Saving the stuntmen

Film production technology is so advanced now that a risky, fatal stunt with a real person would be plain foolish and extremely dangerous. Now, why did this wisdom not surface before Kannada cinema lost two of its versatile artistes to an eminently avoidable aerial misadventure?

That, really, is a mystery. But, isn’t it an unpardonable breach of trust that an industry with enough experience and maturity did not evolve foolproof mechanisms to safeguard the life of its artistes? Or is this accident only a blip waiting to be forgotten in a hurry?

Poor safety at shooting locations is now a reality, however uncomfortable that truth might be. The drowning of two actors at the Thippagondanahalli reservoir on November 7 is a dead give-away of a system gone horribly wrong.   

Veteran filmmakers, action directors and fight masters are now vocal, drawing attention to the serious lack of safety precautions at shooting sites. Overwhelmingly, they are in favour of adopting technological props to free stunt artistes from doing impossible tasks.

“The tragedy at Thippagondanahalli was the height of stupidity,” recalls S V Rajendra Singh Babu, president Chalanachitra Academy. “The director’s gross negligence claimed two lives. There were no safety measures at all in place there.”

Beyond control
Such accidents can happen even when adequate safety measures are in place. But that cannot be an excuse to ignore safety. Babu still remembers a shooting scene when the late actor Vishnuvardhan miraculously escaped a dangerous leap from a helicopter. The scene was for ‘Muttinahara’ shot in the Himalayan region.

Directors are not always in control. Babu draws attention to a stunt artiste’s death in Mumbai a year ago. The loco-pilot of a train had failed to apply the brakes in time as dust rushed into his cabin and blinded him. The engine crushed the stuntman to death on the spot.

Necessary safety measures were in place in this case. So, where did things go wrong? Post-shooting special-effects and camera tricks might have saved the stuntman’s life. But that is an afterthought. The answer could be in minimising risky human takes.

Sahasa Kalavidara Sangha president Vinod echoes this view. “Directors and producers encourage fighters to do dangerous sequences without sufficient safety measures. They only eye commercial aspects risking artistes’ lives. We are in an era where everything can be done inside a studio with technology,” he explains.

Stunts without dupes
But this logic does not always cut ice with some directors. As fight master Different Danny points out, they insist that stuntmen do dangerous sequences without any dupes. Movies are promoted by advertising such risky techniques to ensure a visual treat for the audience, contends Danny.

Neither the director nor the producer who demand such dangerous stunts from the fighters show any concern for their safety, says Danny. He had experienced it firsthand. Shooting for the film “Hai Bangalore” in Seshadripuram, he had sustained severe injuries on his waist.

This brings the debate back to the original question: Why can’t technology be used to enhance audience appeal at reduced or no risk at all to anyone’s life? Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce president Sa Ra Govindu offers an answer: Budgetary constraints.

He explains this play of market: “Limited market and budget come in the way of using technology for action sequences. Kannada film industry’s market is restricted within Karnataka. The use of technology for action sequences demands huge finances. Producers then prefer stuntsmen instead.”

Need for planning
But Babu adds that it is not about technology alone. “Directors,” he says, “should plan everything before the shooting begins. They should discuss and check out all aspects related to safety. Proper planning and preparation will surely prevent incidents such as the Mastigudi one.”

Budgetary constraints have left earnings of stuntsmen and stunt masters in Karnataka are meagre when compared to Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. Danny explains, “Stunt artistes in Telugu and Tamil movies are paid up to Rs. 15 lakh, while stunt directors receive upto Rs 70,000. In the Kannada film industry, stuntmen get only Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000. There are even cases where the artistes are not paid at all!”

Ironically, Danny says he was paid only Rs 250 for a stunt scene in ‘Hai Bangalore,’ but ended up spending over Rs 3 lakh for treating his injuries.

The equation now becomes clear. Technology is costly. So, prefer stuntmen who come cheap. But there is a problem. Of the 150-odd stunt artistes in the Kannada film industry, only about 30 are active. Fight master Danny puts this in perspective: “About 120 stuntsmen are down with multiple injuries and are unable to be part of any shooting. They are crippled for life.”

ROOPA IYER
Kannada film director
The two artistes who died were struggling actors willing to do anything they were told. Their lives were thus taken for granted. This is a lesson for the film industry.

SUMANA KITTUR,
Filmmaker
If Anil and Uday said that they could not swim, why were they made to jump? It is
tantamount to murder

S V RAJENDRA SINGH BABU
President, Chalanachitra Academy
The tragedy at Thippagondanahalli was the height of stupidity. The director’s negligence claimed two lives. There were no safety measures at all there.

Sa Ra GOVINDU
President, KFCC
Limited market and budget restrict use of technology for action sequences. Kannada film industry’s market is restricted. Technology demands huge finances.

V VINOD
President, Sahasa Kalavidara Sangha
Directors and producers encourage fighters to do dangerous sequences
without sufficient safety measures. They only eye commercial aspects risking artistes’ lives.