The unique case of the Indian film – some ponderings

As part of its Golden Jubilee celebrations, the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), in association with Film Writers’ Association (FWA), conducted a seminar titled The Uniqueness of the Indian Film Script at the National Film Archives of India auditorium. The objective of the seminar was to trace the history of the Indian film script from its origin out of the popular and folk theatres of India to its current state as well as to brainstorm about its future. The list of speakers and panelists included several well-known academicians, social commentators, screenwriters, lyricists and directors. The event was divided into six sessions spread over Saturday and Sunday. Though I personally didn’t attend the sessions on Saturday, I discussed them extensively with a friend, Mr.Screeny, who did. The seminar brochure too was a fair bit of help and I got a gist of the proceedings on day one. Rather than present an account of the seminar, as I’d have normally done for such an event, I decided instead to take this opportunity to share my views on the story vis-a-vis the objectives and deliberations of the seminar. The task of presenting an account is being handled here pretty well by my friend, Mr.Screeny.

The seminar began with a session on how the transition from theatre and touched upon some early occurences of the “masala” element in our films. From personal experience, I can say that these theatre influences or “masala” elements are seen as the villain responsible for the morass (brilliantly put across by the inimitable Kundan Shah) we’re in. I differ. Let’s take Chinese cinema as an example. It also owes its origins to the local theatre, which is visually loud as opposed to ours, which is loud in the melodrama department. Chinese cinema has carved a niche for itself, without compromising on their visual loudness. If they can do it, why can’t we? The answer to this question was succintly provided by Paresh Mokashi, the director of Harishchandrachi Factory, in the final session of the seminar. The trick lies in keeping the film cinematically engrossing at some level or the other. While the Chinese have cracked it at a visual (their rich colours, vivid cinematography & breathtaking action) and to quite an extent at a cerebral (the symbolism, philosophy and cultural aspects of their films) level too. We, on the other hand, have regressed into a smug superficiality and flawed execution of what potentially is our most positively defining feature.

Melodrama and songs have been integral aspects of our films. Noted filmmaker K.Hariharan touched upon the changing face of melodrama in Indian cinema, with a lot of experimentation with form happening primarily in south Indian cinema. While that is true, it still remains at a fringe and mainstream cinema is fast sinking into a quicksand of its own creation. The saddest part of the story is the mutual disdain that these two schools of filmmaking (mainstream and new-wave) share for each other. We subject our cinema to absurd compartmentalisation and as a result, have created a twisted paradigm of our own. We’ve categorised films into mainstream and arthouse, multiplex and single screen, for the masses and for the classes…yada yada. And we approach these categories with a strict “either this or that” mentality. So, for a new-wave fanatic, a mainstream film is bad because it lacks realism. For someone who swears by the “films are meant for entertainment” credo, arthouse films are “boring”. Some films are made for the “multiplex audiences” while others for the “single screen junta”. This is the manner in which we slot our films and by extension ourselves, into a closed box. Anything falling out of that box becomes anathema to us. Unfortunately, this “camp” mentality pervades not just the world of cinema, but also other spheres of art. And it is this closed door psyche of ours that keeps the new-wave on the fringe forever. For its always Us v/s Them; its never We.

Contd/-

Pages: 1 2 3