By Amartya Bhattacharyya

India, as we hear, is the world’s largest democracy. With the digital media having revolutionised film-making, cinema is now a democratic medium. A camera has become a pen. Just pick it up, and express yourself. However, just like anyone with a pen is not a writer, anyone with a video enabled camera is not a filmmaker. But going by statistics, India should have produced a huge number of independent films. Indian independent cinema should have created waves around the world like the French New Wave.
But no! It didn’t. Why? We don’t have talents?

I don’t think so.

As an independent filmmaker in India, I feel suffocated by a closely knit nexus that glorifies, celebrates, markets and injects mediocre cinema into the minds of people. I see it as a dangerous nexus, thriving on mediocrity and power, and intelligently exploiting the mindlessness of an apparently judicious section of the society.

Focusing further on the gloomy cinema-scape of India, I foresee three major threats: the irresponsible and arrogant attitude of media, the conditioning of people, and the ill-intentions of the intellectually bankrupt power-houses.

The media have always created public opinion. I can debate on it till my last breath. Most people in India are not driven by their sensibilities, but driven by their surroundings. Whatever they read in newspapers, whatever they hear on radio, whatever they see in television sets and posters, is what they believe in. It works like a hammering theory where people tend to follow whatever they are bombarded with. If reviews say a film is good, then people will say it’s good. If media says it’s bad, people will say it’s bad. Unfortunately, Indian media haven’t used its power for noble causes. They have mostly misused and abused their power of creating public consensus. How many independent Indian films have they glorified? Forget about glorification; how much of newspaper space or broadcast time do they devote to independent cinema? Now, people might say there are more important aspects to cover. But they should realize how much of newspaper space and broadcast time are wasted on diet charts and fancy costumes of pathetic heroines, bikini-clad and semi-nude pictures of nothing-to-do-with-cinema celebrities. Excuses don’t shield the intentions, do they?

The conditioning of people stands as a major problem too. People are conditioned to believe in stars, to believe in big-budgets, to believe in superficial gloss. They are conditioned against content, against sensibilities and aesthetics. While media is partially responsible for the conditioning, upbringing and cultural exposure are key factors as well. If a child is growing up in an environment where cinema is seen as a cheap entertainment, then he or she will grow up imbibing the same notion. Even as we grow up, we don’t grow out of our shells. One of our biggest problems is our dumb obedience. We have forgotten to question our conditioning. We have forgotten to question our systems. We have forgotten to question our icons and idols. We have forgotten to question our practices and beliefs.

The third threat, as I mentioned, is the ill-intention of the intellectually bankrupt power-houses. They have mastered the equation of economics and they know how to buy success. They make sure that no independent competitor invades their space. Even if any independent film fights on merit, it will never be able to sustain since the oxygen will be cut off.

However, independent filmmaking has probably become a fashionable word in the market. You would therefore see many “dependent” industry directors calling themselves independent filmmakers. I sense another trick here. That is to leave a footprint in any alternate space for independent filmmaking that could pop up in future. These pretentious directors should be exposed and questioned. But who will do that? And why? When a win-win nexus is created between manipulators of various kinds, who cares for independent cinema? Some people have an expectation that big stars or big production houses might patronage independent cinema. But it’s a silly expectation. They’ll never disrupt the market that made them big. It’s simple survival strategy.

My gloomy independent cinema-scape would have bored you to death by now. But, for once, know the truth. I have had personal experience of interacting with one of India’s biggest distribution houses when I was at Cannes in 2015. I have seen their behaviour, their arrogance, and their blind money-making intentions. It might surprise you why no one talks about it. How will they? A newcomer needs to survive. They can’t live in water if they make enemies with crocodiles. So, it’s again a survival pinch.

I don’t mind expressing my point of view because I believe that I’m an independent filmmaker in the truest sense. I don’t need the industry to support me. I don’t need the manipulators to pitch for me. I have a voice. It could be feeble, but I am fine with it. If I don’t have the courage to express my feelings independently, what kind of an independent filmmaker am I?

National_Award

Well, let’s discuss things more cinematic. India is one of the most diverse countries in the world. We expect Indian cinema to be diverse as well. However, it isn’t. Even the new age filmmakers are falling trap to the existing trends. Realism is a form of cinema, not the only form. While a commercially bent aspiring filmmaker dreams of Bollywood, an aesthetically bent aspiring filmmaker dreams of Satyajit Ray. Though the latter is a much better dream to own, I criticize both the trends. When we follow, we defy ourselves. We deprive cinema of the innumerable opportunities of exploration. Since I make films on surreal forms and subjects, I’m often posed with questions regarding my genre. My point is, why should there be a genre? Why can’t I have a genre of my own? I remember my press conference at International Film Festival of Kerala in 2015 where I said that Indian film-makers must grow out of the shadows of legends like Satyajit Ray, Ghatak or Adoor Gopalakrishnan. I was countered by a reputed filmmaker from Karnataka who felt that we must follow the trends. I made it clear that my way of looking at cinema is different. Ray has made his films, I have to make mine. I can’t be a Ray, and I don’t wish to be one.

As an independent filmmaker, I feel that my job is to push the borders, to attack the very conventions that make us stereotyped. Indian cinema needs to evolve beyond petty melodrama, and independent cinema is the way. I’ve always believed in anti-conventional films, and I’ll continue to make films like ‘Capital I’ or ‘The Lost Idea’. Such films have never been made. I’ll make them, even if no one supports me. If we don’t take the trouble of breaking the shackles, we can’t expect others to do it for us.

Today, mediocrity is selling. Money is in the wrong hands. People who have ideas don’t have money, and people who have money don’t know what to do with it. Some people are drawing nutrition out of the intellectual ruins. Let them continue. Mediocre films will continue to sell for few more years. But history will wipe them out. I believe in a future where quality will thrive, aesthetics will thrive. I believe that our people and our media will become open minded towards accepting films of unknown forms and genres.

Till then, I’ll be off to my underground cinematic world. If you ever care to excavate me or my films, we shall meet again.

[The author’s film ‘Capital I’ is the first independent feature film from the state of Odisha]

Watch the TRAILER of CAPITAL I here: