BY SUDDHASATYA GHOSH. KOLKATA, INDIA (CINEMA MINIMA) — Cine Central, probably the largest film society in Asia, will screen 70 films from 30 countries as part of the 14th Kolkata Film Festival to be held here 2008 November 10-17. A good selection of movies — from Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Iran, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Pakistan, Sweden, South Korea, Slovakia, and Uruguay — will be warming the occasion. A tribute to Che Guevara to commemorate his 80th birthday in the ‘Documedia’ section; homages to Cuban Humberto Solas and Egyptian Youssef Chahine; and a good bunch of Turkish, Norwegian, and Dutch contemporary movies are some of the interesting aspects of this festival.
Wait! The list is yet to complete: There is a Tribute section to Manoel de Oliveira, the documentarist of ACTO DE PRIMAVERA | RITE OF SPRING and of FRANCISCA. Believe me I am all in hunger to face him in the dark theatre. I remember him as a forerunner to Italian neo-realist trend with his depiction of Oporto’s street children. Some months ago as I was watching TRAFFIC SIGNAL, a movie by an Indian director Madhur Bhandarkar from Mumbai’s so-called offbeat class, I was just thinking about Oliveira’s influence in movie world.
Well I am raring to go. It will start on 14th November. This Cine society had a great influence in our movie culture. But as the censorship is too tough in India, it is difficult for them to get uncensored movies from around the world to exhibit. They have a fund crunch too.
I think these and some other reasons had made them work with the state government of West Bengal after they had started this festival at 1986 as the first independent International festival in India. That time it was called ‘Calcutta International Film Festival’ and now it is International Forum of New Cinema from 1998, after the collaboration with the government.
There is another thing that I noticed here — the absence of digital representations. I will ask them about it soon. Whatever the problems are — these few good men, volunteers of movie world, are not compromising on quality. That is why this festival is a must for the movie maniacs of India till date — and you may count me as one.
courtesy: www.cinemaminima.com
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
CRITICAL ADOOR & A FEW MORE WORDS FOR MUMBAI FILM INDUSTRY
There is a series of recent releases in Bollywood as usual. With more to come in time I was thinking about a reaction from great Adoor Gopalkrishnan about the mainstream Hindi films. He, in a recent interview to The Telegraph (Graphitti), had said that very recently he was trying to see a Hindi film and he could not bear it for more than 10 minutes. He said that there were money in the Mumbai industry and directors knew nothing but to spend it on sets and mindless scenes. Coming from Adoor it was a heavy attack on the merits of those so-called wonders of Hindi films, of whom various media are writing, showing and trumpeting as Avatars in Cinedome. Adoor is a man of plain speaks and when he speaks he knows what exactly he is talking about. Only yesterday I saw a promo of a Bachchan enacted big-budget special effect drama in television news. Amitabh is a warrior of a sect that do not condone war, but when they do a sway of Bachchan’s sword produces a bird of fire and it flies over the head of the assembled army. I was thinking ho
w poor can be the scape of imagination that even can not surplus B-grade technoes of Hollywood? How many times we had seen this kind of jugglery in such movies where dragon to bird to a demon
w poor can be the scape of imagination that even can not surplus B-grade technoes of Hollywood? How many times we had seen this kind of jugglery in such movies where dragon to bird to a demon 
(pterodactyl sort of) appears in the screen to install fear among its viewers?
Anyway, it also had reminded me of an era of Bengali stage when the lack in playmaking (in content and form) was supplemented by placing elephants, even camels on stage to create wonders for the directors and producers. But that had soon gone overboard and all these petty magic had dried up to restore sanity and ofcourse the ‘Art’. But there is no stopping in Hindi film industry. They are hell-bent on doing what they can, that is, spending money on bad ventures. I had also seen that most of the so-called big bullies like ‘Ajuba’ had fallen flat on its face. Why? The answer is very simple. Though it is said that people go to cinema hall to get only, yet more often than not it is a half truth. They do not stick to a film that is poor on story and that also can be seen in the earlier demise of great Bachchan when he acted in films like ‘Indrajeet’, ‘Lalbadsha’ etc. etc. He came back with KBC series and then in films those had some stories in it. So any sort of mindless entertainment can not keep viewers in hall. But one can argue that these stories are definitely not the once like Adoor’s. It is true indeed. But then again there are some points to be taken note of here.
In all literatures there are writers like Sheldon who are more popular than James Joyce. But definitely no one in right mind can claim that Sheldon is much greater than Joyce. There will be some all the time that will enjoy Sheldon than Joyce and vise-versa also. But at the base these are all creditable narrations told in different manners. When it comes to non-narratives it becomes a bit more difficult and Anuraag Kashyap is facing that with his ‘No Smoking’. I have heard that his film is getting good reception in Rome festival, but here in India he was anguished by the critics. He has to realize that Mani Kaul had also faced serious lack of interest in general viewers, even Adoor himself is not that much watched here. So if you are taking a few steps more to experiments you are open to critic for wounds, but obviously not always for wrong reasons. For now I must stop here in discussing non-narratives, because I will have to get back to entertainment itself.
In all literatures there are writers like Sheldon who are more popular than James Joyce. But definitely no one in right mind can claim that Sheldon is much greater than Joyce. There will be some all the time that will enjoy Sheldon than Joyce and vise-versa also. But at the base these are all creditable narrations told in different manners. When it comes to non-narratives it becomes a bit more difficult and Anuraag Kashyap is facing that with his ‘No Smoking’. I have heard that his film is getting good reception in Rome festival, but here in India he was anguished by the critics. He has to realize that Mani Kaul had also faced serious lack of interest in general viewers, even Adoor himself is not that much watched here. So if you are taking a few steps more to experiments you are open to critic for wounds, but obviously not always for wrong reasons. For now I must stop here in discussing non-narratives, because I will have to get back to entertainment itself.
If there is a narration well woven in movies it certainly will attract viewers and it surely not only depends upon stars in actuality. Time and again it had been proven by films like ‘Satya’ and directors like Ramgopal Verma. Just remember Mani Ratnam’s ‘Roja’ in which he had cast an actor like Madhu who is not that a celebrity in Hindi atleast and Arvind whom Bollywood barely knows at that period. But he dealt his piece of narration with good technique and it was an instant success. In that film he had spend certain money, but cleverly and knowingly and he had his fruit. I am not saying that I expect someone like David Dhawan to make a film like ‘Arth’ even, but then he atleast can follow earlier comedies like ‘Golmaal’ that had certain story to tell and he will not need to stoop to low standards. Entertainment also needs a process of understanding and it has its logic too. I rarely have seen any film woven with logic to fail and I had seen thousands to topple with spending spree and nonsense.
When Adoor had commented he knew that thousand of producers and distributors are behind these sort of nonsense who actually controls film industries everywhere and they do not want to promote good cinemas as that will make them helpless in return. These are the people who want to dictate terms in the industry and for that reason they operate behind curtains or ‘Star System’ and again when any of the so-called Star gets too big to fit in their given shoe they try to cast him or her off. Actors who turns into star know this well but then money speaks a volume in human civilization. Then one may argue that directors are hapless lots and that is certainly not the case.
Some directors like Sanjay Lila Bansali or Ram Gopal Verma have their own company and they can even break distributor’s strangleholds too. They do often do it as I remember that after each and every Yash Chopra production a scuffle goes on with multiplexes in all around India for share of sells and all that. So they can negotiate and get free of this strangle. Then why they do not make films that of which they are capable of? In the facet of world cinema we have directors like Spielberg or Tarantinho whom we can consider good atleast. Each and every director can not be turned into a ‘Maestro’ overnight but they can be sensible at least. In India we are lacking in such sensible directors and producers too, who does understand entertainment properly. Even after Devdaas or Sarkar Raj a sensibility is lacking in Bollywood cinema. In the period of Bimal Roy it had started to produce fine narratives and from then on it took great shapes in the hands of directors like Hrishikesh Mukharjee, Bijay Anand etc. But now even with people like Bansali, Verma, and Vidhu Vinod Chopra around can we hope for a better take than Deshai or Dhawan style idiosyncrasies? Then it may come out one day that Adoor had seen a Hindi mainstream movie to its full length and house full notices can be seen on theatres too. Yes, even in this period of television and DVD-s also. That is quite possible I think.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Bernardo Bertolucci-A Quixote in modern cinema
In his youth he wanted to create ‘Miuras’ or ‘Young Bulls’ as his films and in the end had made a film like ‘The last Emperor’. Bernardo Bertolucci had pompously failed himself in cinema. But was it an individual failure?
The other day I was commenting in ‘Passion for Cinema’ and had a good debate on Bertolucci’s ‘Last Tango in Paris’ or ‘Ultimo tango a Parigi’ (1972). It had started from a very harsh comment of mine to discard this as a trash film and a real pathetic show of Marlon Brandon (not as actor, but as artist who had chosen a bad film with all his conscience). As I got a very interesting reply from Shan there, I thought that space will not be enough to elaborate on my thoughts.
As Shan had said that we all have our rights to disagree I here am just doing that by disagreeing on Bertolucci’s greatness.
The other day I was commenting in ‘Passion for Cinema’ and had a good debate on Bertolucci’s ‘Last Tango in Paris’ or ‘Ultimo tango a Parigi’ (1972). It had started from a very harsh comment of mine to discard this as a trash film and a real pathetic show of Marlon Brandon (not as actor, but as artist who had chosen a bad film with all his conscience). As I got a very interesting reply from Shan there, I thought that space will not be enough to elaborate on my thoughts.
As Shan had said that we all have our rights to disagree I here am just doing that by disagreeing on Bertolucci’s greatness.
He was a son of a decadent bourgeois family and had a poet-writer father. He was a son of a devastated Italy that saw fascism and its tentacles that embraces all sources of life and sucks dearly.
He started as a poet and then in graduation had grown into cinema to say that he had dreamt of living in film. Along with his aforesaid thoughts another realization, that for a bourgeois turned conscious Marxist it was difficult to be a Marxist, had a great role in his cinema. Because there were the bubby traps waiting eagerly for a footstep on it and to the dismay of people like me, Bertolucci had walked on that and was exploded.
But how and why and that is the question, rather puzzle, that I will try to solve here.
I will start with certain personal experiences of mine as Shan had asked a few questions based on that.
When I was a child, the days in West Bengal were turbulent with Naxalism and anti-emergency struggles. People around me were activists, anxious, puzzled, and tortured by poignant and cruel time. Bloods were everywhere. There I had met certain peoples who were very committed to their beliefs in communism. They wore dhuti-kurtas and had a bag by their side. They travel to places where state had not visited even twice in the shape of officials or vote-mongers. They travel to such places to distribute relief in the time of flood or famine. They were there to propagate communist thoughts. Days of hard work and then they won certain friends and comrades there. In much friendlier terrains poignancies of their political work can be imagined easily. Communists, as they call themselves had won elections on the ground of those works. These workers had fought landholders and mill-owners along side farmers and workers and had achieved their faith in them.
Was that a win for communism? In my later years I had tried to understand what exactly it was and I had found a rather interesting answer for that. These men and women, whom I had known through my father as communist party workers were people of very religious nature. Their religion was Marxism and they will be hurt today, that I know for sure, with such an analysis. But I can not help it. Marx is a difficult author to be understood without proper preparation. I realized that without certain knowledge in various discipline ‘Das Capital’ is simply impregnable. Marx was not the first one who had called for equality among individuals in a class ridden society. He was the one who took this call beyond simple humanitarian wanton. If one does not understand Marx properly then how one can differentiate between his call and that of old Christianity! My known world was infested with simple believers of communism, who had no idea how will the economy be if communists have power one day.
To them party and communism was all the same. Party, just like states are run by few people and they may fall from ideologies, which these men had no idea of. When time came and communists had grabbed state power and erstwhile enemy landlords became comrade these party-workers fell short of understanding. At the beginning they had thought this as a psychological change of landlords and finally when they were outvoted in local range intra-party election they had faced a shocker. Their party is in the hand of enemy itself. They, one by one, had left the party and became silent, though with a suppressed anguish and loyalty.
Most of these men were not even half-rich as Bertolucci was. They were professional political workers and had to live on the party’s whole-timer benefits. They had no other alternative profession. But Bertolucci was in a far greater state than them as far as the economy and education were concerned. He had chosen to live in cinema with the help of his cine-critic father. Finally he had a stint with Pasolini as an assistant and he entered in cinema.
Pasolini, a thrown-out of Italian communist Party and a rebel at heart, had taught him cinema. But I hope not Marxism, because like all others Pasolini was influenced with Gramsci, the thinker. Gramsci’s thoughts on ‘Hegemony’, ‘Common-sense’ and ‘Lumpen-proletariat’ or on ‘Southern question’ do need a proper system to understand it. Bertolucci had not had that. A bourgeois by birth can be a communist, but will be challenged in a hard fashion.
There are two reasons for that. One lies typically with the formation of apparent freedom in bourgeois society and another in its knowledge system. If you have money you can buy certain freedoms in such a society. Obviously I am very much aware about equality before the eyes of law in so-called democratic or bourgeois state. To the poor this is a hoax for ever and it will be so as law can be bought through lawyers. If one judgment upholds legal system then scores other are there that can show you the farce at its height. Therefore a child like Bertolucci of ‘Surplus sustenance’ often falls into the trap of ‘Free’ society. Wealth and power have given a shield to that child to even be mesmerized by that. By pronouncing rights of ‘Freedom’ of our thoughts we only acknowledge its limitation as there is no such thing like ‘Free’ will. Bertolucci had learnt that lesson in a wrong way in his detainment by Italian state.
The other part, knowledge system, is partly academic and partly observational. If you have never lived in a secluded island ever you just can imagine how it can be and you will definitely be wrong in understanding that. This is an extreme example and I used this just to point out the difference between bourgeois and proletariats. Pasolini, once had accused Italian state in his first feature film ‘Accattone’ had shown us the ‘borgate’ (just like fascist Italy) as concentration camps where lumpen-proletariats live and Accattone himself proclaims that after his first day of work there. Therefore one can easily understand the distance between that and bourgeois world. I must not elaborate. From here our Bertolucci had started his career as a cinema-wala.
How strange was it when he proclaims his dream to live in cinema? A poetic (?) thought indeed. If you live in cinema you will miss the real world and reality. No creator can create without the point of departure of an objective world. Objects we reflect in our thoughts and dreams and acts and in creation with our own interpretations only. In cinema we do not see a chair; it is a mere reflection as it is in the case of our own eyes. Then how can one be creative without being objective in cinema?
If you start from there you can treat your subject with better understanding and so do we, the viewers. Well you can also create your own world too. And that will be interesting to visit. Take Klee’s paintings for that and it will definitely deliver you content in the shape of few thoughts. You can nurture them, you can grow old with them and day after day you will find layers in it.
A withdrawing bourgeois and a failed Marxist even do not have his own say. Shan, my friend, had declared Maria’s (Jeanne) win in the last blow-job she gave to Brandon’s (Paul) character. Paul is beggar and she is the giver now. What had won exactly? A primitive and animal instinct to have sex (though I do not know if animals do know any such forms as blow-job) or self-satisfaction that I am the master of my master, what exactly came out in this win? In psychology and Marxian politics this sort of satisfaction has been associated with typical slave mentality of women in male-dominated society. Well, then we are having a win that is not a win at all. Then, at the last sequence, a shot from a Jeanne’s gun and Brandon (Paul) dies with a chewing gum. Is that the final win?
How pitiful it was! Is this content can be compared to any work of even the ‘Evil’ De Sade or a pitiable ‘La Miserable’? No and there lies its follies in content that even can not surplus Pasolini’s controversial mixture of Sade and Mussolini’s thought in his great film Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom (1975). Then why will it be a great one in cinema?
As far as the cinematic treatments are concerned I find his language mimicry of Godard and Pasolini at large. On that front he had scored nothing in this Last Tango and I must refrain from discussing it. It will be a waste of time. Bertolucci as a maker was never sure about his place and was always inclined to popular cinema. On the wrong understanding of Marxism he thought being ‘Popular’ is a crime in Marxist thought at his early days. It was not like that at all. Only some intellectuals, bereft of proper understanding had thought so. Ideological goal of Marxism is to be popular to spread its message of equality among workers and peasants of the whole world.
A Marxist becomes a saint only with the lack of understanding of it. My dhuti-cladded warriors of Marxism of childhood had probably thought so. They were washed out when they were out of position in party and had found the loneliness unbearable to some extent. People were used to look at them with awe and they were like gods or sages to them. By the process they had seldom enjoyed life and had become too monkish and Marxism had resembled a church system in this part of the world. When time came people who were against this rigid, dogmatic process (mostly middle class for their comfort and a few for the sake of sanity) had succumbed easily to the traps of system. When confronted then or even today they use these miserable good beings as examples of uselessness of discipline and commitment. Both they and these men had failed to make a striking balance in their act, although Marx did it rightly in his period and writings. He had not only prescription of violence for the world, he even talked of non-violent movements and transfer of bourgeois state to a worker’s state too (in 1832, Amsterdam).
And for sinners (err liberators) like Bertolucci a failure in radical movement is bound to be salvaged by an erotic radicalism. This too I know personally. Many of the revolutionary writers of 1970’s had turned into soft porno novel writers later on and they boast it as subversion in culture. In ‘Last Tango’ this disguise of rebellion was not enough to cover a pure search for own pleasure in disguise of rebellion. Truly names are not needed in brothel and if liberation is in the brothels only then too I remember some similar mediocre creators in West Bengal aka India who had similar point of view.
I will rather read Jean Genet or Sade again. Straightaway they can tell at your face that they can harm you to buy happiness for them and that is not the case with Bertolucci. He, at the best is a Quixote who poses himself as a knight. Probably the system that had made him out as a failure will produce a poet or maker to tell his story (partially told in ‘The Pornographer’) like Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra one day and I am waiting for that.
Was that a win for communism? In my later years I had tried to understand what exactly it was and I had found a rather interesting answer for that. These men and women, whom I had known through my father as communist party workers were people of very religious nature. Their religion was Marxism and they will be hurt today, that I know for sure, with such an analysis. But I can not help it. Marx is a difficult author to be understood without proper preparation. I realized that without certain knowledge in various discipline ‘Das Capital’ is simply impregnable. Marx was not the first one who had called for equality among individuals in a class ridden society. He was the one who took this call beyond simple humanitarian wanton. If one does not understand Marx properly then how one can differentiate between his call and that of old Christianity! My known world was infested with simple believers of communism, who had no idea how will the economy be if communists have power one day.
To them party and communism was all the same. Party, just like states are run by few people and they may fall from ideologies, which these men had no idea of. When time came and communists had grabbed state power and erstwhile enemy landlords became comrade these party-workers fell short of understanding. At the beginning they had thought this as a psychological change of landlords and finally when they were outvoted in local range intra-party election they had faced a shocker. Their party is in the hand of enemy itself. They, one by one, had left the party and became silent, though with a suppressed anguish and loyalty.
Most of these men were not even half-rich as Bertolucci was. They were professional political workers and had to live on the party’s whole-timer benefits. They had no other alternative profession. But Bertolucci was in a far greater state than them as far as the economy and education were concerned. He had chosen to live in cinema with the help of his cine-critic father. Finally he had a stint with Pasolini as an assistant and he entered in cinema.
Pasolini, a thrown-out of Italian communist Party and a rebel at heart, had taught him cinema. But I hope not Marxism, because like all others Pasolini was influenced with Gramsci, the thinker. Gramsci’s thoughts on ‘Hegemony’, ‘Common-sense’ and ‘Lumpen-proletariat’ or on ‘Southern question’ do need a proper system to understand it. Bertolucci had not had that. A bourgeois by birth can be a communist, but will be challenged in a hard fashion.
There are two reasons for that. One lies typically with the formation of apparent freedom in bourgeois society and another in its knowledge system. If you have money you can buy certain freedoms in such a society. Obviously I am very much aware about equality before the eyes of law in so-called democratic or bourgeois state. To the poor this is a hoax for ever and it will be so as law can be bought through lawyers. If one judgment upholds legal system then scores other are there that can show you the farce at its height. Therefore a child like Bertolucci of ‘Surplus sustenance’ often falls into the trap of ‘Free’ society. Wealth and power have given a shield to that child to even be mesmerized by that. By pronouncing rights of ‘Freedom’ of our thoughts we only acknowledge its limitation as there is no such thing like ‘Free’ will. Bertolucci had learnt that lesson in a wrong way in his detainment by Italian state.
The other part, knowledge system, is partly academic and partly observational. If you have never lived in a secluded island ever you just can imagine how it can be and you will definitely be wrong in understanding that. This is an extreme example and I used this just to point out the difference between bourgeois and proletariats. Pasolini, once had accused Italian state in his first feature film ‘Accattone’ had shown us the ‘borgate’ (just like fascist Italy) as concentration camps where lumpen-proletariats live and Accattone himself proclaims that after his first day of work there. Therefore one can easily understand the distance between that and bourgeois world. I must not elaborate. From here our Bertolucci had started his career as a cinema-wala.
How strange was it when he proclaims his dream to live in cinema? A poetic (?) thought indeed. If you live in cinema you will miss the real world and reality. No creator can create without the point of departure of an objective world. Objects we reflect in our thoughts and dreams and acts and in creation with our own interpretations only. In cinema we do not see a chair; it is a mere reflection as it is in the case of our own eyes. Then how can one be creative without being objective in cinema?
If you start from there you can treat your subject with better understanding and so do we, the viewers. Well you can also create your own world too. And that will be interesting to visit. Take Klee’s paintings for that and it will definitely deliver you content in the shape of few thoughts. You can nurture them, you can grow old with them and day after day you will find layers in it.
A withdrawing bourgeois and a failed Marxist even do not have his own say. Shan, my friend, had declared Maria’s (Jeanne) win in the last blow-job she gave to Brandon’s (Paul) character. Paul is beggar and she is the giver now. What had won exactly? A primitive and animal instinct to have sex (though I do not know if animals do know any such forms as blow-job) or self-satisfaction that I am the master of my master, what exactly came out in this win? In psychology and Marxian politics this sort of satisfaction has been associated with typical slave mentality of women in male-dominated society. Well, then we are having a win that is not a win at all. Then, at the last sequence, a shot from a Jeanne’s gun and Brandon (Paul) dies with a chewing gum. Is that the final win?
How pitiful it was! Is this content can be compared to any work of even the ‘Evil’ De Sade or a pitiable ‘La Miserable’? No and there lies its follies in content that even can not surplus Pasolini’s controversial mixture of Sade and Mussolini’s thought in his great film Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom (1975). Then why will it be a great one in cinema?
As far as the cinematic treatments are concerned I find his language mimicry of Godard and Pasolini at large. On that front he had scored nothing in this Last Tango and I must refrain from discussing it. It will be a waste of time. Bertolucci as a maker was never sure about his place and was always inclined to popular cinema. On the wrong understanding of Marxism he thought being ‘Popular’ is a crime in Marxist thought at his early days. It was not like that at all. Only some intellectuals, bereft of proper understanding had thought so. Ideological goal of Marxism is to be popular to spread its message of equality among workers and peasants of the whole world.
A Marxist becomes a saint only with the lack of understanding of it. My dhuti-cladded warriors of Marxism of childhood had probably thought so. They were washed out when they were out of position in party and had found the loneliness unbearable to some extent. People were used to look at them with awe and they were like gods or sages to them. By the process they had seldom enjoyed life and had become too monkish and Marxism had resembled a church system in this part of the world. When time came people who were against this rigid, dogmatic process (mostly middle class for their comfort and a few for the sake of sanity) had succumbed easily to the traps of system. When confronted then or even today they use these miserable good beings as examples of uselessness of discipline and commitment. Both they and these men had failed to make a striking balance in their act, although Marx did it rightly in his period and writings. He had not only prescription of violence for the world, he even talked of non-violent movements and transfer of bourgeois state to a worker’s state too (in 1832, Amsterdam).
And for sinners (err liberators) like Bertolucci a failure in radical movement is bound to be salvaged by an erotic radicalism. This too I know personally. Many of the revolutionary writers of 1970’s had turned into soft porno novel writers later on and they boast it as subversion in culture. In ‘Last Tango’ this disguise of rebellion was not enough to cover a pure search for own pleasure in disguise of rebellion. Truly names are not needed in brothel and if liberation is in the brothels only then too I remember some similar mediocre creators in West Bengal aka India who had similar point of view.
I will rather read Jean Genet or Sade again. Straightaway they can tell at your face that they can harm you to buy happiness for them and that is not the case with Bertolucci. He, at the best is a Quixote who poses himself as a knight. Probably the system that had made him out as a failure will produce a poet or maker to tell his story (partially told in ‘The Pornographer’) like Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra one day and I am waiting for that.
Published in:
Friday, June 27, 2008
A few thoughts on Bengali cinema……
Passion for cinema has produced a few pages of Sudhir Mishra’s diary for readers and expectantly brilliances of Sudhir came out in open in that space. Sudhir is a name in ‘so-called’ parallel cinema or in good cinema, if I am allowed to use Satyajit Ray’s coinage for it. As I went on reading it I faced a few questions and am trying to present those in my write.
Let me start with a cinema by Rainer Werner Fassbinder, ‘Ali-Fear Eats the Soul’. It starts with an apparently incorrect title in original German. Brigitte Mira and El Hedi ben Salem was cast respectively as an old German woman cleaner and a middle-aged Moroccan worker. Woman aged around sixty and the man at his late thirties had got into a relation, in spite of their separate religio- cultural backgrounds. Emmi (Mira), in her earlier life had married a polish immigrant worker against her Hitler worshipper father’s wishes and the children born out of that wedlock now trashes her relation with Ali (Hedi). That is the irony he weaved with mastery.
But here I am not going to elaborate the content any further. My take is the making and concept that had affected cinema business. Major casts were not stars. Indoor and stipulated outdoor locations had helped him a lot to keep in the budget low. It was his most powerful work. It was in direct contrast with Tarkovskian pattern. Tarkovsky working on that part of time in Russia had a different notion. He was a poet and philosopher of cinema. He was a Maestro who taught us cinema has more to exploit and it is alive and kicking. But at what cost and how the cinema business had worked for him?
When Tarkovsky was out of soviet system and Mosfilm was not patronizing him any more he had found that art in so-called free west is a commodity only. He knew the pain of not making a film for almost ten years due to petty bureaucratic political pressure and conspiracy, but there he had faced a complex puzzle and that I suppose had taken quite a few sleepless night out of him. He had an idea and to turn it into a film he required a good lot of money and that was missing. In ‘Nostalgia’, the last sequence had to be shot twice for a snag in camera as we all know and that money was arranged with quite a lot of trouble. Several times he complained about this money oriented problems in Europe as he faced it in the shape of shift time, less budget and so on. If we keep in mind the exact feeling Akira Kurosawa had after seeing the set of ‘Solaris’ we will understand Tarkovsky’s problem. Kuroshawa had commented that almost a space station had been made to suit Tarkovsky’s demand and ‘2001-A space Odyssey’ of Stanley Qubreck seemed a child in terms of set-properties too. But that was in Soviet Russia, where money was not the ruler (pronounced as a state policy as a socialist state). But for Fassbinder it was a capitalist West Germany from the very outset. He had worked out a solution in this ‘Ali-Fear Eats the soul’ with greater sense of content and other aspects of cinema.
Sudhir in his pages of that diary had said that,
-‘You have a jimmy jib doesn’t mean that’s a better technique.’
He was trying to provoke a thought like Godard that ‘technology is not technique’. Yes that’s true. But how technology becomes a cinema itself as it is already in Hollywood?
Here I must get back to my experience in late 90’s of the earlier century. As I was just strolling in the magic world of cinema with a few documentary experiences in my pocket, I had met a bunch of new and young makers who took to cinema as life itself. They were doing their bit in cinema world in a fashion that was quite interesting. They had some ideas and a laughable amount of money in their pocket to make films. They had friends who were cinematographers, editors, actors and all were regularly working in industry as professionals. These directors were also working in television and earning a little. They and some of their well wishers put together their money and started ventures. Barring a few regular bread earner technicians all others had worked voluntarily on their dream projects. Some of them took as long as five years to get completed. Yet they fought with their all shortcomings. Gautam Sen, Sankha Ghosh even Ashok Biswanathan (who won a debutant National Award with ‘Sunya Theke Suru’) were among them. You, probably know them not as their films had no effect in cinema halls. But from them and their efforts I got an understanding that cinema is a social business too.
In the field of art either king or a noble had patron artists as all economical power were with them. Later, states, even in India also, had supported them with an interest that was not noble all the time. Then it became a white elephant to them as it never churned out money and a sort of accusation was in the air which was against film makers. Film makers were making money and they were not bothered with the loss that the state was facing. It was hailed as absolutely true in Medias with obvious capitalist natures. Those Medias had kept silence on tax evasion by big houses or subsidized industrial policy as it may hurt their commercial interests. Even if we take those allegations as true to certain extent we must say that stoppage of promotion through NFDC was not a good solution. Because in general even a so-called commercial release can not guarantee success till today in any part of the world. In particular good cinema is a part of education itself if we know the use of it (in American universities cinema is being taught in South Asian studies to make pupil know this part better). But as this good cinema scribe were few in numbers and potentially less powerful to make a noise there were no re-thinking on this issue. And now as they say that there is no free lunch in this world there is no possibility of policy reversal of the state.
Now where did we look for a way out? We saw makers were at a loss. They had tried to pull out a few private producers and that with their earlier techniques of proper casting (about which Sudhir had commented too) it was destined to fail. Private producers tend to do business with the help of star value. So these makers followed an old path. Do you remember Fellini’s ‘La Dolce Vitta’ and its first sequence? Marcello Mastroanni was riding a helicopter that was following a huge statue of Jesus Christ. To me it was like an appearance scene of Amitabh Bachchan in late 1970-s. Mastroanni was a big star in Italy and finance arrangements were quite understandable in that context. Satyajit Ray had done ‘Nayak’ (I think star rather than hero can come closer in meaning of that Bengali word) and a few others with Bengali icon Uttamkumar. In graduation all others followed suit. Rittwik was a loner (though he had cast Supriya twice it had not done any financial good to him) and he had made a few films. His system of casting with committed theatre actors who were working in film also had a few takers. Ray’s earlier trend to discover actors for characters were also neglected. To make films with private producers (obviously keeping up front the bold gesture of no compromise by parallel directors) star system had silently crave in. Here for the first time ‘Stars’ who can act or behaved a lot had gotten a chance for an intellectual rebirth with coveted honors that they love to receive as a prestige boost-up. They also settled for less remuneration and we had another genre of so-called good films.
Why ‘so-called’ will be the question that I will counter now! In came other contributors like cinematographers, editors etc. on following star’s footmarks. Budgets were boosted and now it is a good crore with Rituparno Ghosh. Jimmy jibs, video monitors, two sets of technicians, better camera, non-linear edit and things like those has joined forces to make a film work better. Then why are we not getting even a ‘Charulata’, let alone a ‘Pather Panchali’?
I, in earlier phase had spoken of my understanding that cinema works socially too, is an important observation as far as I am concerned. Earlier a maker like Ray came up with an idea and discussed it with intellectuals of near caliber for a long time. A script or mise-en-scene gradually took shape to its fullest stretch. Then actors, technical contributors were added who had a grooming in same socio-political weather and understanding. At the last it was a search for money. Thus this process took long enough to develop to dilute preliminary enthusiasm of a maker and get solid for shoot. Actors who had been taught art in theatre (that was active intellectually and politically, not like drawing room dramas of our period) and developed film acting in learning process that probed deep to overcome the technical superficialities and understand it properly were in majority. Others who had never acted in their entire life sometimes also came in to join (Ray had discovered quite a lot) and they were surrounded by those learned artists. By the time the film making was over they had a clear syllabus ahead of them to know acting.
But with stars it is the other way round. They at first come into the film with a specific product to sell (such as histrionics, dance or fight) and then in time they grow. Learning basics and working is always difficult. In cinema it is nearly killing, because here your behavior can be turned into acting of outstanding nature with the touch of a good maker. So if you are not good enough in your head it may take a life time to understand that you are a non-actor. Without mincing my words here I will like to state that quite a few names or stars are far away from the art of acting.
Cinema, as Tarkovsky loved it, is really encouraging till it comes to the floor. When it is there it can kill one with so-many demands. Cinema comes as a thought to a maker at first. Then a hard process begins to give it a shape in a two-dimensional space. One maker is as good as the team he has. Despite a common belief that cinema is director’s medium it is really questionable! Maker’s thought transpires into visuals and sounds through interpretations with the help of machines and its mastars. If it fails then the thought has no meaning.
A maker has no time to teach acting on the floor. Stars, often with their busy schedule, has no time like old actors to go through a span of quite discussions and unearthing of their characters in different kind of film environment of serious cinema. They serve partly in act. Same goes for other technicians too. Though cinematographers and editors are mostly come through a demanding process of institutes or apprentice periods still it remains unclear to them that there is a difference between ‘Technology’ and ‘Technique’. They only understand this if the philosophies and aesthetics of good films start to have a cast on their thoughts. So when they face the critical demand of good film most of the time they respond in a lesser note. Budget constrains and lack of imaginative practices has taken a toll already. They are ready with picture postcard cinematography or a low-key pattern of lights following so-called realistic movies of Hollywood. But they are not ready with a Makhmalbuf thought process. That hurts really.
A great maker is always on a journey to discover new language in a lesser sense and a total new continent for cinema in greater one. But co-travelers do need some acumen to follow him. So often it becomes an argumentative process and a battle of ego, as was in the case of Rittwik Ghatak and cinematographer Dinen Gupta. Dinen Gupta had told in an interview that often Rittwik had failed to understand technicalities and had made some absurd demands. Rittwik was not alive to counter that. So it is difficult to understand what had happened in actuality. But we can assume some things out of experiences of Baby Islaam, a renowned Bangladeshi cinematographer who several times acknowledged his learning from Rittwik. Why, then, is it so contradictory? It can be assumed from other references too. Dinen Gupta had made some so-called cinemas later on in Bengali and let me not elaborate on its merit. Baby Islaam had been a good cinematographer throughout his life. Remember those shots of a vast tract of lands beside Titas in ‘Titas Ekti Nadir Naam’? Slightly burned shots that allowed a void in our hearts as we know then that the river was drying and ‘Malopara’ was going to die. That was baby Islaam behind camera and Rittwik behind cinema. Dinen Gupta’s are so-called commercial technicians who knew too little of cinema to be a contributor. Even Ray had met with ego problems too and he had chosen to do it himself in music scoring. In other departments he had taken Saumendu Ray or Dulal Ray to comply with his thoughts. These men knew that they are not the maker and they had contributed a lot without getting into any ego-oriented problems. In later period other makers also faced such problems.
I am not trying to tell that all the directors are well equipped as I know that some are very reluctant or even ignorant in understanding the technical aspects. I have seen an eminent Bengali maker to walk in a television studio in a striped shirt and at that period video cameras were not able to handle so nearly weaved lines. He walked in and when informed had said in a very unhesitant manner that he does not know anything about video. He even does not care for it. On the other hand Godard had made some brilliant television productions. Here the difference in outlook is quite understandable. Rittwik was a maker who used cinema to deliberate on his thoughts and often had said that if he gets any more powerful medium than cinema he could accept that with all glee. Such a man was bound to be conscious about technology also. I should not elaborate any more on this.
My point of departure was the changing scenario in which Bengali cinema had walked in after 1980’s. As the ‘Star’ system grew in it a chaos was to be followed. Makers were bound to look after a content that suits this system. Direct reference to politics had become a strict negative. Cinema had lost its one strong alley. As cinema is no more a tool of social change makers had to retreat in an intellectual abode of artistry only. A picturesque shoot of church burning in ‘Uttara’ (Buddhadeb Dasgupta) had shown it with stress. A long shot of that takes you to such a distance, when you will feel no pain at all. You will probably feel that all in this world is in vain or ‘Maya’. Cinematographer Asim Bose, I admire him as a person though, had expressed a typical counter productive philosophy and obviously on the instance of Buddhadeb himself. That speaks volume in it. Cinema has become bloodless. ‘So-called’ good cinema had taken a place in Bengal. Then Gautam, Aparna, Rituparno and a new breed of young makers are also there to join this march.
We, who admire them as our comrades are now deserted by them. They are entitled to leave us as a few burdens, but we had our roles as viewers of good cinema. We might not have the advantage of number to out done an Amitabh Bachchan starred film, but we were there solidly. We went there to discover a whole anew world in there cinema and a few magic moments like the passing of train in the meadow in ‘Pather Panchali’ and we were left alone. Big stars, detailed and colourful sets, costumes, dubbed acting, technical extravaganza were all we got as a gift. We lost cinema. And our cinema had lost its meaning. It was bound to happen as good cinema by being personal (probable explanation of being non-political) had lost its root in society. Main stream movies have not made this mistake. They weave apparent politics of ‘Good versus Evil’ in their films to be in society (ask Ramgopal and he will tell you what ‘Sarkar’ is). They are doing businesses on the basis of social agitations.
Honesty that transpires from thought to film screen had taken a severe blow in this great betrayal. We still are seeing it dying. I had to revisit often those idiotic days that we spent to corroborate with a cinema without proper support. And I find out now that already then this doom was spelled. As those bunch of makers were fighting each-other to get a patronage of elders who used to call shots for national award selections. They had lost that battle there only. Honesty had left them un-noticed there.
Is it darkness then? I, in the present, am encountering some young bloods, which have no training as such, who even had not seen some greatest works of cinema, but who with the help of their handi-cams are trying to experiments with cinema. No. not with cinema, but with life and truth that comes straight and raw in their 3-8 minutes ventures. I think this is another beginning for our cinema, where the meaning and power of cinema will be revealed to them in time. They are our future cinema and for the present bunch of makers, let silence speak all.
Suddha Satya Ghosh
(Published in www.passionforcinema.com)
Let me start with a cinema by Rainer Werner Fassbinder, ‘Ali-Fear Eats the Soul’. It starts with an apparently incorrect title in original German. Brigitte Mira and El Hedi ben Salem was cast respectively as an old German woman cleaner and a middle-aged Moroccan worker. Woman aged around sixty and the man at his late thirties had got into a relation, in spite of their separate religio- cultural backgrounds. Emmi (Mira), in her earlier life had married a polish immigrant worker against her Hitler worshipper father’s wishes and the children born out of that wedlock now trashes her relation with Ali (Hedi). That is the irony he weaved with mastery.
But here I am not going to elaborate the content any further. My take is the making and concept that had affected cinema business. Major casts were not stars. Indoor and stipulated outdoor locations had helped him a lot to keep in the budget low. It was his most powerful work. It was in direct contrast with Tarkovskian pattern. Tarkovsky working on that part of time in Russia had a different notion. He was a poet and philosopher of cinema. He was a Maestro who taught us cinema has more to exploit and it is alive and kicking. But at what cost and how the cinema business had worked for him?
When Tarkovsky was out of soviet system and Mosfilm was not patronizing him any more he had found that art in so-called free west is a commodity only. He knew the pain of not making a film for almost ten years due to petty bureaucratic political pressure and conspiracy, but there he had faced a complex puzzle and that I suppose had taken quite a few sleepless night out of him. He had an idea and to turn it into a film he required a good lot of money and that was missing. In ‘Nostalgia’, the last sequence had to be shot twice for a snag in camera as we all know and that money was arranged with quite a lot of trouble. Several times he complained about this money oriented problems in Europe as he faced it in the shape of shift time, less budget and so on. If we keep in mind the exact feeling Akira Kurosawa had after seeing the set of ‘Solaris’ we will understand Tarkovsky’s problem. Kuroshawa had commented that almost a space station had been made to suit Tarkovsky’s demand and ‘2001-A space Odyssey’ of Stanley Qubreck seemed a child in terms of set-properties too. But that was in Soviet Russia, where money was not the ruler (pronounced as a state policy as a socialist state). But for Fassbinder it was a capitalist West Germany from the very outset. He had worked out a solution in this ‘Ali-Fear Eats the soul’ with greater sense of content and other aspects of cinema.
Sudhir in his pages of that diary had said that,
-‘You have a jimmy jib doesn’t mean that’s a better technique.’
He was trying to provoke a thought like Godard that ‘technology is not technique’. Yes that’s true. But how technology becomes a cinema itself as it is already in Hollywood?
Here I must get back to my experience in late 90’s of the earlier century. As I was just strolling in the magic world of cinema with a few documentary experiences in my pocket, I had met a bunch of new and young makers who took to cinema as life itself. They were doing their bit in cinema world in a fashion that was quite interesting. They had some ideas and a laughable amount of money in their pocket to make films. They had friends who were cinematographers, editors, actors and all were regularly working in industry as professionals. These directors were also working in television and earning a little. They and some of their well wishers put together their money and started ventures. Barring a few regular bread earner technicians all others had worked voluntarily on their dream projects. Some of them took as long as five years to get completed. Yet they fought with their all shortcomings. Gautam Sen, Sankha Ghosh even Ashok Biswanathan (who won a debutant National Award with ‘Sunya Theke Suru’) were among them. You, probably know them not as their films had no effect in cinema halls. But from them and their efforts I got an understanding that cinema is a social business too.
In the field of art either king or a noble had patron artists as all economical power were with them. Later, states, even in India also, had supported them with an interest that was not noble all the time. Then it became a white elephant to them as it never churned out money and a sort of accusation was in the air which was against film makers. Film makers were making money and they were not bothered with the loss that the state was facing. It was hailed as absolutely true in Medias with obvious capitalist natures. Those Medias had kept silence on tax evasion by big houses or subsidized industrial policy as it may hurt their commercial interests. Even if we take those allegations as true to certain extent we must say that stoppage of promotion through NFDC was not a good solution. Because in general even a so-called commercial release can not guarantee success till today in any part of the world. In particular good cinema is a part of education itself if we know the use of it (in American universities cinema is being taught in South Asian studies to make pupil know this part better). But as this good cinema scribe were few in numbers and potentially less powerful to make a noise there were no re-thinking on this issue. And now as they say that there is no free lunch in this world there is no possibility of policy reversal of the state.
Now where did we look for a way out? We saw makers were at a loss. They had tried to pull out a few private producers and that with their earlier techniques of proper casting (about which Sudhir had commented too) it was destined to fail. Private producers tend to do business with the help of star value. So these makers followed an old path. Do you remember Fellini’s ‘La Dolce Vitta’ and its first sequence? Marcello Mastroanni was riding a helicopter that was following a huge statue of Jesus Christ. To me it was like an appearance scene of Amitabh Bachchan in late 1970-s. Mastroanni was a big star in Italy and finance arrangements were quite understandable in that context. Satyajit Ray had done ‘Nayak’ (I think star rather than hero can come closer in meaning of that Bengali word) and a few others with Bengali icon Uttamkumar. In graduation all others followed suit. Rittwik was a loner (though he had cast Supriya twice it had not done any financial good to him) and he had made a few films. His system of casting with committed theatre actors who were working in film also had a few takers. Ray’s earlier trend to discover actors for characters were also neglected. To make films with private producers (obviously keeping up front the bold gesture of no compromise by parallel directors) star system had silently crave in. Here for the first time ‘Stars’ who can act or behaved a lot had gotten a chance for an intellectual rebirth with coveted honors that they love to receive as a prestige boost-up. They also settled for less remuneration and we had another genre of so-called good films.
Why ‘so-called’ will be the question that I will counter now! In came other contributors like cinematographers, editors etc. on following star’s footmarks. Budgets were boosted and now it is a good crore with Rituparno Ghosh. Jimmy jibs, video monitors, two sets of technicians, better camera, non-linear edit and things like those has joined forces to make a film work better. Then why are we not getting even a ‘Charulata’, let alone a ‘Pather Panchali’?
I, in earlier phase had spoken of my understanding that cinema works socially too, is an important observation as far as I am concerned. Earlier a maker like Ray came up with an idea and discussed it with intellectuals of near caliber for a long time. A script or mise-en-scene gradually took shape to its fullest stretch. Then actors, technical contributors were added who had a grooming in same socio-political weather and understanding. At the last it was a search for money. Thus this process took long enough to develop to dilute preliminary enthusiasm of a maker and get solid for shoot. Actors who had been taught art in theatre (that was active intellectually and politically, not like drawing room dramas of our period) and developed film acting in learning process that probed deep to overcome the technical superficialities and understand it properly were in majority. Others who had never acted in their entire life sometimes also came in to join (Ray had discovered quite a lot) and they were surrounded by those learned artists. By the time the film making was over they had a clear syllabus ahead of them to know acting.
But with stars it is the other way round. They at first come into the film with a specific product to sell (such as histrionics, dance or fight) and then in time they grow. Learning basics and working is always difficult. In cinema it is nearly killing, because here your behavior can be turned into acting of outstanding nature with the touch of a good maker. So if you are not good enough in your head it may take a life time to understand that you are a non-actor. Without mincing my words here I will like to state that quite a few names or stars are far away from the art of acting.
Cinema, as Tarkovsky loved it, is really encouraging till it comes to the floor. When it is there it can kill one with so-many demands. Cinema comes as a thought to a maker at first. Then a hard process begins to give it a shape in a two-dimensional space. One maker is as good as the team he has. Despite a common belief that cinema is director’s medium it is really questionable! Maker’s thought transpires into visuals and sounds through interpretations with the help of machines and its mastars. If it fails then the thought has no meaning.
A maker has no time to teach acting on the floor. Stars, often with their busy schedule, has no time like old actors to go through a span of quite discussions and unearthing of their characters in different kind of film environment of serious cinema. They serve partly in act. Same goes for other technicians too. Though cinematographers and editors are mostly come through a demanding process of institutes or apprentice periods still it remains unclear to them that there is a difference between ‘Technology’ and ‘Technique’. They only understand this if the philosophies and aesthetics of good films start to have a cast on their thoughts. So when they face the critical demand of good film most of the time they respond in a lesser note. Budget constrains and lack of imaginative practices has taken a toll already. They are ready with picture postcard cinematography or a low-key pattern of lights following so-called realistic movies of Hollywood. But they are not ready with a Makhmalbuf thought process. That hurts really.
A great maker is always on a journey to discover new language in a lesser sense and a total new continent for cinema in greater one. But co-travelers do need some acumen to follow him. So often it becomes an argumentative process and a battle of ego, as was in the case of Rittwik Ghatak and cinematographer Dinen Gupta. Dinen Gupta had told in an interview that often Rittwik had failed to understand technicalities and had made some absurd demands. Rittwik was not alive to counter that. So it is difficult to understand what had happened in actuality. But we can assume some things out of experiences of Baby Islaam, a renowned Bangladeshi cinematographer who several times acknowledged his learning from Rittwik. Why, then, is it so contradictory? It can be assumed from other references too. Dinen Gupta had made some so-called cinemas later on in Bengali and let me not elaborate on its merit. Baby Islaam had been a good cinematographer throughout his life. Remember those shots of a vast tract of lands beside Titas in ‘Titas Ekti Nadir Naam’? Slightly burned shots that allowed a void in our hearts as we know then that the river was drying and ‘Malopara’ was going to die. That was baby Islaam behind camera and Rittwik behind cinema. Dinen Gupta’s are so-called commercial technicians who knew too little of cinema to be a contributor. Even Ray had met with ego problems too and he had chosen to do it himself in music scoring. In other departments he had taken Saumendu Ray or Dulal Ray to comply with his thoughts. These men knew that they are not the maker and they had contributed a lot without getting into any ego-oriented problems. In later period other makers also faced such problems.
I am not trying to tell that all the directors are well equipped as I know that some are very reluctant or even ignorant in understanding the technical aspects. I have seen an eminent Bengali maker to walk in a television studio in a striped shirt and at that period video cameras were not able to handle so nearly weaved lines. He walked in and when informed had said in a very unhesitant manner that he does not know anything about video. He even does not care for it. On the other hand Godard had made some brilliant television productions. Here the difference in outlook is quite understandable. Rittwik was a maker who used cinema to deliberate on his thoughts and often had said that if he gets any more powerful medium than cinema he could accept that with all glee. Such a man was bound to be conscious about technology also. I should not elaborate any more on this.
My point of departure was the changing scenario in which Bengali cinema had walked in after 1980’s. As the ‘Star’ system grew in it a chaos was to be followed. Makers were bound to look after a content that suits this system. Direct reference to politics had become a strict negative. Cinema had lost its one strong alley. As cinema is no more a tool of social change makers had to retreat in an intellectual abode of artistry only. A picturesque shoot of church burning in ‘Uttara’ (Buddhadeb Dasgupta) had shown it with stress. A long shot of that takes you to such a distance, when you will feel no pain at all. You will probably feel that all in this world is in vain or ‘Maya’. Cinematographer Asim Bose, I admire him as a person though, had expressed a typical counter productive philosophy and obviously on the instance of Buddhadeb himself. That speaks volume in it. Cinema has become bloodless. ‘So-called’ good cinema had taken a place in Bengal. Then Gautam, Aparna, Rituparno and a new breed of young makers are also there to join this march.
We, who admire them as our comrades are now deserted by them. They are entitled to leave us as a few burdens, but we had our roles as viewers of good cinema. We might not have the advantage of number to out done an Amitabh Bachchan starred film, but we were there solidly. We went there to discover a whole anew world in there cinema and a few magic moments like the passing of train in the meadow in ‘Pather Panchali’ and we were left alone. Big stars, detailed and colourful sets, costumes, dubbed acting, technical extravaganza were all we got as a gift. We lost cinema. And our cinema had lost its meaning. It was bound to happen as good cinema by being personal (probable explanation of being non-political) had lost its root in society. Main stream movies have not made this mistake. They weave apparent politics of ‘Good versus Evil’ in their films to be in society (ask Ramgopal and he will tell you what ‘Sarkar’ is). They are doing businesses on the basis of social agitations.
Honesty that transpires from thought to film screen had taken a severe blow in this great betrayal. We still are seeing it dying. I had to revisit often those idiotic days that we spent to corroborate with a cinema without proper support. And I find out now that already then this doom was spelled. As those bunch of makers were fighting each-other to get a patronage of elders who used to call shots for national award selections. They had lost that battle there only. Honesty had left them un-noticed there.
Is it darkness then? I, in the present, am encountering some young bloods, which have no training as such, who even had not seen some greatest works of cinema, but who with the help of their handi-cams are trying to experiments with cinema. No. not with cinema, but with life and truth that comes straight and raw in their 3-8 minutes ventures. I think this is another beginning for our cinema, where the meaning and power of cinema will be revealed to them in time. They are our future cinema and for the present bunch of makers, let silence speak all.
Suddha Satya Ghosh
(Published in www.passionforcinema.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)