INTERVIEW with DEEPA MEHTA

GLAMSHAM.COM

Toronto-based Indian filmmaker Deepa Mehta, whose Oscar-nominated "Water" - on the sufferings of Indian widows in the 1930s - releases Friday, says she never shies away from honesty, as "the truth has to be told".

"I don't shudder from the truth because the truth has to be told. Societal discrimination horrifies me. I guess that the brutal attitude comes from the harsh reality I had to face five years ago when my film was stopped," Mehta told IANS in an interview.

Mehta had to bear a lot to shoot the film, which stars John Abraham, Lisa Ray and Seema Biswas in pivotal roles.

In 2000, when she launched "Water" in Varanasi, rightwing activists destroyed the sets and burnt her effigies. As a result she shelved the film and later in 2003 shifted location from Varanasi to Sri Lanka.

But, Mehta says, the struggle has been worth it.

"The fact that I had to fight for five years made it a better challenge for me. People ask me if the script has changed over the years. The script hasn't changed. I have. Today, I've been able to look at the same script from a different viewpoint."

It has been alleged that Mehta is trying to sell miseries to the West but she denies it saying: "Why are we so scared of showing the truth? Why can't we question aspects of our tradition that aren't so great? By doing so we don't become any less great. Why do we want the West to think so well about us?"

Excerpts:

The film simply stuns you into a frozen silence...
No kidding... wherever and whenever I've shown the film the response has been pretty much the same. People have wept and stood frozen for at least 15 minutes.

Having made this triumphant film do you think the struggle has been worth it?
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely! The fact that I had to fight for five years made it a better challenge for me. People ask me if the script has changed over the years. The script hasn't changed. I have. Today, I've been able to look at the same script from a different viewpoint. If I had made "Water" five years ago in Varanasi, it would've been a different film.

Was the shift of location from Varanasi to Sri Lanka a bit of a compromise?
It isn't. It just gave me more freedom to do what I wanted to. Varanasi had become a character in it itself. I couldn't handle it as a filmmaker. Once I moved away from Varanasi I felt creatively liberated.

Didn't Sri Lanka shrink your vision?
I think it made it larger. It gave me much more freedom to do what I wanted. The canvas became much larger.

You've made the widows' ashram look incredibly squalid. Didn't you think it would put audiences off?
Not at all! While making the film I wasn't thinking of the audience at all. I said what I had to. It's been such an incredible experience of growth for me. You do something that you believe in. But you've no control over how the world would react to what you do. But the way people have responded to "Water"... With "Fire" it was mostly women who felt strongly. With "Earth" it was neither. But this time I've seen both women and men responding emotionally.

Where did the idea for a film on the abandoned widows came from? Eleven years ago I first went to Varanasi to shoot "Young Indiana Jones". That's where I first met an abandoned widow. I followed her to an ashram. It was a bit of shock. We all know about widows. But the whole ashram syndrome struck me as being utterly poignant. The visuals stayed with me. When I decided to do an elemental trilogy I knew "Water" would be about these women who lived and died by water. Water is the ultimate equalizer. Either it gives or destroys life.