An Interview with Anurag Kashyap

By IndianAuteurTm | Monday, October 26th, 2009 As the year gets over, the promised turnaround in cinema never happened. The interview of the most famous perpetrator of the myth, director Anurag Kashyap, assumes a new context six months down the line.

Indian Auteur:How did your vast reading of the Hindi pulp novels help in developing your screenwriting style? Anurag Kashyap: I would have to say that I am not consciously aware of any such influence. As an afterthought, however, I would have to say that they did help. I was a person who could not speak English till I was 17, and all my reading was based only in Hindi. Thus, yes, I can now count reading of those novels as one of my formative influences. IA: After you came to Delhi, you became involved with the Jan Natya Manch, an organization which performed street plays. Did that influence your filmmaking in any way, since your films seem inherently devoid of theatre as such? AK: Yes, there I agree with you. My films would not betray influences of theatre, except Gulaal, which carries within it, indelible, and obvious influences of the medium. For instance, I met Mr.Piyush Mishra while working for Jan Natya Manch, and it was there that I first saw his recitals, and it was there and then that I took a decision to use him in one of my films, which eventually, turned out to be Gulaal.

IA: You wrote that 2009 would be a turning point in Cinema, so what exactly do you mean by this turning point? In what context, would we see a change hitherto unseen? AK: In the sense that independent films, made by people working outside the studio system, produced by independent producers, would find themselves being released at a popular scale. For instance, January 30 saw the release of Luck By Chance, the subsequent week saw the release of Dev D., and then there were films like Delhi 6, which though a failure, can be termed an ambitious failure. Recent weeks have seen a simultaneous release of films such as Barah Aana, Firaaq and as such. But apart from the fact that these films are independently produced, which is clearly a matter of commerce, what cinematic progress does a film like Barah Aana entail? There is cinematic progress as well. One has to be clear that it is relative. In a country like India, a 4 or a 5 is a development, since our cinema is a 3. We cannot think of being at 7 or 8 straightaway. The process of change would be gradual. IA: But isnt it a matter of presumption to believe that we are at a 3 when we were already at a 7 forty years ago?. AK: Here, I would like to give you a suggestion in terms of how and which films you watch. I would want to recommend an exercise based in practicality. For a month or so, do not watch a film produced before 1980. One must acknowledge the fact that the past is a dead and a buried entity. It is unchangeable, and is not open to our jurisdiction of it. Besides, it tampers with judgment. The generation of film lovers began watching films only when they had already been told, as a gospel truth, that Wong Kar Wai is a God. Or that Scorsese is a God. That takes away from objective judgment. Instead, you should watch films from a present that remains within your control, and that you can help to shape. IA: By that token, then, you are also a filmmaker whose films are beyond all objective and rational judgment in this nation now. People have already been asked to believe, that Anurag Kashyap is God. Also, if past is a dead and buried entity, would you be fine if no one cared about your films in 2030? AK: Absolutely. I will tell you a fact of life. To a filmmaker, any filmmaker, opinions, dissertations, or analyses on his films matter only till the film is current, or on the box-office. A person praising me for Black Friday is an irritant now, not something that I particularly enjoy.

IA: Moving on, also to questions of commerce, is money, then, the only element stopping us from becoming a film powerhouse? AK: Yes, I believe we have sufficient talent. Ram Gopal Verma was a real counter-culture figure. A Satya allowed someone like me to make my films. A Dev D will allow me to produce five new incredible ideas. That is how we will work. It will be, as I said, a gradual process. Why do you think we lack something? IA: We lack something because cinema for us has become a vehicle for new ideas, new stories and new content. Where is the difference in how a Aamir is approached, to how a A Wednesday was approached? If you werent told, would you be able to tell a Rajkumar Gupta film from a Neeraj Pandey film? AK: I really dont think that is important in cinema. How can you tell that Raging Bull is a Scorsese film? IA: For he shoots within the ring, makes it a point to puncture his fights with abrupt cuts of the audience, and alternates uncomfortable tranquility with awkward violence. There is so much to tell from which it is a Scorsese film. AK: I personally do not think that Scorseses filmmaking is defined by a formal distinct filmmaking style as such. For me, a Scorsese film is defined by how he treats his characters and his self-destruction. Again, a point for content, and not form. Scorseses style is not his own, it is borrowed from films by Corman. And from Anger, Bunuel, and Huston. But one would still call it Scorseses own style, wouldnt he? He took his references to a useful place. Not necessarily. For instance, how is The Wrestler, an Aronofosky film, when it is so devoid of his style? It doesnt seem like an Aronofsky film at all. IA: But one can say that only because Aronofsky had a style in the first place. Moving on, what is the importance of the image to you? AK: An image is obviously important, since it is the visual that guides the film. For me, the visual is in my mind, and that dictates how I shoot my film. IA: Is there a specific to how you shoot a scene? AK: Not really, as such. For me, it is all very instinctive. There is no careful detailing behind the process. For instance, if I were to shoot a scene on that table (points to a table), I would merely select the angles that come to me

most instinctively, the only criteria being that they have to result in frames which are visually appealing. IA: Is there a method to the madness then? AK: No, I do not like to storyboard at all. Mostly, my method of directing a scene is to tell my actors what their basic actions within the scene are. And then, I mostly call the steadicam operator, let the camera roll, and let the actors move within the environment, as I follow them. For instance, in a scene between Abhay and Mahie for Dev D., I merely followed Mahie around, till she reached Abhay, thus allowing the camera to include both of them within the frame. As the dialogue progressed, Abhay walked out of the frame, and then, as a director, I am not concerned with what he is doing. Mahie, who is left alone in the frame, leaves it too, and just as she does, Abhay enters it. So it is all very instinctive. Also, I sometimes like to keep my actors unaware of the exact spot where the camera has been positioned, thus allowing them to be completely at ease. IA: What is your shooting ratio? AK: It is 1:3, and I like to believe that I am one of the most economical users of film stock. IA: Which are your favourite lenses? AK: I like using the Telephoto, 10 mm, and 75 mm, since they help me capture my scene in exactly the way I want to. IA: Why does our cinema give a feeling of there being something amiss, even as filmmakers from world over evolve into new innovators within the medium, expanding its possibilities? AK: Like who? IA: The sixth generation Chinese filmmakers, the Nuovo Argentinian cinema, the Iranians, Raya Martin, and the New Malaysian Cinema. Countries poorer than us, with less resources available at hand. AK: That is because they do not have organized industries. One must understand the fact that since Bollywood is an industry, peoples livelihood depends on how the films work. It is not a similar situation to how it is in a lot of the countries that you mentioned, where due to a lack of an industrialized setup, the filmmakers can often approach various other agencies, unrelated

to cinema, for funds, and thus, revel in their independence. Here, if you were to approach a producer with a radical subject, you would not be entertained. ABOUT HIS WORKS IA: You talked in one of your previous interviews about a common structure that your initial screenplays, like Auto-Shanker, Last Train to Mahakali, and Paanch shared? What was it? AK: I respect you for asking this question since I have never been asked this before. In around 1994, I saw this film called Fun. It made a very innovative and unconventional use of the usual technique used to discern between present and past, wherein it made use of Black and White for present, and the present sequences were in coloured. All the films that you asked about, were propelled by my being influenced by such a structure. IA :How much did Black Friday borrow from the literary structure of the book? AK: Nothing at all. The book and the film are completely separate entities or pieces of art. The names of the chapters in the book, and in the film are completely different. So is the content of those chapters. I used the chapters in the film, only to be able to mentally prepare the audience for an oncoming change of track. So that when we wrote On the Run on the screen, the audience were made aware that now we would watch the story of another character, outside the settings of the preceding sequence, or sequences. IA: Why did you choose interrogation sequences? to use the stark red filter in the

AK: Primarily because I wanted to subjugate the visual impact of too much blood on-screen. Also, because I didnt have the green filter with which I originally planned to shoot it. IA: Did the metaphors in No Smoking come after the things they were meant to represent? First the idea came, and then the symbol for it? AK: Not really. I wrote the whole script in a very stream-of-consciousness manner, in a very intuitive, and instinctive manner. It was only later when I read the script, that I discovered that it had various subconscious associations or references taken from a short story by Stephen King, Quitters Inc. that I had read a long time ago. I only then changed the element of the

thumb getting cut to the fingers, which represented a writers deprivation of his liberty, getting cut. IA: You have said that you want to bring two new writers on board for your next film, Bombay Velvet, since you fear repetitiveness in your own work? AK: Repetitiveness in the sense, that I am obsessed with a certain things that I want to avoid for Bombay Velvet. It is a film set in 60s, and as you all know, in 60s, there was a lot of neon all around. And when I, as a filmmaker see neon, I go berserk. I want to avoid doing that, or falling prey to my temptations as a filmmaker, thus falling into the trap of excess when it is not needed. CLOSING SECTION IA: With your history in school as the outsider, do you in hindsight think, that you in any case never have been a part of a setup, and that rallying against it was not an effort, but a natural course of action for you? AK: Yes, you may be right there, though I will say that I have never consciously made an effort to be seen as the outsider or the rebel. Yes, in hindsight though, I could never have been the insider. It would have killed me as a person to be an insider. IA: Which have been your favourite films in the past few years? AK: Right now, I am in the phase of recommending this Swedish film Let the Right One In to everyone. I noticed its high acclaim on lists as diverse as Village Voice, to Sight & Sound, and my curiosity was piqued when I found out that it was also a vampire film, a genre that I love. I got hold of a copy and loved the film. Also Gomorrah, an Italian film on mafia. IA: Finally, what do you think is the need for film criticism, and who is your favourite film critic? AK: I loved Pauline Kael reviews. In India, I read Indian Auteur, Upperstall and critic like Bhardwaj Ranjan and sometimes Jai Arjun Singh. As for film criticism, it is important to be able to simplify it, and also to review every possible film that one can. Film criticism is important, but it is also important, at some point to realize that it is not theory, or being caught in it that can

change cinema, but actually going out into the field and making films that will change things. Criticism does not change things, it is action which does. ShareThis Tags: Anurag Kashyap, Dev D, Gulal, Indian Cinema, Osian Film Festival 2009 Posted By IndianAuteurTm | Monday, October 26th, 2009 | Filed under Film Festivals, Interviews,News

4 Responses to An Interview with Anurag Kashyap

amlendu tiwari says:

2.

amlendu tiwari says:

3.

amlendu tiwari says:

My script Usman Beg Ka chokra is lying in Anurag Kashyaps office.I Pray if he reads it and give his honest response.

4.

amol says:
December 19, 2010 at 2:28 pm enriching interview. what do u expect from actors? do u prefer trained actors or what.?