Filmindia (1941)

PILMINDIA February, 1941 of India", as the representative of the Government one wonders by what particular qualifications, experience or privilege can Mr. Smith be nominated as the representative of the Government. Would it have been too awkward for the Government to have appointed an eminent journalist like Mr. S. A. Brelvi of the "Bombay Chronicle" or if they did want an Englshman, a gentleman like Mr. B. G. Horniman of the "Bombay Sentinel"? In my opinion both these persons would have been more suitable for the job than Mr. Smith. If Government were anxious to secure the fullest co-operation of the Indian members of the Board as also of the Indian film industry in general, nothing could have been more popular to secure this co-operation than the appointment of a pro-nationalist individual. THE BOARD HAS FAILED SO FAR During the eight months of its existence the Board has been able to put out hardly seven or eight propaganda films produced by different people in different studios and seeing these films let me frankly state that none of Ihem can be called a real propaganda film designed to meet its primary purpose of aiding the war effort. Elsewhere in this issue Mr. Alexander Shaw writing on propaganda films says: "the blatant propaganda must stand the test of reason when the lights in the cinema go up and the audience faces the journey home." I doubt whether films produced by the Film Advisory Board so far will stand this test of reason as suggested by Mr. Alexander Shaw, the documentary expert now working on the Board. Take for instance the film "Voice Of Satan." It was so much oversprinkled with blatant propaganda that it defeated its very purpose. Propaganda to be effective must be subtle and as Mr. Desmond Young himself says: "the essence of propaganda is that it shall he concealed as far as possible." I would like the members of the Board to point out a single film produced by them so far, passing this test. Therefore to that extent all the effort of the Film Advisory Boarri, gQ fgr, \ias |?eef> wasted, and which conclusion is forced on us, inspite of ourselves. SLAVISH STATUS OF THE MEMBERS Dwelling upon the aims and objects of the Film Advisory Board it is not very encouraging to know that the Board has been formed merely to "assist" Government. Similarly, the Board is expected to discuss suitable subjects and submit them for approval to Government representative who will later on obtain sanction for production. All this makes the position of the members of the Board rather servile and of no consequence. In short it means that even if all the members of the Board were to arrive at a unanimous decision regarding a certain subject for production, the two Government representatives, namely Mr. Smith and Mr. Desmond Young, could still turn down the unanimous suggestion of the Board without givmg any reason and still do what they liked. If this is the position in a nut shell, I would like to know where was the urgent necessity of appointing a Board at all and making a pretence of establishing a democratic institution wnen Government could have well created a department with Mr. Smith and Mr. Desmond Young as the Lord and the Overlord. If the Government had done that I would hava had no quarrel with them today, because in these times of emergency any such action would have been condoned. But the pretence of democracy is too much to pass over. THE APPOINTIMENT OF ALEXANDER SHAW Right from the beginning the affairs of the Film Advisory Board have been managed not in keeping with the democratic traditions of the British Government but more in the fashion of the totalitarian countries of Europe. Mr. Desmond Young or his Bombay representative Mr. Smith has been the deciding voice in all matters regarding the activities of the Film Advisory Board. Let me take for instance the appointment of Mr. Alexander Shaw as an expert on the Board. Till the ?7th of August the memljerg Qt \hp Board did not know about this appointment. Evidently, Mr. Desmond Young had been in negotiation with the British Ministry of Information and took up Mr. Alexander Shaw at the "recommendation of Mr. Beddington". Head of the Film Division and as Mr. Young knew Mr. Beddington well, he "unhesitatingly accepted his recommendation" and took up Mr. Alexander Shaw who was described as "technically highly competent and personally very agreeable." Before getting this expert from England no attempt was made by the Government of India to find out whether there were people in this country who could have possibly helped the Government in doing the work for which the expert was called. Nor did the members of the Board know exactly, on that day. the qualifications of Mr. Alexander Shaw. In a meeting of the Board which was held on the 28th August 1940. a telegram of the Chief Press Advisor was read to the members of the Board and the appointment of Mr. Alexander Shaw was placed for approval before the members. Immediately the appointment of Mr. Alexander Shaw was known, some papers in the country raised a small hue and cry and to justify their action the Board came out with a press communique on November 19th in which they state "Mr. Shaw's engagement, which is for one year, was unanimously approved by the Film Advisory Board, composed of leading Indian producers and distributors under the Chairmanship of Mr. J. B. H. Wadia of Wadia Movietone." The meeting which unanimously approved the appointment of Mr. Alexander Shaw was held on the 28th August with an attendance of eight persons out of fourteen and under the chairmanship of Mr. C. B. Newbery. as Mr. Chandulal Shah was absent. I am not inclined to check up the technical flaws in the press communique, as mistakes will always happen in human efforts but I certainly object to the procedure of making this appointment without the previous consent of the members of the Board or without eyen telling them wh^t 18