G Aravindan's work was an influence on Chattambi: Director Abhilash S Kumar

One of the most distinctive voices to emerge out of Malayalam cinema recently is Abhilash S Kumar, who made his directorial debut with Chattambi, a daringly original work scripted by its cinematographer Alex Joseph. How many people saw it? Well, that's bound to be a negligible number. What should one blame the poor reception on? The audience's inability to accept anything with an out-of-the-box narrative? Or its leading man Sreenath Bhasi's uncouth behaviour while promoting the film on an online media portal? It's anyone's guess. But that doesn't diminish the value of what Abhilash and the team have done.

A former IT professional whose experience shooting corporate videos landed him in the circle that features the likes of Aashiq Abu, Rima Kallingal, Samir Thahir, Madhu C Narayanan, Abhilash got his start in the films of Aashiq Abu in various capacities, including that of co-writer. To make a long story short, his experience as a co-producer on Don Palathara's critically acclaimed 1956, Central Travancore naturally paved the path to Chattambi, which has an original story credit by Don. He acknowledges the experience of working with Don helped him work with new actors, conducting extensive workshops and "understand the process of working with actors, gleaning their strengths and weaknesses, and how to work around them."

Excerpts:

In my review of Chattambi, I called it the origin story of Grace Anthony's character. Was it really inspired by the idea of a female protagonist taking charge of a Christian family?

It didn't come out of a need to go after a particular idea, actually. It all started with the need to do a smaller film, considering it was time of the pandemic and OTTs expressed interest in picking them up, and then move on to a bigger film when we are well-equipped. So when I asked Don for a small story, he gave me something of a treatment note with around 16-17 pointers. It basically conveyed the basic plotline, ending, what really happened in between... all those things. And I'm very inclined towards real stories with biographical elements. Chattambi is based on someone Don knew about but with imaginary embellishments. It revolved around this young woman who lived in the 90s, whose husband constantly cheated on her, and who generally leads a miserable existence. And then came this mindblowing idea of her wanting to kill the man trying to kill her husband. It thrilled me. I mean, who thinks like that? Some weird psychology was at play there.

And it was, as you said, an origin story. It got us thinking about a character like Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler. There is no goodness in him; he was just disciplined, punctual, and goal-oriented. It was about conveying the simple idea that there is a chattambi (rowdy) in all of us. I believe every human being has a killer instinct, and we can't tell for sure what kind of breaking point would trigger that kind of behaviour.

Is the final film different from what you initially envisioned?

The original thought had more elements, especially in terms of characters. It not only revolved around the characters of Grace but also Mythili. It also delved into the latter's Circus Mary, a slightly tomboyish and unsentimental character, who was running her establishment, and was the business partner of the former's husband. But eventually, we had to condense the script.

Are all these real-life inspirations still alive? How was the death of the real-life inspiration for Kariya (Sreenath Bhasi) handled?

Some are alive; some aren't. As for the rowdy, in real life, his end was wished by many people at the time because he was a horrible man, and when he got killed, it was a relief to them. So people didn't want to do anything to the person who killed him; nobody wanted to discuss it.

There's a ritualistic to the conversations in Chattambi, similar to what we see in Asian films. One can tell these weren't for audience-pleasing. I guess you were staying faithful to the material.

Perhaps too faithful. (laughs) Negatives and positives, you know. Let me return to what I said earlier about seeking inspiration from Don's original idea. When you take a filmmaker like Don, he is someone who doesn't compromise. His films have many layers, the dialogues peppered with plenty of details that give us a sense of the characters' socio-political history, cultural milieu and division of strata. Either you got them, or you didn't. He doesn't believe in spoonfeeding, whereas, in our case, I thought it would be better to make certain things more evident. I brought in Alex Joseph to enhance the screenplay with jumping-off points offered by Don's pointers and story milestones. One sequence that didn't work for some audiences but worked for us was a long conversation involving male characters. There was a G Aravindan influence there. (Ref: Chidambaram) These characters were a specimen of the people who lived in Idukki then.

If you like getting that kind of information from a scene, then great. If we had omitted 20 mins from it, it wouldn't give us a sense of the milieu. But most audiences don't want situations like that now. They want to get into it immediately. People seek more elements that thrill. The where or what doesn't concern them. Many people who liked the film liked it said they loved how we established the surroundings, culture, geography, and social elements that made up the whole society. They felt transported to that old-time aesthetic -- how we took the necessary time to show those. So now I'm thinking about where we should draw the line next time.

The visual style is distinctly minimalist. When a cinematographer like Alex is involved with the script, how were the lighting and framing choices approached?

This is where I have to mention the connection with "1956, Central Travancore" again. When we went for the location scouting, we spent two months there in that whole place. And since Don happens to be from there, he familiarised us with some areas. Naturally, there was a compulsion in me to shoot something there. The look and feel of 1956 have, in a way, influenced Chattambi -- that dark, eerie tone with an air of mistrust. We brought a Venice camera, shot full and wide frames, used a 35mm lens, and avoided the conventional close-ups. In places where the fourth wall gets broken, we shot in two ranges. A single-take conversation scene with Mythili and Chemban was a bit complex because we had to attempt 17 takes.
 

The current hot topics are problematic actors and the drug menace. How do you look at these discussions?

Since I have worked with Aashiq Abu, I've been fortunate enough to work with actors from different generations -- from Mammukka (Mammootty) to Prathap Pothen to Fahadh Faasil. These are all intensely dedicated actors from whom we can learn different lessons. And what's changed now? I think about factors like age, the film-to-digital transition, and fame. I keep thinking about how, unlike in the old days, success is given to today's generation on a platter. They haven't gone through the kind of difficulties the previous generations did. And when you consider the possibilities of digital filmmaking as opposed to celluloid, they are spared the rigour and discipline of the latter. Today there's this attitude of taking so many angles and figuring out everything later on the editing table, which is more of a content creation approach. We can't do anything about it. We should be more inclined towards shooting only what's necessary and ditching what's not. Only then we can improve the film.

And as for this intoxication thing, it happens in every creative field, not just cinema, right? It's not a new thing, either. It's become more rampant now due to the availability. There's the tendency to assume it wouldn't be a problem just because you're an actor. It is definitely a problem when someone arrives on set intoxicated and disrupts the whole process. You cannot do that when a shoot is happening. I'm not concerned with what someone does outside, but when you come to work, you must be fully present and invested. Cinema is a profession laden with heavy pressure -- lots of risks involved, and you are uncertain of the outcome. So you cannot bring your personal troubles into it. And unlike before, today, all your shenanigans can be recorded and accessible through the touch of a button. So you have to be very careful what you do. Who is it that said, "Pain is temporary; film is forever?" If you've done something good, you can always go back and look at it with immense pride.