So a film on politics has escaped quasi-political censorship by deleting a few seconds of sex and few bits of semantics. This is a better outcome than what could have been. But more to the point,of course,is that the quasi-political,big-brotherly preview of Rajneeti was deeply discomfiting. Plainly put,it was embarrassingly discordant with the 21st century national self-image of the worlds largest democracy that hosts a fast-growing,modernising capitalist economy and also the worlds largest film industry. Leave aside all the disingenuous details of review committees and sub-clauses of the Cinematographic Act,Tom Vadakkan and co quibbling about this word and that image of Rajneeti was depressing rajneeti.
Heres the plot twist,though: rajneeti over films may have a happy ending,the unlikely heroes or heroines are economic forces shaping
Broadly speaking,India fulfills the second condition private money for sustaining artistic enterprise with a vigour that compares well with Western liberal capitalist democracies. We are not there yet. But we are far removed from the typical third world conditions that define finding private money for backing talent. Indias film industry is of course the best and most obvious example of this. But there is a less-than-obvious point.
Indias film industry is rapidly undergoing the transformation from being a big cottage industry to a big organised industry: this much is widely recognised. Whats not always recognised is that this economic transformation provides the enterprise of filmmaking extra confidence when it comes to pushing the aesthetic envelope.
It should be noted in this context that the aesthetic envelope is well and truly pushed only when the pushers are from the mainstream art production sector. The odd artist in the garret or the odd filmmaker in the garage or the odd serialised novel in the little magazine have and will push the boundary. But significant cultural moments usually happen when the creative impulse comes from the artistic mainstream. Films are especially a good example of this because filmmaking is a high-risk,capital-hungry,creative labour intensive project that demands mainstreaming. Many of Europes great filmmakers were and are politically radicalish but they were and are all firmly part of the national cultural mainstream. Hollywood is an even better example.
Hollywood produces plenty of pap. But Hollywood has also for decades pushed the aesthetic envelope,including via brilliant political films. Two examples out of scores of Hollywood political films deserve mention. Warren Beatty,a very mainstream movie guy (big movie star,big money productions,once a lover of Madonna,how much more mainstream can you get!) made Reds. This was a highly watchable,big budget,intelligent and sympathetic filmic attempt to understand the first flush of idealism that informed the Bolshevik Revolution. We all know the thing about the American political establishment and its response to communism; the film was made when the Cold War was very much on. Reds is one small demonstration of why America succeeds and communism didnt.
The other example is Death of a President. A British production,a mockumentary,the plot is based on the fictional premise that George Bush is assassinated. The film was made and released when Bush was in White House. It created a big fuss in America; even CNN had issues about carrying ads for the film. It is possible to critique the filmmakers premise in this case. But far,far worse would have been an official proscription there was none. It was shown in America. This is a great example of mainstream films aesthetic chutzpah in a liberal capitalist democracy.
Before we ask when India will fulfil the first condition of good art the social contract that allows intervention-free artistic space lets note that within Indias film industry the growth of proper economic muscle has outpaced the rate of change in film aesthetics. For Bollywood,to take the most significant part of Indias film industry,its economic stature provides it the potential confidence in a cultural battle over edgy film aesthetics. But theres less of that edginess than there should be in a film industry thats so economically solid. In that sense,therefore,film aesthetics in India is playing catch-up with film economy. But,as we all also know,more than ever before mainstream Indian filmmaking is experimenting.
There are very likely to be more films in future that interrogate politics beyond the abstractions of the venal neta or the political gangster of the Hindi heartland. One doesnt know how edgy Rajneeti is. But rajneeti should be prepared for closer filmic inquiries than currently available.
And politics right now is also playing catch-up with economic forces. This is happening in policy and elections,of course. But increasingly it will apply to the interface between economics and artistic enterprise.
As the consuming segment gets bigger and deeper,which means bigger markets for artistic enterprises,including those that push the aesthetic envelope,as private money backing creative talent becomes bigger and more global,as Indian capitalism becomes more sophisticated,and therefore,as the production of art becomes both in terms of money and aesthetics a more high stakes game,it is hard to see how todays often crude rajneeti over art can sustain itself.
This is not a deterministic thesis in the sense of positing a linear transformative narrative. Social,cultural changes in the wake of capitalisms progressive force are never linear,even more not so in a complex place like India. But given the strength of Indias economic potential and given the already mature economic status of its art production industry,it is more than possible that in,say,a decade or little more the first condition for good art the social contract allowing intervention-free space might start applying much,much more than it does now.
Indias media and advertising are more or less self-regulated. Why arent Indias films? Why doesnt a movie industry body certify its own films,like in many liberal capitalist democracies? It is logical to hope that Indias film industry,strong on economics and more sophisticated in aesthetics this story playing out in the backdrop of the larger story of Indias maturing capitalism will reach this point.
In that India of not too far in the future,a future Tom Vadakkan will respond to a political film he has issues with by writing an edit page commentary when he sees the film after it has been released.
saubhik.chakrabarti@expressindia.com
