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.
June, 1942
FILM INDIA
Urmilla in 'Tamasha'' a social picture of Soubhagya Pictures.
in the city, while the important cinemas, which usually draw the crowds were as usual, showing "Mickey Mouse" and '"Donald Duck".
When the story of distribution is so dismal within range of Mr. Shivdasani's personal supervision, we wonder what it must be like with cinemas in the interior of the country. We presume that over 75 per cent of the cinemas in the country have had no chance of showing any F.A.B. shorts seeing that Mr. Shivdasam can not effect proper distribution in towns under his very nose.
We understand that there is a great demand, due to Shantaram's personal popularity for Shantaram productions of the F AB. And yet. a splendid film like "Our Gallant Effort" had to be shown at obscure cinemas in Pcona.
What is this fellow Shivdasani doing?
We would like to have some statistical information about the distribution of the F.A.B. films. May we know the number of copies shown at different cinemas with names of the towns and the approximate coverage and also the number of people who have seen the F A.B. shorts, so far?
We do not think, the F.A.B distribution department has kept any statistics of its work Usually Government departments do not keep evidence of their inefficiency.
Another aspect of this distribution which has come to our notice is the utter indifference of some of the more prominent exhibitors in the city. We understand that some of the leading exhibitors refuse to exhibit the F.A.B. shorts on one pretext or other. Mr. Shivdasani can, hardly, be expected to induce such people to exhibit the films. He lacks personal contacts which are so essential in a work of this nature.
Why can't the Government however, make the exhibition of F.A.B. shorts a compulsory affair? It is only a matter of one communique under the Defence of India Rules.
Now that the F.A.B. has become an inevitable item of public expenditure, let the pec pie see at least what is being done with the money paid in taxes every year.
We want to know from Sir Frederick Puckle, the big noise in Delhi, whether we are fighting or fooling through this war.
If this is a total war, as we are told hundred times a day, why the hell don't we put in a total effort in every direction?
Yes, Sir Frederick, we need one more Defence of India regulation to make our exhibitors show our war shorts for which our tax payers are footing the bill. And we also need a change in the distribution department of the Film Advisory Board. Give us someone less soft and more efficient than L. T. Shivdasani.
Why not place this department also under Shantaram and turn it into a beehive of regular work?
l .\ IMAGINATIVE PUBLICITY
There is another small matter to which we should like to draw the attention of the Film Advisory Board people.
Recently, newspapers all over the country have been receiving press circulars about the work of the F_A.B.
In one of the circulars, some G. A. Thakur, Publicity officer of the Board describes Shantaram as "master film-craftsman" and we are told that he is an "optimist of the first order*', "whose useful messages are echoing into the hearts of millions."
Now who should blush: Shantaram. Sir Federick Puckle or Thakur?
This purely feminine situation in "A'rman" is intended to rivet male attention in this Ranjit picture.
9