all other factors, undoubtedly, casting, I believe, was an important factor in making it one of the best movies ever in the history of Malayalam cinema. Every actor right from the veterans like Mammootty, Nedumudi Venu & Kochu Preman to the freshers like Minon John and Aparna Gopinath has given his/her best in the movie. Especially, Anjali Arakkal is a pivotal character in the movie and wasn’t it a hard task to find an actress who could handle that role brilliantly. Can you say something about it?
A: Yes. Casting has a very important role in that movie. Casting is still something mysterious to me. To be frank, we thought of many actors and actresses for many roles in this movie. Making a perfect casting is an important part which makes a movie convincing. Actually, I had another actress in mind to play Anjaly Arakkal before fixing Aparna. But the plans changed later. Anyway, it turned out well. There are many untapped reservoirs of potential in Malayalam cinema like Kochu Preman. I had noticed him before. He is a very good actor with brilliant timing and he is so natural. Unfortunately many brilliant actors in Malayalam cinema get sidelined because of typecasting. So glad to know that you appreciate such details in the movie.
A: Yes. Casting has a very important role in that movie. Casting is still something mysterious to me. To be frank, we thought of many actors and actresses for many roles in this movie. Making a perfect casting is an important part which makes a movie convincing. Actually, I had another actress in mind to play Anjaly Arakkal before fixing Aparna. But the plans changed later. Anyway, it turned out well. There are many untapped reservoirs of potential in Malayalam cinema like Kochu Preman. I had noticed him before. He is a very good actor with brilliant timing and he is so natural. Unfortunately many brilliant actors in Malayalam cinema get sidelined because of typecasting. So glad to know that you appreciate such details in the movie.
Q13: While talking about Munnariyippu, this question pops up in my mind. Munnariyippu is not meant to be watched with your eyes alone. It demands a bit more from the audience. The movies we see today are mostly spoon-fed junk. Don’t you think that this kind of spectatorship brought up in spoon-feeding culture hinders the appreciation of movies that demand contemplation from the part of the audience on what the film maker is trying to communicate and freedom from prejudice?
A: That is mainly a mistake of film makers. The film makers do not trust the audience. They underestimate the audience and that is why they follow certain unwritten rules. Experiments fail because people try to experiment without understanding the conventions. How will you break conventions without knowing them? One should learn the basics first. It’s mandatory. Cinema has got a language, a grammar & certain models to express the ideas. Only after studying all these basics one can make the alterations he wants. Otherwise it’s impossible. It is also true that the audience are reluctant when a film demands something more from them than passive spectatorship. But it’s again something like Pavlovian conditioning. It should not be made an excuse for compromise. It’s not right to feed the audience with the same stuff over and over by making it an excuse. It won’t do any good.
Q14: So you believe that film makers are supposed to take the initiative to overcome this issue of intellectual inertia in the audience, don’t you?
A: Absolutely. There are always two kinds of people when it comes to appreciation of any art. One appreciates the lighter aspects and the other craves for more intellectually stimulating aspects. Both these groups coexist and they should. Yes of course I agree that the desire of the former are glorified and the later are sidelined. People are different and so are film makers. One film maker may prefer to satisfy the former and the other may prefer the later. Different film makers have different levels of potentials, different intellectual capacities and different concepts of aesthetics. Whatever the case is, first of all, a person who advocates good films should try to make good films and not what he thinks is good. If you want your film to be in a particular way you envisage and if you are not daring enough to push the limits to materialize it, then there is no point in whining or complaining, You are supposed to take a stand courageously when you have to.
