During a televised discussion at the ‘Taaza Khabar’ (a Kolkata based TV Channel) I got in the opportunity to discuss about ‘films of today and their relevance for the future’. It was a striking subject with the 15th Kolkata Film Festival being held in the city and at a time when there is a political upheaval with ongoing political violence in and around the state. The panel had Filmmaker Ashok Vishwanathan, quite a name in the city along with the documentary filmmaker Arvind Sinha of the Shaziya fame and journalist Vishambar Newar as the moderator. What struck me was the fact that the focus of the discussion meandered through how with limited resources film makers make films these days and how India suddenly has explored the great world of International viewership that is capable of bringing great turnovers for the films.
It is true and I fully agree that films are to be made for selective audience who can relate to the movies and in turn fetch good proceeds for the films as well. And if the International audience is the answer and our filmmakers are getting applauded and acknowledged for the piece of art they produce what is the harm in it. And as Ashok Vishwanathan said whether good or bad, filmmakers make a film on the subject they believe in and leave it to the audience to respond. So was conceded by Arvind Sinha as well but here lies the big questions.
My question here is whether our films really reaching to the right and the larger Indian audience. If so where is the forum? With multiplex culture, films seem to be so audience targeted that even contents do not represent the entire country. In the last, I don’t know how many years but most of the films I saw were either set for a multiplex audience only or for the film festivals. And hence the increase in numbers of ‘B’ and ‘C’ grade films believing ‘good films are meant only for the good audience’. To particularly mention here the latest ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ bringing Oscars to India showcasing the other India, found place in the elitist Indian cities whereas in the smaller towns public did not even get to know the film. It was not because of the English language in which the film was made but because it did not reach to India’s greater audience. Even films or documentaries made on Nandigram and the great naxalite movements have been set with a very urban mindset. I want to question here as to why the rest of India is left behind. Are filmmakers not finding a ‘returning proceeds’ from the rest of India that constitutes the greater India or else the urban rural divide is so big that the urban or the more ‘return fetching’ audience would not find the subjects so exiting.
It is true, film fairs and film festivals are great forum for filmmakers to showcase their art. But why are filmmakers hesitant in reaching out. If Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, the Chief Minister of the state while announcing the film festival in Kolkata says that ‘even hungry stomachs sing songs’ did he mean that his audience for whom the Kolkata film festival was being held did have people with empty stomachs.
I am personally not against the film festivals that give us as urbanites the opportunity to view good films and even multiplexes that bring in new films. But I want to actually believe that why has this divide between the rural and urban India deepened over the years that films of today don’t fit anywhere in between. As when Arvind Sinha said that films are not made for ‘everybody to watch’ did he not mean that it is for ‘selective audience’.
We have known that films have been a means of education. Films have been the measures to build bridges between communities, classes and countries irrespective of language, region or even ethic divide. If the content today is so focused and targeted and ‘turnover oriented’ are they not becoming the reason for the ‘great rural urban divide’. It is true a filmmaker needs lots of fund to make his film and to reach out to people. In this world of show business one also needs to make profits. So, if in the ‘film industry’ as it is called today and the ‘turnover market’ why should it then remain a piece of art and not just sheer sector of business.
Ashok Vishwanthan himself conceded that when ‘Pather Panchali’ was made it did not find very elite audience because people did not understand them. Yet, it is an extraordinary piece of work. What I meant to ask them, is whether there is a dearth of content or the rural urban divide is so deep that films cannot be made with the entire Indian viewers as audience.
There is no doubt that leading filmakers of the day are making films only for a 'selective' audience - read the urban, uppper class audience - only. That's why you have multi-plex films like 'Wake Up Sid' or 'Jail' or 'Life in a Metro' being churned out but nothing like 'Do Bigha Zameen', 'Sujata' or 'Bandini' which not only became popular but also reflected the concerns of the greater part of the Indian population.
ReplyDeletePather Panchali was an excellent pic.
ReplyDeleteSlumdog M was a movie "well made"
I admire the editing and the finesse of the movie, but Oscar? well thats another story.
Pather Pachali got recognised long after it was made. But now even when avenues are there no one wants to loose money so films are now just a part of the profit making industry and not a peice of art.
ReplyDelete