EXCLUSIVE | Writer Aniruddha Guha: 'The audience is sending clear signs about what they want to watch’

Former film critic Aniruddha Guha is now a film writer and his repertoire already boasts off titles like Malang, Rashmi Rocket, and more recently, the acclaimed show on JioCinema called Ranneeti: Balakot and Beyond. He now gears up for the Indian adaptation of Sherlock Homes that stars the incredibly talented Kay Kay Menon, Rasika Duggal, Ranveer Shorey, and much more.

In an exclusive interview with Firstpost, Guha opened up about his process behind writing Ranneeti, the need for writers to infuse newness in even familiar stories, and why the film industry must collectively respond to the audiences’ tastes and demands.

Edited excerpts from the interview

How did the transition from a film critic to a film writer happen?

It wasn’t a planned move, to be honest. Being a film critic in 2016 was a lot more fun than it seems in 2024. I’m talking about a time when there wasn’t a glut of YouTube reviewers and social media pundits. There were a handful of reliable critics whose word mattered. Reviews would be widely shared, discussed, debated on the Friday of release. I’m fortunate to have been a film reviewer during the 2007-2016 decade, which saw the rise of filmmakers like Zoya Akhtar, Imtiaz Ali, Dibakar Banerjee, Vishal Bharadwaj, etc - and the commercial fare then was pretty solid too.

The switch to screenwriting happened when filmmaker Nikhil Advani got in touch to see if I’d be interested in joining a writer’s room he was putting together for an official adaptation of the Israeli series, Hatufim (also remade as Homeland in the US). This was in the pre-streaming service era - we wanted to make a big, ambitious series for the small screen (POW - Bandi Buddh Ke). The POW writers’ room turned into a training ground for me. I wasn’t comfortable with the idea of reviewing films while also writing them - it was a conflict of interest I wanted to steer clear of. Dangal, the final release of 2016, was the last film I reviewed, and then gladly moved to screenwriting full-time.

Your show Ranneeti - Balakot & Beyond that’s streaming on Jio Cinemas is getting some rave reviews. How did the idea about that show come about?

I got a call from Viacom 18 about wanting to make a show on the Balakot airstrikes. It was 2020, and we were in the middle of a pandemic. I was apprehensive to take on another tale of India-Pakistan rivalry, mainly because I feel there’s audience fatigue within that kind of storytelling format. But then the producers sent me the initial story written by Sanjay Chopra, and I realised the show wasn’t a straight-up “Pakistan is the villain, India is the protagonist” kind of drama.

I have been a big fan of American and British spy dramas like The Americans, The Game and Slow Horses, and always wanted to write an espionage thriller with geopolitical undercurrents. The smartest spy shows and cold war dramas have the ability to humanise characters on both sides of the fence, and I realized Ranneeti had the potential to be in that space if written intelligently.

Our show is more about what goes on behind-the-scenes during war time. The split-second decision-making, the diplomatic hustle, the collateral to be considered each time, the potential backlash from the international community - these made for very interesting plot points in the long-format space. And we explored these themes from both sides of the border. The characters of Jimmy Sheirgill and Ashish Vidyarthi make those hard decisions on behalf of India. And then we have the character played by Ashutosh Rana, the head of ISI, who performs the same role for Pakistan.

At the end of the day, whichever nation one belongs to, you are a human being with emotions and relationships and life experiences, and a worldview, that shape the decisions you take at work. I really enjoyed bringing out those dualities in the characters. Meghna Gulzar’s Raazi became a good reference point - there Pakistani characters were the enemy, but not the bad guys.

Once I knew we’d not be treading familiar waters with the series, the subject matter became instantly exciting and appealing to me.

Ashutosh Rana has always been one of the finest actors that we have and post Humpty Sharma. It’s like watching Ashutosh Rana 2.0. How was it like collaborating with him?

There’s nothing I can say about Ashutosh Rana that people don’t already know. He’s one of the finest actors we have in the country. Even Aashish Vidyarthi, for that matter. When actors of their calibre take on roles, it’s a great validation for the writers - the fact that veteran actors see meat in the characters, and the potential in the story. What you said about Asutosh Rana is absolutely right. He started out playing villain parts and then gradually moved to playing varied roles, and with Ranneeti, he returns as an antagonist whose relevance to the story is equal to that of the hero.

Up next, you have written the Indian adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. Again, Kay Kay Menon, Rasika Duggal, Ranveer Shorey. What a fantastic cast. What more can you tell us?

It’s early to talk about the Sherlock Holmes adaptation. But like you yourself pointed out, getting solid actors like Kay Kay, Rasika and Ranvir is half the battle won. It’s a great ensemble, and I hope the show can do justice to their craft.

What’s a cliché you like to avoid while writing a script?

I don’t think there is a formula. Also, let me tell you: clichés work. Let’s first acknowledge the fact that the reason something is a “cliché” is because it resonates with the audience. Now as writers, we must find ways to subvert those clichés wherever possible. This is also a very genre-dependent conversation. An action movie will always have certain elements that we’ve associated with the genre over the years. But how those genre tropes are played around with is what makes the difference.

Take Jawan as an example. At its core, it’s a father-son story. And it’s not like a father-son story we haven’t seen before. But Atlee’s vision, the way he presented moments, the action choreography, and the way Shah Rukh Khan played those roles, had a certain newness which made it click with the audience. The same went for Animal. The film plays out like a classic crime thriller on the lines of The Godfather, or Mani Ratnam’s Nayagan. But Sandeep Reddy Vanga presented Ranbir Kapoor’s character in a manner Indian audiences aren’t used to seeing their heroes play on screen. And that made it instantly stand out. This applies to every genre. There’s comfort in the known, and writers shouldn’t shy from adopting those familiar elements. The key is to not be lazy, and find newer ways of presenting stories to the audience.

The ballooning costs of films largely owing to stars and their entourage is a hot topic of debate currently. As a writer and a member of the film industry, what’s your take**?**

The adage “Story is king” is something people making films have been saying since the beginning of time. Everyone across the filmmaking chain - whether a producer, a studio head, a director, or the biggest of stars - knows that it all begins with a script. So I don’t think there is an absence of acknowledgment that writers are important, or that scripts are important. Is that translating into fair remuneration for writers is what needs to be spoken about more openly.

About the fees an actor takes from a producer, or the cost of their entourage - who am I to comment on what an individual wants to spend on their film? It’s a free economy. Those who are investing money into films know that there must be a certain recovery either at the box office, or through ancillary means, to turn their investment into a profit. You don’t need anyone else to point that out to them.

The larger point of debate should be: Are others in the filmmaking chain getting underpaid? Is lesser being spent on the making of a film, thereby affecting the output of quality that the audience expects from a big screen outing? If yes, then that must be addressed. If writers, directors, DoPs, editors and others associated with filmmaking are getting fair pay, then it shouldn’t matter what an actor makes. But if everyone else is getting underpaid due to expenditure on areas that don’t determine the quality of a film, then there must be a correction. And that will happen organically. At the end of the day, the person who has the influence to get a film green-lit has to make that change.

Already this year, we’ve seen films like Munjya, Madgaon Express, Srikanth, Shaitaan, etc make money at the box office. A Laapataa Ladies ran for 10 weeks straight. Much bigger films haven’t even seen a trickle on the Friday of release. The audience is sending clear signs about what they want. We must collectively respond now.

Working as an Entertainment journalist for over five years, covering stories, reporting, and interviewing various film personalities of the film industry see more