AMITY JOURNAL OF MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION STUDIES Volume 4 Number 1-2 (2014 Issue) Published in August 2015 ISSN 2231-1033
Chief Patron Dr. Aseem Chauhan Patrons Prof. S. K Dube Prof. S. L. Kothari Editorial Advisory Board Prof. Richard J. Peltz University of Arkansas, USA Prof. B. K. Kuthiala MCU, Bhopal, India Prof Sanjeev Bhanawat RU, Jaipur, India Dr. Vikas Dogra HPU, Shimla, India Ms. Ruchi Jaggi SIMC, Pune, India
Prof. Hamid Abdollahyan University of Tehran, Iran Prof. Sarah Barrow University of Lincoln, UK Dr. Sony Jalarajan Raj MacEwan University, Canada Prof. Bradley Clark Mount Royal University, Canada Prof. Pradeep Krishnatray Johns Hopkins University, USA
Prof. Vepa Rao HPU, Shimla, India Prof. Sanjay Johri Amity University, Lucknow Prof. Debashish Choudhury Amity University, Noida Dr. Sumit Narula Amity University, Gwalior Ms. Esha Jainiti Amity University, Gurgaon
Editor Prof. Manish Verma Assistant Editors Jayati M. Sharma Nithin K In-house editorial team Gautam Bhattacharya Tanushri Mukherjee Avinash Swaroop Tripathi Siby Mathews Nikhil Gouda Dr. Ruchi Singh Gaur Gayatri Rai Rajesh Sharma Debastuti Dasgupta Copyright@2015 by the Amity School of Communication. All rights reserved. The views expressed in the articles are those of the contributors and not necessarily of the Editorial Board or the Institution. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of Amity School of Communication.
Contents
1
Editorial
2
Cut, Clip And Appropriate - A Critical Analysis of Suppression of
5 7-15
Alternative Discourse in Indian Cinema through Censorship Ruchi Jaggi And Priyanka Thirumurthy 3
Vikalp to Papilo Buddha: The Hidden Politics of Exhibiting and the
16-25
Forbidden Zones of Indian Film Festivals Dr Sony Jalarajan Raj, Rohini Sreekumar, Nithin K 4
Beyond Censorship: An Inquiry into Public Interest in Journalism
26-31
Dr. Vikas Dogra, Dr Manish Verma 5
Is Ban, A Restriction on Creativity?
32-39
Gitanjali Kalia, Gurjeet Kaur 6
The Conundrum of Self-Regulation on Television In India
40-47
Pallavi Majumdar 7
Between The Philosopher and the Censor: Post-Evental And Post-
48-54
Radical Consensus in The Framing of Censorship Subashish Bhattacharjee 8
Media And Human Rights: Journalist Covering Kashmir - A Conflict
55-66
Zone Lubna Reshi 9
Ownership Patterns Affecting the Content Of 24 X 7 News Channels
67-71
in India: A Critical Analysis Amit Kumar 10
Catching Them Young: Sensitising Children with Challenges Before
72-76
Freedom Of Expression Through Select Literary Texts Harneet K Sandhu 11
Media Ownership Patterns And its Impact on Media Content: Issues & Implications Tanushri Mukherjee
77-81
12
Political Economy of Media Advocacy and Human Rights in India
82-87
Dr. Shikha Rai, Chitra Tanwar 13
Linguistic Creativity Construction in Newspaper Headlines – A
88-100
Content Analysis of Five Indian Dailies Dr Umesh Arya 14
Role of Communication to Manage Low-Volume And High-Cost
101-107
Diseases Like Hemophilia—A Study in Delhi-National Capital Region Dr. Nikhil Kumar Gouda 15
Environmental Inclusive Education and Communication System: A
108-115
Sustainable Working Framework in Indian Paradigm Archan Mitra 16
Odia Cinema: Emergence and a Decadal Review of National Award Winning Movies Dr. Sudhir Kumar Patnaik
116-124
Amity Journal of Media & Communication Studies 2015, Vol. 4, No. 1 – 2
Copyright 2015 by ASCO Amity University Rajasthan (ISSN 2231 – 1033)
Editorial
Censorship, by definition, involves any outside person or some outside body, forcing writer or publisher what to publish and what to suppress. With “the Commission of the Freedom of Press” in the United States in 1949, most of the third world and developing countries like India adopted the social responsibility theory of the press. In the book Four theories of Press (Siebert, Peterson and Schramm) it’s been stated that “pure libertarianism is antiquated, outdated and obsolete.” This issue of the Amity Journal of Media and Communication Studies concentrates on critical and scholastic angel of interpreting censorship and regulation of media text. The theoretical framework is formed from empirical evidence. The issues cover extended issues of freedom of speech, self regulation and censorship of different media texts like cinema, newspaper, books, television and the Internet. The freedom of the press is now under question. The questions on our tables are of security, accuracy and self justification of the content. When government imposes censorship and regulation for “politically correct” context, the politics of “unsaid” remain silent. Here the superiority claim of journalism “voice of the voiceless” goes
voiceless! The victims of political correctness – citizens, journalists and media texts - deserve disclosure and discussion. The responsibility of a media and communication researcher is to register scholarship on these issues and provides understanding “censorship” in theory and practice. The censorship from an authoritarian point of view provides safe and clean governance, which restrict peril media texts. On the other hand, it is to think critically that who will take responsibility of those “missing texts” which dropped out after censorship. Through these insightful research articles, authors of this issue tries to bring out the critical thoughts on those media texts. What makes this issue unique is that scholars took the censorship in various levels of sympathetic. The authors correlate censorship and regulation with aesthetics, ownership, reception, effect, impact, gender and the economy. Even though censorship acquires different meanings from different perceptive and readings, it should never impairment the human rights and freedom of expression. When an authority acts between writer and reader – the meaning changes or recreated which is problematic.
Amity Journal of Media & Communication Studies 2015, Vol. 4, No. 1 – 2, 16-25
Copyright 2015 by ASCO Amity University Rajasthan (ISSN 2231 – 1033)
Vikalp to Papilo Buddha: The Hidden Politics of Exhibiting and the Forbidden Zones of Indian Film Festivals Dr Sony Jalarajan Raj
Assistant Professor, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Canada
[email protected]
Rohini Sreekumar
Research Scholar, Monash University, Australia
Nithin K
Assistant Professor, Amity University, India
Indian Film Festivals, being a third world film event, often has the unique highlights of people participations, ‘open forum’, film market, screening for prisoners and script marketing workshops. However, on the other side, the same festivals having more than half a century of history are often the locus point of controversies and hegemony. As a resistance to the highly commercialized Film Festivals, the concept of an alternative film festival emerged named, Vikalp: Films For Freedom, which was a six-day long festival of documentary films were organized parallel Mumbai International Film Festival. In 2012, in the International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK), film Papilio Buddha was taken out from the screening due to its alleged negative remarks on Mahatma Gandhi and overall Dalit sympathy it followed. Taking Vikalp and the expulsion of Papilo Buddha from IFFK as case studies, this chapter analyses the ideological hegemony, political intolerance and the class politics in the whole Indian Film Festivals. Keywords: Vikalp, Papilo Buddha, Censorship, India, Film Festival, Hegemony
INTRODUCTION
U.S. helped establish Cannes and few other major film festivals around Europe for its own geopolitical benefits. Between the first and the Second World War, the economic hegemony played a very important part in the global film festivals and the US almost had a free license to dump its films in the European market and to get these films screened at various film festivals. Although, it is tough to say with confidence how many of these films may not have made their way had the European film industry not been cash crunched and short of manpower and resources. Another key reason here was that the U.S. government played a very important role when it came to international trade negotiations while there was nothing as such in Europe (Valck, 2007).
A film festival is not only a cultural event, but an interactive and discursive forum to know the different films of the world. More than a venue for screening world films, it functions as an arena to deliver thoughts, networking amongst like minded film artists with a marketing opportunity to the producers. Since films are reflections on the ongoing social, political, economic and plethora of other contemporary factors, the festivals have also not been untouched by all these issues. It is a point which holds immense possibility of analyzing the economic viability, marketing trend and in the broader sense the status of film festivals as a medium of promoting the nation as well as their tourism prospect. Hence, a sense of political or administrative hegemony can be traced in all these festivals.
In India as well, a similar pattern of hegemonic control over the organization of film festivals can be seen. Major International film festivals in India are often aided or organized by the federal or the state governments under the pretext of the cultural promotion and creative endeavors. This result in controversies regarding the selection of films in these festivals as it always carries hidden motives behind it. It is as a protest to this that the
In the pre-World War-I days, European industrial superpowers like UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Denmark were the undisputed champions of the global film market.However, the scenario changed completely after the war as American hegemony kept on growing in the film festivals organized in the Europe. However, the 16
two alternative film festivals emerged in India, Vikalp: Films For Freedom and the Goan People's Film Festival. This article tries to look into the context of the emergence of Vikalp, along with the expulsion of the film, Papilio Buddha from the Indian International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK), in identifying the class politics and hegemony hand in the a popular event like film festivals.
because the Lebanese censorship authority believed that any mass display of these movies could create social unrest. The 15-minute-long Wahibatouka al-Moutaa was all set to be premiered in Lebanon in 2013 BIFF’s Middle East Short Film Competition. Before this, the film had already appeared at many global film events including France’s Clermont-Ferrand festival of short film and the Busan International Film Festival, South Korea. Conceptualized and directed by Farah Shaer, the short film narrates the story of Imane, an orthodox Muslim woman who experiments with the concept of “temporary marriage” to attain blessings for her dead husband. However, she is caught performing these rituals by her neighbor’s teenage son who then blackmails her to expose her activities unless the lady of fearsome a special service.
SIGNIFICANCE OF FILM FESTIVALS Gilles Jacob, former director and president of the Cannes International Film Festival elaborated the importance of the festival as below… To take the pulse of the world cinema once a year...To spotlight the new trends in film-making…… To promote a type of cinema that’s both artistic and of wide appeal… To showcase striking and difficult works that would not otherwise get the attention they deserve... (Wong, 1961). Although meant to promote liberal and fearless expression of thoughts through films and artwork, film festivals have often been criticized for their attempts to curb the same. This seems to be a universal phenomenon irrespective of the cultural difference. Before moving to the Indian scenario a glance at the some of the global instances that could possibly set the tune for this article. Controversy erupted in the 1981 Toronto International Film Festival when the documentary Not a Love Story: A Film About Pornography, exhibiting the challenges of workers in the porn industry, was denied by the censorship board to screen it twice in the festival. Looking at an overwhelming response from the crowd, festival officials sent a request to the censorship board for the screening of yet another show. The board denied permission stimulating skeptical attitude against the board. The documentary was a genuine attempt to stir up an ongoing discussion on the sexuality based on pornography in the US at that time, by looking into the pornography for the perspective of a women’s movement and take it into the mainstream politics, where it is pornography is heavily restricted and censored. Similar to the Canadian incident, in 2013, the Beirut International Film Festival turned down the screening request made by Lebanese short film dWahibatouka alMoutaa (“I Offered You Pleasure”) and the French feature L'Inconnu du Lac (“Stranger by the Lake”)
L'Inconnu du Lac was scheduled for screening during BIFF’s non-competitive Panorama section in 2013. The movie is about a homosexual relationship between two young men and was pulled out at the last moment (Beirut International Film Festival faces censorship, 2013). While evaluating these controversial films, sexuality is the major point where the controversies erupt. However it is the same factor that often get lauded as well in the same festivals. So the thin line separating this applause and accusation is often defined by the individual perception and prejudices of the censorship borad members. However, in the Indian context, though sexuality is never accepted without predicament, it is mostly the intolerance towards the political commentaries that films and documentaries often uphold.
INDIAN FILM FESTIVALS - AN OVERVIEW After the Central Board of Film Sensors was set up in 1950, it took mere 2 years for India to organize the first International Film Festival of India in 1952. Though being a non-competitive event, even the first festival proved to be so inspiring that many of the landmark films in Indian film industry is motivated by the Italian and Russian films screened at the festival. The Italian neo-realism propagated by films like Bicycle Thieves and Miracle in Milan, has influenced Indian filmmakers like MrinalSen and Satyajit Ray to turn their lens to the middle/working-class that made them the classic filmmakers in the Indian film history. However, it took 9 17
years to organize the second film festival owing in Delhi also as a non-competing event. In 1965, for the first time, festival became a competing platform to get the prestigious recognition in the festival.In 1973, the Directorate of Film Festivals (DFF) was set up to take care of organizing the National as well as the International Film Festival of India, the Filmotsavs, National Film awards, and promotion of Indian films abroad (Mathews, 2001). On July 1981, DFF was switched over to the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) with a more comprehensive mandate to organize national as well as international film festivals in the country, to take part in the international film festivals abroad and to organize film weeks under a cultural exchange program. To ensure an enhanced exposure to the regional films, the NFDC introduced regional film festivals of the panorama films (Mehta, 1979).
acceptance of a film /video” (Censorship at Indian film festivals, 2012). This authoritarian clause empowers organizers the prerogative to override the decisions of a duly constituted, competent and qualified selection committee regarding the selection of films and further leads to a direct suppression of freedom of expression and is inimical to the promotion of good, fearless and liberal cinema. Further clauses underline that the films that were shot in the digital format and were not intended to be released in the celluloid format would not be considered for entry. However, such films would become eligible only if the producer gives it in written that these films will be released in the celluloid format within a stipulated time frame. These censorship attempts are not merely limited to MIFF. For the International Film Festival of India (Goa), there is no documented censorship rule for the foreign films, however, for the local films willing to take part in the Indian Panorama section need a censor certificate to even be considered for inclusion. No film, which is not cleared by the censors board is considered for the National Film Awards.
Similar to the film festivals around the globe, Indian film festivals have been plagued with many human rights issues like rejection of films on the basis of ideological bias, sensor of screened films, controversial jury selection, political and monetary influence et al which chopped the wings of free expression right from the inception of film festivals in India. The Indian Film and Television Censor Board was originally Set up by British rulers in the 1920s to restrict the entry of US as well as a few domestic movies with anti-colonial sentiment. However, the board went overboard in its attempts even after independence to mercilessly chop the Indian films as much for their supposedly racy content as for their political overtones (A dilemma and debate around relaxing film censorship in India, 2013).The similar ideology gets reflected when the films are to be selected for screening for various Indian film festivals. The clause 8 of the rules and regulations of the Mumbai International Film Festival (MIFF) 2013 says-
In 2004, Osian's Cine Fan, the 6th Festival of Asian Cinema in Delhi, Rakesh Sharma's Final Solutionswas the only new Indian entry. The film is highly graphical in nature and a powerful portrayal of how the Gujarat State authorities handled the 2002 anti Muslim riots in the state. Considering the nature of the content, the organizers of the festival asked Rakeshtoattain a CBFC certificate. However, he turned down their request and asked the organizers to seek an exemption instead. The deadlock was solved in the end when the organizers reached out to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and obtained an exemption from there. Commenting on the whole development, Rakesh said: "Not only is the requirement of a CBFC certificate for film festivals illogical, it is discriminatory, as foreign films screened in film festivals in India are exempt from this rule"(Narrain, 2004). Moreover, during this period, Rakesh Sharma learnt one very important lesson which he did not forget to share with the media and hence, with the common public- “If you want to make those films which speak hard truth, do not accept funds from anywhere.”
“Selection of films/videos for the Competition will be made by a Committee whose decision will be final. However, Festival Authorities reserve the right to accept or not to accept any film, if it is likely to offend the feelings and sensibilities of any country and /or promote racism or any other reason Festival Authority consider to be sufficient for acceptance or non18
In 2002, at the Mumbai International Film Festival, the anti-nuclear film War and Peacehad received the award for the best film; however, when the Films Division attempted to screen the film are shown festival in Kolkata, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting went so outrageous that it planned to shut down the festival down. Ultimately, the Films Division had to drop the idea. However, no explanation was offered to the press and the public. The incident did not end just here. The Censor Board chipped into the controversy. With a militant Hindu Right and political wing in power, many films were facing this burnt. The Censor Board recommendedfor 21 cuts in War and Peacebefore it could be deemed fit for public consumption. Out of these cuts, the most significant one were those scenes depicting the truth that assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was planned by NathuramGodse, anorthodoxHindu Brahmin, and that there was a ban on Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) after the incident (Frontline, August 2, 2002). The board also demanded to remove any and every references to Tehelka scam, a scandal in which powerful leaders of the ruling coalition were caught on the hidden camera either accepting bribes, or discussing about accepting the same. The film was a head on accusation to the coalition government and it could find censorship as the only solution to the problem.However, the producers of the film reached the court and a year later, the Bombay High Court decided in their favor and removed all censorship from War and Peace (Frontline, June 6, 2003).
movie also raises doubts on the tactics used by Mahatma Gandhi to advocate for the rights of the Dalit community(Ismail, Censor board's rejection of NY-based director's Malayalam film triggers debate, 2012). Due to rejection of certificate,Papilio Buddha, had to be taken off from the list of films being screened at International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK). The reason given was that the screening may cause disruption of communal peace in the city. In its explanation the board issued a letter listing a number of reasons-, “A certificate cannot be issued for its exhibition due it inclusion of visuals and dialogues denigrating Mahatma Gandhi, including burning his effigy, and the film's use of "visuals of extreme violence against a woman" and "the usage of extremely filthy language by numerous characters throughout the film”. These reasons, however technically correct may sound, depict the sorry state of suppression of the basic human right at the film festival, the right to express. On the other hand, film's producer, and its supporters are of the view that such a denial by the board is a direct assault on freedom of expression offered by the country’s supreme constitution. Cherian expressed his anguish in the following words“Papilio Buddha is a film that focuses on the atrocities committed against Dalits, women and the environment. Most of the objections are about denigrating Gandhi, Buddha and 20th Century Dalit leader Ayyankali. The perceived denigration seems stem from the realistic treatment of the film's climax scene, where landless Dalits are confronted by the police, who use overwhelming force to evict the protestors”. (Ismail, ‘Censorship has no place in a democracy’, 2012)
The debate about the suppression of human rights at various film festivals has always been a raging one. However, the debate got a new twist in 2012, when the Central Board of Film Certification's rejected a provocative, expressive and controversial movie Papilio Buddha, by an Indo-American filmmaker Jayan Cherian. The film had discussed the discriminative ordeals suffered by Dalits in Kerala. Board’s rejection once again got the issue up whether or not the government authorities should have any sort of intervention in the matters related to the work of arts and expression. The film was shot around the background of Kerala'sWayanad district. Here, a Dalit campaign for land is going on along with the community's mass conversion to Buddhism. The film has taken utmost liberty when it comes to depiction of issues like caste discrimination, sexuality and Dalit social dynamics. The
As far as the profane language used in the film is concerned, the producer defended it by saying that it is the day to day language spoken by the common man. For the depiction of violence in the film, he says that it is nothing else but the social disparity which takes the 19
shape of violence and not showing it in the film would not change the reality. About the sequence where the effigy is burnt, the producer defends by saying that it is a "common way of registering the anguish in India" (Shahina, ‘Blame it on Gandhi’, 2012).
CANNES, 2013). This makes Cannes stands apart from the rest.
ALTERNATIVE' FILM FESTIVALS - FREEDOM TO EXPRESS! The three key challenges faced by the stakeholders of the independent cinema are funding, censorship and distribution. Out of these, the alternative film festivals take care of the first two directly and third indirectly by providing a platform where filmmakers can communicate their ideas or skills to the ones who may be interested in sowing funds for these ideas. The continuous evolution of the parallel film festivals is taking care of the needs of powerful, impactual, at times anti-system and establishment and liberal expression. Outside India, humanities departments of many North American and British universities double up as an alternative platform for screening of these socially sidelined or rejected films. However, such opportuninties do not come through any organized channel and depend on many co-incidences including the networking by producer, timing etc. Hence, these films have to find ways for alternative distribution through film festivals in and out of the country, film societies, private screeening and world wide web. Despite all the struggle, the movement for democracy in the cinema has created a promising niche for such films and we can see many such films being keenly watched and praised by the audience (Aitken, 2013).
The real need of alternative film festivals in India comes from the fact that all the major film festivals here run on government aid. These festivals have failed to become self-sustained brands. With government’s financial aid comes moral policing interfere. For instance, International Film Festival of India (IFFI) which is supposedly a four decade old film festival as well as a flagship Indianbrandhas,been losing its sheen over the years as it was taken care and run by bureaucrats, who had no expertise in the domain. Hence there was no consistency in the way the event is organized. The Ministry of Information realized the creeping global criticism and decided to reinvent IFFI in 2010. In its reformed format, the festival constituted an expert committee which was chaired by film professionals to finalize a course of action get the IFFI at par with international film festivals like Cannes or Berlin. The committee comprised of Pritish Nandy, Kamal Hassan, Nandita Das, Shabana Azmi, Prasoon Joshi, and many others who made elaborated attempts for 8 months to bring out a comprehensive report. The report chartered out a clear path. Similar to other international film festivals, IFFI needs to be managed and run by film professionals. However, this attempt to ensure good governance could not sustain for long. In 2013, the I&B ministry announced that instead of the steering committee, there will a new committee headed by information secretary Uday Kumar Varma and a number of officers from various government departments with inclusion of Rakesh Omprakash Mehra , Ramesh Sippy and Pooja Shetty Deora etc. The idea behind having five members from the various Government departments instead of a FESTIVAL DIRECTOR merely pulled the event in 5 different directions. The common intention of the steering committee report was to develop IFFI into a liberal, independent film festival with no intervention from the government. On the other hand, the present festival team has no international level expertise in film-making (Shetgaonkar, 2013). Compare this to Cannes film festival. The core team of about 30 people carried long term expertise in their relevant areas (FESTIVAL DE
The initiation and success of Vikalp made the producers/directors of parallel cinema believe that if there is no official platform to showcase their work, a new platform can always be created. This belief propelled the birth of many new alternative film festivals in the country. The movement has become so powerful since 2004 that Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has itself started an alternative film festival in 2013, named- The Cut-Uncut Film Festival. The festival works towards spreading awareness about the process of film certification and provides a common, and public, platform for filmmakers and activists to openly discuss the issues related to censorship of the movies. The format of the three day festival was centered around panel discussions on issues like sex, nudity, portrayal of women in cinema. In its inaugural year in 2013, the festival showcased films like Gangs of Wasseypur (part I) and Tamil movie Subramaniapuram, both of which were received with shrunk eyebrows by 20
the board due to the profane language used, silent film Karma from 1933, which has got frequent kissing sequences, controversial Malayalam coming-of-age movie Rathinirvedam (1978), Yash Chopra’s Dharmaputra, which is a story weaved around the communal pogroms at the time of partition of the country, and the Telugu movie A Woman, which was re-christened after its original title, A Woman in Brahminism , irked social and communal uproar in Andhra Pradesh (Ramnath, 2013).
on with its protest. However at the wake of the 2004 Mumbai film festival, controversies again geared up as the Chairman of the Jury, GirishKarnad quit from his position owing to the flawed selection procedure of films in the festival. This added to the repugnance of the documentary film makers who had already expressed their rage against the censorship issues. Censorship was a mask for the then government, BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP), as to protect their own face from the anti-minority stand taken by them in Gujarat. Two of the documentaries that were deemed to undergo censorship were Aakrosh by Ramesh Pimple and Chords on the Richter scale by Shyam Ranjankar, both of which have been themed on the discrimination showed against the minorities in the post-earthquake rehabilitation process in 2001, along with the Godra incidentin 2002.Films like this on the demeaning socio-political context of India were intolerable for the government, as Indian film festivals are concerned as positive projection of India among the global audience. While this was revoked in the festival, Aakrosh was screened in the same year 2003 in the Indo-British Film festival organized by British Council at New Delhi.
In 2008, the hegemonic attitude of International Film Festival of India forced a Goa based NGO to bring out its own parallel film festival. The three day film festival named ‘Goan People's Film Festival’ screened a wide number of documentaries produced in India and Bangladesh and rejected by other film festivals. Since inception, the festival has screened documentaries which covered issues like un-touchability, iron ore mining issue, transition in Goa villages vis-à-vis special economic zones, mega projects and tourism and lives of five women aging from 16 to 60 belonging to different walk of life (NGO plans a parallel film festival coinciding IFFI, 2008). 'CMS Vatavaran', the premier Environment and Wildlife Film Festival and Forum screened more than 150 films related to ecological balance, biodiversity etc, organize experts sessions, talks, eco-trips, film store and music festival etcin an attempt to promote environment sensitivity at a large scale (CMS Vatavaran, 2013). Similarly, Mumbai Women’s International Film Festival is an annual 7 day event conceptualized as well as organized by Oculus Creations (a division of Dollphins Interactive Sciences Pvt.Ltd). The idea of the festival is to exhibit the creative work-piece by the power women of the industry. The festival screens a vast number of short films, documentaries, public service announcements (PSA) and feature films in which the fairer sex has fair bit of involvement (Mumbai Women's International Film Festival, 2013). Similarly, these film festivals have a notable role in the distribution of these films. For instance, all the films screened during Vikalp get distributed by Delhi based Magic Lantern Foundation and New York based Indiepix in DVD format.
Though, all of the films screened in the MIFF could not be verified, this chapter has consideredsome of the documentaries that have been awarded in the festival. Swayam (I, Me, Myself) and Ladakh, the Land of Mystery, won the best and the 2nd best Documentary film award respectively.Swayam was directed by the ArunChadha, deals with a positive story on the women’s self-help group and the role of micro credit mechanisms in India that empowered the women. His documentary, The Shame is not mine, was awarded the best documentary in MIFF 2000. Similar to Swayam, The shame is not mine is also a female-oriented story, in which it deals with a rape victim and her successful fight for justice leading her to a respected community leader in a small district of Gujarat. As it is feel-good movie and the empowerment of women, without touching the politics or religion, but the caste-discrimination, government gave full ovation to the film. Swayam, also followed a similar pattern of an all-good India where women is ‘empowered’ and government is dedicated to the economic well-being of the people. On the other hand, Ladakh, the Land of Mystery deals with the nature, beauty, culture and the people of Ladakh, a sparingly populated region of Jammu Kashmir inhibited mostly by Tibetan descents.
As said earlier, Vikalp was formed as a protest against the elite film festivals that proposed the Indian documentaries to be brought under strict censorship. Though the decision has been held back, Vikalp moved 21
Development Flows from the Barrel of the Gun, takes a similar theme of a developmental communication where by the documentary turn its camera lens to the people’s opinion of development and the adverse effect of it on the light of globalization and the new economic policy of India.
Not having an emotional or sentimental chord of narration added with the absence of any political commentaries or criticisms, the video is all about Ladakh that conferred it with the title of the second best documentary in the MIFF. However, the same year Indian government conferred it with the National award for the Best Promotional Video that really explained the status of that documentary in the socio-political context of India. It is quite contrary to note that a promotional film, which acts a publicity machine, was conferred the best documentary award the same year, as if no other documentary was good enough to compete with a promotional film. Perhaps, Way Back home would be the most acclaimed documentary that received three awards including the Best Documentary in the International category, International Jury Award and the Best film of the Festival. The film deals with the journey of a couple to their homeland Bangladesh in search of her sister who was separated after the partition in 1947. Moving through different emotional chords of history, journey, memories and relationships, the film has been acknowledged as the most beautifully narrated documentary on the aftermath and pain of partition.
When compared to the awarded documentaries of MIFF, these documentaries that have been rejected from the MIFF, also follow pattern- but the which is antagonistic to the former. These rejected documentaries fall under a category where social-consciousness and critical sociopolitical perception looms over the quest for filmmaking. Taking more of a journalist’s critical eye towards development issues, these documentaries are reports on the stiff criticisms against the power at different level. Moreover, at an international scenario, these documentaries (since being documentary, not ‘fictional film’) can easily tarnish the image of a developing national like India. While sexuality has been the major controversial theme of other international film festivals in the world (as explored earlier in the chapter), in India, political threat and power tactics takes the seat as the deciding factor of films in the Festivals. Although only a case study of 2004 was undertaken, the proceeded festivals in the later years are still under political scrutiny with the changing government in India.
These films follow a very subtle category that strategically avoided any inference on political controversies and take an entirely alternative unique, positive yet sentimental way of looking at human sentimentalities without risking the political patronage. This marks it entirely contrary to the earlier mentioned films on Gujarat riot which points its fingers to the political scenario of India or a section of the country.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Film festivals act as a mass medium in the globalized world, where by the filmic cultural and reality of each nation state join at one point, enabling the audience to compare, contrast, criticize and converse. As a concoction of several add-on events like film archives, museums, promotions, classes etc, it is one of the major events whereby an interactive participation is actuated with the filmmakers and the wider world of film culture. The importance of it lies in its locus as a platform of a discursive and independent forum where freedom of expression is given maximum prominence.
Now moving on to some of the documentaries that have been rejected from MIFF in 2004 and screened at Vikalp.Anjawa is Me,I am Anjawaby GautamSontiis a documentary that looks at the power-politics of India through the lens of few elected women member of Panachayats of Andhra Pradesh (a State of Kerala), who share their experience of how power has been misused and controlled by the ruling party. It elucidates the ineffectiveness of the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India which makes it mandatory to reserve seats for women in Panchayat.
In India, however, Film festivals are more or less a cultural event aimed at bringing foreign film experience with an eye on the achievement of an ‘all-good’ India. When sexuality (to a greater extend) has been tolerated by the government authorities as well as the society, a power-criticism is never encouraged in the cultural events. By 2000, the death-knell to socialist commitments
The Bitter Drink by Baburaj and Saratchandran, deals with the fight of a tribal community in Kerala, Plachimada, against the Coco-Cola company for their genuine concern over water preservation. Biju Toppo’s 22
and Third World solidarity had long since receded as a central narrative for mainstream Indian political life. Commenting on the way neo-liberal policies have become a part and parcel of the major film festivals in the country, The Statesman complained in an editorial, “Why can’t I&B ministry simply leave the business of organizing festivals to the private sector. If the latter wants, it will. If it doesn’t, there won’t be a film festival.” (D'Silva, 2011). To a great extend, the bias and the bigotry hand in the selection of films in these International festivals could be brought to control, if these festivals are removed from the clutches of government control.
festivals now being conducted in the country every year, every documentary film is now able to find a platform to screen. However, it is to be noted that while independent documentary films have been making a stand-out place for themselves, these have failed to reach out to the mass sections of the society as it grab meager media coverage. There has to be a pro-active effort on the part of these filmmakers as well as other involved stakeholders to make such anti-establishment, truth oozing cinema, a part of the mainstream. The authorities also need to realize that the society is matured enough to decide which content is suited for its consumption and which one is to be discard. With so many alternative avenues in place, the attempts to censor the content will yield nothing else but an uproar in the society.
In a desperate attempt to imitate the Cannes model and to bring out a transformation, the IFFI festival was located in Goa permanently in 2004. Goa has all the potential to emerge as the next hot spot for organizing a popular film festival. The place is a popular tourist beach destination, much like Cannes which puts it in an advantageous position. Moreover, not being very far from Mumbai, the festival will surely receive support from Bollywood stars, boosting the commercial value of the festival. India itself has more than four renowned International Film festivals organized in major cities of India. However, the presence of Indian films and documentaries in these festivals is a matter to be pondered upon.
This article has triedonly to touch one of the factors that a cultural event likes film festival in India or elsewhere hold for the academic discipline to scrutinize. As this area has been sparingly brought to the academic or research discussion, and film festivals are increasingly multiplying in its number, it leaves a wide gap of information in the discipline of cultural and economic studies. Moreover, as in film studies, transnational stardom and films are conquering the contemporary research discussion, film festival remain as the most significant medium at which such a transnationalism could be studies. Hence, in many ways, this article has tried to kindle a discussion that could lead to many unseen realm of cultural and political academic discussions.
At the same time we need to completely accept the fact that alternative film festivals are going to co-exist with traditional film festivals to match the demands of the next generation consumers. Thankfully, much has been changed since the inception of Vikalpa. With over 40 film
REFERENCES 63rd International Film Festival Berlin - Berlinale 2013. (2013). Retrieved
October
24,
2013,
from
Visit
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/a-dilemma-and-
Berlin:
debate-around-relaxing-film-censorship-in-india-362856
http://www.visitberlin.de/en/event/02-17-2013/63rd-
Aitken, I. (2013). The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of the
international-film-festival-berlin-berlinale-2013
Documentary Film. (I. Aitken, Ed.). Routledge Publishers.
About the Festival : History of the Festival. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28,
2013,
from
FESTIVAL
DE
ISBN 978-0-415-59642-8
CANNES:
Bandi, S. (2008). Films from the Margins: Women, Desire and the
http://www.festival-
Documentary Film in India. Proquest Information and
cannes.fr/en/about/aboutFestivalHistory.html
Learning Company. ISBN 978-1243439772
A dilemma and debate around relaxing film censorship in India. (2013, May
5).
Retrieved
October
15,
2013,
from
Beirut International Film Festival faces censorship. (2013,
NDTV:
October 3). The Morning Star.
23
Censorship at Indian film festivals. (2012). Retrieved October 28, 2013,
from
Ismail, A. (n.d.). No cuts and no screening. Retrieved October 28,
Petitiononline:
2013, from The Times of India:
http://www.petitiononline.com/MIFF/petition.html
http://mobilepaper.timesofindia.com/mobile.aspx?article= yes&pageid=15§id=edid=&edlabel=TOIL&mydateHid
Censoring the Toronto International Film Festival. (2013, Sep 9).
=02-09-2012&pubname=Times+of+India+-
Torontoist. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from Torontoist:
+Lucknow&edname=&articleid=Ar01502&publabel=TOI
http://torontoist.com/2013/09/censoring-the-toronto-
Jury’s politics decides film festival movies: K.R. Manoj. (2013,
international-film-festival/film-censorship-in-india-362856
October 17). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from The Hindu:
Chris Jones, G. J. (2006). The Guerilla Film Makers Handbook (3
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Thiruvananthapu
ed.). EAling Studios. ISBN: 082647988X
ram/jurys-politics-decides-film-festival-movies-kr-
CMS Vatavaran. (2013, October 21). Retrieved from CMS
manoj/article5241127.ece
Vatavaran Website: http://www.cmsvatavaran.org/
KK, Shahina. (2012, September 22)Blame It on Gandhi.OPEN
D'Silva, A. (2011, February). IFFY Event. Retrieved October 15, 2013,
from
Magazine. Retrieved on November 24, 2013 from
HIMAL:
619-iffy-event.html
Kumar, S. K. (2013, October 2). Small but strong. Retrieved
Godmilow, J. (1997). HOW REAL IS THE REALITY IN
October 28, 2013, from The New Indian Express:
DOCUMENTARY FILM? (A.-L. SHAPIRO, Interviewer)
http://newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Small-butstrong/2013/10/02/article1813799.ece
Grandish, S. (n.d.). Yorkton Film Festival celebrates 65th anniversary. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from saskculture:
Lal, N. (2007, September). Red Light Dispatch. Retrieved October
http://www.saskculture.sk.ca/index.php?p=Yorkton%20Fi
21, 2013, from infochangeindia:
lm%20Festival%20celebrates%2065th%20anniversary
http://www.infochangeindia.org/other/features/redlight-dispatch.html
Festival De Cannes. (2013, May). Retrieved October 24, 2013, from Cannes Film Festival: http://www.festival-
McGrath, J. B. (2011). Cannes Confidential: A Gatecrasher's Guide to
cannes.com/en/about/ourteam.html
the World's Most Famous Film Festival. Author House.
Ismail, A. (2012). ‘Censorship has no place in a democracy’.
Mehta, D. S. (1979). Mass Communication and Journalism in India.
Retrieved October 28, 2013, from The Times of india:
Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. ISBN: 9788170233534
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/Article
Mumbai Women's International Film Festival. (2013, October 21).
Win.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&Ba
Retrieved October 21, 2013, from mwiff:
seHref=TOIBG%2F2012%2F09%2F02&EntityId=Ar01504&A
http://www.mwiff.com/7-AboutFestival.html
ppName=1&ViewMode=HTML
Narrain, S. (n.d.). A censorship row. Retrieved October 28, 2013,
Ismail, A. (2012, September 2). Censor board's rejection of NY-based
from The Hindu:
director's Malayalam film triggers debate. Retrieved October 15,
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20
2013, from Round Table India:
040813002309000.htm&date=fl2116/&prd=fline&
http://roundtableindia.co.in/index.php?option=com_conte
NGO plans a parallel film festival coinciding IFFI. (2008, November
nt&view=article&id=5667:censor-boards-rejection-of-nybased-directors-malayalam-film-triggers-
2008). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from The Hindu Blog:
debate&catid=61:opinion&Itemid=56
http://blogs.thehindu.com/films/?p=4961
24
Patwardhan, A. (2004, February 27). Films for freedom. Frontline,
Sex workers' film festival raises eyebrows. (2006, August 11).
21 (4).
Retrieved October 21, 2013, from Taipei Times: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2006/0
Ramnath, N. (2013, April 24). Censor board will show its cutting
8/11/2003322812
edge at festival. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from Live Mint:
Shetgaonkar, L. (2013, June 2013). The Politics of IFFI. Retrieved
http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/bostOtnqEncpUasGL2 C0gN/Censor-board-will-show-its-cutting-edge-at-
October 15, 2013, from Goanews:
festival.html
http://www.goanews.com/blogs_disp.php?bpid=389
Valck, M. d. (2007). Film Festivals: From European Geopolitics to
Wong, C. H. (1961). Film Festivals: Culture, People, and Power on
Global Cinephilia. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 978-90-
the Global Screen. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-
5356-192-8
Publication. ISBN 978-0-8135-5065-7
25
STATEMENT ABOUT OWNERSHIP AND OTHER PURTICULARS OF AMITY JOURNAL OF MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION STDUIES Form - IV (Rule 8) 1. Place of Publication
:
Jaipur
2. Periodicity of its Publication
:
Bi-annual
3. Printer’s Name
:
Madhu Offset Printers
Whether citizen of India
:
Yes
Address
:
1339, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatok, Jaipur
4. Publisher’s Name
:
Amity School of Communication
Whether citizen of India
:
Yes
Address
:
Amity House, 14, Gopal Bari, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
5. Editor’s Name
:
Prof. (Dr.) Manish Verma
Whether citizen of India
:
Yes
Address
:
Amity School of Communication, Amity University, Rajasthan
I Prof. (Dr.) Manish Verma, hereby declare that the particulars given are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(Sd/-) Prof. (Dr.) Manish Verma (Signature of the Editor)
