November 28th, 2000, 12:43 PM
The film journey of Jabbar Patel traces the inner turmoils and turbulences
of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. GOWRI RAMNARAYAN talks to the director.
MANY YEARS ago, at a theatre seminar in Pune, I asked the man in the next
seat to translate a Marathi speech for me. Later I discovered that my
affable translator was himself a theatre director (``Ghashiram Kotwal'',
``Teen Paisacha Tamasha''), and film maker (``Simhasan'', ``Samna'',
``Umbartha'', ``Ek Hota Vidushak'', ``Mukta'').
A doctor of medicine, Patel retains an easy bonhomie through years of steady
acclaim. ``Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar'' (English/Hindi/Marathi), slated for
nationwide release on December 1, is perhaps his most ambitious venture so
far. Six weeks later, it will be released in Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali,
Oriya, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, the first time any Indian movie has been
dubbed in so many languages in so planned a manner.
The reactions from invited and foreign festival audiences have been
positive. Personally, I had been moved by the film and the maker's
commitment to his subject, despite the cramming of too much information for
one time assimilation. And though Dr. Ambedkar's personal life did not come
alive for me despite home scenes with two wives, his unquenchable spirit and
tireless struggle for social justice could not fail to amaze - even to exalt
the mind. The scenes where Gandhi and Ambedkar are juxtaposed make film
history. Both emerge as warm-blooded human beings, not cardboard cut outs,
with just those hints of shadows to make their charisma real.
Patel was in a jubilant mood when I met him at the Ambedkar film project
office, Nehru Centre, Mumbai (it has a tiled roof from the film beside the
staircase!). The day before, thespian Dilip Kumar's had said to him, ``I
have never seen an Indian film, making such an effective socio- political
comment.'' And yet, the film maker knows that the real test is ahead. Over
to Jabbar Patel:
Biographies demand a certain distance from the man and his milieu. Aren't we
too close to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's lifetime to be objective about his
life, and the debates fired by his work?
If you have been personally close to your subject than you may find it
difficult to be unbiased. I had never even seen Dr. Ambedkar during his
lifetime.
I believe that what Dr. Ambedkar strove for is most relevant to the
socio-political issues of contemporary times. I am sure that if another film
were to be made on him a 100 years from now, the approach will be different,
but he will continue to be relevant in such repeated re- assessments.
You had already made a documentary on Dr. Ambedkar for the Films Division in
1989. Why another?
The subject was offered to me because they felt that I would tackle it with
understanding and depth. I knew the Dalit movement in Maharashtra. I know
the Dalit writers old and new (many of them personally), their poetry,
autobiographies, street plays, theatre work. I decided that a documentary on
Dr. Ambedkar would not be complete if my research was confined to books (the
Maharashtra Government has published 15 volumes), documents, speeches,
memoirs,letters and travel in India. I had to go to the University of
Columbia and the London School of Economics, and get a feel of his presence
there.
But with rigorous faithfulness to history, what could you hope to achieve in
another film, except greater length and more facts? Your film is not even
docu-fiction, how do you call it a feature?
You need a feature format to bring all that weight of painstakingly
researched history to the screen. The real incidents are charged with drama
and emotion. Certainly no other national leader in this country has suffered
as much humiliation. Yet he is so calm, controlled, moves with an
unshakeable inner logic as he goes through many phases in life.
The usual biographical film deals with incidents and events. But my journey
traces the interior world of Ambedkar, with its inner turmoils, turbulences.
You will find that though an intellectual, he is always with the masses.
Moreover, viewers who know nothing about Dr. Ambedkar will see this film as
a feature. That's what happened at the London Film Festival last year, until
they read the closing sentence, ``He died two months after''!
Like Attenborough's Gandhi, your Ambedkar emerges flawless - he has no
negative aspects in character and action. Tell me, how much freedom did you
have in dealing with a theme politically so sensitive?
Dr. Ambedkar had a towering personality. After 50-100 years someone may
re-interpret his life and find things to criticise. But I didn't look at him
from that point of view. I was looking at a struggle for human rights, for
equality among men, and I see no wrong there!
During the Freedom Struggle, many thought once we achieved political
independence, we could automatically sort out all other problems. But
Ambedkar said, right from the start, let us re- define Hinduism, its caste
system, the place of other religions in this country. At all times he was
deeply concerned with those who suffered. In the final analysis, that's what
matters most - human rights and humanitarian concerns. If questions are
raised by my film, each individual viewer must find answers to why the man
did - or did not - do certain things.
This is as much Mammootty's film as yours. He is in almost every frame,
delivering long dialogues with flair and conviction, vibrant in silent
moments. How did you make this lucky choice?
I had seen Mammootty in commercial as well as in Adoor's (Gopalakrishnan)
films. What struck me was his face, registering every minute change of
emotion. He uses the least possible physical movements to convey maximum
feeling. Though a theatre man I do only one rehearsal for films - as with
Rekha, Smita Patil, Naseeruddin Shah. I adopted this method and got
brilliant results from Mammootty. He is so intelligent! He would take in
each scene, ask what the previous scene was, what's next, what's happening
in India at this time, in the world, what the Congress party was doing. All
this even for a little exchange with wife Ramabai.
Mammootty read a couple of biographies on Ambedkar, but depended a lot on me
and the script. I wanted to use all his power, energy, his capacity to
physically resemble the subject. These changes come slowly, gradually.
Ambedkar is 25 when the film starts, and dies at 66. You will see Mammootty
growing old before your eyes, showing minute differences even without make
up, say, between age 30 and 35.
At the end, did the actor tell you what the film meant to him?
When we saw the first print, he was overwhelmed. ``I don't know how this
happened,'' he said. ``Somebody within me was pushing me through all the
scenes, the humiliations and tortures.'' Before a special screening he
observed, ``People will talk to me during the intermission, but not after
the end.'' That day Yash Chopra did just that! Viewers had been absolutely
over-awed by him. Dr.Sriram Lagoo said, ``It's not so difficult to show
emotion, but to show intelligence as Mammootty has done, behave
intelligently, and with logic intact, that's something else!'' Arey, I tell
you, Mammootty is a vidwan!
What do you count as your success in this film?
My fear was, will I be able to reach technical excellence on the Rs. 8.5
crore budget (funded by the State and Central Government), and in a film
that was going to be compared with nothing less than ``Gandhi''? (To make
``Gandhi'' today you will need Rs. 87 crores, no less.) My technicians
didn't charge much, but put their heart and soul into the project.
I am happy that my film relates not only to academicians, students of
political science and sociology, to politicains and the intelligentsia, but
to the man on the street.
What was the response of the Dalits whom you have used in the crowd scenes?
(Visibly excited) We appealed a month ahead for the crowd scenes. They'd
invariably ask, ``Is Dr. Ambedkar in the scene?'' We provided only
transport, tea and snacks. At Mahad, 10,000 turned up. In Konkan 40,000 came
with their own food and stayed overnight. By morning we had one and a half
lakhs. Many had infants with them. So disciplined that the people followed
every order - to stand, sit, chant on cue - right through the scorching
March day.
Many of those who came had attended the 1956 Diksha ceremony (where Dr.
Ambedkar and millions of followers embraced Buddhism).
Now they were going to get diksha again, with Mammootty as Ambedkar.
Wamanrao Godbole, now in his late eighties, who had organised the original
ceremony, supervised ours as well!
Just what was the most difficult scene you shot?
The crowds made the conversion scene an exhausting job. The riots posed
their own problems because masala films have set up a predictable pattern
for violence which I wanted to avoid.
But the biggest challenge was the Gandhi-Ambedkar meet. A simple scene to
shoot, but think of its implications! I had to portray both leaders with
their personality, philosophy and logic intact, maintain their dignity, yet
show that they had their own differences. I was terribly tense when we shot
it. Again when the two appeared at the Round Table Conference.
You may call it a feature, but without masala fare, how do you expect your
film to be received?
Our Indian audiences don't go only for song and dance. They are wise, they
appreciate fresh, effective ventures. The common man is curious about
history, and about the lives of men in debate. Secondly, I also depend on
the 35-40 per cent people who see Dr. Ambedkar as their leader, who enjoy
their rights thanks to Ambedkar's efforts. They owe their identity to this
man. Even if 10 per cent of that forty crores see the film, it will be a
tremendous success. I also bank on the curiosity of the non Ambedkarites!
of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. GOWRI RAMNARAYAN talks to the director.
MANY YEARS ago, at a theatre seminar in Pune, I asked the man in the next
seat to translate a Marathi speech for me. Later I discovered that my
affable translator was himself a theatre director (``Ghashiram Kotwal'',
``Teen Paisacha Tamasha''), and film maker (``Simhasan'', ``Samna'',
``Umbartha'', ``Ek Hota Vidushak'', ``Mukta'').
A doctor of medicine, Patel retains an easy bonhomie through years of steady
acclaim. ``Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar'' (English/Hindi/Marathi), slated for
nationwide release on December 1, is perhaps his most ambitious venture so
far. Six weeks later, it will be released in Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali,
Oriya, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, the first time any Indian movie has been
dubbed in so many languages in so planned a manner.
The reactions from invited and foreign festival audiences have been
positive. Personally, I had been moved by the film and the maker's
commitment to his subject, despite the cramming of too much information for
one time assimilation. And though Dr. Ambedkar's personal life did not come
alive for me despite home scenes with two wives, his unquenchable spirit and
tireless struggle for social justice could not fail to amaze - even to exalt
the mind. The scenes where Gandhi and Ambedkar are juxtaposed make film
history. Both emerge as warm-blooded human beings, not cardboard cut outs,
with just those hints of shadows to make their charisma real.
Patel was in a jubilant mood when I met him at the Ambedkar film project
office, Nehru Centre, Mumbai (it has a tiled roof from the film beside the
staircase!). The day before, thespian Dilip Kumar's had said to him, ``I
have never seen an Indian film, making such an effective socio- political
comment.'' And yet, the film maker knows that the real test is ahead. Over
to Jabbar Patel:
Biographies demand a certain distance from the man and his milieu. Aren't we
too close to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's lifetime to be objective about his
life, and the debates fired by his work?
If you have been personally close to your subject than you may find it
difficult to be unbiased. I had never even seen Dr. Ambedkar during his
lifetime.
I believe that what Dr. Ambedkar strove for is most relevant to the
socio-political issues of contemporary times. I am sure that if another film
were to be made on him a 100 years from now, the approach will be different,
but he will continue to be relevant in such repeated re- assessments.
You had already made a documentary on Dr. Ambedkar for the Films Division in
1989. Why another?
The subject was offered to me because they felt that I would tackle it with
understanding and depth. I knew the Dalit movement in Maharashtra. I know
the Dalit writers old and new (many of them personally), their poetry,
autobiographies, street plays, theatre work. I decided that a documentary on
Dr. Ambedkar would not be complete if my research was confined to books (the
Maharashtra Government has published 15 volumes), documents, speeches,
memoirs,letters and travel in India. I had to go to the University of
Columbia and the London School of Economics, and get a feel of his presence
there.
But with rigorous faithfulness to history, what could you hope to achieve in
another film, except greater length and more facts? Your film is not even
docu-fiction, how do you call it a feature?
You need a feature format to bring all that weight of painstakingly
researched history to the screen. The real incidents are charged with drama
and emotion. Certainly no other national leader in this country has suffered
as much humiliation. Yet he is so calm, controlled, moves with an
unshakeable inner logic as he goes through many phases in life.
The usual biographical film deals with incidents and events. But my journey
traces the interior world of Ambedkar, with its inner turmoils, turbulences.
You will find that though an intellectual, he is always with the masses.
Moreover, viewers who know nothing about Dr. Ambedkar will see this film as
a feature. That's what happened at the London Film Festival last year, until
they read the closing sentence, ``He died two months after''!
Like Attenborough's Gandhi, your Ambedkar emerges flawless - he has no
negative aspects in character and action. Tell me, how much freedom did you
have in dealing with a theme politically so sensitive?
Dr. Ambedkar had a towering personality. After 50-100 years someone may
re-interpret his life and find things to criticise. But I didn't look at him
from that point of view. I was looking at a struggle for human rights, for
equality among men, and I see no wrong there!
During the Freedom Struggle, many thought once we achieved political
independence, we could automatically sort out all other problems. But
Ambedkar said, right from the start, let us re- define Hinduism, its caste
system, the place of other religions in this country. At all times he was
deeply concerned with those who suffered. In the final analysis, that's what
matters most - human rights and humanitarian concerns. If questions are
raised by my film, each individual viewer must find answers to why the man
did - or did not - do certain things.
This is as much Mammootty's film as yours. He is in almost every frame,
delivering long dialogues with flair and conviction, vibrant in silent
moments. How did you make this lucky choice?
I had seen Mammootty in commercial as well as in Adoor's (Gopalakrishnan)
films. What struck me was his face, registering every minute change of
emotion. He uses the least possible physical movements to convey maximum
feeling. Though a theatre man I do only one rehearsal for films - as with
Rekha, Smita Patil, Naseeruddin Shah. I adopted this method and got
brilliant results from Mammootty. He is so intelligent! He would take in
each scene, ask what the previous scene was, what's next, what's happening
in India at this time, in the world, what the Congress party was doing. All
this even for a little exchange with wife Ramabai.
Mammootty read a couple of biographies on Ambedkar, but depended a lot on me
and the script. I wanted to use all his power, energy, his capacity to
physically resemble the subject. These changes come slowly, gradually.
Ambedkar is 25 when the film starts, and dies at 66. You will see Mammootty
growing old before your eyes, showing minute differences even without make
up, say, between age 30 and 35.
At the end, did the actor tell you what the film meant to him?
When we saw the first print, he was overwhelmed. ``I don't know how this
happened,'' he said. ``Somebody within me was pushing me through all the
scenes, the humiliations and tortures.'' Before a special screening he
observed, ``People will talk to me during the intermission, but not after
the end.'' That day Yash Chopra did just that! Viewers had been absolutely
over-awed by him. Dr.Sriram Lagoo said, ``It's not so difficult to show
emotion, but to show intelligence as Mammootty has done, behave
intelligently, and with logic intact, that's something else!'' Arey, I tell
you, Mammootty is a vidwan!
What do you count as your success in this film?
My fear was, will I be able to reach technical excellence on the Rs. 8.5
crore budget (funded by the State and Central Government), and in a film
that was going to be compared with nothing less than ``Gandhi''? (To make
``Gandhi'' today you will need Rs. 87 crores, no less.) My technicians
didn't charge much, but put their heart and soul into the project.
I am happy that my film relates not only to academicians, students of
political science and sociology, to politicains and the intelligentsia, but
to the man on the street.
What was the response of the Dalits whom you have used in the crowd scenes?
(Visibly excited) We appealed a month ahead for the crowd scenes. They'd
invariably ask, ``Is Dr. Ambedkar in the scene?'' We provided only
transport, tea and snacks. At Mahad, 10,000 turned up. In Konkan 40,000 came
with their own food and stayed overnight. By morning we had one and a half
lakhs. Many had infants with them. So disciplined that the people followed
every order - to stand, sit, chant on cue - right through the scorching
March day.
Many of those who came had attended the 1956 Diksha ceremony (where Dr.
Ambedkar and millions of followers embraced Buddhism).
Now they were going to get diksha again, with Mammootty as Ambedkar.
Wamanrao Godbole, now in his late eighties, who had organised the original
ceremony, supervised ours as well!
Just what was the most difficult scene you shot?
The crowds made the conversion scene an exhausting job. The riots posed
their own problems because masala films have set up a predictable pattern
for violence which I wanted to avoid.
But the biggest challenge was the Gandhi-Ambedkar meet. A simple scene to
shoot, but think of its implications! I had to portray both leaders with
their personality, philosophy and logic intact, maintain their dignity, yet
show that they had their own differences. I was terribly tense when we shot
it. Again when the two appeared at the Round Table Conference.
You may call it a feature, but without masala fare, how do you expect your
film to be received?
Our Indian audiences don't go only for song and dance. They are wise, they
appreciate fresh, effective ventures. The common man is curious about
history, and about the lives of men in debate. Secondly, I also depend on
the 35-40 per cent people who see Dr. Ambedkar as their leader, who enjoy
their rights thanks to Ambedkar's efforts. They owe their identity to this
man. Even if 10 per cent of that forty crores see the film, it will be a
tremendous success. I also bank on the curiosity of the non Ambedkarites!