Ridley Scott’s ‘Prometheus’ released recently with mixed
reviews. I haven’t watched it yet, but a section of the audience claims it was ‘boring’.
There are people who thought Martin Scorsese’s ‘Shutter Island’ was just about
OK. The films of Steven Spielberg range from masterpieces to ordinary. Even
back home, we see good film-makers coming up with not-so-good films. So, why
does this happen? How the best of filmmakers end up making films which are
unarguably inferior from their standards? How do they overlook certain flaws in
their works which even a common audience with no knowledge of film-making finds
palpable?
Let us assume that throughout their careers these
film-makers remain as motivated as their first film, and as experienced as their
last, that they never compromise on intent, vision, effort, and execution, that
they always get the same kind of support from their producers, cast, and crew,
that they are equally fit – mentally and physically, and that the factors
beyond their hands – luck, chance – remain constant every time they make a
film. I hope you understand that this is not possible and little changes in a few
of the above-mentioned factors will affect the film being made, but let us
still assume that all these factors remain constant, along with the director’s
understanding of what he is doing. The nature of the process will still not let him make his films equally good. And making a truly great film will rarely happen. Here is the reason why.
Filmmaking is one of the most unnatural forms of creation.
It is not at all organic. You do not start creating the film from its first
shot – a few seconds every day, to reach the interval in a few weeks and the
conclusion in the next few. It is not like a giant jig-saw puzzle you solve
over days. When it comes to film-making, you first create that nightmare of a
jig-saw puzzle. Once the script is ready, the stage where you 'see' the full film for the last time until the rough-cut on the edit table, it is broken down to schedules,
scenes, shots, and takes, and creation occurs in random order. You might be
shooting the last scene before the first. And it might take you several years to create a film that will be ‘received’ in a couple of hours.
It is only when you start joining the pieces of this jig-saw puzzle together on
the edit table that you, the filmmaker, get to see how your film looks like.
And by then you have lost all your objectivity. You don’t laugh at the jokes, never feel any thrill or pathos looking at your footage, and all you can
see are the glaring errors you have committed. On the contrary, you might fall
in love with everything you see, and can not judge a bad shot from worse. You
fail to realize that what you have shot is short of great.
I believe it is this ‘unnatural’ process that causes some
invisible error, something being lost in translation. It is like when you enter
a forest, you lose touch with its ‘whole design’ once you start focusing on the
trees and the vague paths ahead of you. And when it comes to film-making, you have to
select each path carefully, and stare at each tree as if it were the most
important object in this forest, and then silently hope that you are correctly
navigating through the maze.
So, what do you do when you end up making a not-so-good
film? In my first meeting with Anurag Kashyap he had told me – “Do not be
scared of making a bad film.” This I think is an essential wisdom in
film-making. I’m not saying that you compromise on your vision, or intent, or
efforts. I’m not saying you let complacence seep in and corrupt your soul. Nor
am I saying that let overconfidence blind your judgment. A filmmaker should
work hard with all his conviction, honesty, and integrity, and then let go of
his fear of failure. I think it should be like Sachin Tendulkar’s attitude when
he says that while walking into the ground with the cricket bat in his hand,
all that matters to him is whether he prepared well. The result on the pitch is not and will never be as important as that. There are things you cannot control,
and in the end all you can be critical about is your preparation, not your
performance.
But I think it is easier said than done. I dread the day I
will see the rough cut of my film and sulk into depression and refuse to let it
release for the public. By that time several crores of rupees will be riding on
it and it would be an ethical and professional crime not to actively promote
the film and ask people to watch it, knowing very well that it is a poor film.
But as they say, your child is your own, even if it is born with severe
congenital deformities. You cannot abandon it. All you have to do is readjust
your expectations with your creation. If it is not bad, if it is decent, try to feel
proud of it. And let the world make their opinions. If you have been
honest with your vision and effort, chances are you will never end up with a
film that is bad, despite the unnatural process adopted to create and solve the
jig-saw puzzle that is called a movie. Readjusting your expectations is perhaps
the only way to preserve your sanity in this insane world of film-making.
wow!
ReplyDeleteit may sir because of jumping from your genre.its like Anurag Kasyap making Hum aapke hai kaun part 2.
ReplyDeleteno no. it is not easier said than done. with the right attitude, it is very easy to do. i do it all the time, with my writing. even if i have written a shitty piece of some sad crap, i do ahead and put it up on my blog. the idea is to create, cos it's coming out, and not worry about conforming a pre-formed idea of what might be considered as "good".
ReplyDelete