Indian filmmaker Anubhav Sinha: 'Assi was meant to be disturbing'

Anubhav Sinha with Assi lead actor, Tapsee Pannu

Stationed at a city hotel, filmmaker Anubhav Sinha is busy recording long media interactions about his latest film, Assi. If one didn't know better, the director's enthusiasm would give the impression the film is about to release. But the Taapsee Pannu-starrer released two months ago, and began its streaming run last week. For Sinha, though, it feels like a re-release.

"The film dropped on Zee5 on Thursday night (April 17). Friday was a little quiet. So, I thought maybe OTT release is like this. But, Friday night onwards, it became viral - whether it was Instagram Reels or Whatsapps or DMs from filmmakers, friends, bichhde hue dost Mathura aur Jaipur se. So, for me, it's feeling like a re-release," he smiles.

A still from Assi featuring Pannu and Kani Kusruti

Still, two months is a long time for a maker to observe the reactions that a film received during its theatrical run, agrees Sinha. "Largely, things that are said about the film are in appreciation. There are a slim percentage of people who find Kumud's [Mishra] character, Kartik, to be an outsider to the story. But that's all that I have heard as a critique. The other observation is that the film is very disturbing, which it was intended to be," he says.

It feels the right time to register a feedback that one felt while watching the movie that works both as an investigation and an introspection centred around the rape of a school teacher (played by Kani Kusruti) in the capital. The feminist intent notwithstanding, the execution in parts feel preachy, we share with Sinha. The director replies, "I respect this observation and if I looked at the film from that viewpoint and it's not absolutely unfounded."

Sinha, consistently, has been among the voices in the industry who remain open to dialogue and dissent. So, we ask him how he views Pannu's widely-discussed Instagram post, before Assi's release, where she appealed to the audience to be louder in their support for films that aren't cut from the cloth of mainstream. "You deserve good cinema only when you value it," reads a sentence from her post. Doesn't it put an unfair amount of responsibility on the audience, which is an outsider to the rooms that decide what gets made in the industry?

"The responsibility of the audience is directly proportional to the expectation of the audience. So, Tapsee is probably coming from a place where she very regularly hears that good cinema is not made. Even though, I don't agree much with this because how do I assume my cinema is good? People will decide that. But Tapsee was probably trying to talk about real cinema, real stories. So, if the audience has expectations and demands from cinema, then it becomes your responsibility as well [to support it] because making such films is an unpopular choice. People have no idea what it takes to get these films off the ground," he says.

But another argument arises that the audience merely reacts to the visual assets of a film or to a star, if it's a star-fronted feature. If a filmmaker fails to ignite excitement among the viewers, the onus shouldn't fall on them to still pay to watch a film, howsoever well-intentioned it is. Sinha agrees that the responsibility lies more on the industry to churn out diverse stories on a regular basis, even if it fails at times, in an attempt to reach out to the audience and eventually condition it to give a chance to "unpopular films". How does one restore the balance that an Assi and Lapataa Ladies can co-exist with a Dhurandhar and a Pathaan [2023]? "Yes, the balance has become very lopsided. But the fact that you said Assi and Dhurandhar in the same breath is good enough. Around 13 lakh people went to see Assi in the theatres. If I draw an analogy, 40-50 thousand people sit in a stadium to watch a match. Now, three crore people went to Dhurandhar, but its stakes and ambition were different. Assi's ambition was not that three crore people should go to see me," he argues.

But Sinha is a producer as well and the commercial ambition of Assi will have a number attached to it. "It should have done much better than what it did for it to fall into that [success] category. But that's one of the later metrics that I look at. In the real world, it seems that the math of a film is very urgent. But it takes a backseat, not only for the filmmaker but for the whole team, including the stars and the studio. Years later, it doesn't matter how much money did Satya [1998], Chandni [1989] or Lamhe [1991] make. On an urgent basis, Lamhe was a flop. But today, it is a hit."

What remain urgent are Sinha's stories. So, we mention our recent conversation with filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, who said that stories on screen are being weaponised to push people away from each other.
"As an audience, you can choose one story over the other but all of them have the right to exist. The Kerala Story [2023] has a right to exist, and so does The Kashmir Files [2022]," Sinha says. So, where does an artiste's responsibility lie? "Artistes will make their own choices and then history will place them on shelves. It's not my job to place another artiste on a shelf or myself on another shelf. We are making films, and today there is a knee-jerk response. Twenty years later, when a smart girl writes a massive article about what happened in this era in India, we will all be judged much later. If you are fortunate, you will be judged, otherwise you will most likely be ignored by history."