Renowned filmmaker and Dadasaheb Phalke award-winner Shyam Benegal talks about his upcoming biopic on the founding father of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and other issues.
24 Apr 2022
Noted director, screenwriter, and documentary
filmmaker Shyam Benegal has been working on a biopic, Mujib: The Making of a
Nation, on ‘Bangabandhu’ Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Filmed in India and Bangladesh,
it is due to release this year. Last month, Benegal released the poster of his
film at the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) in Mumbai. Born in
1934, Benegal is a pioneer of parallel cinema in India and has made numerous
masterpieces over his fifty-year career. Arvind Das spoke to him about his
upcoming movie, the role of cinema and filmmakers in India. Edited excerpts:
You have made films for fifty years. You
are 87, yet you go to the office every day. Why? What keeps you
going?
It is work. Work keeps me going. Currently, I am
finishing a big film on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. It is a biographical film that
will probably be released in late September.
Earlier, you made movies about Mahatma Gandhi and
Subhash Chandra Bose. How is the film on Mujibur Rahman different?
It is a historical biography, very much like ‘The
Making of the Mahatma’ or ‘Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose: The Forgotten Hero’. It
is about an important person from our subcontinent. Sheikh Mujib was a man who
created a new nation—Bangladesh. His is a very interesting story, and he was a
fascinating person too. He was not from a well-to-do family. He did not have a
background like Jawaharlal Nehru’s or Gandhi’s. Nehru was the son of a very
famous lawyer; his family was distinguished. Mahatma Gandhi belonged to a
family of diwans in Saurashtra. Most political figures have come from such
backgrounds, but Sheikh Mujib was from a very simple location. He was a working
man, meaning, for instance, if Nehru decided he had no need for work, he
already had a particular background, his father’s standing in the society, and
lots of money. But Sheikh Mujib came from a middle-class family—not
upper-middle-class—he did not have lots of lands or a zamindari.
This film is a collaborative project; could you
share some details?
Yes, it is a collaborative effort between the
Indian and Bangladesh governments. Recently, we had the 50th birth anniversary of
Bangladesh and the 100th birth anniversary of Sheikh Mujib. By the time we
started making the film, it was already late, so the film could not be part of those
celebrations.
In the seventies, you made Ankur, Nishant, Manthan,
and then came Mammo, Sardari Begum and Zubeida in later decades.
You have directed biographical films too. It has been quite a long journey,
covering many subjects. What meaning does this range have for you?
Each film is a perpetual learning process. Making a
film is like learning more about your own surroundings, your own people, your
own country. It is a process of educating yourself while making films.
Many of your films revolved around social issues.
Once, you said, cinema cannot change society, but it can certainly be
a vehicle for change. Do you still believe that?
Of course, but what films can [also] do is give you
insight. You may not have to learn too much! What cinema does is give you an
insight, not just about yourself but the environment, your background; it gives
insights into your country, your history, and so much more.
You were also a Member of Parliament. We see
conflict and violence all around us today. What role do you see cinema play in
contemporary society? For example, the recent movie The Kashmir Files has been
very polarising…
See that is the problem. Films have a great amount
of influence, and they also play a role in shaping your thinking about the
world. I have not seen ‘The Kashmir Files’, but I have heard [about it]. While
making films, you [a filmmaker] have one responsibility—towards
history. The more propaganda your film has, the less valuable it will be. Fact
is, you can use films as propaganda, too. But
when you are making a feature film dealing with history, you must have a
certain amount of objectivity. Without that objectivity, the movie becomes
propaganda.
Through ‘parallel cinema’, you brought many
good actors into the Bombay film industry. You discovered Shabana Azmi, and she once said you
are a reluctant guru! Why do you think she considered you
hesitant?
Shabana was a trained actor. I feel flattered that
she thinks I had a role to play, but actually, in reality, she got
opportunities because of the kind of roles there were, for which I found her
suitable. She made the most of the opportunities and won laurels for her
performances in ‘Ankur’, ‘Nishant’, ‘Mandi’, and other films. It was her innate
ability. She is very individualistic. Whatever role she played, she made it her
own. She owned her roles!
What do you have to say about the current state of
cinema?
Cinema has changed a lot. Today, you do not
necessarily go to the cinema hall to watch a film, because the whole pattern is
different. Due to the proliferation of television, most people watch movies on
TV now. And with the OTT platforms, you have
an alternate space that has taken over from cinema. You have to make
adjustments for different perceptions. So, when you make a film, you wish to
see it in a cinema hall on a large screen. But today very few films are seen in
cinema halls. You are likely to watch it on television. And that has affected
the way filmmakers are likely to make films.
So what do you think
is the future of cinema?
Well, we are looking at it [the future]! I don’t
know what will be the future of cinema! Cinema has a future but not necessarily
as we may have thought it would have. Technology and history both have a role
in how cinema gets shaped. The form of cinema itself gets changed. Also, the
way you are going to see films—that, too, will impact how we make films in the
future.
(https://www.newsclick.in/)
No comments:
Post a Comment