Thursday, March 31, 2005
The Best of British Weather
You know those frustratingly sultry still nights that you get in Madras? When you just lie there, unable to sleep on a stuffy warm bed. The pillow under your neck going wet with sweat. Your whole body feels sticky. It is 2:00 AM and your dinner by this time has long been digested, and you might even feel a little hungry. Trying not to pull your hair out in irritation, you walk up to the window, draw the curtains, unlatch the window, push it open. The doors swing out with a reluctant swagger and you can hear them bang against the outer wall; crystal clear, undistorted clap and rattle, of the heat-trapping glass on a wooden frame.
You expect at-least a semblance of a breeze, but you are confronted with an unmoving branch of a tree. Far below and far away, the Sodium Vapour lamps on the street blaze away an orange light, but it cannot show you that dog on the street, who you can hear is venting his own frustration by crying out loud. You wish you could too. The night is still. Nothing stirs, the warm hair just sits there lazily: all around you and you wish you could grab it and tear it away like you would a heavy musty curtain.
You return disappointed to a terribly stuffy bed, your wet back hitting warm cotton. Soon enough, a low buzz echoes around your head, an unseen insect is determined to serenade you. Then, some of her friends decide to feast... on you. You regret having opened that bloody window!
That's Madras summer, and I don't miss it terribly. Definitely do not miss it because Britain has its own version. Do not believe it when someone talks about "living amidst the clouds" as something fantastic and pleasurable. The Atlantic in only too willing to send in some low clouds to lower themselves further and settle down like an overfed lazy fat cow over the South West. The damp cold air just hangs there, slowly pissing on your washing, soaking everything slowly and refusing to go away. You just wish you could tear through the weather and let in some sunshine, but no. It just will not go. The frustration is just like when you get popcorn kernel stuck somewhere in your back teeth and your tongue is not dextrous enough and your fingers are too grimy.
But fuck everything! Cos I just got my parcel from Amazon.com and it has some of my favourite movies on DVD. It is indeed very gratifying when you can finally call your own something you wanted for a long time. And that too, when you can pay for it with money you have actually earned yourself. My days of clearing tables in a restaurant may not end soon, but I actually get to blow some moolah on the best of Stanley Kubrick! In fact I went ahead and bought all his movies, except his early documentaries, Killer’s Kiss (1955) and Spartacus (1960)
So look forward to al-least a couple of related posts in the future. One about working in the only South Indian restaurant in the City, and the other about Kubrick's brilliant The Killing (1956).
Friday, March 25, 2005
Defining Tamil cinema in the International context with a reference to Mani Ratnam’s Kannathil Muthamittal
Note: This is NOT a review or even an analysis of Kannathil Muthamittal. I think that trivia has a big role in publicity and not in analysis; therefore this writeup might not contain any. It has also been modified from its original academic format. This time I have not split it up into parts either. All in one go! Also note that the use of the term "Bollywood" has been forced upon me. I would not chose to use it otherwise.
Introduction
Even though this essay takes Mani Ratnam’s Kannathil Muthamittal as an example, it goes beyond the film to look at Tamil cinema and Indian cinema in a larger context.
The essay begins with a definition of Indian cinema, Tamil cinema and the Tamil cinema market. The political and cultural issue surrounding Indian, Tamil and "Bollywood" cinema are discussed next. The essay then identifies what is referred to as a "crossover" market. Mani Ratnam and his film Kannathil Muthamittal are explained, and then the discussion moves onto other terms that can be associated with it like "middle cinema" and "minority cinema". The essay concludes with a brief discussion about the international distribution of Kannathil Muthamittal and its ramification for future Tamil and Indian cinema distribution worldwide.
Indian Cinema
The Indian film industry is a conglomeration of various big and small regional language industries. Considering the multitude of languages in India, there are as many film industries; but the biggest in terms of economics are the Hindi/Urdu (Based in Bombay), Tamil (Based in Madras), Telugu (Based in Hyderabad), Bengali (Calcutta), Kannada (Bangalore), and Malayalam (Kerala) industries. Other smaller film industries include the Marathi and Oriya film industries amongst others.
Tamil is one of the four main south Indian languages, and like its more popular cousin from the north, (the Bombay film industry), the Tamil industry boasts of an old homegrown film culture. As the film medium evolved in India, regional film industries consolidated themselves along linguistic lines. Nevertheless, it would not be inappropriate to define a common Indian film aesthetic. The most obvious traits of which include song and dance, lavish productions and high melodrama. This though is the accepted "format" for mainstream or popular cinema. But, taking for example internationally popular Bengali cinema from the 1950s and 60s, filmmakers like Satyajit Ray, Ritwik Ghatak, Bimal Roy and others yet made meaningful cinema which did not conform to the stereotype.
Tamil cinema and defining the Tamil cinema market
The worldwide Tamil cinema market can be roughly calculated from the about 74 million Tamil speakers around the world, most of whom are based in the southern part of South Asia (South India and Sri Lanka), with a significant number of speakers in the Malay peninsula, South Africa, various Indian Ocean islands and a large number of expatriates settled in Europe and North America.
Even though each of these places can be construed as an independent market, for the sake of convenience, the Tamil (or for that matter, any South Asian language’s) market can be divided into two main sections: natives speakers market (in Asia); and expatriates market (mainly in Europe and North America). The native market is the old entrenched market, where it can be understood that film conventions are more ingrained. The expatriate market is interesting because it is fairly new, and most of it is based (at-least geographically) in another film culture. In today’s context, the expatriate market is also considered to be wealthier (even if not, in terms of absolute population numbers). This is true of the other large film industries in India as well, especially the Bombay film industry, which enjoys one of the biggest expatriate markets in the world.
Tamil cinema in the context of Indian cinema and "Bollywood"
As in any culture around the world, politics and popular culture are closely linked, therefore the need to identify Tamil cinema within the larger Indian cinema context, and as it being unique (especially differentiated from Bombay cinema) is as much a political pursuit as it is cultural.
"Bollywood" has become a widely accepted term to define "Bombay’s Hollywood". This term is loosely applied to all of Indian cinema, or at-least that brand of Indian cinema that follows a generic set of conventions. Considering the origins of the term, and also considering the fact that Hindi/Urdu language cinema enjoys a much larger native (and now increasingly a much larger expatriate) audience, it would seem politically inconvenient for Tamil, if not any other "regional-Indian linguistic" cinema to be brought under this umbrella. This despite the fact that stylistically the variance is very little, and each of these regional language industries have come to add the “wood” suffix to their own place names.
Many Tamil film viewers would dispute the claim that mainstream Tamil cinema is no different from mainstream Bombay cinema, but Radhika Nair, who works as the BBFC’s Tamil interpreter, (also being part of the expatriate market), puts things in perspective. She watches Tamil as well Hindi cinema coming into the UK, and finds very little difference between the two, though she says that recently, she has come across a few Tamil films that are willing to be experimental and break the mould of formulaic tradition. Yet, she acknowledges such a change as happening in Hindi cinema as well.
Despite regional parochialisms hijacking this exercise in comparison, there are certain indisputable truths when it comes to comparing Tamil and Bombay cinema. The talent pool (especially of actors, as Nair identifies) in Tamil cinema is generally considered better, with some South Indian technicians setting trends in the much more affluent Bombay industry.
Another point raised is a much wider cultural issue. Tamil is one of the oldest languages in India, if not in the world. It therefore comes with its unique cultural and literary heritage. Considering this, it would seem incongruous for many to see Tamil cinema bunched under the undistinguished umbrella of "Bollywood".
The third market
While "Bollywood" cinema has established a niche for itself amongst its expatriate Asian audience, it has also found for itself an increasing "crossover" market. This comprises of non-Asians who have come to watch, and are interested enough in this style of cinema to be economically significant for the filmmakers. This follows in the success of films like the Oscar nominated Lagaan (2001) and Mira Nair’s hugely successful Monsoon Wedding (2001). "Bollywood" entered the Oxford English dictionary and caught the imagination of the western world. It therefore made good economic sense to pander to popular taste and reaffirm the unique selling points of mainstream Indian cinema. It would be thus incompatible with the notion of "Bollywood" to make any film that goes against the grain. The only way Indian cinema can be considered part of meaningful world cinema, rather than been seen as just another regional flavour of American mainstream kitsch (Hollywood) would be to dissociate from a term whose meaning has been strongly defined in its form.
These days, "middle cinema" has become a buzzword; where an increasing number of filmmakers have been willing to break from the traditions of the past to find a more disparate audience. One of these filmmakers is Madras based Mani Ratnam. While a majority of Ratnam’s films have been Tamil and South Indian, he has been fairly successful in Bombay as well with his Hindi ventures. This discussion considers Mani Ratnam’s Kannathil Muthamittal (2002) in terms of it as representative of "middle" Tamil, and Indian cinema, while putting it in a political context; and also discussing its own politics. I personally would not rate Kannathil Muthamittal as one of the best Tamil films ever, or even one of Ratnam’s best. It certainly is not a typical example of Tamil cinema either. But, Kannathil Muthamittal is one of the few recent mainstream Tamil films that have received worldwide distribution, and more importantly, distribution to a "crossover" market. It has also picked up awards at international festivals, and gained recognition.
Mani Ratnam and Kannathil Muthamittal
Mani Ratnam is considered to be one of the most important Indian and Tamil filmmakers today. Even though he comes from a family of film producers, he never trained formally in filmmaking; his craft is mostly self-taught. While his roots are very much entrenched in traditional Indian cinema, he, in his current role as independent-producer and director, is a keen follower of the international film business. While the success of his early films owed a lot to his refreshing treatment of commonplace filmic themes, his later works, considering his astute business sense, tended to focus on "issues". Roja (1992), a film that enjoyed nationwide success (while consequently being dubbed into Hindi) dealt with the popular Kashmir issue. After this, his attention turned to other political "issues" which provided his films with a larger scope and thus a larger audience. Consequently, he made his first exclusively Hindi film Dil Se (1998), a love story set against the backdrop of the North-East Indian insurgency. This film enjoyed phenomenal success abroad, especially in the Hindi/Urdu expatriate market that it even stayed briefly in the UK top 10.
While Ratnam has peppered his prolific moviemaking with sensitive dramas, he has nevertheless continued his efforts at attempting to film politically sensitive topics. Politics in mainstream Indian cinema tends to be rather naïve, idealistic and superficial, and while Mani Ratnam refined its depiction, like many aspects of his films (including the presence of song and dance), vestiges of traditional Indian cinema still permeate his films. A discussion of this as related to "middle cinema" is continued later in the essay.
Kannathil Muthamittal made in 2002, tells the story of a girl, born to Sri Lankan Tamil parents, adopted by an Indian Tamil couple; this in the context of the civil war in Sri Lanka. When the girl is nine, her adoptive parents decide to tell their daughter about her origins and the child seeks to find her biological mother, who has since become a rebel fighter in the Sri Lankan civil war. The story details the emotional struggles the girl and her family go through during this quest.
The civil war in Sri Lanka has been until recently an issue conveniently not referred to in mainstream Tamil discourse in India, especially since the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, allegedly by Tamil Terrorists operating from Sri Lanka. In 1999, Santosh Sivan, another South Indian filmmaker, made a Tamil film The Terrorist. This film though being well received abroad for its gritty realism, was very unwelcome in the Tamil political circles, where its depiction of a female suicide bomber was dubbed naïve and "childish". In this political context, and considering the fact that most of the expatriate Tamil market in the west comprises of Tamils of Sri Lankan origin, Mani Ratnam’s Kannathil Muthamittal’s politics is mostly non-committal and "safely" non-partisan (while this was not exactly the case in many of Ratnam’s earlier political films - a case in point is Roja (1992), which received exactly the same treatment from Kashmiri groups as did The Terrorist (1999) from the Tamils).
The idea of markets and political determinants apart, Kannathil Muthamittal was marketed as much as a representative of Indian "Middle cinema", as it was as a film set in the civil war. Sure enough, the setting of the film contributed hugely to its publicity and exposure, but its reviews seemed to recognise its aesthetic qualities as well.
"Middle Cinema"
While discussing Mani Ratnam’s brand of filmmaking, a brief mention was made of his roots and his ambitions. In general understanding, "middle cinema" attempts to straddle the gulf between mainstream simplistic kitsch and serious "art house" cinema. In the treatment of subjects, Indian cinema, which remained fairly insular through much of its history depending solely on its own local markets, tended to be simplistic and escapist where the primary role of cinema was seen as mainstream entertainment. These words though used loosely, have come to define "popular" or "commercial" cinema the world over. The largest of which being mainstream American "Hollywood", it comes as no surprise to find a slowly opening-up, or "globalising" Indian cinema to identify even nomenclaturally with it.
Globalisation has also brought "foreign" cinema to the masses in India. It has also exposed Indian filmmakers to alternative filming conventions. Thus, this "middle cinema", in one sense, is an evolutionary branch of Indian cinema slowly defining and redefining itself. Yet, as always has been, it is possible to find in popular discourse a classification of films in terms of their cinematic purpose and their intended audience’s levels of sophistication. It would be unwise to consider any audience as being homogenous, more so an Indian audience. Thus, on another level, "middle cinema" could be just another branch of popular cinema that just happens to find a significant market, happily cohabiting with an enduring "kitschier" market.
Mani Ratnam and his colleagues are in India today, the purveyors of this "middle cinema" market. It is no coincidence that while this "middle market" is growing even within the native markets in India, filmmakers are increasingly looking to find such audiences in the expatriate and crossover markets. While this makes good economic sense, the politically and culturally aware filmmakers also find that as a brand, Indian cinema could potentially find a more respectable place in the arena of world cinema than be merely seen as escapist and colourfully distracting. It is true that such escapist cinema has a role to play, and the fact that India can supply it in good measure should be in itself a matter of pride for Indians, but the issue runs deeper than that. Any piece of cultural export helps defines the image of the source nation. While historically India and the "exotic east", have enjoyed a certain image in the western world (where most of the "crossover" market lies), this most of the time does little justice to the realities that exist in India.
The perpetuation of the status quo in the aesthetics of the Indian film also seems to exclude the possibility of any other form of storytelling or film aesthetic emerging from India, even if it has the remotest chance of redefining the perception of Indian cinema in the west. An example is Iranian cinema, which today enjoys a certain level of respect world-over, from its rather obscure origins.
Where the lines between "art house" and "popular" cinema are being blurred by the increasing economic success of the former world over, in India, the idea of "middle cinema" has much more concrete definitions. Taking the example of Kannathil Muthamittal, it contains many elements of traditional Indian cinema. It is more than two hours long, exhibited with an intermission; it contains songs, with a certain level of elaborate choreography; it is mixed genre; it is slightly naïve and melodramatic; it is exquisitely photographed glamorising its contents; among other things. Though none of these are particularly "sinful" activities, Ratnam has carefully omitted certain formulaic traits that seemed to have hitherto defined popular cinema. The songs in his films do not usually stand out as set-pieces divorced from the main story. The mixing of genres is much more subtle. He avoids multiple story "tracks" that are usually independent of the main narrative. He also attempts very hard to make his characters appear realistic, if not real.
This while helping a "crossover" audience not feel completely at odds when confronted with the Indian film aesthetic, also might, in the hardcore fan of Indian "curry" induce a certain disappointment.
Minority language cinema and the international distribution of Kannathil Muthamittal
The odd culinary example might do with a little more elaboration. The concept of the Indian "curry" which in the UK has come to define Indian cuisine does not do justice to its bastardisation from vague roots in India. Yet, it is an enduring image of India. Likewise is "Bollywood". So in order to market Indian "middle" cinema to a "crossover" audience, one could take the safer route by peppering it with easily recognisable "curry" elements, or take the bold decision of rebranding Indian cinema; but this would take time.
Tamil cinema, and the Tamil language itself, as with its long-running political history, has acquired a definition of being in the "minority", culturally in the larger Indian context. Therefore defining Tamil as "minority" Indian cinema is a way out of escaping the "Bollywood" "curry" image. But for this, it is important that Tamil cinema have its own USP. This is where, a film like Kannathil Muthamittal, with its moderate economic and critical success internationally has an increasing relevance.
Another important aspect of international film distribution is the video release. Kannathil Muthamittal was released on DVD, and is sold worldwide (and in the UK), exclusively through Ayngaran International. While the DVD itself is available with English subtitles, most of the promotional activity, since its release is focussed on the native or the expatriate market rather than on a "crossover" market. Ayngaran is faced with odd enough problems of piracy within the two Tamil speaking markets that the distributor seems to focus most of its attention on business in these markets.
Even though this is a start, there needs a lot to be done to make Tamil cinema economically successful in the West. In the UK alone, Kannathil Muthamittal, unlike its "curry" "Bollywood" cousins did not enjoy a wider theatrical release. While Bombay cinema had the resources and the backing of a tested routine to be released in cinemas like the Odeon, Ratnam’s film was released only in the Himalaya Palace in Southall in London. This cinema is patronised primarily by an expatriate Tamil audience, and not by a "crossover" audience. World over, It was released primarily through film festivals to the "crossover" audience. The film is listed by Europa Cinema’s network as released in the UK, and it did make a screening on the BBC. The filmmakers did enough to be recognised and for people to take notice of what an American reviewer for want of a better definition called "A serious side to Bollywood". (Bob Townsend In: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, GA, USA), Atlanta Newspapers, Vol. 56, No. 170, 18 June 2004, c3, (NP)) (Source: Imdb)
Thus films like Kannathil Muthamittal might just pave the way for better Tamil cinema in the future to slowly be recognised as being part of the "alternative", "minority" or "middle" Indian cinema. Though a good film would transcend its labels, film distribution is much less an idealistic activity, and more of a practical marketing pursuit, where labels help sell.
With inputs from
Madras Talkies – Producers of Kannathil Muthamittal (Mani Ratnam & G. Srinivasan)
Ayngaran International – Sole theatrical and video distributor of Tamil films in the UK
Radhika Nair – Tamil translator for the British Board of Film Certification
Useful sources of further Information available on the Internet
(All as on 19 March 2005)
Imdb entry on Kannathil Muthamittal
Imdb entry on Mani Ratnam
Wikipedia entry on Mani Ratnam
Homepage of Madras Talkies
Homepage of Ayngaran International
Wikipedia entry on the Cinema of India
DVD review of Kannathil Muthamittal by a "crossover" reviewer
Europa Cinemas listing on Kannathil Muthamittal
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
What I have been upto all these days, plus a book recommendation
Quite a lot - From picking through Kubrick to picking through accounts.
I never thought my PGDBA would help. But my modest skills in drawing up business plans, growth forecasts and preparing statements were useful in my Independent Producing and Production Management unit. Now I too am an accountant! After that, I forced myself into a crashcourse in music theory to help me attempt an analysis of Stanley Kubrick's use of sound in 2001 - A Space Odyssey. I then did a little analysis on International distribution of Tamil cinema, which I hope to publish here soon.
Enough excuses to keep me off blogging?
Book recommendation: On Film-Making: An introduction to the craft of the director by Alexander Mackendrick (edited by Paul Cronin). Mackendrick, famous for his Ealing comedies is a very good teacher as well. I should say that this is the best book on film direction I have ever read.
