Focus

A growing number of new, young Indian filmmakers are emerging with an international framework to their perceptions. It is with them that India may well claim its place in the Asian success that has swept the world film arena, especially at festivals like Cannes...

Geographically, this year’s Cannes tipped heavily towards the eastern hemisphere. One third of the films in competition were from the Far and Middle East. South Korea blazed into competition for the first time with Im Kwon-teak’s polished fable, Chunhyang. Newcomers were welcomed with Iran’s 20-year-old Samira Makhmalbaf and China’s actor-director Jiang Wen, both presenting their second features. The Japanese master Nagisa Oshima surfaced with his first film in fourteen years. The celebrated Ang Lee, after his recent three English films based on western themes, returned to his roots with the martial arts spectacular, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragons.

The closing night awards announcements clinched the point. All three Iranian films entered in the festival’s main sections won awards -- an astonishing achievement. In competition, the Jury Prize went to Makhmalbaf’s Blackboards, a many-layered film with metaphorical edges on survival among rugged conditions. The coveted Camera d’Or for the most promising debut feature went to two Iranian films, Hassan Yekpatanah’s Djomeh, a tender portrayal of an Afghan boy trying to win his way past racism in a remote Iranian village, and Bahman Ghobadi’s searing A Time for Drunken Horses, of orphaned children left to inhuman devices to protect their siblings.

The FIPRESCI award, given by international critics, also favoured Asian films. Its award for the best film in an official section went to the Japanese film “Eureka”, a brilliant four-hour study on how a mindless terrorist act can numb and destroy those it touches. The award for the best film in a parallel section went, once again, to Iran’s “A Time for Drunken Horses”. “Eureka” also won the Ecumenical Jury Award.

In competition, Asia scored handsomely. The Grand Prix went to mainland China’s Jiang Wen’s "Devils on the Doorstep", a bizarre comedy based on World War II vagaries. The Best Director honour was awarded to Taiwan’s Edward Yang for "Yi Yi … A One and a Two”, a compelling drama on family disintegration. The Best Actor award went to Hong Kong’s Tony Leung for his role in "In The Mood For Love", a stylishly made film on love and infidelity.

Remarkably, the awards to the Asians were largely non-controversial. Resentment though was writ large on Hollywood films being sidelined and the Italians, Spanish and Germans being bypassed. Bernardo Bertolucci, representing the first film he screened in Cannes several years ago, retaliated with, "In Italy we should be asking ourselves why there is no Italian film here". That is the question we should ask ourselves too. There was no Indian film in any section this year in Cannes.

While Asian cinema in Cannes and other major festivals is striding ahead, its focus and reference points are Korea, Taiwan, China, Japan, Israel ... but not India. A country, which for decades was at the forefront of the Asian imprint at Europe’s film festivals, is losing out. From late-50s, spearheaded by Satyajit Ray’s Pather Panchali and his consistent showcasing of a new film almost every year, Indian cinema was a highlight in Berlin, Venice and even Cannes. Mid-70s to early 90s saw a spate of exciting new Indian talent that was internationally sought after, with names such as Mrinal Sen, Shyam Benegal, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, the late G Aravindan, Buddhadeb Dasgupta and many others. However, in the past decade, the presence of Indian films at festivals has dwindled.

At a panel discussion organised by Berlin’s Forum for Young Cinema on the promotion of Asian cinema, I was the only journalist among seasoned representatives of European sales companies. While they lauded the growth of Asian cinema in world markets, there was no reference made to India. I asked why - a question greeted with a furrowing of brows. One speaker said that while she had tried hard to sell Indian films, she had been unsuccessful. Someone added that the paperwork over film rights and terms of sale was a deterrent. All the speakers agreed on one point. Indian films were largely inaccessible in subject and style to present a marketable product. This aspect seems to have placed Indian cinema on a more marginal bracket than before.

Filmmakers in India tend not to access or gear themselves to the technical excellence or pacing that is demanded today. Nor do they have the funds to do so. Besides, India’s television and cable wave has ushered in a virtually non-stop rush of television work, a more economically rewarding field. India’s realistic or unconventional, as opposed to mainstream, cinema relies mainly on meagre government funding which in no way offers the budgets needed for today’s exacting standards. The crushing blow for realistic cinema in India is that it has no reliable sale or distribution opportunities even in its home country. Not surprisingly, the many negatives seem to have affected creativity and inspiration.

The good news lies in the international funding that is warily eyeing experimental Indian cinema. This is how recent talent has been sighted at Cannes and elsewhere, with films by Shaji (Dance of Death) and Mani Kaul (The Servant’s Shirt). Rituparno Ghosh s new film Utsab has found funding from America and is being premiered in Los Angeles next month. A growing number of new young filmmakers are emerging with an international framework to their perceptions. It is with them that India may well claim its place in the Asian success that has swept the world film arena.

Uma Da Cunha