If filmmaker Paromita Vohra were to meet Dadasaheb Phalke today, she says she would ask him one question. ‘How did the idea of making a film come into your head; that you should sell everything you own to make a film?’ The typical film enthusiast would have loved to hear Phalke’s answer too if it were possible but Paromita’s inquiry goes beyond mere cinephilia. A lot of Paromita’s work has been about the idea of desire which she defines as not the romantic or the sexual kind but an urge to do something, like in Phalke’s case. In the twenty years that she has been making films, the one question that has drawn her towards people is the story behind their aspirations. In Unlimited Girls (2002), for example, she uncovers Kanchan Dawre’s zeal for driving which led her to become the country’s first female cab driver. And, in Morality TV and the Loving Jehad, she attempts to map the territory of love within the nation state- another spin-off of the theme of desire. Currently, she is working on a film that is, as she says, “about people who are crazy about Hindi film songs.”
In her oeuvre of films, what stands out is a strong authorial voice which is something that Paromita deems crucial to her documentary practice. In this interview, Paromita, who was in the city recently, speaks about her style of filmmaking, what the Documentary in India needs and why she loves S.N.S. Sastry’s films so much. Excerpts:
How did you end up as a filmmaker?
I grew up in the 1980s in a family that had mixed interests. My mother’s family was in the movies- my grandfather, Anil Biswas, was a famous music composer, and grandmother, an actress. So, I was from a filmi household that was past its prime. My father’s side was given to education and my grandfather was a judge. So, as I was growing up, I knew that I had to do something. There was no option that if you’re a girl, then you can get married and that is it. But the emphasis was on finding something that I like to do. The film life was considered unstable and my father was anxious. He would say “Woh mat karna” (Don’t do that) or “Unn pagalon ki tarah mat banjana” (Don’t become like those lunatics) when he spoke of a career in film. ( laughs )
So, I studied commerce and mass communication to buy myself some time. And, it was during the mass communication course at Miranda House, that I discovered film and the Documentary. I realised that the Documentary was a form in which reality, fantasy, fiction, non-fiction- everything could be fit. So, I decided to study it. I didn’t go to film school but I spent three years assisting Anand Patwardhan and worked in Channel V thereafter.
Every filmmaker follows a particular method, whether it is choosing subjects or planning the shoot. What is yours?
My filmmaking journey is like my films. It is a bit of a collage of different things- some jugaad , some planning. I don’t work from the logic of the market. I guess that’s why I never get money from European producers (laughs). But, seriously, I am not convinced of that form of filmmaking. It creates a divisiveness inside people which is sometimes much more dangerous than the divisiveness outside.
Generally, I do not say yes to a project unless I really want to do it. Then, when I set out to make the film, I try to ascertain what it is that interests me in the topic. I take stock of all the work that has been done before in the field. I strongly believe that if you have nothing new to say, then there is no point making the film. In Unlimited Girls , I was interested in understanding why people say ‘I’m a feminist, but..’ What is it that they fear? Do they fear that they will lose love if they choose feminism? I'm not looking for a yes or no answer but I'm looking to find that question, and it becomes the journey of the film.
My films are like a samvaad , a conversation that is led by my question.
Many people edit their questions out but for me keeping the question is very important, because the question is the reason why the film is and if I don’t ask this question, then you won’t give me this answer.
But the answers could change your film entirely…
The truth about the Documentary is that its beauty lies in both the unexpected and the expected. Therefore, the chemistry between filmmaker and subject is very important. A filmmaker must not become too close to his or her subjects. Here’s why. The camera is extremely powerful and it can bring out the best in you. But, eventually you should not be so seduced by the filmmaker that you stop guarding yourself. The filmmaker should acknowledge the seduction and power of the camera and not misuse it. My film should not be dependent on exposing you, but on what you choose to give me at that minute.
Documentary is a performance art in that sense. One has to be able to think on one’s feet, think of the film while interviewing the person and be continuously aware that there is a need for unity in the film.
Your films share a lot in common with SNS Sastry’s films, especially in terms of the style…
I absolutely love Sastry’s films. He was a confident artist. As far as I know, Sastry is the first filmmaker in India to use the first pronoun both in the title and the content of a film. Take I am 20 or And I Make Short Films . He uses ‘I’ to denote the nation, the people as well as himself. It is a radical thing to do- to say that the nation is not one and is in fact, fragmented. One can watch his films many times and each time they give you something new. Film viewing is the greatest form of travel afforded to us. It breaks the limits of one’s body and is a transcendent experience.
What is the route that a documentary is generally expected to take in India?
There is no expected route.
There is a lot of foreign funding that is coming in today. What this does is it constraints people and creates homogeneity. In a lot of the new films that are being made, I find it very hard to make out who the filmmaker is. The route for filmmakers today is through filmmaking markets such as Doc Edge etc. These markets expect you to pitch your film in seven minutes, for instance. It’s one way to do things of course, but unfortunately, it is becoming the only way to do things.
But isn't money an issue?
Yes it is, but if you ask me whether I make a living out of making documentaries, then the answer is obviously no. It is more important for me to get the money to make films the way I want to, which is difficult I concede. But I don’t want to turn my difficulty into a badge of honour. An artist should produce work that is rich with their own voice and that will lead to other work that will pay him or her. I'm not dying of poverty. I'm not rich. If I want to be an artist, I have to know that I’m not going to be rich.
The new trend for documentaries is to secure a release in the multiplex…
I don’t think that is a very desirable model for the genre. I feel that you cannot apply to the documentary, the market logic of the feature film. You have to create a new market idea altogether. The niche market has a different logic. You have to create a means of funding the documentary locally. Getting people to speak for the documentary has given it some visibility and that has worked for some films. But that cannot be the model.
