P.P. Sudevan, award-winning filmmaker, didn’t just align squarely with parallel cinema. He embraced and fine-tuned a model, which has by now earned him a dedicated parallel audience and even a market.
Having never chased a producer to narrate a story or a distributor to release his movie, Sudevan, unsurprisingly, does not see the reason to seek favours from the government or any trade body.
“It is possible to establish a creative space without the support of the government, Kerala State Chalachitra Academy or trade bodies like AMMA or FEFKA,” asserts the genial filmmaker.
The funding model developed by Sudevan using the contributions of well-wishers and proceeds from projection and the sale of DVDs started way back in 2004 during his short film days and long before his first feature length film Crime No 89 won the State best film award. “From three or four people in Peringode (in Thrissur), that circle has grown to Malayalis across the country and even outside with my latest work Akatho Puratho ,” says Sudevan.
Priyanandanan, another award-winning independent filmmaker, tried his own experiment to overcome the denial of screening space for parallel movies in theatres, out of, what he accuses, sheer prejudice and absence of fan power to fill up theatres on release day. He organised two screenings of his movie Pathirakalam before a select audience by hiring a theatre in Thrissur for a nominal fee. However, he is realistic enough to admit that it is not a viable model, which is unlikely to work outside his fief of Thrissur.
“Hiring even a government-owned cinema house for a single show during the regular screening hours costs about ₹13,000. Why can’t the government cinemas charge a nominal fee at least outside the regular screening hours,” wonders Priyanandanan. He also places a proposal before the government to make screening of select movies at least once a day for a week in 25% of cinemas mandatory. His prognosis being that once such a culture takes root, people will be aware of the screening of parallel movies and help makers overcome their inability to spend big on advertising.
Priyanandanan laments that even selection of movies in the International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) organised by the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy against a payment of ₹2 lakh ends up closing the door on a possible revenue model for their makers through screenings outside the festival.
“Instead of securing an undertaking for free screening of such movies (outside IFFK) screen such movies for free against the payment of a mere couple of lakhs on being chosen to IFFK, Academy should at least make an arrangement for paying a nominal fee for every screening of such movies,” says Priyanandanan. Academy screens films for free under its innovative programme ‘Touring Talkies’ to develop a film culture.
Actor Abhija Sivakala ruffled a few feathers when she decided to forgo membership in the formidable AMMA and, instead, remained steadfast with the WCC. She sees initiatives like the collective as part of a change taking place globally and a necessity of the times in a country fast becoming hostile to women. So it’s not just about the film industry, Abhija observes.
“I have never been a member of AMMA and so I have no inkling of its inner workings. Initially, I didn’t have the money to pay the hefty fee and later I was convinced that I need not worry about not being a member of the association,” the actor says.
She feels the larger question involving AMMA is whether it is interested in taking part in the progressive dialogue that is now under way. I hope the association would decide to participate in that dialogue, gain some reflexivity and be ready for a transformation. After all, it is not a battlefield but a shared space for exploring the scope for dialogue, says Abhija.
Sanal Kumar Sasidharan, whose last film S Durga brought him both bouquets and brickbats, is more disappointed with the Chalachitra Academy for what he feels, its shrugging off the responsibility of supporting independent cinema. “Often those at the helm are heard bemoaning how helpless they are because of the political and vested interests of people ruling the roost in the film world.” Even selection of a movie in IFFK is considered a big favour, though thereafter there is no support to independent film movements,” asserts Sanal.
It was to find avenues for independent cinema and free it from the clutches of government-affiliated organisations that the likes of Sanal organised a festival parallel to last year’s IFFK. He claims it was a success and wants to continue the practice. “Whether it is sustainable remains to be seen as independent filmmaking itself is not sustainable,” Sanal smiles.
