17 settembre 2022

HANIF KUREISHI: EVERY 10 YEARS YOU BECOME SOMEONE ELSE


[Archivio]

Vi segnalo un corposo articolo del 2014 dedicato ad Hanif Kureishi, scrittore britannico di origine pachistana da parte di padre. Di seguito riporto un lungo estratto. Hanif Kureishi interview: 'Every 10 years you become someone else', Robert McCrum, The Guardian, 19 gennaio 2014:

'To the New York Times, he's "a kind of post-colonial Philip Roth"; for the Times, he is one of "50 greatest British writers since 1945". (...) He has just sold his manuscripts to the British Library. Unlike some, he hasn't left for America and still lives in Shepherd's Bush, west London, where he continues to write fiction and screenplays. (...) Not many contemporary writers pull off that double, especially after 30 years. But that's the thing about Kureishi: he has always performed in many dimensions (short stories, essays, screenplays), projecting a mischievous air of jeopardy and transgression. (...) From a career of thinking and talking about himself, the public Kureishi has morphed into someone he can happily discuss as a kind of alter ego. In the past, he has said that he gives "at least one interview a week. Over a period of time you work up an account of yourself and one day you find you even believe it. Finally, it has become the story of your life." Exactly so. 


You might say that he's been playing a double game since the day he was born in Bromley to an English mother and a Pakistani father on 5 December 1954. As a "child of empire", the young Kureishi grew up in two worlds, western and eastern. Originally from India and later Pakistan, his father's family are what he calls "upper-middle-class". He continues: "My grandfather, an army doctor, was a colonel in the Indian army. Big family. Servants. Tennis court. Cricket. Everything. My father went to the Cathedral school that Salman Rushdie went to. Later, in Pakistan, my family were close to the Bhuttos. My uncle Omar was a newspaper columnist and the manager of the Pakistan cricket team."
After partition in 1947, the Kureishi family went to Pakistan to create a new society, the Islamic state called Pakistan, seeing themselves like American pioneers. "Basically," he says now, "I am a sort of English kid, but I was always linked to the empire. Not only am I the child of a mixed marriage, but I always had that history."
His father, Rafiushan (Shanu), had taken the boat to England to study law. When the money ran out, Shanu landed a desk job at the Pakistani embassy, met his future wife, Audrey (Buss), on a double date and ended up in south London with two children, Hanif and Yasmin, eking out a life of permanent disappointment, writing novels on the kitchen table, but getting turned down. "He had wanted to be a writer and an artist," says his son, introducing a characteristic note of frosty candour into the conversation, "and he hadn't achieved that."


Although his father's fate must have been a dreadful warning, Kureishi looked to literature for self-enlightenment and self-advancement. The first prerequisite for any artist, Kureishi had something to say, and a burning need to say it, reinforced by 50s Bromley. "It was rough down there," he remembers. "The racism of the 50s and 60s that we, unlike France and Germany, have grown out of, was overt. You were made aware of your difference all the time. So you began to think, 'Where does this come from? What does it mean?'"
Kureishi was confused, but singular. He was another kind of pioneer, the first of many "writers of colour" to have been born here. "I was born in Bromley and grew up in the suburbs," he says. "V.S. Naipaul and Salman Rushdie were born elsewhere. By the age of 14, I'm a Pakistani kid who likes Jimi Hendrix, takes drugs and wants sex. How do you make a book out of this?" He goes on, slightly professorial. "You have to invent a style and a world. It was a new kind of English realism." In the past, Kureishi has admitted "denying my Pakistani self", so this is a new tune. Challenged about this, he retreats to the conundrum of his identity: "I just didn't know what to do with it or what use it could be to me. My dad said, 'You should change your name. You could pass.'"
At home, in Bromley, the family hinterland had no relevance or meaning. Here, he was just "a Paki". (...) "We realised that we were just Pakis and niggers. There were a lot of skinheads. My dad was persecuted as he came home from work and he thought it was all too difficult. But I liked my name. I couldn't change it to Pete Brown. So what I had to do," he continues, "was uncover who I really was. You saw that a lot in the 70s: blacks, gays, women. It all came out of (...) the idea that ordinary people have their own history."


But this was not easy. Kureishi's grandfather and uncles were far from ordinary. "They were here all the time," he remembers. "My grandfather, the colonel, was terrifying. A hard-living, hard-drinking gambler. Womanising. Around him it was like The Godfather. They drank and they gossiped. The women would come and go." A version of the young Kureishi's life eventually found its way into both My Beautiful Laundrette and The Buddha of Suburbia. Another rendering of his grandfather recurs in the character of Mamoon Azam, the tyrannical old writer in The Last Word. At the same time, playing that double game, it also becomes a version of Kureishi's literary self.
Books were essential to his assimilation. It was through his life as a writer that he began to discover who he was and to reconcile the warring parts of himself. The doubleness persisted. He would be suburban and metropolitan. Arrogant and shy. An entertainer and a spectator. A bad boy and a good son. A professor and a hooligan. Provocative and complicit. Hankering after the academy, yet living on the street. Juxtaposing high art and popular culture. Quoting Beckett and Kafka, but celebrating (...) reggae and pop music.


Late-70s Britain was on the turn, but the big story, the making of a multicultural society - "the empire strikes back" - was still in progress. Kureishi was just one of several young emerging talents ("Commonwealth writers") who were beginning to find a voice within English society. Then Salman Rushdie and Midnight's Children burst on to the scene in 1980. Kureishi remains competitive with Rushdie. "I wasn't influenced by Midnight's Children," he insists when I bring this up. Really? "No. It came too late. There was no 'magic realism' - no magic only realism - in Bromley. I was influenced by P.G. Wodehouse and Philip Roth." He moves the conversation away from Rushdie, to stress his own credentials. "I like to think I'm a comic writer, in the English comic tradition." (...) But then, to reinforce his sober literary self-image, he adds: "I would not want just to be funny. It would be really tiresome to have to do that all the time. I like writing the sad bits. There are no sad bits in Wodehouse."
Kureishi's quest for meaning somehow had to make sense of many sad bits, some awkward bits, and the kinds of bits that are foreign to the pages of Wodehouse: politics, pop culture, sex, drugs and race. "How do you make a story out of that?" he challenges. Kureishi's path to a mature coherence was tortuous, a bigger struggle than he wants to let on. "Of course, any writer has to invent a style that contains them," he remarks, "and find a new way of putting together these things about yourself that are puzzling." Literature, as so often in the past, became the outsider's salvation. (...) "Being a writer seemed the way to go." As a teenager, already writing novels and plays, he got taken up by the flamboyant publisher Anthony Blond. At first, he wrote pornography under the name of Antonia French. His work has always revelled in characters either searching for, or fleeing from, sexual fulfilment.


Moving towards the mainstream, he wrote plays for the Hampstead theatre and the Soho Poly. By the time he was 18, he was working at the Royal Court - "I'd got out of Bromley quite early" - and meeting a brilliant new theatrical generation. (...) "We were very politicised," he says. "We called ourselves black at the Royal Court. Even the women called themselves black." Then, discovering he did not like working in the theatre, because he really wanted to be a novelist, he says he "got stuck. I wasn't going to make a living. It was all going off a bit". Finally - eureka! - Channel 4 asked him to write a film, his lucky break.
The script of My Beautiful Laundrette reached the director Stephen Frears, whom Kureishi describes as "my best mate", adding that "Frears found a style for My Beautiful Laundrette, which was seriously overwritten, which made it comic and theatrical". Kureishi's vision of gay skinheads and Thatcherite Pakistani businessmen and their women was a revelation. My Beautiful Laundrette was nominated for an Oscar and won the New York Critics' best screenplay award.
1985 was Kureishi's year, the moment when the disjointed fragments of life and art fell into place. At last, he had found a way to be funny, edgy, true and original. He had found his place. He was just 31. Reflecting on this moment, Kureishi now speaks in a rather grandiose way that he has probably used often in writing classes (he's a professor of creative writing at Kingston University) and in interviews with foreign journalists. "In the early 1980s," he remarks with that peculiar detachment, as if describing someone other than himself, "it was Midnight's Children and My Beautiful Laundrette that changed things. You really felt that British writing had found a new voice and a new way. It had to. It couldn't go on... there had to be something new."


Inspired by the success of My Beautiful Laundrette and motivated to give the British Pakistanis of his generation a distinctive articulation, Kureishi focused his imagination on fiction. "I had always wanted to be a novelist," he says, speaking with quiet passion of the part played by The Buddha of Suburbia in the making of multicultural Britain. "If Britain is a cultural force in Europe - which I think it is - then that's because of multiculturalism and diversity," he says. "I'm proud to have seen that happen. Somehow, Bromley in the 50s and 60s did not boil over. It has been an extraordinary revolution when you think how class-ridden and deferential it used to be. Britain became a multicultural society by mistake. No one ever thought, 'How do we make a multicultural society?'"
The Buddha of Suburbia, coming so soon after My Beautiful Laundrette, put Kureishi in a unique position. He was both a popular bestseller and critically acclaimed. He had made those links between Bombay and Bromley, reconciling the one to the other. Within British culture, he was both an icon of multiculturalism and its gadfly, especially to the rising generation of new Britons. Zadie Smith remembers her first reading of The Buddha of Suburbia, aged 15: "There was one copy going round our school like contraband. I read it in one sitting in the playground and missed all my classes. I'd never read a book about anyone remotely like me before."


The public phase of Kureishi's quest for meaning and identity was over. Indeed, it would be Zadie Smith in White Teeth who would make the significant creative advance on to the new ground broken by The Buddha of Suburbia. Kureishi was personally rich ("a little overwhelmed at the number of cheques that turned up at my council flat"), but the well of his imagination was depleted. Or, to put it another way, he had possibly expended so much creative energy in achieving the literary synthesis so dazzlingly displayed in Laundrette and The Buddha of Suburbia that there was no more fuel in his tank. Creatively, he had made a unique statement, based on a profound interrogation of himself. Like many literary pioneers, he could break out of the matrix of his imagination only with the greatest difficulty.
As the 80s became the 90s, Kureishi reached an impasse. His perfect pitch became discordant and uncertain. His second novel, The Black Album (1995), a satirical look at fundamentalism after the fatwa, was less successful. Kureishi found he could no longer hunt with the hounds and run with the hare as he'd liked. "My sense of myself changed," he says. The two events that compromised his role as an enfant terrible who was also a spokesman both occurred in the private arena, with his family.


First, he became the father of twin boys; then his father died. "I found I was shoved into the next zone," he says. "I'd been this kid with long hair, hanging around in London, taking drugs and having sex with girls. Suddenly, I was getting up at seven in the morning and taking my kids to the park. My life switched. I'd become an adult. These kids were looking to me as a father and I was responsible. I could no longer write books from the point of view of a 17-year-old."
It says a lot about Kureishi's investment in that teenage self that it was not until his 40s that the boyish Hanif could make the transition into adulthood. At this point, apropos his new life as a father, he says something that possibly holds the key to the inner man. "That's what's great about being a writer," he remarks, out of the blue. "Every 10 years you become somebody else."
But the somebody else he became during the 90s and into the millennium was not a writer at home in the world. Kureishi was still in search of his identity and role. His muse was still the imp of the perverse. He had exploited that in public. Now, much more controversially, he would attempt it in private. In The Buddha of Suburbia, of course, he had mined his family hinterland. Now, he would get up close and personal. (...) After the publication of The Buddha of Suburbia, his sister, Yasmin, had accused him, in the Guardian, of selling the family "down the line" with his portrait of their parents and grandparents. "My father," she says, "felt that Hanif robbed him of his dignity." Father and son did not speak for many months. Today, in Shepherd's Bush, he makes a point of telling me that he "spoke to my mum this morning".


That was as nothing compared with the furore about Intimacy, a novella about a man leaving his wife and two sons, a self-lacerating fiction that some felt to be too shockingly close to home (Kureishi had just left his partner, Tracey Scoffield, and their twin sons). He won't talk about this damaging episode now beyond wryly acknowledging that it "put me in trouble with the chicks".
It was after this crisis that he embarked on a programme of psychotherapy with the analyst and writer Adam Phillips, a twice-weekly relationship he treasures. Inevitably, he must make light of it: "You start to feel better after about 10 years," he says. Therapy has absorbed much of Kureishi's psychic energy. In a recent essay, he describes how far his fiction has come from his Bromley days: "I'm interested in the area where philosophy, literature and psychoanalysis cross over - the mind in the world."
The more Kureishi turned inward, the feebler the creative dividends. His 2008 novel, Something to Tell You, was described by the New York Times as "a sprawling romp". From another point of view, it was notably unedited and artistically unfocused, a casual anthology of trademark themes: kinky sex, metropolitan drugginess and suburban decadence braided with snippets of philosophy and psychotherapy.

His new novel, however, The Last Word, returns him to his personal hinterland. Mamoon Azam is an eminent novelist who has authorised an ambitious younger writer, Harry Johnson, to undertake his biography, in the hope that it will rescue his career and reputation. The idea that the end of a life is as interesting as its beginning is a fruitful one, with echoes of the relationship between V.S. Naipaul and his biographer Patrick French. But, at heart, it's really a commentary on the complicated inner turmoil of Kureishi's own career.
As usual, the epigrammatic Kureishi has a good line in good lines. There are sharp asides about England, (a "wilderness of monkeys"), and art ("anything good has to be a little pornographic"), with references to Orwell, Johnny Rotten and Wodehouse. Mamoon is an engaging monster, drawn from Kureishi's grandfather, but also an idealisation of Kureishi's alter ego, an internationally respected literary man. The closing lines of the novel tell us all we need to know about Kureishi's current self-image: "He'd been a writer, a maker of worlds, a teller of important truths. This was a way of changing things, of living well, and creating freedom".'

15 settembre 2022

SHYAM RAMSAY: PEOPLE SAY THE GHOSTS IN MY FILMS WERE NOT SCARY


[Archivio]

Il 18 settembre 2022 saranno tre anni da quando il follemente unico Shyam Ramsay ha lasciato milioni di orfani fra gli appassionati di horror/B-movie. Shyam era uno dei membri del gremito clan familiare Ramsay - più che un cognome, un marchio - di produttori, registi e tecnici. Vorrei ricordarlo proponendovi alcune dichiarazioni rilasciate da Shyam a Patcy N., pubblicate da Rediff il 13 marzo 2014. Shyam Ramsay: People say the ghosts in my films were not scary:

'Early days
My father F.U. Ramsay and his family came to Mumbai from Pakistan after Partition. He financed a film called Shaheed-E-Azam Bhagat Singh in 1954. The film did well, and he wanted to make more films. (...) In Prithviraj Kapoor-starrer Ek Nannhi Munni Ladki Thi (1970), all the Ramsay brothers, including me, assisted. I was 22 then. In a robbery scene in the film, Prithviraj Kapoor steals an antique from a museum. He uses a face mask to disguise himself. The mask was imported. It was so horrifying that the film’s publicity was based entirely on this one mask. Posters of the mask were made and published everywhere. Before that, nobody had seen a horrifying face on the big screen. People went to the theatre just to see Prithviraj Kapoor in that scary mask. That’s when we thought that if audiences love to watch such scary faces, why not make a full-fledged horror film? I directed India’s first horror film, Do Gaz Zameen Ke Neeche (1972). After that, we made approximately 32 films, and all of them were horror films.


Getting into direction
Ever since I was a kid, I liked to be by myself. I would go deep into the jungles, see ruins, roam the valleys, and gaze at stars from the terrace. I would sit and think what is life? What happens when we die? This mystery fascinates me even today. As a kid, I saw a neighbour who was possessed. I did not understand why that person’s behaviour was abnormal. I would be intrigued by all these things. I thought that if all these things are moulded into a film, it would be fun. I started watching Hollywood films like Evil Dead, The Exorcist, and Omen. These films inspired me to make Do Gaz Zameen Ke Neeche. When I told my father that I want to direct, he was very happy. He had always told us to do what we loved to do. We never trained in any field. All my brothers worked with me and that film was successful. We had understood the pulse of the audience. When a film worked, we made a similar film; when it did not work, we would analyse why it did not work. I started making hit films like Darwaza, Purana Mandir, Hotel, Saboot, Veerana. These films did big business for us.


Why his films flopped
I faced no problems making my first film. But with success, you get criticism too. You can also get overconfident. So I made mistakes as well. I made a film called Andhera (1975). It was a very well made film, and ahead of its time. It was based on the Hollywood film Boston Strangler. In my film, a killer loses both his limbs and he starts killing with his artificial limbs. The police don’t suspect him because he has no hands. The audience was not prepared for that. If the film was made today, it would do good business because now people understand robots. Another film, Guest House, also flopped. In the film, four men cut a person’s hand and the amputated hand murders people. There was no ghost, just a creepy hand that keeps killing people. This movie was not accepted at all. People in small centres still want to watch horror films that have witches and feet turned backwards; in fact people in B and C centres still believe in such things.


About the Ramsay brothers
We are seven brothers. Gangu Ramsay is the cameraman. Tulsi Ramsay also likes to direct so we initially directed together. Tulsiji’s son Deepak Ramsay has been my assistant for years. Kumar Ramsay writes the screenplays. Keshu Ramsay passed away recently. He didn’t make horror films, he loved making action films. He made movies with Akshay Kumar mostly, like the Khiladi series. Arjun Ramsay has always been involved in editing. Kiran Ramsay is involved in all the production matters and song designing. My daughter Sasha is my right hand. She has been assisting me for the past eight years. She’s the associate director on Neighbours. She has helped me with the script and editing. We will soon launch her as a director. We brothers still work together. The youngsters have now grown up and have joined the family business of making horror films. We never have arguments because the captain of the ship is the director and it is his vision. My brothers cooperate and give me what I want. I have always taken suggestions from them. There are no differences; in fact, before I say it, they understand what I want to say.

Veerana

Technical defects
People criticise me saying that the ghosts in my films sometimes wore canvas shoes and were not scary. That is true. In those days, we were not technically sound. Films were made on a very low budget, so if there was a small defect, we would let it pass, and audiences often didn’t catch those defects. Audiences today are more sensible, and they look for defects. I want to make films like Hollywood does, and try out different themes like possessed people, zombies, vampires, monsters, creatures... but my stories will always be Indian so audiences will identify with them.


The role of sex in horror films
Sex is a very important factor in horror films. The main intention of horror films is to scare people. Most Hindi horror films run for two-and-a-half hours. If we continuously scare people for two-and-a-half hours, it will be an overdose of horror. So we always see to it that after a little bit of horror we give relief to the audience by adding comedy, songs and bit of glamour too. In order to have lighter moments in the film, I always have some sex scenes. It is important to present it in a neat and clean way or else it will look downmarket. If you watch any of my old films, you will see that they had sex angles but very neatly presented, and people have appreciated it too.


The reason for gap in making horror films
In the early 1990s we started doing television shows. We made the first horror series, The Zee Horror Show, Anhonee and Nagin. I made films in between like Dhund - The Fog which starred (...) Prem Chopra, Gulshan Grover and Irrfan Khan, and Ghutan. I attempted comedy in Bachao. I don’t take big actors because I have an established banner. I am selling Neighbours entirely on our name. All the publicity material has the tagline ‘Ramsay horror is back’. My surname is more than enough to sell a film. But in future, we will have corporate involvement and bigger stars.


Why we made Neighbours
In the last two years, I have been observing the kind of horror films that are doing good. I realised that some filmmakers have just re-hashed the 32 films that I have made. They have copied the successful Ramsay formula and upgraded it with good music, star cast and promotions. Vikram Bhatt’s Raaz was a super-duper hit, but if you see it carefully, it has all the masala of a Ramsay film. Vikram Bhatt’s presentation was very good, his music was also great, and a big advantage for the film was that a horror film was made after a huge gap. I thought all these kinds of films the Ramsays have done long back. I wanted to attempt something new. I was inspired by the Twilight series and their theme of vampires.

Neighbours

About Neighbours
Nobody has sincerely attempted to make a Hindi film on vampires, so I decided to make it. In Neighbours, the heroine’s neighbours are vampires. The heroine loves watching horror films and reading horror novels. One night, she hears noises in the neighbouring house and comes to know that her neighbours are vampires and suck human blood. We have tried to use today’s technology in the film because the film is for today’s youngsters. We did not want gory-looking people, just good-looking people, so when they change into vampires, I have used graphics. I haven’t used vampire make-up, everything is digitally done. My old films required graveyards, jungles and purani haveli (ruins). The vampire is a modern theme in India. The film is set in a city. My budget in the old days was very little because the returns were small. My most expensive movies never crossed Rs 50 lakh. The same movie, if I have to do it today with a fresh star cast and good music and graphics, as in Neighbours, would cost me Rs 3 crore. But I am sure I will recover it because now films are shown in multiplexes too.

His upcoming horror movies
Ram Gopal Varma is my good friend and well-wisher. He liked my Do Gaz Zameen Ke Neeche and has told me that I should remake it. I like his suggestion. We are planning something on those lines. I loved Ramuji’s Bhoot with Urmila. I am planning to remake of Veerana as Veerana 2. Sasha will be launched in Veerana 2. Another film that I am making is Roohani - that’s a tentative title'.


14 settembre 2022

KARAN JOHAR E ANURAG KASHYAP AMICI PER LA PELLE

Promozione di Bombay Velvet

[Archivio]

L'amicizia che lega Anurag Kashyap e Karan Johar è ormai cosa nota, ma al suo sbocciare, una decina d'anni fa circa, stupì davvero tutti nell'ambiente del cinema hindi. Riuscite ad immaginare due registi più diversi fra loro? Eppure le collaborazioni professionali, nel corso del tempo, si sono moltiplicate. Vi segnalo una lunga, esilarante intervista concessa da Johar e Kashyap a Priya Gupta, pubblicata in due parti da The Times of India il 5 e il 6 febbraio 2014.


'From not talking to each other, how did you become friends?
Anurag wrote a blog saying nasty things about me, post which we had a verbal spat. (...) I wondered why he was being nasty when he didn’t even know me. I had seen his Black Friday and absolutely loved it. But I saw him venting to death about me thinking I am this rich, glamorous, glorious person without any struggle and I frankly hadn’t struggled even though I’d pretend to. Once in an interview, I actually said I grew up in a really small two-bedroom flat in Malabar Hill and used to travel to Goregaon in a taxi. Farah Khan called me and said, ‘Is this your idea of struggle?’ (...) To me, Anurag represented the Ram Gopal Varma school of filmmaking. RGV’s problem with me was that Satya did not win an award. What can I do if I won? Maybe Satya deserved every award versus Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, but he didn’t win it. Too bad. Maybe, I was just better looking than him. So when Anurag took off on me, I decided that he needs a hug and decided to do that when I met him at a restaurant in Bandra. Hundred heads turned at me when I moved towards him. (...) So we hugged (...) and imagined a round trolley going around us and that was it. And from there, the friendship of two people began, whom I believe are the same people.

What was your reason for making Bombay Talkies
I am dying to be that intense director, who is above media and the trappings of the industry. Imtiaz Ali and Anurag Kashyap look like directors. I have become a mockery of myself, dancing in a reality show, judging, hosting. Barring reaching the opening of an envelope, I have reached everywhere else. And I am unapologetically this. My perception by the director community is very flawed. Raju Hirani looks distant, quiet, intelligent, Anurag looks like a mad genius, Imtiaz looks like he is sorted with a sufiist vibe. I look like a third row dancer. I reacted to movies as an audience. To me, The Lunchbox was a love story that would make money. I did Bombay Talkies as I wanted my name along with Anurag, Zoya [Akhtar] and Dibakar [Banerjee]. I felt that critics, who otherwise think I am murdering cinema, may still have an opinion, but at least they will come and see it. That’s why I insisted they put my film first so that no one walks out after seeing the other three films. Dibakar told me after the film, ‘This is your debut film.’ I have admired his work and earlier walked up to him and said, ‘I am your big fan.’ He said, ‘Thank you’ and walked off. I felt that even if he did not want to say nice things about my films, at least he could have complimented me on my shoes or looks. Directors just don’t compliment me. Lagaan is amongst my top five favourite films. Ashutosh Gowariker saw Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham and called me after the trial. I thought he must be calling to say nice things, but he said, ‘Just saw your movie. I didn’t like it at all.’ I said, ‘Oh!’ But it was wonderfully gracious of him a month later to call and compliment me as it had commercially worked. I am obsessed with directors even though they are not obsessed by me. Anurag, please tell her how much I begged you for the role in Bombay Velvet. (...) My input to the most talented filmmakers has been fashion and I am proud of it. Instead of giving creative tips, during Bombay Talkies, I was teaching Zoya, Dibakar and Anurag how to walk the ramp. My big input to Dibakar and Anurag was hair gel and shine spray. Zoya was telling me, ‘What are you making us do?’ And I said, ‘You are walking the ramp, so do it properly. While in Rome do what the Romans do.’

You make us laugh in person, but your films make us cry. 
I love crying and to me, cinema crying is very cathartic. I remember when I watched The Namesake with Mr. [Amitabh] Bachchan. All my pent-up emotions of losing my dad came out, even though, thematically, it had nothing to do with losing a parent. But something triggered an emotion and I just remember weeping. The second time I cried was while watching Taare Zameen Par as I was in boarding school for four days, that too, in the same one shown in the film. I remember my parents leaving me behind there. Seeing the film, I think Niagara Falls had begun and I wept and wept and I called Aamir [Khan] after the show. The first film I cried was in Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se. I was eight years old and was bawling at the end of it. My mother kept explaining to me how that was not real, but that didn’t stop me from crying.

What do you like about Anurag?
At heart, we are the same people. Both of us have a certain sense of acknowledging other people’s brilliance. We have an inherent mentor in us and want to create and nurture resources and put them out in the creative world. We have a sense of impulse and take decisions more from the heart and I identify with him as a human being. I have to eternally be grateful to him for giving me a part in his film, as I got to see how he works and felt so enriched technically.

How different are you as directors? 
He is raw, I am not. I love his projection of women, mine are more stereotypical, based on value systems that I believe in. He has led the life. I have led a very sheltered life till the age of 25 and became a man only at 32, when my dad died. My people observation is still on the surface, but he has been on the road, drunk at times, and taken home, he has seen failure and rejections, seen heartbreaks and failed relationships. He has lived the life. I am still living it. Nothing fails like success. And nothing succeeds like failure. My biggest failing has been my success. I have not been in a long-term relationship, but have been in unrequited love, so whenever I show that, I get it correct. But when I try and show something I have not experienced, I am caught. You put actors together, they don’t know how to have fun, but you put directors together, they feed off each others’ energies.

Your advice to Anurag?
You have to not only control your film, but also the environment without getting sucked into it. Somewhere, the director in me has taken a beating because of the producer in me. Never go there, but understand your business. He represents a certain brand of brilliance, which can be platformed at another level if he does that.

Were you always this secure as a person?
A conversation with my father changed my view of the world. I was the blue-eyed boy after Kuch Kuch Hota Hai in 1998. Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam came in 1999, which I loved, but it bothered me to no end. I was getting jealous and I was tracking its box office. My father saw it. My father asked me, ‘How did you like the film?’ I said, ‘I loved it.’ He said, ‘What is bothering you?’ I said, ‘It is making me feel inferior.’ He said, ‘You will never grow. Go and call Sanjay Leela Bhansali and tell him how mad you are about the film and see how good you feel.’ I did that and felt relieved. He said, ‘How will you grow if you don’t acknowledge?’.'

Karan Johar in Bombay Velvet

'Karan Johar and you are extremely different people. What brings you together?
A lot of things bring us together. I used to be a very opinionated person and used to always resent Karan for the fact that he was privileged and the fact that he comes from a big filmi family. How he just gets away with anything and we slog our asses off and don’t even get our releases. I felt that this industry doesn’t support me and was very anti-industry, and just thought of making good cinema. But after meeting Karan, I realised that I am more opinionated about the industry than the industry is about me. I understood that everything I had in my head about people was in my head only. It was not my attitude that I did not want to work with stars. It was me not knowing them and having the fear whether I would be able to retain my own identity if I worked with them. All the fear was unfounded and I found that actors actually want to experiment with themselves. Whenever I have angst, Karan teaches me how to throw it away and laugh at it. I have understood why you need these blockbusters as money circulates. Those 200 crores is what comes to us so that we can make these kind of films. He was the first man I met who was laughing at himself and I learnt the ability to be able to laugh at yourself from him. It was always my own complexes as an outsider that got enhanced. I realised later that everything that happened with me was for the good. But, at that time, I blamed the industry for all the consequences.

Why do you have so much angst in you?
I am a mush bag but have this incredible struggle with myself. I have angst, but it is transformed. Earlier, my angst was with the industry, now it is with the media. I feel there is such a desperation for news bytes that everything and anything is becoming news and, sometimes, I find myself at the receiving end of it. For instance, for a long time, I kept ignoring stories about my personal life but when you start writing it, you land up creating it. (...) I deal with my angst by calling Karan now.

Talk about your friendship with Karan?
I am unfortunate that I did not discover Karan earlier as I would have got rid of a lot of things. I have a serious communication issue. I also understood a sense of responsibility from him as a filmmaker as someone is paying for your love of making films. I used to earlier shrug that responsibility in the name of making good cinema. Being cost-conscious, when you have no money to begin with, is no virtue. It’s about being conscious when you have been given the money. Karan is a generous human being and is generous about everything in his life. The amount of opportunities he gives people, the way he treats people, the way he gives. He mentors you. My most favourite image is Karan Johar doing the hair of my daughter at Cannes Film Festival. My daughter was very worried, but he made her look good. For the next two months, she was telling her friends, ‘You know Karan Johar dressed me up and did my hair.’ No father can be given a bigger gift than that. He does these things impulsively without even thinking. He makes me emotional. I have a gush of love for him and need to hug him. I like to listen to him and watch him with wonder on how he makes you laugh. He has done so much good to me emotionally, internally. I can ask him things and am not afraid to admit things I don’t know. I have no sense of dressing. I can call him and he will help me. He will sit honestly and give me feedback about my films. He is so straightforward and honest. We know how he is so self-deprecating. You see him not feeling bad about a lot of things. He is also a human being and may feel hurt, but the way he puts it out, it makes the person hurting him feel bad as he just laughs out at it. All these qualities are rare and that is why he is the common person loved by everyone, despite all camps, and is evolving at a pace in his life that none of us are. 

Your advice to Karan?
He is now spending less time on his creativity and needs to do that now as he is doing so much for everyone. Why does he do these TV shows? He is constantly worried, (...) I need to make money for my company so that the other projects he has started with new boys don’t get interrupted. That is what is incredible. He should spend more time on himself. In many ways, what Dibakar said, about his short film in Bombay Talkies being his debut, is correct. He can make a commercially successful film at the back of his hand, but he has not put himself up on screen. There is so much world-view inside him. He has it but the expectations from him are so different, the fact that he is running a company that is giving a chance to so many people that he takes that responsibility so much that it affects his personal, emotional and professional life.

Karan told me, ‘I have made a lot of movies to know where a camera is positioned, but I just couldn’t see it on Anurag’s Bombay Velvet. I asked Ranbir, and he said, ‘It’s there.’ Anurag, actors like Karan who have worked with you talk about your brilliance as a director in allowing your actors to be. While you are a large-hearted director, why are you not like that as a person?
I love actors. My way of telling an actor when he or she does a good shot is kiss them. I actually dance on the set when I get a good shot. I have done theatre when I was 21. I actually dabbled with acting and hated myself on screen as I realised that I hated myself, as I was so conscious even though I was a fearless actor on stage. I realised that directors restrict and that is why I developed this style that for actors to breathe I need to not lock the camera'.

04 settembre 2022

MOSTRA DEL CINEMA DI VENEZIA 2022


La 79esima edizione della Mostra del Cinema di Venezia si svolge dal 31 agosto al 10 settembre 2022. Per quanto riguarda l'India, vi segnalo il seminario Focus on India - Italy and India: Building a common audience, tenutosi ieri mattina presso l'Italian Pavilion. L'evento è stato organizzato da Cinecittà, nell'ambito del protocollo d'intesa che prevede diverse iniziative, sia in Italia che nel subcontinente (clicca qui). Vi hanno partecipato Kabir Bedi, a cui è stato conferito il Filming Italy Lifetime Achievement Award, e Hrishitaa Bhatt. Il giorno precedente Kabir aveva calcato il tappeto rosso in occasione della prima mondiale di Bones and all di Luca Guadagnino. Sempre ieri, al festival - sezione Venezia Classici - è stata proiettata in prima mondiale la versione restaurata di Shatranj Ke Khilari di Satyajit Ray, alla presenza di Hrishitaa Bhatt.
Video ufficiale del Focus on India (Kabir Bedi al minuto 26.00, Hrishitaa Bhatt al minuto 59.00) 

Venezia, 2 settembre 2022

Venezia, 3 settembre 2022


Hrishitaa Bhatt - Venezia, 3 settembre 2022



Proiezione di Shatranj Ke Khilari