World Film and Television Progress (1937-1938)

India's Rope-Trick Talkies by C. K. Sachi The stature of the industry in India may be indicated by the fact that its total capitalisation is estimated at very nearly £10,000,000. All this capital as well as the entire labour, direction and management is and has always been 100 per cent Indian. It is estimated that the industry supports about 25,000 people. There are no less than 300 producing units and, of these, while the largest number are organised as limited liability companies (usually private) there are a few which still remain some rich man's hobby. Even of those organised as commercial concerns, the majority, as a rule, gamble precariously with one picture, one story or one set of artists. About 350 pictures are produced every year and the number has been continually on the increase, but of these, only about a dozen score spectacular success. Of recent months though, a healthy tendency is noticeable and fewer mushroom organisations spring up. So long as the film was a novelty to dazzle the villager with its miracle of pictures talking, the technical knowledge required to produce average pictures was very little: anybody with a few thousand pounds to risk was sure of a good return and stood to gain enormously. To-day, however, the novelty has worn thin, audiences become daily more critical and, in order to compete successfully, greater experience and technical skill are required. A number of these one-picture organisations failed disastrously, although it still is very largely true in South India that few pictures fail to 20 recover their cost. The gambler is yielding place slowly to the sober business man who organises with a view to establishing a sound business. The average amount spent on a talkie is about £5,000, although, every now and then, a spectacular production running to twice that amount, or more, is attempted. Economically, £5,000 makes a safe investment and it is therefore inevitable that the equipment of most studios is miserably inadequate. No British producer will hazard a production with such poor equipment, and the way some talkies are made is as marvellous as the rope-trick. Some of the more ambitious studios describe themselves as sound-proof, but a crow on the roof or a passing car shatter the illusion. Plate glass and zinc sheets in alternate sections is the usual roofing. Bombay and Calcutta wall in their stages, but there are many, particularly in the South, which do not run to such luxuries. A few scouts outside, or a portly watchman may be, or a piece of curtain, screen operations from the prying eyes of passers-by. Judged by the standards of the market, recording is usually satisfactory and some simple, fool-proof recording system is preferred. The portable R.C.A. is a luxury and is a point for advertisement. One camera and an Eyemo is considered adequate, although some studios run to two or more cameras, but such a thing as a second camera shift is unknown. The weakest department of the studio is the laboratory. One can never be really certain of the work and it is a frequent experience still, to have the product of a whole week emerge from the laboratory with more pinholes than picture. When the silent film started its career in India, it scored triumphantly with mythological pictures. The gods could not talk indeed, but they could appear and disappear miraculously; the seas could be made to part ; a woman turned by a curse into a rock and many other marvels wrought. The first talkie pictures were also mythological, but even the vast store of India's myth and fable was not inexhaustible and the public taste for the merely miraculous began to pall. To-day the vogue of mythology is dead in the North and "social" pictures are now being made. But even now, in the South, mythology is the first favourite. The gods of these pictures are alarmingly human, lacking as much the physical grace as the moral attributes of the divinities they portrayed. Krishna has for example been represented as fat, slim, short and tall. Although these films repelled the educated, the peasant and his wife were well pleased indeed. The stuff that has taken the place of such films is however regrettable. Brilliant exceptions there are, but the attempt to Indianise the most hackneyed themes of Hollywood; to produce cheap "stunt" pictures and an atmosphere of cheap romance foreign to the spirit of the people, is the order of the day. The effort to interpret the civilisation of India, her ageless culture and her spiritual unity is yet to be made. Indian film stars are plentiful. The stage favourites of yesterday have universally adapted the new medium, impoverishing drama with the progress of the film. We have our Garbos and Laughtons and here and there a precocious child star. One stage star was paid £7,500 for a single feature, and there are a few who earn handsome fourfigure incomes. But what acting they do remains largely stagey. Songs have still a large place in public favour and many pictures in South India glory in the number of their songs : about thirty per film, each of over two minutes, is a fair average. The King, the Queen, the Saint and the clown all sing. This is partly responsible for the dreary length of the average Indian picture. Playing down to the pit has yet to be done to the grievous detriment of quality. A director who refused to allow a child in mortal agony to sing after being bitten by a cobra was taken severely to task. Difficulties also arise in portraying love. One director was told by the producer that he should not allow the hero to kiss the heroine or even to stand too close to her. I know of one case where the producer inserted a clause for bidding close-ups. "I do not believe," declared the producer, "in showing one person only when two are talking, and when a whole person is before you, why show just a head or a shoulder." The Industry is in a formative stage, and needs very urgently to be protected. The small investor is almost unknown in India and the big financiers have their own whims and fancies. Few, if any, have the imagination and sympathy that the art demands. At such a time it is essential that Government should give a helping hand. Sir Phiroze Sethna, President of The Indian Motion Picture Society puts the position forcibly thus : "Broadcasting and Aviation are receiving the fullest attention and support from the Government while the Indian film industry, which is equally important and which pays directly £100,000 a year to the exchequer, does not obtain a farthing for encouragement or improvement."