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.

FILM INDIA VOL. 3 No. 9 \6 But the semblance of unity which the formation of the Association has provided to all does supply an incentive to some unscrupulous producers who threaten and blackmail the journals of the film industry. Luckily for the industry this nefarious practice only exists in Bombay. It has not touched other film centres like Poona, Kolhapur, Calcutta or Madras as yet. But it might spread there some day if an appreciable success is achieved in Bombay. And even in Bombay only some producers take to this pernicious practice as easily as a duck takes to water. The others, fortunately for every one concerned in the industry, still believe in pursuing honestly their vocation of producing pictures. Let us divulge to you the modus operandi of these new racketeers of the industry. The producers who practise this new racket are those who constantly live in glass houses. For a time they flirt with the film journals and insist on buying big advertising space to boom and boost their own pictures and stars. Everything goes on well as long as the journals either unduly praise these producers or they drop criticising the actions and productions of these tingods. But journals and journalists owe a duty to their readers. And some day inspite of all this patronage they have to tell the world the candid truth about men, things and pictures. The day this is done, these scheming ambitious producers are upset and throwing discretion to the winds they threaten retaliation which would make barbarians of old blush with shame. The advertisements to the journals are stopped; not only of their own but of others who are drawn into the racket in sympathy. The journals have either to yield to this pressure or die a glorious death being starved of advertising revenue. 4 Is this the right attitude for any honest busi ?: nessman who puts his products before the public * for approval or criticism? And yet, from day to day, this is being done by some 'licensed' producers in Bombay with jc impunity to suggest that there is no honesty y left at all in the business of film production. The question suggests itself: "Is blackmailing the main business of our producers or are they there to turn out good pictures from month to , month?" Film journals are as essential to the film industry as good pictures are needed. Film jour ® nalism is certainly a more honest business than k film production, from what we see going on in some Bombav studios. • tr Trying to throttle an honest business is no 1 a thing short of vandalism, apart from the fact that tt such procedure invites a question about the moral t fabric of the men who indulge in it. Those producers who practise this racket of T synthetic blackmail must be condemned as moral : lepers of the industry. In insisting on an unholy retaliation, they not : only expose themselves and condemn their entire traditions but they also compromise their other colleagues in business by casting on their honest business an aspersion of doubt. How long is this state of affairs to go on? 7 Only as long as film journals and journalists : choose to submit to such producers, will the posi J tion be suffered. But the day, our journalists • decide to hit back, irrespective of the consequen "« ces to themselves, it will be a bad day to those cowardly producers who have made convenience out of their business to blackmail honest journal , sim. Very recently an instance illustrating this racket has been brought to our notice, the victim being a film magazine of considerable circulation. For months the able journalist editing the paper had showered praises on a Bombay pro : ducer, very often without any rhyme or reason. As long as this was being done, there was absolute fraternity between the producer and the