'Difficult person, but a deep humanist': Bina Paul about auteur John Abraham

A group of young men journey from the hills of Wayanad to Kochi to break the news of a comrade’s death to his mother. Through a documentary-style lens, John Abraham’s ‘Amma Ariyan’ tracks their arduous trek, serving as a searing political commentary on the disillusionment of the Naxalite movement. By focusing on the tragic suicides of young Naxalites, the narrative explores the profound despair and ideological fatigue that gripped the movement during the 1970s.

The avant-garde filmmaker and his “people’s cinema” are back in focus as ‘Amma Ariyan’, restored by Film Heritage Foundation, Mumbai heads to Cannes Film Festival.

Abraham is regarded as one of the most radical voices in Indian cinema. His films were politically charged and remain politically relevant. ‘Agraharathil Kazhuthai’ is a scathing satire about social hypocrisy, bigotry, and superstition within orthodox, upper-caste communities. In his first film, ‘Vidhyarthikale Ithile Ithile’ as well, he makes a humorous critique about student life and society, mocking authoritarianism. 

A critique of the Brechtian approach, he rejected intellectualising films. He was quoted in an old interview saying, “My approach to cinema is more affective than intellectual. I am very ‘sentimental’ in many matters, and I am not embarrassed to admit that in public. I will cry loudly when my mother or my child dies. What is the point of staying far away, saying ‘I won’t cry; I have read Brecht’?”

Abraham made independent, socially funded cinema and founded the Odessa Collective to produce films and to “create people’s films”. ‘Amma Ariyan’ is the final work of the filmmaker who made just four features and three documentaries before his untimely death in 1987 at the age of 49. 

Well-known film editor and film curator Bina Paul made her feature film debut with ‘Amma Ariyan’. She describes working with him as quite chaotic and says, “I was very young then. It was a great learning experience. He was a difficult person, as everybody knows. But, he definitely knew what he wanted and what he was doing.” 

Excerpts from an interview:

He did not just make political films, but he also made them politically, rejecting mainstream production and distribution. What shaped his politics? 

His politics were rooted in personal conviction and a deep sense of humanism that transcended party lines. He firmly believed that cinema should be accessible to everyone and used as a tool to depict real-world situations. He was also of the belief that cinema should be used to tell people about situations, real situations. He grew up in a Syrian Christian family. He lost his mother early, but he had sisters who really loved him. His perspective was shaped by his upbringing in Kerala and his time at FTII, where he was influenced by Ritwik Ghatak and the Latin American Third Cinema movement. Ultimately, he was a humanist who stood firmly against exploitation in all its forms.

What happened to the Odessa Collective after he died? 

We were all part of it; I suppose it was difficult to continue the model. Some people tried. There was Odessa Satyan, Ahmed… but they never got another person like John, who really believed in the movement. Even today, there are still people who really believe in Odessa and are a part of it, but it has become less active. 

What was the restoration process like? 

It was complex. There was no good surviving negative, and we do not know what happened to it. It used to lie in the Chitranjali studio. The film was usually shown on a 16 mm print. So there were only one or two surviving 35 mm copies. I think Shivendra did quite a job tracing it. He finally found it in the national film archive. Finding the original material itself was quite challenging. It’s always best to restore a film from a negative. 

Because the film belonged to a collective, determining ownership and decision-making rights was a complex, shared responsibility. When the restoration began, the original team, including the cinematographer, sound recordist Krishna Nuni, and myself, collaborated closely to ensure the original vision was preserved. Our primary focus was maintaining the integrity of the work and ensuring that no footage was missing, particularly sections that may have been lost or cut during past screenings.

How were his films received back in the day? They didn’t go to many festivals...

He died too early, but the films still reached audiences through hundreds of screenings across the state. People carried ‘Amma Ariyan’ from place to place even without a formal release. There’s a documentary being made, called ‘The Film That Belongs to Everyone’ by Shalini Usha. It explores these questions: why the film should be preserved, how it was made, who watched it, and why it didn’t receive wider international recognition. 

Also at that time, it was more important for the film to be shown in Kerala, where it did very well. After he died, the work did not get the international circulation it deserved. That’s why the Cannes screening now feels more important.

What do you think is the significance of restoring these films?

It’s really a question about why we preserve history or culture at all. Films are part of our heritage, just like books, museums, or old buildings. They are preserved so future generations know these histories existed. Even if these films are not commercially shown anymore, they remain culturally important. But how does one decide which films deserve preservation? Certain films are picked over others for all narratives to exist. Otherwise, only dominant political narratives will survive, while many other stories and perspectives disappear.