Synthesis of tastes and trends

That sensitive themes are being tackled in mainstream cinema is in itself a healthy sign. - JOHN MATTHAN. Audiences will go if they like the film no matter what label critics give it. - GOVIND NIHALANI.

Seasoned film-maker Govind Nihalani, and John Matthan who made his debut with the superhit, ``Sarfarosh'', talk to GOWRI RAMNARAYAN about changing audience tastes influencing present day Indian cinema.

WHAT CHANGES do you note in audience tastes in the past five years?

Govind Nihalani: There is a significant increase in the number of educated people in the youth segment today. They have two attitudes.

They can have fun without guilt in an out and out entertainer. But if a film takes a serious issue and deals analytically with it, if it doesn't convert it into a vendetta story, then they take it seriously.

What they don't tolerate is being hoodwinked by pretence.

John Matthan: Exposure to channel TV has drastically changed audience perceptions. Earlier Hollywood films were randomly copied and got released here before the originals.

There is no novelty in pilfering from the West anymore. That is why our viewers have been rejecting so many films in the past two years. They want quality.

Then why isn't ``Zubeida'' a great market success?

Nihalani: This film proves that if you are honest to the chosen theme, audiences will accept you. The commitment to aesthetics is appreciated in the big cities by the educated class of viewers, from students to professionals.

That viewership is very important today because a film like ``Zubeida'' is made on a moderate budget making the entire project viable.

Isn't there a blurring of frontiers in serious and popular genres today?

Matthan: The popular films we grew up with belonged to many schools. A Manmohan Desai tells you from frame one not to expect logic. But if you take a story about a married woman getting pregnant out of wedlock, you are taking up a real issue.

You have to be sensitive here, take logic into account. That such themes are being tackled in mainstream cinema is in itself a healthy sign.

Nihalani: In the 1960s and 1970s many film-makers tried to swing the pendulum to the other extreme. No star, no song, no dance became parallel or `art' cinema. But synthesis was inevitable.

After all, if a star who is also a good actor is willing to work with you, it adds value to your film. But our critics are still stuck in the commercial-art dichotomy.

Forget it. Ask if a film works or not. Audiences will go if they like the film no matter what label critics give them.

The art film has been extinct a long while, but can you now take risks which film-makers even into the 1980s did?

Matthan: There's a director's slot available in channel TV. Small screen, sandwiched between ads, but still a chance to work on a good script. ``Hyderabad Blues'' proves that with modest budget and good packaging, you can do any kind of film today.

Nihalani: Commercial success and artistic quality are two different things. We have to look at an art film as a state of mind, a way of thinking, a commitment to aesthetics, a spirit to explore the medium of cinema itself.

In whatever genre, an `art' film is one which will not trivialise its theme. Profit is secondary. Mind you, nobody makes a film to lose money. So long as you feel you can recover the costs you can be true to your sensibility.

Is it more difficult now for a newcomer to break in than it was five years ago?

Matthan: Yes. Five years ago you had NFDC financing ventures. And who will give money to a newcomer to make a commercial film? Not that you need experience to make a hit. I didn't set out to make a blockbuster with ``Sarfarosh'', my first film. I only hoped it would recover costs for the investor. I took precautions to make it fast-paced and entertaining. How much you explain and simplify depends on the subject. And the audience is so varied. You have to satisfy the rickshaw puller, the maidservant, the school boy and the nuclear physicist. And I don't want to shudder in shame when I show it to friends!

Is technology-driven film-making going to make a difference?

Matthan: We don't have the advantage of Hollywood where you can bring in a shark or dinosaur and keep the audiences spellbound.

Nihalani: But it's coming. Soon technology will become a challenge to our imagination, only our vision will limit us! There are other pressures though. John, your ``Sarfarosh'' was one of the biggest successes in the past two years. Viewers are now expecting your next film to deal with a serious issue in an accessible manner.

Matthan: You face that pressure in first film or last. This time I want to increase my audience base, with a universal theme, and without violence.

Nihalani: I am concerned about three major issues now - the attempts at cracking the unity of our country; the increase of fascist tendencies curbing our freedom; the manipulation of religious sentiments.

How do I accommodate these concerns in my work and still survive in the only profession I know? This is as important to me as making my film successful. John, don't you feel this pressure?

Matthan: Govindji, once the choice is made, your canvas is there, all else ceases to matter.

You talked about the NRI market. Does this alter film- making?

Nihalani: We are told by industry pundits that a film which succeeds in Bombay territory will make it in the NRI market and in South India. On the other side of this faultline you have North Indian territories demanding macho heroes and action films.

So I get distributors from North India asking for action in the film and in the publicity stuff. Those who distribute overseas say `no violence'. John, you were quite innocent when you made ``Sarfarosh'' and therefore crossed that faultline!

Matthan: Innocent I am still, but I too was told the same things then.

Nihalani: The NRI market is not just one territory. Success there can give returns as good as half of India. What they like seems to be dictating the structure of films now, especially for the young film- makers.

What do NRIs like?

Nihalani: Some good taste, some progressivism, and the reassurance that the old values hold good in the motherland. Sons don't rebel against the father, girls are virgins till they marry, husband and wife bond forever. But I think this will change in ten years, with the next generation born and brought up abroad.

Govindji, you said you can't make a ``Tamas'' now. Does it frighten you that you don't enjoy the freedom to be outspoken on issues as in the past?

Matthan: Very disturbing. Though we have a filter in the Censor Board.

Nihalani: The Censors seem to be concerned only with ensuring that the ideology of the ruling party is established. Since the members change with each Government, interpretations vary from committee to committee. Tricky, if you have a political theme. Vulgarity and violence are equally subject to changing interpretations. You have an unofficial censorship by certain groups which say that they are the guardians of Indian culture, and assert their claim with violence. The Government does nothing about it. Nor should we depend on the Government. We film-makers should get together and create a power lobby to fight threats, to pressure the Government to act. How can a democracy allow this politics of violence, of imposing one's views on others through muscle force by inciting religious sentiment? There are courts of law to settle all our differences!

Matthan: The Censor Board should have members with well-defined credentials. Their functioning must be transparent. Film-makers should have checks, but they shouldn't be harassed.

Nihalani: I am totally against all censorship. The assumption is that our people are not educated or sophisticated enough to judge for themselves. That is nonsense. Just grade the films for different age groups. Film-making is a commercial activity. That is why you have copy-cat trends here - an action film succeeds and you have a series of them. So it is with comedy or romance. No producer will allow objectionable sentiments which affect ticket sales. So why are we afraid? This is the legacy of the colonial mind-set. Why continue censorship which was established by the British to see that India toed their line? We make over 800 films a year, all censored, and in every single film good triumphs over evil. We should have a society like Paradise! So how can you justify censorship, John?

Matthan: Not justify, you can't wish it away.

Nihalani: No question of wishing, we have to will it, like many other things that matter to us.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Entertainment
Next     : Film review: ''Vinnukkum Mannukkum''