‘Wish Corporate India Took More Risks’
Hansal Mehta is a path-breaking filmmaker, who, on issues of national importance, often stands up to be counted. Having made films such as Shahid, Aligarh, etc., he is now making a biopic on the life of Ram Jethmalani. Mehta is also scheduled to talk at Harvard Business School. He spoke to Suman K. Jha on issues affecting the film industry, his take on corporate India and the importance of holding a contrarioan view in a democracy.
Edited excerpts:
What do you think about the recent controversies, including Padamavat, in Bollywood?
This shows that most of these protests are politically motivated. This shows that the fringe is getting empowered. The biggest casualties of the new-found nationalism have been art and culture.
Art is their first target. Whenever there is a film or a theme derived from folklores, or history, these fringe groups take umbrage. This is the new trend.
Does this show that we are getting more intolerant?
‘Intolerance’ is a misused word. The recent episodes only show that the pent up prejudices against arts and culture are out in the open.
Is there a polarisation in Bollywood as well?
The polarisation in Bollywood is just like what you see elsewhere. The majoritarian wave that we are witnessing everywhere is not good for democracy. There are a few who understand this, but an attempt is being made to silence their voices. It was only during Padmavat that Bollywood rallied together. In other such cases, like the one on Sexy Durga, hardly anyone spoke. It is felt that everyone eventually will have to toe the line.
Why are there so few who are willing to speak out?
It is basically the survival instinct. Governments come and go; artists and their bodies of work are here to stay.
Artists, directors, actors want to be in good books of the governments, so that they can peacefully continue to do their work.
You have made films on the lives of non-conformists, who are heroes in your films. Does this come naturally to you?
The commonly held view is that the contrarian view is not welcome. The contrarian view, however, is important for a healthy democracy. I make films on themes that appear exciting enough for me. Making films on a non-conformists is not a conscious decision for me. For instance, in my latest film Omerta, I make a film on British-born terrorist Omar Sheikh who plotted the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.
Is content again the king in Bollywood?
But this has been the trend, always. Satya was made in 1998. Dil Chahta Hai was made in 2001. Lagaan was made around the same time. This trend is not new. The audiences now expect content-centric films.
What do you think of Bollywood’s greater interface with corporate India?
It’s largely corporate India that funds Bollywood now. The trend started around 2004-05, when the era of single producers / financers became the past. With the new trend, the entire process of filmmaking got streamlined. There was a larger financial discipline.
What would you like to change about corporate India?
I wish corporate India took more risks. When Ronnie Screwvala was heading UTV, he took many risks. I wish others too similarly took more chances.
What do you think about disruption in Bollywood?
Some feel that we have become slaves of Rs 100-crore/200-crore clubs. Many filmmakers such as Dibakar, Anurag Kashyap, or my work, on the other hand have disrupted the film world. This helps the mainstream to pause, refresh and reinvent. This gives an opportunity to newer ideas, newer faces.
As a conscientious filmmaker, how do you look at the future of India?
No matter whether it is the BJP or the Congress that rules the country, I think that India deserves better governance.
