Blogical Conclusion

TWENTY YEARS AFTER

Nearly two decades after the demise of what was called Parallel Cinema, three filmmakers from a new age of non-mainstream cinema open up about then and now.

APR 12, 2008 - 1. What is your personal opinion of the Parallel Cinema movement of the 1970s/80s?

Anurag Kashyap: It affected me a lot. When I first saw Ankur, as a kid, I was bored, but later, I enjoyed films like Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata Hai and Ardh Satya. More than anything, I identified with the voice of the writer in these films, with people like Vijay Tendulkar. When they stopped writing, these films (and these filmmakers) lost their unique voice – apart from exceptions like Ketan Mehta.

Navdeep Singh: I think it was essential to the time. It produced some very important work. However, its very existence somehow prevented certain sensibilities from percolating into the mainstream. Hindi films got a little straitjacketed into separate categories in the 70s/80s and the definition of mainstream became much narrower than it had been earlier.

Rajat Kapoor: I think great beginnings were made. There was more integrity then. People made films they believed in. What pisses me off today is that even with the New Indian Cinema and all that, people don’t know if Kumar Shahani is alive or dead. Saeed Mirza has not made a film in 12 years. Mani Kaul has not made a film in seven years. There’s something wrong here if these filmmakers don’t even have an opportunity to work and make a living.

2. Were you influenced at all by the earlier films? If so, which ones?

Rajat Kapoor: I saw Mani Kaul’s Duvidha when I was 14 years old. Then there was Arvind Desai Ki Ajeeb Dastaan, Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata Hai, Sazaye Maut, Bhavni Bhavai – and though I can’t say if these films influenced me, I was most certainly intrigued by them, impressed by them.

Navdeep Singh: Personally, I think the “realism” was the predominant influence. There’s a bunch of films that have stayed in my head but I wore out my VHS copies of Benegal’s Kalyug, Pradeep Krishan’s Massey Sahib and Nihalani’s Ardh Satya.

Anurag Kashyap: I was heavily influenced by Ketan Mehta (Holi, Mirch Masala, Bhavni Bhavai), Sudhir Mishra (Yeh Woh Manzil To Nahin), Nihalani (Aakrosh, Ardh Satya), even Zanjeer, which had a kind of raw anger that makes me classify it a Parallel film.

3. Why, in your opinion, did the Parallel Cinema movement die out?

Navdeep Singh: I think it got stuck in a rut of its own making. A lot of the later films became extremely didactic and repetitive. There was a stagnation of form and ideas; there was no experimentation with content and style beyond a certain point. The limited audience that the movement had attracted just got bored and moved on. Maybe, the advent of home video and the easier availability of “intelligent” entertainment contributed the final blow?

Rajat Kapoor: That’s simple. It’s just that the state funding died away. First there was the FFC (Film Finance Corporation), and that later became NFDC (National Film Development Corporation). The FTII was started in the early 1960s, and many of its graduates were able to make the kind of films they wanted to make (and not just films that would work in the market) because they had this funding. All the filmmakers – Mani Kaul, Basu Chatterji, Vinod Chopra, Saeed Mirza, Benegal, Adoor – made their first films (and many more) with NFDC funding. But in the early 1990s, after globalisation, this state funding stopped and that put an end to these films – and to this movement.

Anurag Kashyap: It died out because there was nothing left to say.

4. What do you think are the differences between the older Parallel Cinema and what’s at the multiplexes today?

Navdeep Singh: The current crop of films is definitely less political and doesn’t have pretensions of carrying a heavy social message. At that level, these films are more audience friendly and commercial. I also think that the current crop is more savvy about form and willing to play with it.

Anurag Kashyap: Today’s cinema is more personal. Earlier it was more political and social. Those films wanted to change society, while we just want to comment on it, or pay tributes to a certain film because of our love for cinema.

Rajat Kapoor: Earlier, there was a wave, a New Wave. There were 40-50 filmmakers. Some of their films were remarkable, some ordinary, some bad – but they all started together and it was a wave. Now, there are a few scattered indie efforts, but nothing bigger than that. If I were to look back at the last 10 years, I can’t name three filmmakers who have really made an impact. And that, I think, is pretty sad. Some independent voices are beginning to be heard, but let’s not go overboard in celebrating them.

5. Are producers more willing to sponsor offbeat films these days — as opposed to the older days, when one depended on NFDC handouts?

Rajat Kapoor: Oh yeah. It’s a function of the multiplexes, along with the fact that you can get good money for DVD and satellite TV rights. So if you make a film for Rs 2 crore, it’s unlikely to lose money. And it definitely makes sense to make 10 such films instead of one film for twenty crores, which is laden with risks.

Navdeep Singh: Producers, especially the corporate houses, have a need for budget content. Since these small films can’t really be cheaper versions of mainstream content, there’s an automatic offbeat-ness to them.

Anurag Kashyap: Absolutely. I’ve hardly had a box-office success, but I’m able to get money for my films. Maybe it’s like how people go to a Japanese restaurant when they feel like sushi: someone says, “Let’s make a film with Anurag.” Also, there’s no pressure of delivering a hit. Covering costs or getting festival accolades are almost as good.

6. Why are the newer Parallel/Multiplex films finding it (relatively) easier to attract audiences? Is it the content? The style? Something else, perhaps simply the fact that the time is right?

Navdeep Singh: Probably a combination of things; the style and content have definitely become more accessible. At the same time, there’s a greater awareness amongst the audience due to easy access to DVD and television.

Anurag Kashyap: The time is right. Earlier, the films had to struggle because of the lack of exhibition outlets, whereas today, there are 150-seat theatres that are quite easy to fill up even with offbeat films.

Rajat Kapoor: In the 1970s, there was a large middle-class audience that patronised films by the likes of Basu Chatterji and Hrishikesh Mukherjee, but by the 1980s/90s, the cinema halls were not clean anymore. These audiences decided to stay home, and they switched to satellite TV and video. They stopped going to the theatres, and so the films of that period were really bad. But now, with the multiplexes, this same audience is coming back to the cinema halls – and this is the audience for our kind of films. This is the audience that says, “Sure, we would see Race and Welcome, but at the same time we would like a few films that reflect our lives, our world. So definitely, the time is right now for our kind of films.

7. Do you think the earlier directors treated cinema as “cinema” and therefore failed to attract more than a core audience of cinephiles, whereas today’s offbeat filmmakers treat cinema as “entertainment,” and are therefore more successful?

Navdeep Singh: Simply put, yes.

Anurag Kashyap: The huge difference between those films and today’s films is that the earlier ones were intellectual exercises, while today’s films are about the excitement of doing something that’s not been done before.

Rajat Kapoor: I don’t know. I treat cinema as “cinema” – everything else is secondary. But yes – Mani Kaul, for instance, was more interested in the medium than in a “story.” He’s a formalist. But if you look at Benegal or Vinod Chopra, they made all kinds of films. A lot of filmmakers of the time also fell into the trap of making a certain kind of film because they were getting state funding. That said, you can’t make a Manthan today with, say, Percept Pictures. The corporate houses aren’t interested in that. So it’s easier to make and market a comic thriller, which I guess comes under “entertainment.” But that is just a function of the source of funding, and I don’t really agree that a certain kind of film is better because of its subject. A great film can be about anything.

8. Directors like Benegal and Nihalani developed a solid body of work at that time, with concerns that were uniquely theirs. Do you see that happening today, what with all the genre-hopping?

Rajat Kapoor: I am completely okay with genre-hopping. Making films across genres, I feel, reveals more about yourself. But it does take five, six, seven films to figure out whether there’s an auteur inside you or not.

Anurag Kashyap: Even in those days, most of Nihalani’s concerns were Vijay Tendulkar’s concerns – and after Tendulkar, Nihalani has been attempting the same formula of hiring playwrights or adapting plays. But at least he had those concerns, whereas for me, the 1993 Bombay blasts were just front-page news till I read Hussain Zaidi’s book. Those social and political concerns are not there among filmmakers today.

Navdeep Singh: The current films are decidedly less political than those from the Parallel Cinema movement and at that level, less personal. There are commercial pressures that see the filmmakers mining genres. However, as the scene matures and stabilises I think we’ll begin to see distinct individual voices.

9. Has the current Parallel/Multiplex movement thrown up “stars” like the Smita-Shabana-Om-Naseer quartet?

Navdeep Singh: Not quite yet, but there’s a bunch of people on their way: Vinay Pathak, Ranvir Shorey, KK Menon, Konkona Sensharma. I might even include Abhay Deol in that list.

Rajat Kapoor: Well, it has Vinay Pathak, Ranvir Shorey, Irrfan Khan, Konkona Sensharma, Abhay Deol, Kay Kay Menon – even Rajat Kapoor, to a smaller extent. That’s quite a handful. But these actors are at the beginning of their careers, so let’s see how they would be remembered after 10 years, when they have a significant body of work behind them.

Anurag Kashyap: Yes, you have Irrfan today (though the smaller filmmakers can’t afford him any more), along with Sharman Joshi, Ranvir Shorey and Vinay Pathak. There are more choices today, many more actors – but none of them are “stars” yet, at the level of Naseer, Smita, Shabana and Om.

10. Where do you see filmmakers like yourself a few years from now? Is this a passing phase? Or something that will yield bigger and better things — a new identity for Indian Cinema perhaps?

Anurag Kashyap: It’s not a passing phase. This movement will continue and become bigger. There will be a newer generation of filmmakers tomorrow and we will become old school. Maybe we’ll run out of ideas, maybe even sell out. But as far as I am concerned, if I’m not in the grave, I’ll be making films.

Navdeep Singh: That’s a tough one. I vacillate between “passing phase” and “bigger and better” from week to week. However, the answer really lies with the audience. A new identity for Indian Cinema isn’t going to happen for a while. The mainstream will always be led by crowd-pleasers. All I’m hoping is that the definition of mainstream becomes a little broader in the next few years.

Rajat Kapoor: I hope it isn’t a passing phase. We have the opportunities, and now it’s up to us to stand up and deliver, to make what we really believe in, to stretch the boundaries – otherwise the audience will abandon us. If we end up making crappy films, all is lost. In the next five years, I would like to be in a position where I continue making my own films as well as producing scripts I believe in. (I am currently producing Saeed Mirza’s film.) To support the kind of cinema that one believes in, that would be my dream.

Copyright ©2008 The New Indian Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.