FilmIndia (1945)

April, 1945. FILMINDIA Is it necessary that we should get our tongues twisted up just because our politics arc all mixed up? Can't we carry on our affairs in a single language — Hindustani, and make it our national language lor all our purposes— for quarrels and affections? It is most essential that our him producers should readjust their profit-motif and start producing all pictures in Hindustani by scrapping all the different provincial languages. Pictures are still being produced in different provincial languages under the excuse that local masses don't understand Hindustani. Stop the pictures ' in the provincial languages, and after a year, find out whether the masses do understand Hindustani or not. The South Indians and the Bengalis who live in Bombay do seem to enjoy their entertainment fare in Hindustani. They don't seem to ache for their mother-tongue in motion pictures, because they get enough practice in their homes. 'GENTLE JAMSU'S' LOLLYPOP! Writes Hanen Svvaffer, the famous English columnist: "You may have read, in the "Daily Herald" list of New Year Honours granted to workers who toiled hard to make D-Day possible, these words: "An M.B.E. to Joseph J. Shelley, a London meat porter". I have now received from Shelley a request that it should be known that he has decided he could not accept the award. "I am an active member of the Transport and General Workers' Union, in which I serve on two ot its important committees", he writes, "and also a member of the Joint Conciliation Board of the London wholesale meat trade." "If I accepted it, questions regarding my principles might be raised and a false interpretation drawn. "Principles matter; medals don't". That reminds us of the M.B.E. awarded to "gentle" Jamsu Wadia. What the meat porter refused a film producer accepted. We would like to know, just for curiosity, tor what particular heroic deed was the M.B.E. awarded to "gentle" Jamsu. WAR-TIME CAMOUFLAGE! The painful business of production licences has now reached the floors of the Central Legislative Assembly. Egged on by some one, innocent members are asking all sorts of questions now. Central Legislator Muhammad A/har Ali asked: Q. Will the Hon. Member lor Industries and Civil Supplies be pleased to state on what grounds he has given licence to one Taj Mahal Pictures of Bombay, when this concern had already closed its business and even offices in March, 1942? R. The Hon. Sir M. Azizul Haque: "As far as our information goes, Taj Mahal Pictures did not stop their business from March, 1942 onwards. They were granted a licence because Government were satisfied that they could not actually produce a picture alter their last picture in February, \i.)j\2, despite their active intention anil preparatory action lor doing so and that considerable hardship would be caused, if a licence was not granted to them." We think the Government was wrongly informed in this case. If the records of the court case between Mr. M. A. Mughni and Mr. Ahsan, the Taj Mahal chief at the time, are perused at the offices of M/s. Khunderao Laud & Co., Solicitors, the Government will find out that the Taj Mahal Pictures had definitely stopped production work. Their maiden production "Ujala" was released in Bombay on 21st February, 1942, at the Lamington. Thereafter Mr. Ahsan paid off every one, closed his office and went away to Delhi with Miss Naseem. As far as our information goes, and it is more accurate than Government's in this industry, the Taj Mahal Pictures had no active intention to produce another picture. They seem to have jumped in to stake their claim seeing that huge premiums were paid for wartime licences. We can, of course, prove our facts whenever required to do so. It would have been proper lor the Government to have admitted that the licence was given 'ex gratia' rather than to have attempted to provide the affair with a camouflage of justice and fair play. Q. Is it a fact that a licence has been given to one Sadhona Bose, who has never produced a single picture? II so, on what merit? R. The Hon. Sir M. Azizul Haque: "Yes. On Mrs. Sadhona Bose's merits as a well-known danseuse whose record of contribution to the exposition of Indian dancing is worth preserving". The Government probably does not know that enough number of dances by Sadhona Bose have been framed in motion pictures to last a hundred coming generations as in "Raj Nartaki", "Kum Kum, the Dancer", "Meenaxi", "Paigham", "Shankar Parvat," and V ish Kanya". All these pictures proved boring principally due to Sadhona's classical dances. One more in "Urvashi" is threatened. There was no necessity of granting a special licence on such flimsy grounds and inflicting more boredom on the people. Sadhona's husband Mr. Modhu Bose has already produced some dance shorts tor the I F I called the "Dances of India". Was it necessary to have some more Indian dancing from his wife? If Sadhona Bose gets a production licence on her record of contribution to the exposition of Indian Dancing", then a greater claim exists on behalf of Ram Chandramohan is trying to act in the presence of Khuisl ecd in "Mumtaz", a Ranjit picture.