Sponsor PFCOne
(5 votes, average: 4.2 out of 5)
Loading ...
The Answer Is ‘Alienation’
Two recent obits brought back a question that I often get asked outside of India – “why does Hindi cinema continue to purvey the same formula with minimal changes to its audience and why does the audience not tire of it?” It’s a question asked on PFC on many occasions.
The answer is….Wait. May be I am getting ahead of myself.
First the obits:
Albert Hofmann, Swiss pharmacist and the man best known for being the first to have synthesized LSD and tasted it, passed away on April 29, 2008. He was 102.
Vijay Tendulkar, playwright, social observer and commentator best known for his plays and scripts in early 70s which exposed political and social hypocrisy prevalent in Indian society, died in a Pune hospital on May 19, 2008. He was 80.
So, what’s the connection between them and the original question posed?
The counterculture movement of the 60s has a lot to owe to Hofmann and his first experiments with ingesting LSD (there’s this fascinating story of his bicycle ride back home and all the Technicolor dreams that he saw through the evening). The counterculture of the 60s is a complex phenomenon to analyze. The economic boom in the U.S. in the 50s and post-war reconstruction reaching its end in UK in 60s led to a period of relative affluence among ordinary households. This in turn allowed the young men and women to exercise their freedom on career choices and lifestyles more easily. This freedom based on wider economic growth was critical. The conservative nature of the political class fed by the demons of Cold War engendered a sharp anti-establishment climate in the university campuses which was further emboldened by the success of the students’ movement in France in the summer of 1968. An unnecessary war in the Vietnam further stoked this activism. To this potent economic and political mix were added the themes of free speech, “free love” and the psychedelic drugs. What resulted was an alienated generation estranged from the traditional norms and insistent on stamping their unique mark on contemporary literature, music and cinema.
That alienation of the 60s generation was critical for cinema in much of the Western world (especially in U.S. and France) to break the conventions of formula that had set in. A generation of filmmakers has since continued to create and inspire others to create cinema which speaks uniquely of their vision free from diktats of commerce and the lowest common denominator. While the force of conventions have gradually set-in again especially among the big studios, that one generation ensured that there will always be space and support for breaking the norm.
Arguably, a truly alienated generation is yet to arrive in India. In much of the 60s and 70s, we were only trying to ape the alienation of the youth in West. That’s not to say that we missed it completely. The early and mid seventies saw a mass students’ movement which eventually led to the Emergency and a change in guard (however briefly) at the Centre. There was the ‘angry young man’ figure that arrived and lorded over mainstream cinema for almost a decade. And then there were playwrights like Tendulkar, Mohan Rakesh and Girish Karnad who didn’t shy away from challenging and ridiculing the status quo.
However, this didn’t exactly lead us down the same path that the West went on. The ‘angry young man’ became a caricature and not a force of change. The works of Tendulkar and Karnad became part of parallel movement in cinema which catered to a few. And the students’ angst of the 70s drifted and meandered away eventually consumed by the ennui of the 80s.
Why did this happen? As pointed out earlier, the genesis of counterculture of the 60s in West was predicated on economic (rising affluence and therefore the freedom of choice), social (questioning age old mores and taboos like racial discrimination, gender inequality) and political themes (conservatism, Cold War). In India, while the social and political themes did resonate well, the economic theme actually worked counter to the West. We were stuck at what was then derisively called the Hindu rate of growth. Counterculture requires a serious appetite for risk to flourish and the lack of an economic cushion depletes it considerably. And so, we were content with the social radicalism of a Tendulkar but it never became a movement. And lack of an alienated generation yet is possibly what keeps us content with the formulaic variants in our cinema.
There is a view which believes this is our destiny and point to the fact that the formula has actually become our calling card internationally. The song and dance, the heightened melodrama and the strong family orientation are all our unique attributes. While I respect this view, I believe much of the acceptance of this kind of cinema is based on our success in the global economy than the intrinsic aesthetics of what we make. And frankly, international recognition should hardly be the surrogate measure for determining the quality of our cinema.
The economic liberalization and the relative prosperity of certain sections of educated Indians in the last decade make me believe that the generation of alienation is round the corner. The increasing moral policing, the apathy towards politics and the ability of people to live their lives with minimal involvement in governance and the continuing social inequity are fertile grounds for the birth of this generation. Till then, I reckon I will continue providing new theories to those who ask me the question that I posed at the start – “when will we tire of the formula?”
48 Responses to “The Answer Is ‘Alienation’”
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.
- Mumbai Meri Jaan: Winner of a film
- Manorama Six Feet Under: A Six Pack sexy movie!
- Madhumati - A Tale of Two Generations
- TZP & JTYJN: Overhyped ‘yes’,great movies ‘No’
- The Torture Series 2: Insaaf Main Karoonga
- TZP & JTYJN: Overhyped ‘yes’,great movies ‘No’
- MUMBAI MERI JAAN - Bravo!!!
- The Torture Series 2: Insaaf Main Karoonga
- Madhumati - A Tale of Two Generations
- Mumbai Meri Jaan: Winner of a film
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
khushaamdeed :-)
a pretty shallow argument brotha!
more when im sober and awake :-)
I do not quite agree with this. I think the last few years have seen a renewed inteerest in alternate story lines and have brought forward some really talented writers / directors.
I cannot imagine any of the following movies being made in 85-95 period: Munnabhai, Omkara, RDB, Chak De, TZP etc. And these are from the last 2-3 years only.
I do not think that this has to do anything in terms od a cinematic movement. We as a nation (or as a bollywood industry) have only thrived on individual brilliance when it comes to making good movies. Whether it was the parallel cinema of 80’s which was pretty much restricted to Shyam Benegal / Govind Nihalani or the emergence of more meaningful cinema in the last 5 years (which can again be attributed to Vishal Bharadwaj / Raju Hirani / Om Prakash Mehra.
Its not as if 90’s were totally devoid - we had the brilliance of Mani Ratnam. But I cannot think any other name along with him.
However, 2006/2007 have been phenomenal for Hindi cinema. I cannot remember a time when so many great movies came in a small period of 2-3 years: RDB / Omkara / LRMB / Chak De / TZP. (1975 was one such year with Sholay / Deewar / Aandhi).
And I firmly believe that all of these will turn out to be classics in the long run.
Nice analysis ,agree with you totally ,cinema is a reflection of the society because films which sell are made and those which sell are the ones that people like and what people like is a reflection of the society.
A classic example in India is Bengal ,which gave us filmmakers like Satyajit Ray ,Mrinal Sen and Ghatak and many more ,and they were all a part of a generation which was fresh from Independence and part of the Renaissance movement.
and the movies at that time reflected that ,by the end of the 70’s the movement died and so did the Cinema ,good ideological cinema was more of an exception rather than the rule afterwards.
In Bollywood too this can be seen ,@shreyash ,the films you are talking about are post Liberalisation when the floodgates of commercialisation were opened ,of course the analysis is not as simple as that but still you can say something .Still there is no marked change in the Society and good education eludes the Indian Society ,so we see a lack of good scripts.
Liberalisation has also led to a spurt of career opportunities for the upper middle class ,hence we are suddenly seeing arenas like PFC and budding directors and others ,but this is more of an aberration rather than a pattern ,what has changed in India is the amount of money ,hence the glmour quotient of our fims aka the chamak dhamak has gone up considerably.
If this does not reflect society I dunno what does.
[...] PFC [...]
sorry to be rude but sounds too bookish to me…or may be my small brain cant connect the logic n revolution…its like after a film is hit,anyone can do the analysis and say that these were the factors that made it a hit but that doesnt mean that if one puts together the same factors again, u will get one more hit.
also can u put this same reason for bengali cinema ? bcz its d same there…..as u hav mentioned….”In India, while the social and political themes did resonate well, the economic theme actually worked counter to the West”
Could it just be the LSD ?
DPac - Will wait for the more sober details though I must admit you make more sense when not. This time around, I guess, the law of averages seem to be catching up.
Tushar - where are you?
Shreyash - I think Vineet nailed it.
Vineet - thanks for your comments.
Pnu - pls don’t talk about small brain since it reminds of Nana Patekar in Krantiveer (hamming has long-term impact on sensitive souls).
This sounds bookish because it is and I don’t know what’s wrong with being bookish. When has that become a ‘cool’ accusation to hurl? I might be missing something here and I am glad that I am.
Regarding Bangla cinema, I think the argument holds there too. A spurt of creativity among a few aueturs in 60s and 70s followed by junk of 80s and thereafter. No alienated generation there as well.
Mitch - That was the original premise but I got lost midway.
check your mail.
Dpac.. still waiting for you to sober-up… and respond of course…
yea. im up alright. been trying to locate a good LSD resource i saw recently ever since i read this post. for some reason i thght it was a video.
here you go
http://phocks.org/stumble/lsd-history-comic/
rest later
Subrat bhai - A very interesting analysis for sure, though I don’t think that economic factors alone are the major contributing factor. I think it has more to do with a cultural identification intrinsic in our cinema.
Let me put it to you this way: If you watch a typical Hollywood superhero film, pick anyone, you won’t be sitting there all agitated wondering “This is BS, people can’t FLY around like that” or “No one can jump THAT high” or “Where the hell are those Spiderwebs in his wrists COMING from??”. They come part & parcel with their own set of sensibilities/logic, and to enjoy the film, you just go with it.
Mainstream Hindi cinema in general has something quite similar going on. We don’t question how a couple walking down a street in Mumbai suddenly end up in Switzerland, nor are we expecting any sort of explanation. We just know that’s part of how a Hindi film flows.
In order to break this cycle, you have to slowly break the mould of these sensibilities, which I see has been happening since the mid-90’s (albeit slowly).
2 landmark films in his respect, IMHO, are Rangeela (RGV - 1995) and Dil Se (Mani Ratnam - 1998). Both films employed a very different, very realistic narrative style while still incorporating ingrediants (such as songs & dream sequences) in order to introduce a newer cinematic language to audiences without startling their sensibililties. Rangeela in particular almost was a statement, showing audiences “Ok, here’s what your used to seeing. And here’s what it really is, exposed right from behind the scenes.”
It’s almost too bad that this wasn’t pushed farther. And more methodically. The attempts were there, and in this respect RGV made great strides with Satya, Daud and Company. He was the trailblazer who crashed open the doors and made way for other filmmakers (in fact many of which he himself backed as Producer) to alter these sensibilities and break the formulaic modes.
Now, many will say that revolution has since fizzled, and RGV himself has “faded”. But the fact remains, other filmmakers have since stepped up, Including the talent Sriram Raghavan who, through the RGV produced “Ek Hasina Thi” continued this push to reinvent Indian cinema.
Perhaps, Raghavan was a bit ahead of his time and his film came a bit too early… it was a bit too “advanced”, so to speak, for general Hindi film audience… there still needs to me a few more “Rangeelas” and “Dil Ses” and other films which will transition our cinema out of the “tried & tested formulas” and into newer themes, stories & narrative styles.
(PS - this was meant to be just a comment, sort of turned into a rant the length of a post… sorry for the Subrat Bhai)
a nice read. considering its coming after a long hiatus, it makes it all the more rewarding. you have evidently and certifiable touched upon a ‘jwalant mudda’. I would call it a derivative quest, and quite an intriguing one at that. I have gone through what would inspire such a question and the following theories. I could also cite my attempts:
-well, to reach a stand, there first must be a strong belief, or the complete lack of it. we see none here.examples are aplenty. even the so called anti authority don’t really remain ‘pissed’ constantly.
-the ones that are pretty strong in their agenda do churn out beautiful cinema, I mean soulwise, a cinema which is fun, which exhorts some conviction some belief some heartfelt emotion.
-good cinema for me is not always a literary offshoot. often the most obscure premises bring it home for me.sometimes the overprecision and detailing makes it claustrophobic- probably something I am biased towards the west on, I can get myself to see an Atonement but not a Gandhi my father. both require the same level of effort for me to press play.
-the very tenor of the argument is so evident in the contrasting comments. who do I win? what do I make? and who for? are few questions I need to answer myself before setting out for a long day in the sun.
-LSD…not sure but always a nice premise to start at :-)
To be honest … Tarkovsky put it this way ” Nowadays the kids , they don’t like to be alone … They have all become groupies … if you never learn to be alone , you will never learn to think alone … If you never learn to think alone , everything that comes out of you will be either inspired , hear say or worse, a borrowed idea …”
You will thus cease to exist as an individual … So even though they were alienated from the mainstream , they all had tendencies to group themselves along a single thought process which led to the formation of another FAD with its Do’s and Don’ts … If alienation applies to the individual , I think it will be awesome , but your hypothesis sounds like a load of bull … There is no element of “consequence” in it … Sounds like rants on psychedel’s !
But you have your opinion and I have mine .,.. I respect that ! Thanks for your “solution” !
Maximus… very well said… a truly non-formulaic, and truly original film (in its purest sense) must also be truly individual… or else, its just another kind of formula…
… and therein lies the Catch 22… that films must are not made or any one individual.. they are made for communities, societies.. the masses & the classes… therefore they can’t really be truly individual and still appeal to a wide audience… at some point the maker has to submit the project to an audiences’ collective tastes (even if its meant for a niche audience) and so has to find the right balance, the right formula, to appeal to that audience.
There is no Catch 22 here … that sounds dumb … The phrase Catch 22 doesn’t even apply here … Dont just throw around phrases … Its not a paradox … just 2 completely different viewpoints , they are mutually exclusive and don’t
conflict …
And your point that “collective tastes” always come into play … thats redundant and also stupid … ‘coz no matter what, EACH individual will definitely belong to some GROUP at a certain level , because no man is an island … Catch 22 it seems … hehehehe …. Read the book , you’ll actually understand what it means …
The point here is that ” make a movie that is completely composed of your own ideas and point of view” … Regardless of who it may appeal to , elements used to tell the story can be suited for the masses but the story and approach needs to be exemplary of one’s individuality … It can be that of an Masala lover or Verite fanatic … Just stay true to yourself … It doesn’t mean alienate yourself from ideology and make pretentious crap that makes you “look” smart … ‘coz it doesn’t … Bergman made that mistake more than once , he even admitted it …
Get it ? Catch 22 …
Sorry if I came on too strong , I tip the balance at times when I see someone contradicting themselves … your first post made a point and then you just digressed …
Sorry about the tone … Aaah well … what i said still stands … just pas right through some of the expletives used !
Tony - thanks for the comments. Your views and examples on people pushing the boundaries are the exceptions to the general trend. However, the original question was more ‘why doesn’t the audience tire of formula’ than ‘why do filmmakers continue with it’?
Tushar - “strong belief or complete lack of it” is an interesting premise to start with. That’s for filmmaker. What about the audience?
Maximus - thanks for sharing your views.
“There is no element of consequence”. Please elaborate. I agree with your later comment that regardless of what you make, it should be an instance of your individuality. But what makes you think alienation from established ideology equates making pretentious crap. A few might have done that (arguably Bergman though I disagree).
Lastly, I was more interested in the audience which would seek change in formula not the filmmaker. That audience is group and as a group their ability to recognize and applaud individuality is what I was questioning. They might eventually lapse into fadism of Dos and Don’ts as you say but that’s no argument for not having them in the first place
To borrow a phrase from the inimitable Mr. Adarsh, film achi ho to audience bhi aa jaati hai :-)
subrat// this post is very *hatke* :) hofmann effect? or chomsky on anarchistic creativity??
@Maximus (18), I totally agree with your post on Tarkovsky [ ” Nowadays the kids , they don’t like to be alone … They have all become groupies … if you never learn to be alone , you will never learn to think alone ……………………”]
I’ve seen many people around me, who prove this theory.
Also, I don’t agree that “alienation from established ideology equates making pretentious crap”.
Pardon my ignorance, but who is Tarkovksy? would like to know more about him and his theories.
@ Subrat, interesting post (not the American “interesting”). Why don’t you write more often?
Anyways, please pardon my rants as I’m a little high though not on LSD :).
There has been a small misunderstanding … If you noticed I mentioned that “alienation from Ideology” leads to pretentious crap … I DID NOT SAY that “alienation from COMMON ideology leads to pretentious crap” …
I am all against the latter , you need to move away from common ideology and what everybody thinks is the norm …
What I was trying to convey in simple words (but looks like it needs to be explained now) is the fact that most directors stray from their own objectives half way through , lose touch with themselves and then try to outsmart everyone else by making a mishmash of “intellectual”/over the top pretentious crap … They would have decided upon something and then half way through “Halleluijah” … Lightning strikes and they go about it an entirely different way , just to make themselves and the flick look SMARTER!
The forget that the actors and the others who have composed themselves for the initial ideology upon which the movie is based now begin to have conflicts and try to make up for their inadequacies by improvising … God Forbid any of our Indian actors do that ! Then what you have is something that has no heart , no soul … just looks smart - A.K.A PRETENTIOUS CRAP !
We are living in a generation of Wannabes … the rest of the world is doing it … Indians WANT TO BE LIKE THEM … But they just don’t get the basic concept … You need to have heart ! Your movie needs to have a heart ! Your actors need to have ‘em too ! In order to have heart , you need to write from the heart , about things that have affected you … You begin from there …
@ Vivek - Andrei Tarkovsky is a Russian filmmaker … If you haven’t seen his movies , you are missing out. Let me warn you though , they are what you guys here call ART movies. Most of them are very philosophical in nature with the extravagant use of metaphors and motifs. Its quite an experience. Try to watch STALKER , if its the first time you are going to get a taste of him. Then there’s Zerkalo , Offret , Andrei Rubylev , Steamroller and the Violin etc. His interviews that come along with the DVDs are the priceless gems , try to get them too … He is just an aesthetic/philosophical film maker , he doesn’t have any THEORIES as such … just belief systems … as to why we are here , our purpose , what is art ? etc. Google for more …
@ Subrat - “There is no element of consequence”.
Well simply put - Economic Liberalization of Indian youngsters or whatever it is you wrote in your last para … That is not going to create alienation from anything , again it is only going to promote economic independence - meaning according to your theory those kids are going to be more independent and therefore will begin alienating themselves ? No way , the exact opposite will happen , we will have either those who blow away their life in ” Where’s it happening / What’s the scene ” mode … ( 2 phrases I feel Indians created themselves and they sound dumb !) or the other group Indians are famous for over achievers who lock out everything else in the world that matters except for that which makes them rich !
There is no element of consequence , meaning that in your entire hypothesis you show no linkage whatsoever to economic liberalization and the promotion of free thought and action let alone individualism other than the vastly drawn out comparison between India and hippie America … India at this present stage will never become what you say ‘coz you are misinformed to begin with that America actually did have a counter culture … Nothing of the sort … Name one thing of value that still exists from the HIPPIE period ? What… the Olodum ? Give me a break ! Weed ? The Bong ? Yeah right !
The people these days … more money … more independence … but to do what ? … Do exactly the ame crap the show in movies … GF , movies, beach , park , patty … Pappu can’t dance Sala ! or like I mentioned earlier … make more money , we as a society are definitely not wired like how they were at that point of time … Moreover what did they achieve ? What are foinf to achievev ?
There is no consequence meaning if these kids don’t alienate and create a revolution , there is nothing to lose … I men in their case , they dont lose a trhing , they will just continue to live their lives and swallow the crap they get fed , be it in thetares , be it anywhere … You want a change , it needs to coem from theinfivifual , dont epect a group to bring it on … When similar individuals prop up , they will form a group , then otherswill be converted … you need to put the idea out there first …
Quote:
Subrat:
“Lastly, I was more interested in the audience which would seek change in formula not the filmmaker. That audience is group and as a group their ability to recognize and applaud individuality is what I was questioning.
Reply:
See that is called being naive , trying to change the world with your big eyed theories .. want to make a difference , sadly look at the lot who tried it before you ! You want to make a difference don’t expect the GROUP/audience to change in their mentality .. They are not going to SEEK anything , at least not as of now … You need to show them what exists out there and the value of what they are missing out on … There needs to be consequences clearly laid out in order for humans to recognize that what they are doing/following right now is pabing the path to ignorance … for that you needto first show the the value of knowledge versus ” Hey c’mon yaar I come to watch a movie to de-stress , some masti yaar , not serious shit again !” A director’s responsibility is huge … If you cant vear it and might as well gollow the rest , then why bother , we have enough shit makers already … continue with Pappa’s business !
Your entire theory falls flat for that one reason , the absence of such a thing - something that lays down the consequences of the viewer’s choices/lifestyle !
Quote:
Subrat:
They might eventually lapse into fadism of Dos and Don’ts as you say but that’s no argument for not having them in the first place”
Reply:
Of course they will , but then it becomes a cult following, leading to others trying out the same thing,promotion of abstract , out of the box thought … Look what Quentin Tarantino did for Hollywood , though he is the king of rip offs , he made a difference there … Kim Ki Duk with his movies … Chan Wook Park with his movies … Zhang Ke Jia with his … Pen-Ek Ratanaruang with his … I’m not talking about big shots here like the French new wave gang … I’m talking about people from around us, who belong to this generation, who started out small but made a difference in their countries by coming out with material that was original and never seen before leading to the birth of a generation of similar filmmakers who formed a collective like DADA in their respective countries and forced change upon the viewer’ sense , sensibility and sensitivity … Now Korea for example is full of them , even comedies are made with aesthetic / moral finishes … Anyone watch “Le Grande Chef” - Korean flick ! You’ll get what I mean !
simple question
a=b
b=c
so a=c?
LSD/free love etc etc results in GEN A
GEN A results in Program Counterculture
u get where i am getting at?
it did abet the non conformist movement mebe even put the L in liberal. but does that amount to alienation?
wasnt the purpose/goal opposite to that? was it really counter culture?
@ subrat
i’m surprised that you would propose such a deterministic hypothesis based on two past correlations. Weren’t you the one that recommended Taleb’s “Fooled by Randomness”
I think we are overlooking the LSD factor.
Maximus, you really seem to know everything about anything, having pretty much judged the whole world. Would like to go out for dinner sometime?
Missal Chaat …
If you are a gal … Well dinner with you would involve a visa and me flying quite a while … that is if you are in India …
If you are a guy … Sorry bro I don’t swing that way … Me no like to putt it from the rough edge .. Ok jokes aside , same as above applies …
You can always mail me at maximusnorton@gmail.com .. All the people who hate me can mail me too … Anything goes … I mean in this case ! ;-)
If you were being sarcastic and I kinda have a doubt what with the whole “me judging the world and all” … Simple but sweet —> UP YOURS ! If you weren’t being sarcastic erase from memory this para …
Its like what Dirty Harry said, “Opinions are like ass holes , Everyone has one ” …
yourself included - i guess.I meant the opinions BTW
@Dpac - mathematically speaking those equations are right!
Dabba: consistency, as they say, is the virtue of an ass
eheh niiiice!!
who da hell was talking math though
DPac - I had shared this before as well. Refer to point #2 of this link https://www.teach12.com/ttc/figs/38waystowin.asp
#2 has a prerequisite professor saab - an argument. lets start that first shall we :-)
DPac - pehle aap
i thgt i did!!
albeit by way of some queries..
dabba was more concise
DPac - what do you have to argue on? I believe we have not had a generation which has protested, argued, questioned norms and conventions in a serious way. All of the above are necessary conditions for breaking away from formula. Remember, they are necessary not sufficient (to take your mathematical references further). So there could be more reasons and you are welcome to add them.
So you are kinda saying ‘hey these are some of the stuff which happened, you are free to add to the list’? well a lot of stuff happened around that time, including what you have mentioned. and yes it did add to ‘free movement’ if you will.
but then you try to co relate that with an indian milieu, without a common ground/context for analysis there. where we in a similar context at that time to prompt that changeover?
free thinking spiritualistic cart-wheelers are everewhere in India. do they need to be a ‘revolutionary generation’?
and if this ideological revolution is absent in ‘film’ are you saying it wasn’t there at all?
“Alienation” easy answer from a high-nosed cynical wondering why the nation is going to dogs/ The ironical part is only a person alienated from the general masses can present such a viewpoint.
I don’t agree with this theory that filmmakers need to show the audience what this reality, blah, blah … The conditions are bad enough that everyone knows what is reality. You don’t need an immature filmmaker presenting a dark reality to further dampen the spirits.
The fact whether it was 70’s or 80’s or 90’s there have always been differences in arriving at what cinema means to different people. Some look at it as entertainment, some look at it as art.
And another fact is that both these viewpoints can co-exist. Every well made film will find its own audience. Its upto filmmakers to present their work of art convincingly. I wish filmmaker members of PFC would stop bothering about the formulaic commercial movies that do well and start concentrating their work.
@nithya,
thats a pretty shoddy response. the author has not suggested anything remotely similar to what u deduced.
plus he aint a filmmaker member of PFC either..
so what gives?
Back after a long time on this thread ,it seems everyone is happy gung ho to jump on the anti-elitist bandwagon and shoot the author with accusations of being bookish and those sort of things.
But I think the article is a simple and honest assessment ,nothing new of course ,it’s there in countless books on the hippie culture and the wave of 60’s. Every great political event shapes the history around us ,when Indira died and someone said that “when a big tree falls the ground around it shakes” ,so unfortunate but true ,and it is inevitable that these events also go on to shape the movies around us ,just look at the number of partition movies in and around the early to late 50’s and you will get your answer.
Unfortunately such events though occurring with alarming regularity in India do not affect the larger population as a whole at the same time because of the geographical and political considerations.
Hence we do not have a generation like that since the time of Independence. Bengal and Punjab were ravaged by partition and hence we see a pleothra of writers ,lyricists ,novelists from those regions contributing to Bollywood post 50’s ,correct me If I am wrong here.
Great events lead to great ideas and that’s what it’s all about ,I dunno why this concept is so difficult to get ….