"INDIAN CINEMA IS FASHIONED BY OUR WANTS AND NEEDS"

CINEMA AND LITERATURE: INDIAN STORY, FAD OR CULTURAL FLOWERING

India Today, March 17, 2005

AMITABH BACHCHAN, ACTOR

Not the rather intellectual topic of "Cinema and literature: fad or
cultural flowering" but "Cinema in India: perception and reality" is what
is going to be the topic of this afternoon. Permit me to begin by
articulating a widely prevalent fact that on every street of this country
there is a nobody who dreams of becoming a somebody. A Satish, Saleem or
Harry who longs to become a Shah Rukh, Salman or Hrithik. Indeed, cinema
is an Eden-like paradise of stories, struggle and triumph, smiles and
tears.

Today I recognise how influential cinema has been as a source of fiction
for many of us. The blend of beauty and sorcery still seems to be the
secret of cinema. How can fiction possibly compete with the stories
scripted by real life? Life has become so strange, its convolutions so
mindboggling that it is a kind of embarrassment to one's meagre
imagination. Is life becoming a movie? Are we living in the republic of
entertainment? Film historians acknowledge that India is the leading
cinema capital of the world. Quantity is our calling card. As for quality,
that has always come under a Pearl Harbour kind of bombardment from the
rest of the world. Yet we love and cherish it. Our cinema is fashioned and
inspired by the wants and needs of our people. Give them something alien
from their conditions and the result is rejection.

Slowly but surely, India is being associated with its cinema. The
often-derided mainstream films have been one of the common threads in
binding the diaspora. Admittedly, the earlier films often had a literary
base. Of late, the packaging or the visual sheen has improved vastly. Yet,
there is an alarming trend of finding shortcuts by ransacking ideas from
the West. Stories sell cinema. Concurrently, there is another belief:
stars sell movies. Nothing and nobody can guarantee that a movie will sell
but the fact remains that stars, present company excluded, are the best
insurance policy going.

Many actors have joined politics but the attitude of the governing order
towards the "filmis" can best be described as circumspect. At every forum,
there is a refrain that our cinema needs qualitative improvement. Like it
or not, before grousing about cinema's deficiencies we have to look at
ourselves in the mirror and maybe reflect upon our own shortcomings.

New regulations, taxes, restrictions, outmoded censorship codes-the film
industry needs to be nurtured, not subverted. We work together as a symbol
of secular existence. The cinema hall is the only venue where an audience
of different faiths and creeds comes together. In the dark of the
auditorium, there is an unspoken sharing. Is this perceived at all? The
answer continues to blow in the winds.

International film festivals could be a windfall but we lack the marketing
initiative and the drive. After the marvellous performance of Lagaan, we
keep talking of making it big time at the Oscars. This discloses a slavish
mentality. There is no need for us to dream of the spotlight at the
Academy Awards. We are okay, they are okay.

Certainly, it would be more than okay if we had a sound financial
infrastructure. Of late, there have been attempts at corporatisation of
entertainment. But in the area of creativity a singular vision rules over
the rest. Trends indicate Indian cinema is considered a business
opportunity not only at home but in the West as well. Indian cinema in the
world economy may still be considered a drop in the ocean but it is a
significant drop. Capable of rising from a ripple to a high tide.

"It will be Indian writers vs diaspora"

WILLIAM DALRYMPLE, WRITER

Nearly 10 years ago, the success of Arundhati Roy's The God of Small
Things changed the entire complexion of Indian writing in English.
Moreover it provoked an immediate literary feeding-frenzy. Foreign
literary agents and publishers descended on India and a whole tranche of
outlines for unfinished novels received major advances. Throughout the
late 1990s barely a month went by without the news of some new writer
being discovered lurking as a sub-editor in The Indian Express or pushing
papers in the Ministry of External Affairs.

Several other books had, of course, prepared the ground for this: Roy
could not have happened without V.S. Naipaul, Salman Rushdie and Vikram
Seth: in particular Rushdie's Midnight's Children redefined and liberated
Indian writing in English from its colonial straightjacket. The 1990s soon
became a time of almost unlimited possibilities for the Indian novel in
English. In 1993, shortly after the success of A Suitable Boy, Pico Iyer
wrote a Time cover story in which he noted: "Where not long ago a student
of the English novel would probably have been weaned on Graham Greene,
Evelyn Waugh and Aldous Huxley, now he will more likely be taught Rushdie
and Okri." Rushdie's prediction that "Indians were in a position to
conquer English literature" seemed to be about to be vindicated.

A decade later, however, it has to be said that there is a slight sense of
disappointment in Delhi. There is certainly a lot of writing going on. The
Salman Rushdies, the Amitav Ghoshs, the Vikram Seths, the Rohinton Mistrys
are still in their 40s or 50s and presumably have at least another 20
years of great books in them. Although a number of interesting new writers
have emerged since 1997, the truth is there has been no new galaxy of
stars to match the stature of those of the '80s and '90s.

Moreover, the big uncertainty in the years to come, it seems to me, is
whether it will continue to be Indians in India mediating this country for
the global audience of English-speaking readers-or whether it will be
NRIs. In Britain and the US in the past few years, the waves have been
made less by authors from South Asia, so much as British or US-born Asians
such as Jhumpa Lahiri and Meera Syal, or what Rushdie might call
"chutneyfied" authors of mixed backgrounds-Hari Kunzru, Zadie Smith and
Monica Ali. This seems to be a trend in music and film as well: if in the
'60s it was Ravi Shankar and Satyajit Ray who presented the arts of India
to the world, now it is Gurinder Chadha, Talvin Singh and Panjabi MC, none
of whom was born in South Asia.

So if the 1990s were about the Empire Writing Back, about the East to West
transmission of culture, and showing how pallid British writing was
compared to the hotter, spicier writers of the subcontinent, this decade
it has been the NRIs who have to some extent been reversing the flow, and
exporting chutneyfied cultural influences West to East. I suspect that in
future the main competition Indian writers aspiring to win the Booker will
face are not going to be the Alan Hollinghursts or the A.S. Byatts, but
their own cousins born and brought up in the West.

DISCUSSION

Q. After Black, can we get an Oscar Award?

Bachchan: Every time we do work in India, why do we compare it with the
West? I am a little dismayed by this comparison. The sooner we stop this,
the better.

Q. Would you like your books to be converted into films?

Dalrymple: As an author making ends meet, everyone dreams that his book is
converted into a film. But as an artist, it is important that books and
their authors don't deal with film stars. Cinema is so colossal, I should
be happy creating small crafted things even if it is for just 100 readers.

Q. What has been the impact of Indian cinema on the image of India?

Bachchan: It is being appreciated the world over. Abroad, I find people
love our films and sing our songs.