Hit man
|
Hariharan. Click for bigger pic!
|
It was 23 years ago that Hariharan made his first movie, a comedy. Now he isn't as famous for his comedies as for making among the most sensitive films in Malayalam cinema.
In association with M T Vasudevan Nair, that icon of Malayalam literature, he has made a number of remarkable award-winning films, films that are also popular with viewers, a fact that many producers cashed on.
With his kind of success rate, Hariharan could chance casting superstar Prem Nazir as a comedian, and having a hit; taking on unknown youngsters to star in his films that became blockbusters and award-winners. Films like Sargam, Nakhakshathangal, Panchagni and Oru Vadakkan Veera Gatha. His latest film Ende Swantham Janakikutty was an attraction at the recent film festival in Thiruvananthapuram.
In a chat with Shobha Warrier, the veteran of 60 films reveals what makes him tick.
Is cinema a form of creative expression for you?
Yes, to me, cinema is a medium to express my creativity. But these days only the element of entertainment in films is highlighted. Today, an ordinary viewer wants only entertainment from films. There is only a minority who expects artistic satisfaction from this medium. When a majority of viewers clamour for entertainment, we are forced to make movies for this segment. Let me stress one thing, this phenomenon, this clamour for entertainment is something new.
You mean, earlier the audience was much more artistically inclined?
Yes, that's what I feel. Earlier, quite a few artistic movies were made in Kerala. We believed more in the creative aspect of movies. We believed in conveying some good message to the people. That was in the sixties. It continued to in seventies too to some extent. (Here I am talking only about the Malayalam films). As time went by, people began looking at films as an entertainment medium alone. Now they do not want anything more than that.
What do you think are the reasons for this change in audience attitude?
|
Chemjal and Jomol in Ende Swantham Janakikutty. Click for bigger pic!
|
It may be because of the fast pace of life, may be because of the frustrations they have, may be because of the tensions they undergo in real life. They don't want to see any serious social issue or problem in the films also.
In fact, they do not show any interest in serious thought. So most film-makers make movies with only the interests of the viewers in mind. There are only a few who make movies to satisfy their creative urge. I too have made quite a few movies solely to satisfy myself. While I made those films, I did not even think about the audience reaction. Like you said earlier, I was expressing myself through those movies -- creative expression.
There is a small group of film-makers who indulge in this kind of movie making even now, for the small minority who look at movies as an artistic expression of a creative mind. This small group is more visible in Kerala and Bengal.
There is a lot of money involved in film-making. When you make movies for your own satisfaction or for the minority who love good cinema, what about saleability? What about retrieving the money spent?
Yes, we have to think of that angle also as a lot of money is involved. Still, if the standard of your film is high, there are several other openings available. For example, there are film festivals all over the world. If your film is good enough to get an entry in the international festivals, the chances of breaking even are more, much more. You can retrieve some money when you win awards too. You may be surprised but the money you get from these venues help you recover the cost.
Then, don't you have to make movies at a very low cost?
They have to be low cost. But today, it is very difficult to make such films, mainly because of the cost of the raw materials. But when you look at the cost of the commercial films, we don't spend anything at all.
What gives you more satisfaction, creating a good film or its acceptance by the public?
One's own satisfaction is important. At the same time, acceptance also is essential. See, it is like this, you feel satisfied after making a good product. When it is accepted by people, your satisfaction is complete. You create something which you think is good, but when it is rejected by people, it is but natural that you feel unhappy and dejected.
So, commercial success also in necessary for a film-maker to feel totally satisfied?
|
Hariharan. Click for bigger pic!
|
It's not true that a good film can't be commercially successful. Good films also can be commercially successful. For example, some of my films which the critics and the lovers of good films described as good films, like Nakhakshathangal, Sargam, Panchagni etc were also commercially successful. These films had won either the national award or been selected for various film festivals. I must also admit that this is a rarity...
You said people go to see movies just for entertainment. So, what are the kind of ingredients that you have to have to make your films commercially as well as artistically successful?
To tell you the truth, nobody knows the right formula. We can only say that it happens. It just happens. Remember, entertainment can be of different types. Strong, emotionally-charged movies make people involve in the happenings of the movie. I think that is also a kind of entertainment for them, a different kind of entertainment.
You said films are creative expressions for a director. How different is it from, say, a short story or a painting, where the creation is the product of an individual? In films, aren't there too many people involved?
Cinema, I have heard, is the mixture of seven art forms -- music, dance, painting, dramatics, etc. So, you can call films an art from where all these creative art forms come together in a very harmonious way.
But in the case of films, all these art forms are performed by various individuals and not by the director alone. What I wanted to know was, if films are creative expressions of a director, how much of his creativity is involved in the making of a film?
I feel a good director should have the some working knowledge of all these art forms. He should be conscious of the possibilities available in music, dance, acting painting, etc. Such directors generally can produce better cinematic art, mixing all these ingredients in a proper way. ...A good or able director... has to be there, his creative mind has to be there from the very beginning. That is, from the time the story is conceived itself.
There are different kind of directors. One type of director goes to the sets with a story written by somebody else, then discusses it with his cameraman and then the cameraman shoots the film. An editor edits it for him. Somebody else composes music for him. How much of the creativity of the director is there in these cases? You yourself can judge. But don't think I am criticising them. It all depends on the knowledge of individual directors.
|
Mohini and Manoj K Jayan in Parinayam. Click for bigger pic!
|
But a "perfect" director is 'all-in-all'. He conceives the subject, either by himself or by selecting it well, and he decides how to treat the subject.
He has a hand in deciding the music, even the tempo, metre and raga of the music. But it is possible only if he has some knowledge of music.
He can ask the art director to create a set only if he has a clear idea about what he wants. Only if the director has the shooting angle in mind can he discuss the set with the art director. He has to be there when the sets are made.
I edit my films in my mind before the shooting itself. So, on the editing table, not much work is needed. All these things have to be in the mind of a good director. I try to get involved in all the departments to a large extent. I read the script before shooting not once but several times, not one day but for more than a week.
Do you visualise the whole film beforehand?
Yes, I visualise the whole film. So, shooting is not strenuous at all for me.
So, you do more work before the shooting and it is quite easy for me to shoot the film actually. I do not know how it is for others.
How long does it take you to conceive a film mentally?
May be a week after I get the script. But it will there in your mind from the moment you start discussing the story. So, it is not needed for you to shut yourself up in a room and visualise the whole film. It will be there in your mind. Once I start shooting, I don't discuss anything with anyone. I expect everyone to be ready with their parts, which includes both artists and technicians.
Everything, every minute thing will be looked into earlier. Naturally, shooting is not strenuous at all for me. Shooting, in fact, is easy, tension-free and satisfying, I will say. We don't commit many mistakes. That is how I shoot films, even films based on MT's scripts.
When a director directs a story based on somebody else's story, for example when you make a movie from MT's story, is it possible for the director to fully understand the characters created by another person?
Certainly, it is possible. But you have to properly discuss with the writer about what he has visualised. At the same time a director is not bound by the ideas of the writer. He has every right and freedom to go beyond what a writer thinks.
So, a director can claim the film to be his own product even if it is not conceived by him.
|
Geetha in Pachagni. Click for bigger pic!
|
Of course. That is how it happens too. See, films like Vadakkan Veera Gatha, Panchangni were based on MT's scripts. I have made films based on stories by legends in Malayalam literature like K T Mohammed and my own stories and scripts. In the case of somebody else's story, you have work a little more hard to visualise the whole thing.
Is there any difference between conceiving and visualising your own story and somebody else's story?
There is no difference at all as far as I am concerned. See, we know our language and when you read a novel set in the milieu familiar to us, what is the big deal in understanding the characters or situations? If a director can't do that, he should not call himself a director. How can you say that you can conceive only your own story? If you cannot even understand the characters from your own surroundings, you are deficient as a director.
Earlier you said that once you select a story, you start thinking about its treatment. Will you elaborate on the word 'treatment'?
In simple terms, a treatment is how a story has to be treated on screen. Like the various scenes in a drama, a film also has various scenes. So, from a novel or a story, you create scenes from films. That is treatment. So after you conceive a story, you have to visualise it in the form of scenes which has to be continuous and constructive. This has to be done quite intelligently, otherwise there won't be any flow in the film. A film depends heavily on screenplay.
Is screenplay the most important ingredient in a film?
Exactly. If the screenplay is not powerful, the film won't be good. That is the equation. It is the screenplay which makes people sit inside the theatre and concentrate on what is going on screen. A director should always have a strong hand and be fully involved in shaping the screenplay.
Otherwise, what is the job of a director? If somebody writes a story and a screenplay and somebody films it and somebody else edits it, there is no need to have a director at all. Irrespective of who writes the story, irrespective of who writes the screenplay, it is the director who decides on what should come on screen or how it should appear on screen.
'Of course, there are art and commercial movies'
|