Eyes versus hands !

[KP Sasi]

I have interviewed much more than a couple of 1000 people with camera and without camera. Most of those who have been interviewed by me are either leaders of people's movements, activists, organic intellectuals who do certain degree of intellectual work on a specific social issue or those who are affected by a social issue. Majority in this crowd belonged to group known as survivors of destruction or human rights violations. I usually maintain my eye contact with all those with whom I interact with, since eyes can communicate how genuine the person is committed to his or her words. Guru Dutt once stated that eighty per cent of acting in cinema is through eyes. He tried it well in Pyaasa and Kagaz ke Phool. The eyes of his characters communicated a lot. If you look at some of the classic Iranian films, you will find great art on entirely covered woman's body exposing only the eyes.You need not even express through lips. Some progressive and secular people may find it intolerable to watch a fully covered woman's body. And they conveniently dare not ask these women what they wish to wear and why. However, if Guru Dutt is right in real life, sometimes I have wondered whether my judgement of people to understand their eyes as a mark of genuine and sincere expression or just `acting'. I have personally been asked this question on many occasions: `Did you prepare them for your interviews?' It's funny. There is a deep need for those who face extreme social problems and those who are involved with people's movements and struggles to communicate. All you have to do is to lend a pair of compassionate eyes to listen along with a compassionate lens of a video camera. They will not speak to the camera. Because they don't care. They speak to your compassionate eyes. Broadly speaking, I would say that this is the difference between real socially relevant documentary cinema and feature films. The eyes of those whom we interview are genuinely troubled and the subjects are not acting. Quite often it becomes an outburst or flow for the need to communicate to somebody about their problems. I also take a glance at the environment as well as the person with whom I interview from top to bottom. While the exchange of minds are on ideas and experiences, the visual movements are more on the hands. Some speak without hand movements. Some speak with limited hand movements. But for many people, the hand movements are visual interpretations of their words. Sometimes, you may even wonder whether the words are coming out from the mouth or from the hands. The strength of the hand movements make the audience watch the hands of the subject of the frame more than the lips which produce the words. Often, hands enact as a choreographic dance for their words. One day, I will write about the dancing hands from my experiences of shooting documentary films.

[KP Sasi]

Absolutely, Seema Mustafa. In many of the television programmes, we find that human beings are reduced to a shot or a byte. The interviewer does not notice the despair to communicate in the eyes of of the person who is being interviewed. It is here that the mainstream media ceases to be a true representation of people.

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:43 AM Seema Mustafa <seemam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Agree totally. In journalism we have always relied on the eyes . All of us in the field for years have realised and perhaps intuitively know that once the person makes eye contact he or she will talk. Also our profession depends entirely on people’s willingness to communicate and often with victims of violence I have felt we are therapists in that we give them an ear, listen and also represent some kind of assurance that their voices will be heard beyond their immediate surroundings. 

Unfortunately with quick byte journalism this age old relationship between the common person and the journalist is being fractured.