Most sequences, including the conversations between Omana and her daughter, are explained in fewer words. Why did you want to keep the treatment subtle?
That’s the answer. We wanted to keep the purity intact. There is this beauty in not showing certain things. The whole film is subtle and we worked majorly on the little pauses and silences between conversations. A single look in the film can convey so much. For instance, there is this confrontation between Mathew and Omana, where the former asks why she filed the petition. From the beginning of the scene, where he keeps the jug on the table with force, every emotion plays out mostly through silence.
There are only cordial conversations between them. Mathew is already regretful and Omana was forced into this marriage as well. Even though she falls in love with Mathew, the feelings are not reciprocated. So, Omana is like a scapegoat for his own issues. Both of them are like scapegoats in this system. So, their compassion and companionship are very different. Mathew can’t argue with Omana that much, and their dynamics is very evident in a couple of scenes towards the end.
Mathew’s father could have easily come across as a despicable person, but the writing shows a beautiful relationship between Omana and Mathew’s father. How did you approach this?
It’s entirely based on the particular predicament that these are going through. We just had to write from every person’s perspective as nobody was guilty of anything in the first place. For instance, even though Mathew’s father is an active politician, he couldn’t accept his son’s identity. So, it’s the system’s stereotypes and pressures that conditioned them to think in a particular way. The thought process of the system is the culprit. They’re all innocent beings and this is depicted in the procession process, where the three of them stand together.
