Child8217;s play

Surely it wasn8217;t easy finding the perfect boy for the central role8230;

First, we auditioned hundreds of kids from Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Mumbai, and zeroed down to about 170 children. Once we began looking for the correct age, the correct face and the right attitude, we8217;d narrowed them down to 20. That done, we put this group to a one-week workshop where we observed them closely. At the end of the week, we selected seven. These chosen few went through a three-day workshop, from which we ulimately selected two children. We chose Yash Pathak for the role, and the other child was brought in as a stand-by. Now, in retrospect, I remember thinking that Yash was exactly what I wanted when I first saw him in my office before the auditions. But I8217;m glad we confirmed him only after all those tests.

Most film-makers complain that children are difficult to work with8230;

In their expressions, kids are much more natural than adults because they don8217;t try to act. When they do, there8217;s no co-ordination between their body language and their face. This child, Yash, is a complete non-actor, so it wasn8217;t very difficult to work with him. Besides, I8217;ve worked with kids before, so I know that you have to give them a lot of footage. You can8217;t restrict them to just one take. You have to develop your own mechanisms for getting the correct expressions. You have to talk to the parents, recognise the moods of the child, look for certain signals and use all of them to your advantage. I remember while working with Yash, everytime I needed him to look sad, I8217;d tell him the story of the rabbit who had to send his brother to the lion, and Yash would invariably give me the right expression. With children, you have to know what works and what doesn8217;t.

Did you have to be particularly patient while working with the child?

You have to be as patient as you can, but that8217;s the case with any actor, really. Actors get distracted very easily, but you as the director are continuously in the same mood. Most of the time one does tend to get frustrated when the actor comes back from a break and has forgotten the mood of the last scene.

Most of your films, by virtue of their subject and theme, have had limited appeal. Is Rahul a more mainstream effort?

No cinema is ever made with the intention of having a limited appeal. Primarily, I think it is the language of cinema that is largely responsible for its appeal. The more proficient you are with the grammar of popular cinema, the more likely your film is to reach out to larger audiences. Rahul, in my opinion, being the story of a child and told in a simple format, will be of interest to all kinds of audiences.

Subhash Ghai8217;s Mukta Arts presents this film. What is the exact arrangement?

I have directed the film, and it is produced under the Prakash Jha Productions banner. However, it8217;s being done for Mukta Arts. The entire creative control lay with me. I must say it was nice working with Mr Ghai, who8217;s always been very helpful and contributing.

Mrityudand was very well received by critics and audiences. But it was a box-office washout. Did that disappoint you?

Success is relative. I feel fulfilled with Mrityudand. The best part is that that the film was accepted by both normal viewers, and also the so-called elite circles. It opened at the London Film Festival where some 800 people from across the world identified with the film and applauded it.

And what do you think went wrong with Dil Kya Kare?

We thought people are permissive enough to find complex man-woman relationships acceptible, but I guess we were wrong. In terms of mass psychology, it doesn8217;t work. People don8217;t reject such stories when they see them on television because that8217;s basically a more personal medium, whereas film is something you see in a theatre along with hundreds of others.