Mainstream Vs Regional Films:
A Profile Of The Manipuri Situation
- Part 1 -

By: Leimapokpam Damodar *

The opposition between the so-called 'mainstream cinema' and the serious or art cinema had been intense for quite some years. The majority of the mainstream filmmakers have been churning out formula productions with a mix of melodrama, songs, dances, farce and lately sex and violence, only to enteWain the riff-raffs for whom they were meant. Of course there have been a small number of film directors who tried to blend popularity with seriousness.

Shantaram, Mehboob, Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy tried to do something, but could not contribute anything to the artistic expression of the cinema. One single instance of a director who brought a personal idiom within the commercial proposition was Gum Dutt. In Bengal, Satyajit Ray and Ritwick Ghatak showed the potential of the other cinema in the late 1950s and the 1960s.

By the 1970s and the 1980s the polarisation between commerce and art was complete; and a division into three genres was clearly emerging: entertainment, seriousness as indicated in social realism, and art which was regarded by many a critic as nothing but a form of self-indulgence.

In such a situation a key role was played by the government. The Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), the National Film Archives of India and the Film Finance Corporation, the precursor of the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC), Bombay came into being in the 1960s.

The Film Finance Corporation provided institutional funding for 'non-commercial' films actively promoting the movement of a new cinema in the 1970s. Recognition was accorded to the new cinema through national awards, international promotion, Indian Panorama and India's annual international film festival; and the NFDC created opportunities for international outlets for these films. This welcomed shift in emphasis and the full support from the government were conducive to the growth of another language of the cinema.

The pace of the movement for the alternate cinema as opposed to the mainstream seemed assured. The government gave full structural support to such films and there was no interference in the creative process. There was euphoria in the emergence of another language of film and the protean shapes resulting from it. New breed of actors graduated from the National School of Drama (NSD) and technicians trained in the FTII with thorough exposure to great films of the world at the National Film Archives speeded up the alternate movement that was quite different from the mainstream cinema.

In the alternate movement realism was more important than art, ideology than imaginative innovation. This kind of cinema was the creation of a sophisticated, articulate urban filmmakers rising against centuries of exploitation and injustice, economic disparities and various social ills and aspiring after a more equitable society.

The dynamics of change in the social, political and economic environment threw up a number of issues to which this cinema, in a language easily understood and intensely charged emotionally, the audience and the authorities were drawn with a degree of success. This is a peculiar situation wherein the government which promotes these films with funding and awards is very often criticised.

The movement, however, could not bring a 'third cinema' having the power to push and purify. This Indian alternate cinema only succeeded in making a skin-deep reproduction of social reality of the Indian situation. They could not encounter the social realty squarely and make an artistic transmutation of the hard reality. It was not a revolutionary cinema to be able to disturb the status quo and alienate the public.

There was no real protest and confrontation, no critical observation. It is not to say that our filmmakers are not committed; but their manner of tackling the problems betrays lack of analytical and intellectual treatment. It resulted, according to a film scholar and critic of repute, in "a subversion of the text." In such a situation, the loser, and certainly for our country, is the artiste-filmmaker.

In every art form there ought to be innovations and experiments. Unfortunately the artiste-filmmakers were sidelined in the act of promoting seriousness or realism causing severe damage to the Indian cinema. The West, having the view that we are underdeveloped, seem to promote the harsh realism in our films even though they could tolerate the mediocre aesthetic quality and the technical drawbacks. Most Indian film critics also have been shy of pointing out the shortcomings in text and technique of these films. Indian artiste-filmmakers have thus been marginalised for self-indulgence and lack of social conscience.

In the 1990s we have been witness to a complete overthrow of all accepted conventions in the serious cinema - call it cinema of neo-realism or art cinema - as much as in the mainstream. The former has not been able to draw large audience for many reasons to make itself economically viable. They depend for their existence to the support of the government, the NFDC and the television.

With no alternate distribution network, their seriousness or art cannot compete with the extravagant spectacles of the mainstream cinema with their huge budgets, multi-starrers catering to cheap entertainment with vulgar dance and song sequences, violence and sex. In the parallel cinema the picture is dark. Hope for financing and distribution comes mainly from television.

The NFDC releases small amounts for these films very grudgingly with the result that these films have never enough fund to make them well. Shoe-string budget has become synonymous with serious/art films. Indian alternate cinema has therefore not been able to compete with those of other countries which are backed by lavish production, sound technical quality and streamlined promotion. As Aruna Vasudev said: "In content and form, the canvas (of the alternate cinema) has been reduced, an ideology of underdevelopment perpetuated" (Indian Horizons, ICCR, New Delhi 1995).

India is a vast country with multiplicity of languages, traditions, life-styles, colours, body structures, etc. And yet, India is one. This country is pluralistic and the multiple streams of diverse cultures and life-styles have contributed to the making of this vast country as numberless tributaries contribute to the making of a vast ocean. Each region contributes to the energy and unified equilibrium of India. The seeming heterogeneity and multiplicity are the manifestations of a vast unified country.

A strong cementing force which is the spirit of Indian consciousness despite diversity binds us all. There is a reign of inner unity behind a riot of seeming multiplicity. Constant flow of cultural forms and consciousness of societal realities gave the people of India a remarkable openness and resilience and enriched the range of artistic endeavour and creative activities.

Viewed against this background, only by being intensely and wholly regional can one be truly Indian. Regional aspirations, ideals, world views, fears and sufferings should find expressions in any art form, no less in a mass media like the film. Regional expressions should truly reflect the reality of this country which is a federal structure. Only the fullest growth of the language and culture of each region can ensure the unity of the federation.

By the same logic, the so-called mainstream cinema made by the tycoons whose only aim is to make profits, who controls all resources, productions and circuits of distribution, is not truly representative of Indian cinema. They only succeed in giving a distorted image of the Indian reality.

The word 'mainstream' is therefore a misnomer. The late Utpal Dutt once said : "I have a feeling that films mass-produced in Bombay have the same object in view as the linguistic outrages of the ruling classes of India. It is not just a prank or merely a ploy for profits. It is a kind of cultural imperialism, a Juggernaut designed to crush the individuality and distinctiveness of the various nations' cultures of the country.

All that insistence on songs, dances and cuckooland fantasies where the hero beats the hell out of the villain is a ruse, a trick, to deceive the people, to cloud the issues which threaten their lives, to lead them to a fairyland where all injustice is set right by the hero's fists, or the big fat bad man suffers a change of heart, and all's well with the world....." (Towards A Heroic Cinema; Calcutta 1994).

The only solution to evolving and promoting the alternate or regional cinema, give any name if you like, which will truly reflect and capture the reality of India is to provide them with adequate resources, structural support, proper outlets for distribution, etc. State initiative and state finance, one wishes, should not be buried under huge files and red tape. The misgiving that this is an absurdity should be dispelled. Honest filmmakers should be allowed to bring out their life's works without let or hindrance. In fact what Indian cinema needs is a changed, dynamic perception, a revolution. The alternate cinema has been waiting for that era.

A pertinent question is about creativity. Must a good film be necessarily abstruse and unintelligible to the masses in the name of creativity or art? We should not forget that India is a poor country with teeming millions of ignorant, backward people majority of whom live below the poverty line. This should determine the form of our cinema. Of course any filmmaker should not be deprived of his art or high thoughts. But since he has chosen an art form such as the cinema which is a mass medium, he has a responsibility to commit to his audience; at the same time he can advance his creativity.

Many a film have tended to make a retreat from the masses and deal in self-indulgence and personal symbols and statements. The concomitant effect is an undesirable abandoning of the masses to the commercial tycoons who own the so-called mainstream cinema. As earlier mentioned, art or intellect is not incompatible with popularity. We should not underestimate the mass of our audience.

They are the inheritors of a great tradition, epics, myths, folklore, etc. It will be suicidal for the Indian filmmakers to marginalise the masses; for, shorn of their roots they will only succeed in bringing aberration to the form and language of their cinema. "I should have thought our serious film-workers would imbue themselves with the myths and folklore of this great country and assimilate them into a new popular and powerful form, much as Mr. Akira Kurosawa tried with Japanese classical traditions." (Of cit: Utpal Dutta) our filmmakers must reconquer the masses, no matter how hard the struggle might be.

The creativity of a filmmaker is closely connected with his relation and attitude to the masses. Many a filmmaker, with their idioms and images distilled from the depths of their regions and environment, have drawn closer to the masses. We have before us the examples of a Satyajit Ray, a Mrinal Sen, a Shyam Benegal, Sathyan, Girish Karnad and many more.

Our filmmakers should free themselves from inhibition and spell out what is in the recess of their being and respond to the social reality in an idiom and language of the cinema suitable to the Indian scene fearless of what the foreign critics who are not familiar of the Indian condition may say.



To be continued...