Folks,
Here`s another installment of Filmmaker interviews on HollywoodMasala.com. The real thing, down and dirty. As our community celebrates the successes we are scoring daily, there are those of us who grit our teeth and take that next step, hard as it might be.
I must apologize to Sreedhar for the delay in putting this interview up on HM, but as any ole get-down-and-do-what-it-takes indie filmmaker, you can say I`ve been hustlin` like a mofo. And I have no doubts Sreedhar will forgive me the delay - for that`s our life. And we share that in common - a passion to do it, no matter what it takes.
And for more info on Sreedhar`s debut film - 19 REVOLUTIONS - check out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407485/Enjoy!
Nikhil Kamkolkar
Questions by: Monesh Ahuja
--
HM> How did you get involved in the field of cinema? Was anyone in your family ever involved in filmmaking? (or some other form of aesthetic/entertainment). Please write about your journey into the world of film.
SRIDHAR REDDY> I was born and raised in Denver, Colorado, which was never a bastion for international cinema for a good majority of my childhood. What I did have, however, were two parents who deeply missed Indian cinema and who were willing to do anything to see the films that they grew up with. I recall my mother and father driving as much as three hours to pick up VHS tapes of Hindi, Telugu and Tamil films from friends. There was a small "film network" which operated among the few South Asian families who lived in the tri-state area of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, and the lengths that these people went to simply see Indian films still confounds me to this date. I guess this was my first inkling of the importance of cinema as a cultural tool.
I grew up on the Indian masala films of the 70s and 80s. I still regard films like "Amar, Akbar, Anthony", "Don", "Abhimaan", and "Disco Dancer" (to which I pay tribute in my own film) as energetic and vibrant classics, and for a long time these films were my only insight into India. That is until my mother took me to the University of Denver when I was about 10 years old to go see a retrospective of Satyajit Ray films. While there I saw "Jhalsagar" and it completely blew me away. Here was a film that portrayed Indians are real people, people who were jealous, beautiful, passionate, conniving, awkward and rash.The film spoke to me as truth, and I have been in love with the concept of cinema as culture ever since.
What made me want to MAKE films came later on. I was doing my undergraduate studies in molecular biology at the University of Colorado when I saw a film called "La Haine" by Mathieu Kassovitz. It was a searingly raw political film, one which dealt with disparities of culture, waelth, and race. It was a bleak and arrestingly beautiful film, and had the effect of ramming my head through plate glass. I had been quite politically active at the time, and here I saw a film that conveyed a political and humane message in a format so accessible and real, its effectiveness could not be denied. I loved the combination of aesthetics with polemics, and it was at that moment that I knew filmmaking was going to be a major part of my life.
HM> What are your major responsibilities as a filmmaker?
SRIDHAR REDDY> I think I can break down my responsibilities into two categories- responsibility to my craft, and responsibility to the audience. My responsibility to the craft entails that I always be moving forward in my development as a filmmaker. To constantly study films, to always be a student of cinema. And once that knowledge is ascertained, then it is my duty to experiment, to go against the staedfast rules of filmmaking and try to innovate. When i`m done i want to look back and say that I made a difference to my field, that i helped push the medium forward into braver, stranger, and even dangerous territories.
My responsibility to the audience is that they be entertained. I think it`s misconstrued that the word "entertained" neccessarily be synonymous with "feel good." A film, more so a story, should evoke a pure emotion, be it sadness, anger, despair, arousal, or awkwardness. And of course happiness as well. But when a story does this, you`ve successfully captured your audience and taken them to places that they weren`t otherwise. It`s my responsibility to make the audience forget that they are in a theater watching a film. When that happens, I will have done my job well. I`m still learning how.
HM> Do you feel a formal education is required for the field of filmmaking?
SRIDHAR REDDY> There should be some. I really don`t think a formal degree from film school is neccessary- film schools really just provide a safe forum for criticism and access to equipment, and you don` need a degree for that.
But there should be some intrinsic ability to process information and balance several variables. Regardless of what field is studied, the highest level of any practice is the ability to rationalize and envision a project as a whole using the available resources. And if those resources are unavailable, then creatively one must be able to devise the process to make those shortcomings a reality. If you look at any discipline, this is the underlying basis of training.
As far as a physical film education, I think it`s important that filmmakers fundamentally understand editing, because editing is what differentiates film from any other visual art form. One has to understand what happens when you splice together two random images, the synthesis that rises from the collision of the thesis and antithesis. The teritiary meaning is the spirit and bloodline of cinema as a storytelling medium, and without an understanding of that, I really do not feel one can be a successful filmmaker. Also, one should always be watching films. Always. I never understood (or believed) filmmakers who tell me they don`t watch movies or television. What rubbish!
HM>What about say, for writing? (Robert McKee`s principles.)
SRIDHAR REDDY> Writing requires one thing, and it is that one thing which we will always be short of: experience. Of course there are the technicalities of screenwriting in terms of format and story arcs, but there are no steadfast rules to writing. Nobody can teach you how to write- they can teach grammar and format, but the actual process of writing is honed only when you actually do it. And then do it again. And again. And you only develop unique voices, locations, and conflicts when you go out to different places and meet and observe different people. Being a good writer is being a good explorer, a good sociologist, anthropologist, geographer and psychologist. Its all of the above.
As a screenwriter I was initially shocked to see how my words translated to the screen, and it made me realize that writing for the screen is a whole different ballgame. And I only understood this after I made my film. So for a screenwriter, I suggest the best education is to actually make films out of your scripts. See how your writing translates to visual images. It needen`t be big budget productions- get a video camera and a few friends and act a scene out. See what works and what needs to be altered. You`ll understand the concepts of creating motion and conflict in context of the visual image. And as aforementioned, keep watching films!
HM> What are some of the biggest challenges you have faced, or are currently facing? What significant problems does the field as a whole face? (Piracy,and the like). I remember about 10 years ago, when I walked into a blockbuster video rental store, the store was packed with videos. Today, almost 50% of the store is dedicated to videogames. Do you think the videogame business is eating up the market share of films?
SRIDHAR REDDY> A big question. I think the biggest challenge today is finding financing for projects that step outside the norm. But the roadblock is not in the content itelf, but the construction of the content. We have to always acknowledge that the motor behind any successful story is movement, be it kinetic or psychological.
Hollywood today has no problem creating kinetic movement. We see run-of-the-mill blockbusters that explode with CGI movement and camera tricks, and while these films make their money, they are leaving the film public dissatisfied because there`s no substance. We`re at the stage where films don`t have to be good, they just have to have enough elements to be "good enough" (i.e. star cast, CGI work, *** and ***, etc.). On the flipside, I see a lot of European cinema where nothing happens at all to characters who are on the fringe, and while psychologically profound it bores the hell out of me because nothing really happens. It`s a pratfall when we describe European cinema as "advanced" and Hollywood film as inane.
The best films, for me, focus on the story first, where the greatest investment by the filmmakers and financiers is in the tale being told. Right now I see this in full bloom with Iranian cinema, which kinetically moves along effortlessly and with beleivable and quite often strange characters.
I`m amazed that a country on the "axis of evil" makes such beautiful and compassionate films. It`ll be a loss to humanity when the Iranian film industry is burned down to cinders for no apparent reason.
As far as video games, I think they are the future of filmmaking, where cinematic expression will be fully interactive. I myself am not a big fan of video games but they do accomplish what we as filmmakers seek to do: they immerse and engage the audience in movement. Filmmkers should study video games, but where video games fall short is in the notion of being storytellers. I also don`t appreciate killing for killing sake and the mysogynistic nature that video games depict women- and if anyone tells me that DDD-cup Lara Croft is a symbol of female empowerment simply because she shoots a bigger gun than her male counterparts, I`ll have to say that they`re being delusional.
In the end, what we`re dealing with in both films and video games is a business commodity for consumer consumption. There`s the new business way of thinking, which is to sell a cannibalized product that delivers instant gratification. Video games at $50 apiece become obsolete within months, films at $11 a ticket become forgettable the next week. I think we have to deliver value with our films (i.e. value added) through an innovative product. The key to rising above mediocrity is innovation- see Micheal Porter`s landmark book on competitve forces if you want to learn more. Innovation in the film industry comes through our writing and our compositions- how can we tell stories that deliver more at a cheaper cost? Look at our mythology- we were told myths (i.e. the Pandavas, Birbal, Greek and Norse mythology, etc.) by our grandparents and teachers free of cost, and those stories invoked images and emotions that will stick with us until we die. How do we capture that mythology on film? That is our innovation, and should be our goal.
HM> What do you have to say about the contribution digital technology has made to the world of film? Can multi-million dollar movies now be made at much lower costs?
SRIDHAR REDDY> I think digital technology is great, but it seems to be diminishing the need to learn the basic grammar of filmmaking. The adage of "pick up and shoot" is wonderful, but it doesn`t mean you do not need to plan out your film. Filmmaking is hard backbreaking work, and whether it is on film or video doesn`t reduce the amount of work or dedication needed to make a film. Digital is simply a new format to record and manipulate images, it may save you money, but it does not save you time or thought.
Films today are costly not because of their shooting format but because of the system. The controversy about "run away" productions who go to Canada and Australia because of tax incentives and union laws is still a very hot topic indeed. I hear Australia is even considering putting a "salary cap` on actor`s fees, which might change the nature of that film industry. I think the cost structures will fully change when the exhibition venues entirely convert to digital, and that is when digital filmmaking will have to be held to a profesional standard, and when that happens even the cost of digital filmmaking will increase.
Digital filmmaking is simply another tool- I think it`s a bit much to describe a "Digital Revolution" when in reality only a very VERY small handful of digital films are being theatrically distributed. But the beauty is that those small handful of films wouldn`t even be considered ten years ago, i.e. Jonathan Cauoette`s haunting film "Tarnation" which was filmed on video and edited on an iMac at the cost of $230.00. But "Tarnation" has only been considered because it is a compelling and moving story, not because of its format alone.
HM> What personal qualities do you feel a person should possess for filmmaking in general? In a fight between Guts and Reason, who`d win according to you?
SRIDHAR REDDY> I think filmmakers should always be curious- about everything. Find out how things work, how the pieces fit together. Filmmakers should always observant, they should love music and appreciate architecture. Filmmakers need to be strong people, because for every success there will be two million failures- it`s just the nature of the business. And they need to think commerically- not in the sense of art films vs. commercial films, but in terms of business. Yes, one might make films for themselves or for art, but you are a career failure if nobody sees your work. And your work should generate some revenue, or you won`t be making films for long. And that can only be done when they think with a business mind, when they package their films with a target audience who can eventually cover the costs of the production.
Which leads in to the guts versus reason question. If you want me to say the BEST answer, I`d say reason wins because with reason, you make something which has a better chance of being seen. But if you want me to say the RIGHT answer, then it`s guts. Because we can never truly predict what the audience wants, and you only make a good film when you believe in your story and your production. You, as the filmmaker, have to be sold what you`re doing, and when you are sold, you work within an inch of your life to get that vison to fruition. That is a work of passion, and I am a believer that passionate work, when well intentioned and believed in, is always rewarded.
HM> what do you most enjoy about your work?
SRIDHAR REDDY> That it is my work.
HM> What do you least enjoy about your work?
SRIDHAR REDDY> Filmmaking is consuming. It takes your life, your time, your sanity. And what I like least about it is the toll that it takes on your personal relationships. To live with a filmmaker is to live with a madwoman or madman.
HM> How has being an ethnic minority been an advantage/disadvantage to you?
SRIDHAR REDDY> This is still a white industry, and even black and latino filmmakers are relgated to their niche markets. As Hemingway put it, "you write what you know," and what I know is that I am a South Asian, and many of the stories I write are born from that.
The advantage is that I am unique- I have a unique history, makeup, and experience that the mainstream has never seen. And when presented correctly and honestly, South Asian stories have as much if not more appeal than the mainstream majority stories being told today. But the disadvantage is that the (predominantly white) marketing and business gurus think that a brown face cannot sell a product. And in today`s conservative climate, there`s some unfortunate truth to that. So what can we do about that? We can sell a concept rather than an individual. "Monsoon Wedding" sold a wedding, not an Indian family. "Bend it Like Beckham" sold a soccer underdog story, not the story of an Indian girl. "Lagaan" sold a cricket match and not an Indian village. I think this is where we can make a dent. But it`s an uphill battle nonetheless.
HM> What is your take on inspiration?
SRIDHAR REDDY> Just being alive inspires me, which is probably why most of my screenplays explore the notion of death.
HM> What are your favorite films?
SRIDHAR REDDY> There are so many. But as aforementioned, `Jhalsagar" and "La Haine" hold a special place in my heart. My favourite film of all time is an animated film by the Brothers Quay called `The Street of Crocodiles." But off the top of my head, some films that really affected and inspired me: `Tetsuo the Iron Man" by Shinya Tsukomoto, "Man Bites Dog" by Remy Belveaux, "The Son" by the Dardenne Brothers, "Dumb and Dumber" by the Farrley Brothers, "City of God" by Fernando Meirelles, and "The Battle of Algiers" by Gillo Pontecorvo.
HM> Which filmmakers have influenced you the most?
SRIDHAR REDDY> Ray and Godard. I think Ray for his artistry and Godard for his give-a-f**k attitude towards the rules of filmmaking. And I think today Wong Kar-Wai embodies both filmmakers.
HM> What is your definition of "success"?
SRIDHAR REDDY> Success for me will be looking back on my life and knowing that I left this world a more beautiful place then when I came in. That, a loving family and dog, and a whole lot of dough!
HM> What advise do you have for aspiring writers/filmmakers?
SRIDHAR REDDY> We`re raised in our community to believe that there are "secure" careers that guarantee us some amount of money and professional accolades. But in reality, every profession has the possibility of security and success. But that`s dependent upon your creativity, your initiative, and your passion to succeed. Follow your dreams, but don`t sell yourself short by putting in half the effort. Work hard, play hard, and always live happy knowing that you`re doing what you love.