Interview
TB : I have been studying
and writing about South Indian cinema, with particular focus on Tamil
cinema. I would like to describe myself as a Film Historian. I have 3
books to my credit. My career was in civil service. I turned seventy
last month.
TB : In the 1970s when there
was a lot of interest in south Indian studies, I found that this area,
Tamil cinema, had not been touched though it was a major influence on
the life of the people. I decided to study it.
TB : The interaction between
cinema and politics started during the silent era itself. It was one
dimensions of the freedom struggle. It gained momentum during the 1930s
following the Civil Disobedience movement. The Congress party, which
was fighting for freedom used cinema as a tool. It helped in giving the
nationalist struggle a mass basis and helped in political mobilisation.
Cinema house emerged as the first democratic space where all castes and
class could gather irrespective of their station in life. This was a
significant development. During the struggle for Independence from
British rule, the nationalists used cinema as an instrument of
propaganda. Later, film personalities began taking part in direct
political action. Through this two-way involvement with the
nationalistic struggle, cinema evolved as a major political force. After India attained Independence, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a
radical political party, used cinema for propagation of its ideas and
came to power in 1967. A number of film actors took active part in
politics and were elected to legislative bodies, both at the state level
and at the Central level. All the five chief ministers who have governed
Tamilnadu since 1967 have been associated with cinema. The first two
were dialogue writers and the three who followed were film stars. Other
political parties, such as Leftists, also used film for propaganda. In
the process Tamil films got politicized, playing significant roles in
political mobilization and political activism.
TB : During the freedom
struggle, in the 1930s and 1940s, many film actors took direct part in
political struggle. They courted arrest and went to jail. Some were
delegates to the National l congress annual conventions. Some conducted
passive resistance, like picketing liquor shops and burning imported
cloth. Sathyamurthy, the congress leader, was deeply involved in
cinema. Many other congress leaders supported this aspect of cinema.
Feature films were used for political propaganda. Some Congress leaders
made documentaries and screened them in cinema houses. This interaction
continued even after India gained independence.
TB : It has assumed many
more ramified forms. The Fan Clubs for one thing. The second is the
caste factor. It plays a role in the star politicians’ career. Thirdly
the reach and impact of cinema has increased manifold due to the
television network and DVD revolution. But I would say that the
ideological content of films is less political now. Jean Luc Godard made
a distinction between making political films and making films
politically; what is happening now in Tamilnadu is the second variety.
Since 1967, all the Chief Ministers of Tamilnadu have been associated
with cinema, one way or the other even before they occupied that office.
-
IR
: Let us now tackle
another side of Tamil cinema: its artistic side. According to you, what
is particular in Tamil cinema (its content, its aesthetics…) and
different from Hindi cinema for instance? And what do they have in
common?
TB : Tamil cinema is rooted
in the soil. The landscape, the households and the character are
authentically Tamil. There is an emphasis on the language, particularly
songs. It is the cinema of the Tamils. Hindi cinema is a kind of a
faceless all-India phenomenon. The common features are, as you know,
more of entertainment content, heavy orality (Characters talk a lot),
taking the story along by verbal narration and song-dance sequences as
entertainment components. Both the films are an entertainment pot pourie
without much of ideological thrust. Of course there have been
significant exceptions.
TB : In the fifties one
could talk about Hollywood style and Company drama style. The three
directors from U S, who came to India and made movies here, brought
about this style. Ellis R. Dungan, M. Omelev and M L Tandon. They started
the Hollywood style. Then there was the company drama style by those
directors who had been trained in the drama companies. The Hollywood
style petered out in the late fifties and the company drama style took
over. This was reinforced by the arrival in the 1960s onwards of many
directors from the drama Sabhas (as different from commercial drama
companies these were amateur groups). In recent years there have been a
set of new directors who are not from the drama tradition. This is
refreshing.
TB : You could see features
of a distinct style in film makers like Balu Mahendra and Bala. But I
do not think we can talk about auteur cinema in this context.
TB : Shakunthalai
(1940), Ezhai padum paadu (1950), Yarukkaka Azhuthan (1965),
Aval Appadiththaan (1978), Anbe Sivam (2003). These are
the best among what I have seen. I must add there are many films I have
not seen. These are the best among what I have seen.
TB : Subramaniapuram
(2008), Kanjeepuram (2009).
TB :
A few details about Tamil
cinema. The first film Keechakavatham, an episode from Mahabharatha
epic, was made in 1916. Since then more than 5500 films have been made
in Tamil, with Chennai (Madras) as the centre. Of all the states in
India, Tamil Nadu has the highest exposure to cinema There are 2545
cinema houses in Tamilnadu.
Tamilnadu, a state in India where Tamil language is spoken, is
130058
sq.km in area and has a population of 66
millions. Outside India also, Tamil is spoken by 6 million by people
spread in different parts of the world such as Sri Lanka, Singapore,
Malaysia, Middle East and South Africa. In these countries also Tamil
films are screened A R Rehman who won two Oscars is a product of Tamil
cinema.
|
