Towards a more credible Indian Cinema
iView Author: Ritwik Banerjee
(Ames, Iowa, United States)
EMAIL: ritwik4 [at] gmail [dot] com
Title: Towards a more credible Indian Cinema
Mainstream Indian cinema for long has always thrived on an uncanny gloss-a gloss which is overtly hyper-real. Filmmakers for decades have been making films in which the characters are far removed from the multitudes or their immediate neighbors.
Screenplays have been out and out dialogue heavy and plots have centered on a world which is completely alien from our everyday mundane existence. But worse still, Indian audience at large has accepted these “formula films” for far too long. Perhaps a change is in the offing.
Without going into the details of the plot I will briefly mention a few films and try to prove my point. Mixed Doubles (2006) a hilarious comedy directed by Rajat Kapoor deals with marriage. Malti (Konkona Sensharma) and Sunil Arora (Ranbir Shorey), married for 10 years, faces a peculiar problem. Sunil is starved of sex yet he would not have sex with his wife. Perhaps ten years is a long time. And he tries to explore ways to make his marriage more successful and more spicy. Mithya (2008) ,also directed by Rajat Kapoor is a black comedy which posits its main character VK in strange situation of a false identity. Bheja Fry (2007) directed by Sagar Ballary needs no introduction.
It is difficult to believe that all of the above films were made in Bollywood and each of them has earned a fortune at the box office. True enough that the success of these films have been made possible because of the multiplex culture that has evolved in our premiere metros. Young, urbane, city bred, suave India minds little in spending at the multiplexes.
Never ever in history has Bollywood seen such a wave of new kind of film making. . In the 1980s Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalini etc. directed a bunch of “art house” films which went on to gain major critical recognition across the globe. But they were hardly recognized by the ordinary film lover. While these films were made on extremely important social issues, they failed at the box office. The cost of this failure was very high. Inevitably, the film movement started by Benegal stopped due to lack of producers. It is perhaps very important to recognize that cinema is a strange art form where salability is important for its own survival. European neo-realistic doyens of cinema concede today that much of why Neo-realism in Europe was successful may be attributed to an intelligent European viewer who made the experimentations commercially viable.
An important aspect of the above films I talked about is the near ensemble cast in all of them. Markedly the films lack a hero. They lack heroic deeds. The plots are essentially based on backdrops that middleclass Indians are very familiar with. They deal with extraordinary tales of ordinary mortals who impregnate the society around us. It is this honest treatment of ordinary extraordinariness which sets them a class apart. Besides, these films are made by a talented bunch of people. Rajat Kapoor for instance has had his training at FTII, Pune from masters like Mani Kaul and Kumar Sahani. He made Raghu Romeo on a shoe string budget of 15 Lakhs ( he produced it himself with all his savings) which flopped. But with subsequent hits Mixed Doubles and Mithya he is now a “practicing filmmaker”. In his own words the world has changed.
Raghu Romeo was born in 2003. He died a week later. “I went into complete depression when Raghu Romeo bombed. I had lost all my money, and I thought I’d have to wait another six years to make my next film. But, luckily, that didn’t happe? Rajat went on to do Mixed Doubles, which came out in 2006. “And after that, I got to do Mithya, which I’ve just completed? And for the first time during the conversation, there is a discernible excitement as the voice pitches itself a whole fraction of a decibel higher. “And I’m pinching myself. I’m saying: Is this truly happening?
“Now, I can easily get up to two crores, which is – for me – huge money? But that’s just money. What convinced Rajat that he’d really arrived was a recent conversation with a producer. “I told him: I have this idea. This is the first scene of the film. I don’t want to write the rest of the film. I’ll improvise? The moneyman replied with two of the sweetest words in the English language: “Go ahead? Why? “Because the world has changed? Rajat says, “as recently as the last two years. People don’t give a [expletive] whether you have a Bachchan or a Saif. They’re saying: You have a good film? We’ll come and watch it.
The most remarkable aspect of the success of these films is that newcomers like Rajkumar Gupta debuts with a film like Aamir, Arindam Nandi debuts with a film like Via Darjeeling. They make this audacity because they believe that the films will be able to recover money with a reasonably high probability. And audacity indeed!! Let’s take the case of Nandi. Rasomon, the Kurosawa classic which inspired Via Darjeeling, in itself a landmark in the history of cinema, was made in 1950. It took 58 years to successfully experiment with multiple narrative in Indian Cinema ( with perhaps the sole exception of Lets Talk by Ram Madhvani).
The Multiplex culture has unveiled a world of possibilities in Indian Cinema. Ideas which were completely alien to Indian Films are being explored and these ideas are making money. Hyper-realism is hopefully giving way to a nuanced portrayal of human life. Humor, which was thought to be the domain of copybook comedians like Jonny Lever is being successfully portrayed by actors who are far from being comic actors. ( Ranvir Shoree in Mixed Doubles plays a light role and Vinay Pathak in Via Darjeeling plays a serious character-are cases to prove my point). Scriptwriters make deliberate attempts to shun melodrama and hyperboles.
A caveat must be in place though. As I mentioned earlier, the success of this new genre of Indian Cinema can be attributed to a large extent to the urbane, suave young India. So it is a prerequisite of the directors that they tell a story that this Indian identifies with. Hence by and large the stories of farmers committing suicide in Vidarbha may attract our early morning sympathy, but they are unlikely to find a place in the evening screenings at the multiplexes. However they did find a place in a Benegal film in the early eighties. If in principle one agrees that their stories too need to be told, then the above reiterates that state (read government) should continue to play an important role in producing films through agencies like NFDC. Cinema should indeed play a major role of social transformation, given its possible reach, as Ritwik Ghatak had suggested decades ago.
Till then let’s revel in Bollywood’s new found creative surge as cinema in India aspires to be more credible than ever before.
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Good write up. I think cinema needs balance and stability to exist. One kind of cinema cannot exist for too long. That is why I think that the best way for Indian Cinema to be is to be a balance of glossy films and well made, sensible films. And I think we are finally heading in that direction, as you mentioned.
Well written. But are the circumstances so hopeful. I beg to differ. Even Ritwik Ghatak mentioned in his movie Subarnarekha that everyone will fight with pain when it comes but no one wants to see it. Cinema for social transformation. It is not even seen as an art by young audience. It is a mere source of entertainment for them. Even if you mention to them that it is an arty movie, they will run away. I am saying this because I am yet to find a group of people who see cinema as a medium of art except pfc ofcourse.
well written.
times they are a changing.
cheers to the evolving indian cinema.
stay filmi.
Right.That is why it is absolutely important to market the smaller budgeted good films so that its niche audience is aware of it.This year Mithya and Aamir were marketed well and the results are for everyone to see.
Hi Manoj,
Thanks for your comment.I think our perceptions of “art films” are changing fast- the phrase is a bit hackneyed though. I think any film which attempts to make even a little experimentation with form is worth receiving Kudos from us. Experimentation is a risky business in cinema. Having said that I shall request you to watch “Via Darjeeling” if you haven’t seen already.Its just unbelievable that a debutant in Bollywood would make a film like that. So hats off…
Another thing is worth a mention. A popular perception of “arty film” is that it is drab, it lacks humour, it is dark, it is slow etc. I think this mode of thinking needs a shade of change. “Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne” is one of the most popular films in Bengal ever,and it is the highest order of art.
Hi Ritwik,I wanted to watch Via Darjeeling but the in most of the websites reviews were so bad that I did not have the courage to watch.No that you are praising it I feel I should watch it.
@ANINDYA
I am praising the effort that he has made. I am praising the new idea that has been explored. You may not like the film eventually. But I think its worth a watch. Via Darjeeling has recovered the money I guess. BTW are you from Durgapur??
interesting thoughts but a bit too optimistic maybe? I mean the films mentioned like Aamir, Via Darjeeling, Mithya which represent this change have a limited audience – “Young, urbane, city bred, suave India minds” in Ritwick’s own words!
And yes people DO care if you have a Bachchan or a Saif..ok maybe not Bachchan so much as he is not saleable anymore…but an SRK or a Saif have the power to make films like OSO and Race superhits…
@Ritwik,
since you mentioned about Rashomonesque narrative, I would like to correct you here. Some of the films that I have seen, which narrates the story from the perspective of different characters are – Yavanika (the curtain directed by K G George, which centers around the murder investigation of a member in a drama troupe) and Alicinte anveshanam (the search of alice – T V Chandran, where Alice was in search of her missing husband). Recent ones I can think of are T V Chandran’s Kathavaseshan and Kamal hassan’s Virumandi.
I whole heartedly agree with you Ritwik.. but time and again the camps of Farah khan, Karan Johar & co raise a point that Indian people are already dumbstruck with a load of problems, so they dont want realism or complications on screen. People want to escape.. so you need to cater gloss & glamour to them.. well i dont agree personally but when films like Om shanti om and Welcome become huge hits, then i doubt my reason and it proves kjo’s point.. Do you have any logical answer to that?
@JRV
Thanks or letting me know. Sorry for an incorrect version. I must confess that inspite of the rich film culture of Southern India I have not had an opportunity to watch many Southern films.So my knowledge on that aspect is extremely limited nd I know that I should work on it. However I believe in Hindi and ore particularly in Bollywood multiple narrative has not been successfully experimented with the exception I pointed above.
Thanks once again.
I havent seen Via Darjeeling but have seen Rashomon. And have also seen Gopi Gayan Bagha Bayan(loved it). Well if my knowledge is good enough even Rays movies were flop in Bengal. It was only after he got international recognition his status was elevated in India. And forget Ray, what about Ritwik Ghatak. Most of his movies were flop. And it is not that todays generation will lap onto such movies. They will be discarded even today.
@qolqhosh
Lets accept that directors while making a film always have an audience in mind and they are entitled to have one. Its nt possible that in a highly stratified society as ours one size fits all policy will be never successful.In principle I have no problem when Om SHanti Om or welcome become hits. What makes me terribly uncomfortable is when even a low budget film like Raghu Romeo fails to recover its cost. It spells a doom for experimentation and the more cerebral kind of film makers. You see Mani Kaul, Saeed Mirza who are master craftsmen in cinema, have not made a film for a long long time. This is sad. There shoud be a space for them too. This space is being regained-my whole point. I donot have anything against Farah Khan and KJ. Many do enjoy their kind of cinema. Fine. But Kaul and Mirza too should find their rightful space.
Ritwick bhai-ti, do you know what the flavour du jour of the Italian film going public is?
Farcical sex comedies, usually released around Christmas time. Almost every European country I’ve ever been to, including France, the theatres mostly play the latest Hollywood blockbuster.
Before you patronise the Indian viewer with talk of the intelligent and discerning European, go check out what they are really watching.
And even at the height of their critical success film-makers like Truffaut, Fellini, Godard, Theo Angelopoulos were hardly mainstream.
OK, I’ll grant you Almodovar. The man wins critical acclaim and packs in the theatres too. Who else? Hmmm…someone else should try throwing up some names.
And the only story that can be told about rural India is that of farmer suicides? Been to an Indian village lately? Rural India is vibrant dynamic and very, very interesting. Can throw up lots of good material for a director with vision and initiative.
Oh, and, and speaking of Mani Kaul and Kumar Shahani, have you had the misfortune of ever sitting through their films?
Mani Kaul took one of my favourite Dostoevsky novels and made such a ghatiya, crashingly boring film out of it (Nazar) (included the worst performance ever by an actor – Shekhar Kapoor).
Shahani, not to be left behind made a hash of Chekhov in Kasba.
I have vague memories of “Ghashiram Kotwal” as not being so bad and actually a fairly decent adaptation of Tendulkar’s play, but someone who’s seen the film more recently should comment.
Do you seriously believe Mani Kaul is a master craftsman of cinema?