We Lost the Climax: How Pushkar-Gayatri Shelved Their Demonetisation-Based Film
In the annals of filmmaking, there are stories of directors whose bold ideas and timely themes can transform a movie into a masterpiece. However, sometimes the timing of a story can be its greatest adversary. For the renowned filmmaker duo Pushkar-Gayatri, their fate took an unexpected turn when they had to shelve an ambitious project centered around demonetisation. This decision was not merely a result of creative differences or production struggles but because the real-world event, demonetisation, unfolded in a way that made their narrative almost redundant — and even eerily prophetic.
The Genesis of the Idea
Pushkar-Gayatri, best known for their brilliant work on Vikram Vedha, a film that delved deep into moral ambiguity and the choices between good and evil, had initially conceived a film about the 2016 demonetisation move by the Indian government. The story, they believed, would offer a perfect blend of drama, thriller, and political commentary. Demonitisation, a bold and controversial move introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was meant to tackle corruption, black money, and counterfeit currency by invalidating 500- and 1,000-rupee notes, leading to widespread chaos and uncertainty.
The duo saw an opportunity to reflect on the social and economic ramifications of this decision. Their film would focus on ordinary citizens, bankers, and government officials struggling to adapt to the sudden upheaval. They envisioned a tightly wound thriller where the chaos of demonetisation would form the backdrop of a larger story about power, greed, survival, and the consequences of hasty decisions. The film would show the rippling effects of this sudden policy shift on the lives of individuals, all while exploring the human condition under immense stress.
What Pushkar-Gayatri had in mind was not just a commentary on demonetisation but on how the policy exposed the underbelly of a nation’s infrastructure, politics, and humanity. The themes they were keen on exploring were timeless and universal: power dynamics, social injustice, and the unintended consequences of top-down decisions. The narrative had the potential to resonate far beyond the boundaries of the 2016 event itself.
The Dreaded Reality of Real-Life Coincidence
However, fate had different plans. As Pushkar-Gayatri were still in the early stages of developing the film, and even as they began outlining the characters and plot details, an unexpected twist occurred in the form of the demonetisation itself. On November 8, 2016, Prime Minister Modi announced the sudden withdrawal of 500- and 1,000-rupee notes from circulation, citing the fight against black money and corruption as the driving force behind this monumental decision. While the duo’s film was a fictional exploration of this concept, the event itself became the new reality.
At first, the directors were stunned. They had been working on a film that centered on the very issue that the government had now thrust into the spotlight. Initially, the idea seemed more like a stroke of cinematic brilliance — the event they had predicted and plotted for was happening right before their eyes. But as time passed, they began to realise that the movie’s emotional impact, its commentary on social inequality, and its portrayal of the chaos surrounding the policy could no longer hold the same power. The film they were making had suddenly gone from fiction to an almost too-real reflection of the world they lived in.
The issue was not just the resemblance between their plot and the real event, but the fact that the public’s relationship with demonetisation had become deeply personal, far more than any film could have hoped to capture. People had lived through the nightmare of standing in long queues outside banks, the uncertainty of a cashless economy, and the constant debates over the efficacy of the government’s decision. The events of 2016 were so fresh, raw, and emotional that it was difficult for Pushkar-Gayatri to deliver a fictional version that could match or even challenge the reality of what had unfolded.
A Film That Was No Longer Necessary
As the initial shock of the announcement wore off, the directors began to see how the very narrative they had envisioned was becoming less relevant. What they had planned as a thriller steeped in tension and social commentary suddenly seemed like an unnecessary addition to the national discourse. People already had their own stories of suffering, resilience, and survival in the face of demonetisation. A film about the event would feel like a rehash of personal experiences, lacking the emotional resonance that real-life narratives carried.
What was once a carefully crafted commentary on corruption, governance, and the class divide had already played out on a much larger scale. In many ways, the reality of demonetisation surpassed any fictional exploration that could have been made at the time. The trauma of standing in line, of struggling to make ends meet, and of feeling the uncertainty of an economy in flux could not be adequately represented in a fictional story. The country was living through the very chaos they intended to dramatize, making their story feel redundant and even insensitive.
Moreover, there was the question of the tone and reception of the film. Given the deeply polarising nature of the demonetisation policy, the filmmakers feared that the movie could be seen as either political propaganda or an exploitative attempt to profit from a national crisis. Their intent was never to capitalize on people’s suffering but to offer an intellectual and artistic perspective on the event. Yet, in a country where every political decision is dissected from multiple viewpoints, such a film could easily be misinterpreted or be seen as a politically motivated commentary, something the filmmakers sought to avoid.
The Dilemma of Losing the Climax
What was perhaps most frustrating for Pushkar-Gayatri was that they had crafted a powerful climax for their film, one that revolved around a final, crucial moment of societal change brought on by demonetisation. This climax, which had the potential to tie all the political and personal threads together, was now lost. They had spent months developing a narrative that now seemed less like a prediction and more like an afterthought.
Ultimately, the decision to shelve the film was made. The filmmakers could not see themselves moving forward with a story that had already been overtaken by reality. What was once a thrilling social commentary had turned into a form of cinematic déjà vu. The true story of demonetisation had played out before their eyes in real time — there was no need for fiction anymore.
Reflecting on the Impact
While their film may never see the light of day, Pushkar-Gayatri’s decision to shelve the project speaks volumes about the relationship between art, politics, and the times we live in. Their experience is a reminder of how reality can sometimes overpower fiction, especially when the events unfolding are larger than any narrative one can create. The filmmakers’ commitment to telling an authentic, impactful story — one that does not merely follow the trends of the time but seeks to push boundaries — is admirable.
In hindsight, the loss of their film’s climax is a bitter irony. Pushkar-Gayatri were poised to create a film that might have offered the catharsis and reflection that many sought after the traumatic events of demonetisation. Instead, reality itself became the ultimate climax — one that could never be replicated on screen. But while the film may never be made, the filmmakers’ willingness to let go of their project out of respect for the lived experiences of millions speaks to their integrity as artists and storytellers. They, like the rest of the country, learned that some stories are too real to be captured in fiction.
