I'm inclined towards all kinds of films: Senna Hegde

Senna Hegde is puzzled at those people expecting him to repeat what he did in Thinkalazhcha Nishchayam. He feels the film’s success has created a certain image of him that he doesn’t want to be associated with. If anyone feels the filmmaker is shaping himself to be the ‘messiah’ of independent cinema, Senna wants them to know such ambitions don’t bother him. “I’m not this ‘symbol of change’ or anything,” he says. “I don’t see myself as a great filmmaker. I’m just a regular guy who learned to make films by watching films and reading scripts.”

Senna’s new film Padmini—his first ‘big’ one, starring Kunchacko Boban, Aparna Balamurali, Madonna Sebastian, and Vincy Aloshious—is doing relatively better in theatres than his last film, 1744 White Alto, an experimental comic crime caper starring Sharafudheen. In this conversation, he talks about Padmini, the audience’s response to the film, working in bigger films, and what kind of filmmaker he is...

Excerpts:

Was the desire to make Padmini born out of a compulsion to find success in the mainstream space, or is it because you liked the subject? 

See, I haven’t a set of rules or boundaries for myself. I just go with what interests me at a given point. I’m not here to make only one kind of film. My life may sound hypocritical to some because I don’t live it in a way that I have to do the same thing all the time. We evolve constantly and consistently. Today, I might be a vegetarian, and tomorrow I might find non-veg dishes tastier. Or, one day, I might quit movies and never return, or maybe I’ll do it after a certain gap. I can’t predict that. I don’t want to be described in certain terms. I made Thinkalazhcha Nishchayam (TN) because I’m primarily from Kanhangad; I didn’t want to make something in Kochi or move there; I prefer the comfort of my own home. I’m very attached to Kanhangad. When TN became such a huge success, and people from all walks of life embraced it, it created a certain untrue perception about me.

 
I know that 1744 White Alto was not very successful, but I wanted to make it, and it came out exactly like it was in the script. The script of Padmini came to me because I’ve known Deepu Pradeep (writer) for a while, and I enjoyed what he wrote. It was a fun collaboration. I saw it as a simple, funny script for people to get entertained; nothing to take home. 

Entertainment—that was the only intention. The response is a mix of both, but mostly positive. Those who didn’t overthink had fun, but those who dissect it too much have issues with it, which is understandable. I mean, if I can dislike a lot of movies, why can’t others do the same? No issues. And some didn’t like the ending—some found it abrupt—and some didn’t like the whole thing. I can accept that.  

Is it easier for you to move on from a reaction—positive or negative?

Not that difficult. It’s strange that when we get 80 per cent positive reviews and 20 per cent negative, we tend to focus more on the latter. For some odd reason, we seek out negative information instead of positive—to feel bad, I guess—which happens with every movie. We as humans constantly feel the need to be appreciated by everyone. Honestly, the feedback, good or bad, stopped bothering me. I just want to make movies. Some of them work, some don’t. You can’t take everything seriously. You just do your best.
 
Unlike in the case of indie films, it’s a challenge to find available actors for a relatively bigger film. Is it difficult to sustain the excitement for an idea you want to do then? 

Cinema is in a funny place right now. For every successful Thinkalazhcha Nishchayam, there are a thousand failures. People usually take the example of one or two successful indie films and think it’s easy to make them. They assume they don’t need big stars, but there are also many examples of failed projects, and that’s why I believe in luck because you need to be in the right place at the right time with the right people and get people to see the movie, win awards—those are all important, which happened with TN. I’m sure there are far better indie films that didn’t get the same recognition. If we look at what came out in the last few years, maybe there are a few. But having a recognisable face, and I mean a very, very recognisable one, helps with the initial collection and holds some appeal for various platforms... 
The business side of things gets a little easier, and that’s quite important because, whatever is said and done, cinema, despite being an art form, is also a business. That’s why most directors and writers go after stars, because, end of the day, your success is measured by how much your movie made at the box office. And the recognisable—not simply ‘known’—faces are only a handful in Malayalam cinema, and when they already have many commitments, you end up waiting a couple of years or more for them; no other option.

Murali Gopy once said that he didn’t have true success despite writing critically acclaimed films like Left Right Left and Ee Adutha Kaalathu, and then Lucifer happened...

Absolutely. That’s the perfect example of what I’ve just explained just now.

Do you wish for that one blockbuster in your career too?

 
Look, I’ll be honest. Take Padmini, for example. There are a few reasons for me to do the film. First, I’ve known Deepu for a while, and I liked his script—simple, nothing to stress about, no intellectualisation; second, an opportunity to work on a much bigger project. The combined budget of the last four movies I did is less than the total budget of Padmini. I thought it would be an interesting experience; good or bad, opportunities like this don’t come often. And when Chackochan came aboard, I wanted to have that experience of working with a big star and see whether I got the temperament to work with them. 

I don’t know where I’m heading next. What if I ended up on a big, larger-than-life script at some point, which requires me to work with stars? Will I be able to do that? Can I make certain adjustments to my usual working style? Will I be able to cope with the pressure and limelight? Because when working with a bigger budget and stars and music directors and banners, you have more eyes on you. The third reason was money. It was a big commercial movie, and I got paid handsomely, so why not? I have absolutely no regrets. It was a tremendous, interesting experience.

What were your takeaways from working on Padmini? Was the general audience reaction the one you expected?

I realised I could handle big-budget movies and work with big actors. As for the public reaction, it was different from what everyone felt during a private screening. We were okay with how the film turned out, but when it opened to general audiences, a percentage of the audience didn’t like the abrupt way it ended, among other things. But, to tell you the truth, it’s the best ending we could think of. Deepu, the team, and I worked for months to work on it, and of all the options we had, we felt this was the best one. You can only feel regret if you had a better ending and decided to go with this. That’s not the case here. We have no regrets. Maybe someone out there amongst the viewers may have a better ending in mind. 
Also, I think I took a gamble by going for a single shot for the climax, which sped up the whole scene. Maybe if I had gone for some different takes and cuts, different expressions and angles, it would’ve got some breathing space, but it would’ve been the same ending. That’s the only way I would’ve reworked it, but other than that, I can’t think of anything. Anyway, there’s nothing we can do about it now. It’s all a learning process.