Indie TV

Last year, in October, TBIP took a petition to ‘save indie cinema’ to the I&B Ministry and published its initial reactions. Next month, we carried a response to these reactions by filmmaker Onir, who had drafted the petition. In June this year, some of the filmmakers’ demands seemed to have been met and this was seen as a relevant, if small, victory. TBIP examines what this really stands for. 

 

It has been almost a year since a group of filmmakers began an online petition to ‘save indie cinema’ on October 2, 2012. One of the things the petition demanded was that National Award winning films be screened on the national TV network Doordarshan (DD). In June, 2013, DD announced that it would now be accepting proposals from independent filmmakers who wish to screen their films on a new TV slot that has been named ‘Best of Indian Cinema’.

Whether this announcement will bring about any change remains to be seen. Some filmmakers have sent their applications, each of which requires an application fee to be paid, but there has been no reply. “It’s been two months since we’ve all applied. We’ve all paid 10,000 Rupees, but we still don’t know when our film will be shown,” says filmmaker Onir, who drafted the petition, and who is heading the ‘Save Indie Cinema’ campaign. “Once we’ve applied why aren’t we just paid the money? They can do programming later. This is how satellite channels function. They sign the agreement. They give you the money. In this case, first of all, we’re paying to apply. Then we have to wait eternally to get the money.” Onir, and other National Award winning filmmakers, have two contentions with the way things are going. One is that DD is taking too long to get back to them. The other is that National Award winning films should prima facie be accepted by DD, and the filmmakers paid for the films, rather than these films having to be vetted again by a selection committee. “The moment the film gets a National Award it should immediately qualify, and they should have someone in Doordarshan who takes the names and details from the (Information and Broadcasting or I&B) Ministry,” says Onir. “If a film is being honoured as something of national importance, then it should be the prerogative of Doordarshan to acquire it without us having to run after them.”

However in order to apply a film need not necessarily have won a National Award. To be eligible for this time slot on DD, a film should have been selected for at least one of a specified list of film festivals or have won a National Award and they should have been produced after the year 2000 and should be subtitled in English or Hindi. Apart from this the applicant must possess the terrestrial and satellite rights for the film for the necessary period.

But even after meeting the eligibility criteria films are not guaranteed a screening. The invitation for the proposal for films states clearly: “Only those films selected by the competent authority will be telecast.”

The DD guidelines state that the films will go through three committees before being selected for broadcast. A ‘Preview’ committee at each regional centre will be responsible for checking the language of the film, to see it is fit “for Doordarshan viewing” and “suggest the deletion” of words or lines that the committee decides are not. Also a ‘Technical Preview’ committee will check the “technical quality of the telecast tapes” and ensure “good quality of print for broadcast”. But it will be a ‘Selection’ Committee’ which will finally choose which films are be shown. Currently no details have been revealed about how this committee is to be formulated. The guidelines only mention that it will be under the “chairmanship of DG (Director General) Doordarshan (and) comprising of eminent film makers”.

“There are no clear guidelines under which Doordarshan is approving and rejecting films. I want them to show me who is on this committee,” says filmmaker Ashvin Kumar. “We (Indian independent filmmakers) are the people who are the invested parties, why aren’t we on committees?”

What is worse, the slot dedicated to the ‘Best of Indian Cinema’ is an inconvenient one for filmmakers as the films are shown only at 11 pm.

Chetan Vyas, a programming consultant with Doordarshan, says, “Award winning films are being telecast every Sunday at 11 pm. Most of the National Award films are very, very serious. And they are not commercially viable for ‘selling’ in their own language in their states. Most of the producers spend (Rs.) 30 to 40 lakhs and they don’t make money by releasing in their respective states. On the national network they will get a bonus.”

“When we were discussing the entire thing, they (DD) told us they would figure out at least a 10 pm slot,” says Onir. But even if an earlier time slot were to be given, currently films require a U/A or U certificate if they are to be broadcast before 11 pm. “Some of the best films of our country, right from Pyaasa to the older Devdas, are adult films,” says Onir. “If award winning films won’t be shown just because they have ‘adult content’, then it’s a joke.”

Kumar has faced several problems while trying to get his film certified. He says: “Why should the filmmaker run after the censor board and get the recertification done? That should be done by Doordarshan.”

In most countries, it is the broadcaster who goes through the process of getting a film certified for television. “When they’re screening foreign films on Doordarshan, they’re not asking the filmmaker to get it certified,” says Kumar. He has sold his films to distributors and channels abroad and in each case it has been them who have been responsible for getting his films certified for television.

The odd time slot and the recertification are not the only complaints filmmakers have with the guidelines. Documentary films are not eligible for this slot. “How many films at award festivals have a U certificate?” asks Kumar. “The film has to be a fiction feature (not a documentary), a U or U/A certified film, and it has to be a National Award winning or a festival film.” He feels that this excludes 80% of the films made in the country.

“At the moment we are a little bit tight with financial nitty-gritties and our guidelines (these are other DD guidelines, on showing documentary films) have not been finalized by Prasar Bharati (of which DD is a division) board. It is only after these guidelines are approved that we will start accepting these films (documentary films) for telecast,” says Vyas in response to this. “At the moment we are telecasting our own documentaries or, because we have some agreements with the Ministry of External Affairs and other ministries, it is their (documentary) films that are being telecast (on DD).”

However the 2012 petition is asking for the inclusion of documentary films into the same category of award-winning features. Alternatively, there could be a separate slot for National Award winning documentaries. According to Onir there are about 15 films which win in the ‘Best Film’ category every year. Among these are two or three documentaries. He doesn’t include films that have won awards in the technical categories, only those that have won a National Award for ‘Best Film’. “That the government can’t give us a slot for even 15 films in a year is a joke,” says Onir. He adds: “None of us feature filmmakers will complain about a documentary filmmaker sharing the same platform.”

Given that the economics of a documentary film and a feature film are different, the pricing can be different for features and documentaries. But it seems extremely unreasonable to exclude documentaries altogether.

The filmmakers want DD to get more proactive. By setting up a cell to source good films from festivals, it would be possible for DD to approach filmmakers instead of having them go through the arduous process of applying. Also, Kumar suggests that filmmakers should be allowed to fill the application forms online and attach them to the submission form for National Awards given that both these applications require the same information. This would make it easier for those who have already won National Awards to have their films shown.

“It should be them approaching us and taking the film,” says Onir. “The whole attitude that they’re doing us a favour is a big problem.”

The 2012 petition also asked for separate theatres to screen indie films. I&B Minister Manish Tewari had announced a day after this year’s National Awards concluded on June 16, 2013, that the Films Division Auditorium at Mahadev Road in Delhi would be converted into a theatre for independent cinema, but there has been no follow up. Despite several meetings with Ministry officials and a promise that 10 theatres would be ready this year, nothing has materialized. “I worked my ass off to make a list of 30 properties all over India which could be converted into theatres,” says Onir. “Everything they asked for, I followed up on. And there has been nothing from their side.”

 

Journalism 107

Vijay Simha has been a journalist for two decades. Here, he tells you about seven journalism movies you must watch and why.

 

Anyone who’s been in a newsroom would tell you that you need to be crazy to want to be a journalist. It doesn’t get the big bucks in— especially not in India even though it is the world’s biggest media hub. Nor does journalism provide the sort of stability that might enable one to plan a regular urban middle-class life— with ample occasion for dinner, movies, shopping and quality time for family and friends.

 

Journalism is for the better part erratic and cruel. But when all goes well, it can also be euphoric, electrifying and elevating. It can strip a journalist of the ability to ever imagine life as anything else. For, the pen doesn’t just sit there. Life must happen on a journalist’s watch, for journalism to exist. No other profession has this defining requirement as its basis. So, even though a widely-read survey put a newspaper reporter’s job at the 200th spot in a list of 200 best and worst jobs of 2013, the world has to come to an end for reporters to cease to be.

 

If journalism is thus the most trusted form of mass communication known to man, cinema is perhaps the most loved. Together they must make for a crackling pair. No wonder then that Citizen Kane, the film widely regarded as the finest ever made, is on journalism.

 

My earliest memory of journalism and cinema is from when I was about four years old. I would sit on the floor, at my grandfather’s feet and pore over Deccan Chronicle, mesmerized by the headlines and pictures. The world moved each time my grandfather turned a page. When I learnt how to read, I began reading the newspaper with him. It was always the sports pages first, because he began with the front page. Deccan Chronicle was a low brow daily with a circulation you didn’t argue with. It would run movie advertisements over two or three full pages. If you wanted to go to the movies in film-crazy Hyderabad or Secunderabad, you would refer to the Chronicle for the cinema listings— Hindi, English and Telugu.

 

But it wasn’t until after I had become a reporter in New Delhi, that I saw my first journalism movie— New Delhi Times. It was a 1986 Hindi film with Shashi Kapoor in one of his more meaningful roles as Vikas Pande, a reporter who rises to the editor’s post, and finds the world vastly different. It was gripping because not many movies explored the interplay between politicians, businessmen and editors in an India still awed by Indira Gandhi. Almost everyone who worked in the media, and anyone who was a Hindi heartland politician, saw New Delhi Times.


Back in the 1980s, Indian journalism was still fairly convinced of its integrity. Newspapers were the principal form of mass communication and the corruption now associated with the media hadn’t seeped in. Yet, New Delhi Times showed Indian journalists in a not so flattering light. Key incidents in the movie were interpreted and re-interpreted over animated discussions. I don’t recall a major deconstruct of the movie in print, but there were parallels drawn to incidents and people that journalists knew in real life.

 

Some of what the movie showed was ironically mirrored in the life of its director, Ramesh Sharma.  It was a fairly regular pattern in the 1980s. Businessmen with money liked to make movies— atleast partly for the love of glamour and power. Sharma seemed to have political ambitions too and began to get close to members of the Congress party.

 

He was often seen in the company of Uma Gajapathi Raju, the wife of rich and feudal Andhra Pradesh politician Pusapati Ananda Gajapathi Raju. Ananda was a Member of Parliament and Uma too was elected to the Lok Sabha in 1989 from Visakhapatnam in coastal Andhra Pradesh. Sharma’s friendship with Uma didn’t work for either because Congress circles in Delhi believed she had access to the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. It was, therefore, considered inappropriate for Sharma, a mere filmmaker, to be seen in public with Uma. It is hard to ascertain the truth of this story but it was deliciously full of intrigue and journalists lapped it up. (Reportedly Uma later divorced Ananda and married Sharma and they have made many public appearances together and have jointly run a production company as well as a non-profit organization.)

 

 

However, despite the critical success of New Delhi Times, few Hindi films have since explored the vast and rich material that the lives of journalists have to offer. There are several films that make a passing reference to the profession— Mohra (1994), with Raveena Tandon as a reporter for the newspaper Samadhan, C.I.D. (1956) with a plot that revolves around the murder of a newspaper editor, Mr. India (1987) where Sridevi is a crime reporter hunting for a scoop, for a daily aptly named ‘The Crimes of India‘, Nayak: The Real Hero (2001) with Anil Kapoor as a television journalist who becomes chief minister for a day, Bombay (1995) in which Arvind Swamy is a journalism student, Guru (2007) which features a character based on Ramnath Goenka, the founder of The Indian Express, played by Mithun Chakravorty, Wake Up Sid (2009) where Konkona Sen Sharma is a journalist with Mumbai Beat and most recently Satyagraha (2013), where Kareena Kapoor plays a TV journalist covering an agitation inspired by Anna Hazare’s real life hunger strike to enact the Lok Pal bill in 2011, to name a few. But there are barely any with journalism at their core. Other than New Delhi Times, the only ones I can think of are Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro (1983), Naya Sansar (1941), Page 3 (2005), Rann (2010), Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani (2000), and Peepli [Live] (2010).

 

Hollywood, which has over the years invested more in realistic cinema, has far more journalism movies. Some of these are simply marvelous and can tell you in close to 90 minutes what it’s all about.

 

It is a popular belief that journalists are at risk from the subjects they are reporting on. This belief is based on the understanding that a journalist is always reporting on facts others want to hide because of their unseemly and illegal nature. This assessment is simplistic and barely ever true— especially in the metros.

 

Threat to journalists mostly comes from within the newsrooms they populate. Deep insecurities and unresolved issues get full play as media employees target each other. Often, editors add to the toxic mix with opaque, murky and constant shifting of goalposts. In my career, no one has ever remotely threatened me because of what I wrote about them. All the battles I either won, lost, or walked off from emanated in the newsroom. The problem, as always, is with your own.

 

The other critical equation is the one between a source and a reporter. This is the most sacred of all journalism relationships and unless one of them, the reporter or the source, goes rogue, not a force on earth can pry them apart.

 

The Insider (1999), one of the finest journalism movies of all time, gets both themes right. The film is about Jeffrey Wigand, a top executive who is about to show up big American tobacco firms for promoting addiction to nicotine and lying about it. It’s also about Lowell Bergman, the CBS journalist who helps Wigand go public in one of the biggest public health stories in recent American journalism. Russell Crowe as Wigand and Al Pacino as Bergman are magnificent.

 

They meet on several occasions at odd times in sundry locations, mostly in cars. In lashing rain and thunder, the source and the reporter pry every bit of information out of each other as they strive for the most treasured of journalistic traits: credibility. Family deserts the whistleblower under the incredible strain of telling the truth. And, inevitably, the source and the journalist end up targeting the other under pressure.

 

“I’m just a commodity. I could be anything worth putting between commercials,” Crowe snaps at Pacino. “You’ve been telling yourself that something happens when you get information out of people. You’ve been telling yourself that to justify having a good job. Having status. Maybe for the audience it’s just voyeurism that won’t change a fucking thing.”

 

 

Later in the film, in a conversation with Mike Wallace, the host of the show 60 Minutes, Pacino gets back. “I never left a source hang out to dry, ever. Not until right fucking now. When I came on this job I came with my word intact. I’m gonna leave with my word intact. Fuck the rules of the game.” Mike and Lowell argue over how far they should go for a story and to protect a source. And on what should be the moment where one lets go of loyalty to a news organization that has built up a legacy. This is a key question in our profession.

 

 

At one point in my career I had a source go into rage and panic at the last minute. It was, coincidentally, a public health story as well and was ready to go to print as the cover story of a magazine I then worked with. The source, a top doctor in a big hospital, froze over some agreed upon bits of the story that I had sent to him for fact-check before it went to print. He was a man of medicine, used to writing papers for medical journals. I had written the report in a manner that would allow an average reader to understand. Claiming I had trivialized everything, he pulled out of the story. It took hours of mediation by a common friend and several heated debates for the source to calm down. When this happens, it’s like your entire life is at stake. It’s about your word, your reputation, your integrity. Months of talking to a source don’t mean a thing. Each time there’s a big story, a journalist has to start all over again. Director Michael Mann gets this perfectly in The Insider.

 

The film also has wonderful side play between the corporate and legal wings of the CBS on one side and the editorial on the other. Mann does some of the finest direction over the past 20 years in Hollywood. He gets his casting right, and manages to recreate lifelike newsroom atmosphere with its many conflicts. As much as a single film can, The Insider opens up the world of journalism for its audience.

 

If The Insider is a tale of corruption and courage that plays out as a riveting thriller, His Girl Friday (1940) is a super screwball look at everyday journalism. Unlike The Insider it is not about a game-changing big story, which happens only now and then. It is about the basic instincts of a reporter and an editor and how their interaction shapes a newspaper. Cary Grant is in terrific form as Walter Burns, the cynical editor of The Morning Post, but Rosalind Russell is even better as the editor’s ex-wife and star reporter Hildegard ‘Hildy’ Johnson.

 

It is impossible not to relish the dialogues and delivery, which was always Grant’s specialty. Russell matches Grant’s sharp-talking word for word and their jousts are remarkable. In one memorable scene after Grant is just done getting a shave in his cabin, Russell has dropped by to announce she is marrying again the next day. In pops the City Editor of the newspaper.

 

“What do you want?” snaps Grant, “I’m busy. I’m busy.”

 

“I thought you’d want to know the Governor didn’t sign the reprieve. Tomorrow morning, Earl Williams dies and makes a sucker out of us,” the City Editor says.

 

“Oh, oh.”

 

“Well, what have we gotta do?” asks the employee.

 

“Get the Governor on the phone.”

 

“I can’t.”

 

“Why not?”

 

”Can’t locate him. He’s out fishing.”

 

“How many places to fish are there?”

 

”Well, at least two. The Atlantic and the Pacific.”

 

”All right, that simplifies it, doesn’t it. Get him on the phone.”

 

”And tell him what?”

 

“Tell him if he reprieves Earl Williams, we’ll support him for Senator.”

 

“What?”

 

“Tell him The Morning Post will be behind him hook, line and sinker.”

 

“But you can’t do that.”

 

“Why not?”

 

“Because we’ve been a Democratic paper for over 20 years.”

 

“All right, if we get the reprieve, we’ll be Democratic again. Now get out and get going. The Morning Post expects every City Editor to do his duty.”

 

And we are not even four minutes into the movie yet.

 

The movie splendidly lays out the gossip and cynicism of journalists in a characteristic Press Club as Russell goes digging for the facts about Earl Williams, who is about to be condemned to death. Absolutely rollicking.

 

 

Citizen Kane (1941) and All The President’s Men (1976) are the big daddies of journalism movies. Citizen Kane is almost uniformly celebrated as the greatest movie ever made in English. Orson Welles put in such a towering performance as the lead actor and the director that he didn’t need to make another movie. Like Harper Lee, it would’ve been just fine if he had chosen never to work again. Welles, however, did make more movies, but never again with the grand sweep of Citizen Kane.

 

The story of a newspaper magnate, Kane, the film busts the myth of American capitalism with an exquisite human story and genius filmmaking. As Kane’s newspaper circulation and clout rises, the owner-editor’s life falls apart. The mysterious magnate dies a lonely death. The meaning of his last word—Rosebudremains elusive until the end. The word in the context of the film recalls a purity and innocence that the journalists in the film fail to understand because they have distanced themselves from the essence of life. There is no better metaphor for the dwindling relevance of the media.

 

Citizen Kane also brings to life the power a political journalist can wield. Policy can be dictated by stories he does and wars can be started. And with this power often comes megalomania.The editor-publisher’s megalomania in the film has since been amply displayed in several newsrooms across India. Citizen Kane, thus, is still a template for journalism movies.

 

An editor-publisher I once worked with in New Delhi began with the exemplary purpose of launching a world-class magazine that would help Indians make the right decisions— because they would be better informed by the sharp and superior journalism of the magazine. He soon began to distrust journalists and surrounded himself with people who said and did things to please him. The magazine became a platform to either attack the editor-publisher’s foes or to fawn on people he wanted to be friends with. The publication has still not recovered from the damage thus done. It was pure Citizen Kane every day in the newsroom there.

 

Equally powerful is the movie on the Watergate Scandal, the biggest investigative story of all time. In All The President’s Men (1976), director Alan J Pakula’s narrative follows Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman), reporters of The Washington Post, as they crack open a bizarre attempt by President Richard Nixon’s men to spy on the Democrats by bugging the Democratic headquarters.

 

The most famous source in history, Deep Throat, played by Hal Holbrook, leads the reporters with his legendary advice ‘follow the money’. I’ve thought of this line several times in my career as a reporter and editor. I once gave a reporter a difficult assignment. His brief was to investigate a senior BJP politician on whom I knew there was a lot of dirt, but whose personal and professional life revealed nothing. The reporter began with enthusiasm but gave up too soon. I had told him to forget everything else and trail a dubious Rs 3 crore deal to get to this man. Had he done that he would not have lost the story. I have given this advice to a lot of reporters I have worked with since and it has almost always come in handy. The Watergate report remains the benchmark of great journalism. Even today, every reporter dreams of matching the reportage on the Watergate Scandal, or of getting a bigger story.

 

 

Ace in the Hole (1951), directed by Billy Wilder, is another superb journalism drama. Kirk Douglas lives the role of a reporter, Chuck Tatum, who tries to make an ambitious comeback. Sacked from his job in a big city for drinking, slander and womanizing, Douglas arrives in dead-end Albuquerque. He walks into the office of a local newspaper’s editor and makes a pitch for a job. His biggest weapon is that he can hold an audience spellbound and he charms the staff of the small town newspaper that is practically in coma.

 

One day, a worker is trapped in a nearby mine and Douglas senses his chance. He strings the worker along, delaying his rescue, to turn it into a human interest story that captivates all of America. The media circus that builds and the denouement have been redone many times since, in several languages, but this is where it was done first and best.

 

The story takes charge of the reporter as he goes from cunning to slimy. When it all unravels, the reporter is back where he began, bereft of his soul and desperate to understand why it happens with him over and over again. Ace in the Hole is a lacerating masterpiece.

 

 

I’ve seen Ace In The Hole happen to many journalists. You get so obsessed with a story that you manipulate it to suit your ends. Then, when you’re found out, you become the story yourself. There was a senior political journalist whom I had held in high esteem at the beginning of my career. Then, suddenly, it came to light that he was fabricating interviews with senior politicians. A Congress Chief Minister bumped into the journalist at a party and said: “I’m so glad to have finally met the person who interviewed me.” The journalist eventually quit the profession. He does what is described as ‘liaison work’ these days.

 

In the world of Indian journalism, Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani and Peepli [Live] are successors of Ace In The Hole. They are possibly the best Hindi film satires on the country’s media. Both are wonderfully crafted. Director Aziz Mirza and producer-actor Shah Rukh Khan were ahead of their times when they tore apart the mad TRP race among news channels with Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani. In a sharp moment in the film, sponsors line up for the execution of a prisoner that is to be broadcast live on television.

 

Unfortunately the film meanders into a number of futile sub-plots that trivialize the film’s message and dilute its central idea, but the movie manages to pack in a punch. Today, India is awash with news channels doing exactly what Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani predicted they would— in ways so extreme that were the movie to be released now it might seem tamer than reality.

 

 

Peepli [Live], directed by Anusha Rizvi and Mahmood Farooqui is a tighter and more nuanced depiction of media hypocrisy in India. The tale of a media circus around a farmer’s attempted suicide in many ways mirrors Ace In The Hole and to an extent this diminishes the movie. But its attention to detail and deep roots in our cultural contexts makes it the hardest look at modern Indian television media. The absolute lack of integrity and skill in newsrooms comes through sharply.

 

The tendency of following the leader and not doing one’s own homework hurts Indian journalism badly. A few months before Peepli [Live] was released, I was in Vidarbha to report on 10 suicides of farmers that had taken place in 48 hours. I traveled around the region extensively and managed to track down the homes and families of the farmers. The story that resulted from this was the first to say that the farmers were not killing themselves only because of bad crop. They were dying also because they had taken loans to meet the grandiose demands of the communities they lived in, especially for lavish marriages. The local journalists had never written about this because it would bring in social reasons into what was until then believed to be simply agricultural strife.

 

But when they learned that I had reported from all over Vidarbha for the story, they started to call me. They were content to merely reproduce quotes from me instead of getting to the roots of the story as only they could have. Peepli [Live] rests almost entirely on the mainstream media cannibalizing the work of an honest, unsung local reporter.

 

That then is the list of my top seven journalism movies— starting from The Insider. When I am down and wonder if it’s worth putting up with the provocation and humiliation that journalism brings, these are the movies I turn to. And they never fail to pick me up because they remind me about why I got into the profession in the first place. They humble me and leave me raring to go, one more time.

 

My memories of both journalism and movies begin at my grandfather’s feet. I learnt early enough that everything can be beautiful from the bottom of the world too. Journalism and movies, both work well when the instinct is sharp and the ego blunt.

 

Places Other Than This

Deepanjana Pal on the relevance of art direction in Hindi movies and trends in the profession, from the fifties to now.

 

On November 5, 2011, at the art gallery Chemould Prescott Road, Mumbai, set designer and filmmaker Aradhana Seth made her debut as an artist with a show titled Everyone Carries a Room About Inside. The gallery was turned into an imaginary house, but not one that would belong in the pages of a magazine. This was a house made up of rooms that were sketches. They filled the space with objects that had been flattened to fit into bold, wavering lines that had the unsteady quality of drawings done by hand. Every element— even the clutter—seemed artfully arranged. Despite the fact that Seth’s paintings were filled with everyday details, they felt entirely unreal. Perhaps Seth wanted her audience to be surrounded by artifice as they saw her show, but the paintings looked like clumsy representations of reality and the effect was to make the gallery seem like an awkward experiment. What Seth had created wasn’t a home; it felt like a set.

 

Ironically, when Seth designs films, the effort is to communicate precisely the opposite effect. No matter how removed from reality the story may be, it falls upon the art department and production designers to create a world that makes the film credible to the viewer. Would a train compartment ever look as plush as the interiors Seth created for Wes Anderson’s The Darjeeling Limited? It is highly unlikely, but for a film set in the off-kilter universe of Anderson’s stories, the rich colours and elaborate patterns (even the bunks looked like they were covered in hand-painted fabric) were perfect. This was an India crafted largely out of Anderson’s imagination: precious, beautiful, slightly retro, and about as similar to Rajdhani compartments as frozen yoghurt is to shrikhand. There’s nothing realistic about it, but the sets establish the reality in which the film is set.

 

Sacrilegious as it may seem to put Anderson and commercial Indian cinema in one sentence, the fact is that both of them sell you an alternate reality in the way their worlds are presented to the audience and how their stories play out. The first, most crucial step in that process is the production design. In the intensely collaborative world of filmmaking, the art department is like the group of nocturnal elves in the fairytale about the shoemaker who would wake up in the morning to find perfectly-made shoes that seemed to have appeared in his workshop magically. Few of us watch a film and applaud the people who created the sets in which the actors perform. Yet, before an actor has even entered the frame, the storytelling has begun as the camera shows you a space. A good art director lures us into the world of a film, persuading us to suspend our disbelief for the next couple of hours, as the most improbable events unfold on the screen before us.

 

For instance, few of us have questioned just what kind of architecture would allow Mogambo of Mr. India to have a bubbling pool of lava right below his floor. But art director Bijon Dasgupta made it seem perfectly logical that a sliding panel would be protection enough. Then there’s the staircase, which is a prominent architectural feature of almost every wealthy home in Bollywood. Disapproving fathers in shiny dressing gowns, and villains, need staircases to direct their glowering gaze at the hero or heroine at a suitably-sharp, downward angle. Many a character has stumbled to its death because of it. The staircase is also the site of whispered sweet nothings as the lead romantic pair make their way down to a party or a wedding. It is a silent but key player in so many stories, yet it doesn’t occur to us that few people choose to have staircases in the middle of their living rooms.

 

The production design team is key to rendering a director’s visual style distinctive. The elaborate grandeur that is Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s trademark can also be attributed to art directors Nitin Chandrakant Desai (Khamoshi, Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, Devdas), Omung Kumar (Black, Saawariya) and the team of Sumit Basu and Rajnish Hedao (Guzaarish). The gritty glamour of Anurag Kashyap’s best work has been made possible thanks to Wasiq Khan in Black Friday, Gulaal, That Girl In Yellow Boots and Gangs of Wasseypur, Tariq Umar Khan in No Smoking and Helen Jones and Sukant Panigrahy in Dev.D.  And the glossy gleam of a Karan Johar film has become synonymous with art director Sharmishtha Roy who has worked on every film of his. The aesthetics of these filmmakers are instantly recognizable because of their production design. The art department translates the director’s vision into the style of the film. It also determines its genre. Film noir, for instance, is a theme that ensues as much from the production design of a movie as from its camerawork or script. Small wonder then that director Biren Nag, who made two of the better known films in this genre in India—Bees Saal Baad and Kohraa—was art director for 1950s Indian noir movies like C.I.D., Kala Pani and Detective before he became a filmmaker.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, for Johar’s dramatic love story Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, released in 2001, Roy re-created Delhi’s Chandni Chowk in Mumbai’s Film City as a hygienic, sanitized and kitschy mohalla with old world charms to woo a nostalgic diasporic audience. For Delhi-6, Rakeysh Om Prakash Mehra’s production designer Samir Chanda created another type of old Delhi in Sambhar, a Rajasthani town that had similar architecture. It was just the right amount of clutter and chaos to make the sets seem authentic, but it didn’t overwhelm the frame. It provided a mix of realism and spectacle for a blockbuster attempting to deliver a message and a hit. “I created a background plate and punched Jama Masjid into the frame,” Chanda said in an interview. “In the old days, I would have called in a background painter and made a cut-out. Now there is this technology, which allows it to be punched in during editing.”

 

Back in the era before fancy special effects, to show the story has shifted to a hill station a painted backdrop with mountain peaks would appear on camera and sweater-clad actors would stand in front of it. A friend of mine remembers his parents’ house in Kolkata frequently being used to show the rich father’s den where the poor but idealistic hero would be invited, offered some alcohol, and then humiliated.

 

But, mostly, movies were shot in the studios. In 1958, for instance, when the tricks of the trade were far less sophisticated, director Shakti Samanta imagined Calcutta as a city of shadows and crime in Howrah Bridge. The film’s soundtrack had a number of memorable songs, including Geeta Dutt’s Mera Naam Chin Chin Chu. The song was one of Helen’s first hits and Art Director Sant Singh set it in a bar that has shiny, mosaic walls and fluttering white curtains. There are paintings on the walls to add richness to the ambience. The song actually begins with a shot of a light fixture—a revolving affair that dangles from the ceiling—and as Helen twinkle-toes her way across the room, singing the song, you can see European art-inspired sculptures of nubile women in the background. All the little details of the decor convey to us that this is a stylish place. The bar was probably an easier task for the art department than recreating the metallic pillars of the real Howrah Bridge and it’s unlikely that anyone even in 1958 believed that Samanta had shot on location or that a bar like the one in which Helen sang that famous ditty actually existed. For the duration of the film though, this fictitious Calcutta replaced the real one and this noir city felt as accurate as anything in a newspaper report.

 

Fourteen years later Samanta directed Amar Prem, a love story that called for a romanticized representation of Calcutta. The song Chingari Koi Bhadke appears to be sung by Rajesh Khanna to Sharmila Tagore on a quaint nouka, or boat, on the Hooghly, but was actually shot in Mumbai’s Nataraj Studios. A soulful and richly sentimental Kolkata was depicted by recreating the river, on which shimmered the reflection of the city’s night lights. As the nouka sways to the rhythm of the melody, Khanna reaches out, melancholically, to touch the water. Many years later, Tagore recalled in an interview that the water in the studio was stagnant and dirty and stank through the shoot. “It was horrible,” she said. “But on screen it looks like poetry.” But more than making the Hooghly prettier than it actually is, what Samanta’s Art Director Shanti Dass had captured was the ambience of the city and the setting in which the film was set.

 

Over the years, the budgets for films have become bigger, and more attention is paid to production design because cutting costs in this area makes the entire film look amateur. The work of the art department now also determines how sophisticated the film will be deemed. Whereas in the past the frame would usually be tight, focusing on just a small patch of wall or a corner, now an entire area is created to allow for wider shots. Film sets no longer look like temporary constructions. Take the family home as seen in Rajshri Productions’ films. The two-tiered structure that housed the happy family in Hum Aapke Hain Koun, or the roof where Bhagyashree appeared before Salman Khan (but not the audience) in a nightie in Maine Pyar Kiya were almost theatrical. In the more recent Vivah, on the other hand, the homes don’t look like they’re made of plywood panels that were taken apart at the end of the shoot.

 

Today, much like the saying about Mohammed and the mountain, frequently the art department and production designers have the responsibility of creating miniature versions of entire cities in studio complexes like Film City which is spread out over 500 acres in Goregaon, Mumbai. For Lamhaa, a hard-boiled political thriller, Wasiq Khan brought in two truckloads of chinar leaves (among other things) to recreate Kashmir in Film City. Bhansali is known for creating beautiful but overwrought sets that are frightfully elaborate. His production designer Omung Kumar built parts of pre-independence Simla in Film City, Kamalistan and Mehboob Studios for Black. Then, for Saawariya, he created a faux-city, complete with lakes, streets, shops, signage and a clock tower, that was unmistakably but beautifully fake. Whether it be Devdas or Saawariya or Guzaarish, Bhansali’s vision is the stuff of spectacular fantasies, which must be realized by his art directors. When you see the gorgeous stills for Bhansali’s films and find yourself charmed enough to buy a ticket, it is the art director whose spell you’re under. It is he, or she, who creates a critical aspect of the spectacle that is film.

 

Mumbai’s Film City had setups built so that one could film everything from a temple scene to sequences set in a village or mansion within the radius of a few kilometres. These structures appear as recurring motifs in opuses of the past, but are dismissed today by modern Hindi filmmakers for being too tacky. A scene from Deewar, Yash Chopra’s 1975 release that had Amitabh Bachchan exhorting a statue of Shiva, may have immortalized the Film City temple, but it would be impossible to imagine Yash Raj Films shooting a scene there today. Nowadays Film City’s permanent sets are mostly booked either by Bhojpuri filmmakers or TV show production houses.

 

It’s not that the temple is no longer important, but that it’s been given a makeover now that Bollywood has become more ambitious in terms of its preferred locations. For Aditya Chopra’s Mohabbatein, Bachchan’s comeback vehicle in 2000, Sharmishtha Roy had to create a Shiva temple on the grounds of Longleat House, a palatial and stately home in the English county of Somerset. This is characteristic of another trend that followed the age of the studio set: that of shooting on location. Who can forget how much director K Asif invested into filming the song Pyaar Kiya To Darna Kya from Mughal-e-Azam at Lahore Fort’s spectacular Sheesh Mahal or filmmakers like Raj Kapoor and Yash Chopra’s fondness for shooting in exotic foreign locales?

 

Shooting on location didn’t mean the art department’s work lessened. For Kabhie Khushi Kabhie Gham, made by Karan Johar, one of Yash Chopra’s aesthetic successors, Amitabh Bachchan’s character’s family home was to be set in Waddesdon Manor. As in Mohabbatein, Roy had to install a mandir to recast the Baron Ferdinand de Rothschild’s chateau as the house of a mysteriously über-rich Indian industrialist. With shooting abroad becoming de rigeur, the art department’s task has become increasingly more elaborate. New York in Karan Johar’s Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (2006) has been described by The New York Times Critic Neil Genzlinger as the place where “rainstorms are a little rainier than real life; the wind machines are cranked up an extra notch.”  It was also where Rani Mukerji, in an effort to be the average NRI housewife as imagined by Johar, vacuumed her house—which looked like a pristine service apartment—wearing a figure-hugging dress that would be perfect for a cocktail at a posh bar. Both Kabhi Alvida… and Rensil D’Silva’s Kurbaan, released in 2009, had scenes that were set in New York but actually shot in Philadelphia. It fell upon the production design team of these films to make sure the city known for cheesecake looked like the Big Apple to Indian viewers. Fortunately for most Indian audiences, one American city looks much like another. Those familiar with Philadelphia may have wondered how its 30th Street subway station popped up in New York City, but for most viewers, a picturesque cityscape with shiny high-rises and Caucasian pedestrians are enough. The art department’s role here comprised more of avoiding elements—such as signage—that were typical of one city rather, than inserting those typical of another.

 

Desai, art director for Bhansali’s earlier films, also created the village of Champaner for Lagaan, which was shot in Gujarat but was no less fabricated for being an outdoor shoot. He and his team enlisted the locals to build one temple and 56 huts for the film. Some of these huts were modelled upon ancient Kutchi huts, which were circular in shape. It’s another matter entirely that the film’s dialogues were all in Avadhi, which has no trace of Gujarati.

 

The latest trend in Bollywood seems to be rustic small town India. Vishal Bharadwaj set his Othello-inspired Omkara in India’s heartland in 2006 but the places we’ve seen in films like both the Dabanggsor Ishaqzaade or Rowdy Rathore or Barfi or even, in parts, in Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani are very different from Bharadwaj’s chosen canvas. Dabangg is part of a trend that celebrates camp in all its comic book glamour. A stylized small town by Wasiq Khan (a production designer who was till this movie known for gritty realistic cinema like Aamir and Black Friday, and who has since created sets for Rowdy Rathore and Ranjhanaa) adds to this effect. In contrast, Yash Raj Films’ Ishaqzaade production designer Mukund Gupta merely aggregates kitsch from the reality of small town India to stitch a technicolour dreamcoat for Habib Faisal’s love epic to flaunt. But in all these films small town India is a photogenic, doll’s-house-esque version of itself that can obligingly crumble and explode to make the hero look larger than life. Unlike Bharadwaj’s non-urban India, which seems to be densely-packed with problems, the new India shown on celluloid is depicted as a simpler world. It doesn’t have the chaos or the distractions of cities and is an idealized version of the B-town. The colours are warm, the setting is a mix of rustic and modern. Here, in its prettily-decayed buildings and modest homes, the problems of urban India are dealt with summarily. Fights that make walls cave in provide solutions. Systems can be put in place here and some properly old-fashioned ideas of love and romance can be enacted.

 

Till recently, to woo audiences, Indian films showcased, for the main part, an urban world that viewers could aspire to. This world was set in India and abroad, in cities like Mumbai, New York and London, across slumlands, Tudor houses and street cafes. The exotic was sought out in countries like Latvia, Morocco, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Jordan, Russia, Peru, Brazil and Seychelles. Even Kenya, Namibia and Afghanistan. Tashan, set across small town India, had a song filmed in Milos. Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani, a campy love story at a hill station, had songs shot in various parts of Turkey.

 

Today our gaze seems to have turned towards the great Indian hinterland. This means that now the art director must fashion this other India as a slick, photogenic product that can be served up as ‘cult’ for an urbane audience that would like to believe it has more in common with Quentin Tarantino than Karan Johar. Consequently, there’s a quality of wink-wink-nudge-nudge cleverness in the design of these films. For example, the poster for Gangs Of Wasseypur showed another film poster— that of a 1984 Mithun Chakraborthy film (with the name misspelt), Ksam Paida Krne Waleki. These quirks are ‘in’ jokes for those who get the genre. For those that don’t, these films are masala potboilers, straight out of the 1980s, and can be enjoyed all the same. Some of these films are made by and intended for those who regard the audiences that create box-office hits with a degree of contempt, while trying to appease them all the same. Perhaps the divide between the haves and have-nots has become so wide that it cannot even be bridged in the escapist fantasies of cinema.

 

Super Days

Namita Gokhale is one of India’s leading litterateurs. She has authored six novels, a collection of short stories, and several works of nonfiction, in English. Her debut novel, Paro: Dreams of Passion, a satire on the Mumbai and Delhi elite, caused an uproar due to its candid sexual humour upon its release in 1984. Gokhale went on to write Gods Graves and Grandmother, A Himalayan Love Story, Mountain Echoes – Reminiscenes of Kumaoni Women, The Book of Shadows, The Book of Shiva, Shakuntala: The Play of Memory, The Puffin Mahabharata and In Search of Sita. In 2011 she wrote Priya: In Incredible Indyaa in which she resurrected some characters from Paro. Her last book, a collection of short stories titled The Habit of Love, was released last year.

 

She is also a publisher who has introduced some notable titles and, as one of the founder directors of Yatra Books, has translated and showcased the best of Indian writing in Indian languages. And, along with the author William Dalrymple, she is the founder-director of the well known Jaipur Literature Festival.

 

But a lesser known fact about Gokhale is that, between 1976 and 1982 she published a film magazine called Super from Bombay. In this essay, written a few years ago, with characteristic wry wit, she revisits those days.

 

 

The year 1976. After being chucked out of college for not wanting to study Chaucer, I embarked on the contrarian option and set about publishing a popular film magazine. My dreams of becoming an academic, possibly a philologist, had been rudely interrupted by karma, kismet and the soon-to-be defrocked Sister Aquinas, principal of Jesus and Mary College, New Delhi.

 

I tried to kill myself, unsuccessfully. Then, having survived, I decided to revolt against academia and to publish Super. I was twenty, and the rest of the staff in Super were just a little younger or older. Rauf Ahmed, the slim, soft-spoken and elegant editor was all of twenty-eight, which made him seem very old. Rama (now Ramma) Luthra, who helped us get the ads, was rumoured to be touching thirty. Thirty was clearly the end of the world or life as we knew it. Bhawana Somaaya was eighteen and her folks were upset that she was working for a film magazine. Every time she was deputed to cover a filmi party, she would pretend she was staying over with friends to catch up on college work. Of course, it wasn’t Bollywood then. The B-word had not been coined (it first came into currency, I am told, in the early 1980s). Mollywood in Madras and Tollywood in Tollygunge were already there in filmi jargon, but Bollywood was still waiting to arrive and conquer the world.

 

The process of de-intellectualisation hit me like a disastrous crash landing. The word most in circulation was ‘maha’, and everything around us was ‘maha’ this or ‘maha’ that. Like Rajesh Khanna was ‘maha’ cool. It was Shobhaa Dé (then Shobha Kilachand), the gorgeous editor of Stardust, who had unleashed a whole new dhakar street vocabulary via ‘Neeta’s Natter’. G.V. Desani had done it before in All About H. Hatterr. Later, Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children magically unshackled the English language from its colonial straitjacket. But it was Shobha Kilachand (nee Rajadhyaksha) who absolutely nanga karaoed things. The thwarted philologist in me approved.

 

Super folded up in 1982, and I began writing novels. I stopped watching films, and gradually the insider lexicon of the industry and the once-removed interface with what had now been dubbed Bollywood became a thing of the past. I no longer got a rush from reading film magazines. I began writing long sentences; usually with semi-colons in them. The exclamation marks and hyperbole of those early days had been determinedly abandoned. The years rolled by. The Bollygarchy grew and expanded and spawned new superstars. Amitabh and Jaya begat Abhishek, Babita (nee Shivdasani) begat Karisma and Kareena, Rakesh Roshan and Pinky begat Hrithik, while the badminton star Prakash Padukone begat Deepika Padukone. And so on.

 

And then there was a flashback moment. A crisp New Delhi winter mid-morning. The security lady at the Imperial hotel was fidgeting through my handbag, examining my ‘English Rose’ and ‘Venetian Venus’ lipsticks with inordinate suspicion, when I realised that Rishi Kapoor and Neetu Singh were standing there, beside me, on the cobbled driveway.

 

It was what academics would term a liminal encounter, a threshold between two worlds. Rishi Kapoor and Neetu Singh, Rishi Baba and his lady love. They looked like just any well-groomed couple, toned and gymmed and togged in designer clothes, diamond-crusted shades and expensive leatherwear. Of course, they couldn’t ever look like any-just-body, for their faces, self-consciously private, bore the stamp of constant public scrutiny, of celebrity, of Bollywood stardom, of surfaces that sense they are being examined.

 

I was sixteen when Bobby was released in 1973. I can remember it all, even today— the artless streak of flour in Dimple’s hair when Rishi visits her, Premnath’s open fly, unzipped for posterity, and Rishi Kapoor with side locks singing Main shayar toh nahin to Farida Jalal. That was the year Paul McCartney released ‘Band on the Run’. The year I first read The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer and got confused about the ideology of lipstick.

 

It was the year of Bobby.

 

I may have betrayed and belied it, but I belong, in history and chronology, to the Bobby generation. I found myself staring star-struck at Mr. Plastic-Pink Duck Lips and Mrs. Rishi Kapoor, and it was like Proust and his madeleines from A Remembrance of Things Past, if I may be allowed a suitably highbrow allusion. I remembered the Neetu Singh of my Super days, her much-hyped vital statistics, her much-discussed cleavage, her much-feared mother, the late Mrs. Rajee Singh, who had dark circles around her eyes and was reputedly of a stern disposition. I even remembered some haiku poems that Neetu had once written, the articulate verses I had read in the course of an editorial meeting. I forgot my handbag and the security lady and rushed across and gushed all over the cool power couple, inarticulately expressing my delight and nostalgia at seeing them. I think they were startled by my enthusiasm, and before I could sink into deeper shame by asking for Neetu’s autograph, they had disappeared, sped away in a waiting car.

 

Coincidences mounted in Bollywood style, and I encountered Rishi and Neetu again, the very same day, at the delicatessen at the Oberoi, biting into macaroons and sipping hot chocolate. I had recovered my composure by then, but I think they perceived me as a Delhi stalker. Later, I connected with all that Proustian consciousness through YouTube, where I viewed the Shemaroo video of Main shayar toh nahin, and also Googled gyan on Ranbir, Neetu and Rishi’s star son.

 

There are two bound volumes of old copies of Super on my bookshelf. Here were ‘Super Scoops of Seventy Nine’— where Super Scooper Pammi Bakshi goes to interview Chintu Baba— Rishi Kapoor to you and me. Rishi, at twenty-six, ‘symbolises the acme of achievement that a person his age can reach’. The interviewer reaches his residence at the appointed time. ‘I saw him prancing around in a towel. “Why are you here so early in the morning?” he enquires cheekily, before getting to talk about The Woman in His Life. It’s his mother, Krishna Kapoor. He was practically in tears when he talked about her influence on him. Then the conversation turned to the other woman in his life, Neetu . . . “I am too irresponsible for marriage but I’ll marry. Maybe next year.”!!!!!

 

Bollywood stars are not cardboard cut-outs, they are a chunk of collective consciousness. The custodians of Bharatiya youth, glamour, and celebrity, they are the emanations of our national dreams and desires, the essence of the projected other, the validation of all we would but could not be. In short, we live through them. I realised this afresh, in not so many long words when I met Dev Anand at the Jaipur Literature Festival some years ago. His autobiography Romancing with Life had just been released by the prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh.

 

Dev Sa’ab, with his uniquely jaunty style, was a staple of our Super days. We watched him mentoring Zeenat Aman, and introducing Tina Munim, while the sepia-tinted nostalgia sections would of course regularly resurrect the Suraiya love story— the engagement ring she had thrown away into the Arabian Sea and all that. Dev Anand’s first film Ziddi had him starring opposite Kamini Kaushal. This was followed by classics like Taxi Driver, CID, and Paying Guest. The evergreen hero wore a beret and dripped attitude. He delivered his lines in a rapid, breathless, each word-a-paper-plane style. He sang songs like Main zindagi ko dhuen mein udata chala gaya. He looked and acted like his contemporary, Gregory Peck.

 

January 2007, a restaurant at the Rambagh Palace, Jaipur. At our table, William Dalrymple before me, John Berendt to my right. I struggled to explain to them who the dapper, debonair man beside me was, what he represented to my world. Dev Anand’s face was creased into a classic Dev Anand smile. His perfectly folded silk cravat supported an impeccably youthful face, which remained tilted at a familiar forty-five-degree angle. All the waiters wanted his autograph, they had stopped serving us and were staring at the Living Legend in silent adoration. The lobby manager had arrived too, and the girls from the reception desk. ‘Dev Anand is one of the most popular film stars ever,’ I said. It sounded inadequate. Suddenly Dev Anand turned to me and enumerated, with perfect recall, the last time we had met. ‘It was in 1981, I think,’ he mused. ‘You were with your editor Rauf Ahmed—what was the magazine called . . . ?’

 

Super,’ I said humbly, remembering, once again, those days. Age cannot wither nor custom stale . . .

 

Rajesh Khanna and his wife Dimple Kapadia had dominated the gossip columns: ‘Neeta’s Natter’ in Stardust, and the ‘Deep Throat’ and ‘Grapevine’ segments in Super. We paid fifty rupees an ‘item’ to our informants, and the tiny office in Nariman Point would be abuzz with The Khanna’s latest antics as, over tea and bhelpuri, we dissected his mystique and his human failures.

 

Super, September 1979: ‘No one would believe that Rajesh Khanna bears any resemblance to a lottery ticket. But both go for one-rupee gambles. Both promise huge returns. There’s one difference though. Rajesh Khanna always wins. He says, “When I want something badly, I take a one-rupee bet with someone that I will get it. And I always win. Recently it happened with my film Amar Deep . . . ” Floundering as he was in a maelstrom of flops, Amar Deep seemed to be the only straw in sight. The film, which most distributors avoided after seeing the first trial, is a hit . . . Will the person who has taken that fatal one-rupee bet with Rajesh on who will become the next No. 1, please stand up?

 

Rajesh Khanna hasn’t written his memoirs yet. Born Jatin Khanna in 1942, he changed the way a generation felt about romance and love. The Rajesh Khanna phenomenon was both everyman and anti-hero. He had peaked by the time we embarked on Super. An angry young man, Amitabh Bachchan, was on the rise even as Khanna’s star was waning.

 

I remember the first time I ‘met’ Rajesh Khanna. It was in my hometown, Nainital, where he was shooting with Asha Parekh, for Kati Patang. Everybody and everyone knew that Asha Parekh wore padded hips, and hordes of observant onlookers trained their eyes on her posterior as she executed faultless matkas and jhatkas around the Municipal Gardens by the lakeside with Rajesh Khanna. At least, that’s how I remember it. As we returned home, my mother bought a carton of eggs and asked me to carry them. We stopped at the Grand Hotel for a bit, where Kaka Luthra, the local hotelier who had once been with Prithvi Theatre, had promised to introduce us to The Superstar. We were waiting upstairs, and there was Rajesh Khanna climbing the wooden staircase, clutching the banister. He wore a brown corduroy jacket, and I realised, staring from above, that he was bald and there was boot polish on his head. Just then one of the eggs broke and everything was a mess— or a liminal moment, depending on how you looked at it.

 

Rajesh Khanna should have written his memoirs, and perhaps he will, one day. He has begat his own minor dynasty, with his son-in-law Akshay Kumar top-of-the pops in Bollygarchy ratings. His ex-wife Dimple still looks beautiful. I remember reading somewhere that her sister Simple had died. It gave me a shock, tugged at my heart as though she were family. At Super, so long ago, we had been current and informed about sister Simple, and their father Chunnibhai Kapadia, known to the film mags as CBI, or the Chunnibhai Bureau of Information. I didn’t have to Google any of this— I was steeped in a complex secular mythology, which mirrored, in intricate detail, the religious mythology of the great Indian epics. We are like that only, with over a billion gods and trillion minor deities, and a Film Lok in parallel to Indra Lok and Dev Lok.

 

Rajesh Khanna is clustered in memory with Devyani Chaubal. For those of you who don’t know, or don’t remember, DC was a gossip columnist with Star & Style. Devyani was a well-connected Maharashtrian with once-beautiful features. Like The Superstar, her hair was thinning under her back-combed bouffant. She was middle-aged, single, and desperately in love with Rajesh Khanna. Also, she was under the delusion that The Superstar reciprocated her love. Insiders hinted that he had once seduced her. How we mocked Devyani, how she fuelled our laughter! Every week, her column would revolve around The Khanna, what he said, what he did, and all of this would be flavoured with meaningful innuendoes about the ‘special’ relationship between The Superstar and her.

 

Devyani Chaubal had a sharp mind, and a pen dipped in vitriol. She wrote really well, except for her tragic vulnerability on this one obsessive subject. We laughed then, we bright young Super immortals, we sneered and hooted at her column. ‘I want to look like a million dollars,’ she told me when we had lunch together. That was the last time I met her. Devyani overdid her diet, as she overdid everything, and she fell ill from malnutrition. She deteriorated. Then she slipped into a diabetic coma, and her friends who loved her looked after her. I don’t know if Rajesh Khanna visited her in hospital, but looking back and remembering her after all these years, I recognise there was something heroic and magnificent about her one-sided love, and I feel a bit sad and stupid about the way we had all laughed at her.

 

Doomed love gets me thinking about Parveen Babi. She was lovely in an incandescent sort of way, with glowing skin and straight hair and a cloud of innocence floating around her. The gossip columns regularly reported on her sizzling love life. I think she had an affair with Danny Denzongpa and then she moved in with Kabir Bedi, after which she sought consolation with Mahesh Bhatt— and somewhere in this trajectory she fell in love with Amitabh Bachchan. Films like Amar Akbar Anthony record Babi in her glory days, before she reportedly became victim to acute and extended attacks of paranoia and schizophrenia.

 

It was perhaps the trio of Parveen Babi, Zeenat Aman and Shabana Azmi that radically altered the way young Indian women perceived themselves. The ghunghats and ghararas of family dramas and Muslim socials gave way to a casual, natural style in dressing and demeanour. Parveen Babi was possibly the most conventionally beautiful, but all of them shared a spontaneity and infectious spunk that communicated itself to their enormous fan following. Then Zeenie Baby too went into cinematic and media exile, and only Shabana remained to move from strength to strength.

 

Shabana Azmi is beautiful, intelligent and articulate, but I would hesitate to describe her as a Bollywood star, as there are many more dimensions and parameters to her public and private persona. But in my memory, from those Super days, there are three bindaas, bohemian girls in bell-bottoms. Carefree and contemporary, they liberated their audiences of a tyrannical set of tired clichés about femininity.

 

And then there was Mandakini, the Ram Teri Ganga Maili girl. I remember Mandakini with a sense of personal involvement because she looked exactly like my younger sister. Both had gorgeous smoky eyes and a sort of in-your-face glamour. My sister was often mistaken for Mandakini. When I was in Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai, recovering from cancer, the security guards and lift men let my sister come and go as she pleased, bypassing the strict rules of the hospital. They had assumed she was Mandakini— who in those days was the best friend and constant companion of Dawood Ibrahim, the mafia don. My sister never corrected them; the mistaken identity amused her, and it was convenient too!

 

Mandakini disappeared. Nobody had any idea of what had happened to her. Just a single photograph some years ago, where she looked radiantly cheerful: Mandakini is married to a Tibetan, who used to be a monk, and treading the path of virtue and happiness. A Bollywood ending with a tangled twist, and what I am sure must be several intermediate untold stories.

 

Bollywood was and is not only about actors, but about stories and scripts and plots and sub-plots. Like Shakespeare and Kalidasa, Bollywood simultaneously sustains both high and low art. It is a repository of folk and classical traditions reinterpreted in context. And it is fun, a national stress-buster, a collective mood-enhancer. The unique spirit of Bollywood, of its manic megalomania, its plastic plagiarism, its transcendental understanding, was perhaps best represented in the immortal films of Manmohan Desai.

 

Manmohan Desai was the director who, with Amar Akbar Anthony, birthed the new genre of the Masala Hindi Movie. Films like Parvarish, Naseeb and Coolie brought together comedy, coincidence, synchronicity, miracles, and a determined secular respect for all religions. These vibrant entertainers did not insult the viewer’s intelligence— they simply ignored it.

 

The intellectual world despised Desai. Rosie Thomas came to India in 1980 to undertake an anthropological study of popular Indian films and was an observer on the sets of the Bachchan-starrer Naseeb (Naseeb is a story of fate and kismet: it begins with a lottery ticket being given away by a drunk to a waiter). K.K. Shukla, Manmohan Desai’s scriptwriter, told her, ‘I can’t believe you are getting money to do this!’ She recalls giving a talk on the subject to cinema scholars at an Italian film festival. ‘I suddenly realised I was being given a slow clap! They expected a lecture on someone like Satyajit Ray!’

 

Manmohan Desai died in 1994, just fifty-eight years old. A widower, he had only recently got engaged to the film actress Nanda. The obituaries called him the ‘Miracle Man of Bollywood’ and referred to the deliberate illogic of his incredible genius.

 

Super shut down in 1982, for reasons too complicated to explain here. I returned to the seductions of literature, and got down to writing my first novel, Paro: Dreams of Passion. There was a scene in it where I paid my dues to Bollywood.

 

‘Deus Ex Machina,’ Lenin announced sonorously, and extracted a bottle of champagne from under his shawl. We had a copy of Latin for Lawyers in Suresh’s library but so much erudition and class went right over my head.

 

‘Saved by the bell,’ he clarified.

 

‘He’s won a fucking lottery,’ Paro amplified. She was dressed in a long black kaftan, and her hair lay loose about her shoulders, the red highlights giving her an eerie flamboyance. I sensed that she was not being flippant, for there was a subtle change in her demeanour, and her arrogance, which had appeared a little threatened recently, seemed to have resurfaced without any major bruises. Her contempt for me was once again visible and tangible.

 

I never knew such things happened in real life. I thought they happened only in films. In fact it had all begun with a film. One drunken night Lenin and Paro decided to ‘go slumming’ and see a Bachchan starrer. One of Amitabh’s dialogues really appealed to Lenin.

 

‘Apna naseeb kabhi kisi ko mat becho,’ Amitabh Bachchan had said, and that was what Lenin was now repeating in excellent declamatory style, his eyebrows all askew. He told us the whole involuted story of the film, the upshot being that he (Lenin), went and bought himself a lottery ticket. He didn’t forget about it after that, but kept the ticket (for Lenin) very carefully, and assiduously checked all the results in the newspapers on the due date. He swore that he was not in the least surprised to find that he had won five lakhs of rupees.

 

I don’t watch many films any more. I should, but I don’t. But I remember every minute of those Super days, and Rishi Kapoor and Neetu Singh are still superstars for me.

 

Excerpted from The Popcorn Essayists – What Movies do to Writers, published by Tranquebar Press/Westland Ltd., 2011. You can buy the book here.

Nawazuddin Siddiqui – TBIP Tête-à-Tête

Attempting to chat with Nawazuddin Siddiqui at a party is an awkward exercise. He barely has anything to say because he is simply not very good at making small talk. Interviewing him makes you feel like even more of an imposter. The traditional structure of an interview, the pre-designed questions, the whole format seems entirely unnecessary because you can tell he does not quite get what the fuss is about. The formality makes him stiffen, even though he has nothing to keep from you. Especially because he has nothing to keep from you. And yet, strip the formalities away, put him in a room with friends and he is the very life of a conversation—recounting anecdotes, confessing, mimicking, philosophizing—no holds barred. So here is something in between an informal chat and formal interview with the actor whose rise to fame has become a redemptive tale for actors struggling to break through the ranks of impossibly handsome or hereditary stars. Nothing about Nawaz’s life reflects stardom as we have come to know it and yet he is undisputedly a star— not one who consciously breaks moulds but one who is what he is because he neither knows nor cares about another way of being. Until he hears the call: “Action”.

 

Eye of the Beholder: Ariel Dorfman

Ariel Dorfman, 71, is a Chilean novelist, playwright, essayist, poet, journalist and human rights activist. He was forced to leave Chile in 1973, after the coup by General Augusto Pinochet.

Dorfman’s work often deals with the horrors of tyranny. His most famous play, Death and the Maiden, describes the encounter of a former torture victim with the man she believed tortured her. It was made into a film in 1994 by Roman Polanski, starring Sigourney Weaver and Ben Kingsley.

Dorfman’s works have been translated into more than 40 languages and performed in over 100 countries. Among these are Hard Rain, a political novel that won the Sudamericana Award, Widows, The Last Song of Manuel Sendero, Mascara, Konfidenz, The Nanny and the Iceberg and Blake’s Therapy. His non-fiction includes How to read Donald Duck and The Empire’s Old Clothes: What the Lone Ranger, Babar, and Other Innocent Heroes Do to Our Minds. His book Desert Memories: Journeys through the Chilean North, a collection of essays, won the Lowell Thomas Award.He has won two Kennedy Center Theatre Awards. In 1996, with his son, Rodrigo, he received an award for best television drama in Britain for Prisoners in Time. His short story My House is on Fire was made into a short film by him and Rodrigo too. His poems, collected in Last Waltz in Santiago and In Case of Fire in a Foreign Land, have been turned into a half-hour fictional film, Deadline, featuring the voices of Emma Thompson, Bono, Harold Pinter, and others.

His plays include Speak Truth to Power: Voices from Beyond the Dark (a human rights play starring Kevin Kline, Sigourney Weaver, Alec Baldwin, and John Malkovich), The Other Side, Purgatorio, Picasso’s Closet and the musical Dancing Shadows.

Dorfman is currently a professor of literature and Latin American Studies at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Since 1990, when democracy was restored in Chile, Dorfman and his wife Angelica divide their time between Santiago and the United States. He was the subject of a feature-length documentary, A Promise to the Dead, directed by Peter Raymont, which followed the journey of his exile and return to Chile and was based on his memoir Heading South, Looking North.

In this interview, at the Jaipur Literature Festival, 2013, he talks about why Polanski was the right person to adapt Death and the Maiden into a movie, the challenges of a novelist adapting his own work for film, what one medium—out of poetry, prose, theatre and film—can achieve that the other can’t, how he might even write a Bollywood film, and more.

 

The New Artists

Is the recent boom in video art just a passing fad? Or is it indicative of a trend that’s here to stay? Here is Girish Shahane’s guided tour of the scene.

 

While the use of video is not a new development in Indian art, it has recently gained such wide acceptability that it is unusual these days to find any large exhibition of contemporary art that does not feature work in that medium. Consider some of the exhibitions that have been mounted in major cities: At Colaba’s Chatterjee & Lal gallery, Bangalore-based Kiran Subbaiah produced a 43 minute epic called Narcissicon. It was scripted, photographed and directed by the artist himself, who played all the characters that appeared on screen, often two or three at a time.

Excerpt from Narcissicon, by Kiran Subbaiah:

 

At Galerie Mirchandani + Steinruecke, the twenty-something Surabhi Saraf’s videos were composed of multi-image grids. Each small square within the grid showed the same shot of the artist going about some daily activity, like cooking or folding clothes. The catch was that, while the small squares played the same sequence, they did not play the same frame simultaneously. Carefully choreographed, and paired with specially designed soundtracks, Saraf’s grids shimmered and danced as different parts of the shot played across and down the grid.

FOLD by Surabhi Saraf:

 

At Chemould Prescott Road, Vishal K. Dar collaborated with Kaushik Bhaumik and Siddhartha Chatterjee on The Rise of the BROWNationals. One of the videos composed was of an inverted image of the Republic Day parade. The artists had intervened in a simple yet effective way with officially broadcast footage to question the militaristic emphasis of the annual ritual.

Vishal K. Dar’s The Rise of the BROWNationals | Girl on a Swing:

 

The Rise of the BROWNationals | The Carousel of Dharma:

 

Shine Sivan’s show at Gallery Maskara included a graphic video of the artist masturbating in a forest. It played behind a partition in a section of the gallery that had been strewn with leaves and branches to echo the landscape seen in the video.

Over in Delhi, The Skoda Prize show at the National Gallery of Modern Art, which I was involved in organizing, had the artist collective CAMP screening a video created for the UK’s Folkestone Triennial in 2011. CAMP had provided cameras to members of a volunteer coastguard unit based in that English town, asking them to film what they saw through telescopes. After crowd-sourcing the footage, CAMP edited it down to one hour. Everything from local bird species, to submarines, to the coast of France, appeared on screen, often in a moody haze, accompanied by commentaries filled with inimitable English humour.

The Kiran Nadar Museum of Art in Saket opened a show of seven contemporary women artists in late January this year. One of those seven, Sonia Khurana, had interviewed her grandmother about memories of Partition, and combined this with archival footage and a personal voice-over analyzing the old woman’s recollections.

Video might now be a familiar medium used dexterously by Indian artists, but it arrived late on the scene. Indians raised in the late sixties and seventies, even those born into affluent households, didn’t grow up filming home movies on Super 8, the way so many of their counterparts in the US and Europe did. Celluloid, even 8 mm stock, was heavily taxed, and spare parts for cameras difficult to find. As a result, though artists like Tyeb Mehta, Akbar Padamsee and M. F. Husain were deeply interested in cinema, they didn’t use the medium frequently.

When portable video recorders arrived, they provided a cheaper option to capture moving images, and by the 1990s many Indians owned handycams. Artists who had been trained as painters, began experimenting with video as an extension of their practice. There was no market for such work locally, but galleries and museums abroad had an established tradition of exhibiting video. Indian video art was shown more often internationally than at home in the course of the 1990s. Now, of course, most human beings on the planet walk around with video recorders in their pockets or handbags. Little wonder that video has become an important medium through which Indian artists interpret their world.

There are no sharp lines demarcating video art from, say, experimental documentary, or short fiction. Works by Ashish Avikunthak and Kabir Mohanty, who call themselves film-makers, and usually shoot using 16 mm or 35 mm stock, have regularly been shown in galleries and museums. This aligns with the idea that anything can be art, provided it is labeled as such, or displayed in conditions normally associated with art viewing. Having said this, there are broad differences, based on the variant nature of the audience’s engagement, between gallery-based video, and fare available in auditoriums or on home screens.

Excerpt from Ashish Avikunthak’s Et Cetera:

 

Excerpt from Kabir Mohanty’s Song for an Ancient Land:

 

Since people walk in and out of galleries at any time, video art tends not to focus on narratives with clear beginnings, middles and ends; or on stories that require viewing to commence at a particular time and carry on for a set duration. Videos in galleries usually play in a continuous loop, and it doesn’t matter hugely at what point one enters. Secondly, to distinguish itself from auditorium or television-based work, video art often uses multiple screens (called channels in artspeak), or else multiple images within a single screen. Third, video is often integrated into installations which include sculptural, photographic or painted elements. All of these features can be found in the videos described at the beginning of this article.

Video art geared toward exhibition in galleries, or at least outside auditoriums, originated in the 1960s, with the work of artists like Nam June Paik and Andy Warhol. It took decades before Indians warmed to the medium, and in the 1990s it felt as if many Indian artists were experimenting with video without understanding the intrinsic properties of the medium. Nobody would make that claim now, when a number of artists regularly use video in sophisticated ways.

The Kochi-Muziris Biennale, which concluded this March after a three-month run, featured substantial works by three pioneers of Indian video art: Nalini Malani, Vivan Sundaram, and Ranbir Kaleka. In the 1990s, Malani experimented with stop-frame animation to record her own drawings, and used those recordings in stage design. She later began combining animation with live action footage and making her videos part of large-scale installations. Her intent is usually overtly political, and she has been preoccupied with women’s rights; the India-Pakistan relationship (she was born in Sindh); nuclear weapons; and communal violence, particularly the Gujarat riots of 2002.

Remembering Toba Tek Singh (documentation), by Nalini Malani:

 

Nalini Malani’s Hamletmachine (documentation):

 

In Search of Vanished Blood (by Nalini Malani) trailer:

 

Vivan Sundaram’s entry into video began with a playful documentary about Canadian couples (real and fictional), but his work in the medium usually concerns his own physical installations. After making these landscape-like structures, Sundaram uses the camera to capture a constantly tracking aerial view, expanding the apparent scale of the sculpture in the process. He did something similar in Kochi, assembling rocks and shards of pottery from an archeological dig, and producing a multi-channel video of the piece that was projected onto the ground. Interestingly, both the physical installation and the video were displayed at the Biennale.

Ranbir Kaleka has made a few ‘pure’ videos, but is most strongly associated with a technique he invented that involves projecting a video onto a purpose-made painting. The interaction between the moving and static image creates a flickering, dreamlike visual texture. Kaleka incorporates personal memories, historical narratives, and myth, into his enigmatic and compelling creations.

CROSSINGS (Documentation), by Ranbir Kaleka:

 

Ranbir Kaleka’s SWEET UNEASE (Documentation):

 

The most important Indian artists to emerge over the past decade who consistently use video / film have been Amar Kanwar and the Raqs Media Collective. Unlike painters like Malani, Sundaram and Kaleka, who began exploring other media in the 1990s, Kanwar and the three members of Raqs have had formal training in film and video. While Kanwar and Raqs share a broadly left-wing worldview, and engage with critical political issues, their approaches are very different. Kanwar makes intensely personal, lyrical documentaries, while Raqs are intellectuals who cite historians, philosophers and political thinkers in the voice-overs to their videos. Raqs and Kanwar first came to prominence in the art world after being selected for the 2002 edition of documenta, the most prestigious exhibition in the contemporary art world, held once every five years in Kassel, Germany. Kanwar has since had the singular honour of being picked for the two subsequent editions of documenta as well. The work he displayed at the 2012 documenta, titled The Sovereign Forest, includes, as one of its components, a long documentary film, called The Scene of Crime, a love story of sorts. It is set in Orissa, where mining companies want to take over protected land, and the administration works with these firms to clamp down on dissent. The story, narrated by a woman whose partner has been taken away by the police, is told only through text cards, against a background of nature shots. Kanwar supplemented this with an installation that included a collection of indigenous crop seeds, broadening the environmentalist theme of The Scene of Crime. The Sovereign Forest had its first Indian showing at the Kochi-Muziris Biennale.

The kind of large-scale display represented by The Sovereign Forest is expensive to make, and difficult to store, should a collector choose to acquire it. Most such work is created on commission from an international biennial or survey exhibition, and acquired by museums, whether private or public. The market for video, particularly video installation, is very small in India, though that is still a step up from fifteen years ago, when it was non-existent. Since the National Gallery of Modern Art has not acquired any art for the past decade, artists are locally dependent on private collectors, aside from foreign grants and commissions. Lekha and Anupam Poddar, who run the Devi Art Foundation, were among the first Indian collectors to buy this kind of work. Over the past three years, their focus has shifted to West Asian contemporary art, and to Indian antiquities. Kiran Nadar is currently by far the largest collector in the country of video-based installation, and of contemporary art in general. Her museum currently has exhibition spaces in a Saket mall and within the HCL campus in Noida, and is seeking a permanent location where the collection can be consolidated.

During the boom in the art market between 2003 and 2008, particularly in the last phase in which contemporary art was in focus, private galleries began showing video frequently. It was a period when it seemed everything would sell, which encouraged experiment. Immediately after the financial crisis, there was a perceptible return within galleries to more conventional painting and sculpture, but it soon became clear that most young Indian artists were keen to work across media. Impelled by international trends, Indian video art is, in a way, running ahead of its market. The vast majority of collectors still want something that can hang on the wall and be a talking point at dinner. Video, particularly when it uses sound, cannot play that role. The relative lack of collector interest might be why very few Indian artists work exclusively with video.

Change, though, is bound to come. On a visit to Chennai, recently, I noticed the new Phoenix Market City mall had acquired a number of sculptures by contemporary artists and was also exhibiting video art on every floor. Chennai is the most conservative of India’s metropolises, and if the owners of Phoenix Market City (who are based in Bombay) feel their prospective customers would appreciate cutting-edge video, it could be an indication of a wider shift in perception taking place among art collectors across India.

 

Shilpi Satyajit

Animation filmmaker Jayanti Sen learnt her craft from Satyajit Ray himself. She also edited the first anthology of essays on Ray’s graphic art and authored another more detailed book on the same subject. Here is her curation of 13 of his artworks, along with notes on what they represent.

 

When I look back and think of why I really undertook the project of authoring a full book on the graphics of Satyajit Ray, what comes to my mind foremost is the fact that, much before this book, I edited and compiled a collection of Bengali and English essays on this subject way back in 1995. That book was released at the opening of the first ever exhibition of Ray’s graphics in Kolkata, curated by Ray’s son—artist and filmmaker Sandip Ray—and coordinated by me, at the Oxford Bookstore Gallery. The driving force behind both ventures was Snehanshu Mukherjee, the architect responsible for the new look—that persists till today—of the Oxford Bookstore Gallery.

 

That book, a bi-lingual collection—penned by artists such as Paritosh Sen, Raghunath Goswamy, Purnendu Pattrea (then editor of Bengali journal Desh), Sagarmoy Ghosh (then editor of Anandamela, the Bengali children’s magazine), Debashish Bandyopadhyay from the Anandabazar Patrika (one of the most widely read Bengali newspapers) and a host of others—addressed various aspects of Ray’s graphic design aesthetic. The hugely enthusiastic response from readers for this book, titled The Art of Satyajit Ray/ Shilpi Satyajit (Bengali for ‘Satyajit, the Artist’), prompted me to think of a larger and more serious project on the subject. Thus began my journey towards creating Looking Beyond: Graphics of Satyajit Ray. En route, I delivered a lecture-demonstration on Ray’s Graphic Designs, also titled ‘Shilpi Satyajit’, at the Satyajit Ray – Jasimuddin Festival in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The enthusiastic response to that lecture was very encouraging and egged me on towards the completion of this project.

 

What I have tried to accomplish with this book is to make readers aware of Ray’s own journey, as an artist, from graphic designer to filmmaker. An aspect of Ray’s creativity, which often remains relatively overlooked, is his life and work as an ad-man. I have written in the past on Ray, O.C. Ganguly, Makhan Dutta Gupta, Dr. Ranen Ayan Datta, Raghunath Goswamy— all of whom worked under the great designer Annada Munshi to bring about an essentially Indian element to our advertising creations. Instead of being lame imitations of the West, our advertising created its own niche in the world of graphic art. Such contributions form a very important part of my book.

 

For a detailed analysis of Ray’s illustrations, book covers, cine posters—all aspects of his graphic design work—I conducted in-depth interviews with Sandip Ray, artist Sibsankar Bhattacharya and O.C. Ganguly, which provided me with valuable material and insight on the hows and whys of Ray’s art.

 

***

 

I would now like to refer to some images from my book, displayed here, which will provide us with visual clues to navigate Ray’s vast body of artwork.

 

It is in my book that a logo design of Margo Soap, taken from the now extinct Bengali art journal Sundaram, has been republished for the first time. Ray was a fantastic calligrapher. He learnt from none other than the great artist Nandalal Bose. Here, Ray used thick brush lines to create this ornate logo.

 

***

 

One little known fact is that, while Ray was working as an ad-man at D. J. Keymer and Co., Dilip Kumar Gupta, popularly known as D. K., established the Signet Press in 1943. Books published at the Signet Press marked new milestones in the history of Indian publishing. Ray was one of the principal artists entrusted by D. K. to decorate and design books published by Signet Press. D. K. also explored new territories in culture writing by bringing out a literary newsletter Tukro Katha, in which the then budding litterateurs Premendra Mitra, Sunil Gangopadhyay, Shakti Chattopadhyay, Buddhadeb Basu were written about. Discussions on Bengali literature as a whole, including poetry, was the most salient feature of Tukro Katha. It was in Tukro Katha that Ray wrote about his experience of shooting the film Aparajito, in Benares, or Varanasi, in a piece titled ‘Baranasir Diary’ (a diary from Varanasi). The illustration we see here shows us how dexterously Ray used ‘perspective’ (the technique used to represent a three-dimensional world, which is what the human eye sees normally, on a two dimensional surface) in a lot of his illustrations. Using thin croquil nib, he creates these sensitive lines depicting a scene in Varanasi. He was greatly inspired by the work of the famous photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson. His own cinema influenced his illustrations too. This illustration has a singularly cinematic look about it, if we inspect it closely.

 

It was, in fact, the art of illustration that led Ray to become a filmmaker in the first place. When D. K. entrusted Ray with the design and illustrations for the abridged version of Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay’s famous Bengali novel Pather Panchali, Aam Aantir Bhempu (Pather Panchali was actually published as a trilogy. Aam Aantir Bhempu, or ‘the bugle fashioned out of a mango seed’, was the second in the series), Ray thought of making a film out of the book.

 

***

 

The book jacket of the translation of Jim Corbett’s book Man Eaters of Kumaon— Kumayuner Manushkheko Bagh, designed by Ray and published in 1950, is one of my favourite wrap-around book covers. Here he makes novel use of the idea of a tiger’s skin print for book cover. A bullet seems to have entered the book (and the skin) and gone out of its back. The difference in the size of the two holes—the one behind is a larger hole, being torn wider by the bullet (a bullet’s exit hole is always wider than that at the point of entry)—tells us a lot about Ray’s eye for detail. Also, the way he uses the striking colours of the tiger skin and the classic use of space— exploiting the format of a book cover as a ‘whole’ to create a visually arresting design, is remarkable.

 

***

 

Ray, as a designer, looked around him to draw inspiration for his art. In the years he spent at Kala Bhavan, Santiniketan, under the guidance of stalwarts like Nandalal Bose, Benode Behari Mukherjee and Ramkinker Baij, he became acquainted with the beauty and sensitivity of classical and modernist Indian art per se. As a student he visited the Ajanta-Ellora caves and the Konark Sun Temple to absorb and assimilate the best of classical Indian art. It is also interesting to note that his companions during these journeys were art scholar Prithwish Neogy, Artist Dinkar Kaushik and the famous Tamil playwright, theatre director and art director Na. Muthuswamy. As Ray himself tells us, Neogy taught him how to ‘look’ at a picture. It is this essentially classical Indian influence that comes to the fore when we look at the book cover of Raj Kahini (The Royal Tale). He uses thick but sensitive brush lines to increase the feel of Indian miniature paintings from Rajputana, or Rajasthan, as Abanindranath Tagore writes about the tales of Rajput warriors in this book. This was a special attribute of not only Ray, but his contemporaries, such as Khaled Chowdhury, Raghunath Goswamy or Ranen Ayan Datta, as well. These artists evoked the essence of a book through its cover design. The reader immediately gets a feel of what he or she is about to encounter on opening a book.

 

***

 

Through the book cover of Badshahi Angti (The Emperor’s Ring) designed in the late sixties, Ray introduced us to Feluda, the young detective he created in the line of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. Since this is the first full-length novel in the series to be published in the form of a book (and not episodically in a magazine), Ray keeps the faces of the detective Feluda and his cousin and assistant Topshe in the foreground. The basic facial features of the two had been well illustrated by Ray, and the duo soon made their place in the hearts of children and adults alike through these illustrations as much as for the stories themselves. An interesting feature about this book cover is the way Ray uses perspective to depict the city-profile of Lucknow, where the story is set. We can see how he employs the technique of ‘foreshortening’ (used to create the illusion of an object or objects receding quickly into the distance, or background) for the horse-drawn carriage, the motorcars and the row of houses flanking the two sides of the road. This use of perspective brings to mind Satyajit Ray the still photographer, who had taken an enormous amount of photographs, besides sketching profusely, when he had gone on tours of Ajanta-Ellora or, in his later life, on his trips abroad where he was sent by his advertising firm D.J. Keymer and Co. It should also be known that it was common practice for Ray to create completely new designs and illustrations for his stories when they were published as books. Badshahi Angti was initially serialized in the pages of the children’s magazine Sandesh, for one whole year in 1966, while Ray was editing it. Sandesh, founded by Ray’s grandfather Upendra Kishore Roychowdhury way back in the early 1920s, was practically a family magazine for him. In its second phase Ray’s father Sukumar Ray edited it, but his untimely death led to the magazine’s demise. It was in 1961 that his friend, the poet Subhash Mukhopadhyay, gave Ray the idea of reviving Sandesh.

 

The point I’m trying to make is, even if Ray had already created and published an illustration to accompany his writing in Sandesh, he could easily take the liberty of changing or modifying it to better suit the pages of the book when the work was published as a whole.

 

***

 

Ray also did the illustration for Priyamvada Devi’s Bengali story Panchulal. This is a very interesting work. Panchulal is based on the famous children’s story Pinocchio. For this sketch Ray draws liberally from the pat art and wood-cuts of Bengal. He uses thick brush lines reminiscent of the Kalighat pats. What I really love in this illustration is the exaggerated beard of the old man, drawn in the fashion of an animation still, and Panchulal climbing the beard to reach the old man. The difference in the scale and size of the man and the little Panchulal is another interesting touch. In fact Ray was an avid enthusiast of animation art. He encouraged me often to go to the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad, to learn animation. So this particular illustration I always see with an animator’s eye, and I love it for the extremely beautiful brush strokes Ray uses to Indianize the foreign tale of Pinocchio, rooting it in Indian artistic traditions. Also, Ray uses here the style of drawing used by another great artist of his time, Makhan Dutta Gupta, though he also breaks away from his style in some places.

 

***

 

Another famous Ray creation, which all his fans are very fond of, is the scientist Professor Shonku. When creating the character of Professor Shonku, Ray took cues from his own study of the sciences, and science fiction written throughout the world. But he used his own imagination finally to create a peculiar and very original fantasy. The elements that make up Professor Shonku are as fantastical as they are laced with humour. The stories lead to discoveries such as the ‘Anaihilin Pistol’ (that you can use to make someone you’re not pleased about having around just disappear), or a device to capture ghosts, or a time-machine. In this particular image, an illustration for the story Professor Shonku O Khoka (Professor Shonku and the Little Boy) what is most exciting is the wonderful interplay of light and shade. The filmmaker and cinematographer (he often handled his own camera) in Ray shows itself here. The story is about a child who is suddenly transformed into a highly knowledgeable person, uttering great scientific theories. In this illustration Ray uses very thin, lovely lines on paper-white to create the features of both Professor Shonku and the boy. The exquisite effect that we see in this illustration, due to its exploiting of both negative (the space around the subjects of the image) and positive space (the space used up by the subjects themselves), marks it as one of Ray’s best illustrations. Another point which I feel should be made about this illustration is the cinematic point-of-view we see here. The filmmaker Ray seems dominant within the sub-conscious (or was it consciously done?) of the illustrator Ray.

 

***

 

Among other artistic creations, Ray also undertook the task of designing new typefaces in English. In the sixties a type foundry in Florida requested him to design these typefaces for them, one of which of which we see displayed here. He actually designed four typefaces, ‘Ray Roman’, ‘Holiday Script’, ‘Daphne’ and ‘Ray Bizarre’. Here we see the ‘Ray Bizarre’ typeface. Artist Paritosh Sen has written about how designing a typeface demands not just immaculate design skills but also enormous reserves of patience. The artist/ designer comes to a conclusive design after trying out innumerable options. As I mentioned earlier, Ray honed his calligraphic skills, guided by Nandalal Bose, when he was a student at Kala Bhavan, Santiniketan. And he believed in experimenting widely when designing a letter, or a full logo, for a product or film. This naturally reminds me of the fantastic logos he designed for his own films, such as Nayak or Kanchenjungha or Seemabaddha. Also, the experiment with just three Bengali letters, year after year, for each issue of the Bengali journal Ekshan, edited by Nirmalya Acharya and Soumitra Chattopadhyay. Or the logos he designed for West Bengal’s film complex Nandan,or for Patha Bhavan school. Even the Sandesh title designs could be cited here. Ray had said in an interview (carried in its entirety in Looking Beyond: Graphics of Satyajit Ray) to veteran journalist Nirmal Dhar that if he had the time he would have designed Bengali typefaces too.

 

***

 

1961 was the year of Rabindranath Tagore’s Birth Centenary, and Ray designed a lot in this year, including the page from the Tagore Centenary Year Calendar, sponsored and published by India Tube Ltd., that can be seen above. For this picture, Ray put together intriguing visual elements, that he took from Tagore’s autobiography Jeebon Smriti, within a circular image. The young Tagore used to learn wrestling, and so the young boy is shown clinched to a wrestler at the centre of the image. The artist’s eye for detail can be seen in the dog sitting in the foreground or clothes on a clothesline, and dumbbells of sorts, called Mugur in Bengali, painted in the background. This is an important image in Ray’s career as a graphic designer, because it is an image where both the painter and the filmmaker in him emerge, almost as one. The way he uses flowing lines to outline his figures, and his figure-drawing (the drawing of the human form) in general, is very accomplished. Also, seen as a whole, it has a cinematic quality to it: the scale and the size of each object and person, as he has painted them, varies, as the camera-eye, or the Kino-Eye, may have seen the scene. The dynamism of the imagery, a moment of movement frozen for eternity, would appeal, again, especially to an animator, and so it does to me. The image reminds one of his documentary film on Rabindranath Tagore which he had made in the same year.

 

***

 

The illustration for Baksha Rahasya (The Mystery of the Box), also a detective novel in the Feluda series, is yet another example of how cinematic Ray’s illustrations were. The view of a man typing out a manuscript and the detective duo—Feluda and his assistant and cousin Topshe—smaller in size, in yet another skillful use of foreshortening, creates a great sense of depth within the illustration which seems to have been thought of in terms of seeing the scene through the eyes of the movie camera. Also the typewriter is drawn in wonderful detail, with all its elements etched out clearly. Ray uses thin as well as thick lines of the pen to bring out details such as the man’s hair and the outline of his profile. Another important aspect of this illustration is the way he uses paper white to create an impression of volume, within a human body bound by lines. This illustration is the original, drawn for the Feluda novel Baksha Rahasya published in the Pujo (Durga Puja) Issue of the Bengali magazine Desh, and we can see the instructions given by Ray to the block-maker in red, in the left hand corner. Also notice how he has sketched the folds of the man’s shirt, within the outline of his profile. The artists who Ray learnt from taught him that outlines, by themselves, are dead things. He learnt from his Mastermoshai (teacher) Nandalal Bose how to catch the rhythm of life within the outlines, so the figure comes alive to our mind’s eye via even a line drawing.

 

***

 

The poster design created by Ray for the film Joi Baba Felunath (The Elephant God, 1979)—dimensions: 30 by 40 inches—is another interesting example of how he exploited both positive and negative spaces within a format. Here, paper white is the colour of the lettering, with black in the background. Notice the incorporation of a pistol that is being fired within the title-design. Joi Baba Felunath is, once again, a crime-thriller-cum-adventure woven around the detective Feluda. So, to prepare his audience for this visual treat, he brings in just one potent visual element and nothing more. Also fascinating is the use of colour, how he exploits the contrast between black, red and white to demonstrate sparks and the effect of firing a pistol. Yet it gives nothing away of the plot at all, stoking curiosity about what the black space may comprise. The way Ray uses lettering in this poster makes me think of how excellent it would have been if he had designed Bengali type-faces too.

 

***

 

One of the books that haunted Ray for years, and which he finally made into a film of the same name in 1984, was Rabindranath Tagore’s novel Ghare Baire (The Home and the World). I was fortunate enough to be present at the shooting of this film, as an observer in his unit, and the experience of seeing the great master at work is unparalleled.

 

The film is about the heroine Bimala’s (played by Swatilekha Sengupta) coming out of the zenana-mahal to the outside world and her entire experience of falling in love with the revolutionary Sandip (played by Soumitra Chattopadhyay). This is a novel set against the freedom struggle for India’s Independence, especially the violent or ‘terrorist’ segment of it. The poster of the film was designed by Ray and executed and finished by his artist son Sandip Ray. Its dimensions are 30 by 40 inches. The symbolic flames of the freedom struggle, probably felt to be burning throughout the country back when the novel was set, are depicted within the logo where flames form the outline of a Bengali vowel. What appeals to me most is the silhouetted figure of Bimala, and her elongated shadow, against the doorway. Ray epitomizes the ‘coming out’ of Bimala from her world inside the house through this image. What is especially clever is the way Ray uses the stained glass in the arch of the doorway; immediately setting the story in the late-Victorian era, around the period in which Tagore set his story.

 

***

 

The costume design by Ray for the four ministers, as well as the Clerk, or Peshkar, of the Diamond King’s Court for the film Hirak Rajar Deshe (Kingdom of Diamonds, 1980) is a very interesting example of how Ray pre-designed almost every visual detail of his film. He has drawn the four ministers’ figures complete with the colour-scheme of their costumes, including their head-gear. Another interesting feature of this visual scanned from his own kheror khata, or red notebook, is that he had attached fabric or textile pieces to be used for the actual costumes, so that the person making the costumes would have an idea of exactly what Ray had in mind when he designed them. This is also telling of what Ray could achieve when he did colour illustrations. They are his ‘film graphics’, in a way, and give us a clear picture of what the characters in the final film will look like.

 

***

 

The entire task of creating this book has enriched the visual designer and animator in me, creating a sense of what graphic design can be at its best, when executed by a true maestro.

 

I see this book as a homage to a maestro I have seen and exchanged words and ideas with very closely over the last ten years of his life. One hopes too that the book, with many more images, including works by great masters like Nandalal Bose and Annada Munshi, besides those by Ray himself, will be a feast for the eyes— a visual treat.

 

Images excerpted from Looking Beyond: Graphics of Satyajit Ray by Jayanti Sen, courtesy of Roli Books. You can purchase the book here

“I want real people in the films.”

33 year old Samira Makhmalbaf, clad in black, sits on a plastic chair, patiently greeting many people who have lined up to talk to her. Someone hands her a canvas, a portrait of her in charcoal. She smiles. Her quiet, gentle demeanour belies the many laurels her work has won world over.

The eldest of the three Makhmalbaf siblings, Iranian director and screenwriter Samira is the first in her family to follow in the footsteps of her father, renowned filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf. Yet today she is a force to be reckoned with on her own steam.

At 17, she was the youngest director to present her feature film, ‘The Apple’, in the Un Certain Regard section at the Festival de Cannes. This was her first feature. Films that followed, ‘The Blackboard’ and ‘At Five in the Afternoon’, also competed at Cannes, winning the Jury Prize in 2000 and 2003 respectively. ‘At Five in the Afternoon’ was the first feature film shot in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. Samira has been a member of the Jury at Cannes too, as well as of that at the Venice International Film Festival, the Berlin International Film Festival, the Moscow International Film Festival, the Locarno Film Festival and the Montreal World Film Festival. She is said to be a part of the ‘New Wave’ of Iranian cinema.

 

What was it like to grow up around your father? To grow up acting in his films and working so closely with him, even when you worked on your own films? What influence has he had on your personal journey as a filmmaker? Do you consciously think about distinguishing your work from his when you make movies?

I can say the first thing that my father gave me was the love of cinema, because there are a lot of filmmakers in the world but I don’t think that all their children are making films, or that they love cinema this much, or that they ‘continue’ cinema (as a legacy). I love my father a lot, and I saw his passion for cinema, and I wanted to discover cinema. And I remember when I was five years old, when I saw his film screened on the big screen, for me it was like a miracle. It was the best thing I knew.

 

Which film was it?

It was The Peddler. For me it was this miracle and I wanted to do the same thing. Also his personality… I think even if he was not a filmmaker he would inspire me in many ways as a human being. It is possible to just watch him and gain. Watch him searching for peace, and making the world a better world. Because, I think, his cinema is not just about making films. Cinema is not, for him, just an entertainment. So I think I have learned that from him. Also, he became my teacher, because I left school at the age of 15 and then he taught cinema to me. And then, our relationship is actually like four relationships: he is my father, he is my teacher, he is my friend and he is my colleague. These are different roles. And I can say he has been my biggest teacher, for the longest time, and if I have some influence of his, I’m proud of that. But whether my cinema is different from his or not, all I can say is that I think that as human beings we are different in many aspects. I am Samira and he is Mohsen. But ultimately it is for the audience to gauge from watching my films.

 

You were the subject of your brother Maysam’s documentary (How Samira Made The Blackboard) and your sister Hana also initially started off (Joy of Madness) by shooting you casting for your film (At Five in the Afternoon). What was it like being on that side of the camera? Being the subject…

Actually I just kept doing my job. I was very focused on the making and I was not conscious about being shot myself, about How Samira Made The Blackboard. I was doing what I had to do. Because I don’t make films like a very professional person who treats filmmaking like an industry. For me, making a film is like a very big belief in what I do. It’s a very big passion. And I believe it’s going to change something for at least one person in the world. So, in that moment, even though it is hard or difficult, as making films is a challenge, I forget everything. I forget myself.

But what I remember about Hana’s film, which started with me casting for mine, but which is a completely different film… what I remember is that, once or twice, I was very aware of her filming me. Because, you see, this was the first time after the fall of the Taliban, in Afghanistan. I was making a film there and women were not ready for that and they were scared of it— so you were very aware of what was happening around you. And you can see the real face of Afghanistan through my sister’s film because she was very young, just 14 years old, and her camera was not something very special. So sometimes they didn’t notice her and sometimes they would be surprised at how she didn’t listen to me. And thank god she didn’t listen to me (when I suggested to her that it may not be a good idea) and she made this film.

How Samira Made The Black Board is from when I was 18. I was in the festival with my first film The Apple and it was a big question for people. They always asked me, “Oh! You are a woman. You come from Iran. You are young.” You know, sometimes they said, “You are small. How can you make a film?” Very quickly after that, it came to my mind, “Okay. A filmmaker should be an old, big man, even European.” I wanted to make the film The Apple but it so happened that I became a symbol of women, young women, who can make films. And once you’ve made a film then you break this cliché and after that it’s easier. Because then people can think that, “Okay, if one can do that, others can do it as well.” And I think for my brother also it was something interesting to look at in my filmmaking, and to see how the process of it is. So, for that, he made the film.

 

How Samira Made The Blackboard:

 

 

The Apple:

 

 

At Five in the Afternoon:

 

It’s interesting that you say that, because the kind of films you make are very political. Their themes are very political. So when you make such films, do you feel as if a political role has been thrust upon you? You may not think of yourself as a spokesperson in any way but do you feel that people, especially Iranians, expect you to represent them in a particular way?

I feel my films of course have some political dimension and layer as well, because of living in Iran. Because politics is interfering with our lives in every single moment. If we want to think of something, the politicians and rules have to decide. They decide whether we can make this film or not— especially in Iran. Also they try and decide what we believe or, on some days, what we eat or what we drink, to whom we talk to… and all these things. So it is a case of politics interfering in our life. So when we talk about a human story, it also becomes political. And, of course, as a filmmaker, one can talk about every subject one wants to talk about. But for me, the first important thing is not politics, it’s human issues. Because, I think, if we take a relationship between two humans, and if we focus on that—say the relationship between two friends, or a husband and wife—if we focus on that and if it’s correct, if it’s good, if it’s humanistic and if there is peace in there, then it becomes peaceful and good in the larger view of things. So if we don’t find democracy at a place you will not find democracy even in the human relationships there. So they ask me, “You are Iranian? You are a woman?” I think before being a woman, Iranian, young, old, being born at this moment, or later or before, I’m a human. So I try to tell the story of that. The main subjects of my films are human issues. Of course, they’re talking about one’s culture as well, and they’re also talking about politics.

 

Besides the content of your films, is there a politics to your aesthetics, your form, as well? 

Of course. It’s an art, but I believe beauty and art can save the world. I’m an artist and, for me, creating art and beautiful things is one of the first things I care about. How to tell a story, how to picture scenes myself, how are the songs and the music of the film… I think a film is two things: what you want to say, and how you tell that. Both are important. I don’t think they’re very different. Content and form come together. The rhythm of a film is the film itself. The way you talk about it is exactly what you say. And, as I told you, my films are humanistic and also political. They are not just political. Of course, I also talk about the relationship between concepts such as ‘power’ and ‘the nation’. But where does power come from? From human relationships.

 

You use non-actors in your films. Do you do so to bring about a certain sense of realism?

Yes, I always work with non-professional actors in the films and I love it. I make films about real people. My inspiration comes from reality. So I want real people in the films. It’s difficult but if you can be patient and if you know what to do, it can be a miracle and magic. Because their reality and their imagination also come into the film. Their soul also, their story also, comes into the film.

 

How difficult is it, because they are not actors?

It is difficult and it is challenging but if you know what you need, then the result is great. And I have to say there are some techniques I use. It takes a lot of trust and faith and love. When I search for my actors I search for someone whose soul is similar to the soul of my character and then I don’t tell them the whole story. I just give them the general idea, but I don’t let them know every detail of what is happening.

 

Do they read the script?

No, I just tell them the general idea. And many times the whole script is actually written only after editing because something or the other changes while making the film. As they (the actors) come into the film, their reality, their real life or some part of their person, affects the film. Sometimes I explain things to them, sometimes I try to make them imitate me and sometimes I evoke something in them because I know that if I tell him or her a particular thing then he or she is going to show that character. So these are the things I do.

 

You mix real stories and fiction, which emerges from your imagination, in your films. How do you balance the two? 

About imagination and reality? I think that, for me, art is where reality and imagination make love together and there is this miracle that happens where you can’t tell what is real and what is imagined, where are the metaphors and where you are speaking directly. People see themselves in the film, but it doesn’t end there. It’s like in surrealism. I like the surrealism not of (Salvador) Dali, which is completely imagination, but (Rene) Magritte’s surrealism, in which there is some reality and at the same time there are one or two elements that are not real and you don’t know where the border between the two lies. Here is the window, you see that it’s real. But in the picture, in the painting, where the clouds come in, there is a little bit of surrealism, which I like. And this imagination comes from the first idea and also from the imagination of the character as well.

 

How do you think films are going to bring about change in Iran? Because you make films, your whole family makes films, but there is strict censorship within the country and your films are banned— so people can’t see them. So how do you think films can bring about a change? Can they at all?

I’ll answer this generally, not only about Iran. Humans in the world are suffering from lots of pain and much of it is because of the way we think. And cinema has the power to change the way we think and that is one of the reasons I am in cinema. And, also, I think cinema is like a mirror; you put in front of society and society and culture can see itself and if they find something wrong they can change it. So yes, I believe cinema can change the world for the better.

 

Do you think people in Iran are aware of the significance their cinema has across the world?

I think so, yes. And, especially, I can see that through my father’s films because it was after the (Islamic) Revolution, because he was thinking of the progress after the Revolution and everything. And artists are most sensitive to these changes. They think and they bring up what is happening in society. If there is pain, they feel that. If there is some beauty, they see that. Especially after the Revolution, we have good art cinema because of many reasons. Because of not having Hollywood in Iran and also because of censorship which puts a lot of pressures on filmmakers and artists. In another way it makes them stronger to search for what they want to say through cinema. To search themselves and our culture. So they (the filmmakers) went to poetry. And I think when there is some darkness, sometimes, you can find light and if you can find the light in the darkness that is very important.

 

Also Read: “Even our name is banned in Iran.” Samira’s sister Hana Makhmalbaf on her films, her father, her family and her politics.