FilmIndia (1948)

igust, 1948 FILMINDIA r lials tagged to their ventures, are unwittingly and lustrously letting out the 'tricks of the trade' more to t detriment of the industry at large rather than their c 1 prospects which are generally foredoomed in any c ?. W ith all one's fascination for free enterprise and t husiasm for newcomers, including new7 producers, to r lace the old hags, it cannot be gainsaid that this kind can abortive hunt for suckers (who after all seldom tie in so handy!) is certainly most reprehensible and d laging to the industry's established reputation and p jardises whatever slender prospects which exist for il future development and grow th. When the producers, especially those on the horns oi dilemma, come forward to seek finance from quarb other than those accustomed to movie business, let tin have a clean slate and businesslike proposals bereft 9 the customary claptraps and subterfuges found in |)ue. For suckers (as they fondly hope) are unlikely jrush in where nowadays even the seasoned troupers tr to tread. Perhaps that millionaire British financier. Harold C. Cyton who is believed to have made millions out of tt film industry without hav ing seen a single film, would he to change his mind (and practice) if he were b ught here and got acquainted w ith the modus opeTiii of our producers. "He that hath not the craft, let him shut up shop" isafter all said and done, a motto whose significance rfjld never be lost on those who profess to have artisti eanings (however remote) — ideal or no ideal! ^ina and Ranjit Kuniari make a nice pair of flippy belles in Filmistan's "Sajan" HULLO, CITY FATHERS! In vain, after the last Municipal elections, have we been waiting for the new crop of our City Fathers to begin redeeming their many pious pre-election pledges and promises and to start 'springcleaning' Bombay's augean stables including the number of first and second run theatres nurturing the worst possible insanitary and unhygienic conditions as a matter of traditional legacy of one administration to another. In fact, judging from their rapid unpopularity and vanishing public confidence in them within so short a period of their regime, it is clear that, despite scathing criticism of their nonchalance, our City Fathers are fast stepping into the shoes of their predecessors and would even appear to be out to surpass their lamentable and ignominous record of sitting on the fence! Knowing well how very heedless they are to criticism and oblivious of the more urgent issues at stake and even assuming that they are not fully conversant with the state of affairs obtaining in the majority of theatres in Bombay, especially the second-run variety, I think it may be worthwhile to suggest without being impertinent that, before all is lost, our City Fathers should collectively (or in batches) take up paying surprise visits to picture-houses other than those they land the elite) are used to frequent and thus personally inspect, testify and gather first-hand knowledge of the abominable conditions and the countless other nauseating aspects surrounding our screenfare in this nation's First City which continue to be an ordeal for the picturegoer, thanks to the callousness of the theatre-owners, aided and abetted by the studied connivance of our Municipal administration and the working of the Health department of the Government of Bombay. I am sure if the City Fathers were to thus even belatedly take up seeing things for themselves, they will not only be better equipped to tackle the problem with greater efficiency and speed, but will indirectly be doing a service to themselves by regaining the fast waning confidence of the citizens. In view of the acknowledged difficulties in the way of erecting new theatres, it becomes incumbent on our part to see that the existing ones are kept in at least tolerably decent, healthy and hygienic conditions that is least expected of the management. The Bombay Municipal Corporation today is meriting many-sided attacks and denunciation of its "monumental complacency" and the press has been particularly unsparing in its strictures. A striking specimen of how vehemently is this agitation being mobilised is to be found in the words of the evening paper which wrote: "what is housed, impressively at Bori Bunder, is merely a conglomeration of rubbish, generously interspersed with City Fathers who have used the peoples' vote to make of the Corporation a public relations organisation for themselves This rubbish heap faithfully symbolises the bigger rubbish heap — Bombay. The Bombay Municipality deserves to suffer the same fate as its Calcutta counterpart, a speedy obliteration, after the City Fathers have been charged in a court of law for wasting 13