FilmIndia (1948)

This section is the monopoly of JUDAS" and he writes what he likes and about things which he likes. The views expressed here are not necessarily ours, but still they carry weight because they are written by a man who knows his job. 1VIVING AN OLD CAMPAIGN it Old readers of "filmindia" will recall a cam"%gn carried on by this journal against anti-Indian ins produced in Hollywood and elsewhere. It was | a result of this campaign that "Drums'' (a Brill picture glorifying Britain's imperialist policy on 3 North-West Frontier) and "Gungadin" (depicfc I the ideal Indian as a cringing, slave-like servant the Sahib loge) were banned in India. Through 3 campaign carried on in these columns and, later, 'ough a personal visit of Editor Baburao Patel to jllywood and Britain, the vicious flow of antidian pictures was checked. Later. Hollywood did 7 to make amends by producing a few by-noHMOS-perfect but nevertheless sympathetic pictures th Indian background — e.g. "The Rains Came", Lazor's Edge", etc. But now, there is a danger of the anti-Indian ms being revived. The gruesome newsreels of the >ts have already done much damage to the repution of India in the eyes of the world. Following their wake comes the news from London that "the nerican producer of a 'horrific' documentary film titled India Speaks, Mr. Walter Footer, is in Lonn to resume his 13-year old battle with the censors re for permission to show it publicly." We remlber this film which did much mischief when shown America and it was due to the strong protests made the Indian press — and with a view not to alienat% Indian public opinion on the eve of war — that e British Government had disallowed the exhibi>n of this film. What is this film like? Mr. Footer himself scribes it as "horrific". According to him: "I ose the sequence of shots on the basis of what was teresting, entertaining or horrible. Horror is good 'X-office. The film has been a great success in the ited States, but what India or the Hindus would ink about it I wouldn't know". When the film was last banned in 1939. "the nsors objected not only to the shots of mutilations Sicted on themselves by re'ieious fanatics but also remarks made by Mr. Halliburton (the commentor) on the Hindu religion." ill Hollywood_NoTr! In short, "India Speaks" is a film version of therine Mayo's "Mother India". By deliberate oice, the worst features of primitive Indian life are Krtaposed in such a manner that thev constitute a nder on the Indians and on the Hindu religion. ie Government of India shou'd lose no time in aking it clear to the British authorities that they Juld regard the release of such a film as an "un friendly act''. All possible diplomatic pressure should be brought to bear on them to get this viciously slanderous film banned for ever. In this connection, I believe our Ambassadors and High Commissioners abroad have a very important role to perform — as the guardians of India's honour. By keeping close, friendly contact with film producers they must see to it that if any films are made on Indian subjects in the country to "which they are assigned, a fair, sympathetic and" authentic picture of India is presented. In the old days the Hollywood producers used to apply to the British Ambassador in Washington in such cases and invariably a retired British officer of the Indian armyColonel This or Major That — was sent as "Technical Advisor" to give his 'expert' guidance in the depiction of Indian life. Our present Ambassadors can see to it that the proper type of Indian advisors are made available to studios wishing to tackle Indian subjects. I read the other day that Columbia is planning an expensive production, "Song of India", starring Sabu. Turhan Bey and Gail Russel (as an Indian princess). What steps has the Indian Embassy in Washington taken to tender correct advice Kamini Kaushal and Leela Chitnis vying with each other in charm and glamour in Filmistan*s forthcoming picture, 'Shaheed". 9