What is political cinema? Is it the one that deals with political parties, public figures, ideologies and beliefs? Or is it greater in its scope, probing the problems that beset us as individuals, nation and society? Is it just a theme that informs a film or does it reflect in its aesthetics as well? Is it in the writing and the dialogue or in the tilt of the camera? This Republic Day we decided to go beyond the talk of nationalism, constitution and democracy and asked some of our young filmmakers about political cinema, the political films and filmmakers they admire and if they consider themselves political individuals. Here’s what they had to say.
Nandita Das (Firaaq)
In India the connotation of politics is either something to do with political parties or is seen as power tussle and hence deemed pejorative. But to be political, is to take a stand, to engage with the struggle for change.
Like most cinema around the world ours too has a political bone, except the bone is a bit small. It is less engaged and political than our country needs and deserves but that doesn’t mean it is not there. Satyajit Ray dealt with gender and class politics, Mrinal Sen and Adoor Gopalakrishnan have as well. Then there are the early films by Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani. Every once in a while there is a film that challenges and stirs the social conscience. Wish there were more of them.
For me political and personal are not separate. I do think I am political, but with a lower case p, as I see it through the lens of personal stories and struggles, not ideology or parties. I believe in asking questions, finding ways to hold a mirror to our own prejudices, dilemmas and quests.
Gitanjali Rao (Printed Rainbow, Orange, Blue, True Love Story)
It is about stories that pose (political) questions, not merely opinions, reactions or answers. When the politics is questioned and makes you think as an audience, the cinema becomes political.
An uncommon example, perhaps, is JaaneBhi Do Yaaro by Kundan Shah. Every dialogue, every move of that film is political. Every character has lived on. The film is born of a ‘condition’ not a ‘situation’. It continues to be relevant and I think it will remain so for a long time.
Indian cinema has been political, much more in the past than the present. With film makers like Chetan Anand, Bimal Roy, Ritwik Ghatak, Mrinal Sen and the early films of Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani, Ketan Mehta, Girish Kasarvalli, Girish Karnad, G. Aravindan, Adoor Gopalakrishnan etc. The new wave of directors saw much less political films but some one-offs by Anurag Kashyap, and now Nagraj Manjule, have helped pass on the baton.
I have too few (completed) films to my credit but yes I do question the existing politics of my city and gender in most of my work. This includes my illustration work. My first animation film Orange , all of four minutes long, was ripped apart by the censor board back in 2000 for painting nudes. I never applied for a censor certificate again even if it meant non qualification for the National Awards. However, today I would go forth and contest it if it ever happened. Over 16 years, my political ideals remain the same but my stance differs. And that's why politics in cinema for me is in the questioning, not in opinions or reactions.
Gurvinder Singh (Anhe Ghore Da Daan, Chauthi Koot)
Something which challenges notions of straightforward narrative cinema and its conventions is political cinema. That which calls for greater demand on the audience rather than feeding them every [bit of] information. It’s that in which the audience it also part of the creative process or rather forced to participate as a thinker rather than just a consumer. Political cinema is also about bringing to light hidden personal narratives, not recorded by media or even historians. It’s also about giving voice to the voiceless, but perhaps without veering towards propaganda. I sometimes wonder if propaganda films can be called political. If that was the case, the entire advertising industry would be labelled ‘political’ because there is no greater example of propaganda than that. You could be making political works from ‘self-belief’ or from ‘paid-belief’. Creation and expression are political acts; it’s the intention behind that expression which creates varying shades of the political in it.
Rajeev Ravi (Annayum Rasoolum, Njan Steve Lopez,Kammatipadam)
Political cinema is about observing your surroundings and reacting to it, if indeed you feel like reacting to it, and then expressing it. The reaction can be overt or covert. It can be very subtle too. For me, the kind of reaction depends on the space and time and a lot of other things, which cannot be specified in advance. The expression needs to be spontaneous.
Unlike my first two films, my third film Kammatipadam was overtly political as I felt the need to communicate to a larger audience. In the current scenario, unlike what was five or ten years ago, you have to take a stand. How that stand needs to be expressed and communicated is the personal choice of the filmmaker, depending on their taste and sensibility. The political stand will come through somehow, if the filmmaker has a clear vision.
For me, K.G. George is someone whose films displayed a clear political vision, in the context in which he lived and made films. I would pick his film Panchavadi Palam for how it was able to communicate and connect to such a large section of people, using the medium of satire to highlight the issue of corruption. I would place it above my other favourite political films like M.S. Sathyu’s Garam Hawa and John Abraham’s Amma Ariyan for this reason.
We have not seen much political cinema in a long time. In recent decades in Malayalam cinema, it has always been confused with loud films based on real political events. They need not be dismissed, but the public have taken wrong messages from these films. That is not my kind of political cinema. Any stand on any issue reflects your politics. We have had an illustrious line of such filmmakers in the past, from Bimal Roy to Balraj Sahni, who once made a stirring speech at JNU. Then, we have had those like Ritwik Ghatak, who wanted to work in television, for the reach that the medium had in taking his political idea to the masses.
Considering the situation that I grew up in, amid campus politics, being a political filmmaker has been somewhat natural. But, I don’t think I have reached a position yet where I could make such a tall claim. I need to correct my perspectives. Even in Kammatipadam , I felt there was this problem of perspective in the way I handled the Dalit issues. I need more practice, to overcome these. So, I would rather say that I aspire to be a political filmmaker.
Neeraj Ghaywan (Masaan)
Any cinema that attempts to be a true reflection of a particular time and space could be ascribed as political cinema. In that, it attempts to discern our identity and our existence in relation to society, state and its government.
An Indian film that deeply affected me recently with its political ideology was the documentary The World Before Her by Nisha Pahuja. It has led to me questioning how I have been brought up as the most loved male child as against my sisters. I have never questioned gender equality with as much anger as I do now.
Anand Patwardhan’s searing documentaries are an obvious choice when it comes to Indian political cinema. But in contemporary fiction, the films that have influenced me in my formative years are those of Gulzar saab— Aandhi , Maachis and Hu Tu Tu —and Anurag Kashyap's Black Friday , Gulaal and Gangs of Wasseypur . However my most favourite political filmmaker is Satyajit Ray because in his films, the narrative is of prime importance and the politics is a layer underneath. Yet, they are somehow closely hyperlinked. Our motivations, influences and choices are influenced by our world view and that is a political study that Ray brings in his films.
It was not just our cinema but also our television that was once deeply political in nature. On the one hand we had films of Bimal Roy, Shyam Benegal, Ray, Gulzar, fearlessly speaking of unrest, inequities, societal transformations, documentation of history and culture and political milestones. On the other hand we had television shows like Bharat Ek Khoj, Surabhi, Tamas, Hum Log which were reflecting the times that existed. I would say political cinema has declined since then, partly because even the audience for it has dwindled. The vicious circle has continued.
I personally believe it is difficult to make a completely apolitical film. Our world view, our history, our identity in the society, our relationship with the state, all of it is our entire existence. That’s what makes us and it is difficult to see ourselves in isolation to any of these. Cinema in its purest form cannot deny these either. As a filmmaker I am deeply concerned by gender, class and caste politics. These are the elements I would like to explore in the films I make.
However, I find it increasingly difficult to make political films in these times of brutal censorship—when it comes to both the Censor Board and the society at large. Writers have started to self-censor their screenplays. That to me is the saddest truth of politics in contemporary cinema.
Bhaskar Hazarika (Kothanodi)
To put it simply, political cinema is that which primarily serves as a vehicle for the transmission of political thought, within the boundaries of narrative storytelling like Peepli Live .
I really like the work of Nagraj Manjule. I feel he has channelled his lived experience in a caste-riven society to create incendiary cinema, but also one with mass appeal. I don't know how he does that!
Indian cinema definitely has a strong political bone, but the behemoth in the room (Bollywood) pushes such kind of films to the margins. Much of what is understood as ‘regional cinema’ provides a very happy home for political expression ( Lady of the Lake, Fandry, Bokul ), it’s just that people don't know much about such films.
Mohana Krishna Indraganti (Grahanam,Ashta Chemma,Golkonda High School)
Our commercial cinema, be it in Hindi or Telugu, has had overt left leanings. It has dealt with power politics in government, in society and within families. I’d pick films by Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani, Goutam Ghosh and the early films of Mahesh Bhatt and Prakash Jha. Parallel cinema presented politics in all its nuances. Benegal for instance represented a Nehruvian, secular idea. He and Nihalani also mirrored the strides in agriculture and industrialisation. Benegal’s Ankur, Manthan, Nishant and Mandi; Nihalani’s Ardh Satya, Drohkaal and Aakrosh ; Ghosh’s Paar, Bhatt’s Saaransh and Ketan Mehta’s Mirch Masala are cases in point.
Some of the mainstream films bordered on sloganeering when they portrayed the working class. An example would be films of R. Narayana Murthy in Telugu. And in the times of NTR and ANR, our heroes represented the working class. One would see Krishna as a factory worker and films narrated stories of workers versus owners.
As a filmmaker, politics and power relationships in a family are what I am concerned about. We tend to paint happy portraits of the family structure, while in reality many are dysfunctional. Be it Benegal or Nihalani or Ghose, along with making a comment on political situation in a country, they have also dealt with politics in the family system. In my film Ashta Chemma , the girl wants to have her say in marriage and makes it clear that she isn’t the kind who will see a boy in an airport and give her nod for the wedding. Another film of mine, Golkonda High School , dealt with politics of education. Tharun Bhascker’s debut film Pellichoopulu showed the girl going against patriarchy. It’s a comedy but you see her asserting herself and turning an entrepreneur.
We don’t have a strong political voice in our films today.
Films made by Prakash Jha or a film like Shanghai by Dibakar Banerjee are exceptions. Politics today isn’t black or white and filmmakers need to show the several shades in between. Anurag Kashyap’s Gangs of Wasseypur does a fine job of showing the power struggles in Dhanbad. A few contemporary Telugu filmmakers continue to narrate stories in a political milieu, at times focusing on the Naxals, like Krishna Vamsi’s Sindhuram , Krish’s Gamyam and Neelakanta’s Virodhi.
Chaitanya Tamhane (Court)
Political cinema is something personal. There can’t be any generalisations. It is difficult to be objective in arts. Your film wouldn’t exist without your own beliefs, biases and prejudices. It seeps in subconsciously. Political cinema need not be explicitly political either. Ken Loach’s Tess is not overtly political but a moving commentary on class issues. In fact, choosing to remain apolitical is also all about making a political statement; by refusing to address any sides on an issue immediately.
Indian cinema is political depending on where you are looking. Political aesthetic is there in alternative, underground cinema, whether it reaches out to the audience or not is a different issue. It is political in offering some kind of resistance and alternate discourse. At the National Awards a couple of years ago I was surprised by so much that is happening in language cinema which we may not be aware of. For someone leading an insulated, middle class life Anand Patwardhan’s documentaries — JaiBhim Comrade — were a revelation. You may or may not agree or endorse the views in political documentaries but they allow you to form your own judgment.
(with inputs from S.R. Praveen and Sangeetha Devi Dundoo)
