THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: When Lenin Rajendran began adapting the short story ‘Nashtapetta Neelambari’ into a film in 1999, Kamala Das was still Madhavikutty.
By the time ‘Mazha’ released in the late 2000, Madhavikutty had donned a purdah to become Kamala Surayya.
“Those were trying times for her. The social upheaval her decision caused saddened her deeply.
The writers whom she thought would defend her did not come to her aid. Some of them went ahead and lambasted her, but she hit back at these writers,” Lenin said.
“To me she was still the same friendly person,” Lenin said. Kamala saw ‘Mazha’ and said she liked it. “At that time her eyes were failing her and she told me she saw my film through a variety of eyes. She meant her friends who saw the film. She said those eyes approved of my film. Then in a naughty tone she added, ‘Lenin, some of those eyes are die-hard fans of your films.
So I am not sure whether your film is as good as they say’. And then she broke out into that beatific laugh of hers,” Lenin said.
Lenin had no problem getting Madhavikutty to agree to the film project. “She must have trusted me. Much earlier I did a 24-part television series based on her childhood memories ‘Balyakala Smaranakal’. This could have been why she did not have a problem,” Lenin said.
The director had put forward another condition. “I said I would not show her the script. She accepted that without question,” Lenin said. `Mazha’ was just loosely based on `Nashtapetta Neelambari’. “One of the main characters of my film, the character played by Lal, is only passingly mentioned in the short story, in nothing more than four sentences. Madhavikutty had not even given him a name. I made him the main character,” Lenin said.
Lenin is one of the few who could get away with such creative freedom with Madhavikutty. “I was a frequent visitor at her house at Sasthamangalam where she used to have a get-together of a small group of writers and artists.
There we discussed literature and films. I used the opportunity to ask her about her latest short stories or poems,” Lenin said.
It was Madhavikutty’s “endearing nature” that stuck with Lenin. “She expressed the innocent warmth of a little child. She spoke in just the regal way she wrote.
“Sometimes her use of words could leave you entranced. She always sensed our wonder and broke out laughing,” Lenin said.
What Lenin liked most about these meetings were the exotic anecdotes told by Madhavikutty.
“She told them as though they had happened in real life. But we knew her fertile imagination was just sprucing up a recent dream or a fantasy. We let her have her say as these were great to hear.
They transported us to a completely different orbit,” Lenin said.