Sponsor PFCOne
Loading ...
Prakash Jha : Politically I am not biased & all filmwalla people are not perverted
Final part of the interview of Director Prakash Jha(PJ), taken by Ajay Brahmatmaj (AB), is presented here.
—————————————————————–
[Following is the translation of the Hindi Interview and may not do full justice to the original interview so to read the exact sayings of Prakash Jha, one should go through the original interview. This is simply a trial to expose the interview to those readers who can not read Hindi at all]
——————————————————————–
AB: Which kind of influences you were having while making Daamul?
PJ: Impact of realistic cinema was certainly there. My own thinking and understanding was also developing continuously. I developed my own craft in direction and I conceived and further developed characters according to the necessity of that particular theme. Honestly speaking Daamul was the first film which followed my own liking and had my own style and touch. These four films, Daamul, Mrityudand, Gangajal and Apharan, are political films. All four films are socially relevant films. Rajniti, my next film, will also follow this trend.
AB: What is the reason that directors coming from Hindi belt don’t get success here in film Industry, they have dreams but what lacks on their side that they don’t get chance to make their own films?
PJ: One has to follow a tiring and lengthy struggle to make a place in film industry. Young people coming from our side either get disillusionment soon or they break down facing hard and long struggle. Some people do compromises and start following small benefits also. If you are coming in to direction then don’t forget an important thing that it’s a people’s medium. You have to say your opinion in their language. Dramatise the material in such a way that they can understand it. You see my film Gangajal was better than Mrityudand and Apharan was better than Gangajal. So I am also leanring and improving with time. My films have got their own audiences and these people wait for my films.
AB: On the basis of your own experience, what advise would you like to give to young directors?
PJ: Do study. Whatever you want to say or make, study that carefully and deeply. Understand this medium very well and first see your own subject from the eyes of an audience. See your film from the point of view of an ordinary audience. This is a medium of communication. If we are saying a big thing but people are not able to understand it then what is the use? It should be expressed in such a way that most ordinary audience should also get the message.
AB: You have not shied away from using the politics in your films. In commercial cinema your films carry a social and political outlook. You have touched specifially the caste system and internal relations among different group of people and politics prevailing in Bihar.
PJ: Basically I have my roots in the village and I belong to Bihar. Society of Bihar understands socio-political contexts and people discuss politics there. Time to time I observed social and political changes that happened to society and I selectively used those changes as subjects for my films. Daamul represented traditional feudal system. Which kinds of relations were there among politicians, administration and feudal people and how they were affecting the lives of people on grass root level? Emergence of Mandal commission and open market policy in 1990 gave birth to a new group of social contractors. Religious fanaticism was also increased. Traditional feudal system was changed. I covered this change in Mrityudand. Backward class progressed in politics and they took power in their hands and society faced changes. This whole process comes under social and political development. We can understand this process if we see it historical point of view. Backward class got power but that power also gave birth to the differences between same caste people. We can see how a Yadav can kill other Yadav person though they belong to same caste. We kept this change in the backdrop of Gangajal. Socio-Political changes are shown in my films.
AB: Yes, but you make a escape in taking a political stand or making a political statement.
PJ: I don’t talk about some political statements or ideology. I don’t escape but this is not my job. As a filmmaker I try to portray social movements. I deal with politics on the level of people and society only. This is the reason my films are taken as political films. This is not necessary that to be political films they should have slogans and political ideology. If theme of the film requires then these elements can be there but this is not a necessary condition to make a political film.
AB: What is the reason that hindi films try to escape from politics to that extent that they become apolitical films. If some films somehow cover politics then either this politics is urban and academic or completely imaginary and thus completely filmy.
PJ: I think that normally hindi filmmakers are not much familiar with the politics. They don’t have political education. They don’t have any political base. They don’t get references. And secondly political films are not taken as commercial films. So many things can be there.
I myself remain worried about commercial factor while writing a script. I worry for commercial success of my films. Will people come to see my film?
Call it my fortune or political understanding of audience that my films always work with them. Risk is there with such subjects so people don’t make such films.
AB: This is also a hypothesis that audiences don’t like to watch political films.
PJ: There is a need to understand the mentality of audience. Audience does not go to watch a political, historical or action film. He goes to see the drama. He wants a complete package of entertainment. Every kind of films may bring entertainment. This is up to the director how he entertains the audience. Intellectual entertainment is also there. I believe that if my films can shake you mentally and can stimulate your mind then they entertain you also.
AB: Your next film has got the title “Rajniti”. Which facets of politics will be covered there?
PJ: I will discuss about democracy in “Rajniti”. How there is use and misuse of democracy these days. How vested interests are exploiting democracy for their selfish desires. We have an old tradition to make people fool on the name of democracy. Since the time of Mahabharata, politics and tricks have been existing in the country. I find democracy is a term filled with cheating. Few chosen people are using the whole system by owning the cover of democracy. In our country and society there is a complete misuse of democracy. There is nothing like good democracy here.
AB: We have parliamentary democracy here. How far do you believe in this political hypothesis?
PJ: You can see from the time of Indira Gandhi that how governments are made. How chief ministers are chosen for the states. Is this democracy? You saw Karnataka…Bihar…UP…every state and even centre also face same deteriorated conditions.
AB: Do our films support parliamentary democracy?
PJ: See my next film.
AB: I am asking in the context of over all scenario of hindi films.
PJ: I don’t think so. Hindi films don’t have deep analysis. In my films I talk about changing social and political equations. I take Bimal Roy’s “Do Beegha Zameen” as a political film. Shyam Benegal’s films present objective portrayal of politics. Several films of some other filmmakers can be quoted here. But this is not a significant nature of hindi films. There is no such solid tradition in hindi cinema.
AB: So many times commercial films propagate a negative hypothesis that all politicians are corrupt and all should be killed and parliament should be blasted etc etc.
PJ: This is impure and improper attitude. All politicians are corrupt or whole police department is corrupt. This is a fatal hypothesis. Following such thinking some people say this also that all filmmakers are perverted and demoralized. People say that you filmwalla people have got no morals and everything and anything works there in the film world.
AB: Should a filmmaker have his own political ideology or should he favour some particular political ideology?
PJ: It depends on a filmmaker.
AB: I ask you.
PJ: I have no bias towards any political side. I am in favour of a social policy and development. I sincerely feel that all should get fair chances to do progress as only then all the people can have equal status in a society. Market should grow but its growth should take all the people along with its pace.
First part of the interview can be read here Prakash Jha : Hrishikesh Mukharjee cried after watching my film.
Second part of the interview can be read here Prakash Jha : Deepti Naval and I never cherished any negativity between us
The Buzz — PFC is powered by your submissions. Send in your news, tips, scoops, hot topics
12 Responses to “Prakash Jha : Politically I am not biased & all filmwalla people are not perverted”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- Mumbai Meri Jaan: Winner of a film
- Manorama Six Feet Under: A Six Pack sexy movie!
- Madhumati - A Tale of Two Generations
- TZP & JTYJN: Overhyped ‘yes’,great movies ‘No’
- The Torture Series 2: Insaaf Main Karoonga
- TZP & JTYJN: Overhyped ‘yes’,great movies ‘No’
- MUMBAI MERI JAAN - Bravo!!!
- The Torture Series 2: Insaaf Main Karoonga
- Madhumati - A Tale of Two Generations
- Mumbai Meri Jaan: Winner of a film
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
Thanks to Ajay and RK for bringing this interview.
i have watched “Apharan” and “Gangajal” several times.
best of luck to Prakash Jha for “Rajniti”.
thank god, we hav atleast one filmmaker who handles socio-political issues in his film. cant think of any other name in mainstream arena. in so many other countries n festivals, filmmakers r making big political statements with their films and here its still completly no no.
@Pnu,
True to some extent because Prakash Jha is making films depicting socio-political scenario of Bihar. He covers social evils prevailing there. He keeps Bihar as the backdrop in his films.
Raj Kumar Santoshi also handles political themes but in his own way and because Lajja is not confined within the placial boundaries so that looks like feminist film but subject of the film covers socially and politically active and important theme. Dialogues are quite political and best part of Lajja is its burning dialogues. Not talking about the over all quality of the film.
Same way Halla Bol is quite a political film. Legend of Bhatgat Singh ofcourse is completely political film but that comes under biopic genre.
Khaki had political tone intermingled in the main plot.
Ketan Mehta’s Mangal Pande is quite a political film and on surface it looks as the story of Mangal Pande but theme is relevant as it shows “protest against imperialism”. One can sense from its dialogues that it covers modern day imperialism of super power also. Aamir had not got limited ranged dialogues only and they had deeper meaning.
Hassil was a political film. few others are there in mainstream commercial category also. And parallel cinema has always covered political theme.
@RK..i mean good political films that tackles the present issues. cz films hav always served that purpose, documenting the time,with or without intention. in us, they hav made so many films on the same us-iraq issues. compred to that, ours is zero. hated lajja. evryone told me hall bol is horrible. have to watch it. loved legend of bhagat singh but then its historical biopic as u hav said. liked khaki but not much of politics. mangal pandey is also historical biopic. haasil..yes n damn good.
and major thing is Hollywood can make films like Constant Gardner but market will not bear if an Indian film maker makes such a film in commercial category because MNCs will not bear and filmmaker will have to face a lot of problems. Its not so easy.
If Hollywood likes they can come to India to make a film on any subject because law protect them.
Here people could not make big films on Union Carbide’s dangerous irresponsible attitude which have been killing thousands of people in Bhopal since 2 dec 1984 when MIC was released first time.
A big MNC can bear loss of 100 Cror Rs every year for 10 years and this is sufficient to demolish any kind of protest.
and how long films can be made covering corruption of petty politicians and that too local type.
Big political films are not possible at least at present because those who handle market internationally they are beyond the reach of Indian Law. They can not behave same in USA so Hollywood can make any kind of film, if they like.
@ Rk and Ajay…understanding Bihar’s socio political situation is never easy…If Prakash Jha makes political films then in which film he showed the emergence of marginalized class and if how he handled the changing power dynamics in the state..for ex..until mid ninetes it was congress…after it. lalu emerges..how ?…and wht was the role of communist parties who failed in the state..how and why…i believe that Jha has made films against the feudal system more than political issues…he knows what to show and what not…from where the drama will come …he doesn’t cares about the rest…
We will have to see how Shekhar Kapur’s latest film “Paani” turns out. It should be a political film.
Its not easy. Baba Ramdev had not got any freedom to criticise soft drinks and he was attacked continously and sometimes by CNC of communist parties also which claim to be supporters of people’s benefits and not of MNCs. This is quite a known scientically proven fact that MNCs dont follow same safety measures in developing countries which they follow in developed European countries and other developed countries.
Same soft drink belonging to same MNC can have different chemical composition in different countries.
Same electronic item belonging to same MNC can have different quality in different countries.
Shining youth leaders of developing countries, who can take ahead their countries are killed in accidents, bomb explosions etc.
To some extent Hindi or Indian cinema can deal with local kind of politics only but it can not deal with real politics because that has become quite international in nature and beyond their reach.
@Dipankar(6),
Thats a choice of a filmmaker. First a filmmaker can not and he should not follow party based politics, thats too narrow a concern. Second field is open for all and if Prakash Jha is touching some subject but still he is keeping him limited then its his cinematic ease and one should make a film within that boundary where he can give a nice product. Experiements within a boundary are good. Films can not follow open ended research where anything can happen. One has to have certain boundaries to say a story in a limited time.
Field is open to all other filmmakers and they can do what is left by Prakash Jha.
Daamul and Mrityudand are not simply feudal system based films and they talk about rising of women power also.
One can not show everything in a 2 hours film.
Apharan shows nexus between politician and mafias and reveals the working of a well organised crime which is kind of industry in some areas of country. Politics can not be taken away from day to day life of many states. and its part of social life also.
I have faint memory but I recall Prakash Jha himself had made his political party and he had contested elections also but he was defeated. So he can theoretically understand the politics of Bihar but he can not win over the situations there without working too deeply.
and if you will go on to demand that a filmmaker should analyse the emergence of particular leaders or known interference of a political party just to sabotage other parties chances then given the intolerance tendancy of these days political outfits and incapability of Indian law machinery to handle these super political powers, that filmmaker will be in danger and even if he is not attacked physically he will have to fight many court cases and he will not be able to make another film.
In some fields progress comes slowly. A filmmaker is an individual and what you are demanding can be fulfileld only by TV channels becaue they also own a super power what politicians and people related with judiciary system and big industrial houses own. TV channel can manage to analyse anything because politicians can not do anything against them because they are related with countless people also. People are their power and they can make or ruin the image and thus career of anyone.
They affect the lives of powerful also. Thats why its very difficult to depict true political power of media houses also. Its too risky. Tehelka will not work in that direction.
Sorry Rk …disagree with the line “filmmakers should not follow a party based politics that’s too narrow a concern….want to quote Premchand’s comment in the PWA meeting.. …”writer or an artist is progressive in nature anf if this is not his nature he would not be a writer at all.” After he wrote the film “Mazdoor”…idealism creeps into the plots I conceive and I m told that there is no entertainment value in them.” In fact I think idealism gives u direction …if it’s not in someone he/ she keeps making vague conclusions…resulting in incoherent endings (can be seen in all films of Jha).In gangajal, the main issue left behind…it suddenly looks like a police film…In apharan…it looks like that “apharan” is just a tool to earn money….then wht’s the different between raghu of “Vaastav” and Ajay Shashtri of “Apharan”..both are just tools used in a politics…and as the film progresses the film diverts in political corridors….unlike “Satya” in which, of all the political games it never looses it’s soul….Jha always turns the table…..think Jha has contested as an independent candidate (correct me if I m wrong)….why ? doesn’t he believe in any ideology?…If your logic works then Ritwik Ghatak should not be a Marxist..
@Dipankar,
There is a difference between being a marxist and a follower of a communist party.
There is a difference - for a writer to be follower of Congress in pre-indepedent era because then it was a movement and all kind of people belonging to different ideology were gathered under one flag but after getting independence its also a registered political party. Its not running any social upliftment programme. Its not running movements which may connect millions of people and may bring positive changes in millions of people. Politically it may be still better than other parties but a writer is not a writer if he joins congress and propagates todays politicians ideology. Nobody recall poetry of Shrikant Verma now.
Once movement gets the desired results after that a creative person has to take divorce from the politically active organisation if he wishes to maintain same fire in his writing. It can not happen that an honest writer who is good humanbeing also live duel life.
A filmmaker can be a great film maker but that does not make him great ideologist also. and if Ritwik Ghatak or any other actor, director etc were associated with communist parties rather than to propagate marxism independently then they should be seen as failed observer because they could not see the future and they could not see that communist parties were just other political parties and only names were changed.
Ritwik Ghatak should be a marxist but he can not be card holder of a political party as then he would look like a fool in future. Its a proven fact now that no political party anywhere in the world can remain pure and can not work solely for the benefits of people. Politicians too are human and they are selfish people of high degree. Their greed is bigger and hence their corruption is also bigger than normal people.
Premchand’s concerns were different because he wrote before 1947.
Extrapolate him in to a period after 1965 and you may not find same Premchand and his thought would be changed.
Difefrence between Vastava, Apharan and Satya, I will touch later.
[...] Third part of the interview can be read here Prakash Jha : Politically I am not biased & all filmwalla people are not perverted [...]
Yes
He was courted by both sides to fight on their tickets during that election. But he chose to fight as an independent. Why?
My guess would be because he had no choice. Congress/Laloo Janata Party is Maha Corrupt & BJP is communal/extremist.
If winning a seat to Lok Sabha was his main goal, he had a easier choice. He did not take that. Because he cares about Bihar a lot. I think he is doing a lot there now.
I regret to this day not being able to go to Bihar during that election to help his campaign as I had to go to Bangalore & prepare my VISA stuff.