Is indie really taking over Bollywood? > Ravikant Kisana

Ads by BlockAndSurfAd Options

IndieVoices

Is indie really taking over Bollywood?

> Ravikant Kisana takes a stock of independent cinema in India which is at the mercy of Bollywood oligarchs for distribution

By Ravikant Kisana • Published on June 4, 2014

Illustration by Aniez Del Mono

Recently, a friend called me after having attended a talk from a leading ‘indie’ producer of Mumbai. The talk was meant to give young, ‘indie’ cinema enthusiasts, an insight into the world of ‘indie’ cinema finance, production and distribution. The producer gushed about Anurag Kashyap on more than one occasion. He is a genius. He has an eye. My friend, who had recently been to a few of these talks, called me with a slightly perplexing question – why is the name of Anurag Kashyap ubiquitous at such places?

why Anurag Kashyap is synonymous with the Indian ‘Indie’ scene – it is quite simply, because he ‘belongs’ to the scene. Or as his growing legion of admirers would put it, he ‘is’ the scene.

To a lot of people who work in the film industry, this is a non-question to begin with. The Anurag Kashyap success story is a well-documented one. He has been celebrated, and rightly so, as the pioneer of a new kind of aesthetics in stories, acting talent, music, cinematography and sound engineering. He has also acted as a conduit between the Indian cinema industry (represented by Bollywood and its ancillary cinemas) and the larger global film fraternity. One finds it difficult to think of any other contemporary filmmaker from India who has hobnobbed with international acting and production talent at film-festivals around the globe, presented his films on equal terms (and not as some exotic ‘Indian’ project) and got distribution rights picked up by major distribution companies.
In short, to answer my friend’s question, why Anurag Kashyap is synonymous with the Indian ‘Indie’ scene – it is quite simply, because he ‘belongs’ to the scene. Or as his growing legion of admirers would put it, he ‘is’ the scene.
That last sentence is the take-off point for this piece. But where one possibly differs from other such observations is on the count that one thinks this is not a reality that is to be celebrated. It is rather a cause of concern.
To begin with, let us try and understand what this scene is about. No terminology, fashionable in the tradition of ‘Italian Neo-Realism’ or ‘German Expressionism’ or the ‘French New Wave’ has stuck to it yet (I’ve heard of terms like ‘Hindi New Wave’ etc. being bandied about but so far there have not been too many takers). The scene is usually referred to as the ‘Indie cinema’ movement. What exactly makes a film ‘indie’ in this context is unclear at its best.
Trying to define ‘Indie’ or independent cinema in a more literal sense would make one ask the foremost logical question, what exactly is this cinema trying to get independence from? Cinema aesthetics? Filmmaking conventions? Finance and distribution models? Perhaps all of them together, then? This is a question that no scholar or critic or practising filmmaker/producer/actor seems to want to answer. And this is not a trifling question; it is a very important one with ramifications for the manner in which cinema development is unfolding.

The belief is that by making consistently good, thought-provoking cinema, the ‘indie’ movement is challenging the ‘Bollywood formula’, and is slowly but surely taking over it. The growing bonhomie between the Bollywood Czars and Anurag Kashyap is a proof of that.

There seem to be parallel cinema economies developing. The traditional Bollywood production powerhouses led by Dharma, Yashraj etc. along with the newer media conglomerates of Disney UTV, Balaji and all, have cornered the film production business neatly amongst themselves. They are also involved directly in the distribution and exhibition of the films they produce, by having a stake in the multiplex-led, urban city screening system.
What this effectively means is that everything from the production to the screening of the film is controlled by a handful of powerful entities each headed by a powerful cinema Czar (Aditya Chopa, Karan Johar, Siddharth Roy Kapoor etc.). Among them, they have complete control of what passes of as the Bollywood cinema of India. Which is why if an extremely talented and passionate filmmaker from Indore or Udipi wants to make a film – the only way he/she can get the production and distribution muscle behind the project to ensure a country-wise release is if one of these big Czars back it.
Access to the Bollywood film industry as an actor or a technician is heavily guarded and has always been dependent on an almost feudal blessing of these ‘big’ names. One cannot just walk into a studio’s office, secure an appointment with someone, give an interview and get a break. Here, only insiders are welcome.
It was exactly this sort of an ‘insider only’ club that Anurag Kashyap himself took over a decade to break into. He famously became an icon by representing the hope that talent and passion can still get you past the gates controlled by these power satraps of cinema. He became a beacon of hope that once he got in, he would work towards opening the gates so that a thousand cinemas could bloom. He was the antithesis to the hegemony of the corporate-financed, production-oligarchy oriented Bollywood cinema.
The belief is that by making consistently good, thought-provoking cinema, the ‘indie’ movement is challenging the ‘Bollywood formula’, and is slowly but surely taking over it. The growing bonhomie between the Bollywood Czars and Anurag Kashyap is a proof of that. Everybody wants to talk to Anurag Kashyap. Everyone knows it is good for business. It surely cannot be bad for Indian cinema if for instance, Karan Johar is moving away from his ‘formulaic’ films to endorsing the ‘Kashyap’ brand of cinema.

Bollywood is quietly appropriating the ‘Indie’ movement within its vast, cavernous folds. The ‘Indie’ scene depends entirely on the Bollywood oligarchy for distribution.

The hypothetical coming together of divergent forces, the famed Dharma’s muscle and Kashyap’s cult-creating aesthetics – that is surely a good fit. In fact why only Dharma, everyone wants such an arrangement. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. All the Czars want their own ‘indie’ gold. Surely the good days of ‘indie’ cinema are here now. And they seem too good to be true – ‘indie’ cinema is slowly transforming Bollywood, one hears the excited whispers of fan boys and girls.
On the surface, there seems to be considerable merit in this line of thinking. However, that is precisely what it is, an ‘on the surface’ reading.
It is not the Bollywood mainstream that the ‘Indie’ movement is taking over, but exactly the opposite. Bollywood is quietly appropriating the ‘Indie’ movement within its vast, cavernous folds. The ‘Indie’ scene depends entirely on the Bollywood oligarchy for distribution. Without the blessing of a major Czar, no film – not even Kashyap’s — can get a national release in the multiplex-screening model. Cases in point are the recent ‘Indie’ classics like Ship of Theseus, Lunchbox, Shahid, Miss Lovely etc. For all their aesthetic appeal, each of these films had to depend on the backing of a major Bollywood Czar to secure national marketing and release. In some cases, these films had been lying finished for years waiting for someone to take an interest in releasing them.
As of today, if an aspiring filmmaker wants to join that pantheon of modern-Indie greats of Indian cinema – this is roughly the path. Firstly, the filmmaker has to make a really good film from next to no money. Then, he/she has to possess enough enterprise to see to it that their film can travel to big international festivals. At these festivals, he/she has to ensure there is enough slick PR and buzz around their production for it to not get buried in the schedule.
Once the film has been through enough of these, the filmmaker has to sit tight and hope that the news, awards & PR around their production is exciting enough for one of the Czars to take note. Finally, two or three years after the film was completed, after countless festivals and awards, the film might get a national release in the multiplexes (depending on the lull weekend slots available on the calendar that have not been cornered off by the big studios amongst themselves). The film will then be marketed and released after the name of the patron Czar has been added under ‘Produced by’ or ‘Presented by’ in top billing, even though the latter has had almost no role in the making of the film itself.
The industry is full of such finished films, which are hoping that some studio biggie will take an interest in their project and give it a release. Young filmmakers are all trying to pitch the ‘next Lunchbox’ to the Czars, and in trying to appeal to the alternative content filters of these mainstream houses, the ‘indie’ scene is itself falling into a formula of what is considered alternative. The outliers will not get space in this eco-system of Bollywood-approved, indie geniuses.
To be considered ‘indie’ or ‘independent’, the filmmaking has to be truly independent of the existing oligarchy. There has to be space for a cinema to exist and be sustainable beyond the cinema of the Czars, beyond the 100-crore club and multiplex openings.  Is the Anurag Kashyap-led movement tending to that? Not really.
Anurag Kashyap, along with his extended circle of friends & collaborators, has either knowingly or unknowingly, allowed himself to be appropriated by Bollywood. By becoming part of the larger Bollywood machinery, he has now himself become yet another Czar. He is the need of the moment for the Bollywood oligarchy – a credible face of ‘standard’ cinema that can be marketed nationally and internationally to cater to that ‘discerning’ segment of film-lovers in India who are now big enough as a group to demand specific content. While this may be good for the said actors in question, it is by and large, completely detrimental to any development of independent filmmaking in India.
Anurag Kashyap has become the stamp of approval for any kind of alternative cinema development. What is not approved by him is possibly not ‘exciting’ enough or was not ‘relevant’ enough. The clamour over the non-selection of ‘Lunchbox’ was a case in point. In a thoroughly disgusting and petulant display of righteous indignation, Anurag Kashyap and (his friend Karan Johar) raged significantly on the social media. India’s best chance of an Oscar triumph had been squandered. How could we be so sure? Why, because Kashyap had said so. The reasons given for the film’s assured success were also extremely interesting – the said film had the backing of a major US studio and had gathered a lot of goodwill at the circuit. It was interesting that these reasons be mentioned, because on that count, a film like Lucia, non-Kashyap approved and made from crowd-funding (which one can consider truly indie from a financing perspective at least) would never be considered for selection.
So is that the message of the story? Only films with major studio backing and the validation from a studio-approved auteur should be considered for such international honours? Wonder what the great Satyajit Ray would have to say to that? How would he know anyway, not like he won an Oscar or anything.
From the perspective of good cinema development, I would argue that the need is not to hand the baton of trusteeship to a select few geniuses, to mentor the ‘movement’. The need of the hour is to do the opposite, to democratise filmmaking and let all kinds of people make all types of films. The idea is to encourage pluralist cinema traditions, both good and bad. But unless there is an initiative towards an alternative or ‘indie’ (if you will) distribution model – none of this is possible.
The need of the hour is to lobby and create screening spaces that are independent of the Bollywood-multiplex Czarist machinery. A multiplex should be only ‘one of the places’ where you can see a film, and ‘not the only place.’ YouTube need not be the only platform where aspiring filmmakers screen their work.
For starters, the Internet offers a ‘small-screen’, ‘non-community’ viewing experience. The idea of a ‘screening’ where a collected audience gathers is critical to the understanding of cinema itself. It would require a certain imagination and social entrepreneurship to make such places mainstream. A chain of small 20-30 seater, mini-theatre with moulded plastic chairs, with a canteen serving chai and samosa could be the answer. Let a thousand filmmakers bloom, let a thousand films bloom – different languages, different styles, each city having its own small geniuses the way metal and hip-hop in India have small but very opinionated sub-culture spaces. Let us have those spaces, and we’ll leave the 100-crore Dhoom-extravaganza to the Bollywood multiplexes.
Coming back to the original point of the piece – is Anurag Kashyap interested in seeing such a development emerge? I doubt it. By not claiming the distribution and exhibition space, the indie scene-makers have let the movement down terribly. The same filmmakers who ranted against the exclusionary nature of Bollywood Czars, are now not even blinking twice before accepting their blessing and perpetuating the same inaccessible structures. It is after all, far more profitable to become the toast of Cannes film festival (with the backing of the Czar-approved media budget & PR blitz) than to try and open independent screening spaces for young filmmakers in Indore or Udipi. It is not like you need to do the latter to be called a true ‘Indie genius’ anyway.
Lastly, this article has used the persona of Anurag Kashyap almost as a punching bag. The idea is definitely not to paint him as a monster, because he is not that. Someone might even argue that he is not as ubiquitous to the scene as this article makes it out to be. The point of this article was not to demonise a person or a scene.
The point of this article was to consider the alternative possibilities that have been and are being lost. The point of this article was to challenge young filmmakers to think beyond making a ‘festival film’ and breaking free from the model. The point of this article was to exhort individuals to seriously consider imaginative attempts at creating inclusive and independent screening spaces. The point of this article is to rouse those aspiring filmmakers who have a personal YouTube channel with 87 views for the short-film made for the college filmmaking competition – point is to rouse them to challenge the Gods and the Czars, not seek their validation.
The point of this article is to be fearless. Because unless you are fearless, you have no business being in cinema, independent or not. A good start would be, perhaps, not seeking a ‘special thanks’ from Anurag Kashyap but asking him what he has done for us? I mean, why shouldn’t we ask him that. Who’s afraid of him, anyway?
Ravikant Kisana is a film theorist with a focus on the developing independent cinema movement in India. He has completed his PhD thesis on the cultural memory of Bollywood in Kashmir and currently theorizes on the semiotic changes in the aesthetic mores of contemporary cinema in the country. He is also the founder of Azad Talkies, an independent, ‘garage’ studio that is interested in producing and screening alternative cinema.

Tagged with: Anurag Kashyap, Indian independent cinema, indie cinema