[Feelicia]

The dangerous quest for good dramatic journeys

Film director Jag Mundhra on what can happen when a filmmaker stands by his cause

By Daniela Happel

Jag Mundhra’s Film “Provoked”, about the true story of a battered wife, Kiranjit Ahluwalia, who set her husband on fire, and was freed from jail in a landmark court case, continues to be cheered at film festivals worldwide. The Aishwarya Rai-starrer from 2007 with Miranda Richardson, Nandita Das and Robbie Coltrane in other major roles draws audiences and fuels discussions on the cause of maltreated women. But what is behind the creation of a box office success?
The director, who has family ties in Germany, is very forthcoming on the chances and obstacles behind the scenes during a visit to the “Week of the British Film” hosted by the Film Institute of Mainz University.


How is the real Kiranjit now? At the premiere in Cannes she thought the film would not change her life much.

“She is fine, she enjoyed being at the first screening with Aishwarya, and she still works as a postmaster. Her two sons are at university and are very supportive of their mother. She had feared about her sons’ reactions because after all it had been their father whom she killed, but they are alright."

Aishwarya Rai was very supportive of the cause of this film and genuinely wanted her well-known face to help the issue, but then, when she promoted the film in Cannes, the press was only interested in what she was wearing. How did she feel?

“Well, that is the negative side of being a star. But on the other hand a brand name helps a lot. Actually the film would not exist but for her. I ran around with the script for more than one and a half years and nobody wanted to put money on it. Only when she agreed to do it did the money flow.
And besides, she had a strong motivation to do it. If even she, the epitome of beauty, was abused, it could happen to every woman, and so she was determined to do the film.

Everybody knew in Mumbai at the time that she was in a very troubled relationship with Salman Khan, she was seen at parties with a black eye and an arm in a sling, but Salman even bragged about it. I made a remark and he doesn’t talk to me since then.

Well, after the film, Aishwarya became more open with the subject, her attitude had changed and she was able to admit to it then.

The real challenge for me as a director was to make the audience believe that this beautiful woman, the former Miss World, is a battered woman – and the audience has to believe that within the first five minutes of the film.
I did not allow her to meet the real Kiranjit before the film so that it would not become a mere imitation; instead I told her that she was representing all battered women. All her scenes were shot in only 30 days.”

The film is a British production, and a part of the funds came from the “Bollywood initiative”, what is behind this?

“I don’t know if this still exists today. It was a programme run by the city of Leicester to fund Bollywood related films with Indian actors and plots set in Britain. Actually it is catering for the NRI audience in the country.

There is now a co production treaty between Britain and India in place which will allow more such projects to take off in the future. It has been delayed by the Credit Crunch, but for the future it is promising.”

It was targeted at a British audience…

“Yes, it was a success, not so much in theatres, but on DVD and TV. There is still a barrier between film audiences. People don’t watch Indian films in theatres and Indians in Britain are reluctant to watch British films. It is a divide which is only slowly broken.

As for India, we knew that it was for a limited audience and so our expectations weren’t very high. Aishwarya drew the audience for curiosity of course.
I think the mistake was that though the film was dubbed in Hindi, the title was unchanged, and so people thought that it was still English.
But a film will always find its audience. Now, with the introduction of the multiplexes, niche audiences have their chance; and if they don’t see it in the theatre, they will do so on DVD or TV. I still get mails from women who tell me they left their husbands, so the purpose of the film is served."

You have embraced the issue of mistreated women for quite some time now, the first one, Kamla, appeared in 1985. Why this issue?

“Kamla" (about an enslaved and sold woman) appealed to me when I saw the play. In Kiranjit’s book “Circle of Light” it was one single line. I read what she said in jail: “I feel free”.
With "Balwandar", the true story of a raped woman released in the year 2000, it was the same, it was one appealing single line.

Cinema is about drama. It contains a conflict which can be external, which gives you the plot – and internal, which gives you the character. It has a protagonist with a journey to make, and both the character and the journey should be such that the audience will enjoy and go with the journey. With women, the emotional connection is bigger – and women make more difficult journeys.”

“Shoot on Sight”, Jag Mundhra’s film about a senior London Police officer who suddenly faces mistrust only because he is a muslim, works along the same lines. Which brings us to the next topic. Both “Provoked” and “Shoot on Sight” faced a lot of trouble before they could be released.

“It was the same with “Kamla” and “Balwinder”… before the release of “Balwinder” I was almost arrested, they accused me of causing a caste war.

The law case concerning “Kamla” was only settled in the Supreme Court.

With “Provoked” the situation was that on the first day of shooting a journalist wanted an interview with Aishwarya which he didn’t get. He wanted to show his power and gave false evidence to a scene filmed in a temple, saying that the team and actors did not behave correctly. This enraged a religious pressure group that went to court. Luckily a BBC team had been around doing a documentary and everything concerning this scene was on camera – so it could be proved wrong.

In “Shoot on Sight” there were complaints about Om Puri, who is a Hindu, playing a muslim and somebody stormed the mosque during the shoot. The local committee involved backed us and threw him out, however.”

There doesn’t seem to be a single Indian film release without a last minute pressure group popping up. Recently the word “barber” had to be removed from a film title, and for Europeans this is very hard to understand…

“Yes, Billu Barber. It was so silly. I don’t understand why it was taken out. And there were legal issues with “Jodha Akhbar” as well.”

Don’t you sometimes feel like banging everything down on the table and give up? Or make your films outside India?

“Well, that’s what I did, but it doesn’t help. You can’t let these people rule your life. And it is the same in America.”

I wonder if a film like Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” could still be made today…

“People have lost their sense of humour. There are also more TV channels today and these 24/7 media want to create stories all the time, so they throw stones at everything and everyone.

Something else is going wrong: The Authorities should have the power to control these groups, but they don’t.”

Does this mean that we will get more timid filmmakers and more shallow films?

“There will always be films which only aim at box office success, but it is the responsibility of filmmakers to tell uncomfortable causes truths which aren’t so easy to cope with. In Asian communities like the NRI community in Britain, there is a habit to cover up problems, to hush up injustice and not let outsiders know. They have to be brought to light. There are filmmakers who stand by their cause, but there should also be politicians who are brave enough to see the laws executed in the proper way rather than being involved in other deals, dependencies, or the party decorum.”

What’s your next project?

“Actually I am working at two Bollywood films, “Apartment” and “Chase” and there are plans for another issue film about a woman who isn’t able to conceive – a difficult situation for a woman in India.”

Thank you for this interview, Mr. Mundhra!