The objective of the Federation of Film Societies of India according to the memorandum of FFSI is “to promote the study of film as an art and as a social force”. In his seminal book The Social History of Art Vol.4, Arnold Hauser states, “The problem is not to confine art to the present day horizon of the broad masses, but to extend the horizon of the masses as much as possible. The new way to genuine appreciation of art is through education. Not the violent simplification of art, but by the training of the capacity for aesthetic judgment is the means by which the constant monopolizing of art by a small minority group can be prevented.”
The point here is, majority of film societies across the country, it is this superior feeling of film society members that have ruined the possibility of any bridge with the general mass. Just as majority of our filmmakers thought, the film activists also, took the “public” for granted, seldom respecting their intellect and almost always, questioning their attitude. Showing films of different culture and language can be appreciated within a handful of “intellectuals”, but it is difficult to sustain the same taut excitement among different other intellectual strata of the society. On top of that if we look into other art forms, we can find numerous examples of successful adaptations ~ novels, stories, songs, theatre, poetry, etc. Artistes had mingled at every level riding on popular culture and archetypes. Groups like PLT, IPTA and Gananatya Sangha, to name a few, used “art” as a weapon to combat social injustice and apartheid. Probably, film failed in this aspect since it’s a different and possibly more complex and sophisticated medium. But still, how many instances were there, when film societies have traveled places with a Battleship Potemkin, a Pather Panchali, a Ma Bhumi, or, for that matter, a Bicycle Thief? History points us to a singular fact ~ the Indian film societies were largely for, by and of the city elite. Hence, unlike any other movement, the film society movement never took off in the real sense. This leads one to ponder over the nomenclature ~ “film society” remains a misnomer, perhaps “film club” suits better.
We can, however, look into some of the new possibilities of film clubs, both individually and by being a part of a collective whole. The most important postulate to bear in mind here is ~ almost everything associated with a film is costly. So, financially running a film club is always a mind-boggling endeavour, it is time to think of cooperating with each other instead of working in silos. A cooperative organisation can be an alternative and viable vehicle where participating film clubs can join, interact, share and enrich.
To start with, a library (both print and media) can be logically collated under a single cover of the cooperative wherein members of participating film clubs can benefit by borrowing resources of some other film club. That will facilitate and encourage the study of culture among the members ~ an otherwise expensive hobby to nurture. The exact logistics of lending the resources can be sorted out during the actual implementation.
It is true that film screening remains the integral activity of any film club. However, that alone can no longer remain the only major activity of a film club. The cooperative organisation should build and maintain a platform where young and aspiring filmmakers get a chance to film their ideas. This cooperative should operate purely as a parallel mode of production-distribution-exhibition chain. Whereas the promotion of commercial Hindi movies has started to follow a disciplined and intended trend, the regional and low-budget films remain non-cooperated and isolated. The cooperative organization already proposed, can take care to promote Indian films to foreign delegates as well as try to set up a trade relationship with them. But for that the cooperative’s common platform should be the place for these filmmakers as well as their producers to unite with the film clubs. The main objective is to sustain a parallel stream of independent thinkers. Being involved with distribution and exhibition as well, the cooperative organisation can roll the money collected from one film into subsequent ventures. To minimize costs, the cooperative can have its own auditorium in the long run, and its own projection device. Now, if that seems very far-fetched, in reality, it is actually not. There are a number of film clubs in West Bengal alone, which have started having their own projection facilities. By being a part of the cooperative organisation, they will strengthen the cause. For other, there can be a network with some existing auditoriums ~ government or otherwise which can be utilized for this purpose. There are new opportunities of exhibiting films online. The cooperative can organize festivals, emulate box-office theatre shows online through websites like www.Dingora.com and make brisk revenue with virtually minimal infrastructure cost. It can also work as a rental company of DVD films, keeping in mind that the revenue is not profit for the organisation rather it will be consumed in the entire workflow of the cooperative. The WWW has to be exploited ~ either for crowdfunding opportunities and/or for putting up advertisements to attract buyers.
The worst-case entitles to envision a scenario when the films produced, distributed and exhibited by the cooperative don’t return money back to the cooperative. And this can be highly probable. To combat such cases, the cooperative organization can think of lending out its assets ~ auditorium, projection facility, filmmaking equipments. As in South India, film clubs turned out to having studios of their own. Similarly, this cooperative organisation can think of setting up its own studio ~ to minimize cost of its own productions and to raise money for the expenses of its own films.
The government has to step in here ~ to help sort out a number of glitches. FFSI, the government arm had been instrumental in a lot of progress of film culture in India. However, often more than not, it is plagued with bureaucratic misgivings. To lose the unwanted and adverse fat is not easy or quick ~ otherwise FFSI itself could have vouched for my proposed cooperative organization, logically.
In the changing paradigm of today’s world, filmmaking is and should become as easy and effortless as writing with a pen. The reduced cost of pen and paper didn’t become a threat to the quality of literature just as the computer machine has only helped the publication industry without compromising the quality content. But cinema has to still walk a few more miles to be accepted and understood that way. The cooperative organisation of my proposal will thrive to provide that platform which bonds consumers and producers of the youngest art form.
The point here is, majority of film societies across the country, it is this superior feeling of film society members that have ruined the possibility of any bridge with the general mass. Just as majority of our filmmakers thought, the film activists also, took the “public” for granted, seldom respecting their intellect and almost always, questioning their attitude. Showing films of different culture and language can be appreciated within a handful of “intellectuals”, but it is difficult to sustain the same taut excitement among different other intellectual strata of the society. On top of that if we look into other art forms, we can find numerous examples of successful adaptations ~ novels, stories, songs, theatre, poetry, etc. Artistes had mingled at every level riding on popular culture and archetypes. Groups like PLT, IPTA and Gananatya Sangha, to name a few, used “art” as a weapon to combat social injustice and apartheid. Probably, film failed in this aspect since it’s a different and possibly more complex and sophisticated medium. But still, how many instances were there, when film societies have traveled places with a Battleship Potemkin, a Pather Panchali, a Ma Bhumi, or, for that matter, a Bicycle Thief? History points us to a singular fact ~ the Indian film societies were largely for, by and of the city elite. Hence, unlike any other movement, the film society movement never took off in the real sense. This leads one to ponder over the nomenclature ~ “film society” remains a misnomer, perhaps “film club” suits better.
We can, however, look into some of the new possibilities of film clubs, both individually and by being a part of a collective whole. The most important postulate to bear in mind here is ~ almost everything associated with a film is costly. So, financially running a film club is always a mind-boggling endeavour, it is time to think of cooperating with each other instead of working in silos. A cooperative organisation can be an alternative and viable vehicle where participating film clubs can join, interact, share and enrich.
To start with, a library (both print and media) can be logically collated under a single cover of the cooperative wherein members of participating film clubs can benefit by borrowing resources of some other film club. That will facilitate and encourage the study of culture among the members ~ an otherwise expensive hobby to nurture. The exact logistics of lending the resources can be sorted out during the actual implementation.
It is true that film screening remains the integral activity of any film club. However, that alone can no longer remain the only major activity of a film club. The cooperative organisation should build and maintain a platform where young and aspiring filmmakers get a chance to film their ideas. This cooperative should operate purely as a parallel mode of production-distribution-exhibition chain. Whereas the promotion of commercial Hindi movies has started to follow a disciplined and intended trend, the regional and low-budget films remain non-cooperated and isolated. The cooperative organization already proposed, can take care to promote Indian films to foreign delegates as well as try to set up a trade relationship with them. But for that the cooperative’s common platform should be the place for these filmmakers as well as their producers to unite with the film clubs. The main objective is to sustain a parallel stream of independent thinkers. Being involved with distribution and exhibition as well, the cooperative organisation can roll the money collected from one film into subsequent ventures. To minimize costs, the cooperative can have its own auditorium in the long run, and its own projection device. Now, if that seems very far-fetched, in reality, it is actually not. There are a number of film clubs in West Bengal alone, which have started having their own projection facilities. By being a part of the cooperative organisation, they will strengthen the cause. For other, there can be a network with some existing auditoriums ~ government or otherwise which can be utilized for this purpose. There are new opportunities of exhibiting films online. The cooperative can organize festivals, emulate box-office theatre shows online through websites like www.Dingora.com and make brisk revenue with virtually minimal infrastructure cost. It can also work as a rental company of DVD films, keeping in mind that the revenue is not profit for the organisation rather it will be consumed in the entire workflow of the cooperative. The WWW has to be exploited ~ either for crowdfunding opportunities and/or for putting up advertisements to attract buyers.
The worst-case entitles to envision a scenario when the films produced, distributed and exhibited by the cooperative don’t return money back to the cooperative. And this can be highly probable. To combat such cases, the cooperative organization can think of lending out its assets ~ auditorium, projection facility, filmmaking equipments. As in South India, film clubs turned out to having studios of their own. Similarly, this cooperative organisation can think of setting up its own studio ~ to minimize cost of its own productions and to raise money for the expenses of its own films.
The government has to step in here ~ to help sort out a number of glitches. FFSI, the government arm had been instrumental in a lot of progress of film culture in India. However, often more than not, it is plagued with bureaucratic misgivings. To lose the unwanted and adverse fat is not easy or quick ~ otherwise FFSI itself could have vouched for my proposed cooperative organization, logically.
In the changing paradigm of today’s world, filmmaking is and should become as easy and effortless as writing with a pen. The reduced cost of pen and paper didn’t become a threat to the quality of literature just as the computer machine has only helped the publication industry without compromising the quality content. But cinema has to still walk a few more miles to be accepted and understood that way. The cooperative organisation of my proposal will thrive to provide that platform which bonds consumers and producers of the youngest art form.
(Published in The Statesman on 12 May 2011 - http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=369282&catid=47)
No comments:
Post a Comment