logo

26 Responses to “‘CommercialHouse’”

1. vishrant on March 15th, 2008 2:40 am

   so called arthouse cinema is snobbery.

   director thinks he is better than others. those who watch this kind of cinema thinks that they are better than other viewer. just by watching so called arthouse film.

   theme of this article reminds me of Prakash Jha.
   he has mastered this balance.
   gangajal, apaharan.

   :)>-

2. French on March 15th, 2008 5:19 am

   I dont think this in any way signals the ‘death’ of art-house cinema.Commercial cinema is eesentially that caters to the audiences,and if people can make films that disguise their artistic aspirations and still be able to ‘connect’ with the audiences,we can have a lot more quality films.This is why Imtiaz Ali in my opinion is the best screenwriter around now.All of his films(Socha na ha,Ahista Ahista,Jab we met) are existential arguments disguised in popular fluff.Why can’t we have more of such filmmakers?

3. Omprakash Seresta on March 15th, 2008 5:50 am

   We have to remember that only experimental or so called art film pushes the envelope to bring novelty in the medium many of which after repeated use becomes norm of the day to be referred as commercial and later becomes cliche. So, we do not need this drabbing against any cinema. Good cinema regardless of their reach will remain so. If Jahnu Barua’s movie are not being seen even by film afficiando’s world wide, then he is definitely not as good as Buddhadeb or Ray or Adoor.

4. Tony Mera Naam on March 15th, 2008 9:48 am

   Honhaar Goonda, if you haven’t seen “Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Maara” then I say go watch it. I wouldn’t just assume all so-called Art-House films are boring. This one surely isn’t, it has a really good storyline and its got a few moments that have great shock value. Seriously check it out and give us your thoughts.

5. RICK on March 15th, 2008 12:48 pm

   well someone here is atleast not afraid to speak his mind….bravo gunda bhai

   but i guess am against the term ART HOUSE, if you just alter the name a little bit and call it EXPERIMENTAL CINEMA, you will immidiately find its need and usage and how much value it adds to films and why must it be studied.
   arthouse cinema paves the way for modern more entertaining and fullfilling films.

   WOULD YOU CALL ALL OF GODARD’S FILMS ENTERTAINING?? i guess most here wont, but if there was no godard there might not have been a tarantino.
   hope i made a point:):):):):)

6. Honhaar Goonda on March 15th, 2008 1:05 pm

   Tony, I did not classify “Maine Gandhi Ko Nahi Mara” as an art film. I did say it is a commercial film and I don’t have any qualms about watching the film.. i just haven’t bothered about getting the dvd. Will do some day.

   Rick, who is Godard?! What do they really experiment? it is always depressing.. same style, no?

7. Pavan Jha on March 15th, 2008 2:43 pm

   Honhaar,

   I dont agree.. An art film can be as interesting as a commercial venture depending upon director’s ability to put his point to his audience.. Manthan, Paar, Daamul, Khandahar, Namkeen, Ek doctor Ki Maut, Katha, Ek ruka hua faisala, New Delhi Times, Sookha, Diksha, Ardhsatya, Drohkaal many names.. even JBDY was a Art film..

   Shyam Babu has made films with stars like Shashi K, Karishma and made big budget films like Neta ji without stars.. Manthan was a commercial venture considering the Sponsorship..

   Jahnu Barua is not significant example as he has not enough samples with respect to Bollywood (not enough of data for sampling)…

   “Or Buddha Sathiya Gaya Hain?”
   Why So? Why cant he as a film maker?

   “Those movies don

8. Tony Mera Naam on March 15th, 2008 2:57 pm

   Goonda-bhai, aap usko commercial bolo, art house bolo, yah phir “woh film jis mein takle Anupam Kher ka dimaag ghoom jaata hai”, please do watch it. I’m sure you’ll like

9. Sreehari. on March 15th, 2008 8:26 pm

   The gr8est thing to know while making Cinema is to believe that there is only type of Cinema and thats the cinema u wanna make, the cinema u have been influenced by and made u wanna be a director in the first place and the cinema u believe u wud like to watch as a solitary audience… Just that belief…
   Then u actually dont understand these classifications.. Your mind gets conditioned to relentlessly strive to get that “Kind of Cinema” made..
   And in a weird way.. Its always always a gr8 thing to have a strong parallel cinema movement going. A strong, successful parallel cinema movement. Not the kind that merely wishes to focuss camera on one static object and convey nothing. A dynamic realism or a static one that conjures up emotions in time. “Pather Panchali” is an extremely entertaining film if u are able to grasp those quiet observations of life that shows along thru the entire film.
   Whats good about having such a strong parallel cinema movement is that it then rubs onto the so-called “commercial cinema” too. Film-makers try to merge the sensibilities that make good parallel cinema with their own natural inclinations and give to the general audience the “best of both worlds”..
   Nayagan, like Mani Ratnam said… was that kind of a cinema. It picked up the sensibilities of parallel cinema like authenticity of detail and conversational patterns and synchronised it beautifully with the other “selling points”. It then isnt “compromise” you see.
   Its “selective learning”..

10. Santosh Kumar T K on March 15th, 2008 9:33 pm

    Wah Sreehari!

    If you earned a penny every time you said such a thing you would have been a millionaire by now…

    kya kaha boss! mazaa aa gaya…

    for me cinema is about conviction… as long as a film is convincing, and that is personal and subjective, these classifications don’t matter. When a film blows you away in whatever way, you care two hoots for whether it yahaan ka, ya wahaan ka, or of the middle of the road sensibility… most of maniratnam’s movies fall under that, and not for nothing he has earned such a name.

    Farhan Akhtar and Vishal Bhardwaj could take the torch forward…

11. kcp on March 15th, 2008 10:09 pm

    imho nowadays all films have to be marketed heavily and automatically they become commercial

    those who dont, they are not watched by more than 50 % of the population 8-|

12. Honhaar Goonda on March 16th, 2008 1:09 am

    Omprakash,

    Would you call ‘No Smoking’ an art film? If the film did not have John would that film had been classified as an art film by Indian audiences and critics?

    Pavan-ji,

    JBDY? An Art film? How? I have seen “Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron” and have liked the film. But would not classify that as an art film (because… perhaps… i liked the film)

    Definition of “Art Cinema” is very vague - open to different interpretation.

    Is “Hazaron Khawshien Aisi” an art film - if it did not get a commercial release and only did festival rounds then it would have been classified as an art cinema, right?

    See, that is what I don’t like about Art Films. It is just for festival rounds and for people to study the film. It does not doing anything for the society. I know Sreehari, you have gone one example, but has any of Satyajit’s movies done anything to the society other than giving film students subjects to study?

    Santosh Kumar T K,

    for me cinema is about conviction

13. cdrakenc on March 16th, 2008 1:19 am

    If a commercial is artistically produced and wins widespread critical acclaim, is it a short?

    Art/ commercial is a definition based on the targeted audience for the film. just as commercial cinema fails if it doesnt become a hit, art cinema fails whenit fails to make people trying to watch for serious trends in art (of moviemaking or art in general) , and want to be taken seriously as connoisieurs of art ,and have spent lifetimes invested in this effort.

14. Sreehari. on March 16th, 2008 1:45 am

    HG,
    There r mone than one ways to answer your question… And none of those would even matter to you.. So I choose to depart gracefully..

15. vishrant on March 16th, 2008 10:51 am

    honahaar

    don’t be bothered by two stars.
    you wrote these words

    “Why cannot a film be pointless?”

    and these words make your post beyond the ranking.

    reason is not ultimate. reason doesn’t exhaust existence. it is far bigger than the reach of reason.

    there are three levels.
    1. below the reason
    2. at the reason
    3. beyond reason

    animals - are below the reason - instinct.
    man - is at the reason (man is a rational animal)
    divine - is above the reason - intuition

    same category in other words

    irrational
    rational
    supra rational

    a man is at the rational level.

    a drug addict with the help of drugs falls to irrational level. it is comforting.

    a mystic rises to supra rational. ’satchidanand’ bliss.

    the biggest leap a man can take
    is from rational to supra rational.
    it is the leap from humane to divine.

    you wrote those words
    i am feelin happy for you

    @};-@};-@};-

    (*)o:-)

16. RICK on March 16th, 2008 12:42 pm

    yeah it deserves more than two stars….atleast someone is honest here……

17. krishn on March 16th, 2008 10:33 pm

    =(12),
    neither art film nor commercial but a
    GOD-ART(D=T) film:d

18. Pritish on March 17th, 2008 12:31 am

    Hello Hoonhar,

    First understand that Cinema is not only about entertainment. It is also about enlightment. If you choose only entertainment then it

19. vishrant on March 17th, 2008 1:38 am

    stop bollywood

    you accepted that cinema is about both ‘entertainment’ and ‘enlightenment’

    at the one extreme is the pure entertainment cinema with no enlightenment

    on the other extreme is pure enlightenment cinema with no entertainment.

    what is the argument?
    it is about the degree of entertainment and enlightenment in a film.

    people always push for more and more of enlightenment and less and less of entertainment.

    why
    if the one extreme of just entertainment is wrong.
    than how the other extreme of just enlightenment will be right!

    both extremes are wrong.

    cinema should be a good mixture of both entertainment and enlightenment.
    a good example is rang de basanti.

    in cinema enlightenment is going to be effective only when there is entertainment to support it.

    8-}

20. RK on March 17th, 2008 2:40 am

    H.G: Its highly debatable classification between so called Art and Commercial films. There is always a thin line. Almost all can write but rest of the people will not call those people as writers. Some selection will creep in automatically.
    —
    Since begining of filmmaking in India, many have not followed similar style of filmmaking followed by others. To do something new can be a motive behind this. Or to do something differently can be a reason because one has to earn his own recognition and then comfort level with a production process. Its not fixed like scientific production where standard procedures are essential to follow to bring required quality. Its not mechanized on macro level.
    —
    You have no exposure to films made in 1970s hence such opinion.
    —
    Some use “off beat” word. which is much closer word to emphasise the difference between films and films.
    —
    Narrative of any kind is fine till film is capable to bind attention of audience through out the screening time. and its also true that very few enjoy text books used in syllabus. And if factor - that first reading them will bring good grades in excams and good grades will help in earning good money later in career, is removed then hardly a person will read text books. Though at same time, some chapters may be interersting because they are written in such a way or for reference they can be used.

21. Honhaar Goonda on March 17th, 2008 3:26 am

    i am neither against any off-beat films nor films that enlightens, but I don’t find watching Art films any interesting. Bmajority of the Art films are depressing…

    i’ve seen Sardari Begum - i liked the film - but will i watching it again? I doubt it.

    i’ve seen a bit of Nishaant - and I could not watch beyond one hour - I found it a lot codswallop. Sorry.

    What is Trikaal all about?!

22. vishrant on March 17th, 2008 3:40 am

    to do something different

    what is the motive behind this urge to do something different.

    who are these people who try to do different deliberately.

    vishal bharadwaj is not doing something different
    he is doing what he likes to do

    david dhavan is not doing something different
    he is doing what he likes to do

    than there are the people - the different doers

    who don’t have the guts of david dhavn to do what they like to do and face criticism.

    and they are not vishal bharadwaj. they don’t have that talent.

    these different doing people are people with no talent and no guts.

    only such people try to be different deliberately.

    a talented person don’t try to be different. he is different just by sheer talent.

    towering example of this different doers is sanjay gupta.

    /:)

23. RK on March 17th, 2008 4:05 am

    Not to mention that “off beat” films may have faulty treatments of the contents. But content decide/should decide which kind of treatment a film should have.
    e.g- Devdas by Bimal Roy and Devdas by SLB.
    I am not sure if you have seen Do Beegha Zameen. Its possible that you may not see Bimal Roy’s all films.
    Watch Mughal-i-azam in B&W and its possible that you dont pay any heed to song Prem Jogan.
    same is true with old Umrao Jaan, song Kahe ko byahe bidesh may or may not fetch your attention.

    This off beat films movement has a very important place in history of Hindi cinema and it has to be understood carefully. Without it you could not have Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Smita Patil, Shabana Azmi, Pankaj Kapur in the actors category because they could not have showcased their real talent in the regular commercial films.
    Without Gulzar’s Aandhi, audiences were going to miss an urbane character which was found only in stories by then.
    Vinod Khanna evolved as an actor through off beat roles.
    Off beat films are largely responsible for camera work development because tight budget constraints motivated many new things.
    These films brought concept of ecomony in films. They were suffering from lack of proper budget hence so many times in big scenes realism is not there because they could not manage but they found different ways to tell stories.
    They brought back again characters seen in real life here and there and many of the off beat films try to make audience little wise. They made them aware about something going wrong. They also did not have solutions but they pointed out.
    Without the framework of off beat films, you were not going to have JBDY like films. Makers of this film were not going to have any strength to make a film. Though film is dependent more on buffoonery but a sensible one, it forces you to think unlike Govinda David Dhawan combo (along with Shakti Kapoor and Kadar Khan) which showcase height of buffoonery.
    Budget was a real constraint. Perhaps people will still not go to watch off beat films in cinema hall but they were welcomed in houses through DD.
    Nishant like films are not only to watch but at same time you are reading the narration also.
    If you have watched the scene where Shabana is standing inside her new house and her husband, Girish Karnad, is stopped by car having Mohan Agashe and Anant Nag in it. Girish Karnad is giving signals to Shabana to not to stand at window because he knows nature of these lusty sons of landlord.
    Off beat films of that era was to portray some real doses of happenings.
    Long before Page 3, Govind Nihalani had made Party. Thats to see hypocricy in society. They shocase subtle narration though at same time many films handled raw violence and sex.
    They have their weakneses and strength but one cant avoid these films. They were necessary at that time, its part of evolution of cinema. Its less in male actors but why every other main stream actresses (after 80s) always try to work in off beat films because
    (1) They have a track record of Shabana Azmi and Smita Patil amd Rekha (Umrao Jaan and Utsav)
    (2) they have seen they get more chance to explore their acting talent in these films hence more recognition, otherwise they will be doing endlessly same dance and over the top emotional roles.
    Off beat films somehow have helped actresses (of period after 80s) in growing more in their profession.

24. RK on March 17th, 2008 4:10 am

    @Vishrant (22)
    you said it yourself.
    talented dont follow path without giving a thinking. they create a path for them and to create a path, one can be following different ways.
    Evolution demands different things to be created.
    and then there is always a difference between genuine and phoney. those who were genuine did good in off beat films and those who just followed the tradition because they thought they would be treated as intellectuals they made bad films.

    Spirituality is best field to quote an example.
    Many following same path might have got some results but adoration and big recognition have been found by those few chosen only who created something different, (though they also said same things).

25. RK on March 17th, 2008 4:38 am

    @HG, you are growing in very facilitated era. You have a device called DVD where you can watch film of any era and you can watch it when your mood is appropriate.
    There are many things with which a humanbeing can associate only after tasting so manythings in real life. There can not be hurry in this evolution process.
    There might have been cases that what you almost detested in end of 2006, comes under your liking list because you have matured in that area.
    Exposure has something very important thing.
    You are exposed to too many things about cinema while your age group friends will not be having this opportunity and many times you may find them liking something which is in talks, because they feel that if they like it as many are liking then it gives good impression.
    To like one thing intellecutally is one thing and associate it at a comfortable level is different.
    Your understanding will be different than your friends,— same age but different exposure. You may find them bit childish also in some cases, because your level of understanding the cinema is more than theirs. They will talk about popularity and you will talk about feasibility, quality and conviction.
    you will clearly see, that they are not able to understand something which is very significant for you but very boring for them.
    and this level difference is lying there with various stages in vertical order.

26. kcp on March 17th, 2008 11:19 am

    A relevant article from Times of India - 30 years ago ( 12th March 1978 )
    ———

    Vice, violence and vulgarity mar our movies:

    How to work toward a cleaner cinema

    Neither the commercial cinema with its glossy inanities nor the so-called avant grade-which often collapse because of its elitist aberrations-are relevant to the Indian situation. The regional cinema, which accounts for eighty per cent of the total production, is also not the answer. The remedy for the ills of Indian cinema today, says the writer in this article, lies in the emergence of a highly professional genre that has the acceptability of the commercial cinema and the sophistication of the art cinema…

    by A. S. RAMAN

    THE criticism against our films is that they are bad, worse and the worst, like the products of any other Indian enterprise such as cars, TV sets and razor blades.

    Once Raj Kapoor asked very pertinently: “Whatever we Indians produce is substandard. It is not internationally acceptable. Why single out the cinema for special condemnation?”

    It is often cynically suggested that the IQ of the people who make our films and of those who flock to see them is about the same!

    What is the alternative? Not the art cinema. For, if the commercial cinema has an overdose of glossy inanities, the so-called avant-grade seeks to stand or fall on its own elitist abberrations - and it often collapses. Both are irrelevant to the Indian situation and both and affront to the basic Indian sensibility.

    The specially favoured regional cinema which accounts for 80 per cent of the total production is also not the answer. For the Tamil) and Telugu films (the figures for 1976: 92 Telugu, and 80 Tamil) represent the commercial cinema at its crudest. The Malayalam, Bengali and Kannada films are better. But clearly the Satyajit Rays, the Mrinal Sens, the Ramu Kariats, the M.T. Vasudevan Nairs, the Girish Karnads and the B. V. Karanths are not representative of the cinema in their respective regions.

    The remedy, I feel, lies in the emergence of a highly professionalised genre that has the acceptability of the commercial cinema and the sophistication of the art cinema. Is there an audience for it? There is. Not large. but very loyal, as can be judged by the well-deserved success of films such as “Dosti.” “Bhuvan Shome.” “Rajnigandha,” “Chitchr.” “Geet Gaata Chal,” “Swami,” “Choti Si Bat,” “Tapasya,” “Dulhan Wohi Jo Piya Man Bhaaye” and “Gharonda,” to mention a few.

    Producers of such clean, lively pictures cannot expect to become millionaires overnight, like the producers of “Sholay,” “Amar, Akbar Anthony,” Deewar,” and “Zanzeer.”. But they will have the satisfaction of producing something that is commercially as viabel as it is artistically relevant to the Indian ethos.

    But it is very difficult to convince the Indian producer of the need for a restatement of values. I am aware of his problems. It is indeed very easy for the critic to destroy a film by just a stroke of the pen. But he cannot make one.

    The producer understandably makes the sort of films he does simply because, as he maintains, of the inexorable dynamics of the demand and supply mechanisms. He claims that he has the technical competence, enterpreneurial drive and aesthetic sensibility of the best of his confers in the West to make films of outstanding quality. But, he asks, where is the audience for these?

    So, he decides, he would rather cater for public taste as he finds it than attempt the impossible by trying to refine it: A task which he likes to see assigned to our academics, snooty scribes, religious teachers, social reformers self-styled do-gooders and of course pompous politicians who make no impact at all on public opinion, where films are concerned.

    Even so, nine producers out of ten go bankrupt. Why? No one knows what precisely the public wants. Investment in an Indian film is as hazardous as that in the races. It is seldom that producers hits the jackpot. A Sippy (”Sholay”) or a Manmohan Desai “Amar, Akbar, Anthony”) is clearly the exception that proves the rule.

    So why shouldn’t our producers deviate from the beaten track and utilise their experience and expertise for making neat, starless, low-budget films Where the mortality rate is not so high? In any case, nine out or ten producers who dream of becoming millionaires end up as paupers. So why not lose less rather than more?

    What about the critic? Bypass him. Anyway, he is of little consequence in a country where more than 80 percent of the people reach their decisions intuitively without being influenced by newspapers and magazines which they can’t read. Audio-visual media have a greater impact on their reflexes!

    It is the same story everywhere: the artist and the critic are at daggers drawn. The critic asks: “Why do you produce rubbish?” The artist doesn’t react. He just ignores the critic. If further provoked, he explodes: “Who are you, anyway? I know you credentials: You have none What I produce is your bread and butter.”

    Now the critic feels that he must have the last word: “What can you produce? You can produce only for the market.” The artist must be one up: “If I produce for the market, you write for the dustbin. Who reads you? Who is interested in your borrowed ideas, borrowed isms and borrowed arguments?” So the confrontation between the two becomes more and more acrimonious.

    There is a very wide communication gap not only between the critic and the public, for whom he should primarily write, but between him and the artist whose interpreter he essentially is.

    The point is: is the man who makes movies an artist? Bergman, Truffaut, Kurosawa. Godard, Breson, Satyajit Ray - they are all artists, are they not? But not all film-makers are Truffauts and Satyajit Rays. In India they are fewer than in other countries. Here those who are good at nothing else take to film-making. That is why our cinema is what it is: a retreat from everything one values.

    In order to promote quality cinema in India it is imperative that those involved in film-making either directly or indirectly should combine to strive for the recapture of the Indianness of the pre-war years. It was only in the post-war boom with a lot of black money floating around that there was a steep fall in cinematic values. Films lost their Indianness and were a mere rehash of tired Hollywood cliches. The get-rich-quick mentality of the new entrepreneurs installed the formula as king.

    The vigorous Indianness can be restored only by the younger producers with drive, vision, expertise and, what is most important, financial stability. The last-mentioned is possible only with the active co-operation of the Government and the industry.

    The Government can help through the medium of loans, subsidies, tax-exemption, liberalisation of censorship policy, release of adequate raw stock on generous terms, extension of exhibition facilities throughout the country and so on.

    The industry also can play a very important role in this context. For example, big producers can allocate a large portion of their massive takings from box-office hits for off-beat, low-budget films (examples: B. R. Chopra’s “Cbhoti Si Baat” and T. C. Dewan’s “Priyatama”.) Similarly, stars and superstars can promote the cause of quality cinema by accepting roles in art films on liberal terms (examples: Rajesh Khanna and Sharmila Tagore in “Avishkhar,” Raakhe in “27 Down” and Raj Kapoor and Waheeda Rehman in “Teesra Kasam”.)

    Art films produced under a prestigious banner and with popular stars and superstars in leading roles will go a long way towards breaking the initial resistance of the movie-going public.

    the common man trusts the faces and voices he can easily identify. Naturally he readily responds to what Dharmendra, Hema Malini and Amitabh Bachchan say and what Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhonsle and Kishore Kumar sing rather than to what the talented newcomers of the art cinema say or sing.

    How did De Sica and other neorealists of the post-war Italian cinema win over the Italian public? The answer is simple: by cutting out the imported jargon, just by perfecting the technique of making clean, crisp complete films simply and spontaneously with themes sharply relevant to the urges and problems of a war-scared generation.

    Here I think the Soviet cinema has a lesson for India. As we are all aware, starting with the early revolutionary films of Sergei Eissennstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin, Alexander Dovzhenko and right up to Bondarchuk and other contemporary directors, the Soviet cinema has exercised a powerful and progressive influence on film-makers the world over.

    What has the Soviet film done to and for the Soviet people? The celebrated U.S. actor, playwright, film director and producer and militant fighter for Black liberation, Ossie Davis, says: “I was extremely impressed because Soviet film-makers have a completely different approach to cinema than in Hollywood, take the `Liberation’ series. `Liberation’ is an attempt to express a national epic. Who else could conceive of doing that? “Moreover, it seems to me the Soviet film is imbued with a conscious effort to apply art to everyday problems of the Soviet people. And, this is particularly demonstrated in that beautiful film `By Sergei Gerasimov). The film deals with the question of ecology of nature versus machinery, beauty versus utility, the right of a community to determine its own destiny. And all these questions are handled with tenderness, beauty and all the resources of dramatic and film art.”

    The cinema no doubt is an international medium. But it comes alive only through a national idiom which alone can capture the ethos of a civilisation. So our art cinewallahs cannot make an impression on the movie-going public unless they revise their basic postulates and priorities and concentrate on producing films that are not only good cinema but also a slice of India that the Indians can identify with.

    Here our film press has a special responsibility. As it is, it is inconsequential, because it is promotional when it is not scurrilous. The earlier it crusades for quality cinema the better. By attempting in depth discussion, it must ensure that the film reviewed or the trend analysed comes alive and is not lost in the jungle of verbiage.

    I feel there will be no scope at all for the “Sholay” type of films in the world market, because of their closeness to the Western ethos rather than to the Indian. and the world is watching us. Pictures that will make an instant impact on the international sensibility will be those which are technically slick and flawless, artistically subtle and elegant and thematically relevant to the Indian context.

    As for the language, the difficulties, I am afraid, are almost insurmountable. There are not many Indians who can speak and write English in an acceptable and convincing manner. Western artistes in Indian roles will be only too phoney. There is no Omar Shariff among the Indian artistes yet.

    As for the cinema, the following sources offer inexhaustible material for clean and credible cinema:

    (1) Classic, modern as well as ancient (Satyajit Ray’s choice of a Premchand story, “Chess Players,” for his first Urdu movie is a very happy trend. The Sarat Chandra Chatterjee Bengali stories have already been turned into film classics in Bengali, Hindi and regional languages, the latest being that popular hit, “Swamy,” directed by Basu Chatterjee.

    (2) Lives of saints, poets, reformers and martyrs.

    (3) The freedom struggle.

    (4) Themes emphasising Indian notions of love, romance, friendship marriage, womanhood, domestic harmony, secularism and democracy - films Indian in inspiration, but sharply modern in technique.

    Here I must mention that superhit with the touching themes of friendship between a cripple and a blind boy, “Dosti” (Rajshree Productions) in black and white. It is goodness that the producers. Tarachand Barjtya, has definite plans to make an English version of this deeply moving picture for the international market.

    (5) Fables (”Panchatantra”. The “Wizard of Oz” was based on a fable.)

    (6) Exotic themes (tantra yoga, extra sensory perception, the shakti cult, the Krishna legend, in which the West is keenly interested these days).

    (7) The contemporary scene, that is, the population explosion, pollution, unemployment, social backwardness and the caste system. (The focus should be on the problems and not on the facile palliatives readily offered by some official agencies).

    (8) The drama behind our world-renowned monuments such as the Taj Mahal, the Kutub Minar, Ajanta, Ellora, Khajuraho, Mamallapuram, Elephanta, Amaravati, Nagarjunakonda and Konarka (from conception to completion, emphasising the human interest incidents and anecdotes).

    (9) Legends surrounding the well known cities such as Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Madras, Varanasi, Hyderabad, Madurai (the scripts should be based on thoroughly researched material, but the treatment should be original and imaginative)

    (10) Action and adventure (lives of Indian explorers, engineers, travellers scientists, doctors (Shantaram’s “Dr Kotnis Ki Amar Kahani” was a well-intentioned attempt).

    (11) Pastorales set in idyllic. unspoilt countrywide (Satyajit Ray’ “Pathar Panchali” and the Rajshree Production. “Geeta Gaata Chal” are excellent examples)

    Item No. 7 is a tricky source. It is very difficult to produce pictures dealing with the contemporary scene without sounding country. These can easily deteriorate into dreary propaganda Whatever be the theme the director should preoccupy himself with creative cinema.

    In this connection. I must make a special mention of Shyam Benegal’s “Manthan,” a superb movie. It deals with the drab theme of the Anand milkmen’s co-operatives which were responsible for the spectacular success of the Amul Dairy. Facts are dull: but they form the raw material for all creative cinema.

    To quote that well-known Soviet actor, Yefim Dzigan: “Like in the world cinema, the search is on in the Soviet cinema - the search for new forms of expression. Many experiments are being made to change the composition of the plot in films. Some are trying to change the traditional position of figures and objects in the frame. The montage is being changed.

    “New shooting techniques are also being tried. For example, shooting is being done with invisisble cameras. Some people are eve trying to invent new forms to express the movement of the soul, to show the process of thinking… The trend is to create a more expressive atmosphere in films.”

    This is happening in the Mecca of socialist realism: so it’s time our producers woke up. They have achieved the top position in the world cinema in terms of output. They have immense resources. They have inexhaustible sources of themes in their own country. And they have a virgin world market waiting to be exploited. If they capture this, indeed it will be a triumph of triumphs and it will be commercial cinema with a bang.

    Indian producers who successfully make films in English for the international market will be in a very happy position because they can ignore the pressured from domestic audiences, used only to the banalities of the obvious cinema.

    However, their task is not as easy as it seems. How are they going to solve the problem of music? I feel sceptical about the very idea of setting songs in English to classical Indian tunes. I can’t think of a more effective method of destroying both the literary content of the song and the musical quality of the tune.

    In many international versions songs sung in the original language are retained: their phoney translations in a language foreign to the spirit of the song will not appeal to sophisticated audiences. Where in India are the writers who can translate the spirit and atmosphere of a song into acceptable English.

    Instead of incorporating English songs into our international movies. One should try and preserve the original music in all its depth and delicacy, as the director of “Siddhartha” did - what a magnificent rendering of that Bengali (?) song by Hemant Kumar.

    The main reason for the poor quality of our films is that we produce far more pictures than we can ordinarily exhibit through normal channels. We must have atleast ten times the number of theatres we already have.

    Talent

    There are so many rigid licensing regulations for the construction of cinema houses. But none at all for the production of pictures! Any one, however, inadequate, can make a movie, if he has the support of big stars! So all that the must possess is the hide of a rhinoceros so that he cheerfully allows himself to be kicked around by the stars who are his “maa baap”.

    Creative talent like writers, directors, music directors, artistes and singers is limited. Only a few know the technique of film-making and they are over-worked. Lured by the glamour of the industry and tempted by the dreams of becoming millionaries overnight, many incompetent and undesirable adventures have gate-crashed into the industry with disastrous results to the medium.

    But with the Government’s present policy of negative action, one can never be optimistic about the future. Apparently, it regards the cinema as an evil, like alcohol! Otherwise one cannot understand its various measures concerning the import of foreign films, the production of raw stock, the levy of the excise duty, the pigheaded conformity to the dusty, dog-eared 6-year-old British censorship code, the reluctance to open art theatres throughout the country, and so on. So the industry is forced to fend for itself.

    Indian massess are poor. Their lives are drab. They want instant entertainment. They love drama, song, spectacle, slapstick and suspense, all contrived. The stress under which they live makes it impossible for them to look the reality in the face. So they retreat happily into the world of makebelieve. They subsist on dreams and the commercial cinema supplies these in abundance.

    How can we wean them away from the mirage that the commercial cinema is? How can we offer them something more substantial and sustaining?

    Indeed, it is time we learnt to live with the commercial cinema, but on our terms. The commercial cinema need not be associated with vice, violence and vulgarity. It can be clean and purposeful (examples: Rajashree pictures, films directed by Basu Chatterjee Gulzar, Shakti Samanta, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Shyam Benegal, M.S. Sathyu and others)

    Wherever evil occurs in these pictures, the moral is clear enough: good ultimately triumphs over bad, however unequal the struggle may seem. All is well that ends well.

Leave a Reply

Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.