Not Just Bollywood | Vasan Bala: ‘Cinema is ever evolving, ever changing and also running in circles’

Director Vasan Bala’s Cinema Marte Dum Tak is a deep dive into the pulp film of the nineties. Hindi pulp films of the 1990s had a cult following, sometimes making more money than a movie with a top star, says director Vasan Bala who tracks the glory and fall of the “underground cinema movement” in the OTT series Cinema Marte Dum Tak. In an exclusive interview with Firtspost, Vasan Bala talks on making the reality docuseries, how cinema is changing and more.

Amazon Original series, reality docuseries ‘Cinema Marte Dum Tak‘ has started to make noise all over social media with its release as fans just can’t keep calm and continue to shower love from all across. The release of the six-episode docuseries has profoundly reintroduced the audience to the golden era of India’s 90s pulp cinema and has seemed to impress the audience — a must-watch, as some call it. The docuseries talks about films in the 80s and 90s which gave cheap thrill to the viewers.

Edited excerpts from the interview:

What was the thought that went behind the reality docu-series Cinema Marte Dum Tak?

I love the world of cinema. So when we got together with the script writer and we started discussing beginning from the germ, we kind of came onto the same page that this is something that is interesting, but this is never going to be a spoof. This is like going to be a more honest representation of people who are behind the scenes of these kinds of pulpy movies that were prevalent in the 80s and 90s, and kind of died down in 2003-2004, with the advent of the multiplex. So there was a joy, great story to be told, starting from failure to sudden unexpected success, and also the eventual burn out of this whole genre, or this whole method of filmmaking. So I think it was interesting to kind of move people behind the scenes, understand the faces behind these movies, who made these movies, who profited from these movies, and now where they are, and also to understand as to why they did what they did. So all these questions kind of came up. And the idea was to kind of keep ourselves on the on in the background and kind of let them come in the foreground. And, you know, tell the story the way they would.

On cinema making changes after the nineties…

So this is obviously an analysis that I would be giving much before the show, I think this is, this is what we want people to kind of discover through the series. But just as broad strokes, what I love to say is, everyone wants to become Amitabh Bachchan or Shah Rukh Khan but then we land wherever we land. And after a while, we kind of realize that, you know, this is where we are stuck with or this is, there is no other place we would rather be. So we’d rather die trying and within that die trying, you know, use find your stuff. So what you started off with and where you end is kind of that measure, it’s very difficult for one to be objective about it, but then one just goes through it. I think cinema in that sense is so captivating. And in that sense, you know, that it just feels like you can also do it, which is why we also love it beyond its artistic expression is the possibility of changing one’s life to a certain perspective, we have other people who have changed their lives. So that’s the first draw, then you land somewhere. And then you make a home for yourself. So that home could be pulpy, that home could be seen in theaters that you and I wouldn’t go, that could be anywhere.

What kind of research did you have to go through on making Cinema Marte Dum Tak? How did you get in touch with those people?

So this was pretty extensive and a huge pat on the back to Pritish Srivastav who headed our research and was constantly a bridge between our world and theirs because their world operated on cash with zero paperwork, right. And ours is extensive paperwork. In fact, now scripts are being written by legal teams and are vetted by legal teams. So you know, it’s a completely different culture we come from, a lot of trust needs to be built over a period of time as to what we’re trying to do, where they are in their lives. Then all the line producers made relentless phone calls, just to keep the boat from not turning around. I think it took an army to even set it up. And just, to get everyone on one trust level or one page. And then of course, once all that happened, then it was a little bit smooth sailing, but then all the directors were there mostly on set, covering them behind the scenes. So a lot of work in that sense went in. But first obviously, it was met with surprise, shock. So, we needed to make sure that we are not here for cheap thrills, we are not here to laugh at you. This is not a spoof. But this is an honest telling of the cinema that we have tried to make.

Why is it difficult for us to associate with the movies of the 80s and 90s?

I think personally, I loved all kinds of cinemas. Cinema was a great comfort for me. It was not just about a certain kind of aesthetic pleasure to be arrived, or a certain kind of a validation of who I am through the literature, or the cinema I read or watched. But it was all across. So that’s where I come from. And of course, I also see the resistance of these kinds of films or these kinds of expressions in society, right? So which is why, they were not the underdogs, but they were actually underground.

So, that became very interesting as counterculture also, in that sense to try and understand as to why they have chosen this as their medium to express, not just express but also make this as their livelihood. So it was just an interesting study, on how our cinema is kind of democratic in that way where everyone has space for them to express. We can put them in categories, we can choose our heroes, or villains, or we can even choose to ignore them. But the fact that they all existed can never be wiped off. So that was like a great impetus to kind of get into this and try and understand the time they existed in and made a lot of money. Like what were the audiences they were catering to and how they lived then and how they live now.

How do you differentiate between good and bad cinema?

I don’t see anything as bad cinema. When I made an anthology on Ray, a lot of people were offended with it. But isn’t literature for interpretation? It is not a good film or a bad film but more like what engages and doesn’t engage. It so happens that also the Oscar favourite sometimes, you just can’t finish them. And the films that are trashed, sometimes you end up seeing merit in them. There is no one measure to it, but some like Godfather will always be amazing.

I feel cinema has always been evolving. The cinema techniques that we are using now probably have been used even in the birth of cinema in the 1920s, as well, I mean camera trickery to stunts to storytelling to creating magnum opuses, everything has been done. Our generation exists only because we need to evolve from the previous. But that doesn’t mean what we are doing right now has never been done before. So that’s the beauty of cinema. Because if you go back 100 to 110 years, everything has been done.

So cinema is ever evolving, ever changing and also running in circles. I think that if we kind of accept that humility, then probably evolution becomes more enriching. I’m very selfishly a part of what I want to express. It’s not really a particular kind of cinema or a moment. But the kinds of stories that I want to see and the way I want to say, I think over there it’s a very selfish, almost territorial preservative kind of attitude with which probably I try to approach cinema.

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News, India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.