When I drop in to meet Anurag Kashyap at a nondescript banquet hall close to the office of his production house Phantom in Mumbai’s Andheri West, the director-producer is losing a battle. “More coffee, less milk,” he tells his assistant, trying to explain how he likes his coffee. What he gets after a few minutes is clearly no coffee, lots of milk.

“Arre, yesterday someone made me perfect coffee. Ask them to make it like that!” he tries. No one can locate whoever made his coffee the previous day. At some point during this chat, he just gives up and drinks whatever he is given. 
But one battle that he refuses to give up on is the one against the Central Board of Film Certification. He led from the front when Udta Punjab flew into trouble a few weeks ago.

When we walk in, Anurag is sprawled in a closet-sized room that he is sharing with the cast of his latest directorial venture — Raman Raghav 2.0. Nawazuddin Siddiqui is sitting right at the end of the room, rolling a cigarette and peering into his phone. Next to him is former beauty queen (and big screen debutante) Sobhita Dhulipala and then there is Vicky Masaan Kaushal who is almost unrecognisable with a full beard, a baseball cap on backwards and a really bulky frame.

Anurag is a strange combination of laidback and anxious as he rolls a cigarette, replies to multiple messages on his phone and talks life from Bombay Velvet to Raman Raghav.

To begin with, congratulations on winning the battle against censorship. Considering how well Udta Punjab has been received, do you feel vindicated?

Ya, I do feel vindicated. Now that people have seen the film, people can see for themselves that the cuts that Pahlajji (Nihalani, the CBFC chairman) wanted really doesn’t make sense. Udta Punjab is not glamorising drug use. It’s an anti-drug movie. 

I don’t think the fight is over. It’s been such a huge hassle to get our films certified in the last two years. Making a film has become harrowing. Every filmmaker has started to dread going to the censor board. You know you are going to sit there like an accused and in front of you is the judge in the form of Mr Nihalani. 

It’s strange to have to go through those kind of negotiations. It’s humiliating. I have gone through my films getting destroyed. For him, it’s nothing. He just says, ‘Make these six-seven cuts and I’ll pass your film’. He doesn’t understand what goes into making a film. He takes everything out of context and judges it. After dealing with him, you know that he doesn’t have the intellectual capacity worthy of the position he is sitting in. His cinema is long over in the ’80s. He doesn’t understand how people and cinema have grown. He is taking us to the dark ages.

Do you see light at the end of the tunnel?

I do. But everyone who doesn’t agree with his way of thinking has been sidelined (in the censor board). You talk to the RO (regional officer), he sounds like Mr Nihalani. It’s just very strange to even talk to the people there. We have always had problems with the censor board but in the past, films weren’t massacred. It used to be a fair fight — you went to the examining committee, they saw the film in a certain way so you went to the revising committee and they would pass the film. Nothing was cut out of films like Dev. D, (Gangs of) Wasseypur, Ugly or Gulaal. 

These days, the examining and revising committee have the same people. There is no point in arguing with them. When I went with Raman Raghav 2.0, the first thing the RO said to me was: ‘I understand. I am also an intellectual’. What kind of a disclaimer is that?! How do you deal with people like that? 

They started discussing the lovemaking scene in the film and randomly told me to chop it by 50 per cent. He said: ‘The boy is giving too many thrusts to the girl. Reduce the thrusts to three… that much should be enough. 

What?!

Exactly! Who is more perverse... you or me? You are counting the number of thrusts and this is despite the fact that the actor is showing nothing. How do you deal with someone like that?

In recent times, celebrities are questioned as to why they don’t air their opinions and when they do, they are panned for it…

That’s only in the last few years. In the last two years, the mindset is very clear — if you are not with us, you are against us. Now you can’t even stand up for yourself because you have to have an agenda. If I am standing up for my movie, I must be funded by AAP (Aam Aadmi Party) or have a political intention. It’s like I am trying to make the BJP look bad. It’s this very strange logic that these trolls come up with and everyone knows that they are all paid. They try to demoralise you. They make it a dirty fight by politicising it. 

Moving to Raman Raghav 2.0, did it feel comfortable to go back to a space that you know well?

I know how to maximise my space. When I am working with a constrained budget, the pressure is off. Like exploring characters... that darkness that lurks within... and that side of our personalities that we don’t normally show to the world. It has a lot to do with my obsession with (Fyodor) Dostoevsky and noir. I never went away from this so there is no question of ‘going back’ to that space. 

The reason I mentioned ‘going back’ was because with Bombay Velvet, the scale, the cast… it was all bigger than anything you had done before. And now with Raman Raghav 2.0, you are back to working with smaller budgets and actors you have collaborated with before... 

See, Velvet was a film that I needed to make and it needed that kind of budget. I made the film like just any film I make. The only difference was that because of the bigger scale, there was a lot of pressure. With Raman..., the pressure is off. I tried working with a big budget and it is not easy. Also, it is difficult to work with a set image. And it’s not because of him (Ranbir Kapoor)... he is a wonderful actor who contributes in every way possible, but the fans don’t want to deviate too much from his image. That becomes another constraint because I need to keep an actor’s image in mind. I can’t do that anymore. 

It must feel stifling to have to work within so many parameters...

It does, but I was the one who allowed it to happen. I can’t blame anyone else.  

Raman Raghav was a character that you were obsessed with for a long time…

Ya. If you read about him, you’ll be obsessed too. What makes a man like him tick? He just goes about killing people... there is no logic, provocation or remorse. 

And you first heard about this serial killer when you watched Sriram Raghavan’s film?

I saw Sriram’s film (Raman Raghav, a short) and then I worked with him. I then wrote ‘Auto Narayan’ (his first screenplay) for which I did a lot of research. Most of the research couldn’t go into the film because we had a lot of constraints. Those weren’t the days when people explored real-life stories or even this genre in films. All that research had a lasting impression on me.

Nawaz and your relationship…

Is like the perfect marriage! (Anurag laughs, while Nawaz looks up, smiles and then goes back to scrolling on his phone) Our marriage would have had no fights and lots of silences. I have known him for a long time. He allows me to find things within him that no one has found before. For me, he is like clay. He gives me permission to take him anywhere. It is a relationship of trust. Nawaz trusts me blindly which increases my responsibility. I don’t even feel guilty if I can’t give him the luxuries that other filmmakers can afford to give him. 

And Vicky was your assistant on Gangs of Wasseypur? 

(‘Should I step out if you want to say nice things about me?’ Vicky asks with a laugh) A lot of people who want to act start as assistants, but they are not truthful about what they want to do. Vicky, on the other hand, was very clear about why he was ADing. We knew that he came on the set to understand how a film is put together. He wasn’t one of those guys who only watched what was happening... he actually worked. When he found the time to observe and learn I don’t know because he was always working. When the film got over, he didn’t waste any time. He joined Manav Kaul and did theatre. I see him going far. 

It’s been a year since Bombay Velvet. What’s been your biggest learning?

Never be on the back foot. If the scale, budget, star or studio… anything at all puts you on the back foot... avoid it. 

Did you feel personally attacked?

I did, but I also got over it all pretty quickly... I self-heal very fast. Whether it’s a personal or professional setback, I get over it very fast. I don’t like to wallow in self-pity and cry that the world doesn’t get me. I don’t give a f**k if the world doesn’t get me! (Laughs)

Last year, you had said you would move to Paris after Bombay Velvet. What happened?

That interview was done in February last year and that was the plan. I had already rented a place in Paris and everything was in place for me to relocate. I have been wanting to explore working outside of India for the longest time… I even had multiple offers. But when Bombay Velvet bombed, I didn’t want to escape. I decided to cancel all my plans and stay back to grate on everyone’s nerves! Suddenly I felt like I had so much energy, and liberated. 

But you haven’t completely given up on the idea of working abroad?

Absolutely not. I am going to explore things in the near future. 

You recently said, ‘I need to take a break from me. I want to do a light film’. Is that the headspace you are in right now?

I don’t really have a subject. For me, a ‘light’ film is Kapoor & Sons or Udaan. It might not match other people’s definition of ‘light’. I don’t have a script like that right now. 

Do you ever see yourself making a comedy?

If I make a comedy, it will have bite. There is a lot of humour in my films. I like working with humour, but it’s always in a strange zone.