Yes, they’re beautiful pictures. We as a country aren’t really into documentation. So many silent-era films, so many films from the Seventies and Eighties might have been lost. We don’t take much care in preserving for future generations to have a reference point or a library to access. It’s a sad reality. But, yes, through this [CMDT], there is at least second-hand information on them. All these people have, for survival, sold a lot of negatives, a lot of their own films – even they don’t know who their owners are or who eventually has the rights. They don’t own the original prints – sometimes you have these 480p or 360p YouTube uploads but no one has the original prints of all that so documentation and preservation are not something we’re great at. But hopefully, the coming generation will somehow find a way to preserve things better, at least for future students of cinema to reference them, to learn from them. Because I think art can be learnt from various art forms, not just those that are perceived to be the best. Art can be learnt from anywhere, inspiration can be taken from anywhere. So I think it’s only fair that people should have a palette from which they can decide. Which is why documentation of every kind of art form or expression is important.
How did you pick these four directors? Was it a conscious effort to bring in different schools of thought regarding how they view the business?
Absolutely, there were some 50 names that were given by our research head, Prithesh, but a lot of people were reluctant to talk. A lot of people didn’t want to come in maybe because they were afraid that their past might catch up with them or they have probably lost complete interest [in the industry]. A lot of filtration happened that way. Then we chanced upon these four who were willing and were such unique personalities unto themselves. They really wanted to push themselves and be a part of this show. These four directors come from different eras of pulpy films as well, which was a conscious choice to understand the evolution [of this subculture]. That era of filmmaking was dictated by the distributors. So certain creative choices were made from distributors who booked their films in advance and not (from) the producers and directors. It was a very different time when the distributors were the most powerful and sometimes they could ask you to make 50% of it erotica and you would have to do it. It was a very different power structure and that was interesting to know about that era and how it dictated art or how it dictated the way they made their films.
So it was interesting to have the directors work on their films, come together for the roundtable and reminisce about their time. I’m really grateful to the direction and the production team who relentlessly kept in touch with them, convinced them to be a part of this show through the pandemic, through all the uncertainties. All the directors Disha (Rindani), Xulfee, Kulish (Kant Thakur); the production team – Harshita (Sabnis), Pritika (Behrawala), Ria (Dhanda), Vatsala (Aron), Bhuvana, Sneha (Menon), of course Samira (Kanwar) and Niharika (Kotwal) – everyone just pouring their heart. All the cameramen and the editors Chandy (Chandrashekhar Parab), Rohan (Kapoor), Zia (Ziaser Mohamedappa), Gaurav, who carried the incredible task of having persisted through this and put it out.
Is there any element of the series that surprised you? From an audience perspective, I wasn’t expecting it to be this humorous or moving or I wasn’t expecting people to break down or share their regrets.
Exactly what you said. We knew that when the trailer came out it would seem like a fun, pulpy show but we knew there was a lot of heart in it. We were so happy that the people also felt the same and reacted in a very empathetic way to all these characters. We wanted to present them without any judgement and people also accepted them without any judgement. I think that’s probably where the victory of the team in putting this show together [lies].