Shai Heredia Interview

Excavating Indian Experimental Film Research Fellowship 2005
Shai Heredia

ASHISH AVIKUNTHAK

Raised in Calcutta, Ashish has been making self funded films on 16mm & 35mm for the past 10 years and is currently completing his first feature film. He is a doctoral candidate at the Dept. of Cultural & Social Anthropology, Stanford University and is also an artist photographer.

FILMOGRAPHY:

1. ‘Etcetera’ 1997, 16mm, Color, 33mins, (DVD copy in Sarai archive)

‘Etcetera’ is a tetralogy of four separate films that seek to examine the various levels at which the reality of human existence functions. Shown at Dhaka Short film festival, 1999, and Cinema Nova Brussels, 2005.

2. ‘Kalighaat Fetish’ 1999, 16mm, Color, 22mins, (DVD copy in Sarai archive)

The film attempts to negotiate with the duality that is associated with the ceremonial veneration of the Mother Goddess Kali. It ruminates on the nuanced transsexuality that is prevalent in the ceremonial performance of male devotees cross dressing as Kali. This is interwoven with grotesque elements of a sacrificial ceremony, which forms a vital part of the worship of the Goddess.

3. ‘Dancing Othello’, 2002, 16mm, Color, 18mins, (DVD copy in Sarai archive)

Shakespearean theatricality meets the subtlety of Kathakali subverted un the dramatic space of street theatre to give birth to a performative ‘caliban’ – Khelkali – a hybrid act of articulating the post colonial irony of contemporary India.

4. ‘Antaral’, 2005, 16mm, Color, 17mins, (DVD copy in Sarai archive)

Three women reminisce about their times at school and rekindle and affirm olf friendships. They share a strange secret about each other that is never made known to us. The film is a cinematic interpretation of Samuel Beckett’s 1967 dramaticule, ‘Come and Go’.

5. UNTITLED Feature film – currently in development

ASHISH AVIKUNTHAK IN CONVERSATION WITH SHAI HEREDIA (APRIL 2005)

SHAI: So how long have you been making films, why have you been making films & why… ASHISH: The first film I shot was in 1995. That was one of the sequences in Etcetera, soliloquy. That was the first film I made and then that's where it started. Now how did it begin, see it happened when I was in school in Calcutta, Calcutta being the usual center for intellectual activities. So I started going to Nandan. All these crazy films were shown, when I was about 15 years old. And I was in Calcutta for about 2 or 3 yrs before I came to Bombay. Those 2 years were very interesting because I was able to see a lot of films… whatever was shown at Nandan, and the ticket prices were Rs 5. I remember sometimes I used to see 3 films a day. There used to be the Swedish festival or the French festival & they wouldn’t show special films but films that were released in the last 2-3 years. So that was the first exposure to films, to think of cinema. It was around the same time that I started seeing films at Max Mueller bhavan, Russian center, the French center, so that's where it started. But never thought that I would start making films that was not the intention at any point of time. Then I came to Bombay, & started seeing films at NCPA, the French center, Max Mueller bhavan. I got involved with Screen, which was then run by Amrit Gangar. So that was interesting because I was trying to help, not so much administratively, just helping Amrit run it. In that process I was seeing a lot of films at Screen & Prabhat Chitra Mandal also. But screen was more important because that’s where I saw Tarkovsky for the first time. Max Mueller was showing short films, they would come with these special German short films. That was the first time when I thought of the possibility of making of films because the earlier films were so critical fiction serious films, which were so overwhelming that you cant, think of making them. Suddenly you realise that there is a possibility of even 3minute, 2 minute, 5minute film. And then again the big influence was the Bombay short film festival. I was there in 1992, 94 96 & that was a tremendous exposure. Especially with the possibility of short films, fiction was a different ballgame, but that was the first time I started seeing it. Suddenly the idea emerged that I can also make them. One major influence was after seeing Wim Wenders’ short films at Max Mueller. That was the first time I felt even I can make films which need not be as overwhelming as the usual fiction film. And 1994 I left Bombay for Pune. I had some friends, some people I knew & some people Amrit knew who were at the institute. I started going to the institute everyday. For nearly 2 years I was just going there and seeing films & in the course of a few months I had made some good friends. And in 95, I decided to shoot this film. The idea was basically you just take one roll of 400 feet film and you expose it completely and try to play the narrative out of it. And that’s how the first of the Etcetera film was born.

SHAI: How did you fund these films? ASHISH: All personal funding completely - the money that I had saved. When I was in Bombay I did some free lance writing for ‘The Independent’ newspaper. I wrote for ‘Illustrated Weekly’ and couple other magazines. So I was able to make some money. So the first film I think cost me something about Rs. 7000. I spent Rs 2000 on stock, & then 16mm equipment from FTII & asked couple of friends to shoot it. And that's how soliloquy happened. And then I slowly got engaged in the processing in Bombay in labs like ad labs and other big places, where you go as this small fry to process 8 cans. Again there was a lot of, I wouldn’t say problems, but I was always as an outsider. So that's how I started engaging with the Bombay film industry, the main stream industry, when you go to Adlabs, it is as main stream as it can get, but then you try to do your own work.

SHAI: When you made your film, did you think of exhibition, did you think of where would you screen your film? ASHISH: A little bit exposure gave me the idea that there is a possibility that I can show my films at an exhibition, abroad. & I did send them to a few festivals abroad but it got rejected. So the only places I got to screen was in Calcutta at the Max Mueller Bhavan and the French alliance, or in Bombay at alliance, just to show some friends, with 20-25 people coming over.

SHAI: You make these films very much as an individual, as an outsider, you are not also from the FTII…so what is that experience like… ASHISH: I did try appearing for the exams at FTII. There’s always the nascent cinema for which the FTII is the fringe, and for the FTII, people like me are completely the fringe, I'm still the fringe at the end of the day. Because for the students at FTII, their aspiration at best is to be a part of Bollywood, which is what most of these people end up being. And at worst they probably fall out and become the fringe. Most of them become documentary filmmakers, which is what most FTII students are, as filmmakers. Not as technicians. As technicians they are in Bollywood. I mean my interaction with them, I engage with them and learnt a lot at the institute, the act of making films. Being an outsider kind of helped me because it gave me a different idea, different possibility of making films, because at the FTII there’s a very standard way of making even short films which is a 20 minute film has to be 35mm, has to be wide, has to be in colour, like a huge amount of light has to be used, like Amit’s film ‘Ksha Tra Gya’ probably got about 12-15lakhs. Because I was an outsider I can say I wasn’t bound by this category. Soliloquy began not as a structural exercise but to make a film within a given budget.

SHAI: You made an interesting point, you think FTII doesn’t encourage small scale, it pushes… ASHISH: FTII is a standard fiction school, like in the US. Like in the US they have various categories of schools, you have the Hollywood schools, you have the documentary schools, art school which is for fiction, short, experimental. & I think FTII is a standard Bollywood school. I wouldn’t say Bollywood but it’s a standard fiction, it’s a feature scale, that's what you are taught & you are not taught to think beyond that…

SHAI: that's true and it becomes really difficult for the FTIIans to unlearn that… ASHISH: You can’t unlearn that coz, for example, you cant do the Bollywood shit because you don’t get along with the politics…what I am trying to say is there’s a process of unlearning to make a film which is completely at a lower scale. There are exceptions, there are people who have tried to do that, trying to make films on a small scale. Most of the FTII students end up going the NFDC way. Initially in their careers, most of them try to get the NFDC funding and make one or two films, & that's the way it is. Or they remain technicians throughout their life. Now there’s a new - in the last few years especially after the rise of the digital stuff - there’s a whole documentary scene where the FTIIans find themselves. Even now if you ask them to think in terms of fiction, they only think in terms of 35mm, in terms of say a proper NFDC scale with at least a 30-40 lakh rupees. And I think that's the process they are taught & it’s difficult for them to unlearn that. In my case I just wanted to make a film with whatever money I had and the experience, the exposure I had from seeing the short films at the Bombay film festival was very inspiring. They are just 3min, 5 minute films & they are low budget but there is still a possibility of exhibition, at least in terms of festivals and things like that. I think that was very important so by the time I was making ‘Kalighat Fetish’ there was a very firm belief that I can show these films.

SHAI: It’s a whole other approach/way of applying yourself; I mean what would that approach/process be if you were to articulate it? ASHISH: I think the process is basically, the idea or the belief that you have to make a film. Digital is easy stuff. It is funny how easy it is. I did everything, I shot it, edited it, in about six months. It is so funny that I don’t like that process of filmmaking. For me the process of using 16mm film, going to the lab, the whole process is much more interesting rather than video. Video is far more slicker, far more faster, & it (snaps) gets over like that. Film is a whole different practice. What has happened is most people who make films in India today get into this digital practice, which is different, I'm not denying its artistic… Like video art is an example of artists working with video. You use it as a medium but none of these people I would say would want to work on film. Because video art is a different space altogether. In the digital space, you can easily differentiate between 2 groups of people, one is the documentary film people who are again using the same digital stuff & then you have the video art types who are using the same medium to exhibit in a different space what is more artistically driven. I would say even documentary filmmaking is artistically driven but it has a different politics, political economy, it has a different artistic impetus. But what has happened in the process is that the 16mm medium, the small film medium is completely arbitrated. Which I think is sad. I learnt on that medium and I intend to continue working with 16mm. I think cinematically, I don’t think video. Even if the basic thing is video, the idea is obviously on a big screen, pristine image on 35mm.

SHAI: Now generally if you were to identify yourself as a certain kind of filmmaker, in terms of content or form, would you call yourself an experimental filmmaker? ASHISH: Let’s say in the Indian context yes. I'm not sure, because the idea of experimentation works at 2 levels, obviously one is at a structural level, structure of the cinematic structure level. And then at that level I would say to an extent these films are experimental. Surely they are. But if you compare it to say American experimental films, then probably would consider these films as short fiction or short documentaries. Actually each region has their own culture of experimentation. Within the Indian context I think my films are experimental. In America you have the standard experimental film festivals like the Chicago underground, the New York underground, there are these 3 or 4 underground film festivals. And obviously they rejected my films so I would believe that it doesn’t fulfill their format…

SHAI: yeah, western experimental film has become quite generic… ASHISH: The avant garde in America is like…optical printing is avant garde. You have a certain language, which is considered as avant garde. Whereas in India, that language obviously…I mean optical printing in India you could do if you wanted to show Amitabh Bachchan do a reverse jumping or something like that.

SHAI: True, but that is clearly filmic experimentation within a specifically narrative context… ASHISH: Experimentation only occurs within the narrative in India. It is not formal experimentation. So Mani Kaul’s films and all are narrative experimentation, everybody from Adoor Gopalakrishnan…

SHAI: Most of these filmmakers, though, were within the scale that we were talking about, quite in contrast to the FD movement… ASHISH: yes they were doing formal experimentation. Found footage maybe not so much, but maybe a lot of optical printing. Not lot, some optical printing. I remember seeing a lot of the FD package during the MIFF during 94/95. I think it’s really interesting. But again the experimentation has become very interestingly Czechoslovakian since it was all about animation. As it is in America these underground experimental filmmakers did not have a great distribution setup & to even send these films to India was completely unheard, and un thought of. There’s a very small bunch of people trying to do something different. And unlike the art space you know, they were not even hip guys like Adolfas Mekas, they were just normal guys trying to make some films. If you meet Ernie Gehr, he’s just teaching in a small college and trying to earn his bread and butter. So where would you see these films? Nowhere. The possibility of something like this developing on its own in India is slim.

SHAI: But if you were to look into the future, what do you think is like…do you find people like you… ASHISH: I think it is difficult. No, they’ll all go for DV. Especially with now reverse telecine and things like that getting cheap, nobody’s going to come in. 16mm is a dead thing now. I don’t think anybody is going to come. MTV people will really run, they are the only people who shoot on 16mm, on Bolexs and make cool music videos. But that's another space, people who are doing experimentation are making Bulla Shah, this Rabbi video. They are getting into that space and they are getting shit loads of money. Why would they want to make 16mm films? I don’t think anybody’s interested. Now the multiplex films have started so somebody who is slightly more resourceful would…

SHAI: I think the experimentation comes from whatever genre you are in, whether it is narrative. It is the creation of a language that is more personalized. But I just feel that people working with DV want to be working with film. There will come a time when DV will get very boring. ASHISH: That is the saddest part. There will not come a time, the time has already come. You go and see Vikalp you’ll go mad. It’s boring. Suppose somebody is making a 2-hour film on DV it is boring. Even look at the west, it hasn’t picked up. Digital cinema is what was hotshot camera. People who make films are making films on 35mm. If you have money you’ll make on 35. The idea about Experimenta that you run, that I like is that the film base on it. I wouldn’t be disappointed with DV but with DV there are standard ways of doing it. How much of variations can you have? It has its own potential but that is a different space. The thing I like about people who do video art is that its video that we like that medium, we like that image, they don’t think cinema. There are some films but the sad thing is that sometimes it is obvious that you want to make it on film but you don’t have that kind of money.

SHAI: But that's the thing we were saying, that film does not need to cost that much. ASHISH: It isn’t cost, I think it is a matter of attitude. I think, a person like Mukul Kishore for example, is making one film in say 10 years, even if on DV if you are making a film in 10years, you might as well make it on 16mm film right? Or either you are like Fassbinder making 35 films, I'm willing to give that if you make one feature film on digital video which you can do. Somebody like Fassbinder can exist in India. Because it will cost you nothing. All you need to do is make one digital video every year. Nobody will think that. Even these so called digital filmmakers, they are making on digital film in 5 years. So might as well make something on 16 or

35. It is not that they are prolific.

SHAI: But an attempt has to be made from the other side, like in terms of Kodak, the equipment, labs…the thing is they’ll have to process it. ASHISH: Labs are cheap. Adlabs will do it. You can still make; it is not difficult. I’ve made 16mm stuff in this country. I can still do it. You process in Adlabs, you do sound in Prasad, you don’t have to go to Prasad, and they’ll send it to you. And you may make your married prints in Adlabs or Rauko. Rauko prints are standard and good. Rauko’s a good lab, the people are good, and you have to get into it, explore it. But people don’t go to Rauko. I mean it does good work, it does as good as Adlabs. The problem with labs not only in India but anywhere in the world is that labs are not standard. Any lab in the world you can get caught. People have horror stories to tell about éclair lab in Paris. & Adlabs comes with really good stuff and they are cheap. I think Indian labs are cheap. The expensive part of the whole deal is the stock. If you want to make a 16mm film, each 400 ft can would cost about Rs5000-6000. Another problem with DV is that, people lose their sense of time. You shoot 200 hours and you have to make a film of 10 hours. You overwhelm yourself with so much of footage that when you are sitting on the editing table you go mad. Whereas in 16 there is some kind of discipline that is there. That's a part of the practice. Again, when you edit your film on say Final Cut Pro and you edit on steinbeck it’s a different practice.

SHAI: I agree, that kind of practice is gone. Do you think this exists even within an education setup or generally as well? ASHISH: Even in FTII people don’t edit their films on steinbeck. They telecine it. Amit’s film is not on steinbeck, it is something like a final cut pro, PC based -Avid. They just do some exercises on steinbeck. Then they just jump on the PC. The other thing is that, who are the people who are making films? People who go to film school? People who are part of the Hollywood tradition, father, son, Bollywood, tollywood whatever, the film community. People like you and me are outsiders. People who are making DV are outsiders like you and me who say chuck Bollywood lets sit in our home & edit. But they are making documentaries & stuff like that & some experimental, cant say experimental but some stuff are experimental.

SHAI: I find a lot of very young kids, 18 & 19 year old kids, who are A watching TV, watching MTV, etc. & B playing video games. There’s a whole generation there of people, again it is a whole western approach that develops it. ASHISH: I feel they would move to the DV setup. How many are going to the 16mm setup? See people have not seen a Bolex here. That's the experimental camera. If you talk about 16mm, 16 SR is what is asked for, & in Bombay, 16 SR is for Rs4000 a shift. Because MTV needs it, if you take 16 SR means you are making a music video. If you say you are making a documentary then they’ll reduce about Rs200. There’s that kind of a problem. But I think the art thing even in a feature film is lost. That is what is upsetting me. Give me somebody who makes films like Mani Kaul & Kumar Shahani who is of my age, early 30s. You know how old was Kumar Shahani when he made his first film? 28. He was 28 when he made Uski Roti. Who is there of that age now making something different? This was his first feature film, NFDC produced it, FFC…the NFDC space is now past, it’s sad. It is the post east European setup, it is the post soviet setup. NFDC is not interested. They also want to make money. First they are going to fund people like Rajat Kapoor, though I want to go and ask them to give me money. Some loan, 4-5lakhs if I get I can finish film now. Give them the money back next year. It is difficult. But I'm optimistic.