‘People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy,’ said Bruce Wayne before he turned Batman. And just like his caped superhero, Christopher Nolan swooped down on Mumbai to dispel the dark clouds looming over celluloid. In an exclusive chat with Mohua Das, the filmmaker, who has been crusading to save film in the time of digital, spoke about going against industry trends and reconciling the past with the future
Mohua Das (THE TIMES OF INDIA; April 1, 2018)

Why was it important for you to make India your next destination after Los Angeles, London and Mexico in your crusade to bring back celluloid?
India has the largest film industry in the world. People care about movies here more than anywhere else. In this conversation we’ve been having to promote the use of film, India has to be a very, very important part, if this movement has to take root. And I will say that I think this is the most enthusiastic response we’ve had.

You’ve shot Dunkirk on film, and there is also Quentin Tarantino who uses analog. But India is yet to see the analog resurgence that Hollywood is witnessing. Were there certain fears or myths that surfaced from your roundtable with the Indian film fraternity?
A lot of the point of these events is to dispel myths. We’ve spent the last few years patiently explaining that film is here to stay, that it’s a wonderful medium. There’s a myth that the infrastructure to shoot on film has disappeared. But you drill down on that a bit and ask where has it gone? Did it vapourise? It was here just a few years ago. Our message is to try and give filmmakers a vocabulary and the power that if they feel they can ask to shoot on film. That it’s not inappropriate in today’s day and age. It’s an artistic choice.

Make it, go for it and insist on it if that is what you want. People like Tacita (Dean, visual artist and ally in his film campaign) who is a very established artist and myself, a very established filmmaker — we have the power to insist on what we want and we try to spread that around, and encourage other people to do that. It doesn’t seem like an irresponsible choice or a crazy thing to say. We’re asserting a basic creative right. And we try to normalise that dialogue because no one really dares to tell Tacita whether to paint in watercolour or oil and they shouldn’t be telling a filmmaker whether they should shoot on film. That should be the creative person’s choice. We have to get rid of this notion that digital is a pragmatic or responsible choice. Films aren’t about pragmatism. They’re about dreams and storytelling. We need to be free to express ourselves in whatever way is most exciting.

You’ve championed film against industry trends. How do you marry creative license with commercial constraints? Do you have to struggle to convince the studios each time or does being a brand name help?
It’s gotten easier for me over the years. But the truth is, making any film in any way is extremely difficult, particularly when you’re starting out. There are all kind of hurdles you have to overcome and so shooting on film is just a part of that. If it’s the right thing to do for a project, then it’s worth fighting for. It’s too fundamental to why you want to be a filmmaker as opposed to a TV show maker or a painter. My narrative features the moving image and the way I shoot that image is its fundamental essence. I won’t compromise on it. But the idea that, ‘oh, I have the power to do it, therefore, I can do it and that makes a special case’ is not valid.

Truth is, what I’m doing with my films is something anybody could be doing and there are very small filmmakers working on celluloid. Like Sean Baker who made The Florida Project. Very inexpensive, and working on another end of the spectrum. Film is timeless, and there to be used for storytelling.

You’ve said in the past that you like to use the best technology and look at the future. At the same time you’re passionate about the aesthetic and historical possibilities of a form past its heyday. How do you reconcile the past with the future? Is this a way of life for you?
It’s definitely a way of life, and my point is the timelessness of the medium. It’s like clay. When you sculpt from clay, it doesn’t have a heyday. It just is! It effortlessly reconciles the past with the present and future. It’s a medium that can be used in any way you want, forever. That’s what film is. It’s got 100 years of history.