Ramchandra PN, Director

My cameraman was from Delhi; his two assistants from Orissa and Maharashtra. Both my editor and my art director were Bengalis. The sound designer was from Jharkhand and out of the two line producers; one was a Gujrathi and the other, a Rajasthani. And it was a Kannada film that we were making!

Well, true filmmaking has a universal language - we all know that. But making a Kannada film based out of Mumbai with non Kannada speaking unit meant that one's communication had to be right. For starters, the script had to be in two languages - in Kannada for the actors and in English for the crew members. It increased my clerical job for my chief assistant could just understand and speak Kannada, but not read or write it. His assistant fleetingly grasped Kannada, but could not read, write or speak it well.

My earlier film was in Tulu language, in the digital format and was in a much smaller scale. Though the key crew members were non Tulu speaking, they were few in number. Therefore the execution of the film was simpler. But this film was being shot on celluloid, that too in the cinemascope format. The number of actors too was large. The increase in the scale brought with it, its own production logistics. The film was to be shot in a village near Dharwad in Karnataka, South India. The budget was limited and therefore hiring out Kannada language speaking crew and the cast from the Kannada language film Industry in Bangalore was out of the question.

The two screen tests in Dharwad in which more than hundred local artists were auditioned; and a three day workshop with the short listed kids set up the tone. By the third day of the shoot, the kids had become one take artists and by the tenth day they had begun to pester my chocolate carrying chief assistant, "Do we really need rehearsals? Why don't we go for a take?"

I found that the handling of the adult actors was tougher than handling the children. It was easy to set free mental blocks of the younger ones. Maybe a workshop with the adults too would have helped, not that they are any bad in the film - but it would have certainly made my life easier if I had spent some extra time with them before the shoot.

An auto rickshaw driver, an ambulance driver, a grocery shop owner, a'paan' vendor, a bill-board painter, a radio newsreader, a computer graphic artist, an environmental activist, a teacher, a traditional healer, a liquor shop manager - these were my actors. Most of them were amateur theater artists, but were nervous because they were facing the camera for the first time in their lives, but it is to their credit that they did not let this reflect on the screen.

In fact, if there was anyone who was nervous during the shoot, it was me. I was shooting a feature film on 'celluloid' for the first time in my life. At the film school (FTII), we were ground with the process of making a 'celluloid' feature film. After eighteen years of graduation, I was re-living the nuances of these processes and I should confess that some of these processes looked brand new to me. So, along with my actors, I too was a first timer in many ways - like I was the executive producer for a feature film the first time in my life.

Fortunately for me, I had two line producers lined up to take over the nitty-gritty's of the deals made, the budget and the other daily basis production logistics. So, I was not really counting the number of cooks we had replaced in our eighteen days of shoot, or finding out how many unit members fell sick and at what interval, or enquiring how much diesel the light generator had gulped or getting concerned about crew members getting their bed tea at five in the morning. But I do wish that I had the necessary skills to simultaneously handle both the production details as well as the creative aspects of the making of a feature film. There would be a first time, maybe the next time. The learning process never ends. To treat every film you make as your 'diploma film' or your first film - is what is exciting.

Creatively, this film is treated differently from that of my earlier film Suddha (The Cleansing Rites). The pace and the mood are different. The cinemascope format has made me do away with the close up. If we can include another character with a slight track in, a slight track out, a small pan or a tiny tilt, so be it. Then why need excessive cuts? The subject of the film is that the children have a conversation with the adults regarding issues around their village that they think are important to them. So, obviously there are dialogues all over the place. Initially, there was a certain amount of nervousness among the script approvers in the production organization as well some others in my own unit about a film loosing its cinematic values if it has many dialogues in it. I am sure, after seeing the married print the opinion must have changed - for I don't believe that a film would be 'more cinematic' if there are less dialogues in it. I trusted that everyone connected with the film would eventually be enrolled to this point of view.

Trust was the key word. The making of this film for me was an exercise in building up my trust. Will the actors that I have selected, deliver? Is the money that has been handed to the money handlers safe? Is the amount of time allotted to the setting up of a particular shot worthwhile? Can the production limitations be converted into creative solutions? However hard it might seem, it does at times pay to trust oneself to trust others - even under extreme provocative conditions or situations that apparently look to be in the no trust zone.

The film that has finally shaped up is more or less similar to what I had in my mind when I had first conceived it and this is a pleasant rarity for me!

Putaani Party won the National award for the best children's film of 2009. The film is shot in Dharwad, Karnataka and director Ramchandra PN has used mostly local actors. He was inspired by various initiatives to empower children through self governance, in Kundapur, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Brazil. He believes that whether one wants or not, a child is made aware of politics at a very young age. What is important is the kind of politics they are exposed to. It is important to ensure that governance reaches grassroots levels. And his film deals with one such structure that involves children.

Anil, Geetha, Chandru, Gaarya and Hussain are members of the Makkala Samiti in their village, guided by their teacher, Neelu. The film begins with Anil calling Gaarya to go to school. But Gaarya usually misses school because his house receives water only late in the day when both his parents are at work, so he has to stay back to fill the water. The Makkala Samiti takes this matter to the Village Sarpanch who helps them to address the Water Board and solve Gaarya's problem. The Makkala Samiti gains strength from this victory.

The narrative unfolds such that we too learn along with the children how rural self governance bodies work and how the children must best present their issues so that they are heard. Gaarya is the poorest boy among the children and vulnerable as his father is an alcoholic. But he is the one who makes the other children aware of the real issues that need to be addressed. Early on in the film, Anil tells him that they will all contribute the money for Gaarya to be able to join the school picnic. Gaarya replies, "What will I do at the picnic? Can you get together and stop my father from drinking?" This prompts Anil, Geetha and Chandru to take up the cause of rampant alcoholism in the village.

Along the way they learn many difficult things. Anil learns that his own father runs an illegal liquor unit, Geetha learns that her mother as the only woman member of the Panchayat is not above using the Makkala Samiti to gain publicity for herself. The children also realize that the adult politicians would be happy for the children to be occupied with window dressing issues like a cleanliness drive, but do not really want them to disturb the status quo. The children learn that if someone rocks the system, they can be removed, as their supportive teacher is politely asked to resign. The trick is for them to retain their own idealism and belief that things can change and yet be clever enough to beat their elders at their own game.

The cinematography of the film is controlled and serene. The village is exposed through beautiful long shots, pans and tracks. The location comes through in all the shots of the film albeit not in a forced way. Most scenes open with a precedence of dialogue over visual, allowing us to see the setting before we move into the scene. This mise-en-scene in a strange way not only mirrors the languid pace of village life but also the slow revelations of how village politics works, increasing the sense of intrigue. This keeps us hooked and does not let the narrative become simplistic.

The humor in the film too is subtle, and comes through within the scene itself. The eagerness of the adult politicians to be photographed, the little child imitating the drunkard as he tries to get up from the street, the children scared to approach an inspector, the children watching as Anil's father is about to spit on the road, the children's greed for bhajiyas at every meeting, these are small moments which may easily be missed but which add layers to the film's narrative.

A political film for children is certainly a change from the fantasies or adventures generally considered as kid-viewing. The film offers no easy solutions, but definitely depicts child power, and how they can use it effectively. Despite touching on several issues that affect children and being open ended, the film does not leave you with despair, but is inspirational.