Angered by the intolerance of some groups to his film "Sins", director Vinod Pande says critics are jumping to conclusions without having watched his "bold" but "sensitive" portrayal.

Pande told IANS in an interview why his controversial release "Sins" was not a sinful, sacrilegious excursion into sleaze.

The film that tells the story of a Catholic priest who commits a crime of passion with a young girl has seen strong protests by Christian groups who said it hurt their sentiments.

Q: Why this hue and cry over your latest film?

A: Somehow my cinema is never free of controversy. The most annoying thing is that a section of the Christian community has objected to "Sins" without seeing a single frame. If they saw the film they'd know it's a sensitive touching tale. It's a bold film but it's neither cheesy nor sleazy, I promise you.

Q: But some of the stills and promos are provocative.

A: The original promos were soft. We revised that in keeping with the film, which is bold though not titillating.

Q: Marketing "Sins" is a departure from Yashraj Films' routine cinema.

A: Yes. I knew I had to work within a restricted budget because the film was in English and with two newcomers - Shiny Ahuja and Seema Rahmani, both brilliant actors. Seema is from Los Angeles. Shiny is from Delhi.

I had given myself a budget of Rs.10 million ($230,000). I went to Yash Chopra to seek his advice and I narrated the story. Ten days later Chopra told me his son Aditya loved the script. That's how they became my film's worldwide controllers.

Q: Why in English?

A: I designed it in that language. "Sins" is that kind of film. The non-English speaking audience may misconstrue the bold scenes. "Sins" is bold. You'll see a lot more nudity on screen, and parts of the anatomy never seen before. But they are aesthetically beautiful scenes.

See, in our films even clothed characters are made to look suggestive and vulgar. I took the film to the Censor Board's appellate tribunal where, strangely, the two members who gave a judgement in my film's favour were women. The one who spoke against my film was a professor.

Q: When the censors were so liberal with "Sins", why did you have to go to the tribunal?

A: There was one shot of the heroine's nude back when she gets up from bed. I couldn't remove it for technical reasons. If it was removed, the sequence would look jumpy. The moment comes at a crucial point in the narrative when we accentuate her loneliness and anxieties as a woman in a forbidden relationship.

Q: How do you intend to tackle the ire of the Christian community?

A: When in my serial "Reporter" for national television (Doordarshan) I had a six-part story about the underhand dealings in a religious math, no one spoke out. Why now? Isn't this fascism? Such intolerance for creative work is not acceptable.

I remember I had done another story on Punjabi extremism. The Sikh community was up in arms. I refused to give in to their demands that I show them my story before it was telecast. Likewise I refuse to show my film to fascist elements who want to dictate terms to me. I'm responsible only to my producers.

I hate to point this out. But haven't people seen my earlier work? A boy-meets-girl story has never interested me. In my first film "Ek Baar Phir", three decades ago, the wife walked out on her husband without apology. My films are always about the pain and ecstasy of forbidden love. But I have never gone beyond my aesthetic boundaries."

Q: So you're no stranger to moral policing.

A: I am not. You can't see one portion of a painting and judge the whole canvas. These guys are behaving like what happened with Communists during McCarthy. What's this? Why doesn't the media stand up to this fascism?

Q: Isn't there a fear of outrage against the film's theme?

A: Even the Christian community won't be unhappy with "Sins". Seen in the correct perspective it's a very tragic and sensitive story. The priest's conscientious downfall is the film's crux, not blasphemy or titillation. My film talks about the eternal battle between Christ and Satan.

Q: And yet "Sins" might be clubbed with the other cheesy sex films?

A: You've raised a very important issue. This is my main worry. The promos have been interpreted to mean "Sins" is a sex film. I was scared of this. But I had no choice.

One channel took the tapes of my promos, selected the nude bits and interspersed them with similar visuals from Murder, etc. I was very upset. If you see my full promotional footage, it's provocative in theory. But it isn't sleazy. The so-called moralists are saying I've put a priest into a sex film because sex per se doesn't work. What utter bunk!

Q: How did "Sins" originate?

A: I started shooting "Sins" in 2003. I first read about this incident in 1998. In a full-page report in the "Express", the honourable Judge sentenced a priest to death. Then I came across several incidents of priests in taboo relationships. But that wasn't the right time to make it.

Q: Are you aware you've raised a hornet's nest?

A: I know. But as a creative artiste I know my aesthetic and moral responsibilities. Cinema has a far-reaching impact. I know the influence of the medium. Just like a newspaper correspondent maintains a balance and neutrality in his report, I've made a film that isn't meant to offend anyone. One newspaper says the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has protested against "Sins". Do they realise the repercussions of such irresponsible statements?