Premium
This is an archive article published on September 15, 2000

A suspension notice for creative cinema

The Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) is in a fix all right (`The screen goes blank', September 12). Damned if it effects chan...

.

The Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) is in a fix all right (`The screen goes blank’, September 12). Damned if it effects changes, and damned if it doesn’t. The debate thus far, as articulated by the embattled students, has centred around the new, truncated courses on offer at the country’s premier film training institute. The students are understandably agonising over the lack of freedom in the new dispensation. But the merits or demerits of the new syllabus notwithstanding, it is clear that the rapid societal changes are hardly being appreciated, not least by the students.

To be sure, cinema remains perhaps the most influential of art forms and among the most potent of mass media. The 20th century belonged decisively to cinema. Despite the onslaught of TV and, more recently, Internet, cinema continues to stir the public imagination. One of the reasons for its success is doubtless its capacity to learn from various other art forms. If theatre formed the point of reference in its early days, now for quite some time it has been TV. And as the Indian satellite TV industry grows out of infancy, its effects on cinema can be readily discerned. The pattern seems clear: just as in the West, the size of the screen is set to dictate the content. The silver screen, with its larger-than-life impact, is tailor-made for action. The small screen, with its direct-to-home intimacy, is more suitable for characterisation and dialogue.

To slip into corporate lingo, as the two media build on their core competencies, the complexion of cinema seems set to change for ever. Just as Hollywood needed a Spielberg to pull the couch potatoes back into theatres, the Hindi film industry can have little use for another Bimal Roy, Guru Dutt, Hrishikesh Mukherjee (the Dada Saheb Phalke Award is truly belated) or any other cinematic craftsman who seeks to communicate solely with words spoken and emotions unarticulated. It is a gross generalisation but one that serves to transmit home the essential points of divergence.

Story continues below this ad

Equally, picture the requirements of the two media. Cinema demands potential superstars with extraordinary physical attributes. TV calls for trained actors — most of them, interestingly enough, now come from the National School of Drama. Cinema cannot do without beat-driven song-and-dance sequences with big-getting-bigger budgets. TV can make do with musical recitations in the familiar baritone of Jagjit Singh playing on the soundtrack and humdrum activity to keep step. Cinema continues to peddle dreams woven in the colours of fantasy. TV serials deal largely with identifiable situations in the lives of recognisable characters. Cinema remains largely the terrain of the make-believe. TV survives on a captive audience. Cinema has always had to motivate people to move out of their homes.

Cinema can make ample use of TV and vice-versa, though. Until TV comes of age, it has to rely on cinema to supply much of the entertainment. And cinema will always need TV for publicising its wares.

The dichotomy can be viewed in the gender perspective too. TV draws most of its captive audience from the pool of housewives while cinema caters largly to the pool of emerging youth. It is then imperative for TV to offer women-oriented soaps even as cinema continues to create spectacle out of well-worn themes. Yet, since TV has a wider spectrum of viewership, it can venture creatively in many more directions than cinema. In that sense, cinema as a creative art form has been served a suspension notice. For lovers of cinema who tune in to TV only to keep a daily count of the follies of humankind, this could mean an irreparable loss.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement