Cinema, like any other art-form, is a medium of expression. The film-maker, like any other artist, needs to be free to establish his own discipline, to realize a personal conception, to present his own world-view. But he works with elaborate and expensive tools and has to depend on an immensely large audience for his sustenance. And, even worse, it is an almost anonymous audience that cuts across all age-groups and is drawn from a wide range of classes, cultures and educational profiles.
The role of the film-maker, therefore, is a classic one: the creative artist, with a ‘Sun in the belly’ urge to express his world-view, seeks patronage, which, from sheer stupidity or commercial considerations, may be denied to him. The present economic structure which supports the film industry, distorts the true values of the author-audience relationship, dehumanizes its symbiotic nature and converts it into one of mere merchandise- consumer equation. It is in the light of this particular nature of Cinema that the relationship between the creativity of the artist and the resources available to him assumes significance in shaping the course of the history of cinema.
Before one proceeds to discuss the significance of this relationship, one needs to underline the obvious fact that in this context “resources” has a direct relationship, with “investment” and “return”, which in other words means the “audience”. But the audience or market, as it is sometimes referred to, means different things to different people. To the producer or distributor of films, anyone who has the means for admission into the theatre is legitimate prey. To the creative artist, however, such a vast potential of income and acceptability is neither essential nor possible. Every artist has to resolve this problem of getting enough audience to sustain his career. But the problem assumes specific character in the context of a Country’s socio-economic, political and cultural climate.
Generally speaking, in the developing countries, film is considered a luxury item and is left to the individual’s initiative. The accumulation of capital in a few hands and their natural urge to multiply this capital draw them to all sorts of lucrative business, including films. Since the artist does not have the means to produce a film on his own, he seeks patronage. But what usually motivates the producer to invest in this “risky” business, is the projected length of the queue outside the movie theatre. Since India provides a huge market with rich audience potential, it is no wonder that it churns out the largest number of films in the world. As a necessary corollary to this, a very well entrenched, tightly knit business network has been put in place.
In a situation like this, the creative artist has to work against heavy odds to create a work of some worth.
India is a large country, a sub-continent, with vast regional differences in language and culture. Any attempt at pleasing this enormously large audience of diverse taste is likely produce works which are devoid of any specific cultural or regional flavor. The net result is films divested of backbone, escaping all ground reality: a true opium of the people.
The only possibility, therefore, lies in the field of regional cinema.For one thing, it is rooted in a particular culture and good cinema, any day, is culture-specific. And, apart from everything else, the limited market for the smaller regions has kept it free from the pressures of ‘Big Film Business’. It seems to me that the wider the market, the greater are the chances of mystification and vulgarization. This happens precisely because the common denominator remains an amorphous entity. The producer, therefore, in his over-anxiety to cater to the needs of this unknown entity, resorts to the sure-fire means of appealing to his base instincts. Good and meaningful film-making in Hindi – a language acceptable to a large chunk of film-going public spread over several regions – has suffered a great deal on account of the invincible barrier that the producer-distributor-exhibitor cartel has built over decades.
It would be relevant to provide a skeleton sketch of the Indian film history in this context.
The period during and after World War- II saw the collapse of the studio system and the rise of the star and the independent producers. This, in a sense, put an end to all meaningful film-making and heralded an era of thorough vulgarization. The patent formula of a dozen songs, dances, comedy, fights and last-minute rescue, left no room for new ideas. In the process, the role of the director receded to the background, giving precedence to the star and the music director. In short, the ‘Lakhsman Rekha’ between the director and the audience was drawn.
In this atmosphere of gloom, emerged a great director who had to pawn his personal belongings to realize his conception – albeit with the support of the West Bengal Government. That film called ‘Pather Panchali’ redeemed Indian film scene from its “sins” and gave Indian cinema a place of honor in the history of World Cinema. But, sadly enough, Satyajit Ray’s international accolades and master pieces did not influence Indian cinema in any considerable manner.
After long years of confusion, the international success of ‘ Pather Panchali’ prompted Government of India to take steps to set up several public Institutions including the Film Institute of India, National Film Archive of India and a public undertaking called the Film Finance Corporation (now known as National Film Development Corporation) in 1961 for funding better kind of films. The film that made a significant contribution towards the initiation of the Indian New Wave (a label coined after French New Wave) was made in as late as 1969. ‘Bhuvan Shome’ directed by Mrinal Sen and produced by F.F.C. was a critical and commercial success and encouraged others to traverse the forbidden path.
Although one can not say that the new crop of films has changed the face of Indian cinema, it has certainly given it a face-lift. Significant among its contributions is the concept of low-budget film-production with its inevitable corollaries such as the use of new faces, shooting at a stretch and on live locations. Its influence on regional films in particular and Hindi films in general is quite discernible. But more than anything else, it has shattered the myth perpetuated by the so called guardians of public taste that Indian audience would not accept anything different or away from the norms set by them. However, the hard truth is that the Indian film industry is too old and its economics too well laid out to be shaken up by a handful of good films made here and there.
The only hope for the survival of good cinema truly lies in regional cinema that is supported by low-cost technology, parallel marketing channel and creation of a substantial body of discerning viewers cultivated through the dissemination of film-culture.
