FilmIndia (Dec 1937 - Apr 1938)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

FILMINDIA a scientific process closely supervised by producers, technicians and publicists, while the artistes themselves strive more and ever more to maintain their popularity. Even in an enlightened country like Great Britain, star making has failed. England has no stars of her own. The studios in England are not any nurseries for stars but are just 'terrace-gardens' where stars from Hollywood are merely planted, very often to fade gradually out of memory. It is a well known fact that no Hollywood star has made a greater name in England than what he or she had in Hollywood. The Englishmen lack soaring flights of imagination which lend distinction to the American producers. In India, we never had real stars, and will probably never have any for a long time to come. Point us out a 'star' to-day, male or female, who can attract crowds on even the first day. The crowds which we so often see for Prabhat and New Theatre pictures have come there in response to the call of the trade name of the producers. But examples are much better than mere precepts. With due apologies to some of our film luminaries, we take the liberty of quoting individual instances pointing out some of the big tragedies of 'star-values' in our industry. However painful to us this exposition may be, we regret we cannot withhold glaring facts from our people if better interests 4 roi VOL. 3 No. 8 of the industry in general are to be promoted. The supposed 'star-value' in India has no box-office or art rating, but it is merely measured by the monthly earnings of these supposed 'stars'. Let us take the first eight in the Indian film industry in their order of monthly pay rolls: — 1. Sulochana, this Jew artiste, was reputed to be drawing Rs. 5000| per month, by far the highest salary paid to any one so far by the Imperial Film Company. She went out after the 'silents' but came in again into the talkies after getting a nodding acquaintance with the Hindi language. So far 14 pictures starring this 'star' have been released. Out of these only two pictures, "Madhuri" and "Indira M.A." could] be called successful while one more "Soubhagya Sundari" was partly successful. But the success of these pictures was more due to other elements than the 'star' herself. All these pictures were expensive jobs and took months in production. And on all of them, a small fortune in newspaper publicity was dissipated. And now scan the list of the 12 pictures that failed gloriously with tragic regularity. 1. "Daku-ki-Larki", 2. "Temple Bells", 3. "Magic Flute", 4. "Gul Sanovar", 5. "My Man", (). "Do Ghadi Ki Mowj", 7. "Pujarin", 8. "Anarkali", 9. "Wild Cat", 10. "Pride of India", 11. "Jagat Kesari", 12. "Wahari Duniya". "Jagat Kesari" and "Wahari Duniya" failed so miserably that those few people who stil St