m.a.g.

ALL WE IMAGINE AS LIGHT: A CONVERSATION

Words by Maja Vuk and Alexandra Iglesias

Maja Vuk and Alexandra Iglesias, both film journalists for Fantú, sat down to discuss Payal Kapadia’s latest feature, All We Imagine as Light, winner of the Grand Prix at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival. What follows is a conversation between Maja and Alex, shaped by their shared thoughts and impressions of the film.

Alex: Where shall we begin? I’ve been really looking forward to this. All We Imagine as Light is a film I’ve been wanting to discuss since the day I walked out of the cinema, and I couldn’t be happier to discuss it with you, Maja. Thank you for taking on this journalistic journey with me! We should probably start with a brief recap of the plot.

Maja: Absolutely! The film follows three women, Prabha, Anu, and Parvati, who moved to Mumbai from different parts of India. They all work as nurses in a hospital, and Prabha and Anu also share a flat. We see glimpses of their daily lives, how they navigate this effervescent city, and the men in their lives. Prabha and Parvati’s spouses are absent, which affects them in different ways. Anu, on the other hand, opens a window for us to an interfaith relationship.

A: What’s quite striking is that the protagonists’ main issues stem from their relationships with the men in their lives; I believe politics plays a huge part in that. Yet, what we learn about life in India in this film is always implied. It’s the images that speak for a larger system. It raises fundamental questions: What is marriage? How are relationships formed? I think it’s interesting how we [Western audiences] are not accustomed to seeing these types of relationships on screen. Mumbai’s reality is portrayed with such naturalism.

M: I hadn’t thought about it that way, but you are right. The men in their lives are a common thread and I appreciate that the director doesn’t cater to a European audience. The cultural references and social realities aren’t over-explained, they’re just presented as they are, which makes the film an immersive experience. I love how the director focuses on small gestures, for example Prabha hugging the rice cooker sent by her husband. This cold object comes from someone she is supposed to love but doesn’t really know due to their arranged marriage. It’s a gesture that shows her need for warmth and connection, yearning for someone to think about her, but not just as a duty.

A: The audience will never find out her husband’s real reasons for sending this object or leaving in the first place, and the film doesn’t seek to explain them. The entire mise-en-scène is built around the women’s perspectives. In the aforementioned scene, there isn’t a shot of the man in Germany sending the rice cooker. The director deliberately leaves it out because what truly matters is Prabha’s reaction to it; the woman’s point of view. That’s what I love about this film: it focuses on these little moments, details, and gestures.

M: Exactly. Prabha had an arranged marriage, which seems to be completely normalized and commonplace. I would be curious to understand why her husband had the liberty to leave or why she doesn’t divorce him. Maybe it’s the hope for his return. Meanwhile, Parvati’s late husband didn’t even leave important papers and documents. As I see it, these dynamics comment on the roles of women. It’s the man that’s in charge of finances and housing, even though, in reality, Prabha and Parvati have their own income.

A: In contrast, I feel like Anu is the only one who experiences a positive form of masculinity, understanding it as a love relationship. That’s why I believe the director portrayed her a bit like a “kid”. This is reflected in her naïve attitude but also, for example, in the costume choices, as she sometimes wears sunglasses, and her clothes are brighter and youthful. She seems to be the only one who has hope in men, or at least in the man she loves. Anu is genuinely portrayed as a character full of optimism and light; I feel like it relates to the title.

M: Anu embodies warmth, sensuality, and romance. Watching her and Shiaz interact is a joy, and it’s refreshingly uplifting within the film’s tense atmosphere.

A: Now that I think about it, they’re all searching for warmth in their own way.

M: Yes, but Anu is the only one who seeks it by actively pushing against societal constraints. She’s headstrong.

A: She challenges reality. She is starting to break free from the cage. And it is curious how, when she and Shiaz want to make love, they really can’t find a way to do so in the city! They literally can’t make love in the city! It’s very symbolic. They find it impossible both physically and socially. In this city one must remain a total stranger to everyone.

M: Imagine how massive the city is: 20 million people! Yet they can’t find a single place for privacy. It’s a paradox. And ironically, in the countryside, where you’d expect even more scrutiny, they actually find a place to be together. It turns out to be a space of release, also thanks to the way Kapadia contrasts these spaces visually.

A: I agree. The shots of the city… they make it feel like a dark movie, even cinematically. I don’t know if you noticed, but Mumbai is always shot at night.

M: I didn’t notice that, but it’s truly remarkable that the color blue is omnipresent in Kapadia’s Mumbai. This blue veil over the city evokes the notion of “feeling blue”, don’t you think? Everything from the knife handles in the apartment to the nurses’ uniforms is blue. It’s intriguing.

A: It’s the opposite of the stereotypical warm, vibrant imagery we often associate with India. But this particular Mumbai doesn’t give you that. It makes our protagonists small; the city doesn’t feel like home to them and therefore it literally pushes them away. But I felt relieved when they finally left…

M: And we finally see bright colors! The contrast is stunning. At first, I was disheartened when they went to the countryside, as I expected a desolate place. It turned out to be the complete opposite. A place where they could find a sense of release and relaxation, and where we actually see their true colors, their personalities, shine.

A: And we finally have light and daylight scenes!

M: That created a big contrast between the beginning and the end of the film. The movie is introduced to us with relentless moving images, filmed out of a moving vehicle, where you can barely catch a glimpse of anything. Once you try to see something it’s already passed.

A: Just frenetic!

M: Yeah, it’s hectic. It all happens at high speed and you don’t have the time to look at anyone. Everything is transient. “You have to believe in the illusion or else you will go mad”, that’s a quote in the film. Mumbai is a place of projection.

A: I think the concept of illusion is woven into the film on multiple levels. Perhaps Prabha ultimately surrendered to it; she embraces the beauty in illusion with her final gesture. My favorite shot is actually the closing image at the beach bar. It’s a wide, vibrant shot, filled with color, as if the three women themselves are radiating light. It’s almost like a dollhouse set against the darkness of the night. The director creates a beautifully composed vivid image; illuminating this illusion, even though, in the end, it remains just that, an illusion.

M: But a meaningful one. It’s not an empty illusion. It’s a moment of healing, however temporary. And coming from Prabha, it’s particularly moving. She’s usually rational and reserved, yet in that moment, she creates a fleeting space of community.

A: Exactly, it’s not their reality but for that one moment, they allow themselves to believe in it. That’s why it feels sort of like playing a “game” to me, a game of believing in something that is imagined. They built an imagined reality for a moment, and that’s where one finds beauty. The atmosphere allows them to feel, to really feel. There are no barriers or armor. It’s as if they have removed all social constructs.

I’m just realizing the film is really about Prabha. Her character is initially portrayed as a bit rigid, who later comes to understand the importance of illusion and the need for it. I also believe the slow pace the director chooses is essential for us to fully grasp her personal journey.

M: That’s an interesting thought. Yes, it was slow and I think that’s what it needed to be. The film required this very unhurried pace to thrive.

A: At the same time, I never felt it was too slow. For me, it was the right pace to absorb everything and understand her process within their realities.

Thanks again Maja for sharing your enriching thoughts with me. I believe I now understand these three women even better.

M: The pleasure is all mine! This gem deserves a rewatch, especially now after this deep-dive. Thank you, Alex.

Words: Maja Vuk @majaxvuk y Alexandra Iglesias @alexandra_iglesias

Editor in chief: Jo García Garrido @jogarciagarrido