SIDDHARTH DIWAN is a well-known name in the ad-film circuit, but his 5-year old filmography already reads like a cinematographer’s bucket list. From Vasan Bala’s ‘Peddlers’ to Shlok Sharma’s ‘Haraamkhor’ and Kanu Behl’s ‘Titli’, his lensing has shaped the moods and themes of alienation, secrecy and darkness almost as much the films’ stark screenplays and remarkable directors.
And, in many ways, he has only just begun.

Here, CHINTAN BHATT speaks to him about his rise to fame, his systematic hard-working journey, set experiences, thoughts on tastes and sensibilities.

diwan

A bit about your background? How did you decide to become a cinematographer?

SD: I am from Delhi. I come from a business background. Everyone in my family is into business. I grew up in a middle-class Delhi joint family, and films were discussed nowhere in the family. But I was always a film buff. As a kid I remember going to the video library; I used to watch everything that would be available. Sometimes, I didn’t even know what I’d be watching. There was no one to tell me to watch this or that. In college, I did Mass Communication and it was there that I got mildly introduced to Kieslowski and Polanksi, those kind of filmmakers. This was the beginning of my introduction into the filmmaking and crafting part. Before that, I was just more of a film buff. And honestly I didn’t know who did what – that there is a cinematographer, editor and other parts of a whole. You just know that there is a director who makes a film and I was interested in that. Only when I started watching these films and I started reading about stuff, I realized that things I am interested in are not quite a director’s job. Earlier I thought I wanted to direct. That I also want to make films. But as I got more into it, I understood that there is a cinematographer who actually constructs the visual part of films – designing, movement, the lighting, creating the mood in spaces. That is how I got more interested in the photography part of it.

So you formally studied cinematography?

SD: I did study in a film school – the Satyajit Ray Film Institute in Kolkata. But I went there much later. As part of my under grad course, we were asked what we wanted to do – you know, whether I want to edit, shoot, and of course, I was more interested in the camera. By then I was certain about where my interests were. So I started to do a lot of still photography and street photography. And at that time in Delhi, there was not much happening in the fiction line. There were lot of people doing documentaries. So I went to intern at a wildlife production house. I started shooting wildlife films. This was when I had just come out of school. So I had just joined college after school and within a couple of months, I joined this production house. For the next two years, I was just shooting a lot of wildlife films. And then there was this one Italian film being shot in Delhi, which is where I joined as a production assistant. That’s the first time I actually became part of a big film where there were different departments. It was a big budget comedy film and I saw what different departments were doing. There was a camera department, sound department etc. So I met a lot of people over there who were working in Bombay, and I told them I was interested in the camera department. So they told me to get in touch with them whenever I came to Bombay. I did that, and worked for almost four years in Bombay.  I worked as a light boy, then I worked as a grip, then I worked as a third assistant, second assistant and so on. I did that for four years, and after that I went to film school in 2007.

You worked on Trishna, Lunchbox and even Kahaani early on as an additional cinematographer. How did that happen?

SD: So when I went to film school for two years, I didn’t do any professional work. It was a conscious decision. I just wanted to concentrate on my own craft. I was reading a lot, I was practicing and exploring cinematography. I read all about techniques and different artists, and I was following other people’s work to understand what is it that I like in order to identify my own style. That is when I bumped into people and got these jobs. Like for Kahaani, someone had recommended my name to shoot all the Durga Pooja bits. It was a great time because I was not shooting independently, but at the same time I was a unit of my own. I was not working with the main unit; I was shooting my own stuff. In the beginning there is a little nervousness being a student, so these films gave me a boost and the confidence to do stuff on my own. And I bumped into Michael Winterbottom (director of Trishna) almost on the road, and I told him I am a big fan of your work. When he asked me what I did, I told him I am a wannabe cinematographer. He asked me if I am from film school; I told him I was in the second year. He then asked if I knew how to shoot with digital cameras, and I said yes. He then asked me if I wanted to shoot second unit for them. Of course, I took it on immediately. It was a good experience; I got to shoot for films which turned out to be great.

peddlers

How did PEDDLERS happen?

SD: During a little break from the Institute, I came to Bombay. And I actually met Vasan socially. We just started talking and we talked about films, and it went on to him discussing ideas of his, the kinds of films he wants to make. I really liked what he was telling me. Around that time, he decided to make a short film, so I shot that. Anurag (Kashyap) sir saw it and he asked me to shoot his short films. I shot some short films for him, and then I shot another short film for Vasan. So I became like that go-to guy when they wanted someone cheap and fast. And also Vasan had seen a lot of my institute work and he really liked that. Vasan and I were hanging out a lot, talking about films and we figured that we had very similar ideas about the kind of films we want to make. I was fresh out of institute and I was lucky that I got to do a film which thematically was exploring something precisely I wanted to be a part of. I didn’t care if it’s a low budget film; I just liked the people, I liked Vasan and his intentions and we just went ahead. There was no money, the production budget was 50 lakhs or something. It was very scary because on your first film, you are not going to get anything. I was getting a new set, different lenses and cameras everyday. Because they had such bad budgets, we had to work with whatever the rental house would be able to provide. I used to tell Vasan that because of this film either my career will get screwed and nobody will want to work with me or this can take us places. There were only two extremes possible. And any extreme I will accept, because those are choices you make. But luckily, it worked. It didn’t get a release, but whoever saw it liked it and whatever happened after that was bonus for us.

But Peddlers not releasing must have been frustrating. 

SD: Right now when I think of it I feel slightly disappointed because there is always this wish as an artiste that your work releases in your own country. In front of the people who know you, and you hope that audiences here watch it. Still, I am very happy with wherever it went. Because while making it, we were too passionate and energetic and we were so innocent – totally undiluted in a way. We were not thinking and had no idea about the results; we were just making the film. And then it went to Cannes and Toronto. It was a big thing; I was just a film school pass out, and we made a film and it was a great film. I don’t feel sad about it now. I think whatever I have got is great, and if it releases sometime, then even better. Same thing happened with every other film I did. I made the film, and honestly releasing it is not my expertise; all I can do is shoot the film and make it well.

Even after Peddlers, you made some risky choices. Was it deliberate or because you liked what you read?

SD: I liked the stories, I liked the people I worked with and that’s all that matters to me. I have never looked at banners, but of course gradually as I have done more films, somewhere you feel that when you have put so much into the film it should be seen by people. But at the same time it shouldn’t be at the cost of something I am not happy about. I won’t do a film just because it will be released. I still want to do a film that is good, and after that, whatever happens, happens.

haramkhor

You shot Shlok Sharma’s Haraamkhor after Peddlers. It had some child actors too. How does the relationship of DOPs with child actors work? 

SD: The nature of Haraamkhor was very experimental for me in the way we approached it. I am used to getting a script, reading it a couple of times, reading with the director; there is a kind of soft prep we go through and then we go through a more technical prep. Haraamkhor was a very impromptu, on-the-go kind of film. I read the film when I was on the flight back from Cannes. The day I landed, we did the camera test and the next day we left for the recce. In four days we were back, I saw the camera test, and in another two days we went for the shoot. In 15 days, we finished the film. Again it was very scary because we had child actors, we had a feature to do only in 15 days. There was literally no budget again. So for me as a cinematographer it was very scary to be a part of that film because it could eventually turn out to be a disastrous experience. But I just went with it. I heard it is releasing soon. That is a good thing; whether people like it or don’t like it is something else altogether. For me it was a different process. I was thrown into very uncomfortable positions, but I came out with a lot more confidence that I could pull it off. The kids in the film were very very sharp – especially the Mintu character; he had done a feature film before that. Those guys were sharp and improvising a lot. A lot of these things we were shooting and planning and deciding on the go, so I would always light up the spaces. Nawaz and Shweta would really improvise, and at the same time these kids were unpredictable. So I lit the spaces in a way that I don’t restrict them, and they could move around the way they wanted to. I didn’t want to tell them to hit this mark and catch this light. I let the light fall off in a natural way. That was the only way we could execute a film like this.

Haraamkhor is also a visually distinct film of yours, given the the juxtaposition of open spaces and secret worlds. There is one scene on the stark mountain top windmill area – which are these long, distant shots where Nawazuddin and Shweta Tripathi’s characters (married teacher and schoolgirl) get intimate. 

SD: In that scene for example, we just let them be. They had their own ideas of how they are going to perform the scene. And in that moment I would just choose a lense, thinking of how I would want to look at them. Because what they were doing was something that walks on a very tight rope. It isn’t right somewhere, but at the same time you are expecting something of a love story. So there is that little bit of a disturbing element to it – where you are judging them, but at the same time you don’t want to judge these people. In that kind of scene, I had put in some distance consciously, and put in a lense to see them from a distance. And I remember when we were shooting that scene, we did one take, and the experience was disturbing as I looked through the viewfinder. And even for the actors, for Shweta also, who plays a schoolgirl having a physical affair with her older teacher, believing in that world for them was very disturbing. Fortunately, one take was all we needed.

That was just one take?

SD: Just one take and one shot. I didn’t do a punch-in because it didn’t feel right. I didn’t want to see it up close. It is something which is a little private, and I don’t want to jump that line. I want to see it from a distance. And seeing it in a wide shot made it even more disturbing. It was also a thing happening in the world. So I finished that shot and then as usual Shlok would look at me. We both had goosebumps and I told him “Listen, we are done.” He agreed.

After Haraamkhor, you shot Queen? Little more money?

SD: Not really. (laughs) In Queen, everything required was there. We were never trying to create a world which was very exuberant and exaggerated. It was not that. It was still a very medium-budget film.

A still from 'Titli'

A still from ‘Titli’

But had you by then discovered your style? I was watching Titli recently and the natural lighting and the use of those spaces and the sense of claustrophobia you talk about comes out very strongly.

SD: I am still not aware of my style. People tell me about it, but I am not aware. I don’t know, yaar. I do what I feel is right for that script. They were also exploring those themes. Like Peddlers, Haraamkhor and Titli were all in a way a pessimistic world view where things are only going to get worse; there is no bright light behind the door, there is no hope. Queen was different, so that was treated differently. But thematically, Peddlers was about urban alienation and honestly, I had just come to Bombay and I was just experiencing it myself. Gulshan’s character is very relevant for a metro city where you live in a building with thousand people but you don’t know your next door neighbour. You are living with so many lies and you are living with an image of yours. There is a kind of claustrophobia which you create for yourself in an urban world.

I was watching Tarantino’s interview about ‘The Hateful Eight’ and he talks about creating tension and raising it to such a level that it almost comes out of the screen on to the viewers. That also holds true for Titli. The space in that Delhi house where there is so much tension and claustrophobia…

SD: Whenever I am breaking down a script, I break it down in terms of spaces. On the side I keep talking to the director about the characters and how to place those characters in those spaces, but my first priority is the world we are trying to create. The one thing which I constantly got from Kanu was their place in the society. The house they have lived in over the years; everyone around them has developed over the years except them. They haven’t. Kanu kept telling me that the claustrophobia, the alienation that this family is going through is something created in our society. These are the people who are probably our security guards, who open our doors or probably fill petrol at our petrol pumps. They are treated in a certain way on a daily basis by people from upper middle-class families, and they come back with that to their houses. So they have lived with that feeling. Even the people around them have grown, made that second floor and their third floor but they have stayed there. That feeling should come through. We went to that house and broke down the house, and reconstructed it so that we can create that feel. A lot of my lighting happened with that. We actually sat with the production designer and I described the sort of feeling we wanted to create, and how we needed a taller wall around for that. We needed a courtyard that is smaller than it actually is. There is always that sense of bleakness and suppression with light only coming from the top; direct sunlight barely enters in patches. Whereas if you go to Prince’s house – Neelu’s love interest – it is full of sunlight, there is lot of greenery and there is a garden. There is that ideal family imagery. There were other layers in it; there is a theme of city shots, there is always construction happening everywhere, and the city is being dug up.

titli3

Being from Delhi, was it a city you were discovering, or was it a city you already knew you were bringing on?

SD: It was a city which I had experienced at points in time. It was a city I saw changing too. There was a time when these malls came up suddenly. When we scouted for locations, there were all these modern but dilapidated structures. We went back to those spaces – you know, those showrooms and malls created and built on the outskirts of Delhi. They have depleted over time, they have lost the shine and the lustre. It was like going to the Delhi we knew, but at the same time finding a new kind of Delhi which existed. Maybe in my teens, I didn’t see it the way I saw it this time. Even the place we shot in Sangam Vihar is bang behind Sainik farm, one of the most affluent places in Delhi. This hood is right behind, and all kinds of people live there. It’s actually an illegal society. On paper, it doesn’t exist. So it was kind of a new Delhi we saw and incorporated, and it worked. We chose those locations which will work for the theme.

In a film like Titli, you are so close to the actors, where you are almost looking into their souls. Does it ever happen that you don’t get along well with an actor or the director has to try to make that relationship better?

SD: On that level, it is like any human experience. You go on a shoot and everyone is a professional. Some of them are doing it for the first time and some are experienced. A lot of our actors were completely new and they were understanding how it is to be on a set. On the other hand there were people like Ranvir Shorey, an experienced and seasoned guy. So it was a mix; with Ranvir, you would expect a certain kind of professionalism. With someone like Shashank (Arora) and Shivani (Raghuvanshi), who are completely new to professional sets, as a technician you have to give them the space and comfort so that they can perform. We found a way to do that. We would arrive early, and for one hour no one would do anything on set. The actors would just rehearse and get used to the space. And only then would everyone else begin with their work. But as a DOP, you tend to get very close to them because sometimes they also expect some sort of feedback. When they do something that works perfectly for the scene, either I tell the director, or, if I have that equation with the actor, I’d tell him/her that it looks right and good. It’s the same way with other crew members too. There are always ups and downs.

dlehi

Any body of work which inspires you in India or abroad?

SD: I have, at different points in my life, been inspired by different kinds of work. Initially, I saw a lot of films of Kieslowski. I saw ‘A Short film about Killing’ and then I saw some films by Polanski. It kind of shocked me as I had not expected these kinds of films to exist at all. Then I saw David Lynch, which completely blew me away. It was surreal, and it amazed me that such films could be made. After which I back went to those films of Kieslowski and I started seeing the craft even more. In the beginning, I was inspired by a lot of experimental, abstract films. I was very inspired by the work of an American non-narrative filmmaker called Stanley Brackhage. I slowly started getting into more dramas, and there was a phase where I started appreciating those craft-heavy American films. Many phases overall, but my beginning was always a lot of David Lynch and Brackhage.

Any DOPs India or abroad whom you admire?

SD: So many, yaar. (smiles) I really like Mark Lee Ping Bin’s work, Robert Richardson and Rodrigo Prieto. In India, there is Rajeev Ravi and Anil Mehta. Even with someone like Anil Mehta who is evolving with every film, you don’t feel like he is stuck with a certain style and approach. Pankaj (Kumar) is also doing some really cool work.

In India, maybe because of a lack of understanding of the craft, even gorgeous locations are considered as great cinematography. There is no proper analysis of the work cinematographers actually put in. 

SD: Actually, honestly, maybe people who have not liked my work have not told me that. Lot of people – even from the commercial, massy films – have told me that they’ve really liked what I have been trying. I am very selective while reading reviews too, but yes, there is a stronger understanding of things than earlier. I know what you mean though. Lot of people ask me why it was so gritty and dark; you cant expect everyone to like it because they have a different way of looking at things, different tastes. Especially lately, people feel very strongly about what they like and dislike. You are watching a film on your laptop and if you don’t like it in five minutes, you switch it off. So maybe that’s why people like those beautiful location-filled, glossy movies. I personally don’t, unless it is relevant for that film. Even what Anil Mehta did for Rockstar or Carlos did for Dil Dhadakne Do; they were beautiful locations but they worked so well for the film. It wouldn’t have worked if those films were dark and gritty. In a lot of reviews too, you often read that good locations means good cinematography.
But what can you do? You just do what you like, and hope that people also understand and see what you are trying to do. And people who have seen Titli, Haraamkhor and Peddlers have understood everything. Maybe they have different ways of expressing it, but they got it. Lot of people would come and tell me what they felt and how the cinematography was driving it. It felt cool, you know – like people felt it, they feel the spaces because of the camerawork.