Taapsee Pannu on playing a steely public prosecutor in Assi, balancing strength with vulnerability in her performances, her collaboration with Anubhav Sinha and emotionally immersing herself in difficult roles
In a world where people’s moral compass fluctuates based on their closeness to an issue, advocate Raavi, played with strength and vulnerability by Taapsee Pannu, in Anubhav Sinha’s thought-provoking Assi, stands out. The film is about a public prosecutor fighting to nail the men responsible for raping teacher Parima (Kani Kusruti). She holds a position, arrived at after consideration, and is unwilling to bend. Because, once bent, there’s no going back. Pushed to the brink in the film’s closing scenes, Taapsee essays Raavi with a searing intensity; you feel her rage, you see her ‘irrelevant’ anger, you know how hard those tears are fighting to not roll down her cheek.
For someone who made a very unlikely debut in the Telugu Jhummandi Naadam in 2010 and followed it up with the starkly contrasting Aadukalam by Vetrimaaran in 2011, Taapsee’s current body of work should not come as a surprise. She’s played by some rules, created others, been an outlier, and has an oeuvre she can be proud of. In an interview, the actress speaks of her creative association with Anubhav Sinha and why female-led films deserve audience love. Excerpts:
You’ve played a lawyer once before, in Anubhav’s Mulk (2018), but Raavi hits very differently. How did you approach her?
There was a very conscious effort to show Raavi as very different from Mulk’s Aarthi, who has to defend her family. It was personal. In Assi, she’s a public prosecutor who comes across such cases day in and day out. How much sensitivity and personal involvement can she show? So, I had to be a little clinical, and treat it like any other case in the chaos of the court room. Things change only when she realises the accused are being helped. Eventually, as a woman, you somewhere have a history with certain crimes. You know eyes that have looked at you. It hits personally, and dark memories resurface.
This mix of strength and vulnerability that you bring to the table, how much does it take out of you?
I’ve now become better at handling post-shooting stress or trauma. I don’t have a healthy method of going about it while shooting, because I am not a trained actor. I want to bring something genuine and real, and for that, I have to psyche myself out. It obviously has some kind of impact, and I don’t think I recover fully. I change after every film. The world would like you to either crumble or become cold and strong, and that does not work for me. Vulnerability is something I have very consciously protected.
Also read: In Anubhav Sinha’s films, the cry for social justice, yearning for real change
So when these subjects come to me, there is a connect with the soft side, which I cover with the garb of a rough outside. This is something many women will identify with, because if we lose our vulnerability, we will not grow as human beings. In films, I try to strike a balance between strength and vulnerability; only then will the character look real.
Over the years, you’ve created a body of work you can be proud of. When you began, did you think you’d get to embody a kind of cinema?
I did not even remotest idea I would become an actor. I learnt on set, which is the hard way of learning something. I was not prepared for everything that comes with this profession. I wish I’d known this before, for I would not have been as harsh on myself. With time, I’ve realised that I work best when the heart and mind are in sync. My path, my image, my personality, my interviews and appearance, everything has to be in sync. Being an artiste who chooses a certain kind of cinema and being a different person beyond cinema does not work for me. My filmography is something I am very proud of; it need not give me a heavy pay check and bank balance and that is a compromise I strike. I am at peace and that is the most undervalued luxury.
Films such as Assi, Pink and Thappad get classified as “activist” movies, with people little realising activism keeps the beating heart of the nation alive…
I understand the human nature of people to box everything in a certain category, because not categorising something makes us uncomfortable. We like to presume who is what kind of person, we like to label something as commercial or artsy, or as a ‘muddewali’ (issue-based) film. Every story offers something, but this categorisation happens often with women-led films, we jump to tag them.
Your collaboration with Anubhav Sinha has resulted in great cinematic moments. What does he extract out of you? How important is it for an artiste to share the director’s views?
The subjects he chooses and the writing he gives me do more than half the job. I relate to the subjects and end up putting my heart into them easily, and you see something special on screen. I am a director’s actor, I don’t look at monitors, and I don’t ask questions beyond a limit. If the director says something works for him, it is my duty as an artiste to deliver that, because once I agree to come on board, I agree to his vision. The credit of whatever impact I am able to create with my roles lies with the director. Cinema is a director’s medium, and unless you align with their vision, the film will look all over the place.
We speak of women-led movies, box office numbers and the ecosystem. How do you view this? How important is box office validation?
The box office is important, not to tell me the craft is good, but purely for such films to keep getting made. Filmmaking requires money, and you can pawn your salary for a film or two, but everyone needs to run their home. Things are not very fair when it comes to the business side of films led by women. Barring exceptions, two of 10 might do well. Were the others not good? They were probably above average, but did not get fair treatment.
Also read: Assi review: Anubhav Sinha’s thunderclap against rape culture, apathy of legal system
We keep discussing this time and again. It is usually the man of the house who decides which film to watch, and he would invariably choose a hero-centric film. Some think they can’t go for women-centric films before good reviews. Others might pre-book for random movies but even a big female star commands a miserable advance booking. Now OTTs too want a film to do well at the box office before they pick it up. Where do these films go then? Eventually, the quality and variety of cinema we used to boast about will diminish. Honestly, the audience is as much responsible for the downfall of the industry — because they did not watch, the industry stopped making such movies.
You are known to speak your mind. Has social media scrutiny and cancel culture affected you?
I wanted to continue being myself, and that is why I cut off social media to a large extent. It was an attempt to protect my vulnerability, and ensure I do not change in the things I believe in. I had started feeling lost because I was trying to harden myself to not be affected by trolls, judgement and cancel culture. But it meant I was preventing myself from being sensitive about things I believed in. I am a human first, and the basic requirements of empathy, kindness and softness were getting lost. Now, I continue to say things, but I choose when to expose myself to people. I do not want to always be accessible or access the world 24/7.
Assi left us all feeling heavy, not because of what happened with one Parima, but because of how society has failed. How did the movie affect you at the reading stage and later while watching it?
I think it gave words and visuals to what I and many others feel about the society we live in. It spoke about the missing kindness. It is not the first film to speak of this topic, but it leaves you heavy because it showed the difference between judgement and justice. Does punishment ensure this will not be repeated? Assi shows us a mirror to something that has entered our homes. We should stop the blame game and take responsibility and figure out why we feel heavy when it finishes.
A few words about working with a certain set of co-stars who share similar worldviews. Is it liberating?
I don’t think much of this on set. A lot of the time, I might agree with people’s worldviews, but not their ways, or vice-versa. On set, with co-actors, I rarely go into their personal views, and how they are. I am slightly detached on set, and am more connected to my director, because he’s feeding my mind as to what I need to feel. I don’t connect that way to my co-actors.
After being part of a slew of well-written, socially conscious films, has this become your comfort zone as an actor?
It is so strange that these discomforting films are being called my comfort zone. I did not think about my films that way. My comfort zone is films and characters that align with my values as an individual. When I do something not aligned with my ideology, I look at the takeaway — if I am playing the antagonist and winning the battle or fooling the hell out of everyone, I am out of my zone. If I play someone who needs to be nasty and pays the price for that, that is my comfort zone. I prefer stories that have a takeaway. My comfort zone are films where the ideology of the film aligns with me, and the character is in sync with that ideology.
