A FILMMAKER MANIPULATESTIME: PROFESSOR INDRANIL BHATTACHARYA
rofessor Indranil Bhattacharya is a filmmaker, teacher, film scholar, and pedagogue based in Puna, India,” this was the opening line of the introduction given to Prof. Indranil Bhattacharya in the press release issued by the Indian Cultural Centre regarding the film appreciation workshops recently held at the Sri Lanka Foundation institute (SLFI) Digital Film Academy. Indranil Bhattacharya is a lecture of the Film and Television institution of Puna where he is in charge of the film appreciation programme. Bhattacharya has been teaching cinema since 1995. As a filmmaker he has made several documentaries and educational films. During his visit to Sri Lanka, Daily Mirror met with this filmmaker, whose mind is like a filmic encyclopaedia and asked him many things about cinema. Q
: What is cinema to you? A: Cinema is a way of life to me. A way of life that I have now started to eat, drink and sleep. My path in cinema had many sacrifices and trials. Especially a lot of things in my personal life were sacrificed. Today I am fortunate to join the university where I was taught cinema, as a lecturer of cinema. So if I look back on my life, I think I can say that cinema has been a companion to me throughout my life: what we want to share with others is the fascination of cinema. Once you are on this path, you are smitten for life by cinema and you will never be able to let go. Q : What in your view makes a good film? A: I think a good film is something which makes you think and ponder. A film that makes you reflect and makes you relate emotionally. But great films can make you emotionally think and relate. And at the
By Jayashika Padmasiri
same time a ‘good film’ should be crafted well: you can judge whether a lot of effort has gone into it or not, by virtue of watching. Q : Do you think the present south Asian cinema is in a good state or not?
A: Yes, absolutely. I think the South Asian cinema is very exciting. And there is a lot of promised talent in South Asia. China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam and Korea are a few good examples for the South Asian sub continental cinema. However I believe that some of these films do not match with the films coming from Taiwan. I think the present South Asian cinema is hopeful. Nevertheless if we take Indian cinema, in India I believe that there are some very talented directors such as Gurvinder Singh (who directed Alms of the Blind Horses), Umesh Kulkarni and Amit Dutta. And if we take Sri Lankan cinema, I think film director Vimukthi Jayasundara is one of the best filmmakers of the younger generation and of the sub continental. Filmmakers Prasanna Vithanage and Asoka Hadagama are also very talented film directors in Sri Lanka. I believe that these three filmmakers will carry the torch of the new Asian cinema represented by Sri Lanka to the world. Q : What in your view is the best genre of film - realism (film as lived), formalism (film as thought) or film as poetry?
A: Personally I prefer realistic films. But I do not believe that a film should be labelled with these categories or be obedient to these boundaries. Because in film, these boundaries overlap each other and the margins get blurred. So all these three genres can be in one film, in my view. Q : If we consider the French new wave cinema, French filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini said “cinema shows an author who shows in his films his own eye on the world”. How do you feel about this statement and do you agree with it?
A: I think that applies to all great films. Anyway French New Wave films are very enjoyable and playful. And at the same time they are very political in its origin: they try to question the existing norms of cinema. And the French New Wave films don’t make the audience passive, but makes the audience an active participant of the film. So instead of being a member of a passive audience who usually watches a film while eating popcorn after buying a Rs. 500 ticket, these films make the audience active participants of the film. Q : Do you think that neo-realism can be witnessed in the current South Asian cinema?
A: Yes, I think that some Iranian and contemporary Chinese filmmakers belonging to the sixth generation have showed neorealistic characteristics in their creations. While also filmmakers such as Jia Zhangke, Satyajit Ray, Bimal Roy, Chetan Anand, and Dr Lester James Peries were strongly influenced by neo-realism. Q : You gave a lecture on the ‘long take in cinema’ at the workshops. What do you think is special about the long take technique?
A: The long take goes back to the beginning of capturing uninterrupted time. With the long take you can capture the real essence of life around you, which we thought should be the new mark of true realist cinema. However if we consider Andrei Tarkovsky’s slow long takes in his films, they can constantly be fast too. His long takes are spiritual, and you should watch all the details in his long takes. I think long takes are exciting to show, because the directors can impress their peers through the long take. I think long takes are used by directors to usually get a pat on their backs and to be asked the question, “How did you do it? Did you have to take a A lot of modern contempocrane to do that?” rary films are open ended. And Q : Do you think that do not have a very defined the filmmakers in course. However the answer to South Asia are using the this question is relative, as it delong take technique well? pends on the film. So you cannot say wheth
A: Yes, Jia Zhangke specially. Because in er an open ending film is good or bad, behis films we can see him using the static cause it depends on the way you read the camera to unfold life in front of the camera film. However if we consider the concept of very spontaneously. Sometimes he does “time in cinema”, I think cinema is all that in a meta film way. One of the best exabout time: cinema is 24 frames per second. amples where he has used the long take In cinema you navigate time. So I think it is well is the film Day for Night. correct to say that a filmmaker manipulaQ : If we consider the filmmaking of tes time. Film is life. However the differthe two Indian directors, Ritwik ence between ‘real time’ and ‘filmic time’ is Ghatak and Satyajit Ray, what do you that the filmic time is constructed and you think are the similarities and contrasts can compress time and stretch time accordin the cinematic approaches of these ing to the wishes of the filmmaker.
Q two directors? : What are your favourite films and
A: I think Ghatak’s films are considered who are your favourite film direcmore Indian than Satyajit Ray’s films, betors? cause Ghatak’s films are more traditional. A: If we take the last ten years of cinema, His films bring out the Goddess Durga and I think some of my favourite directors are the role of a mother a lot, while Ghatak also Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Tsai Ming Liang, Jia draws from the melodramatic incidents of Zhangke, Coen Brothers and Takeshi KitaIndia. The way he uses music in cinema is a no. My favourite films are Distant by Nuri good example for this. On the other hand Bilge Ceylan, Still Life by Jia Zhangke, The Satyajit Ray’s films are very realist with Hole by Tsai Min Liang, Hana-bi by Takeshi measures of preciseness. His films are Kitano and Taste of Cherry by Abbas Kiarmeasured and précised. So I think Satya- ostami. jait’s films deals with more poetic realism while Ghatak’s films are more flamboyant. Ghatak’s films are more Indian in essence. That is why Ghtak is perceived as more Indian because of the way he draws from Indian traditions, such as mythology, religion and classical music. He defies all the conventions that are used in Hollywood, American and European cinema. For example Ghatak defies the known conventions of editing. His films are intentionally full of unbalanced frames. So if we consider Ghatak’s films he tries to break all the existing norms. Q: There is a claim in the society which says that “true films are those films that do not ever end”. Do you agree with this statement? And in this light, can you explain the concept of “time in cinema”?
A: