Jeg blev bedt om at skyde filmen kaldet "Elizabeth". Og vi taler allesammen om dette mægtige engelske ikon og siger: "Hun er en fantastisk kvinde. Hun gør alt. Hvordan skal vi introducere hende?" Så vi gik bordet rundt i studiet med producenterne og forfatteren, og de kom til mig og spurgte: "Shekhar, hvad synes du?"
So, I was just asked to go and shoot this film called "Elizabeth." And we're all talking about this great English icon and saying, "She's a fantastic woman, she does everything. How are we going to introduce her?" So we went around the table with the studio and the producers and the writer, and they came to me and said, "Shekhar, what do you think?"
Og jeg sagde: "Jeg tror hun danser."
And I said, "I think she's dancing."
Og jeg kunne se, at alle kiggede på mig, en eller anden sagde "Bollywood"
And I could see everybody looked at me, somebody said, "Bollywood."
En anden sagde "Hvor meget hyrede vi ham for?"
The other said, "How much did we hire him for?"
Og den tredie sagde: "Lad os finde en anden instruktør".
And the third said, "Let's find another director."
Jeg tænkte, at jeg hellere måtte ændre det. Så vi havde en masse diskussion om, hvordan Elizabeth skulle introduceres, og jeg sagde, okay, måske er jeg for Bollywood agtig. Måske danser dette mægtige ikon Elizabeth? Hvad taler du om? Så jeg tænkte det hele igennem igen og så kom vi alle til enighed. Og her var introduktionen af dette mægtige britiske ikon, der hedder "Elizabeth".
I thought I had better change. So we had a lot of discussion on how to introduce Elizabeth, and I said, "OK, maybe I am too Bollywood. Maybe Elizabeth, this great icon, dancing? What are you talking about?" So I rethought the whole thing, and then we all came to a consensus. And here was the introduction of this great British icon called "Elizabeth."
Leicester: Må jeg slutte mig til Dem, min frue?
Leicester: May I join you, my lady?
Elizabeth: Hvis det behager Dem hr. (Musik)
Elizabeth: If it please you, sir. (Music)
Shekhar Kapur: "Så hun dansede altså." Så hvor mange af jer, der så filmen fik ikke fat i, at her var tale om en forelsket kvinde, at hun var komplet uskyldig, at hun oplevede stor glæde i sit liv og at hun var ungdommelig? Og hvor mange af jer fik ikke fat i det? Det er den visuelle historiefortællings kraft. Det er dansens kraft. Det er musikkens kraft. Det er uvidenhedens kraft.
Shekhar Kapur: So she was dancing. So how many people who saw the film did not get that here was a woman in love, that she was completely innocent and saw great joy in her life, and she was youthful? And how many of you did not get that? That's the power of visual storytelling, that's the power of dance, that's the power of music: the power of not knowing.
Når jeg skal ud og instruere en film, hver dag forbereder vi for meget, vi tænker for meget. Viden kommer til at vægte mere end visdom. Du ved, simple ord bliver tabt i erfaringers kviksand. Så jeg kommer og siger: "Hvad skal jeg lave i dag?" Jeg skal ikke lave det, jeg har planlagt at lave, og så sætter jeg mig selv i en tilstand af gennemgribende panik. Det er min måde at slippe sindet på, slippe det her sind, der siger: "Hey, du ved hvad du laver. Du ved præcis, hvad du laver. Du er en instruktør, du har lavet det i årevis". Så jeg er nødt til at komme derud og være fuldstændig panisk. Så det er en symbolsk handling. Jeg river manuskriptet i stykker. Jeg sætter mig selv i panik. Jeg bliver bange. Jeg gør det lige nu. I kan se det. Jeg bliver nervøs. Jeg ved ikke, hvad jeg skal sige. Jeg ved ikke hvad jeg gør. Jeg har ikke lyst til at gå den vej.
When I go out to direct a film, every day we prepare too much, we think too much. Knowledge becomes a weight upon wisdom. You know, simple words lost in the quicksand of experience. So I come up, and I say, "What am I going to do today?" I'm not going to do what I planned to do, and I put myself into absolute panic. It's my one way of getting rid of my mind, getting rid of this mind that says, "Hey, you know what you're doing. You know exactly what you're doing. You're a director, you've done it for years." So I've got to get there and be in complete panic. It's a symbolic gesture. I tear up the script, I go and I panic myself, I get scared. I'm doing it right now; you can watch me. I'm getting nervous, I don't know what to say, I don't know what I'm doing, I don't want to go there.
Og mens jeg følger den sti, siger min AD-er selvfølgelig: "Du ved, hvad der skal gøres hr.". Jeg siger: "Selvfølgelig gør jeg det".
And as I go there, of course, my A.D. says, "You know what you're going to do, sir." I say, "Of course I do."
Og studiets ledelse ville sige: "Hey, se lige Shekhar. Han er så forberedt". Og indeni har jeg bare lyttet til Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan fordi han er kaotisk. Jeg tillader mig selv at gå ind i kaos fordi ud af kaoset håber jeg, at der vil komme øjeblikke med sandhed. Al forberedelse er forberedelse. Jeg ved ikke engang om det er ærligt. Jeg ved ikke engang om det er sandt. Sandheden af det hele kommer i selve øjeblikket, organisk, og hvis du får fem store øjeblikke med store, organiske ting i din fortælling, i din film, vil dit filmpublikum forstå det. Så jeg leder efter disse øjeblikke, og jeg står der og siger: "Jeg ved ikke hvad jeg skal sige".
And the studio executives, they would say, "Hey, look at Shekhar. He's so prepared." And inside I've just been listening to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan because he's chaotic. I'm allowing myself to go into chaos because out of chaos, I'm hoping some moments of truth will come. All preparation is preparation. I don't even know if it's honest. I don't even know if it's truthful. The truth of it all comes on the moment, organically, and if you get five great moments of great, organic stuff in your storytelling, in your film, your film, audiences will get it. So I'm looking for those moments, and I'm standing there and saying, "I don't know what to say."
Så til sidst kigger alle på en, 200 mennesker kl. 7 om morgenen, de ankom kvart i syv og du kl. syv. og alle siger: "Hey. Hvad er det første? Hvad skal der ske?" Og du sætter dig selv i en tilstand af panik hvor du ikke ved det, og så ved du det ikke. Og fordi du ikke ved det, beder du til universet, fordi du beder til universet om noget - Jeg vil prøve at få tilgang til universet måden Einstein - bad en bøn - tilgik - sine ligninger - den samme kilde - jeg leder efter den samme kilde fordi kreativitet kommer fra den helt samme kilde hvor du mediterer et eller andet sted udenfor dig selv, undenfor universet. Du leder efter noget, der kommer og rammer dig. Indtil det rammer dig, kommer du ikke til at filme første skud. Så hvad gør du?
So, ultimately, everybody's looking at you, 200 people at seven in the morning who got there at quarter to seven, and you arrived at seven, and everybody's saying, "Hey. What's the first thing? What's going to happen?" And you put yourself into a state of panic where you don't know, and so you don't know. And so, because you don't know, you're praying to the universe because you're praying to the universe that something -- I'm going to try and access the universe the way Einstein -- say a prayer -- accessed his equations, the same source. I'm looking for the same source because creativity comes from absolutely the same source that you meditate somewhere outside yourself, outside the universe. You're looking for something that comes and hits you. Until that hits you, you're not going to do the first shot. So what do you do?
Så Kate siger: "Shekhar, hvad vil du have jeg skal gøre?"
So Cate says, "Shekhar, what do you want me to do?"
Og jeg siger: "Kate, hvad har du lyst til at gøre?" (Latter) "Du er en stor skuespillerinde og jeg kan godt lide at give til mine skuespillere. Hvorfor viser du mig ikke hvad du har lyst til at gøre". (Latter) Hvad er det jeg gør? Jeg forsøger at købe tid. Jeg forsøger at købe tid.
And I say, "Cate, what do you want to do?" (Laughter) "You're a great actor, and I like to give to my actors -- why don't you show me what you want to do?" (Laughter) What am I doing? I'm trying to buy time. I'm trying to buy time.
Så det første jeg lærte om historiefortælling, og som jeg følger altid, er panik. Panik er den storartede adgang til kreativitet for det er den eneste måde, man kan blive fri fra sit sind. Blive fri fra sit sind. Komme ud af det. Få det ud. Og lad os tage til universet, fordi der er noget derude, der er mere sandt end dit sind, der er mere sandt end dit univers. [uklart], du sagde det i går. Jeg gentager det bare for det er hvad jeg konstant følger for at finde shunyata et sted, tomheden. Ud af tomheden kommer der et øjeblik med kreativitet. Så det er hvad jeg gør.
So the first thing about storytelling that I learned, and I follow all the time is: Panic. Panic is the great access of creativity because that's the only way to get rid of your mind. Get rid of your mind. Get out of it, get it out. And let's go to the universe because there's something out there that is more truthful than your mind, that is more truthful than your universe. [unclear], you said that yesterday. I'm just repeating it because that's what I follow constantly to find the shunyata somewhere, the emptiness. Out of the emptiness comes a moment of creativity. So that's what I do.
Da jeg var barn - jeg var omkring otte år gammel. Du husker hvordan Indien var. Der var ingen forurening. I Delhi, plejede vi at bo - vi plejede at kalde det en 'chata' eller 'khotaen'. 'Khota' er nu blevet et dårligt ord. Det betyder deres terrasser -- og vi plejede at sove udendørs om natten. I skolen lærte jeg fysik, og jeg blev fortalt at hvis noget eksisterer så er det målbart. Hvis det ikke er målbart, eksisterer det ikke. Og om natten ville jeg ligge under den uforurenede himmel som Delhi havde dengang, da jeg var barn, og jeg plejede at stirre ind i universet og sige "Hvor langt rækker universet?"
When I was a kid -- I was about eight years old. You remember how India was. There was no pollution. In Delhi, we used to live -- we used to call it a chhat or the khota. Khota's now become a bad word. It means their terrace -- and we used to sleep out at night. At school I was being just taught about physics, and I was told that if there is something that exists, then it is measurable. If it is not measurable, it does not exist. And at night I would lie out, looking at the unpolluted sky, as Delhi used to be at that time when I was a kid, and I used to stare at the universe and say, "How far does this universe go?"
Min far var læge. Og jeg ville spørge: "Far, hvor langt rækker universet?"
My father was a doctor. And I would think, "Daddy, how far does the universe go?"
Og han sagde: "Søn, det rækker uendeligt".
And he said, "Son, it goes on forever."
Så sagde jeg "Mål venligst uendeligt for i skolen lærer de mig, at hvis jeg ikke kan måle det, så eksisterer det ikke. Det passer ikke i min referenceramme". Så hvor langt rækker det uendelige? Hvad betyder for altid? Og jeg ville ligge der om natten og græde fordi min fantasi ikke kunne røre kreativitet.
So I said, "Please measure forever because in school they're teaching me that if I cannot measure it, it does not exist. It doesn't come into my frame of reference." So, how far does eternity go? What does forever mean? And I would lie there crying at night because my imagination could not touch creativity.
Så hvad gjorde jeg? På det tidspunkt, i den uge alder af syv år, lavede jeg en historie. Hvad var min historie? Og jeg ved ikke hvorfor, men jeg husker historien. Der var en træskærer, som er ved at tage sin økse og hugge et stykke træ, og hele galaksen er et atom af den økse. Og når den økse rammer det stykke træ, så er det dér alting vil ødelægges og 'big bang' vil indtræde igen. Men før alt det var der en træskærer Og så når jeg løb tør i den historie, ville jeg forestille mig, at den træskærers univers er et atom af en anden træskærers økse. Så hver gang kunne jeg fortælle min historie igen og igen og løse dette problem og så løste jeg problemet.
So what did I do? At that time, at the tender age of seven, I created a story. What was my story? And I don't know why, but I remember the story. There was a woodcutter who's about to take his ax and chop a piece of wood, and the whole galaxy is one atom of that ax. And when that ax hits that piece of wood, that's when everything will destroy and the Big Bang will happen again. But all before that there was a woodcutter. And then when I would run out of that story, I would imagine that woodcutter's universe is one atom in the ax of another woodcutter. So every time, I could tell my story again and again and get over this problem, and so I got over the problem.
Hvordan gjorde jeg? fortælle en historie. Så hvad er en historie? En historie er vores - alle os. Vi er de historier, vi fortæller os selv. I dette univers og denne eksistens, hvor vi lever med denne dualitet af hvorvidt vi eksisterer eller ej og hvem vi er, historierne vi fortæller os selv er historierne som definerer potentialerne af vores eksistens. Vi er de historier, vi fortæller os selv. Så det er så vidt som vi ser på historier. En historie er forholdet som du udvikler mellem hvem du er, eller hvem du potentielt er, og den uendelige verden, og det er vores mytologi.
How did I do it? Tell a story. So what is a story? A story is our -- all of us -- we are the stories we tell ourselves. In this universe, and this existence, where we live with this duality of whether we exist or not and who are we, the stories we tell ourselves are the stories that define the potentialities of our existence. We are the stories we tell ourselves. So that's as wide as we look at stories. A story is the relationship that you develop between who you are, or who you potentially are, and the infinite world, and that's our mythology.
Vi fortæller vores historier, og en person uden en historie, eksisterer ikke. Så Einstein fortalte en historie og fulgte sine historier og kom frem med teorier og kom frem med teorier og kom så frem med sine ligninger. Alexander havde en historie, hans mor plejede at fortælle ham, og han gik ud for at erobre verden. Vi har alle, allesammen, en historie, som vi følger. Vi fortæller os selv historier. Så vil jeg gå videre og sige jeg fortæller en historie, og derfor eksisterer jeg. Jeg eksisterer fordi der er historier og hvis der ikke er historier, eksisterer vi ikke. Vi skaber historier for at definere vores eksistens. Hvis ikke vi skaber historierne, vil vi sikkert blive sindssyge. Jeg ved det ikke. Jeg er ikke sikker, men det er hvad jeg har gjort altid.
We tell our stories, and a person without a story does not exist. So Einstein told a story and followed his stories and came up with theories and came up with theories and then came up with his equations. Alexander had a story that his mother used to tell him, and he went out to conquer the world. We all, everybody, has a story that they follow. We tell ourselves stories. So, I will go further, and I say, "I tell a story, and therefore I exist." I exist because there are stories, and if there are no stories, we don't exist. We create stories to define our existence. If we do not create the stories, we probably go mad. I don't know; I'm not sure, but that's what I've done all the time.
Nu, en film. En film fortæller en historie. Jeg tænker tit over det, når jeg laver en film - Jeg tænker på at lave en film om Buddha - og jeg tænker tit: Hvis Buddha havde alle de elementer der bliver givet til en instruktør hvis han havde musik, hvis han havde det visuelle, hvis han havde et video kamera, ville vi så forstå buddhisme bedre? Men det giver mig en slags byrde. Jeg er nødt til at fortælle en historie på en meget mere udførlig måde, men jeg har potentialet. det kaldes undertoner. Da jeg først tog til Hollywood, sagde de - Jeg plejede at tale om undertoner, og min agent kom hen til mig "Vil du venligst undlade at tale om undertoner?" Og jeg sagde "Hvorfor?" Han sagde: "Fordi ingen vil give dig en film, hvis du taler om undertoner. Bare tal om plot og fortæl hvor vidunderligt du vil skyde filmen hvordan det visuelle vil være".
Now, a film. A film tells a story. I often wonder when I make a film -- I'm thinking of making a film of the Buddha -- and I often wonder: If Buddha had all the elements that are given to a director -- if he had music, if he had visuals, if he had a video camera -- would we get Buddhism better? But that puts some kind of burden on me. I have to tell a story in a much more elaborate way, but I have the potential. It's called subtext. When I first went to Hollywood, they said -- I used to talk about subtext, and my agent came to me, "Would you kindly not talk about subtext?" And I said, "Why?" He said, "Because nobody is going to give you a film if you talk about subtext. Just talk about plot and say how wonderful you'll shoot the film, what the visuals will be."
Så når jeg kigger på en film, her er hvad vi kigger efter, vi kigger efter en historie på plot niveauet, så kigger vi efter en historie på det psykologiske plan, så kigger vi efter en historie på det politiske plan, så kigger vi efter en historie på det mytologiske plan. Og jeg kigger efter historier på hvert plan. Det er ikke nødvendigt, at disse historier stemmer overens. Det vidunderlige er, at mange gange vil historierne modsige hinanden. Så når jeg arbejder med Rahman, der er en stor musiker, siger jeg ofte til ham "Følg ikke hvad manuskriptet allerede siger. Find det, der ikke er. Find sandheden selv, og når du finder sandheden selv, vil der være en sandhed i det, men det modsiger måske plottet, men det skal du ikke bekymre dig om".
So when I look at a film, here's what we look for: We look for a story on the plot level, then we look for a story on the psychological level, then we look for a story on the political level, then we look at a story on a mythological level. And I look for stories on each level. Now, it is not necessary that these stories agree with each other. What is wonderful is, at many times, the stories will contradict with each other. So when I work with Rahman who's a great musician, I often tell him, "Don't follow what the script already says. Find that which is not. Find the truth for yourself, and when you find the truth for yourself, there will be a truth in it, but it may contradict the plot, but don't worry about it."
Efterfølgeren til "Elizabeth" "Golden Age". Da jeg lavede efterfølgeren til "Elizabeth" var her en historie som skribenten fortalte. En kvinde, der blev truet af Philip II og som skulle i krig, og skulle i krig, forelskede sig i Walter Raleigh. Fordi hun forelskede sig i Walter Raleigh, opgav hun grundene til at hun var en dronning. Og så forelskede Walter Raleigh sig i hendes anstandsdame, og hun måtte beslutte om hun var en dronning, der skulle i krig eller om hun ville...
So, the sequel to "Elizabeth," "Golden Age." When I made the sequel to "Elizabeth," here was a story that the writer was telling: A woman who was threatened by Philip II and was going to war, and was going to war, fell in love with Walter Raleigh. Because she fell in love with Walter Raleigh, she was giving up the reasons she was a queen, and then Walter Raleigh fell in love with her lady in waiting, and she had to decide whether she was a queen going to war or she wanted...
Her er historien, jeg fortalte. Guderne deroppe. Der var to mennesker. Der var Philip II, som var guddommelig fordi han altid bad, og der var Elizabeth, som var guddommelig, men ikke helt guddommelig fordi hun troede hun var guddommelig, men blodet af at være dødelig flød i hende. Men den guddommelige var uretfærdig, så guderne sagde: "Okay. Hvad vi har brug for er, at hjælpe den retfærdige". Og så hjalp de den retfærdige. Hvad de gjorde var, at de sendte Walter Raleigh ned for fysisk at adskille hendes mortale jeg fra hendes åndelige jeg. Og det mortale jeg var pigen som blev sendt til Walter Raleigh, og gradvist adskilte han hende så hun var fri til at blive guddommelig. Og de to guddommelige mennesker sloges, og guderne var på den guddommelige side.
Here's the story I was telling: The gods up there, there were two people. There was Philip II, who was divine because he was always praying, and there was Elizabeth, who was divine, but not quite divine because she thought she was divine, but the blood of being mortal flowed in her. But the divine one was unjust, so the gods said, "OK, what we need to do is help the just one." And so they helped the just one. And what they did was, they sent Walter Raleigh down to physically separate her mortal self from her spirit self. And the mortal self was the girl that Walter Raleigh was sent, and gradually he separated her so she was free to be divine. And the two divine people fought, and the gods were on the side of divinity.
Og naturligvis blev den britiske presse vrede. De sagde: "Vi vandt amadaen".
Of course, all the British press got really upset. They said, "We won the Armada."
Men jeg sagde: "Jamen stormen vandt armadaen. Guderne sendte stormen".
But I said, "But the storm won the Armada. The gods sent the storm."
Så hvad var det jeg gjorde? Jeg forsøgte at finde en mytisk årsag til at lave filmen. Og selvfølgelig, da jeg spurgte Kate Blanchett "Hvad handler filmen om?" Sagde hun: "Filmen handler om en kvinde der affinder sig med at blive ældre". Psykologisk. Forfatteren sagde, at den handlede om historie, plot. Jeg siger den handler om mytologi, guderne.
So what was I doing? I was trying to find a mythic reason to make the film. Of course, when I asked Cate Blanchett, I said, "What's the film about?" She said, "The film's about a woman coming to terms with growing older." Psychological. The writer said "It's about history, plot." I said "It's about mythology, the gods."
Så lad mig vise jer en film - et uddrag fra filmen - og hvordan et kamera også - så dette er en scene hvor hun, i mit sind, var i mortalitetens dybder. Hun var ved at opdage, hvad mortalitet faktisk betyder, og at hvis hun er i mortalitetens dybder, hvad der så virkelig sker. Og hun indser farerne ved mortalitet og hvorfor hun skal væk fra mortalitet. Husk på, i filmen, for mig, var både hun og anstandsdamen dele af den samme krop, ét mortalt jeg og ét åndeligt jeg.
So let me show you a film -- a piece from that film -- and how a camera also -- so this is a scene, where in my mind, she was at the depths of mortality. She was discovering what mortality actually means, and if she is at the depths of mortality, what really happens. And she's recognizing the dangers of mortality and why she should break away from mortality. Remember, in the film, to me, both her and her lady in waiting were parts of the same body, one the mortal self and one the spirit self.
Så kan vi få det uddrag?
So can we have that second?
(Musik)
(Music)
Elizabeth: Bess? Bess? Bess Throckmorton?
Elizabeth: Bess? Bess? Bess Throckmorton?
Bess: Her min frue.
Bess: Here, my lady.
Elizabeth: Fortæl mig, er det sandt? Er du med barn? Er du med barn?
Elizabeth: Tell me, is it true? Are you with child? Are you with child?
Bess: Ja min frue.
Bess: Yes, my lady.
Elizabeth: Din forrædder. Vover du at holde hemmeligheder fra mig? Du spørger om min tilladelse før du skurer, før du avler. Mine tæver bærer mine halsbånd. Hører du mig? Hører du mig?
Elizabeth: Traitorous. You dare to keep secrets from me? You ask my permission before you rut, before you breed. My bitches wear my collars. Do you hear me? Do you hear me?
Walsingham: Majestæt. Værdighed. Vis nåde.
Walsingham: Majesty. Please, dignity. Mercy.
Elizabeth: Der er ikke tid til nåde, Walsingham. Gå du hen til din forrædder broder og lad mig passe mit. Er det hans? Fortæl mig det. Sig det. Er barnet hans? Er det hans?
Elizabeth: This is no time for mercy, Walsingham. You go to your traitor brother and leave me to my business. Is it his? Tell me. Say it. Is the child his? Is it his?
Bess: Ja. Min frue, Det er min ægtemands barn. Elizabeth: Kælling! (Skriger)
Bess: Yes. My lady, it is my husband's child. Elizabeth: Bitch! (Cries)
Raleigh: Majestæt. Dette er ikke dronningen, som jeg elsker og tjener.
Raleigh: Majesty. This is not the queen I love and serve.
Elizabeth: Denne mand har forført dronningens anstandsdame og hun har giftet sig uden royal billigelse. Disse overtrædelser er strafbare ifølge lov. Arrester ham. Gå. Du har ikke længere dronningens beskyttelse.
Elizabeth: This man has seduced a ward of the queen, and she has married without royal consent. These offenses are punishable by law. Arrest him. Go. You no longer have the queen's protection.
Bess: Som De ønsker, Majestæt.
Bess: As you wish, Majesty.
Elizabeth: Ud! Ud! Ud! Ud.
Elizabeth: Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out.
(Musik)
(Music)
Shekhar Kapur: Så hvad er det jeg prøver at gøre her? Elizabeth har indset, og hun står ansigt til ansigt med hendes egen følelse af jalousi, hendes egen følelse af mortalitet. Hvad gør jeg med arkitekturen? Arkitekturen fortæller en historie. Arkitekturen fortæller en historie om hvordan, selvom hun er den mest kraftfulde kvinde, i verden, dengang, er der den anden, arkitekturen er større. Stenene er større end hende fordi sten er uorganiske. De vil overleve hende. Så det fortæller jer, at for mig er sten en del af hendes skæbne. Ikke alene det, hvorfor kigger kameraet ned? Kameraet kigger ned på hende, fordi hun er i brønden. Hun er i den absolutte brønd af hendes egen følelse af at være dødelig. Det er dér hun er nødt til at trække sig selv ud fra disse dødelighedsdybder, komme ind, frigøre sin ånd. Og det er det øjeblik hvor, i mit sind, både Elizabeth og Bess er samme person. Men det er øjeblikket hvor hun kirurgisk fjerner sig selv fra det. Så filmen opererer på mange mange forskellige niveauer i den scene. Og måden vi fortæller historier visuelt, med musik, med skuespillere, og på hvert niveau er det en forskellig sans og til tider modsiger de hinanden. Så hvordan starter jeg alt det her? Hvad er processen med at fortælle en historie?
Shekhar Kapur: So, what am I trying to do here? Elizabeth has realized, and she's coming face-to-face with her own sense of jealousy, her own sense of mortality. What am I doing with the architecture? The architecture is telling a story. The architecture is telling a story about how, even though she's the most powerful woman in the world at that time, there is the other, the architecture's bigger. The stone is bigger than her because stone is an organic. It'll survive her. So it's telling you, to me, stone is part of her destiny. Not only that, why is the camera looking down? The camera's looking down at her because she's in the well. She's in the absolute well of her own sense of being mortal. That's where she has to pull herself out from the depths of mortality, come in, release her spirit. And that's the moment where, in my mind, both Elizabeth and Bess are the same person. But that's the moment she's surgically removing herself from that. So the film is operating on many many levels in that scene. And how we tell stories visually, with music, with actors, and at each level it's a different sense and sometimes contradictory to each other. So how do I start all this? What's the process of telling a story?
For ca. ti år siden, hørte jeg dette lille udsagn fra en politiker, ikke en politiker, der var særlig respekteret i Indien. Og han sagde, at disse folk i byerne, i et skyl, forbruger så meget vand som I folk i landdistrikterne ikke får på to dage. Det ramte en akkord, og jeg sagde: "Det er sandt". Jeg tog hen for at besøge en af mine venner og han fik mig til at vente i hans lejlighed i Malabar Hill på den tyvende etage, hvilket er et virkelig, virkelig fint område i Mumbai. Og han tog et bad i 20 minutter. Jeg begyndte at kede mig og gik, og da jeg kørte væk, kørte jeg forbi slummet i Bombay, som man altid gør, og jeg så køer og køer i den varme middagssol kvinder og børn med spande ventende på et tankskib der skulle komme og give dem vand. Og en idé begyndte at udvikle sig. Så hvordan bliver det til en historie? Jeg indså pludselig, at vi stiler mod en katastrofe.
About ten years ago, I heard this little thing from a politician, not a politician that was very well respected in India. And he said that these people in the cities, in one flush, expend as much water as you people in the rural areas don't get for your family for two days. That struck a chord, and I said, "That's true." I went to see a friend of mine, and he made me wait in his apartment in Malabar Hill on the twentieth floor, which is a really, really upmarket area in Mumbai. And he was having a shower for 20 minutes. I got bored and left, and as I drove out, I drove past the slums of Bombay, as you always do, and I saw lines and lines in the hot midday sun of women and children with buckets waiting for a tanker to come and give them water. And an idea started to develop. So how does that become a story? I suddenly realized that we are heading towards disaster.
Så min næste film hedder "Paani" hvilket betyder vand. Og fra den mytologi begynder jeg at kreere en verden. Hvilken slags verden kreerer jeg, og hvor kommer idéen, designet af denne, fra? Så i mit sind, i fremtiden begynder de at bygge overflyvninger. Forstår I overflyvninger? Ja? De begyndte at bygge overflyvninger for at komme hurtigere fra A til B, men de gik faktisk fra det ene område med relativ velstand til et andet område med relativ velstand. Og hvad de så gjorde var at de skabte en by ovenover overflyvningerne. Og de rige folk flyttede til den øvre by og lod de fattigere folk være i de lavere byer, ca. 10 til 12 procent af menneskene er flyttet til den øvre by.
So my next film is called "Paani" which means water. And now, out of the mythology of that, I'm starting to create a world. What kind of world do I create, and where does the idea, the design of that come? So, in my mind, in the future, they started to build flyovers. You understand flyovers? Yeah? They started to build flyovers to get from A to B faster, but they effectively went from one area of relative wealth to another area of relative wealth. And then what they did was they created a city above the flyovers. And the rich people moved to the upper city and left the poorer people in the lower cities, about 10 to 12 percent of the people have moved to the upper city.
Hvor kommer så denne øvre by og den lavere by fra? Der findes en mytologi i Indien om - hvor de siger, og jeg vil sige det på Hindi, [Hindi] Ja. Hvad betyder det? Jeg siger, at de rige altid sidder på skuldrene og overlever på skuldrene af de fattige. Så den øvrige by og den lavere by kommer fra denne mytologi. Så designet har en historie.
Now, where does this upper city and lower city come? There's a mythology in India about -- where they say, and I'll say it in Hindi, [Hindi] Right. What does that mean? It says that the rich are always sitting on the shoulders and survive on the shoulders of the poor. So, from that mythology, the upper city and lower city come. So the design has a story.
Og det der nu sker er, at folket af folket af den øvre by suger alt vandet op. Husk på det ord, jeg sagde, "suger" op. De suger alt vandet op, holder det for sig selv, og de dropfodrer den lavere by. Og hvis der opstår revolution, så lukker de for vandet. Og fordi demokrati stadig eksisterer så er der en demokratisk måde at sige godt, hvis I giver os hvad [vi vil have], så giver vi jer vand.
And now, what happens is that the people of the upper city, they suck up all the water. Remember the word I said, suck up. They suck up all the water, keep to themselves, and they drip feed the lower city. And if there's any revolution, they cut off the water. And, because democracy still exists, there's a democratic way in which you say "Well, if you give us what [we want], we'll give you water."
Okay, så er min tid gået. Men jeg kan blive ved med at fortælle jer hvordan vi udvikler historier, og hvordan historier reelt er hvem vi er og hvordan disse bliver oversat til den særlige disciplin som jeg er i, hvilket er film. Men i sidste ende, hvad er en historie? Det er en selvmodsigelse. Alting er en selvmodsigelse. Universet er en selvmodsigelse. Og vi leder alle konstant efter harmoni. Når I står op, er dag og nat en modsætning. Men I står op kl. 4 Det første rødlige blå er hvor natten og dagen prøver at finde en harmoni med hinanden. Harmoni er de noder, som Mozart ikke gav jer, men som på sin vis antydes i modsætningen i hans noder. Alle modsætningerne i hans noder antyder hamonien. Det er virkningen af at lede efter harmoni i modsætningen der findes i en poets sind, en modsætning der findes i en historiefortællers sind. En historiefortællers sind er en modsætning af det sædelige. En poets sind er en konflikt af ord. I universets sind. Mellem dag og nat. I manden og kvindens sind leder vi konstant efter modsætningen mellem mand og kvinde. Vi er på udkig efter harmoni med hinanden.
So, okay my time is up. But I can go on about telling you how we evolve stories, and how stories effectively are who we are and how these get translated into the particular discipline that I am in, which is film. But ultimately, what is a story? It's a contradiction. Everything's a contradiction. The universe is a contradiction. And all of us are constantly looking for harmony. When you get up, the night and day is a contradiction. But you get up at 4 a.m. That first blush of blue is where the night and day are trying to find harmony with each other. Harmony is the notes that Mozart didn't give you, but somehow the contradiction of his notes suggest that. All contradictions of his notes suggest the harmony. It's the effect of looking for harmony in the contradiction that exists in a poet's mind, a contradiction that exists in a storyteller's mind. In a storyteller's mind, it's a contradiction of moralities. In a poet's mind, it's a conflict of words, in the universe's mind, between day and night. In the mind of a man and a woman, we're looking constantly at the contradiction between male and female, we're looking for harmony within each other.
Hele ideen med modsætning, men accepten af modsætning er fortællingen af en historie, ikke en løsning. Problemet med mange af Hollywoods historiefortællinger og mange film, og som [uklar] siger i hans, at vi prøver at løse modsætningen. Harmoni er ikke løsningen. Harmoni er antydningen af en ting, der er meget større end løsningen. Harmoni er antydningen af noget der er omfattende og universelt og om evighed og om øjeblikket. Løsning er noget der er langt mere begrænset. Det er endeligt. Harmoni er uendeligt. Så historiefortællingen, som alle andre modsætninger i universet, leder efter harmoni og uendelighed i moralske løsninger, der løser et, men lader noget andet være, lader noget andet være, og skaber et spørgsmål, der er virkelig vigtigt.
The whole idea of contradiction, but the acceptance of contradiction is the telling of a story, not the resolution. The problem with a lot of the storytelling in Hollywood and many films, and as [unclear] was saying in his, that we try to resolve the contradiction. Harmony is not resolution. Harmony is the suggestion of a thing that is much larger than resolution. Harmony is the suggestion of something that is embracing and universal and of eternity and of the moment. Resolution is something that is far more limited. It is finite; harmony is infinite. So that storytelling, like all other contradictions in the universe, is looking for harmony and infinity in moral resolutions, resolving one, but letting another go, letting another go and creating a question that is really important.
Tak skal I have. (Bifald)
Thank you very much. (Applause)