Interview with Marathi and multi-lingual film Court’s director Chaitanya (original) (raw)

Seldom does a debut film in Indian cinema receive critical acclaim at crucial film festivals. Director Chaitanya Tamhane's film Court is the newest addition to the list of such films. Besides various debut and best film awards at overseas film festivals, the movie which is largely in Marathi, has also garnered the National Award in the Best Film category.
READ: I’m thrilled that people love my acting
The filmmaker it seems is soaking in his glory. Beneath that projected calm and composed self, it seems that the

director

is experiencing that unsettling feeling which only increases with more and more acceptance.

It seems he is coping with it. In a free-wheeling conversation with TOI, Tamhane, aged 28, explains why a setting or a profession gives rise to characters and their stories and why he is ready to make a film in any language as long as he can express himself. Excerpts:
Could you tell us about your background?

I wanted to be an actor. I joined

Mithibhai College

at the age of 16 with the intention of doing intercollegiate theatre. I wanted to act in one act plays and participate in intercollegiate theatre competitions. However, I realised that acting is not for me. At the same time I used to write also. I started doing my independent projects. I made a documentary on plagiarism in Indian cinema. Then I wrote a professional feature length called

Grey Elephants in Denmark. It was a play about a close-up magician and a mind-reader and it tracks his life from the age of 10 to 65. It was shown at Prithvi and NCPA. It is here that I met Vivek Gomber. He acted in that play.
My family has been very supportive right since the beginning of my career. One of my uncles is a playwright. His name is Shekhar Tamhane. In my family, there is someone who has been an actor also. So, it is not that they were new to the film and theatre industry. But at the age of 23, when I made my first short film, my family started losing hope. They saw that I was not making money. It had not turned out the way they wanted it to be. So, they began putting pressure on me. But things smoothened out. Now again with the film winning the National Award, they are very happy. On the whole, they have been very supportive.
My journey into the world of cinema began through a recommendation by director Nishikant Kamat. He recommended the film City of God (Brazilian film) to me. I saw the film. It opened a completely new world for me. After that film, my journey of exploration of cinema and its language began. I used to watch three to four films a day. I would work as an assistant writer at Balaji Telefilms and put all the money which I earned into renting DVDs of foreign language films. I got deeply interested in films. I realised I want to make my career in films.
What was the trigger for Court?
I was watching a typical conventional courtroom

drama

on

Doordarshan

and I thought how it must be in a real courtroom. A film’s idea starts off on a very trivial manner. Only if the idea sticks around for months and it really appeals you, then it develops. That is when I pursued it. When I went to the courtroom I got hooked. Then I followed it up.
I also remember an incident when a friend of mine had to go to a police station to submit some documents as evidence. He had to wait for two hours to get the printout of those documents because the constable did not know how to connect the cable where. Such funny incidents also triggered ideas that may I could set something like that up in a courtroom.
Besides this, a setting or profession inspires me. From there, characters and situations evolve. I wanted to know what actually goes on in an actual court room. I attended an actual trial. In Hindi films, courtrooms scenes are theatrical. And in most films, the

High Court

or Supreme Court would be shown. I wanted to see what happens in the Lower Court. So, when I went to these courts it was nothing I had imagined. I realised there are very films which have done faithful depiction of these courts. I saw the judges would deal with 30 people arrested for travelling on trains without tickets or in the handicap compartment. And I felt that those judges could be one of my uncles or one of us. Or those lawyers could be one of my relatives. All this fascinated me a lot.
How difficult it is to be objective while showing flaws in a system? How do you ensure that your film does not seem a vehicle to express your viewpoint rather than an attempt to show things as they are?
I don’t think it is possible for anyone to present anything objectively. Everything is coloured with your perception. Everything is a choice. Even the choice to be detached is still a choice. So, I would not call my film apolitical. It is not that I have not commented on the system. But that was not my main motivation. My main motivation was to explore genuinely for myself who are these people which we see in the film. For me, it is more about the people who are part of the system, the power dynamics. In my case, it just happens to be a courtroom which deals with authorities and hierarchies. It gives the film a layered scenario. It is not that I have a set notion in my head and I have to prove a point through the film. It is also not that I know what the evils of society are. I am presenting some

social change

or call for action. It is just an expression, a personal exploration.
How long did it take to make the film? What kind of research went into it?
It took three years since the time of the idea, writing and the final film. I got a lot of inputs. Just like you, I would also meet people, conduct interviews. I would gain from their insights. I read about activists like Jiten Marandi’s trial and other such socially conscious individuals. I also read books by legal luminaries such as Fail S Nariman and V R Krishna Iyer. Everything I observed I collated and then in the scripting stage, it was a question of elimination. I did not want to show off my research. I wanted to present insights and information which would be organic to the narrative. I watched a few documentaries by French documentary film maker Raymond Depardon. In particular, I would like to quote the short film, The Office by polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski. We also used Jai Bhim Comrade as a big reference.
It is very revealing how the judge and public prosecutor seem in domestic lives and how callous and insensitive they seem in the courtroom. Do you think the judge and the public prosecutor have given up on the system?
I think it is not that black and white. But this element of going through the daily grind is different for each character. I think it depends about whom you are talking about. Yes, there is an aspect of their lives about which they are stuck and being there in the system for way too long and therefore being jaded in the system. It is definitely part of the script.
There is a complete lack of drama, intensity, and surprises in the way they live. But at the same time, it is more lifelike to me. I felt that most normal people's lives are like that, devoid of major ups and downs. I wanted to capture that. All these characters are so observational that it lends you scope for interpretations. Like for instance, the woman lawyer. People have told me that she is a victim of her own circumstances while some have told me that she is the most evil character in the film. I like both interpretations. I would like the audience to look at the characters in their own way. I have my own interpretations. But I would not like to impose my interpretations on the audience.
Do you think you could have done away with some portions of domestic lives of the lawyers? Do you think their domestic lives add to the narration?
The scenes of domestic lives of the lawyers are very integral to the film. I wanted to know what kind of life these people live outside the courtroom. It is so fascinating to see a human rights activist and a lawyer fighting with his parents about something trivial. I was very interested in the juxtaposition of their lives with their professional lives. Those scenes reveal a lot of their social lives. For instance, the public prosecutor watching the play in the film which highlights the aspect of immigrants snatching jobs of local people in Mumbai. Apparently, nothing is happening. But I think somewhere in those scenes, one sees the contradictions and some correlations in their lives. It is also reveals as to what is guiding them in the courtroom. Also there is a scene when she tells her colleagues about the delays in the verdict of long-drawn cases, does speak what view they have of the system. Those were not unnecessary details.
What is your interpretation of the end of the film? There are varied opinions about it. Some find it abrupt. There is a section of audience which have derived artistic existential meanings in it.
If the film’s end would have been abrupt, I would not have kept it. For me, it is an epilogue. People feel that the film’s end should have ended at a particular note. But they don’t realise that I have led them in towards a path by sustaining the final shot for a long time. I have designed it that way. I wanted it to be an epilogue. I did not want the end to be conventional. I want to understand who is this judge who is presiding over this case for a long time. We always take for granted figures of ‘authority’ for granted. Ultimately, the judge is also a human being. The end is also not just a sequence about him. It is about the collective in a way. It is about his entire family.
You could have shown a journalist, poet or a writer since your character dealt with freedom of expression. Why a folk singer?
I find folk singers much more dynamic and interesting. For me, the world of protest music which is almost fighting for relevance, is a thing of the past. Very few people of this ilk are alive today in Maharashtra. It is fascinating for me. I get fascinated by things of which I have little knowledge of. So I wanted to explore that world of cultural activists. It lends such a beautiful texture. It makes the drama more powerful.
The film has garnered high critical acclaim in almost all festivals. According to you, what has worked for the film?
I am curious myself. How does a film about a folk singer resonate with an international audience? It has a deep cultural context. The film is working for different people for different reasons. It works for people who have faced a situation of dealing with bureaucracy. For some people, the film deals with issues of dissent, freedom of speech, and censorship. For some, it is about a humanistic outlook towards people whose actions one may not necessary agree with. For some, it is about a comment on the system. In India, people would relate to the film on a very different level because it is their immediate reality. It is their immediate cultural context. I never thought this film will be able to transcend cultural boundaries.
For latest Bollywood updates follow us on Twitter >>>@TOIEntertain
For the latest in Bollywood news, like us on Facebook >>> TOIEntertain
WATCH: Court Trailer