By Sanjukta Sharma
In actor Nandita Das’ debut directorial venture, Firaaq, the political impinges on the personal in both mundane and life-altering ways. It is a month after the 2002 Gujarat carnage. In a span of 24 hours, five relationships, grappling with changing realities, unfold in Gujarat, exposing the helplessness of victims, perpetrators and the fragile comfort of those who choose to remain silent.
First take: (from top to bottom) Das cast actors for the film herself; Sanjay Suri and Tisca Chopra as an urban couple; Shahana Goswami as a Muslim woman.
At the heart of the film’s subject, the Gujarat carnage of 2002, is the issue of genocide. You have said that through Firaaq you tried to portray not only victims, but also perpetrators. Was empathizing with both difficult?
Taking a stand and being able to empathize are not contradictory. When the obvious violence is over, there’s a lot that lingers on: fear, anger, prejudice, lack of hope. I have chosen ordinary people doing ordinary things and how the carnage affected them, so that it has a strong sense of resonance. Besides victims and perpetrators, there are those who choose to remain silent—the majority.
There are larger perpetrators in all acts of violence and all of us get some comfort by pointing fingers—whether it’s the Gujarat riots, the Mumbai attacks or 9/11. That blame game absolves us of our responsibilities. Why do we get swayed by identity politics? Do we examine our responses enough? Firaaq is not a blame-game film or a prescriptive film. It will prompt people to ask questions.
Many films that have dealt with genocide and war point to the futility of violence and the fact that those who are affected by it have to deal with this futility. Did you have a message in mind?
The only message is that violence doesn’t spare anyone. In fact, everything in our world today seems to be interlinked—be it ecology, economy or terrorism. Your stability is my stability, your peace is my peace; there’s no escaping that.
Did the writing begin soon after 2002?
I started writing in 2004 with Shuchi Kothari, my co-writer. When it (the riots) actually happened, I was in Delhi—horrified, like everyone else. It was a time when 24-hour TV channels used the words genocide and pogrom for the first time to describe what had happened. There was too much footage, and suddenly we were exposed to too much reality. It took us about three years to complete the script, during which time many conversations and events found their way into the script.
Do the five lives in Firaaq intersect the way we’ve seen in some ensemble films in the last few years?
There’s no forced intersection. In some stories, nothing dramatic happens and in some stories, something life-altering happens. It just captures one day in the life of a middle class Hindu couple (Deepti Naval and Paresh Rawal), a master and servant (Naseeruddin Shah and Raghubir Yadav), a mixed (religion) couple (Sanjay Suri and Tisca Chopra) and others.
Did you visit Gujarat while writing the story?
My research began long ago, as part of the human rights work I do, and what I found compelled me to direct this film. I wasn’t planning to direct a film. I went back to Gujarat a few times to understand little nuances of the language; whether the violence of the past affected their daily life in any way.
In recent years, Gujarat has become an exemplary state for what chief minister Narendra Modi has achieved economically. Did you sense that?
It is a wilful denial—as if it’s an either-or situation, as if economic development can completely obliterate the social criterion on which all human development is based, which is respect for human rights.
Although it is a film about violence, it doesn’t have a scene of carnage or riot or killing.
Somebody recently told me at a film festival that if it were a man directing it, he would have been prompted to show actual violence. I do believe there’s a female gaze. Although there are no scenes of violence, there’s a lot of tension in the plot which keeps the audience on edge.
A news report said Modi was angry with the film, and there are rumours that the Congress is trying to use it in its campaign.
What can I say...it is not a blame-game film. If I wanted it to be anti-Modi, I would have had a Modi character. It will be tragic if the film doesn’t get released in Gujarat because people there will relate to it much more. I’d like to believe Modi has other issues to think about right now, with the general election coming.
No political party has approached me to ask if they can use my film in their campaign. The media will take its spin on the film, and so will political parties. I want people to take from it what works for them at a human level.
Acting or directing?
Direction is all-consuming, but I’m going to direct more movies with good enough gaps between each so that stories can organically form in my mind. This experience has altered the way I think about the medium and I will definitely be more sympathetic to the director after this.
What’s your next acting project?
I can’t tell you the name now, but it’s an international project for which I’m going through rigorous physical training. I had never exercised in my life before this, so this is a first. It’s a human story with epic tones to it.
You have always chosen roles with political and social undertones.
I have done my master’s in social work and have worked with two organizations working in the field of human rights. Acting was by default and it is still only an interest. I would not do any role that defies my sensibility and political views. I would never do a regressive or communal role even if it was the best role in the script. We ought not to be apolitical. If we don’t engage with things around us, we don’t have the right to blame others or make a difference ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment