Writing for Others

A student of mine asked me this question today: "How do you keep your vision (as a writer) intact and continue to have a conviction behind your chain of thoughts when you know that the depiction and sensibility of the film (by the director) is going to be different than the script anyway? As a writer, does this bother you... and if it does how do you fight it, and still maintain the quality of the product?"

I can very confidently tell you that the issue mentioned above does not bother me at all. But I understand that there will be writers who will be struggling in this regard. I'll share my take on it. And I'll present it in the form of certain facts that I think a writer should keep in mind:

1. Accept that you are a writer, and not a director: A writer is not naturally capable of directing, unless he has those qualities in him. Creating a world on paper in solitude is difficult but also very different from re-creating that world working with hundreds of people, getting things done in the midst of chaos, and especially dealing with technology and egos of people. So, the writer should understand that he or she, despite being the creator of the story, need not be the best person to direct it.

2. Your script is your film and your only opportunity to seek fulfillment: If you were a famous popular novelist, and you knew that the current novel you are working on will definitely be made into a film by someone, you do not start making the film and doing the shot division and meeting composers for the musical score. You do what you do best - writing the novel. And even if you visualize things, you have accepted that the film-maker might change them, and that this novel alone is your own space where you can do what you want to. Similarly, a screenwriter should write the script he wants to write - and make that film in his head. But he should know very well that the film from his head will be 'remade' by the director. That does not mean he should feel demotivated. The script is the writer's space - and he should do all that he wants to in that space. Consider this - the script is the only opportunity for the writer to 'make his film'. So, he must use it uninhibitedly. This is the only version of the movie he can say he created on his own and take pride in. (The only exception to this is a scenario when the director is attached to the writing process and you are writing to fulfill his expectations. In that case, you have to make a choice whether you want to write as per his instructions, which, according to me, is completely fine and a fair professional decision, or you want to convince him to let you write your way.)

3. Detach: Once your script has been approved, the writer should detach himself from the process. He should learn to let go. Mothers and fathers let go of their daughters (and in some cases their sons). Teachers let go of students. Artists let go of the art-works they have sold. Even directors, at times, let go of the films they have made. So there is no reason why a writer cannot do it. This is a part of his job. If he cannot do it, he should write only for himself, or better, write and keep the script in his closet. However, detaching is not the same as disowning. Depending on the film that is being made, and the way the director is re-interpreting the script, detachment can be of different levels. You can be present on the set and help the director with all he needs, knowing very well that you will have to let him take the final call. Or you can choose to never visit the set, and possibly even not watch the film when it is out. Between these two ends is a wide spectrum, and a writer finds himself attached (or detached) with the film by trying to find that place in the spectrum that suits him as per respective projects. In any case, I think the trick is to trust the director initially. And if things are not happening the way you had visualized, wish him all the best and detach. Start working on the next script, the next 'film in your head'.

4. You are not alone: All creative individuals working on a film struggle to achieve this balance that we have been talking about. A cinematographer might have a certain vision and style that he willingly modifies to suit the director's vision and style. An editor does the same. Even actors wish to work within the director's interpretation of the characters, or at least seek approval from him regarding their interpretations. Musicians, lyricists, choreographers, production designers, sound designers - all strive to achieve that balance. Film-making is a collaborative process and the director is the head of the pyramid. If all creative individuals can come together and become a part of his 'film', there is no reason why a writer should keep sulking in a corner. Perhaps the only reason would be that writers are most used to solitude, and sulking in a corner is something that comes naturally to them. But otherwise, they should understand that they are not alone, or are being 'sidelined' by the director.

In the end it's all a matter of readjusting expectations, and constantly doing so. Being a part of a team and maintaining your individuality and giving the best from your end is a question of character. It is not easy. But so is life. If wedded couples can do it, if sportspersons can do it, if soldiers can do it, why can't a writer - who is doing one of the most difficult jobs on earth? How he or she manages to achieve that detached attachment will finally depend on his or her character and priorities. A start, however, can be made by accepting some facts, like those mentioned above, with faith and the right spirit. After all, "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do." ( from Takashi Miike's 2007 film 'Sukiyaki Western Django')

Finally, a Decent Score!

TSPDT's list of the 1000 greatest movies is my favourite such compilation of great movies. It included shorts and documentaries and animation and avant-garde films along with the features. It also includes film-series like 'Berlin Alexanderplatz', and features films from all over the world.

In November, 2010, I had finished watching one-fourth of the list, that is 250 film. By November, 2011, I managed to finish one-third of them. Last month, I went past the 400 mark, and for the first time I'm feeling good about my score.

The next post on this topic would be when I go beyond 500. That would be a day! It should happen some time next year.

Following are the ten movies that were my journey from 390 to 400:

THE SEARCHERS (John Ford / 1956) Ranked #9
GERMANY, YEAR ZERO (Roberto Rossellini / 1947) Ranked #218
4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS (Cristian Mungiu / 2007) Ranked #862
FORBIDDEN GAMES (René Clément / 1951) Ranked #684
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (Steven Spielberg / 1977) Ranked #249
DO THE RIGHT THING (Spike Lee / 1989) Ranked #135
MY DARLING CLEMENTINE (John Ford / 1946) Ranked #138
TIME OF THE GYPSIES (Emir Kusturica / 1989) Ranked #649
HANA-BI (Takeshi Kitano / 1997) Ranked #808
CLOSE-UP (Abbas Kiarostami / 1990) Ranked #79

Invictus

This is perhaps one of the most inspiring poems I've read. Just finished watching this film, and had to share the poem here on this blog. May all of us be blessed with infinite hope, power, and faith that this great poem stands for. Thank you dear poet, Mr. William Earnest Henley.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,

I thank whatever gods may be

For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance

I have not winced nor cried aloud.

Under the bludgeonings of chance

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the Horror of the shade,

And yet the menace of the years

Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll.

I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.

Five Facts of Fact-based Fiction

This news is big. Steven Spielberg is about to create a mini-series on Napolean Bonaparte. But the fact that actually makes it such a big news is that Spielberg is basing the series on the script which is often termed as the “greatest film never made”, the most ambitious unrealized project of the giant that was Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick, who with his 13 films over a career of 46 years is the biggest cinematic illustration to the cliché of “quality over quantity” had reportedly studied close to five hundred books during his research for the film. And I, as would all other die-hard Kubrick fans, always wondered what that film would have been. Well, now is the time to look forward to it and hope Spielberg does justice to the vision of the master.

This brings me to my topic of this post. I’m presently working on a screenplay based on true events and real people and it’s such a great coincidence that most of recent releases I’ve seen recently have been ‘fact-based fiction’. Just check this out: ‘Argo’, ‘Special Chhabees’, ‘Lincoln’, and ‘Zero Dark Thirty’. Watching these, and reading about them, and simultaneously working on my script has led me to these five broad observations about fact-based fiction.

1. You do not have the liberty to do whatever you want with historical characters, and the story’s plot points and resolution, unless you decide to do an ‘Inglourious Basterds’ (2009) and assassin Hitler in a movie hall. So, the structure of the film is more a matter of selecting that period of the concerned history that makes for a compelling film. For example, ‘Lincoln’ deals with just one major achievement of the president and finally his assassination. There can be a separate film on the childhood of Lincoln until he becomes the president. It is up to the writer to choose what part of history he wants to recreate, as he can hardly ‘create’ something original.
2. However, you know that you’re not making a documentary. In feature films, you have to make sure that the larger appeal of the film is not compromised. Cinematic liberty is not only a tool, but often an inevitable necessity. And you always run the risk of losing the credibility if you barely cross that thin line. Watch the climax of ‘Argo’ to understand what I mean.
3. The bigger fight is internal. As a writer you do not want to lose your integrity. In most cases, you chose a certain character/event because you are personally fascinated by him/her/it. It becomes increasingly difficult, then, to alter facts to make your script spicy. You want to portray the truth in the most truthful way, but understand that point 1 mentioned above will always conflict with your intention to achieve something using point 2. This ethical and moral dilemma is something that you can never escape when you are writing fact-based fiction.
4. There is this predictable risk of the controversies and legal issues. After all, how can you ever make a film on the real CIA agent who helped in nabbing Osama Bin Laden? Hence you create a fictitious character, Maya, and symbolically portray the determination and efforts of all those who had contributed in the real life. Going by that, I think, the protagonist of ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ is a smart achievement of the writer. Otherwise, it was impossible to make a film on this remarkable historical event.
5. And then there is the limitation of the budget. When you’re writing about a certain historical period, you painstakingly recreate that world in your screenplay. Knowing that when seen on film, it is the details of art and costumes that will actually make things look ‘real’. As a writer, if you start wondering about whether the budget will allow your director to achieve everything that you are trying to imagine, chances are you would be failing to do justice to your product.

So, what is the answer? In my opinion, the only way out is to take pleasure in these challenges. Working within defined parameters can often be enlightening for the writer. And to be honest, similar challenges are faced while adapting a novel into a film script. Being able to deliver a good script under these circumstances is difficult and rewarding at the same time. Difficult and rewarding – perhaps this is the only similarity between this kind of adaptation and creating a completely original work!

P.S. Today, incidentally, is the death anniversary of Kubrick. Some people deserve immortality of flesh and blood!

#1: The Genes Did It

“Love is the hardest thing in the world to write about.” – Billy Wilder’s ‘The Lost Weekend’ (1945)

She was born and brought up in a small, industrial town called Jamalpur, known for its locomotive workshop. Her father was a guard in the Eastern Railways, but his biggest passions were astrology, homeopathy, poetry and dramatics. He used to write, direct, and act in plays that were performed at the Railway Talkies – a theater maintained by the Indian Railways. Unlike her other siblings, the girl had no interest in the house-hold activities, and she was to remain ignorant of the basic culinary skills until she was about to get married several years later. Instead, she spent time with her dad, whose she was the favorite child, acting in plays written and directed by him and even winning a prize for the Best Child Actor. As the romantic age of adolescence became hers, she developed the habit of staying glued to the radio, listening to the songs from Hindi films, and singing along, and eventually penning them down in her personal diary. In her large joint-family home she always did what she wanted, despite what her several guardians asked her to. They even pointed at a boy who was seen studying on the roof-top of a neighboring house, and asked her and other kids at home to be like him. And she did not disappoint them, by successfully managing studies with her new-found loves of knitting and reading novels and learning the Bengali language, only to be able to write letters to her newly-wed Mami who was from Bengal. But her biggest passions remained her love for Hindi films being screened at the Railway Talkies and the songs that Vividh Bharti played.

He was the first-child of his parents, born eleven years after their marriage, in a semi-rural community called Bindwara, after his grandmother prayed to the Sun god and pledged to the annual ritual of Chhath on being blessed with a grand-son. It was not a surprise that he was to be pampered and spoiled beyond measure despite the strict, disciplinarian father that he had. His father was always away, having been posted to neighboring towns, and the kid was free to live the way he wanted to. He grew up to become a goon who would storm into the office of his headmaster in order to get things done the way students demanded. Little did he know that this rash, carefree personality of his was going to be the biggest conflict he would face when he would fall in love.

The two met in high-school. During those years, his family had shifted to the neighboring town of Jamalpur, and the two families lived side-by-side. During evenings, he climbed up his roof, pretending to study, knowing very well that she would be able to see him from her courtyard, and her numerous guardians would be giving his example to their kids. The fact is that he was not bad in studies, and his Hindi was pretty impressive, as was his love for poetry, but he simply did not want to study. During the days of the college, he developed an obsessive adulation for Dharmendra who, according to him, was the uncrowned king of the Hindi film-industry. But his passion for films went beyond Dharmendra. Many years later, he was to claim to his kids that he had watched the Rajendra Kumar starrer ‘Suraj’ (1966) fifty times in the theater. He could also identify the actor of a film by listening to the Mohammad Rafi song of it playing on the radio, because he knew how Rafi Sahab modulated his voice for different actors. And his pride for the rest of his life was going to be the fact that he was among those few people who could promptly and surely make out the difference between the voices of Lata Mangeshkar and Suman Kalyanpur. It was during this age of late teens that he met the girl we talked about, and they fell in love. Almost seven years after they had met, the love was ‘arranged’ by the families into a matrimonial bond, fulfilling the romance they had nurtured for so long in a town and society that would only encourage scandals out of a love story. Next year after their marriage, one morning in the month of March, they were to become the proud parents of a baby boy, who several years later would give them the toughest moment of their lives by formally announcing the pursuit of his love. If only they realized, that the roots of the boy’s love had been seeded within them when they were struck by the same – the obsession for cinema…

She is my Mom. He is my Dad. I do not know much about their love story – I wish I did. But I know that I will be indebted to them for passing on to me their love for the arts, and especially the mad passion for cinema. Their love story was to give birth to several others, literally speaking.

The Autobiography of a Romance: Prologue

Love is beautiful, and romance an essential ingredient of a fulfilled life. In its various forms, including the love for the self, it magically affects a living soul, uplifting it, inspiring it, letting it attain inexplicable joys. It makes life beautiful beyond words, and it makes words flow like poetry, and it makes poetry soulful like music, and it makes music seep in deeper into us than it ever could. In its exceptional glory, romance often becomes one with the soul – love consumes the lover, and there is no telling the difference between the two.

Having stayed away from my family and loved ones since I was eleven, and then for close to five years now, adopting a life marked more by a peaceful, blissful solitude than seeking to fulfill the fundamental desire for emotional intimacy, love and its magical beauty is something not usually found in my thoughts and expressions. However, all these years, almost all of my conscious existence, there is something I have loved unconditionally, and passionately. It is cinema, the ‘most beautiful fraud on earth’, that I have indulged into and worshipped with all my being. So much so, that I do not see any woman coming into my life and loving me and getting my love in return, until she understands and accepts that my first love shall always be this wonderful spectacle called the Motion Pictures.

On this Valentine’s Day, I’m starting this new column on this blog, that will chronicle that love story of mine, from its conception to the mad passion it became, and that hopefully will last until I breathe. It is going to be an autobiography indeed, of the love that is now the only way I can define or describe myself. Coming up soon, in different chapters, the most intimate details of my love affair with pictures at the rate of twenty-four frames per second…

A Kusturica Film by Vishal Bhardwaj

A gypsy without dreams is like a church without a roof, like a textbook without letters...

There is a scene in Vishal Bhardwaj’s latest film that is supposed to be funny, in which, the two male leads are trying to shift a well from its position, too drunk to realize the futility of the endeavor. It is night, and the area is deserted. In the background, among the shops that are shut, a board reads – “Kusturi-ca Brass Band”. It is not a deliberately ‘detailed’ art-design decision, but clearly a tribute to the great Serbian film-maker Emir Kusturica. And thanks to the scene that was boring me like the rest of the film, my eyes wandered from the main action to this little, subtle detail in the background, because it made me think before I started criticizing the film. And it has now led me to a very confused state where I find myself split over my views on it.

Vishal Bhardwaj was my favorite modern Hindi-language film-maker, until he made ‘Saat Khoon Maaf’ (2011). That film kept me depressed for days, not because of its content, but because I thought it was a bad film that broke my heart and ended my love affair with the maker. Two years later, I suddenly found myself praising the film, after I watched ‘Matru Ki Bijlee Ka Mandola’. That was perhaps the only good thing about this latest film, that it made its predecessor look so much better. This, however, is my film-buff self speaking, that wants to watch good films, and good films alone. A bad film spoils my mood and affects my physiology. But the truth is that I am not just a film-buff. I am also a film-writer, and someone who dreams to be a director one day. When my film-maker self thinks about ‘Matru’, and thinks of Bhardwaj as a colleague rather than an icon, I find myself empathizing with him.

All serious film-makers want to create unique, unforgettable films. And mind you, it is not easy. In fact, the more I work in this medium, I realize how incredible it is that some people do end up making films that are brilliant. One thing we can never take away from Bhardwaj is that he always tries to make films which are unique, at least from Hindi commercial cinema standards. Even his decision to cast stars over genuine actors is because of the complicated commercial dynamics of our industry, which would otherwise make it impossible for you to make ‘your’ films ‘your’ way. So, I appreciate the film-maker’s aspiration to make a film on the lines Kusturica. That his film falls short by a ridiculously large margin does not rob him of the credit of trying something as insanely difficult as this. Most film-makers would fail trying to do this, and hence the film’s failure is not a big surprise.

If you are aware of Emir Kusturica’s films, you will know what I mean when I say that most film-makers would fail trying to do what he does. I recommended the first Kusturica movie that I watched as a must-watch, and I’m almost tempted to do the same with the second. For the first half an hour or so, in both these movies, you are trying to get oriented to their mad fervor and quirky characters, something that ‘Matru’ had common with them. However, Kusturica eventually involves you so deeply with his characters that you care and feel for them, and almost do not want the film to end. In fact, until last week when I watched ‘Time of the Gypsies’ (1988), and the 'Kusturi-ca' mention in ‘Matru’ inspired me to do that, I thought something like the Marquez epic ‘One Hundred Years of Solitude’ can never be filmed. But now I feel tempted to say, that if there is one film-maker today who can adapt that novel to film, it is Kusturica. If you have read that novel, watch ‘Time of the Gypsies’, which is perhaps the best magical-realism film I have seen. It is ridiculously funny and painfully sad at the same time, a strange feeling that the Marquez novel so effortlessly evokes. Watching this film will also make you understand Bhardwaj better, or his motivation behind making ‘Matru’, a film I would like to forget as soon as possible, and hope that the maverick from India only rises from here. Something even half as good as ‘Maqbool’ (2004) would make me re-discover my love-affair with the amazing Vishal Bhardwaj I once knew.

Top 10 at Oscars 2013

Last year I had watched the Oscars ‘live’ for the first time. And having watched several of the major films made it more exciting and entertaining for me. So if you are planning to do it this year, read about the Oscar buzz, indulge into predictions, and get up at 6 am that Monday morning and reach office late (the event gets over around 10 am India time), here are the ten movies watching which will ensure you remain oriented throughout the ceremony and it doesn’t appear as merely a fashion parade to you. These ten movies (in alphabetic order), having together earned 68 nominations, are going to cover almost all major awards categories this year:

1. Amour (5 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): Including this French-language gem in the Best Picture list the Oscars have done themselves a favor. The best of International cinema are generally works not in English language and this is one big reason why the Oscars do not find many takers among the fans of World Cinema, as the scheme of the Academy limits the awards to English-language films, except in one category. That category, of the Best Foreign-Language Film is perhaps the most predictable this year, with ‘Amour’ as the clear front-runner. The 85-year old Emmanuelle Riva is the oldest actress to have earned nominationin Oscar history. I watched this film at MAMI this year, and it is unlikely that it will find a release in India. You can either download it, or wait for the original DVD.

2. Argo (7 nominations, including Best Picture): Ben Affleck’s rise as a film-maker is something to applaud. I have to admit that I’m a little surprised, especially because I have never taken him seriously as an actor. A few hours ago, ‘Argo’ has won Golden Globes for Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director, and this will majorly boost its chances at the Oscars. The film was released in India several months ago and I regret having not watched it. Have to watch it somehow, very soon.

3. Beasts of the Southern Wild (4 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): This film’s inclusion is another good news, this time for small, independent film-makers. The little Quvenzhane Wallis has also earned a Best Actress nomination, becoming the youngest actress to achieve this feat, beating Keisha Castle-Hughes who was nominated for ‘Whale Rider’ (2003). I had watched this unforgettable film at MAMI, and its release in India seems utterly improbable.

4. Django Unchained (5 nominations, including Best Picture): Quentin Tarantino’s latest has just won the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay. For me, this is the most eagerly awaited film of the lot. Unfortunately, the official date of its release in India is 29th March, and I will not watch a downloaded copy of it. In all probability, I will watch the Oscars this year without having watched this movie, and will wait for it to hit a big screen near my house.

5. Life of Pi (11 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): The successful run of this film in India continues and it is still playing at several screens. Watch it today if you haven’t. It has earned 11 nominations, and that includes a nomination for the Indian singer Bombay Jayashri. If you are not aware of her, please use Google. I don’t mind telling you that hers was the amazing voice that sang the passionate ‘Zara Zara’ from ‘Rehna Hai Tere Dil Mein’ (2001).

6. Lincoln (12 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): Daniel Day-Lewis, who plays the title role, is a strong contender for the Best Actor award this year, for this film that has earned the maximum nominations. Do not be surprised if it wins the Best Picture as well, going by the Academy’s traditional fascination with biopics, costume dramas, and Steven Spielberg. It is releasing in India on the 8th February, and deserves a big screen watch.

7. Master, The (3 acting nominations): I was a little surprised and upset to know that this movie was not nominated for Best Picture, nor was PTA nominated for Best Director. He is one of the best directing talents in the world today, and this film was eagerly awaited. I still do not know whether it is releasing in India, and if yes, then when. Please let me know if you find out.

8. Miserables, Les (8 nominations, including Best Picture): From the director of ‘The King’s Speech’, this film has just won Golden Globes for ‘Best Film (comedy or Musical)’ and acting awards for Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway. It is releasing in India this Friday, and I am going for it on the first day itself.

9. Silver Linings Playbook (8 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): This film came and went, and I missed it. If you’ve missed it too, we can now regret doing that together. It was also the Opening Film at MAMI this year and I never took it too seriously. Now, I wish I had watched it when it had come. Torrents, anyone?

10. Zero Dark Thirty (5 nominations, including Best Picture): Releasing in India on the 1st February, this is a film that will definitely fascinate most of the audience, mainly because of its content, and also because of its director. Her ‘The Hurt Locker’ had defeated big films in 2010 at the Oscars, and this time ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ was being hailed as a worthy successor to it. However, Kathryn Biegalow’s non-inclusion in the Best Director list has created some controversy back there, with many believing it to be the result of the interference from the US politicians. Controversies aside, watching this film will be one important agenda early next month.

The Oscars this year are on the morning of 25th February (India time). Watch as many movies out of these as you can, and enjoy the event on your little idiot box. Like last year, I will have to visit a friend’s place for the same. The wait has begun…

P.S The release dates as per the information I could find online and are subject to change.

P.P.S. Clicking on the movie titles above will take you to their respective trailers. Watch them and share your views about them - which ones fascinate you majorly!

Few Years and a Day in the Life of a Screenwriter

A couple of days ago, I had a long discussion with my director on the craft of screenwriting. We talked about the ‘rules’ that are advocated, and ‘the need for a structured approach’ to screenwriting, something I have always believed in. My director accepted that this is the ‘right’ approach, but that is precisely the reason why film-writing is not as fine, or superior a form of expression than, say, prose or poetry. I agreed, but the discussion left me a little insecure, until after one day of pondering over it, something inside me gave me the solution. That day, I believe, has become one important day in my life as a screenwriter. But in order to understand that, let us go a little back in time.

In 2006-07, I started to learn screenwriting by adapting two novels into their respective ‘first drafts’. And then, my brother and I started working on the first original script of ours. Next year, when I came to Mumbai, that script paved my way into the industry. It was liked by almost everyone who read it, and it brought us more opportunities. Until then I was not aware of any screenwriting rules and all we had were our instincts and imagination. We adapted another novel, and worked on several drafts of it – and that too was well-received by many.

And then, everything changed when I attended a Film Writers’ Association conference in December 2008, where I saw people mouth words like ‘Three-Act Structure’, ‘Plot Points’ etc. It terrified me. I felt ashamed to call myself a writer! That kick-started my learning of the grammar of film-writing. In the four years that followed, I read several books on screenwriting. But in sharp contrast, struggled with writing a film-adaptation, re-wrote the final draft of a film that is yet to be released, and worked on another original screenplay for more than two years, that is ‘still not there’ after multiple drafts. In six years of my experience as a screen-writer, the best works have been created out of instinct, intuition, and complete ignorance about the rules of the game. How then is my obsession with ‘the need for structure’ justified? Am I going in the wrong direction by ignoring the spontaneous imagination of my mind by resorting to tables and graphs and calculative construction? I hope it is evident how troubling and baffling this doubt can be, and I was truly troubled, until a miracle eased my mind. Out of nowhere, a thought came to my mind – “the structure and the rules are tools, nothing more, nothing less, and trying to perfect the structure should be a lesser concern for the screenwriter.” I will try to elaborate it.

When we have an idea, we need a structure to help us explore it. That does not mean we are limiting the idea within a structure. If we are flexible with the structure, it will take us a certain distance before we realize it is inadequate and we re-structure everything and explore the idea again. Without a structure to guide us, we might never know the story we want to tell, and the reason behind our fascination for the story, and the merits and limitations of it. Without a structure to guide us, we might never understand the ‘best way’ to tell that story and might settle for the first thing that comes to our minds. But if we are flexible with the structure, and keep trying new ones, we are actually allowing spontaneity that can instinctively help us find that ‘best way’. We can safely conclude that ‘the structure’ is never the most important or determining factor of the process, it is only a tool that we should learn in order to explore the possibilities as a storyteller. To succeed as film-writers, what we should really obsess about is creating fascinating characters caught in interesting situations and the perspectives we can share through the characters’ journeys in the film. These perspectives arise from our experiences, insights, sensitivity, convictions, and sense of morality that we have as human beings practicing a form of expression. Dwelling on that increases our chance to come up with good screenplays, where the rules remain the tools that we should use to their fullest in order to succeed, and ignoring which might just make our jobs a little more difficult and luck-driven, though the possibility to do a great work despite ignoring all rules can never be denied.

As I write these words, I have a feeling that people reading my blog, especially my students would be surprised to know that this is a recent discovery. Perhaps I always knew this. But during that one day of insecurity, when this thought came to my head, it reaffirmed my faith in method and helped me understand how I can enhance the possibility of spontaneous creation within my structured approach. I called my Director and told him about my Eureka moment. I was not surprised when he told me that even he had been thinking about the same for the past one day, and he had also, and independently, come up with the same resolution to the debate. He further added, with examples from music and dance, how it is difficult for the beginner to learn and master and keep faith in the dry ‘rules’ and ‘methods’ of his art. He repeatedly questions the relevance of the same. Later, when he has grown into a practicing musician, he goes beyond the rules and the grammar of music which have become a part of his instinct, some of which he even breaks in order to achieve his expression.

Earlier I believed that film is art for only genius film-makers. For people like us, it is a craft to be learnt and perhaps all we can achieve is being good craftsmen. And that is good enough an achievement. But now I can think beyond that. All of us are aware of the hard work, dedication, and pains a musician or a dancer takes in order to achieve the label of an ‘artist’. So who can deny the assumption that the same amount of effort by a student of screenwriting, and its rules and grammar, may eventually take him to a stage where he starts expressing in a way that is above and beyond all rules? Are not we, as screenwriters, striving to reach a stage, where the ‘structure’ remains the means to an end which is a pure, uninhibited, expression of the soul?

Cinema 2012: Looking Back at my Cinema Experience of the Year

2012 was very different for me as a film-buff. As my brother put it the other day, it was our year at Film School. Personally, it was the beginning of three things for me – understanding the need to take care of and nourish my intuitive mind, taking the first steps towards learning how to work with actors, and beginning to hone my skills as a director by actually making films, rather than just understanding the theory of cinema sitting in my room. What the year taught me is humbling and inspiring at the same time, that learning the craft of film-making has just started and there is an infinitely long distance to go. But as a result of my involvement in film-making my movie-watching suffered, as did the frequency of my posts on this blog. Compared to the last three years – 2009, 2010, and 2011, my total movie count could not go much beyond 150. And I am definitely not happy about it. I’m not sure whether I could’ve helped it, though.

Here is an overview of my movie experience of 2012:

With nine movies by Woody Allen, he is now the director of whom I have watched the most, overtaking Hitchcock. As on date, my movie-score for the respective masters is: Allen (20), Hitchcock (19), Kurosawa (17), Bergman (14), Scorsese (13), Bunuel (13), Spielberg (12), Kubrick (12), and Fellini (11). Hope 2013 will help me take these numbers further. Also by watching Jim Jarmusch’s ‘Stranger than Paradise’ and Paul Thomas Anderson’s ‘Hard Eight’, they join Andrei Tarkovsky, the Coen Brothers, and Darren Aronofsky – of whom I have watched the entire filmographies. PTA’s latest ‘The Master’ is eagerly awaited, and I hope it will be released in India around the Oscars.

Joined the fan-club of Roberto Rossellini (Voyage in Italy), Luchino Visconti (The Leopard), Bela Tarr (The Turin Horse), and Alexander Payne (The Descendants). Looking forward to more movies by them. Also explored more of Pedro Almodovar, David Cronenberg, Wim Wenders, Wes Anderson, Peter Weir, Kim Ki-Duk, Abbas Kiarostami, John Ford, Clint Eastwood, Terry Gilliam, Takshi Kitano, Ken Loach, and Ang Lee. Hopefully next year some of these names will join my ‘Complete Filmography’ list.

On the big screen, I watched ‘1942 – A Love Story’, ‘Umberto D’, ‘Laura’, ‘Accattone’, ‘Two for the Road’ and, with a Live Orchestra, ‘A Throw of Dice’. This year I also experienced re-watch of ‘Scarface’, ‘North By Northwest’, ‘The Godfather’, and ‘Sunrise’ on the big screen.

‘Doctor Zhivago’, ‘The Deer Hunter’, ‘The Great Escape’, ‘Thelma and Louise’, ‘The Birth of a Nation’, ‘Sherlock Jr.’, ‘The Magnificent Ambersons’, ‘Festen’, ‘The Battle of Algiers’, ‘Alexander Nevsky’, ‘Man of Iron’, and ‘Z’ are some of the classics I watched for the first time in 2012. Add to it some modern World Cinema gems like ‘A Separation’, ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’, ‘A Prophet’, ‘Amour’, and ‘Holy Motors’.

The discussion cannot be complete without mentioning some B-movies and Exploitation Films (or tributes to them) that I truly enjoyed. They were ‘Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!’, ‘Cannibal Holocaust’, ‘Ed Wood’, and ‘From Dusk Till Dawn’. Also, watched some great non-fiction films like ‘The Thin Blue Line’, ‘Sans Soleil’, ‘Exit through the Gift Shop’, and ‘Triumph of the Will’. And in the end I have to mention one beautiful film that surprised me. ‘Me and You and Everyone We Know’ is one of those films that stand out of the crowd and deserve special mention.

Since October 2006, when I truly started exploring cinema, the past twelve months have been leanest for me as movie-enthusiast. It is not comforting to know that as my work load as a film-maker increases, it will be difficult to keep up the numbers. I hope the unquenchable thirst keeps drawing me towards the unending stream of good cinema, and the film-buff lives on, ‘Jab Tak Hai Jaan’!

The First Master?

A three-hour long, silent film is a difficult option to choose, especially when your laptop is full of several other great films. Watching ‘the Birth of a Nation’, hence, required special motivation, and it was on a train journey last month that I managed to watch it for the first time. However, the film, widely regarded as ‘the first blockbuster’, left me disappointed and angry. I did not find the narrative very interesting, and was appalled by the racist tone of the film. Its depiction of African-Americans is disgusting and shameful, and it is easy to understand the widespread riots it had evoked way back in 1915, and also, and regretfully so, how it became a huge hit among the Caucasian audience. Almost a century later, even the Americans would, or should, despise of the film. For me, it was a difficult exercise that I somehow managed to finish. D.W. Griffith had failed to impress me.

A few weeks later, I read about Griffith and the film, trying to understand his greatness as a film-maker. What I read was a revelation, and suddenly I find myself wanting to revisit the film, at least in parts. During the early 20th century, cinema was a nascent form of human expression and its narrative power was unexplored. The ‘story’ in such films was nothing more than loosely spliced scenes in strict chronological order. The ‘scenes’ were shot in single takes, where a static ‘Master’ shot covered the entire action, as if you were filming a theater performance from a distance. If at all the scene involved more than one shot, they lacked a scheme, making the temporal and spatial relations very ambiguous or unclear. It was during this time that Griffith directed over 450 short films over six years, and systematically developed film-making conventions which are still learnt and used by all film-makers.

Griffith paid attention to casting of actors, rehearsing with them several times before the shooting, and especially worked towards restraining their performances to make it more natural and less overt. These were rare practices in those days, as was the attention to detail with regards to the costumes, settings, and props. Griffith understood what others failed to realize – that anything that appears fake on screen will rob the ‘believability’ of the film, and miss out on engaging the audience. He also realized the potential of using Close-Ups to elaborate a moment, of Extreme Long Shots to contrast the stature of tiny human figures against imposing landscape, or the Point-of –View shot to ‘show’ the audience what a certain character was seeing. He broke down a scene into shots before shooting them and thus made cinema more dynamic than theater. He did not necessarily ‘invent’ all these tools, but definitely developed the narrative potential of cinema using them.

On the editing table, Griffith developed the Match Cut, cutting between one shot to another at the moment when the subject was performing some kind of a motion. For example, from a Full-Shot of a man, you cut to his Close-Up exactly when he tips his hat, matching the action of his hand. This makes sure that the cut in itself is ‘invisible’ and the audience fails to notice it as they are noticing the action of the hand, as a result of which their involvement in the film increases. Griffith also developed the rules for screen direction, and the 180-degree (or the Axis) rule of shot taking. These rules ensured the correct spatial orientation for the characters with respect to the shots intercutting with each other. He used the power of Parallel Montage (intercutting from one event at one place to something else and then back to the first) to effectively build suspense. He also developed the widely used transition techniques of Fade In and Fade Out, and the now obsolete Iris In and Iris Out.

If the inventors of cinema, the Lumiere Brothers and Thomas Edison, made motion picture a reality, and craftsmen like Georges Melies turned it into a medium of magic and spectacle, it was the genius of D.W. Griffith that made cinema a powerful narrative medium. That he used this to tell a shamelessly biased story is an inseparable part of film history, as is his unparalleled contribution to cinema.

Marilyn Fabe’s book ‘Closely Watched Films’ wonderfully discusses Griffith and the film in its opening chapter, where the author says: “The Birth of a Nation is clearly not history but a cultural illusion written with lightning, the lightning of the powerful picture language of film articulated by its first master.”

In one sentence Fabe has succinctly covered almost everything that is associated with great films: the power of cinema, the strong mirror it is to the culture of societies and how it contributes to it, the potential of it to be used politically or for propaganda, the authorship that a director automatically, and sometimes unintentionally, claims by portraying his or her world-view, and also that in the end it is but an illusion. Whether Griffith was the first master of the ‘language of film’ is perhaps the least important question we need to bother ourselves with.

Missing Orson Welles

Immediately after debuting with the much-talked-about and controversial ‘Citizen Kane’ (1941), Orson Welles was directing and producing his second film (under his banner Mercury Production) with RKO, the studio which had offered him the unprecedented contract that had attracted the obvious envy and wrath of the film-making fraternity. No one then, not even Welles, would have imagined that history will remember his first as the ‘Greatest Film Ever Made’ for several decades to come, despite some handsome accolades that had come its way. For RKO, Welles was the boy-wonder they had discovered and had turned into a sensational film-maker, whose first film, despite the fame and controversy, remained a box-office failure. Welles was contractually bound to make a second film with them, and this time too, like with ‘Kane’, he had the rare opportunity to have the right to the final cut. However, the talks between Welles and RKO on the second film failed. Welles went on to make his next, with the same studio, but this time they retained the right to the final cut. A few months later, Orson Welles was fighting a futile battle to make the film he wanted to make.

The rough-cut of ‘The Magnificent Ambersons’ that Welles had prepared was 135 minutes long. After poor response at test-screenings, the studio decided to chop it down. Eventually, they re-shot the climax in the absence of Welles, to achieve a ‘happier’ ending. The version that was finally released was 88 minutes. More than half of the film’s musical score, composed by Bernard Herrmann who had done a phenomenal work in ‘Kane’ (and who later worked with Alfred Hitchcock on some of the most memorable films of all time), was also deleted. An angry Herrmann forced the studio to remove his credit from the final film, threatening legal action if they declined. Eventually, the rough cut of the film was also lost and the footage destroyed, and the world could never see the film its director wished to make. As Welles later said about the studio’s treatment of his film: “My whole third act is lost because of all the hysterical tinkering that went on. And it was hysterical. Everybody they could find was cutting it…. They destroyed ‘Ambersons’ and ‘it’ destroyed me.”

The film remained a big box-office failure, despite enormous positive acclaim and a ‘Best Picture’ nomination at the Academy Awards. This was Welles’ second, and last, film being nominated for the same. In a few years, Welles was to struggle to find funding for his future projects as the studios would simply not work with him. Welles was only 27, when ‘The Magnificent Ambersons’ happened, and this was the start of his regret of being and living the life of a film-maker.

I watched the film last evening. Obsessed with ‘Citizen Kane’, I was excited to revisit the second work by the prodigy. And though the film kept reminding me of the predecessor, with its stunning low-key black-and-white cinematography, palatial sets, and common faces, I missed Orson Welles, the actor. His familiar voice providing the narration only accentuated this feeling, the feeling that I get while watching those Woody Allen films that do not feature him as an actor. However, a big smile came over my face at the very end of the film, when Welles’ voice speaks out the credits (one of the earliest films to do so) with shots of film equipment for crew and head-shots of the cast. In the end, over the image of a microphone, the assured and confident voice announces the final sentences, after which the microphone recedes into the distance, under the lights and a framing so reminiscent of ‘Kane’.

The final words are: “I wrote the script and directed it. My name is Orson Welles. This is a Mercury Production.”