Lenin Rajendran belongs to a rare breed of filmmakers who, even in this age of compromises, don't ever think of stooping to compromises. Right from the days of his first film Venal to his latest Mazha, he has been sticking on to his own ideal of filmmaking and never had compromised upon it for the sake of commercial motives. And many are the films through which this committed filmmaker has proved himself and endeared himself to the film-lovers in Kerala.His Venal, Chillu, Meenamaasaththile Sooryan, Swaathithirunaal, Puraavriththam, Vachanam, Deivaththinte Vikruthikal, Kulam, the recent Mazha etc find place among the most remembered and cherished of Malayalam films. It is indeed interesting to note that none of these films had been made following a pattern or a trend. As a filmmaker, Lenin Rajendran has even dared to experiment and had even got astonishing results.

While in Puraavriththam he had cast in the lead Om Puri opposite Revathi, in Swaathithirunaal he had tried noted Kannada actor Anant Nag in the role of Swaathithirunaal, the art and music-loving King of Travancore. In Deivaththinte Vikruthikal, based on the novel of the same name by noted writer M.Mukundan, he had succeeded in eliciting scintillating performances from Sreevidya and Raghuvaran. And in his latest Mazha, an adaptation of the story Nashtapetta Neelambarikal by Madhavikutty (Kamala Das), Lenin had cast leading stars of mainstream Malayalam Cinema like Biju Menon, Samyuktha Verma, Lal and Jagathy Sreekumar in altogether different roles and the results were indeed spectacular. Lenin Rajendran has his own very strong views about his films, films in general and filmmaking, which he was very glad to express for the sake of our readers. Excerpts:

Let's start with Mazha, your latest release. In the first place, what really inspired you to choose that particular story? Would you like to comment on the relevance of Bhadra's story in the present context?
Bhadra, the central character of the story, is not a mere character and her story is not a mere story. Look around yourselves, and you'll see a lot many Bhadras around, in almost all the houses around you. When one who cherishes in the mind romantic dreams about life is brought face to face with totally contrasting and rather bitter realities and conflict is bound to arise. Though we live in the present, the past continues to haunt the mind. In the story, both Bhadra and her husband are passionately in love with each other. But now and again things go wrong between them since they both fail to adapt themselves to the present. Bhadra says to her husband, " Yes, I loved somebody once.
I wanted to marry him, but couldn't . It still pains my heart." But this confession is a real shock to her husband. For him, it's a puzzle as to why she cannot free herself from her past and become his and only his. He doesn't care to delve into the realities behind the confession. He is controlled by the strong feeling that his wife should live as per his wishes and desires.Bhadra, on the other hand, lives in a dream world and fails to come to terms with the realities of the present. Her romantic attachment with Shivapuram village, her love for the young priest she had met there, her thought that she would have been happier if she had married him-all these things distance her from her husband. But she too doesn't realize this. And as for the relevance, I feel that this particular story has universal significance, as there were, are and would be a lot many Bhadras around us.

In Mazha you seem to have given much importance to creating sort of a visual beauty. And music also seems to be having a really important role to play. Why so?
Creating a romantic atmosphere was absolutely necessary. For Bhadra cherishes in her heart a love for poetry and has many romantic thoughts in her mind about flowers, rivers and also the rain that she wishes to see and feel. And if her mind and mental state was to be reflected effectively on the screen, visual beauty was imperative. In the second half, however the case is somewhat different. There the characters live in a totally different atmosphere. The atmosphere is one of abundance and richness. There is not much importance for beauty and romanticism. There I have used the technique of light and shadow to convey the feelings. In the first half the house itself is not given much importance, it is shown as part of nature, merging with nature.
The lighting too has been done with this view in mind. The house does not feature long shadows. But in the second half of the story, there are shadows in the house. This reflects the mental states of the characters involved. The case of music too is similar. The songs in the first half are mostly of a happy note, reflecting Bhadra's romantic dreams, her happiness etc. the songs in the second half, mostly belonging to the genre of the light music, have traces of pathos and pain in them and , as said earlier, reflect to some extent at least the mental states of the characters and create the necessary atmosphere.


Your films mostly seem to defy trends or patterns and each of your films seems to be different from the others. What would you like to say about that?
I have always tried to bring in variety in my films. I have always wished that no two of my films must seem similar. But of course in the process of execution, some similarities do creep in regarding the treatment. Someone recently told me that even after making so many different films, I am still standing where I began. On doing a quick analysis, I found that this was partly true. There are some things common in all of my films. But still I try to create variety. But of course I do not go hunting for stories with variety. It just happens that I read a lot of stories and newspaper reports etc. And from among the things that I read, some touch certain chords of my heart and I feel that here is stuff for a film. This was exactly the case with Nashtapetta Neelambarikal, which I adapted as Mazha.

Do you feel that the audience, who are mostly used to formula films, would care to accept different films such as are made by you and other such directors?
I do wish so. I have made my films in a format that should appeal and be comprehensible to the common audience. But of course certain things that are seen in the usual formula films have been avoided in my films. Take the case of Mazha. In the scene when Bhadra's husband dies, I've chosen not to show Bhadra's face or her reaction. I was insistent that I should not show it.Of course many people suggested to me after seeing the film that I should have shown her face and her reaction. But I feel that it was only because they are all used to seeing women crying on the screen in such scenes. Why at all should they insist that I show it when I am not at all interested in showing it. Why not leave it to your imagination.
That's what I thought. I could have easily made the actress cry in that particular scene for the sake of the audience, and I may have lost some audience on account of not showing her crying. But no, I won't do it. I have certain concepts of mine and I am not ready to compromise. As a filmmaker shouldn't I be given the freedom to shot a scene as I wish to? Or else why at all should I be a filmmaker.

You have made many women-oriented films. What, in your opinion, is the status of women in our films?
Mostly in our films women are used as sort of decorative pieces, simply to show off. In all of my films I have given due importance to the female characters. Even in Meenamaasathile Sooryan, a story of some revolutionaries, I chose to give prominence to a female character, which of course was different since people often tend to see revolution as having no association at all with love and romance. Of course I don't subscribe to that view.A person who chooses the path of revolution does so only because he is romantic at heart. And so dissociating love and romance with revolution and revolutionaries would mean that I am being dishonest with my profession and hence I chose to give due importance to the women character in that particular story too.
In Venal I had given importance to the female character whereas Chillu was basically a women-oriented story. In Puraavriththam, when I told the story of the first revolutionary of a particular place who questioned the authority and the atrocities of the feudal lords, I told the story of a woman who stood by him all through his revolutionary outbursts.In Swaathithirunaal too I could not avoid the female characters especially Swaathithirunaal's wife and also the dancer Sugandhavalli who had their sway upon the life of King Swaathithirunaal. This is the case with my other films too. No, I am not at all bent on making films with feministic subjects. It just happens that when I make a film I can't avoid the feminine characters. Not seeing them means I am not seeing life. So I give due importance to the women characters in my films.

In your films you have cast many of the popular actors of mainstream cinema in different roles. You have cast action hero Suresh Gopi in the role of the mad Bhraanthan Chaannaan in Kulam and in Mazha, you had attempted a sort of stripped Biju Menon of all his glamour image. You do all this intentionally as a director who is opposing the so-called star concept?
No, not at all. This is something that happens in the course of the process of casting. The availability of the stars and the demands of characterization are the main factors that lead to such things. As regards Kulam, I had never thought of casting Suresh Gopi in the role of Bhraanthan Chaannaan. It was quite coincidental. It was Suresh Gopi himself who expressed his wish to do a role in the film.And that eventually lead to him being cast in that particular role. He had read the novel Maarthaandaverma, on which the film was based and had actually expressed his desire to do the role of Ananthapadmanabhan. But when I told him that in my film Ananthapadmanabhan would not have that much importance, he asked me if he could do the role of Bhraanthan Chaannaan. That was how it all happened.
Of course it helped me very much as regards the commercial aspect of the film. But I did not make a film for Suresh Gopi, as his fans may have very well understood. Same was the case with Mazha . Biju Menon was cast just because he happened to be available and because he suited the role. And I never deliberately cast actors defying their popular image. It all just happens.

Many of the bold filmmakers of your genre have gone into sort of hibernation these days . Only once in a blue moon does a film like Mazha come out. In this context what, in your view, is the future of cinema?
Good and meaningful cinema had always had to face such crises, not only in India but all over the world. Films are commercial products these days and are released through what are commercial centres. And it is a truth that good, meaningful films usually seem to lack commercial viability and hence the people behind these commercial centres hesitate to take up good films for distribution. And hence the crisis occur.But it is a undeniable fact that, though the gap between mainstream commercial cinema and offbeat, meaningful ones has widened, good films continue to be made. This is because committed filmmakers, being sensitive artists, cannot help being sensitive to life and the anxieties that such filmmakers undergo lead to the making of such good, meaningful films which will continue for ever.