The Making Of
|
|||||||||
Director Nishtha Jain talks about her personal relationship with Lakshmi, the creative challenges of self-representation and her own evolving attitudes towards caste and privilege.
What led you to make this film?
Lakshmi had been working for me for four years as a part-time domestic worker before I thought about making this film. She worked in my home for about an hour every day and had a few other jobs of this sort, all in apartments in the residential colony where I lived in Mumbai. She was 16 when she first came to my house to work. Dignified—that’s one of the first things I remember about her; she had bright eyes in a dark face. She was a wiry bundle of energy: all smiles, beautiful. We used to talk very often, so I had a good idea about her life and struggle. Her nonconformist quality always amazed and inspired me.
But things were changing. She had just turned 20 and I noticed that her earlier brightness was gone. If this was her life at 20, what would her future be like? I began to feel it would be interesting to make a film about Lakshmi—to document her life and struggles over the next few years. As I began to look at her closely I couldn’t help thinking about my role in her life. My relationship with Lakshmi was friendly, even warm, but there was no denying the social and economic divide. We inhabited very separate worlds.
This led me to the larger question of relationships between employers and domestic workers. In India “servants” are around us all the time and yet, in a sense, invisible. They do backbreaking labor and are routinely made to do extra chores for no extra pay. Their earnings are paltry, with no unions to determine fair pay or laws to enforce minimum wages. They do not even have weeks off, yet if they fail to show up for work due to ill health or other reasons, they are berated. When they ask for leave, they are interrogated closely without respect for their privacy. That’s how it is, more often than not.
Most employers, knowingly or inadvertently, tend to treat domestic workers as if they are inferior or less entitled beings. Some of us have questioned this attitude in ourselves, and have consciously learned to be more democratic, but class/caste notions are deeply rooted in our culture and ingrained in all of us. It’s common enough to come across a liberal person expounding passionate socialistic views but completely oblivious to his/her underpaid servant working in the same room or sweeping the floor underfoot. That liberal could as well be me! It was this realization that made me decide to change the focus of the film from a film about Lakshmi to a film about our relationship with each other—to reflect on the whole gamut of attitudes and issues between servants and employers.
What were some of the challenges you faced in making this film?
When I first asked Lakshmi if I could film with her she readily agreed. She had a strong sense of her own struggle and wanted to share her story with others. After all, she had had a tough life working since the age of 10. It helped also that she wasn’t camera-shy.
So my early days of filming seemed to be going well, but then I noticed that she was sometimes performing for the camera. For example, she usually sat on the floor because she was expected to do so in other homes where she worked. I had told her several times not to, but she didn’t listen to me. But during the filming, I noticed her sitting on a chair or stool whenever the camera was on and slinking back to the floor as soon as the camera was turned off.
Also, when I interviewed her, I would find her saying things she felt I would want to hear and she would share with me a lot more when the camera was off. So I was quite unhappy with the way the filming was going and was ready to write off the material and begin again. I wanted to capture everyday life and its nuances. So I began to film with her quite often when she came to work. She got bored and it took a bit of explaining to her that I wanted to show a slice of real life. But even then, each time I filmed with her, I would need to get her permission. Sometimes she would tell me not to film because she wasn’t in the mood or she would simply refuse if she didn’t want something to be filmed. This made filming difficult, but I liked this fact because in a way, she was taking on a kind of collaborative role—gently controlling and directing the filming. This was very important given that the very nature of the film itself was vexed. Being in a position of power, both as her employer and as filmmaker, there was the danger that the film could become or appear exploitative.
At the very outset, it was clear that I would not be an observer in this film. I was also one of the protagonists, which raised the additional problem of self-representation. How do I film myself, especially as the director and the camera person? So I decided to bring in cinematographer Deepti Gupta. We had a long working relationship and are also close friends. We shot together for some time, despite the fact that Deepti kept questioning her role in this personal film and insisted that I film myself. Before we could resolve this issue the big crisis happened. Lakshmi suddenly disappeared without informing her family or me. I thought my film was over but something told me that she would return and I should wait and not give up. She did return after a couple of months and the film took a new turn!
Deepti had to drop out of the shoot because of other commitments. I filmed for a while myself, but decided to bring in another cameraperson because it was important for me also to be filmed. This time it was Rakesh Haridas, a young film school graduate.
Despite my earlier apprehensions about bringing in a cameraman, to my surprise Rakesh fit in very well, especially because he spoke Tamil, Lakshmi’s own mother tongue. He was easily accepted by Lakshmi, her father’s family and her husband, Krishna. He was undemanding, unassuming and worked quietly in available light conditions, which were quite poor usually. He brought in another dimension to the filming, which I would have lost because I didn't understand the language Lakshmi spoke at home.
An important question was also that of self-representation. How do I show myself? What of my life is relevant to the film? I tried to put more of myself in the film, but it didn’t seem to fit in. I come in obliquely, mainly as a voice or a half-photo. Maybe this works because this “I” can be easily replaced by the “me” of the viewer, making the experience universal. Some viewers ask, “Your film’s called LAKSHMI AND ME, but it’s mainly about Lakshmi. Why don’t we get to know more about you?” And I say, “While it is also about me as Lakshmi’s employer and as the person making this film, the details of my life per se are not pertinent here, beyond a point. It’s Lakshmi’s life and struggle that are the motivating force.”
How did you gain the trust of the subjects in your film?
It helped that I had a long relationship with Lakshmi. We were already quite friendly and occasionally chatted. Lakshmi was positively disposed towards me as I was a “good,” helpful and undemanding employer.
What parallels can Americans draw from your film that they might relate to?
LAKSHMI AND ME is a universal story about social hierarchy and class divide. The film also is a strong pointer to the existing global caste system. After all, who are the domestic workers in the first world? More often than not they are the lowly paid poor immigrants—Mexicans, Indians, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, Indonesians, Africans. International refugees waiting for their immigration papers often serve as cheap domestic labor.
Some people even see the film as a love story—between Lakshmi and me, Lakshmi and Krishna and Lakshmi and her family.
Did your feelings for Lakshmi change over the course of filming? If so, how?
Making this film definitely changed my attitude to Lakshmi, even though my attitude was already quite friendly to begin with. I was what you’d call a “benevolent” employer. But it was purely a professional relationship. There’s no problem with that; just that the whole society is designed in a manner that you would never have much to do socially, say, with your “cleaning lady” or your driver. A lot of us don’t believe in or practice caste, but it still creeps, in insidious ways, into our interactions. My film really deals with these subtle indicators—the tones, gestures, language and behavior that flow between people from different castes/classes. This film served as a mirror that shows up my own attitudes, which were not so obvious to me. Lakshmi and I share a more equal footing today. I‘m not her patron, nor is she my servant. As it happens she doesn’t work for me anymore since I don’t live in the same locality now, but if she did, that’s how it would be. Having seen her life so closely, I understand her needs and compulsions better, but I insist on her fighting for her rights—to negotiate for more leave and better wages and not to depend on the benevolence of her employers.
What would you have liked to include in your film that didn't make the cut?
I would have liked to have the film end with Lakshmi turning the camera on me or questioning me, but that didn’t happen as Lakshmi’s life was too troubled at the time. She was dealing with far more important things like her troubled marriage and her estranged relationship with her family.
Tell us about a scene in the film that especially moved or resonated with you.
One of my favorite scenes in the film takes place on the terrace soon after Lakshmi returns, after her marriage with Krishna. They had run away to get married as her family was opposed to their marriage. That’s quite unusual to begin with.
In the scene, we are filming with her on the terrace and she’s looking at the road below, waiting for Krishna to appear. When she sees him, she lights up and excitedly waves at him. She’s very much in love with him and talks about how they met and how she was the one to approach him. In fact, Lakshmi is not diffident like most girls tend to be; I found this aspect of Lakshmi most inspiring.
Were there any technical challenges you faced while shooting, and if so, how did you resolve them?
I had big trouble with sound as most locations in India are extremely noisy. But the problem was exaggerated because oftentimes I was filming alone and using just the camera microphone. What made the problem worse was that the camera microphone was omni-directional stereo and only good for recording ambience and not dialogue. So my sound designer Niraj Gera had to work really hard with the sound. But this problem also led us to find creative solutions. Niraj also used a lot of silences at unexpected moments, jerking the viewer into sudden attention and intensifying the impact of the shots.
What has the audience response been so far? Have the people featured in the film seen it, and if so, what did they think?
The audience response has been tremendous. The film has won several international awards and has been screened in over 50 international film festivals, often to packed houses. Most people respond well to Lakshmi and are concerned about her wellbeing. They like the fact that the film is personal and political at the same time. They appreciate the layered quality of the film as it at once deals with class, caste, gender and political struggle.
But I must add that the most surprising reception has come from school children in India. I showed the film to a class of 200 odd students ranging from the 4th to 10th grades; I was apprehensive and expecting a restless audience. In India, we are not used to watching documentaries—or when we do they are boring more often than not. But much to my surprise, no one walked out and I had one of the longest Q&A sessions ever! I had to hear stories about a hundred other Lakshmis. I realized then that this is a story everyone from middle class and rich India can identify with because it’s all happening in their homes too.
Lakshmi and her sisters have seen the film. Lakshmi said, “It really makes you think about the relationship between maids and employers.” Also, when write-ups started appearing in the local press with photos of her, she’d come and say her other employers were curious to watch the film; it all seemed to give her a lot of confidence and made her happy. She is also more assertive now in her dealings with employers, and has a greater sense of what’s fair and what isn’t. Mrs. Vaswani, the other employer seen in the film, also appreciated the film very much and, at the public screening she attended, very spiritedly answered questions about her employing “child labor” and being patronizing.
The independent film business is a difficult one. What keeps you motivated?
It’s a tough and risky business, especially in India where there’s not much indigenous funding or screening avenues. Even Canadian filmmaker Peter Wintonick has gone to the extent of saying that being a documentary filmmaker is like taking a vow of poverty. I try to survive on the money I earn through making my films. But the budgets are usually paltry, so I end up doing a lot of work myself—like editing, post-production and distribution. Being an independent filmmaker also means that you have to be technically savvy and be ready to get your hands dirty with any aspect of filmmaking or post production. Not always a wise thing to be doing, this lowers efficiency and drains your energy when you’re grappling with conceptual and creative issues. But the benefit is that you don’t have to make unwanted work to survive—it’s a small price to pay for freedom.
In any case, the process of making films is so absorbing, especially as an independent filmmaker, where we can choose our own subjects and evolve our own forms. Each new project raises its own creative challenges. Even fundraising is a creative job! So all of it keeps me completely occupied. Only when I have finished a film, like now, do I begin to worry about survival, but I hope this phase won’t last too long as I already have new ideas and am looking for funds.
Why did you choose to present your film on public television?
I really like the programming on PBS. I lived in Canada for a couple of years off and on and viewed several good documentaries on PBS. So when I got this opportunity to broadcast on PBS I was excited to be part of good programming, which has such a large reach.
Learn more about the filmmakers >>
Get the DVD >>
