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.
As Dr. Chandraprakash Dwivedi returns to the turnstiles with a
political satire, the director known for his period sagas, talks about
the contemporary politics and his ideological concerns 
For
a man who devotes years to research, Dwivedi accepts the Muslim
household was a new turf for him. “Thankfully, Ram Kumar comes from
Fatehpur where the story is based. So the mood was there in the writing
itself. I also come from Rajashan and understand the cultural ethos of
the region.” 
The movies have been his school, his playground. As far back as you can
remember, Aditya Chopra, has been a watcher, scurrying to the cinema
halls to see every new release, preferably on the first day itself. Any
image that moves on the screen tickles his appetite for more. When he
was a kid, like Oliver Twist, Aditya Chopra, has been a watcher, he
would ask for more.
First of all, let me ask you why have you shied away from interviews?
Tell me, did you or your parents have any other career options for you? 
But there were some abruptly brief scenes in
the film. For instance, Shah Rukh's night out in the Punjab village
with Parmeet Sethi and the other boys. 
How did you handle your two lead players?
Have you used any moments from your own life in the film?
What do you feel about the sexual permissiveness of the '90s?
