Transcript of the M F Husain interview

How did come you across Gaja Gamini  as a subject for a film?

It is actually a description of woman in Vatsayana's definition of different types of woman -- Padmini, Mohini, Dunkini, Shrukini, Damini, Rohini... Gaja Gamini  is one of them. Then I came across a description in Sanskrit that mentions how Gaja Gamini is the walk of an elephant. They use this analogy to describe the seductive walk of a woman. You can see it from the back of a woman; you just watch the movement of her hips and the shoulders. In our dance forms it is called Tribhang or the three breaks in your body. Our women walk like that. In the West they walk straight.

Your earlier films were of short length. This is a full-length film. Did you feel any restriction with the movie format in terms of duration?

Even it is a half hour film it's not a problem. You don't need two hours or 10 hours. In this film I have shown about five manifestations of the women. There is Shakuntala, a blind singer. There is Monica, the modern women of the 21st century. Then there is Mona Lisa. There are thousands of variations. I just chose a few, which could go in the framework of the film. To create a pattern, a rhythm!

Of course there is a little story, in the sense that it shows a woman's dignity and identity which she is trying to establish. That is a very subtle element in the film. It is not a normal film subject featuring a woman, a man and a villain.

So there is no villain in the story?

No, there is no villain. The villain will be someone who dislikes this film!

Shah Rukh Khan and Naseeruddin Shah have very small roles in the film.

I was very happy and grateful that these artistes agreed to play these small roles. They did it because they liked the idea and they wanted be in the film. I remember Shah Rukh saying, "Even if I am there for one minute it is worth it." So I was very fortunate.

Are you comfortable with the commercial setup in Indian movies?

Why not? When I paint, don't I hold exhibitions? This is like exhibiting. There is no such thing as commercial art. Either it is a good art or a bad art. If it is a good art, it will last long, no matter what. And no matter how much hype and publicity, if there is no substance in it, it will not stay. I've been on the scene for about 60 years. There must be something in what I have done otherwise they would have thrown me out.

What problems do you think the audience faces in appreciating art?

You can't expect everyone to understand. There are some people who have been initiated. Go to a concert. If there is a Lata Mangeshkar, there are 500,000 people listening to her and staying the whole night. But if there is Bhimsen Joshi, who is a great musician, there will be far less people. Appreciation takes time in music or in any other art form.

When they (artistes) are experimenting they are discovering something. But they are discovering themselves as well as for mankind and the medium. In the history of art, they are adding something. That does not mean the audience will come up to you. This has been observed in every age. But fortunately in our modern age, thanks so much to media information, even a child knows who's Picasso and who is Amitabh Bachchan. Art has become part of daily life.

So you do find more appreciating audience?

Yes of course. The Indian audience is a highly intelligent one. Much more than the West.

What was the response to Gaja Gamini  at the world premiere in Berlin?

It was held in the Berlin Film Museum. To start with this film will first be exhibited on the museum circuit, where people know about art. Then it will come to theatres, for a limited period. After the cinemas, I'll be taking it to all the university campuses. Finally, I will present this film to the villages as part of nautanki  (theatre). I'll introduce it as 'Madhuri ka naach dekho ' (See Madhuri's dance); there will be a live performance by the locals with huge cutouts, and blaring music. They will enjoy it.

What was the experience like while filming Gaja Gamini ?

I was in sheer ecstasy. I've never been in such a state of mind ever in my life, though it was very tough to work for 18 hours. To work with nearly 200 people and all those technicians and lights and super stars! You can't just treat them like schoolchildren.

Most directors do...

No, my method was different, that's why I chose seasoned artists. They have their own way of interpreting roles. I have faith in them. That's why I chose particular artists. For Da Vinci I chose Naseeruddin Shah, for Kalidas I chose Mohan Agashe.

I just showed them the script and whatever they did I used it. I was there not as a director or a dictator saying "You do this. You do that!" No. Whatever they have done I used it. The part that I did not like, I cut it. So I was only handling the scissor.

Was Madhuri Dixit the sole inspiration to make this film?

Yes, she was the sole inspiration. When I saw her about five years ago in the film Hum Aapke Hain Kaun  I discovered here is a person that could play the role of a woman who has been in my paintings for the last 56 years. You will be surprised that I know Madhuri for five to six years, but have never painted her portrait. I'm not concerned with her beautiful face but rather with her being, which so much reflects our culture, our Indian woman.

Madhuri is a great Kathak dancer. She has also learned modern dance. This is a unique style of Indian cinema dancing. But she has discovered it and it is popular. So what's wrong if it is done beautifully? For her it was very difficult in the beginning, she was a classical dancer and she had to work hard.

Can we talk about the first film, which you made?

The film I made was 30 years ago with Films' Division. To cut a long story short, they said you know nothing about technique. I said I just want to experiment. I wanted to break all the norms of filmmaking. The location was Rajasthan, a very colourful place. But I said I would make it in black and white.

There were no characters. There were inanimate objects like a lantern, a lamp, a shoe or a cow, like that. But the way I have structured them is such that it should not mean anything. So I tried to destroy any link to any thought. That was the main purpose.

I demolished the inherent logic in the objects and created a visual logic. The stupid government officials changed the name of the film. Since it was a visual equation like the Einstein's equation, I had called it 'Cow plus Umbrella plus Lantern minus Shoe equals to Woman'. They called it "Through the eyes of a painter".

A lamp, it has a shape, it has a form. People don't look at the lamp. They look at its meaning. If it is lit it must be night. If it is not then it's day. They don't look at the lamp. So I made them look. You look not just at the function but at the form. An umbrella is a form and shoe is a form. I made those inanimate objects as a living thing. The film is set only to music, no dialogues.

So are you a creator-destroyer rolled into one?

That has to be done. Every creative had to be like that. You have to destroy your own thing and then you can move further. Otherwise you get stuck.

You really enjoy breaking rules?

Oh I love it. This is also part of it (pointing to his bare feet).

What is your next project?

It is a film. Yes. I have already said, "Painting is Dead, Long Live cinema!"