|
Magazine
Fest of indifference
|
Most entries at the Mumbai International Film Festival were abysmally poor in standard. Having more films, from Third World countries, that are more stimulating and less predictable in their socio-politico-cultural statements will be commendable, says GOWRI RAMNARAYAN.
|
"COMPLAIN about us if you like, but go home happy," said Jatin Sarkar, the hastily appointed director of MIFF 2002 (Mumbai International Film Festival of documentaries, shorts and animation, February 3-9) at the closing ceremony of this once-in-two-years event. He had taken the reins virtually on festival eve, after the suspension of predecessor, Bankim Kapadia (also chief producer of Films Division). The corruption charges were followed by a sex scandal hinting at underworld connections, reported with gusto by the media. Rumblings over alleged lapses by the Kapadia-appointed pre-selection jury added to the murkiness.
Few films in the festival treated the more intimate, complex aspects of life with finesse.
In addition, budget cuts and cash crunch meant that MIFF 2002 was confined to the tacky theatres in and around the Films Division Complex, instead of at the Nehru Centre with better facilities as on former occasions. These venues were marked by poor projection of both sound and visual. You got various effects, plain bleach, old Gaevacolor or muddy dark. Voice and sound track were muffled or distorted. The desperate filmmaker could not straighten things out in the projection room.
Except for the Sophia College theatre, the venues were too small for the better films, which drew crowds. It was impossible to get a seat in the Films Division theatre unless you went well ahead and waited patiently, hardly feasible at a film festival. A pity. It had the best packages — the Focus on Women, Wildlife films, "Dance with the Camera" put together by Odissi artiste Ileana Citaristi, and animation marvels from Croatia and Russia. The repeat screenings in studio space reminded you of good ol' tent cinemas, as makeshift as they come, with creaking door and light coming through the cloth awnings.
Far more than features, docufilms demand probes, questions and debate, more viewer participation and interaction between makers and viewers. At MIFF you looked forward to the Open Fora and Seminars, especially as the speakers were all names to reckon with. Whether filmmakers, film historians or scholars, they were indubitably persons committed to cinema, some of them passionate auteurs in their genre. Why then could they not rise above the pedestrian?
The moderators functioned either as speakers themselves, or as mere announcers of names. The first discussion on whether documentaries were value-based remained superficial, while the explosive theme of "What ails our film schools" had more recounting of history and personal experience than objective analysis. Naturally, the focus was on the star-cursed Pune film school, once the model of proud excellence, now limping through an interminable tumult. (The Institute's director Mohan Agashe and faculty member Suresh Chhabria were present only as names on the list of speakers). True, some provocative points were made, but after four hours of passionate outpourings by those on and off the dais, the picture as a whole remained patchy.
The films? Not only viewers (professionals among them), but even jury members expressed dissatisfaction at the selection of entries in every category, some of which were abysmally poor in quality. The opening and closing films, both from the Oscar nominated package, were nothing special. The former ("Stories of Kindertransport") tracing the odyssey of the 10,000 Jewish children saved from Hitler's genocide by being shifted to foster homes in England was well made, crisply edited, and thoroughly researched. But MIFF 2000 had a film produced by Spielberg similar in form and subject, with greater thrust and sharpness. Closing film "Big Mama" had nothing to offer beyond being a meticulous real life document. A resolute 80-plus Black grandma struggles to raise her traumatised grandson in Los Angeles, until her heart attack and a fire accident caused by the boy lead to his leaving home to get treatment. In any case you wondered why so much prominence for Oscar nominations? Why not more films from Third World countries, which may not have the same gloss, but could be more stimulating (and less predictable) in their socio-politico-cultural statements?
Films from the developed countries may have been better crafted but hardly held surprises. The Australian package disappointed, making international jury member Glenys Rowe (herself from Kiwiland) observe, that the films largely followed the television model. A prize winner ("Facing the Music", Bob Connolly/Robin Anderson) was an exception. Here title and theme (a music teacher battling to maintain standards in Sydney University despite accelerating budget cuts) showed you that the pursuit of excellence (in art or in life) is only for sturdy spirits ready to cross rocks and thorns. The specificity riveted you, always implying the universal — without vagueness or sentimentality.
Prominent entries both Indian and foreign, had socio-political-conservationist messages, and activist thrust. They were protest films, with calls direct rather than oblique. The Golden Conch for best national documentary went to "Tell Them The Tree They Had Planted Has Now Grown', where Ajay Raina recorded the Kashmir catastrophe with the personal agony of individual and collective experience. "The Truth Commission" (Andre Van In) was adjudged Best Docufilm/Video above 60 minutes, "resonating loudly with the emotional voice of the people" in tracing the tragic history of South Africa and the unsatisfactory results of the Reconciliation Commission. Cult/activist film maker Anand Patwardhan's "War and Peace" with its anti nuclear message won both the International Jury Award and MIFF's Best Festival Film Award as a lasting documentation of the period it dealt with in South Asia. The film's impact came from its wit in puncturing poseur and charlatan, fanaticism and hypocrisy. Ruthless editing would have crafted sharp-edged form out of the three hours of exhausting overabundance, infused subtlety into unrelieved shrillness.
A major problem was the lack of shades and nuances. Few films in the festival treated the more intimate, complex aspects of life with layers intact. Interestingly, the foreign eye was sensitive to the Indian milieu as in "A Marriage Made in Calcutta" (Frances Kay Phillips, the U.S., Golden Conch in the international category). It had a tender touch, as did the Fipresci international critics' choice "Homi D.Sethna: Film maker", a remarkable, silk-n-steel depiction of a beloved Bombay celebrity by a Paris based Iranian Sepideh Farsi. (A matter for chagrin: most winners from abroad were conspicuously absent at the awards ceremony).
Practically every film festival runs the risk of being embarrassed by some mediocre work by a jury member or two. This time it was International jury chief Krzysztof Zanussi's turn. The Polish film maker's "Terra Santa" repelled by its saccharine support of Catholicism, where the journey to Bethlehem is intercut with visuals of the Pope blessing the faithful (including a woman in a Kanchivaram silk saree!)
Finally we ask — with two whole years to plan and shape the festival, and with staff members invariably helpful and committed, why can't MIFF be better organised? Avoid last minute scrambles? Acquire more class and professionalism?
At the closing ceremony, jury member Peter Wintonick from Canada paid tribute to the Films Division of India as the largest producer of documentaries in the world. He hoped that it would not undergo privatisation because, more than ever "we need our public spaces and public organisations." For others to endorse this view, MIFF must not only "not mind the complaints" (as Sarkar assured us), but take drastic action to remove the glaring loopholes and problems in its policies and procedures.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
|
