Migrant Worker

Researchers are fond of saying that there is no film history , only film histories.For some, this means that there can be no intelligible, coherent ―grand narrative‖ that puts all the facts into the place. The history of avant-garde film does not fit neatly into the history of color technology or the development of the Western films. For others, film history mean that historians work from  various perspectives and with different interests and purposes.

Film history is more appropriately thought of as a set of film histories, because research into film history involves asking a series of questions and searching for evidence in order to answer them in the course of an argument. When historians focus on different questions, turn up different evidence, and formulate different explanations, we derive not a single history but a diverse set of historical arguments.

Film historians mount research programs, systematic inquiries into the past. A historian research program is organized around questions that require answers. A research program also consists of assumptions and background knowledge. For a film historian, a fact takes on significance only in the context of research program. Historians in any discipline do more than accumulate facts. No facts speak for themselves. Facts are interesting and important only as part of research programs.

But facts help us ask and answer questions.

Historians research programs aims to do at least two things. First the historian tries to describe a process or state of affairs. She asks what and who and where and when. What is this film, who made it, where and when? In what ways does this director‘s work differ from that of others? What evidence is there that a studio was nearly bankrupt? Who is the actor in the shot? Who was responsible for scripts at this company? Where was this film shown, and who might have seen it? Here the historians problem is largely one of finding information that will answer such questions.

Accurate description is indispensable for all historical research. Every scholar is indebted to descriptive work for identifying films, collating versions, compiling filmographies, establishing timelines, and creating reference works that supply names, dates and the like. The more sophisticated and long lived a historical discipline is, the richer and more complete its battery of descriptive reference material is.

Second a historian tries to explain a process or state of affairs. He asks, How does this work? And Why did this happen? How did this company assign tasks, lay out responsibilities, carry a project to completion? How did this directors work influence other films from the company?The film historian , like a historian of art or politics, proposes an explanatory argument. The historian‘s argument consists of evidence to create a believable explanation for an event or state of affairs.

Most argument about empirical matters-and the history of film is principally and empirical matter-rely on evidence. Evidence consists of information that gives grounds for believing that the argument is sound. Evidence supports the expectation that the historian has presented a plausible answer to the original question. Film historians work with evidence of many sorts. For many, copies of the films they study are central pieces of evidence. Historians also rely on print sources, both published(books, magazines, trade journals, newspapers) and unpublished (memoirs, letters, notes, production files, scripts, court testimony).Historians of film technology study cameras, sound recorders and other equipment. A film studio or an important location might also serve as a source of evidence.

Usually historians must verify their sources of evidence. Often this depends on the sort of descriptive research we have already mentioned. The problem is particularly acute with film prints. Films have always circulated in different versions. In the 1920s, Hollywood films were shot in two versions, one for the United States and one for export. These could differ considerably in length, content, and even visual style. To this day, many Hollywood films are released in Europe in more erotic or violent versions than are screened in the United States. In addition, many old films have deteriorated and been subject to cutting and revision. Even modern restorations do not necessarily result in film identical to the original version. Many current video versions of old films have been trimmed, expanded or otherwise altered from their theatrical release format. Often, then the historian does not known whether the print she is seeing represents anything like and original , if indeed there can be said to be a single ―original‖
version.Historians try to be aware of the differences among the versions of the films they are studying and try to account for them; indeed the fact that there are different versions can itself be a source of questions.

Historians generally distinguish between primary and secondary sources. As applied to film, primary sources usually refers to the people directly involved in whatever objects or events are being studied. For example, if you were studying Japanese cinema of the 1920s, film, interviews with filmmakers or audience members, and contemporary trade journals would count as primary material. Later discussions concerning the period, usually by an earlier historian, would be considered secondary. Often, though one scholar‘s secondary source is another‘s primary source, because the researchers are asking different question.

Blogger-Akash Shinde😍 (Assistant director)

---

The basic problem that confronted filmmakers early in the nickelodeon era was that audiences could not understand the causal, spatial and temporal relations in many films. If the editing abruptly changed locales, the spectator might not grasp where the new action was occurring. An actor‘s elaborate pantomime might fail to convey the meaning of a crucial action. Filmmakers came to assume that a film should guide the spectators attention, making every aspect of the story on the screen as clear as possible. So, this problem of narrative clarity was greatly handled by one of the greatest filmmaker D. W. Griffith.

After appearing in a string of Porter produced one-reelers, Griffith moves to Biograph where he directs his first film ― The Adventure of Dollie(1908)‖ a blunt remake of Rescued by Rover.He produced and directed hundreds of short films and developed a unique sense of shot composition. For him, the camera should obey the action, not the other way round. He also break the theatrical scene into a series of shots and still preserved the unity of action so that he could increase the dramatic intensity of my films.

In many of his films, he introduced the action using establishing shot, then cut to a medium shot for more clarity and go to a close-up for specific detail or dramatic effect. Griffith in particular, explored the possibilities of enlarging facial expressions. In his film The Painted Lady, Griffith places the camera relatively close to the heroine, framing her from the waist up so her slightest expressions and movements are visible.

Angry at Biograph‘s reluctance to make feature length films, Griffith leaves the studio for an independent California company Mutual/Reliance –Majestic. He takes his personal cameraman and his entire acting ensemble along for the ride.

After several feature-length movies. Griffith is ready to take on his own independent project, The Birth of a Nation(1915). Despite its blatant racism and historical inaccuracies, The Birth of a Nation remains a milestone cinematic achievement. This movie tight narrative would have been even tighter if the NAACP didn‘t force him to cut some scenes out. However, Griffith was pleased with the human aspect of this historical drama, well orchestrated battle scenes, period detail, innovative storytelling techniques such as crosscutting, flashbacks, flashforwardsd, mind screen, fades, masking, irising, tilting, panning dollying etc

Cinema finally gains artistic prestige and is universally proclaimed the most powerful medium of expression.Griffith decided to make a grand and extravagant movie. Intolerance (1916) was that movie. Costing nearly forty times as much as an average feature film, Intolerance tells four parallel stories set in four separate time periods. Unfortunately, the audiences don‘t care for Intolerances complexity and grandeur.

The movie, although a brilliant example of continuity storytelling, lacks the human touch of the Birth of a Nation. It was a financial disaster and marks the beginning of Griffith‘s decline as the preeminent figure in the world‘s cinema.

Blogger-Akash Shinde😍 (Assistant director)

We divide film history into five large periods- early cinema(to about 1919), the late silent era(1919-1929), the development of sound cinema(1926-1945), the period after Word War II(1946-1960s), and the contemporary cinema (1960s to the present). These divisions reflect developments in a)film form and style b)major changes in film production, distribution, and exhibition. c)significant international trends.

Although the cinema is a relatively young medium invented only a little over a century ago, many films have already been lost or destroyed. For decades, movies were seen as products with temporary commercial value, and companies did little to ensure their preservation. Even when film archives were founded, beginning in the 1930s, they faced a daunting task of collecting and sheltering the thousands of films that had already been made. Moreover, the nitrate film stock, upon which most films up to the early 1950s were shot and printed, was highly flammable and deteriorated over time.

Deliberate destruction of films, archive and warehouse fires and the gradual decomposition of nitrate stored in bad conditions have led to the loss of many titles. According to rough estimates, only about 20 percent of silent films are known to survive. Many of these are still sitting in vaults, unidentified or unpreserved due to lack of funds. Even more recent films may be inaccessible to the researcher.

Films made in some small countries, particularly in Third World nations, do not circulate widely. Small archives may not have the facilities to preserve films or show them to the researchers. In some cases, political regimes may choose to suppress certain films and promote others.

Blogger-Akash Shinde😍 (Assistant director)

Student of Journalism and mass communication.

1941 feature debut Citizen Kane, with its kaleidoscopic innovations in style, has often been voted the greatest film ever made. It’s enough to make you curious, but how will you personally respond to watching this best of the best?
Then there’s the matter of getting to grips with everything Welles made afterwards. At first glance, this seems simple – there are only 12 or 13 finished feature films bearing his directing credit, depending on whether or not you count the theatrically released TV documentary Filming Othello (1978). But you’ve also got certain indispensable films featuring Welles as actor in which the baroque style is so quintessentially Wellesian (Journey into Fear, 1943; Jane Eyre, 1944) that there can be little question that Welles’s presence on set was – to put it gently – an inspiration to the actual director.
Even then, you’ve still only got half the picture. In the gaps between the finished films are numerous half-finished wreckages, from the Brazilian documentary It’s All True via his Don Quixote adaptation to The Other Side of the Wind (which a Kickstarter campaign is currently pledged to completing). These were abandoned either through dwindling finances, legal wrangles, or the distraction of something else coming along to fire Welles’s imagination.

Citizen Kane. But try to forget all that Greatest Film Ever jazz – that might be what brought you here, but it’ll be no help from here on in. It may be useful instead to think of this story of money and power as a young man’s film, made when Welles was still just 25 years old. Coming off a trailblazing career in radio and on the New York stage, the boy genius was offered carte blanche by Hollywood major RKO to make his first feature, with all the resources of the studio at his disposal.
No one sets out to make a dusty textbook, one designed to be pored over, praised and feared in every decade since – and neither did the young Welles. Rather, he seized the opportunity to make the kind of full-blown, big-budget movie that few filmmakers so young have had the chance to make – either before or since. The result is a film in which every shot, every framing decision and every transition between shots reveals the energy and visual exuberance of an artist head over heels with the possibilities of his medium.
OK, he also took the chance to thumb his nose at one of America’s most powerful men, modelling his newspaper tycoon protagonist (played by Welles himself) on William Randolph Hearst and going so far as to use the word ‘Rosebud’ – supposedly Hearst’s nickname for his mistress’s privates – as the key to the film’s central mystery.
Touch of Evil (1958) ideal – particularly if you already have a taste for the dark arts of Hollywood film noir, those shadowy pulp thrillers that emerged from America’s west coast in the 1940s and 50s. This brilliant example of the style, set in a Mexican border town very like Tijuana, was Welles’s first film in America for a decade, following a period of exile in Europe. Stories vary about whether it was star Charlton Heston who insisted Welles direct or B-grade producer Albert Zugsmith who offered him the script, but the results reveal the magic that the director could work even on rather trashy material.
Adding his by-now considerable physical weight to the role of corrupt border cop Hank Quinlan, Welles also conjures an electric sense of place and sweaty atmosphere through his use of canted angles, deep space and a roving camera. We also get a jaunty jazz-inflected score by Henry Mancini, a career comeback performance from Marlene Dietrich and a tense, pre-Psycho sequence in which Janet Leigh is menaced in a lonely motel.
But perhaps the best reason why Touch of Evil is the place to start is that its most famous sequence comes right at the beginning – a lengthy, suspense-filled travelling shot involving the planting of a bomb in the boot of a car. It is among the most celebrated long takes in cinema history. How you respond to these three and a half minutes of screen time is likely to give you a fairly good idea about whether Welles is for you or not.
You could also kick off with The Lady from Shanghai (1947), an earlier example of film noir that’s no less deliriously entertaining, though you have to be game for a murder plot that doesn’t make too much sense and a rather ripe Oirish accent from Welles as the sailor who gets caught up in it. Both of these elements are all part of the fun, but killjoys will insist that it’s not as perfect a film as Touch of Evil.
Such daring would land Welles in hot water though, with Hollywood not quite ready for such firebrand filmmaking. When you’ve toppled Kane you should head on to The Magnificent Ambersons (1942). This troubled second film for RKO, a no-less-ambitious portrait of a turn-of-the-20th-century Indiana family, was taken out of Welles’s hands to be severely edited down and given an incongruous happy ending. With the original ending lost, it’s the first of many compromised films in the director’s back catalogue, but still completely essential viewing. For many, it’s Welles’s best.
Indeed, the well-kept secret about Welles’s films is that the myth that his career went into irreversible decline after the success of Kane is just that: a myth. The films only get rougher around the edges. This was the result of more hand-to-mouth budgets as Welles’s career took him to Europe, where he would raise funds for whatever was his latest brainchild by acting here and there, in adverts, TV and other people’s films. As you delve deeper into Welles, waste no time in seeking out – at the very least – Othello (1952), Mr Arkadin (1955), The Trial (1962) and Chimes at Midnight (1965). Nobody talks much about his 1968 TV film The Immortal Story, but that too is sublime: a salty, 60-minute fever dream set in a far-off port. 

Blogger-Akash Shinde😍 (Assistant Director)

Student of Journalism and Mass communication.

Indian films are unquestionably the most –seen movies in the world. Not just talking about the billion- strong audiences in India itself, where 12 million people are said to go to the cinema every day, but of large audiences well beyond the Indian subcontinent and the Diaspora, in such unlikely places as Russia, China, the Middle East, the Far East Egypt, Turkey and Africa. People from very different cultural and social worlds have a great love for Indian popular cinema, and many have been Hindi Films fans for over fifty years. Indian cinema is world – famous for the staggering amount of films it produces: the number is constantly on the increase, and recent sources estimate that a total output of some 800 films a year are made in different cities including Madrass , Bangalore , Calcutta and Hyderabad . Of this astonishing number, those films made in

Bombay, in a seamless blend of Hindi and Urdu, have the widest distribution within India and Internationally. The two sister languages are spoken in six northern states and understood by over 500 million people on the Indian sub – continent alone – reason enough for Hindi and Urdu to be chosen above the fourteen official Indian languages to become the languages of Indian Popular cinema when sound came to the Indian Silver screen in 1931 .

Silent Era – The cinematographe (from where we have the name cinema) invented by the Lumiere brothers functioned better the Kinetoscope of Edison and Dickson. The Lumiere brothers who invented the cinematographe started projection of short (very short, one to two minutes long) films for the Parsian public on November 28, 1895. Cinema was shown for the first time in India by the Lumiere brothers on July 17, 1896 at the Watson Hotel in Mumbai. This was just six months after their first show in Paris.
Indian cinema thus has more than a hundred years of history, like the European or American film industry. That first show was just a show of a series of visuals, moving scenes and nothing more, but it inaugurated a long line of movies made by talented Indians. Today India has the distinction of being the country that produces the highest number of feature films every year.
As mentioned above, the earliest show of moving pictures in India was done in 1896. But for the next fifteen years, there was no indigenous production of movies.
N.G.Chitre and R .G. Torney of Bombay were the first to make a film based on a story. It was PUNDALIK, a film based on the life of a Holy man in Maharashtra, it came out in 1912.
The next movie in India was Dhandiraj Govindraj Phalke’s RAJA HARISCHANDRA released on May 3, 1913. D. G. Phalke is acclaimed as the father of the Indian cinema because he laid the foundation for the future of the Indian film industry and because he trained several young film makers in his studio in Nasik. The Phalke award perpetuates the memory of this pioneering film maker and it goes to the person who enriches Indian cinema through remarkable contributions to it. Phalke wii always be remembered for his contributions to the development of the film industry.
Phalke established his studio in 1913 after his return from England with plenty of enthusiasm and dedication, besides a stock of raw film and a perforator for making holes on the edges of film stripes. He believed that ‘Indians must see Indian movies on the Indian Silver screen.’
After his RAJA HARISCHANDRA, Phalke started other projects, but he could not complete them because of lack of funds .Other silent movies started coming out from Calcutta studios: for example, ‘SATYAVAADI HARISCHANDRA ‘(1917) and ‘KEECHAKAVADHAM’ (1919). But Phalke’s Nasik studio was the first regular studio where he could also train many promising young people as film technicians. It was still the era of silent movies all over the world. During the Silent Era (1896 – 1930) over a thousand films were made in India; however, only ten of them survive, now restored and preserved in the Pune archives. Meanwhile, American and European films continued to grow in popularity, though a major source of worry for the imperial Government was that they would ‘corrupt’ Indian minds. In 1917, the European Association warned the Government against a film called ‘The Surpentine Dance’, which was certainly calculated to bring the white men and women into low esteem in the Indian mind.

Age of sound – The films of the Silent Era did not ‘talk’ but they were never watched in ‘silence’. Dialogue was presented through inter – titles, which were often in English, and two or three Indian languages. Almost every film had a background score, which ran through the length of film. The score was ‘live’, and helped to dramatise the narrative. Sometimes there was only a piano accompaniment, but there were several films where a violin, a harmonium, tablas and other musical instruments could be added. The first sound movie or talkie, viz, Al Jolson’s ‘Jazz Singer’ in the U.S. ended the silent era in October, 1927.
Silent movies continued in India for another decade although the first Indian talkie came out on March 14, 1931. It was ‘Alam Ara’ (The Light of the world), made by Ardeshir Irani, admitted that the idea of making an Indian talkie came from Universal pictures production of ‘Show Boat’,which was a 40% talkie . But what kind of Indian film could maintain this strong link with audiences when sound came to the Indian screen in 1931? Over 150 million people at that time understood Hindustani (a mix of Hindi and Urdu, also known as the language of the Bazaar) and as the first talkie was to be made in Bombay, Hindustani was chosen over the fourteen official Indian languages to be the lingua Franca of popular cinema. Once the language question had been resolved, films looked to the Urdu Parsee Theatre for subject matter. Based on Joseph David’s Urdu Parsee play, Alam Ara is a costume drama telling the story of the rivalry of two queens and involving many characters, plots and subplots. This film songs immediately proved a smash, particularly the one sung by actor / singer W.M.Khan in the role of a fakir, ‘De de Khuda ke naam par pyare’( Give alms in the name of Allah). Thereafter, songs and dances were established as an integral part of Indian Popular cinema .This genre evolved out of the Urdu Parsee Theatre, a narrative form that had already skillfully dramatized Victorian plays and Persian Love Legends. The courtly love stories of the Urdu Parsee Theatre are probably the reason behind Indian cinema’s dependence on romantic themes and the way they link love, obstacles and tragedy. Another popular genre of this period was the historical film, based on stories of real characters or legendary hero’s .The importance of the historical film lay in its patriotic undertones. The grandeur of Pre – Raj India, the splendid costumes, the etiquette of the nobility and high drama were a direct invitation for national self – esteem and the will to be independent. Of course, India did not need to be independent to produce films: thousands of miles of celluloid had run through the projector gate before the British finally packed their bags in 1947. Despite having first blossomed under a political power so alien to its own conventions, Indian cinema’s thematic and aesthetic development seems to have remained largely free of direct concern with colonial rule. Individual film director’s were deeply concerned by the independence movement led by the congress party and demonstrated their allegiance to the concept of a free India in films such as ‘Sikandra’ ( 1941 ) and ‘Shaheed’ ( 1948 ) . In the 1940s and 1950s, a small number of patriotic films and a handful of songs with a clear message of Indian nationalism were produced – the most famous is ‘Door Hato O Duniya Valo, Hindustan Hamara Hai’ (‘Go away, you invaders! India is ours’) in the 1943 film Kismet – but by and large the patriotic film isn’t a genre that is hugely popular today. Indian films have never been overtly political, unlike Africa or Algerian cinema, the classics of which are clear indictments of French colonial rule.
When talkies came an unexpected criticism from art lovers was that sound destroyed the aesthetic quality of the movies. Moreover, the universal language of the cinema was adversely affected, they said. People speaking different languages could watch the silent movie and derive meanings from the acting and expression, and the visual effectiveness of the whole movie. Cinema is a visual medium, they argued, and it has its own language. An Englishman must be able to appreciate a Hindi or Tamil movie as much as a Hindi or Tamil – speaking Indian should be able to enjoy an English movie even if the movies are silent ones. But can we imagine how a silent movie would appeal to us now? We have become so used to sound movies. And in India, we cannot easily appreciate a movie without songs and dancing! The silent movies are now in the archives and they are taken out for research or for satisfying someone’s historical curiosity.
Though colour movies started to come out of American studios from 1935 onwards, it took more decades for color to come to Indian screens.

Themes in Indian cinema – Early Indian cinema in the 1920s was founded on specific genres, such as the mythological or the devotional film. The sum and substance of the mythological theme is the fight between good and evil, and the importance of sacrifice in the name of truth. The retelling of stories known through an oral tradition was an important element in the success of the mythological film: The Ram Leela (a celebration and re – enactment of the exploits and adventures of Ram) and the Ras Leela (episodes from Krishna’s life) are said to be of particular influence in Indian cinema. Such reconfirmation has always been an element of Indian culture. As Arundhuti roy says in her novel, The God Of Small Things, ‘The Great stories are the ones you have heard and want to hear again.’ Roy was speaking of the Kathakali dance form, but the argument holds goodfor cinema too. This trend was visible not only in the silent era. It continued in the talkie era. NALLATHANGAL in Tamil, BHAKTA PRAHLADA in Malayalam and other languages, KEECHAKAVADHAM in Tamil etc. are good
examples. In almost all the languages of India, during the silent as well as the talkie era, themes and episodes from the PURANAS, THE RAMAYANA and MAHABHARATA were treated cinematically. Some folk tales and legends also became cinematic themes.
A change in this trend came about in the 1950s, particularly in Malayalam, Tamil and Bengali movies. JEEVITA NAUKA (The Boat of life) introduced social and domestic theme, family life in Kerala and social humour , and it was among the earliest Indian movies to run for more than six months at a stretch . A more bold theme of socio – economic disparities and indication of prospective social revolution was expressed in NAVALOKAM. But among the socially relevant movies of the early 1950s in Malayalam, NEELAKKUYIL (Blue Koel) of 1954 depicted the story of powerful love breaking caste barriers but yielding finally to social pressures and the leading characters coming to grief in the face of social ostracism. This period also saw big spectacles like CHANDRALEKHA in Tamil and the beautiful celluloid portrayal in the trilogy of Satyajit
Ray starting with PATHER PANCHALI. PARAASAKTI, the Tamil movie which took Sivaji Ganesan to the heights of fame was a strong and defiant portrayal of the collusion between religious and economic forces in the suppression of the poor. DO BIGHA ZAMIN questioned landlordism.
Later on, Social themes were portrayed. Stories were based on the life of ordinary families. Most films were produced in the Bombay and Madras studios. The largest number of movies came out in Hindi, Tamil, Telegu, Malayalam, Kannada and Bengali- in that order. Among the social movies, Andaz and Mela stand out .The production of movies in all languages has dwindled in the closing years of the 20th century, but the reduction has been more in Malayalam than in the other five languages in which production was consistently high in the 1970s and 1980s.
Of the Historical movies of those days, the first choice falls on ANARKALI. Then come MUGHAL – E – AZAM and MOTHER INDIA. To the credit of Raj Kapoor and his R.K. Studios, a series of mild but poignant criticism of the oddities in social life of the 1950s and 1960s came, that were also great entertainers and pieces of artistic attainments: AWARA, SHRI 420, etc. In the 1970s, Amitabh Bacchan ruled the Indian cine world portraying the defiant angry young man of the new generation.
Till the late 1960s, movies were directed by people who learnt the art on the job. There were no schools or training institutes for actors, directors, producers and technical experts. The National School of Drama, New Delhi and the Film and Television Institute (FTII), Pune trained actors and directors and several other personnel connected with film. This was also the period when serious thinking was given to a cinematic style that was entirely different from what it was in the past. Critics have called the new trend ‘New Wave Cinema’.

Major Studios – The creation of the major studios in Madras, Calcutta, Lahore,
Bombay and Pune in the 1930s was a crucial move in the development of a proficient Indian film industry. Studio owners including Himanshu Rai and Devika Rani, V. Shantaram, V. Damle and S. Fatehlal set the tune of film production, playing an essential role in promoting national integration. People of all castes, religious, regions, sects and social classes worked together in the various studios. Film production has always prided itself in the way it has been inclusive and continues to be a shining example of communal (i.e. inter religious) harmony and tolerance. Hindus and Muslims work together and promoting and National Integration and communal harmony has always been a favourite theme of the Indian film.
The studios, including Bombay talkies, the New Theatres in Calcutta, Prabhat Film Company and Gemini and Vauhini in Madras, were also responsible for broadening the choice of screen – subjects, with music as a primary ingredient. Like the great Hollywood studios, they experimented with different stories and themes while each developing their own brand of film making. The key films of this period show the origins of themes and subjects that have recurred over subsequent decades of film making. For example, the New Theatres films , particularly the 1935 classic DEVDAS by actor / director P.C.Barua , made in both Hindi and Bengali versions , gave Indian cinema its most recurrent theme : the love triangle . DEVDAS is an adaptation of Sarat Chandra Chatterjee’s Bengali novel of the same name. This film also gave its most enduring male character: The tragic romantic hero. Devdas is a high caste Brahmin who cannot marry the love of his life, Parvati, his neighbour’s daughter, because she is of a lower caste. He later befriends Chandramukhi, a prostitute who gives up her profession and turns to spirituality. In a downward spiral of self – destruction, the Hamlet like Devdas becomes an alcoholic and ultimately dies at the gate of Parvati’s marital home.
The story of Devdas touched millions of Indians in the 1930s who felt that his anguish would become their own if they dared marry against parental authority. This theme returns regularly every decade , either in a direct remake , e.g. Bimal Roy’s 1955 Devdas ( director Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s new version released in 2002 ) , or as an important theme , as in Guru Dutt’s PYASSA (1957 ) or Prakash Mehra’s MUQADDAR KA SIKANDAR ( 1978 ).
V.Shantaram was a co – founder (along with V. Damle , S. Fatehlal and Dhaiber) of the Prabhat Film Company , based in Kohlapur and later Pune . He made many stunts and action films early in his career, favoured socially progressive subjects and dealt with themes considered taboo. Shantaram’s best work included a period drama about the vengeance of women (AMAR JYOTI, 1936 – the first Indian film to be shown at an International Film Festival, in Venice), the cruel injustices against women brought about by the arranged marriage system (DUNIYA NA NANE, 1937), to the rehabilitation of a prostitute (AADMI, 1937), and the promotion of Hindu – Muslim friendship (PADOSI, 1941). In 1942, V. Shantaram left Prabhat to start his own production company and studio, Rajkamal Kalamandir , in Bombay. There, he continued to make internationally acclaimedfilms basedonsocial concerns, including Dr. KUTNIS KI AMAR KAHANI (1946) and DO AANKHEN BARAH HAATH (1957).
Bombay Talkies also made social films, the most celebrated example of which is Franz Osten’s ACHUT KANYA (1936) starring Devika Rani and Ashok Kumar. It was one of the first films to deal with the evils of untouchability. Bombay Talkies made many popular movies, including Gyan Mukherji’s afore mentioned KISMET, a film that introduced another favourite theme in Hindi cinema – the ‘lost and found’. Though the lost and found theme can be traced back to mythology in the story of SHAKUNTALA, KISMET made it popular in cinema.
An interesting twist on this popular theme occurs in Manmohan Desai’s AMAR AKBAR ANTHONY (1977), in which the director depicts three brothers separated as young children and brought up by members of the three main Indian religions : Hinduism, Islam and Christianity ( hence the names AMAR , AKBAR AND ANTHONY) . The film was a massive success and Desai himself made several other films combining the importance of communal harmony with the theme of loss and recovery. In his NASEEB (1981), the Amitabh Bacchan hero is called ‘JOHN, JAANI, JANARDAN’ and is proud to be seen as Christian, Muslim and Hindu. As long as the separated family members are played by well – known stars, the audience never seems to tire of the repetitions of themes.

End of Studios – Financers who made money during the war years found film – making an easy way of gaining quick returns, and this new method of financing movies ultimately brought about the end of the studio era. The studio owners could not afford to pay high fees for their staff and stars, and so freelancing made a return – a system whereby all film practitioners were employed on a contract – by – contract basis. The studio system was over by the late 1940s, and widespread freelancing, established by the 1950s, set the pattern for film production thereafter.

Golden Age Of Indian Cinema – The 1950s was led film historians to refer to this glorious time as the golden age of Indian Cinema. Film makers created authored and individual works while sticking strictly within the set conventions of the films. The example of Mahatma Gandhi and Prime Minister Nehru’s vision of the newly independent nation was also highly influential throughout the decade, and many excellent Urdu poets and writers worked with film makers in the hope of creating a cinema that would be socially meaningful. It is no surprise that the 1950s is regarded today as the finest period in Indian cinema, and the era has profoundly influenced generations of Indian film makers in a way that no other decade has done since.
The best directors of the time, including Mehboob Khan, Bimal Roy, Raj Kapoor and Guru Dutt, brought new depth to established themes. They drew on the wide spectrum of cinema stories, but brought to them a personal vision. The films of the late 1940s , 1950s and early 1960s were lyrical and powerful and dealt with themes including the exploitation of the poor by rich landlords (DO BIGHA ZAMEEN, 1953), the importance of sacrifice and honour (MOTHER INDIA), survival in the big city ( BOOT POLISH, 1954) , untouchability (SUJATA, 1959) , the changing role of the woman (Mr. and Mrs.55, 1955), urban vs rural morality (SHREE 420, 1955), nature vs nurture (AWAARA, 1951), dilemas faced by modern Indians (ANDAZ,1949), materialism vs spiritualism (PYAASA, 1957) and the importance of destiny (CHAUDHVIN KA CHAND, 1960). These films show a complex and sophisticated mix of characters, plots, ideas and morals.
The important film makers of this period not only made commercially successful works but also mastered the language of cinema. They understood how performance, photography, editing and above all, music could be used to create a new aesthetic. It was around this time that Indian films started to receive regular worldwide distribution, and films such as AWAARA made by Raj Kapoor and his co- star Nargis major celebrity in places as far afield as Russia and China. Mehboob’s AAN (1952, AKA MANGALA, Daughter of India) and MOTHER INDIA (Perhaps the best known Indian films of all) also won large audiences beyond the Indian sub-continent.
The average Indian film does not pretend to offer a unique storyline. A new twist to a familiar storyline helps a film to succeed, if the audience is looking for originality, they know it is principally to be found in the score. Film music is of such primary importance in today’s Indian cinema that it more or less determines the box- office fate of most movies. Leading choreographer Farah Khan believes that, ‘What is saving Indian cinema from being engulfed by Hollywood is our song and dance routines, because they just can’t imitate that’.

The Middle Cinema – Indian Cinema , dominated in the 1970’s by the Sippy’s ,
Hrishikesh Mukherjee , B.R. Ishara and Vijay Anand , was jolted out of its wits when Shyam Benegal assisted by Blaze enterprises , shot into prominence with ‘Ankur’ (1974), and later with ‘Nishant’(1975), ‘Manthan’, ‘Bhumika’(1977) and Junoon (1979). Benegal turned his back on the standard ‘Kalyug’ and ‘Aradhana’ (1981) genre, injecting a dose of caste – politics into his first three films. He was closely associated with the making of Govind Nihalani’s ‘‘Akrosh’ (1980), a political film about the exploitation of illiterate Adivasis. ‘Ardh Satya’ (1984), ‘Party’ (an expose of the upper middle class), and his TV serial on the partition of India, ‘Tamas’, have been significant success.
While the films of Mrinal Sen, Mani Kaul and Kumar Shahani did not fare very well at the box office, those of the ‘middle cinema’ reaped a good harves. Saeed Mirza’s ‘Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata Hai’ , ‘Mphan Joshi Hajir Ho’ and ‘Salim Langde Pe
Mat Ro’ , Rabindra Dharmaraj’s ‘Chakra’ and Ketan Mehta’s ‘ Bhavni Bhavai’ (in Gujarati and Hindi), ‘ Mirch Masala’ , and later ‘ Maya Memsahib’ , ‘ Sardar’ , started a trend in the making of socially conscious and political films which were entertaining as well . Both the New Wave and the Middle Cinema wilted under the impact of multi- channel television , ‘ Commercial cinema’ , the commercialization of the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC), and above all the abysmal lack of exhibition outlets . The gradual decline of the Film Society movement too had a arole in the fading away of ‘Parallel cinema’.

The Second New Wave – As the century drew to a close , there was a revival of the New Wave spirit , with some assistance from the NFDC , Doordarshan , overseas TV companies such as channel four of Britain , and private financiers . Some termed this revival the ‘Second New Wave’, even though most of the film makers involved in the revival was also part of the first New Wave. Mani Kaul ( Nazar , The Idiot, Siddeshwari), hyam Benegal (The Making Of The Mahatma , Mammo…….. Saatvan Ka Ghoda , Sardari Begum), Saees Mirza (Naseem -1996), Adoor Gopalakrishnan (Kathapurusham
– 1995), Girish Kasaravalli (Mane – 1996), Thai Saheb (1998) , Govind Nihalani (Hazar Chourasi Ki Maa – 1998), Kumar Shahani (Chaar Adhayay – 1997) and others in different regional languages of the country helped keep the spark of ‘alternative’ cinema alive. The establishment of the National Centre for Children and Young People (NCYP) provided an impetus to the making of films targeted at Indian Youth.

Colour And Triumph Of Romance – The 1980s weren’t a particularly strong time for film music either. The movie that brought back music and young romance was Mansoor Khan’s 1988 film QAYAMAT SE QAYAMAT TAK – a love story along the lines of a modern Romeo and Juliet, showing two young lovers blighted by their feuding families. Lead actor Aamir Khan shot to fame as the teen idol of the late eighties. QAYAMAT SE QAYAMAT TAK was followed by Sooraj Barjatya’s MAINE PYAR KIYA in 1989, another romantic movie with great music and family values, which brought another cinematic idol to the fore – Salman Khan. A third actor with the same surname – Sharukh Khan – became the biggest new star of the 1990s. Sharukh Khan began his career in the theatre and television before he got his big break playing a psychopath in BAAZIGAR (1993). He has acted in all of the big hits of the 1990s, including Aditya Chopra’s excellent romance, DILWALE DULHANIA LEJAYENGE (1995), and Karan Johar’s delightful KUCH KUCH HOTA HAI (1998). Sharukh Khan believes Indian cinema shares its dependence on love stories and simple plot lines with Hollywood.

During the struggle for Independence – P.K.Nair, one of the India’s leading film historians, believes that D.G.Phalke chose mythology for the cinema not only because it was an easy means of communicating to the largest number of people, but also because Phalke saw mythological stories as a way of evoking patriotic feelings in the Indian Nation at a time when the country was a British colony. By showing Lord Krishna overcoming the demon snake Kamsa in in his 1919 film KALIYA MARDAN, Phalke showed that it was possible to fight the powerful and to challenge the imperialism thyhat had plundered the whole Nation in the same way the demon snake had poisoned the sacred river.
Social Film- Aside from the mythological, the 1920s saw the birth of other film genres, such as the social film (examples include OUR HINDUSTAN 1928, and ORPHAN DAUGHTER), the historical film celebrating Rajput history and grandeur, the stunt film based on the Hollywood model, and Muslim subjects inspired by Persian love legends including Laila Majnu and stories set in the splendour of Mughal Courts. The Persian love stories depended on family conflicts, court intrigue, poetic dialogue, and songs of love and lament and these were better served by cinema after the birth of sound. The Films with Muslim subjects were later developed into the ‘ Muslim Social’, of which the author Shahrukh Hussain commented, ‘Predictably, Muslim socials were about Indian Muslims and were the forum for the portrayal of many social institution of the exotic upper and lower classes of this community, (The CambridgeEncyclopedia of India , 1989 , Cambridge University Press) .

Music in Silent Era Films – Indian silent films weren’t really silent – as in Hollywood; live musician provided a sound track. The English language films shown in India’s big cities had a violinist and pianist providing the music. This two – member orchestra was usually musician from Goa – a Portuguese colony at that time – who had studied music and could sight – read. The harmonium and tabla were the main instruments played with Indian silent films. In his article ‘ Sound in a silent era,’ celebrated music scholar Bhaskar Chandavarkar notes that ‘ The harmonium and tabla players were not only the first music directors but also dialogue writers and dubbers , as they were expected to stamp their feet , shout and trigger excitement during the action scenes , crying ‘ Maro’
(Hit Him), ‘Chup, Saale’ (‘shut up, you bastard’) or ‘ khamosh’ ( ‘ silence’) while the villain got what was coming to him . (Cinema Vision, vol.1, January 1980).
Though this genre continued to have a healthy life in south India, in Indian cinema the mythological had virtually disappeared by the 1950s . Later , at the height of 1970s action and vendetta films , Vijay Sharma’s low budget movie ‘JAI SANTOSHI MAA’ broke all box – office records by becoming one of the biggest hits of 1975 ( along with blockbusters such as SHOLAY and DEEWAR ) . This film made Santoshi Maa , a little – known Goddess , into a hugely popular icon and many people throughout India kept a fast , or vrat , in Her name . The film’s popularity was so extra ordinary that it later became the subject of academic study by the Indian and International scholars: the anthropologist Veena Das analysed the film in her essay ‘ The Mythological film and its frame work of meaning’ ( 1980 ) , while American scholar Stanley Kurtz examined its influence and impact in ‘ All the Mothers Are One’ ( published by Columbia university press in 1992 ) .

The New Cinema and Parallel Movement – Mrinal Sen , a talented movie maker from
West Bengal is considered a pioneer in the new genre called ‘ New wave’ inema . In the early 1970s, he was its main proponent and he had to do a lot of explaining soon after the release of his BHUVAN SHOME (1969). Without imitating the techniques of commercially successful movies which are usually mixtures of rapid action , maudlin drama , violence , erotic dancing and singing , Mrinal Sen could produce a film that was not only a financial success at the box – office but cut a new path in filmography .
Some critics are of the view that Shyam Benegal’s ANKUR (1974) was the real path – breaker and that Benegal was the pioneer of the New Wave genre. His cinematic language shook the audience with its bluntless and originality.
Both Mrinal Sen and Shyam Benegal inspired many young film makers of the 1970s and 1980s, particularly graduates of the FTII, Pune . There were admirers and detractors for the new cinema. Some of the film makers created movies that could not easily be followed by ordinary spectators. Only intellectuals of a certain kind could appreciate them.
There is no doubt that these movies opened a new chapter in the history of movies in India. A totally new generation of film makers emerged. They used new techniques and evolved a new cinematic language, which was sometimes called idiosyncratic. They are all known for their originality, subversion of conventions and firm belief in the ‘auteur’ theory of the film.
Cinema, according to these directors, was the art of the director rather than of the artistes or the script writers . Each film is the personal expression of a view point , a personal filmic expression of the director . Many of these movies were not ‘ hits’ at the box office but they earned the respect and admiration of National and International film – makers and critics . Big names include Govind Nihalani , Ketan Mehta , Mani Kaul ,
Kumar Shahni , Sayeed Mirza , Adoor Gopalkrishnan , G. Aravindan , John Abraham , Nirad Mahapatra and Girish Kasaravalli . All of them pioneered a new path in film making. All their films differed from the ones generally ‘manufactured’ in the ‘masala’ or ‘ fixed formula’ mould .
Since these movies were not produced for any particular segment of the audience, distributors and theatre owners were not keenly interested in them; they found the conventional movies were drawing large audiences. Even the great director, Satyajit Ray’s SHATRANG KE KHILAADI (1977) was not a financial success.
The New wave directors were more devoted to the artistic side of their creation. The distinction between ‘art movies’ and ‘commercial’ movies became a popular way of labeling movies ever since the new movies came on the scene. But sometimes this distincton becomes artificial or even meaningless because some ‘ art’ movies have been commercial successes and some ‘ commercial’ ones have shown great merit and distinction on the artistic side and been acclaimed as aesthetic productions .
Some of new movies in the early 1980s dealt with sensitive socio- economic issues. They were also commercial successes. For example, AAKROSH ( 1981 ) which
won the Golden Peacock Award ; ARDHA SATYA, CHAKRA, PATINAARU VAYATINILE ( Tamil ), SAMSKAARA, MARO CHARITA, ELIPPATTAYAM and
CHIDAMBARAM .These won National and International honours .
In the 1970s, there was also the parallel cinema, with directors like Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Basu Chatterjee and Guljar and later, Sai Paranjpye. Their films had songs and dances and sentiment and appealed to the middle class. By the 1980s, all the art cinema directors were makingserials for television. The middle classes wouldn’t step out of the house. The cities had become so over crowded and lawless that the middle classes, even if they had a car and driver, would prefer to see something on television rather than go out. The art cinema was finished by the 1980s because there was no audience.
The justification given for such films is that the average Indian cinegoer wants relaxation. Why should he go after realism on the screen after all the hardship he encounters daily in real life. The Indian cinema is different from other types of cinema because the Indian spectator is different. He wants relaxation, entertainment, fun, frolic, singing, dancing, maudlin and sentimental stories, crying and miraculous escape from the hard realities of life – so goes the argument.

Some New Trends : The early years of the 21st century witnessed several dramatic developments in Indian cinema . Cinema was at last declared an ‘ industry’ in 2001 by the Indian Government and no sooner did this happen than the gradual ‘ corporatization’ of the entertainment and media industry took off . Banks, insurance companies and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) were persuaded to support the industry. The decline of the active dependence on funding from the ‘underworld’ of Bombay also had its beginnings around this time.
But perhaps the greatest impetus to the shake up of the industry was the rapid proliferation of ‘ multiplexes’ ( multt-screen theatres ) and digital cinema theatres , first in the metros and later in the big cities such as Bangalore , Hyderabad , Ahmedabad and Pune . Multiplexes offer a different experience to cinema goers, for in most cases they are part of a shopping malls and comprise theatres of different sizes. Thus small budget films could be released in multipleses and digital cinema theatres. Ticket rates are much higher in such multiplexes than in single screen theatres and therefore attract upper middle class families.
This has given rise to what has to be known as ‘multiplex’ films that is small budget experimental films on subjects which are rarely touched on in mainstream cinema. Young directors like Nagesh Kukunoor (Hyderabad Blues, Bollywood Calling and Iqbal), Sudhir Mishra ( Hzaron Khawaishen Aisi ) and Anurag Kashyap (Black Friday) have been able to make a mark thanks to the multiplex phenomenon . Small low budget films like Being Cyrus, Mixed Doubles, Joggers Park and other feature films were released in such theatres. At the end of 2005, there were at least 300 screens in around a hundred multiplexes across urban India.
The potential of low budget films at the box office has led to the introduction of new and bold themes by young directors both in the mainstream and parallel traditions. Homosexuality, old age (Being Cyrus), HIV-Aids (My Brother Nikhil), live-in-relationships (Salaam-Namaste), communication with the physically and mentally challenged (Black, Iqbal ) , religious fundamentalism (Bombay , Roja) , nationalist history (Mangal Pandey : The Rising) , patriotism (Lagaan) , and rural development (Swadesh ) have been some of the issues taken up for analysis in feature films and documentaries over the last decade .

Blogger-Akash Shinde😍 (Assistant Director)

Student Of Journalism and Mass communication.

In Tantra these 9 Rasas are the essence of all of our emotions.
1. Love/Sringara… It is the ultimate Rasa. The king or queen emotion that heals
anything. It frees the ego and connects us to devotion. When you appreciate beauty it connects you to the source of love. It is the creative play between Shiva and Shakti, sun and moon, yin and yang. The purpose of the universe it to experience this divine love. This love exists in everything. It is within each one of us and radiates out to the cosmos.
2. Joy/Hasya… This Rasa connects you to your humor, laughter, happiness and contentment. It is the extension of what you feel within love.
3. Wonder/Adhuta… Curiosity, Mystery, Awe. When you become fascinated with the idea of life. It is your playfulness and innocence. You enter into complete appreciation and become an explorer or adventurer. It is magic!
4. Courage/Vira… Bravery, Confidence, Pride. When you call upon your the Warrior that lives inside you. It is strong and vibrant.
5. Peace/Shanta… Deep calmness and relaxation. When you become still and quiet. In peace you become so full that you are empty. You will not find peace anywhere but within.
6. Sadness/Karuna… When you can experience sadness and connect it back to the cosmos, you then experience compassion. Compassion is what connects us all. Through compassion we can relate deeply to each other. When ones sadness is truly experienced around a situation it can give a sense of completion. Grieving is a key aspect in healing.
7. Anger/Raudra… In anger we go into the fire. One moment of anger can destroy lifetimes of good merit. Respect anger. When anger isn’t honored it can bring up irritation, violence, hatred. Feel the anger. Let it move through you. Breath into the fire.
8. Fear/Bhayanaka… Doubt, Worry, Insecurity. When we live our lives in fear, we shut down completely.
9. Disgust/Vibhasta… self pity, Loathing, self hatred. Only through a loving emotion can you heal and appease disgust
How Rasa Works in Advertising:
In Advertising, Rasa is an emotion created by the advertiser and experienced by the customer. First, the creator feels the emotion and seeks a medium for expressing his feelings. The audience receives this emotion through advertising, feels the emotion created by the creator, and thereafter re-creates the emotion. The creation works as a transmitter, generating emotion in the receiver who re-lives the emotion.
The following are the moods (Navarasa) and their corresponding Bhava. Every Rasa is identified with a specific color for the use in visual arts.
RASA
BHAVA
MEANING
COLOUR

RASA-

Shringar (Erotic)
Rati
Delight
Pale Light Green

BHAVA-

Hasya (Humorous)
Hasa
Laughter
White

Karuna  (Pathetic)
Shoka
Sorrow
Grey

Raudra  (Terrible)
Krodh
Anger
Red

Veera  (Heroic)
Utsaha
Heroism
Pale Orange

Bhayanaka (Fearful)
Bhaya
Fear
Black

Bibhatsa (Odious)
Jugupsa
Disgust
Blue

Adbhuta (Wondrous)
Vismaya
Wonder
Yellow

Shanta  (Peaceful)
Calm
Peace
White

Think about all the advertising and marketing messages you are exposed to on a daily basis, and you will begin relating these moods to each visual message you see, whether on television, magazines or social media.

Blogger-Akash Shinde😍 (Assistant Director)

Student Of Journalism and Mass communication.