Garnering a lot of interest, Newton, India's official entry to the Oscars is still doing well at the theatres. The film directed by Amit V Masurkar has been steadinly reaping box office profits. Centred around a rookie government clerk who is entrusted with conducting elections in the Maoist-dominated jungles of Chhattisgarh, the movie even ran into its share of controversy when people started comparing it to an Iranian film Secret Ballot and accused the makers of plagiarism. In a conversation with THE WEEK, director Amit Masurkar tells about making a political film and how each point of view is important.
Q. For me, one of the punchlines in Newton at the end, from Newton Kumar — ye mere action ka reaction hai. Newton's theories form an intrinsic part of the plot, how important was it for you to weave it in and even close the film with that?
It wasn't important for us. It was something Mayank and I realised much later in our writing process — that many films, not just Newton are based on Newton's laws of motion.
The first act is inertia, the second act is momentum, and the third is an equal and opposite reaction. That awareness was enough.
Q. You have spoken about your desire of making a political film even when you hadn't made your first film. What had sown the seed, especially since it's a complete departure from your first film?
Politics is all around us. It need not be electoral politics. We're talking about politics of gender, race, caste, language, religion, age, education, and economics. I don't believe that Sulemani Keeda was devoid of any politics.
Q. Now you've made Newton and it's been widely appreciated as one of the most apt take on Indian democracy in today's time. You've made the film on the back of extensive research. Are there things that you feel you've missed out on?
We were entering the forest with Newton and seeing what he was seeing. Since this is a story set over one day, it was impossible to pack everything we had researched in that one day. Of course there are so many points that we would have wanted to raise, but we wanted the film to be easily accessible to a regular cinema going audience.
Q. At one point in the film, a Maoist-infested area is referred to as Pakistan; in another scene three young, harmless looking boys are termed informers — you feel we are too quick to put people in boxes. A little alienation in writing these could have backfired. How careful did you have to be while dealing with such sensitive topics?
We are on the side of the common people. When you do that, you don't have to worry about anyone. Because everyone claims to be working for their benefit.
Q. Most films have demarcated lines for a hero and a villain. It's interesting that none of the characters can be termed a villain in your film — you empathise with Newton as well as Aatma Singh. How intentional was it to give each character a voice — including people like the CRPF personnel for whom doubling his income was more important ?
As filmmakers, we have to be objective. Once we had a basic structure, Mayank and I focused only on characters, keeping the theme in mind. And once you cast right, the other half of the job is done. And we had fine actors in Pankaj Tripathi, playing Atma Singh, and Krishna Singh Bisht as his deputy.
Every actor who played a constable in the film was asked to cook up their own elaborate back stories. We had an ex paramilitary commandant as our on-set consultant who guided them. If you speak to ordinary CRPF constables fighting in that area, you'll understand the strain they live under. Most constables belong to rural, low income families, with very little awareness of human rights and no psychological counseling. They have little understanding of the culture and language of areas they are posted in. They feel victimized by human rights activists and the press. Every point of view is important.
Q. Newton’s blinking eyes evincing restlessness and his righteousness can become annoying, as it did for Aatma Singh. Did you ever feel that you were treading a thin line — your titular character could have become unlikeable or not taken seriously?
This was a serious concern for me while shooting. The credit for not making him annoying goes to Rajkummar Rao's charm. As actor and as director, we were both following our intuition and instinct in keeping it real, and we were not pushing any emotion, any action beyond the tipping point.
Q. You were very happy on Friday making Mangal meet Mr Rai (I met you that day). I'm sure his story has had a huge impact. How much of a difference did the local voices bring to your original script?
Mangal Kunjam was recommended to me by Javed Iqbal, a journalist who has extensively reported from the Bastar region. Mangal is an Adivasi activist and journalist who has fearlessly fought corporates who are illegally mining in his area. He believes that only education and political awareness can save the Gondi Adivasis and their culture. He treads on a thin line — his fiercely independent voice is misunderstood by both — the Maoists and the police, who are unable to understand what side he's on. The truth is that he's not on either side, he's on the side of the truth. And his world view and perspective was represented by Malko, played by Anjali Patil in the film.
Q. I spoke to Pankaj Tripathi almost two weeks back and he said Newton is going to be a very important film this year, not only for him but for the country. It sure seems to have become one — a.) Were you expecting such a response? b.) In your opinion how much of a difference can a film really make?
Frankly speaking, we were expecting a positive response from the critics and cinema lovers. But I wasn't expecting a box office success. Manish Mundra, the producer always gave me confidence, telling me not to worry about box office figures. When Aanand L Rai came on board with Eros, he decided to release the film in 450 screens. Every analyst predicted a wash out. But we started showing it to critics from Monday (as opposed to the usual practice of showing films on Thursdays) and that paid off. Serendipitously, Newton was announced as India's official entry to the Oscars. This buzz helped us reach out to more people.
It's easy to be cynical and feel that cinema can't make a difference. But can you imagine human civilization without poetry, literature, music, or art? Like any art, cinema helps shape popular perceptions, inspire, and has the power to give hope. The real difference is made by peoples' actions.
Q. Most of us, out of curiosity, have seen Secret Ballot now and know the difference. How bothering have the negative reports been?
India is the world's largest democracy and every election time we see how polling is conducted — from the remotest villages in Kargil to islands of Nicobar. When the idea of making a film about an election day came to me, I was debating whether I should set it up in Gir Forest where there is a booth set up for one voter, insurgency struck Kashmir valley, or the China border in Arunachal Pradesh. A friend had gifted me Rahul Pandita's Hello, Bastar, and after reading that book, my decision was made. I then watched the documentary Red Ant Dream and started seeing Bastar in my imagination and wrote a basic draft. Once Mayank Tewari, my writing partner came on board, we met academics, Nandini Sundar, Bela Bhatia, and Ilina Sen; journalists, Javed Iqbal, Rahul Pandita, Aman Sethi, and Mangal Kunjam; election commission officials like Mr. Sudhir Tripathi and polling volunteers from Chhattisgarh; CRPF personnel, Mr Sumer Singh and Mr Sahu (who was on our set as a consultant), surrendered naxals, lawyers, administrators, clerks, activists, and ordinary voters. This film is enriched by their lived experiences.
