#BehindTheLens: Getting inside the visual and editorial design of Freedom at Midnight with Malay Prakash and Shweta Venkat

We spoke to Malay Prakash and Shweta Venkat, the cinematographer-editor duo behind Freedom At Midnight to uncover the secrets from the very rooms where this show was crafted!

It is a monumental task to recreate history, especially a bygone period that carries such immense weight in shaping a nation. It becomes even more challenging when that history is steeped in ideological wars, and the storytelling must remain resonant and accessible to contemporary audiences. That is precisely why Malay Prakash and Shweta Venkat, the cinematographer-editor duo achieve in Freedom At Midnight deserves closer attention. It would be easy to call the show India’s The Crown. With its aesthetically striking frames and tightly controlled narrative flow, the series places you inside those rooms like a fly on the wall, witnessing events unfold in real time. Yet, it never lets you forget that this is a carefully choreographed return to the past, one designed to reflect meaningfully on the present. So how did the creative minds behind the scenes bring this world to life while staying true to Nikkhil Advani’s vision? To understand that, we spoke to cinematographer Malay Prakash and editor Shweta Venkat about how the series found its visual and emotional rhythm through evocative period aesthetics that leave you in awe, takes us through the bureaucratic corridors of history with striking, detailed precision and crisp editing that makes an epic political saga feel as intimate as a family drama.

Also Read: #TheAfterHour: "With Freedom At Midnight, our intent was to make the viewer a witness." - Nikkhil Advani

Here's what they had to say!

The visual language is striking, shifting between colour and black-and-white, close-ups and extreme wides. Often, people are framed as ant-like figures in elephantine spaces. Was that intentional, and what were you hoping to communicate with this tone?

Malay Prakash: The starting point for our visual language was very clear - we did not want the show to feel like a jaded period piece. That impulse came strongly from Nikkhil sir. There are many period dramas made with incredible craft, but often they end up feeling static or disengaging. We wanted to avoid that entirely. Our aim was to create something that felt alive and engaging, especially for Gen Z and millennial audiences. Many of us grew up reading relatively balanced and neutral versions of history in school, but today historical narratives are increasingly skewed. So it became important for us to make a show that could speak to younger viewers, one that would draw them in visually, rather than feel like a distant history lesson. That’s where the more contemporary visual choices came in. Elements like split screens and a slightly edgier, modern grammar were deliberate.

We didn’t want the show to announce itself as a “period piece” in the traditional sense. These choices influenced everything - the colour palette, the grading, the lighting, and the overall framing. This approach also tied into our desire to place the audience inside the story. Instead of framing faces or crafting perfect close-ups, we chose to frame spaces. Most of our compositions were built around rooms, corridors, and environments, with characters placed within them rather than dominating the frame. The idea was to let them exist within these vast, imposing spaces, so viewers feel like they are present in those rooms, observing history unfold, rather than being told how to feel. That balance between modern visual energy and historical immersion became the backbone of the show’s visual identity.

View this post on Instagram

Did you ever worry that the aesthetics of the visual beauty might overpower emotional depth?

MP: For something like this, we naturally like to design and choreograph scenes, but we’re also very conscious of the fact that it shouldn’t feel choreographed. That balance is crucial. There were a few scenes in the show that Nikkhil sir and I have looked at and felt were perhaps more "choreographed" than we would have ideally liked - too clean, too precise, not organic enough. That’s where Shweta’s contribution became invaluable. Through her editing, she brought a sense of looseness and lived-in rhythm to those moments. By entering scenes late, exiting early, and allowing beats to breathe rather than announcing themselves. Her approach helped strip away the sense of over-design and made the scenes feel more natural. 

What this really reinforces is that filmmaking isn’t the result of a single craft or discipline. On set, when you’re inside a space and responding instinctively, something can feel right in the moment, but it takes another perspective to step back and say, “This is too perfect, too organised.” And then to deliberately disrupt that perfection. That willingness to ‘mess it up’ a little, to roughen the edges, is what ultimately makes the work feel more organic. And that’s what stands out across the episodes. Nothing feels overtly crafted or overly self-conscious. For me, that’s the right balance, where the technique disappears, and the storytelling takes over.

Given the vastness of the material - archival footage, montages, lingering close-ups - how did you maintain a cohesive narrative flow without losing intimacy or, as Malay mentioned, organicness? What was your “politics of the cut” for this show?

Shweta Venkat: The idea of the show being a dysfunctional family drama came up very early on. Nikkhil sir was actually very clear that he wanted this to function as a relentless political thriller. My first reaction was honestly confusion - how do you approach this material like a thriller? It took me some time to understand what he meant. That clarity began to come once I saw the first set of visuals. I’ve always believed that there’s a silent communication between a cinematographer and an editor. Through framing, movement, and rhythm, the cinematographer is already suggesting a certain pace and energy. When I watched the footage, those cues were very clear, it was telling me how the material wanted to move.

So initially, the approach was very much that of a thriller. But as I spent more time with the material, I realised that emotionally, it also works like a family drama. There are facts, figures, and historical events, of course, but beneath that are people constantly reacting to one another - arguing, persuading, manipulating, and hurting each other. My instinct then became to edit it like a family drama that keeps you engaged and invested. Whenever the narrative felt like it was lagging, we would reassess - maybe a scene wasn’t working, or perhaps it needed to be removed altogether. Editing involves making those tough decisions all the time.

One of the most rewarding parts of the process was working with archival material. I genuinely enjoyed going through it and, at one point, became a little too enthusiastic about including as much of it as possible. That’s when Nikkhil sir stepped in and reminded me that we weren’t making a documentary. The archival footage is incredible and beautifully preserved, but it had to serve the narrative, not overwhelm it. In the end, the show found its balance. It plays like a political thriller on the surface, but emotionally, it unfolds like a family drama and shaping that duality was a pleasure.

View this post on Instagram

How much freedom did you have as an editor to cut? 

SV: This was probably one of the few projects where I was given complete freedom to shape the show the way I felt it needed to be. But more than just having a free hand, it was the nature of the post-production process that made it special. Every edit cut became a space for open discussion rather than instruction. We would sit together, watch the material, and just jam. Feedback was never prescriptive; it was always conversational. It was never about being told, “This is how it should be done.” Instead, it was about collectively figuring out what worked best for the show. Even when there were disagreements, they never felt confrontational. They were thoughtful discussions, and I genuinely looked forward to them. That kind of collaborative environment not only gives you creative confidence but also pushes the work to become better than what one person alone might have imagined.

Given the timing of the show’s release, it feels especially resonant, more so something we need today. Was there pressure to make the past speak to the present?

SV: I had already started editing Season 2 before Season 1 had even premiered. That’s how closely the processes overlapped. We were deep into the material long before audiences saw it. In many ways, it felt like the timing found the show, not the other way around.

MP: From a political perspective, one thing that was always very clear on this show was the need for balance. I remember a specific day when we were shooting a scene between Nehru and Patel. There’s a moment where Patel sarcastically says something like,“Abhi inke Pakistani dost ko phone karo,” implying Nehru’s concern. During that scene, the actors wanted to make a few small dialogue changes. Nikkhil sir is usually very open to improvisation - he encourages actors to try things, to play around with lines, but he’s also extremely attentive to what those changes do to the larger meaning of a scene. In this case, one of the altered lines started shifting the perspective in a way that made Patel appear closer to the simplified, right-wing caricature he’s often painted today.

We did nearly eight takes exploring those variations. Eventually, Nikkhil sir stepped in and said that even a single line can tilt the ideological balance of a scene, and as filmmakers, we have to be responsible about what we’re saying and the basis on which we’re saying it. We did a couple more takes to recalibrate that balance, even though the actor strongly believed in the added line. Those small decisions are what ultimately shape the show’s tone. They allow someone with a right-leaning worldview to watch the series and still engage with it without feeling alienated, and equally allow someone from the left to walk away with a nuanced, balanced perspective. That consciousness, especially from Nikkhil sir, about not over-colouring history with personal opinions, was present throughout the process.

Freedom At Midnight 2 is currently streaming on SonyLIV!

For more such interviews, follow us on@socialketchupbinge