Thug Life: Kamal Haasan on why controversial film doesn't glorify violence amid language row

My qualification does not come from any formal film school or university - it comes from outside and that's my only qualification in cinema. I didn't go to any reputed Film Institute—I am a child of cinema. Above all, I'm a cinema buff. So I want exactly what an audience wants too. We both want to see different stuff on the big screen. I don't want to see the same kind of films all the time either because that's for people who take cinema lightly. As for people who are really cinema buffs, they'll see every kind of cinema as long as it has a certain sensibility. Every film should ideally have a trend-setting quality to it. That makes me very happy, and we are trying to emulate that. And mostly Mr. Mani [Ratnam] and I would say, we must make the film that we would like to see. Then comes—we'd like people to see what we like. That’s the second part. First, we come with a passion as film buffs, from one among you, to make the kind of films that we really want people to enjoy and celebrate.

No, I'm not. I accept the world with all kinds of flaws and vulnerabilities. I'm not racial and I don't believe in the caste system. I've lost my Gods, because there are so many of them that it creates tension in the world. So I'm shedding all those so that I have a pleasant stay on this earth.

Yeah, this union was all made on Earth, so don't give it a celestial quality. We were friends. We found each other because we think alike, and now we are technicians who are alike and film buffs who are alike. That's all.
There are certain things that he will not like but I like, and I will not like, but he likes. These differences should be there, right? That's the reason why we are attracted to each other, because he is very humorous, mind-wise, but he will not make a humourous film—not because of diffidence. Probably he doesn’t want to.

I have made films with violence in them and I have been even accused of being a filmmaker who celebrates violence. But that charge isn't true at all. That’s like diverting my journey, with the dedication that I’m moving forward. You’re diverting me. I am against violence. My biggest hero in the world is not Alexander, Napoleon, or any such land-amassing soldiers. My biggest hero is an ordinary son of a Diwan [chief minister] called Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He's my hero. And why I make violent films? Because my Bapu [Gandhi] died due to violence. I know that nobody can escape that violence—even a man who’s talking about non-violence and ahimsa [non-violence]. So I have a personal commitment. It’s my country’s tragedy, and it’s a personal family tragedy for me, because I think of it as my Bapuji. So I will not make a film that will have a positive impact and want people to emulate this—they will see in all my films, be it Thevar Magan, Hey Ram, Virumaandi—the futility of violence keeps coming back. That’s why I make it shudder-worthy, not applause-worthy.
I’m not sugarcoating the violence or the violent means. It’s as bitter and as salty as blood.

They will ... But how do you duck under those nasty, foul blows? There’s no rules in that game. Whereas I have a rule in my game that I play: Cinema.
Politics is new to me. I came into politics, I call myself a neo-politic culturist. I’ll start with myself. I’ll culture myself and set an example. That’s why I came. And, so I do understand people have [opinions]. My intent has never been to quickly decry something. I’ll try to understand what it is about and then disagree.

I have great examples like Gandhiji. At that time, he must have looked like a fool for saying whatever he said. He didn’t care. He had education enough to know he didn’t have to look into the mirror to check whether what his critics are talking about him is true. He knows! He has an inner mirror that reflects his country and its plight. So he acted accordingly, and he was ready to lay down the luxuries of life. I am yet to do it. I still enjoy life. But we can still do it in this area where the tools are at our disposal.
I wish—like there’s a great opera by Andrew Lloyd Webber, and journalists are questioning a [spiritual figure], and they’re asking, “Do you think mass communication would have helped you better to become a star sooner?” So we have better tools than what Gandhiji had at our disposal. So I don’t have to do so much of sacrifice like him. Poor man! He had to set an example, so he literally punished himself to do it. I’ll be even more kinder. I think Ahimsa is non-violence unto yourself also. But Gandhiji didn’t mind being very violent with himself.

I think so. But I’m yet to get the valour that he has. I admire him for that.

No. It’s a genre. We don’t want to make a new The Godfather. Thug Life is something new, which we have tried in this genre.
We are looking at lives of thugs and that’s all this film is about. And that’s a point of view. We are not advocating thugs’ way of life. The movie shows what happens when you choose crime as a profession. He has a life. Just like how we don’t encourage everyone to come into cinema and we always tell them to train because it's lethal. Cinema is culture. When you become an actor, it’s lethal, because you’re playing with culture. Remember, it's not all about the glory ... Being an actor is like winning a lottery where your ticket will be taken back at any point. It could all vanish and your ticket will be taken back if your number is announced. So we can never taking acting or our audience for granted.