Interview: Aravindan

KANCHANA SEETA

Your second film, KANCHANA SEETA is based on the play of C N Sreekantan of the same title. The play's main features were its very eloquent, long and authoritative dialogues, whereas your film is almost silent. It is really interesting - the change from eloquent dialogue to an eloquent silence.
There are some specific reasons for deciding to have sparse dialogues in KANCHANA SEETHA. One, this episode taken from Ramayan is familiar to all. Two, Ramayana is not a supernatural reality for us, as it is ingrained in us. It is therefore not necessary to educate people about the film through lengthy dialogues. C N had made clear the prakrithi-purusha notion in Ramayana. I did not think that Seetha should come in the film in the form of a woman. That is why Seetha appeared in the film as prakrithi (Nature) and Prakrithi is a character in the film. When the emotions of Seeta like pain, sadness, joy, and equanimity are manifested through the moods of Prakrithi, dialogue becomes redundant. I felt I could make the film without dialogue. Rama committing suicide - (I still feel it was - self immolation) had haunted me very badly. With all these, my KANCHANA SEETA became very different. Words were required only for very essentials. The dialogues, which I used, were from C N's play. The doubt I had then was whether my Rama and Lakshmana (as they were ordinary people) could use such an eloquent Sanskritised language.

I did not think that Seeta should come in the film in the form of a woman. That is why Seetha appeared in the film as Prakrithi (Nature) and Prakrithi is a character in the film. When the emotions of Seeta like pain, sadness, joy, and equanimity are manifested through the moods of Prakrithi, dialogue becomes redundant.

Was Rama really committing suicide?
Yes... in all probability. That is what I think. However his death in Sarayu River is not like any other kind of death. It was a Mahaprasthanam - an event of supreme self-sacrifice and purification, leaving everything behind. Everyone dear to him had gone. He had parted from Lakshman... he was troubled by many guilt feelings - the murder of Sambuka, the unfairness meted out to Seetha... Towards the end of the film, this mood prevails - Rama walks into the Sarayu river with the sacrificial fire, bearing everything including his loneliness, calling out for Seetha ... and disappears into the depths of the waters, carrying the sacrificial fire with him into the river is not in Ramayana - it is an interpretation.

Somehow the part I liked most in the film is this end. A few unexpected things happened for the good while shooting this last scene, for instance the unexpected early morning mist on the banks of Godavari, which is really rare occurrence, made the whole scene absolutely ethereal.

In the process you have reaffirmed life's essential bondage with fire and water, a concept deeply embedded in our philosophy, our culture and lifestyle. A recurring theme in fact, in all your films, is this interaction, merger and unification of the basic elements of life the panchabhoota. Now let me ask you about the concept of Stree as prakrithi. The Hindu (Indian) perception of prakrithi is very subtle. From Bhrama purusha is born; from purusha evolves prakrithi. What you have done is weave into these limitless horizons, an all-encompassing vision of life in visual with a great deal of authenticity. The totality of your visuals takes us to a realm of meaning beyond the immediate. How have you been able to achieve this?
What a good writer achieves with the imaginative use of language, cinema has to achieve with visuals. It is here that one recognises the limitations of technology and equipment available. I made this film with very simple equipments like table fans to rustle the leaves. If I had better equipment, I could have done a better job. Yet I have been able to create these subtleties to some extent in my visuals. However, I do know that it had to be much more cohesive and intense, Rama, Luv and Kusha, are all an essential part of Nature. This has not emerged as well as I would have liked and there are times when they remain as suspended images.

Let me ask you another question regarding the characterisation of Rama and Lakshmana. The prevalent ideas today about the epic and other characters in Hindu mythology are largely formed by the calendar pictures of Raja Ravivarma. Your Rama and Lakshmana are different. Rama has a paunch. Lakshmana has got pockmarks on his face. Why did you do this? What have you achieved through such a treatment?
In my opinion Ravi Varma has distorted a lot that was Indian painting tradition - he does not even seem to possess the simple sensibilities of painting which even an illustrator has. He has not even done a good study of portraiture. His compositions are static and the colours employed are terrible. I do not consider him a painter. I did not like his works from the beginning. Another thing is that our sculptures are large in size and exude strength and vitality, which is absent in murals. The Rama of KANCHANA SEETA exudes the strength and vitality of our sculptures. He is not just a plain frontal image. The wandering tribals we encounter here and there with their medicines also share this quality. I enquired and found that these people are settled in villages near the Godavari River. Apart from this they also believe that they belong to the same race. That is why I cast two of them in my film.

Should we take such faith and belief literally?
It is not necessary to do so. However their faith, their physique and mannerisms attracted me. Whether right or wrong, their faith has a basic tribal purity. The name of each village chief is Ramdas. The tribal, who acted as Rama is also a village chief. Transcending the rightness or validity of such beliefs, what we have to acknowledge and understand is the energy and liveliness of such a faith.

Well, thereby you have shorn Rama and Lakshmana of their divine magnanimity.
I have deliberately not given a super human quality to Rama and lakshmana. Only when they interact with Nature do they rise to the levels of God and go beyond the ordinary. Otherwise they would have been the same as anybody else.

Diametrically opposed to this, you have given Valmiki a very beautiful form and made him say to Rama that "all human beings are equal".
The Valmiki of my film is not an ordinary tribal; he is a visionary and a poet. So I have given him an appropriate form and beauty - a form, which pervades the beauty and purity of the soul all around. Valmiki, the poet, stands upto Rama on matters of principles. The poets of all ages should be questioning the injustices of their times. By the way, the dubbing for Valmiki was done by John Abraham.

Can you explain how you brought the Shambuka story into the film?
The Shambuka episode is brought in at the very beginning of the film. Rama meets Shambuka because Vasishta has ordered him to do so. Meditation has been made taboo for the lower castes. Rama feels the weight of his guilt. Shambuka's wife falls at the feet of Rama pleading with him not to kill her husband. This is where Rama feels the presence of Seetha hinted at and represented through some visuals of Nature. Rama looks up. I have repeated the same music and recreated the varying moods of nature whenever Rama experiences the presence of Seetha. Hence, I have used the Shambuka episode to highlight Rama's troubled conscience and evoke within him and the film the memory and presence of Seetha.

| Previous Page | Next Page |

| Home | Mail |