[Transcript of the interview I did (30 March, 2006) with Canadian-based Indian director Deepa Mehta about her new film Water. I'd attended a promotional screening and Q&A the day before. The quality of the recording was pretty hazy at times, particularly toward the end of the interview. Note: Mehta's film Fire, which is referred to repeatedly in the transcript, was very controversial in India due to its depiction of a lesbian relationship between two sisters-in-law. -Hans]

 

I was just talking to [the publicist], and she said the film’s already been released in Canada. Has it been pretty well received?

It’s playing its 25th week. So that’s amazing.

 

Twenty-fifth week? What sort of release has it got? Is it playing through multiplexes or is it through independent cinemas?

No, it was mainstream too. Some independent. No actually it was … cineplex.

 

Really? Has that been the case with Fire and...

No, no, those were arthouse cinemas. It opened at 21 screens in Toronto alone, and it was a much wider release.

 

That must be really gratifying. Have you got the impression that momentum is building? That you’ve got name recognition now that Fire and Earth have been released into the Canadian market as well. And that the momentum sort of built up with these films as well and came to fruition with Water, which got such a wide release.

It is different. I think that generally that’s what happens. It takes a few films for the people... But I don’t know that it was the following of Fire and Earth that touched the reaction to Water’s release. I think it was Water itself.

 

Can you anticipate which films are going to strike a chord with the public or are you just as mystified as everyone else?

My father’s a film distributor in India, and an exhibitor. And he grew up saying the two things in life that you never know about, have no clue about, one is how a film’s going to do and the other is when you’re going to die. [Laughs] Which is so true. I don’t think you can ever... Who knows?

 

It strikes me as a really extraordinary achievement given the subject matter. I mean, you know the kind of fare that gets released at multiplexes. It’s Schwarzenegger, or whoever’s flavour of the month, so this must be apples and oranges, I guess...

I think the fact that Fox picked it up in the States... It’s being released there on the 28th of April, and they’re really putting a lot of muscle behind it. Which is very interesting.

 

You are going to the States after you leave Australia, is that right?

That’s right. I’ve done a part of the promotion in the Midwest, in the States, and now I have to go back and do the rest.

 

Has it been a punishing schedule?

It’s been a punishing schedule, but it’s been very interesting to see the reactions in every city. It’s intriguing.

 

That’s interesting. Have you felt that it’s been received quite differently in some cities as opposed to others?

It hasn’t opened, so these are promotional screenings. These people haven’t paid or are going and attending a Q&A after that. So it’s the Q&A that tells you what makes the difference with one city or the another. Otherwise how would you know, you know? It has been different, yeah. The questions are different. The reactions are generally– no, actually, they’ve been exactly the same whether it’s in Spain or Australia or the United States, whether it’s been in Canada or India or Thailand or wherever.

 

I was gonna ask you, actually, have any themes of the questions you’ve been asked in question and answer sessions emerged that really surprised you?

Yeah, it did. That’s an interesting question. What surprised me was that– For example, in Canada a lot of people felt... that at the end of the film one person stood up and said that ‘We don’t have widows in Canada, but the way we treat our aged is abominable. So that was interesting. People looking at their own back yard, as opposed to widows in India and feeling sorry for them. It’s looking at their own society. I was in Pakistan with film and somebody said, you know: ‘We don’t have widows in Pakistan, but the way we treat our divorced women is exactly the same’.

 

That’s interesting because Pakistan is, of course, an Islamic nation and this film is primarily to do with Hinduism–

But yeah, what does this have to do with Christianity in Canada?  Or what does it have to do with the question I was asked two days ago in Sydney when somebody said ‘We don’t have Hindu widows in Australia, but the way we treat aboriginals is abominable.’ So that is the theme that emerged. It’s got nothing to do with Hindu widows, but it’s got something to do with injustice that each society metes out to its own people.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

You said something in the question and answer session. I’m paraphrasing... But you drew a parallel between the rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India recently and you made the point that religious fundamentalism had become more prominent worldwide. And I was just wondering... Do you see any common circumstances fuelling the rise of fundamentalism is India, and in the Middle East, and in the US as well. Is it just a coincidence that fundamentalism seems to gaining ground in all these different societies or is it–

I think it has directly to do with economics, and the world economics, and the shortage of oil and knowing that oil is not going to last. So imperial ambitions to make the most of, in every country, their economic wealth, and some countries want to save it and other countries want to attack it.

 

One of the characters, I think it might be Narayan, says when – I think it might be Shakuntala  –

How’s your pronunciation so good? [Cross talk] It’s fabulous! You’re the first Australian journalist who can pronounce the names.  That’s great! I’m so impressed.

 

I was talking careful not during the question and answer session because I didn’t want to mangle everyone’s names.

[Laughs]

 

But one of the characters, I think it’s Narayan says–

It’s about economics.

 

Yes. So would you say, then, if we can extrapolate from that, that these kind of practices will never be completely stamped out until India is a more affluent nation?

I think these practices – whichever country you go to, they have their own practices, about oppressing a certain group of people – will never end. But specifically to talk about India as a nation, self-reliance, economic independence, is extremely important before they can get rid of [inaudible]. And there’s an incredible amount of grassroots growth being done by activists, by NGOs, who really care about this group, for example. They care about many other things, but others ones looking after that, about how important it is to give the widows the sense that they have a choice. And if they want to spend the rest of the lives as ascetics they can. Like Shakuntala – she didn’t even know that there’s a law, that widows can remarry. That information must somehow filter down to the people.

 

It’s interesting. Already in this interview, you’ve made the point that this has greater ramifications than simply for India or simply for the widows – it’s about an imbalance in society between the haves and the have-nots. Have you found yourself constantly making this point on your press tours of Canada and the US?

That it’s universal?

 

Yeah.

Sometimes people get it themselves, and I don’t have to say anything about it. But sometimes they don’t. I feel that I’m a filmmaker and I’m there for a reason: to do a Q&A that if it isn’t brought out, I bring it out, because it’s important to me.

 

I guess it’s maybe a symptom of complacency in some Western people that they see this as a story basically about India and about widows, and that they don’t see its application to where they live.

That’s true. Absolutely. It’s not even complacency, it’s fear. We really don’t want to see what’s happening in our own back yard, because if we do, then our world has a slight imbalance or becomes slightly rocky. So it’s much easier to say ‘Hey, poor widows in India’ and ‘What can we do about that? Isn’t it rough?’ Every country has its problems.

 

On the press kit there’s an interesting quote from Rushdie, and he says – this is just a snippet of it – ‘The film has serious, challenging things to say about the crushing of women by atrophied religious and social dogma’. So my question was: can there be a happy middleground between comtemporary society and a religion whose precepts were formulated thousands of years ago? Can they both coexist? Or does one have to prevail?

I think that religion is about a way of life, and specifically Hinduism. I think that coexistence is very difficult because religion is so emotional. It’s what anybody can have, regardless of what class of society they belong to, or how much money they have in the bank or if they have a Visa card or not. Everybody can get very passionate about their religion. Whenever religion is used, and constantly and historically it is used to incite people in order to gain political gain. So until that stops and religion is seen as something that’s supposed to be beneficial to human beings, then it’s not gonna happen.

 

Do you think that can be stopped? Or is that kind of thing hardwired into us?

No. What’s happening in the world, really, fills me with despair. It’s a utopia. So, I mean, I’d have to be overly optimistic to say that it can. I hope it can. I mean, I hope for the best...

 

It’s worth aspiring to, at least. 

Yeah, exactly. Oh, absolutely. Why do we want war instead of peace? Why do we want people to lead lives that are filled with indignity?

 

Are you a practicing Hindu or practicing any faith, at all, for that matter?

I mean, I’m a Hindu. But I think I don’t believe in the dogma of Hinduism. I believe in its spirituality. I think its spirituality that interests me more than the religion and the cultural manifestation of the religion.

 

Do you find – because in any religion there are people who hold their religious beliefs close to their heart, and it’s not necessarily, they’re not always demagogues who use religion for their own purposes. Thackaray in Mumbai is mentioned in the press kit. Have you found that your films have offended, you know, not necessarily the demagogues, but the people who just hold their faith dear?

I’m sure it has. I’m sure my films have offended some people who hold their faith dear, and who feel it’s an attack on their faith, and they don’t understand that it’s really not an attack, but it’s definitely a questioning. And I think that questioning is very important, because unless you question something it will, as Salman [Rushdie] says, it will be atrophied. I mean, to keep something alive and relevant for the times needs questioning.

 

It’s kind of against what religions are about, though, isn’t it? Because they are an article of faith. In essence that’s what they are. You believe it or you don’t. It’s an absolutism ingrained into the very DNA of every religion. It’s kind of a difficult thing to ask someone, to step back from these things that they need to accept as an article of faith. Just an observation...

It is difficult. But that doesn’t mean you have to stop trying. 

 

That’s true. You said it took you four years to get over all the destruction and tumult that happened when you first tried to film Water in India. And you mentioned that it was a case of your anger dissipating. What made your anger dissipate? Was it just the passing of time or did something else happen?

I think I became far more political, and I understood what had happened, as opposed to thinking it was about Water alone, and about me alone. And I put it in context with what was happening in the world, which was the rise of Hinduism, and in particular what was happening in India with the extremist groups who wanted to use Water to get publicity. They were promoting themselves at that point very, very vocally and very destructively as the only protectors of the true faith. So that’s more an intellectual process, but it was an essential one for me to go through, and understand, and stop feeling like a victim, or that Water had been victimized. It was much easier to deal with the emotional anger, which was on a baser level, and the way I dealt with it was I wrote a film that was a romantic comedy–

 

That’s Bollywood/Hollywood?

Yes, Bollywood/Hollywood. It was completely irreverent, and we had such a great time doing it. That was a catharsis. Something that was life-affirming, that was fun to do, and...

 

You felt rejuvenated, and ready to do something that was a bit more frivolous and light-hearted?

Not a ‘bit’, completely frivolous! [Laughs]

 

I didn’t mean ‘frivolous’ in a bad way, by the way... It’s really interesting that you started to put what you were doing in a political context, because I would’ve thought that Fire and Earth had pretty political connotations and contexts anyway. But you didn’t necessarily see them in those terms when you made them?

When I make films, I don’t say I’m making political films, because I really do feel that I’m telling a story about something that I’m very curious about as a human being. So I don’t ever sit down and say ‘OK, let’s make political films’. And therefore the exposure to politics is less. You know, Earth was released and it had no repercussions at all, and it was nominated from India for the Oscars as [inaudible] film. So it isn’t that all my films created uproar; they didn’t. And I think Water was on the screen, and Fire was on the screen about two weeks before it was shut out by extremists in Mumbai and Delhi, but kept on playing all over India, and that’s something that nobody talks about. They’d rather talk about ‘Oh, it was banned’. It wasn’t. Also the assumption that Water was banned, it’s not. It’s what happened in a particular [town/time?]  I was saying yesterday for the [inaudible] obviously that losing the election was a real wake-up call for India.

 

You’ve probably already answered this, really, but I’ll ask it anyway. You’ve tackled some questions that have political ramifications–

Of course.

 

The oppression of women, even female sexuality and nationalism, all feed back into politics eventually. Do you see yourself as more than an artist, but as, in part, an activist as well? I was trying to think of a better term than ‘activist’–

Ah, yeah, you’re right. Activist? I don’t know...

 

What I mean is that you’re obviously an artist, but you’re also trying to persuade the world, you’re trying to change the world at least a little bit, with these films by showing these issues. And maybe you galvanise people to do something about it...

I don’t see it like that, no. What I do see is I’m trying to educate myself and change myself, rather than doing the research, because I do a film because the subject intrigues me... There’s a line, for example, in Earth where it says ‘All wars a fought on women’s bodies’. In the book on which Earth is based by [inaudible] And that, my god... you know about it intellectually. You say, ‘But wait a minute. What does it really mean?’ So the whole process of writing Earth became an exploration of something that had intrigued me. Fire started off by... if women in contemporary India made a choice that was an extreme choice, what would be the fall-out of that? And what are the repercussions of choice in democracy, especially for women? And if it’s a sexual choice, what does it mean? But basically, I think that what I’m intrigued about is the tug of war between desire for independent thinking and tradition. That for me is the theme – more than politics – that runs through my films, because that’s something that really intrigues me, the weight of traditions. And there’s good traditions, there’s bad  traditions, and the exploration. When can you have an independent voice? And what is the fall-out of that independent voice? Whether it’s a political one, whether it’s about sexuality, whether it’s about religion.

 

It’s an interesting line when you say: ‘All battles are fought on the bodies of women’. In the US right now, reproductive rights are under siege...

Absolutely.

 

So it shows you, Western, subcontinental, or Hindu, Christian, it’s–

It’s all the same.

 

It is, absolutely, the same.

And also, I mean, somebody was saying it’s about widows. It is about widows, but human emotions are universal. What we want... What you want basically is really not that different to what I want. We really don’t want pain. [Laughs] Unless you’re an absolute sadist. But we do all have desires for peace and happiness and a good environment for our kids, our partners, a world that isn’t wasting it’s resources and [is] respecting its environment.

 

You’re based in Canada currently, aren’t you?

I do have a home in Canada, and I spend a lot of time, I have a home in India. So I have one foot in each continent.

 

That’s interesting. I know that Rushdie has said that one of the things that enables him to write so vividly and perceptively, about India is that he feels like he’s both an outsider and insider at the same time. Do you feel–

Yeah, I feel that too. Whether it’s writing about Canada or writing about India, when I’m writing about India I do feel like an insider, because I am, but I do feel an outsider because I am.

 

Gives you just a little bit of critical distance, I guess.

Yeah, just a slight objectivity. I mean, I think in a book it would be different, but... I think the gentleman [Age film critic Tom Ryan at the Q&A session] yesterday asked me would my films be different if I lived in India? I mean, I don’t know.

 

Well, I guess, nobody ever stops growing and changing.

No, it would be very boring if we did. [Laughs]

 

You’re a different person now after making Water than you were before, I’m sure.

I’m sure. I’m sure I’m not even aware of how different I am – that comes later.

 

Can you foresee a time when widows won’t be treated in the fashion that the film depicts? I mean, I imagine it’s not as bad as it was in the film...

No, no, it’s changed even in [60?] years. You don’t see child widows in ashrams, and you very rarely hear of child marriages. They’re completely outlawed, and though some children do get married, it’s not as grim. And the young widows come to ashrams don’t shave off their hair anymore, and some of them are even allowed to bring their children into the ashram, and a lot of grassroots work is being done with widows to make them economically independent. 

 

Winning the fight on this issue. Is it a matter of the secular overcoming the religious or is it a matter of religious moderates seizing the debate or–

I think it’s the former because religion is too ingrained in us. I saw an interview with in Vancouver, and he said all religions should be banned. [Laughs]

 

Do you think that would help, though?

I don’t think it can be. I mean, it’s a good thought. Just think about it: if there was no religion. All our wars, all that we do to each other, and the way we oppress each other. You know, whether it’s the Spanish Inquisition to the burning of witches in Salem to pro-life in the United States right now... Christian fundamentalism and raptures and Catholicism, convents, and the Vatican, and corrupt bishops, and boys being raped, and schools, and... Hinduism. And Hinduism was one of the most peaceful, one of the most all-embracing of religions. So this face of it is a bit of a shock. Same thing with Islam. I mean, ‘jihad’ is not the holy war. The meaning of jihad in the Koran is the war within ourselves. That’s jihad – to make sure that the better person within ourselves is triumphant. It’s the interpretation. [inaudible] It’s depressing, but I think that it’s too deeply ingrained for it to just go away, and it shouldn’t, because there are benefits to it. [...] If our political systems all over the world were less corrupt, we’d stand a better chance.

 

Moving on to the nuts and bolts of the movie. Matching the performance of trained and untrained actors. Were you finding that the performances were pitched at slightly different levels?

No, I mean, I had four protagonists and three or four supporting, very important, characters, and all of them were mixed.  The main protagonist hadn’t acted before... [inaudible] It’s different talking to them as a director, because they’re not walking around saying ‘What’s my motivation?’ [Laughs]

 

Were you relieved at that?

[Laughs] Very relieved! But it was really... you know, you had to be imaginative. I had to be imaginative to direct her. It was a different kind of challenge. But I feel the pitch is as equal to any of the professional actors. But [name], the older woman, who [inaudible] sweet, she’s never acted before, and but there’s such sweetness to her performance. I think they were actually [superb?] – at the risk of sounding immodest, but it’s nothing to do with me, but a lot to do with her performance.

 

The little girl is such a vivacious central character, although in some ways, as you explained in the Q&A session, she’s not really the central character.

For me! [Laughs] But she’s in every scene, every shot, practically, in the film, but I don’t think she’s the central character. For me, Shakuntala is the [knifepoint?] of the film, and Chuyia is the catalyst.  

 

It struck me while watching it that the subject matter is pretty grim, for the most part. It was such a relief and such a nice balance to have this vivacious little girl running through. Were you actually conscious of that when you wrote it? It’s a nice counterpoint to have this – although some horrible things happen to her in the film – to have this little shaft of sunlight in a pretty grim place?

Oh, absolutely. [inaudible] it’s important because [inaudible] she’s a kid, and kid’s are resilient, and they’re rebellious, and they think of food, and they think of immediate gratification, and I have an eight-year-old niece, and Sia, my niece, who’s lovely, a lot her ‘chutzpah’, if you will, I gave to Chuyia, because kids are like that. It’s important, I think, however grim a place is, people, the human spirit is fascinating, its ability to adapt, to find something that’s hopeful in the most – you know, that’s why you hear stories of heroism in Auschwitz, because there’s somebody there who wants to live. And Chuyia became that voice, and that piece of life. And it’s interesting... It’s an ashram, but it’s not a jail – and the women slowly can’t help being affected by Chuyia.

 

What’s your strength as a director? Sometimes the hardest thing can be to evaluate who you are and what you do well. Are you able to step back and do that?

Well, I can tell you what I enjoy doing most as a director, and that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s my strength or weakness. And what I really enjoy doing is working with actors. I just love it. I think that’s great. I don’t know if that’s a strength or a weakness, but I like.

 

Have you ever been in front of the camera yourself?

Oh, once, because I really wanted to see what happens when I say ‘cut’, and everybody disappears. The camera department goes off, and the sound goes off. Everybody disappears and the director’s left alone on the set. And the actors usually go off to make-up, to the trailer, or if you don’t have a trailer to the [room?]. I’ve always wanted to know what they talk about, and actors are generally closest to the make-up people. So five years ago, somebody said ‘Please, would you like to do this little part for us?’ They needed an Indian; they couldn’t find one. [Laughs] So I said ‘Sure’, because I wanted to see what happened. It was very interesting.

 

What did you learn?

I learned that it was very tough. [Laugh] That’s one of the reasons I have such respect [for actors]. I’d never do it again. Hard work being in front of the camera. It seems so much easier being behind it.

 

Did you learn something that allowed you to work better with actors after that?

Yes, I did. And what I learnt was that – you know, you hear about it – but to actually feel that insecurity about your ability: are you doing OK? Are you not? And what they do in make-up – at least what I did – was want reassurance all the time, and the best person to do that is the make-up artist.

 

I was looking through the press kit. And I was interested that you directed an episode of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles with George Lucas. There’s a huge chasm between that and the films that you went on to direct. Are you able to learn any lesson from that kind of thing and take it into films?

The scripts were great. And what he was trying to do, I thought, was really commendable. He was doing 13 episodes of the Young Indy. Using something that had become very popular, almost a cult thing, extremely popular with the mainstream, to bring some kind of awareness and education about important figures all over the world. So the one I did was about Katzanzalkis, and he meets Young Indiana Jones, and what Young Indiana Jones learns from Katzanzalkis in Greece or learns from [inaudible] about education in India. I thought that was very interesting, and I was in really good company: there was Mike Newell and Billy August, and wonderful directors. [inaudible]

 

It’s an interesting exercise, trying to grapple with really important issues and people in a popular entertainment format.

Yes, absolutely. There’s nothing wrong with that. At least he’s trying to do something [inaudible] And I learnt a lot. I met my cinematographer because of Young Indiana Jones. For Giles [Nuttgens; cinematographer] and myself that was our first time working together, and a lot of the crew that I still work with from Water we got together for Indiana Jones.

 

It’s become like an extended family.

Yes, it has. It is. It’s become like that. Very true.

 

One of the things that enlightened me, reading the press kit. It seems the Indian Government, the Indian establishment, was much more receptive to what you were trying to do with your films. For instance, they defended your right to freedom of speech, and they even went to the point of sending troops to protect the set of Water.

No, that was just a farce.

 

Really?

Oh yeah. No, no, they weren’t doing anything. Later I got to know they knew what was happening. It was their cultural arm, and their godfather, who was protesting. That’s what I mean about stop being politically naive. You really get to study politics, and Indian politics at that point, and what was driving what.

 

Still, you must have had lots of champions in India, given that, as you’ve said – apart from Mumbai – it’s actually shown – not Water, but Fire – all over the country.

Yeah, a lot of people like it. Some people don’t. Nobody loves everything. Certainly, Fire had its detractors, but there were certainly a lot of champions out there. I think that it was interesting that it somehow it struck a chord, and the main thing about Fire was that the fundamentalists were saying that there were no lesbians in India, and that what I was doing was promoting a conflict that only existed in the evil West, because I was from the evil West.

 

Do you think that was treated as a credible claim?

Of course not. Because the minute they started protesting, outside the [main hall?] there were hundreds of women, who came out and had placards saying I’m Hindu, I’m Indian, and I’m a lesbian. It was amazing.  

[A bit more small talk. Interview over.]