It was after going through several interviews of celebrated author Amish Tripathi, that the thought of posting a write-up on this topic occurred to me. As this post proceeds, the reader would be able to understand why Amish, in my opinion, is very relevant to the future of the film industry in India.
Admittedly, I have not watched many films. While I would not, and could not, claim that I am an intellectual, it is not controvertible that a sizeable chunk of movies generated by the largest film industry in India, Bollywood, does not possess much depth and relies purely on recycled stories and the rather callously termed "item numbers".
Filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri has occasionally said that films have, by and large, reflected the prevailing sentiment of our society, and he illustrates his statement with the following points (to which I've added a few of my own):
(1) As an independent country, India had to chart out a path to the future, for which a progressive psyche was necessary.
The party that was characterized by liberalism and which spearheaded the pre-independence national movement, the Indian National Congress, was at the helm of affairs. Accordingly, the English-educated intellectuals dominated the academic and intellectual space.
While there was no doubt about the fact that the British policies ruined the Indian economy, as established by none other than among the foremost economists in the world at that time: Dr. B R Ambedkar, it was also accepted that English education opened the average Indian to a liberal, globalist outlook and enabled him to challenge the shackles of traditionalism.
Consequently, films appeared to possess a pro-Christian tilt in the 50s and 60s.
(2) Most of the stalwarts of the national movement were socialist in their economic thinking owing to their sympathy towards the plight of the poor.
Accordingly, India adopted a socialist form of economy post-independence. Only a handful had the fortune of establishing private companies, thanks to the licence raj system that was instrumental in making stringent red-tapism a norm in government procedures. Schemes after schemes for the poor were rolled out.
Green Revolution was responsible for increasing the agricultural yield to quite an extent, thus intensifying the feelings of hope (indeed, historian Bipan Chandra has noted in the book India Since Independence that the years under Jawaharlal Nehru were those of optimism, and after a few years of turmoil thereafter, the optimism peaked with India's resounding victory in the 1971 war against Pakistan, firmly establishing Indira Gandhi as a mass leader).
Consequently, the films that characterized the 70s and 80s, more often than not, showed the protagonist as a poor, humble and kind-hearted man struggling to make ends meet, whereas the antagonist was a rich, conniving and exploitative businessman who worshipped nothing but money, and eventually crossed paths with the protagonist.
It may also be theorized that the popularity of the "angry young man" character of the films reflected the opinion of the people regarding State machinery: corrupt and inefficient; forcing the protagonist to resort to vigilantist methods of justice.
(3) With the much-needed economic reforms of 1991, India headed to the era of liberalization, privatization and globalization.
Subsequent years saw foreign companies setting up outlets in the country and the Indian economy taking off in an unprecedented manner. All of a sudden, there were many more jobs available. The private sector was not so negative anymore. Foreign goods started gaining a substantial share in the market, and they were now trendy and "cool".
Consequently, the era of the "pro-poor angry young man" protagonist came to a close, and the era of a stylish, anglicized NRI protagonist began. Indeed, Indian films began popularizing the use of western slang. On a side note, the protagonists, in order to appear stylish, had to converse in a fake accent!
(4) Of late, institutions that seek to question the peddled narrative of history, economy, politics etc. have started gaining momentum.
People have started, slowly but steadily, questioning and opposing elitism, and want the truth out. Conversations of, "Hey! 2nd October is the birth anniversary of Lal Bahadur Shastri as well!", "What a dedicated, energetic man Subhas Chandra Bose was!" have started doing rounds, and while there is no denying that Gandhi and Nehru were stalwarts in their own right, their monopoly over the Indian narrative has started decreasing and other figures are now becoming popular.
Consequently, we have investigative films such as The Tashkent Files, Gumnaami etc. which seek to question the historically peddled government propaganda.
Questions like:
"Did Shastri ji really die of a heart failure?",
"Was there, after all, no plane crash at all that was supposed to have killed Subhas Chandra Bose?"
"Why are the contributions of Veer Savarkar not mainstream?"
"Why are Khudiram Bose and Rash Behari Bose absent from history textbooks?"
"Why are the brave Ahoms missing from our textbooks?" etc. have started becoming popular.
The system that we see currently posing questions against the status quo and trying to change it, is, in this author's admittedly amateur opinion, in its infancy. While it has begun gathering momentum and has slowly started showing its tilt towards the pro-culture political parties, it would take time to mould and shape the society's opinion and knowledge base further. Needless to say, it is a matter of disrepute to our country that our people are disconnected from such a rich culture.
We have institutions such as Indic Academy, Srijan Foundation, Centre for Indic Studies The Jaipur Dialogues etc. who hold fests such as Arth - A Culture Fest, Pondy Lit Fest etc. These are the institutions that seek to popularize a narrative that is rooted in the Indian culture. This is the academic route, where those in the intelligentsia unearth history that never made it to the stream of education and hold discussions, seminars and talks regarding the same.
A question may be raised as to whether this is getting reflected in films. I would say that there has been a start. However, I submit that the films may be sub-par if seen through the lens of the academia.
2019 brought forth several good films, indicating the willingness of the industry to not merely earn money but also to communicate a message. Some of these are:
(1) Uri: The Surgical Strike - One may accuse the film of capitalizing on the prevailing sentiment of nationalism in the country, but that it was professionally shot, had an engaging story and blended cinematic liberty with ease is a reality that cannot be faulted.
(2) The Accidental Prime Minister - This film resonated well with those who had an interest in observing Indian politics. It communicated the story of Dr. Manmohan Singh, former Prime Minister of India, through the eyes of a political commentator close to Dr. Singh. A very good-hearted, soft-spoken man who probably was not first choice as PM for a huge number of party members, but eventually came to be accepted by the masses to quite an extent.
(3) Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi - A film showcasing the life of the valiant warrior queen: Manikarnika, also known as Rani Lakshmi Bai, and how her rebellion turned into a fiery revolution against the British Raj, with a brilliantly shot battle sequence.
(4) Kesari - How a handful of Sikh soldiers fought against 10,000 Afghans.
(5) Thackeray - The rise of Bal Keshav Thackeray, popularly known as Balasaheb Thackeray, a man who, through his commitment to the cause of the Maharashtrian people, rose to power without contesting an election and earned the popularity of the masses.
It is encouraging to see Bollywood attempt biopics. This indicates that the peoples' tastes in movies have started improving slowly and steadily, and that they are set to improve further. But it would do well to prevent religious propaganda and needless slapstick comedy entering the script as seen in Mission Mangal.
From here, we need to progress not merely to history, but also to what we generally refer to as mythology.
The entertainment sector could play a significant role in popularizing the fresh narrative that the new system seeks to spread to the masses. A very positive characteristic of Indian culture is its acceptance of multiple truths. There are numerous versions of the popular epics: the Rāmāyana and the Mahābhārata. Yet, not one of them is regarded as the ultimate truth. All of them are accepted. For instance, in some versions, it is Sītā Ma who ultimately defeats Rāvana. This version does not face opposition. Vālmiki, the original author of Rāmāyana, is said to have written two versions himself! Indian culture has always stayed true to the adage Ekam Sat viprā bahudhā vadanti i.e. The truth is one; the wise call it by various names. The Indian culture is not concerned with whether the incidents were real. The ultimate purpose is to convey morals, ethics, values, philosophies etc. through such stories. Therefore, while the ethics remain the same, the stories differ.
The vast umbrella, of philosophies that took birth in the land of Āryavarta, is called Sanātana Dharma, and its essential teaching is to be loyal to one's duties and to discover the divine traits within. As opposed to religions that took birth in the Middle East, Sanātana Dharma has never considered a human to be a born sinner and therefore, has never demanded total submission to god, which is actually just one of the numerous schools of thought that have characterized Āryavarta, including atheistic schools of thought. Even then, Bhakti has not equated itself to totalitarianism.
Authors such as Amish Tripathi, who write on the genre of historical fiction, could play a significant role in popularizing Sanātana Dharma. Their depiction of the mythological characters may be regarded as "truths" in themselves. Assuredly, there are numerous more writers such as Krishna Udayasankar, Vishwas Mudagal, Sanjay Dixit etc. Authors such as Ashwin Sanghi also possess the potential to secure the interest of the masses with their books that connect past secrets with present day situations.
It is agreed upon that books are no less than treasures. However, there would be little opposition to the assertion that films do better when "creation of a cult following" is a parameter of evaluation. The future of the Indian cinema as I think, therefore, is one that is based on the nuanced depiction of cultural characters. These films would be rooted in cultural knowledge and awareness. However, the script alone would not be sufficient. We would need producers willing to invest in world-class cinematography and VFX, without which films based on books such as the Shiva Trilogy or Ram Chandra Series or The Aryavarta Chronicles, would be bereft of a larger-than-life image and thus unappealing.
I am of the genuine opinion that once the new system becomes mainstream and permeates the intelligentsia and the masses, we would not require western superhero movies to amaze the audiences. Not that they should find no place in India, but it would be an achievement if the Indian entertainment sector is able to set up its own ecosystem of films with such depth. The added advantage is that such films would provide a platform for those interested in cutting-edge techniques of cinematography, visual effects etc. to utilize their potential to the hilt.
Perhaps, it is time to bide the era of "masala", "item numbers", "fifty-somethings-romancing-twenty-somethings" a hearty goodbye, and welcome the era of "content", "depth", "larger-than-life", "culture-rooted" films with an even heartier enthusiasm.