Chat with Govind Nihalani
Govind Nihalani recently won the Kodak Technical Excellence Award at the MAMI Film Festival, for his work as a cinematographer. He is one of our finest filmmakers, who started his career as a cinematographer, and went on to make 15 films in a little over 20 years, that include highly regarded works as Aakrosh, Ardh Satya, Tamas, Drohkaal, Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa and Dev. But his work as a director often overshadows his role behind the camera. Excerpts from an interview:
You
are
one
of
the
few
cinematographers
who
turned
director,
what
made
you
also
want
to
direct...because
cinematography
in
itself
is
a
very
creative
line
of
work.
I
think
it
has
something
to
do
with
the
course
I
did
in
SJ
Polytechnic,
Bangalore.
It
was
an
integrated
course,
in
the
sense
that
all
branches
that
go
into
the
making
of
a
film
were
taught
-
starting
from
laboratory
to
photography,
editing,
sound
recording
and
film
direction-all
were
part
of
the
course,
with
an
emphasis
on
cinematography,
of
course.
It
imparted
knowledge
of
all
the
aspects
of
filmmaking-the
diploma
was
even
called
Diploma
in
Motion
Picture
Technology.
So
it
was
not
only
cinematography;
right
from
the
beginning
I
felt
that
apart
from
cinematography,
direction
or
filmmaking
was
something
that
came
to
me
very
naturally.
So, when I finished working on Ankur with Shyam Benegal, I came across a story by a very fine Marathi writer, C. T. Khanolkar. I liked that story immensely and felt like making a film on it. Having worked with Shyam on small budgets and a different kind of cinema-which was away from popular cinema-I got a very good feel of the logistics of filmmaking and I could feel that we can control it. The other factor that came into play was, of course, working with Shyam was not like just coming on the set and being told what shot was to be taken. It was a circle of friends-Satyadev Dubey and Girish Karnad and others used to be there-and a lot of discussions used to take place on the script. I used to be there at these sessions, so it was not just being given a scene and interpreting it, one knew the whole process of the creation of the script. I didn't participate in the writing, but I used to be there and whenever possible, I used to put in my two bits. So I grew up in a filmmaking environment, which was like teamwork.
In popular cinema, when I was assisting Mr. V.K. Murthy, I was never part of the development of the script. But with Shyam this happened, so I imbibed a lot. Since I already had a background in direction, as part of the course, it was natural that I wanted to make a film.
Once
you
became
a
director,
you
did
the
cinematography
for
just
your
own
films...
After
I
did
my
first
film,
I
continued
to
work
with
Shyam
Benegal.
I
did
two
more
films
with
him,
but
after
that,
it
reduced.
I
did
the
cinematography
of
my
own
films
because
that's
what
I
loved.
And
I
felt
that
the
film
I
ultimately
made
was
such
a
tight
film,
in
the
sense
that
it
did
not
have
any
major
scenes
to
be
staged,
huge
locations
to
be
lit
up
or
massive
crowds
to
be
managed-it
was
very
intimate
kind
of
film,
I
felt
I
could
manage
both
very
easily.
In fact, over time, it became very much a part of me. So, when I started writing my own scripts I used to visualize the lighting, the camera movements also, so it became a very integrated process in my mind. I could think of direction and cinematography together. But whenever there has been a conflict on my own film, the director has always won over the cameraman. But on someone else's film, I establish a very good rapport with the director, being a director myself I put that aspect of me in the foreground, and as a cameraman I try to understand the person's vision and then try to work that out. With Benegal, with whom I have done the maximum number of films, the process used to be very interesting, but not very long. We used to decide on the look of the film or the 'personality' of the film very quickly- because both of us had very common preferences, we used to communicate very fast. That led to a quality in the films we did together, because he would give a lot of freedom to me to create the kind of images that we decided should be there in the film. That helped me quite a lot.
You see what is important for me is, being a cameraman and a director together, I can take a decision on the kind of look a film will have. When one describes the look, one has a very definite idea in mind. The look of a film cannot be entirely a cameraman's job, there have to be inputs from the director too; how does the director visualize the scenes and when we say visualize, there are certain specific points-like a director might want to shoot a scene in which in every shot the camera is in motion. He might like to shoot a scene where the camera is totally still, he might like to shoot a scene in long shot, or a combination of the two. He might like to have a feel of a documentary, or a very dramatically lit scene. So all these go into creating the look of a film.
Are
these
decisions
taken
beforehand?
Sometimes
they
are
taken
beforehand;
sometimes
they
are
improvised
on
the
spot.
The
kind
of
films
that
Shyam
and
I
were
doing
together,
partly
the
basic
look
used
to
be
decided,
in
the
sense
that
the
feel
in
the
entire
film
should
be
realistic.
But
since
we
were
shooting
on
locations,
many
times
we
had
to
improvise
a
lot.
We'd
go
there,
and
stage
the
whole
action
and
then
decide
how
consistently
we
can
maintain
a
lighting
style.
If
this
is
the
location,
does
it
have
windows,
are
there
any
practical
sources
of
light-all
these
things
have
to
be
taken
into
consideration.
You
take
certain
aesthetic
decisions-that
this
is
going
to
be
a
low
key
scene,
there
are
going
to
be
a
lot
of
shadows
in
the
frame
and
a
lot
of
darkness,
or
the
other
way
round.
Then
you
go
on
the
location
and
decide
how
that
can
be
maintained.
So
it
is
always
a
combination
of
deciding
earlier
and
going
to
the
location
and
improvising.
On
a
set
it
is
much
more
under
control,
because
you
are
not
bound
by
sunlight,
you
are
not
bound
by
what
is
seen
outside
the
windows,
so
you
can
create
and
hang
the
lights
from
wherever
you
want-
there
is
much
more
controlled
environment
in
a
studio.
But
while
working
in
a
studio,
again
you
have
a
choice,
you
can
create
realistic
lighting
or
you
can
create
a
highly
dramatic
effect-both
are
possible.
You
did
not
feel
tempted
to
work
in
a
mainstream
film?
Well,
all
my
training
was
done
in
mainstream
cinema,
when
I
worked
with
Mr.
Murthy,
and
he
photographed
several
films
for
Mr.
Pramod
Chakravarty,
which
were
all
mainstream
films.
So
I
know
the
genre,
there
is
no
question
about
that.
What
happened
later
was
that,
because
of
my
association
with
the
film
society
movement,
exposure
to
European
cinema-not
just
Hollywood
and
British
cinema-of
a
period
after
the
second
world
war,
when
the
new
Arriflex
camera
came
and
there
was
sudden
freedom
from
the
huge,
heavy
Mitchell
camera,
there
was
a
certain
sense
of
liberation
because
you
could
hand
hold
the
camera.
In
East
Europe,
particularly,
they
were
doing
a
lot
of
experimentation.
They
had
very
little
money
and
very
limited
stock,
so
they
had
to
improvise
a
lot.
In
France
and
Italy
the
new
wave-neo
realism-was
happening.
So the entire effort was to make the film look as natural as possible. With my training in the mainstream cinema, with dramatic lighting, glamorous lighting, very stylized kind of look... then there was this realistic look available on the other side, it created a very good integration of ideas. I became aware of different kinds of lighting that was possible, and the kind of films we were making then, it was possible to combine the best elements from both styles
The
work
that
is
usually
noticed
and
awarded
is
in
the
big
glossy
films...
As
they
say
photography
in
a
film
should
be
such
that
one
should
not
notice
it.
It
should
not
attract
attention
to
itself.
But
now
it
depends
upon
the
genre
of
the
film.
If
you
are
making
a
film
that
is
inspired
by
the
MTV
kind
of
technique
and
things,
there
your
editing,
soundtrack
and
photography
will
scream.
That
is
the
demand
of
the
particular
genre.
But if you are making a realistic film then the photography has to blend with it. You notice the work of all the major cameramen - notice the work of my guru Mr. Murthy, in a film like Kaagaz Ke Phool, where it was very stylized and then you have Pyaasa and Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam, where there is no dramatization at all. It is so subtle that you don't notice it. You look at the work of Subroto Mitra - never will you find the photography scream, but what beautiful work. You look at the work of Sven Nykvist who worked with Ingmar Bergman, or look at the work of Fellini and you can't find a character more stylized than in Fellini's films. And there also what a good combination of realism and dramatic visual quality in the same film.
So it is really relative - you cannot take a film like Ardh Satya and light it up like a musical. In a musical all the stylistic elements must stand out and sing - and create that larger than life feel, but in a different kind of story, all these elements should recede in the background and not scream out aloud. Like you have in acting - you have understated, restrained quiet performance, visually also you can create those elements. Because in a film, unless all those elements get together, and work in unison you just cannot get a fully integrated work.
In
your
films
there
is
a
combination
of
low
key
lighting
and
heightened
drama.
If
I
were
to
give
a
musical
analogy,
a
singer
sings
a
on
a
particular
note,
and
there
is
a
tanpura
that
provides
the
note
to
the
singer,
but
within
that
composition
that
starts
from
alaap
and
go
to
dhrut,
they
go
through
various
shades
of
rhythm
and
tempo,
and
the
singer
is
backed
by
the
level
that
is
provided
by
the
tanpura.
So
visually
also
you
have
to
hold
a
tanpura.
Every cameraman has his own interpretation of what is realistic lighting, what is dramatic lighting - which is very subjective. All colours are available to everybody, how blue is used differs from painter to painter. So in this case, I go by what is the 'sur' of this film, visually and otherwise. Once that 'sur' is in the mind then you can craft the frames very well. I believe that it is not just the lighting, but the camera movement that is very important - how you employ it - and the most important factor is lensing. Now lensing is not just putting on lens or another, it is how you are using different lenses to give images a certain quality. You might decide to shoot one scene entirely with wide angle, even for close-ups you use that. Sometimes you decide to shoot the entire scene on a tele end of the focal length. And you might like to shoot a scene with a lens of 150 mm focal length. If you have to mix the focal lengths, how you do it seamlessly, or how to make the glaring difference in the perspective of a tele lens and a wide angle lens for a certain impact. The choice of lens is very important and I have been very conscious of that.
So a combination of good lensing, lighting, camera movement, and finally the composition which is very very important. The moment you put four lines of the frame on anything, the image within those four lines acquires its own emotional quality, the way you emotionally respond to that image, creates its own energy. And when you cut two shots together, with different magnifications, it has its own dynamics. And all that can be helped immensely by composition, by putting certain elements in certain given areas of a special frame. What has happened is that after cinemascope came, films started being shot on exotic locations, composition in Hindi films at least, suffered a great deal. Mostly you have beautiful backgrounds and people standing or dancing in front of them, the power of composition to create an emotional response for the audience is not being utilized as much as it used to be, earlier. Because the cameraman and everybody was very conscious of this element of the image, which is not the case with the new genre that is emerging.
Today
aesthetics
is
equated
with
a
very
kitschy
kind
of
visual
beauty.
There
is
nothing
wrong
with
that
if
it
is
done
with
a
certain
amount
of
good
taste,
and
taste
again
is
a
very
subjective
matter.
Ultimately
anything
that
you
see
on
the
screen
is
a
combination
of
two
minds
-
what
the
director
is
trying
to
say
and
how
the
cameraman
is
telling
it.
And
the
other
person
to
whom
we
do
not
give
enough
prominence
is
the
art
director
and
the
costume
designer.
They
contribute
so
much
to
the
look
of
the
film.
They
do
a
great
deal
to
create
the
visual
personality
of
the
picture.
If
you
were
to
make
a
film
you
didn't
shoot
yourself
who
would
you
hire?
It
would
depend
on
the
kind
of
film,
but
the
first
choice
would
always
be,
if
he
agrees,
Mr.
Murthy.
He
is
so
adaptable
and
so
open
to
new
ideas.