An interview with Patawardhan by Avinash T.R.

An interview with Patawardhan by Avinash T.R. for the dissertation
Avinash Sorab: As I am concerned with an alternative tradition of documentary film making in India I have noticed lot of similarities in style (particularly in the interviews of War and Peace) with the documentary of Marcel Ophuls The Sorrow and the Pity (1969) in French. What is your opinion about it? Do you know the film? Are you influenced by his style?
Anand Patwardhan (AP): I saw Sorrow and the Pity and other Marcel Ophuls films like Hotel Terminus (on the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie) many years ago. I am of course an admirer of his work but am not sure if we have any similarity in style, though it is possible that when you admire a film, a little bit of it stays with you forever. Another film I admired in those days was The Battle of Chile by Patricio Guzman. Perhaps what is common in these works is the scale of the issues they tackle, the attention to detail and the understated humanist sympathies of the filmmaker, which while never hidden are never loudly proclaimed.
Avinash Sorab: Most people associate your name with Michael Moore in USA as both Fahrenheit 9/11 and War and Peace are anti-state anti-war films. But I have noticed Moore’s films are more television-oriented in their mode of dramatic presentation. Do you think your films are less dramatic because they not chiefly targeted towards television or television-conscious audiences?

AP: I don’t think Moore’s films like Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine were primarily made-for-TV films. In fact the real breakthrough he made was to get them theatrically released and they became box office hits. It was a triumph for the documentary to compete alongside Hollywood and hold its own, despite having content that the ruling regime detested. But apart from the content and the sympathies, I think our films are different in style and approach. Moore’s physical presence in his own films is larger than life while I have used the first person narrative only once so far, in War and Peace and that too only as voice over. I also feel that Moore’s use of satire and comedy while extremely effective at times, at other times undermines the credibility of what he is saying especially for audiences whose sympathies he cannot take for granted. In my own work, while I never wanted to dilute what I was saying just to gain acceptance, I have tried to explain my positions more patiently and gently. But differences apart I want to say that I love many of Moore’s films and above all will always remember his heroic act of denouncing the Iraq War from the biggest stage on Oscar night at a time when the hawks in the USA were in a feeding frenzy.
Avinash Sorab: While discussing about Narmada diary some people opined that you look at the issue through the eyes of activists and very little time is spent on Adivasis and their life. And they say Adivasis are represented they are not re-presented. Do you think that Adivasis without activists lack agency?
AP: I never wanted to be an ethnographer or an anthropologist. I do of course take sides though I don’t want to do propaganda in as much as I will never consciously exaggerate facts or tell lies. Most of my films began because I had already begun to identify and work with the movements I later went on to film because filming seemed a useful way for me to help out. At the same time my films are not made by a committee. I retain control over what is said and try not to allow political considerations to cloud the truth of any given situation. So it was with A Narmada Diary. Both Simantini Dhuru (my co-director on the film) and I were already supporters of the Narmada Bachao Andolan when we began to film. In those days (we began filming in 1990 and ended in 1995) TV coverage of such stories was rare and we ended up shooting bits and pieces of different key moments and fed these free of charge to TV channels that were willing to carry it. Later as the footage built up we decided to put it all together as an anecdotal diary. So obviously the film is not about adivasis as such. It is the story of the Narmada dam and those who fought against it, many of whom were adivasis. As in all the films I’ve made there are hundreds of stories within stories each of which could legitimately have taken the film in a different direction.
As for representation and re-presentation, I do not get the point being made here and cannot comment until I do.
Avinash Sorab: A documentary maker can manipulate visuals to achieve a desired effect on audience and mobilize them towards his political opinions. Is it necessary for a documentary maker to take an explicit ideological stand to make his audience think in a particular way about the film? Or should he give an impression of being a neutral filmmaker not taking any sides?
AP: I think I just answered this question before it was asked! Of course I do not say that my approach to documentary cinema should be the blueprint for everybody. That would be boring. Let everyone come to the medium with their own preoccupations, their own likes and dislikes and methods of working. As for “manipulation” and subjectivity it is a given no matter what disguise is used to achieve the pretense of neutrality. Is Doordarshan neutral? The question is a non-starter. Are the CNN and the BBC neutral? Look at their coverage of the Iraq war or their bias towards Israel. Every observer and commentator brings his own bias and baggage to the table. I prefer not to hide mine but to offer it up for examination.
Avinash Sorab: You participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement in America. Is that where you realized the need for an alternative documentary film tradition in India?
AP: I wasn’t thinking that far. After my return from studies abroad I worked as a volunteer in a rural education and development project in rural Madhya Pradesh. Mostly we did farming and science teaching but I made a filmstrip (slide show with soundtrack) about post-Tuberculosis care to motivate village patients who came to our rural clinic. Later I joined an anti-corruption student movement in Bihar and ended up making a film called Waves of Revolution that began in Super 8 and ended up in 16mm. The film and myself went underground in 1975 when a State of Emergency was declared and people were jailed at the slightest sign of protest. But generally filming was far from a priority in those days and was more like a side activity that could be called upon if needed.
Avinash Sorab: I am aware that you made films much before the emergency period in India but in a way it’s a bit similar situation. Do you think that the anti-emergency movement strengthened alternative film making (Alternative in the sense of not state funded) in India?
It is true that the Emergency and its aftermath saw a rise in democratic consciousness and the civil liberties movement gave impetus to several new documentaries. I made Prisoners of Conscience, Utpalendu Chakravarty made Mukti Chai, Tapan Bose and Suhasini Mulay made An Indian Story - all films about people and conditions in prison. Later as times changed and new issues were born documentaries about other issues began to be made as well. Video had not yet arrived and we still filmed in 16 mm, an expensive proposition for independents, so the over-all output remained tiny for a long time till the video Handycam and later the DV revolution put an affordable technology into the hands of the independent filmmaker.
Avinash Sorab: What is your opinion about the cinema vérité technique or use of hidden cameras which you never made use of in your documentaries? Are they unethical?
AP: Cinema vérité should not be confused with the use of hidden cameras. Cinema vérité is a practice of filmmaking, you can even call it an ideology, espoused by people like Richard Leacock and D.A. Pennebaker that reached its zenith in the work of Frederick Wiseman. All were USA based practitioners whose best work was done in the 60’s and 70’s. I’m still not certain why the French word vérité was used. Perhaps there were people in France who also worked in this manner or perhaps as often is the case, the French were the first to spot it and name it. In essence the practice gave precedence to the camera’s power of observation and appeared to eschew or minimize all other forms of intervention like editing and the addition of effects or background music. In its purest form the vérité could become tedious, though its truth claim was obviously great. In reality even these films did have some form of editing though each cut was of much longer duration than was the norm, giving the impression that the film had not been edited. In Wiseman’s best work like Titticut Follies about an insane asylum or High School or Hospital (Wiseman specialized in studying institutions) this observational, non-interventionist cinema is seen at its best but even here the discerning eye can spot the hidden hand of the editor, seamless as the films may seem. One must remember that cameras in those days were celluloid shooting cameras which could only shoot 3 or 10 minutes per roll and needed separate machines to record sound. The whole act of continuous filming while keeping picture and sound in synch needed a degree of pre-planning. So however brilliantly the “Don’t mind me, I’m just a fly on the wall” effect is achieved, it is nevertheless, an effect. Today with video or digital cameras that have built in sound where a single shot can last for an hour or more , the dexterity and magic of vérité filmmaking has become commonplace and the only thing preventing long, unencumbered takes is the falling attention span of the world at large.
My own filmmaking as I said earlier is never shy of intervention and editing though in order to maintain the truth claim of what I document I do occasionally resort to the long, unedited sequence that at times gives the films a vérité feel. One thing I share with the vérité school is a reluctance to use background or mood enhancing music and effects, relying largely on sounds recorded in front of the camera and in the field.
Hidden camera filmmaking is a different matter. I won’t get into a debate on whether it is ethical because that depends on the situation. If I want to extract a confession from a mass murderer, I am not going to announce who I am and expect co-operation. Tehelka did just such a sting operation in Gujarat and hats off to them. Having said that I haven’t had occasion to use hidden cameras personally though in War and Peace I was more than happy to use portions shot by the Tehelka sting team when they exposed the fake arms scam of the NDA government.