INDIA AND HOLLYWOOD
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable ., length is that of one of our " News of the Week " paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference
over those bearing a pseudonym.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.I [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—It may be fashionable in Britain to speak of the "menace" of Americanisation through the cinema, but to forecast the conquest of India by Hollywood, as Mr. I. G. P. Singh does in his recent article in The Spectator, is to give currency to a gross exaggeration. The conquest might have been possible in the days of the silent film, when language did not hinder the appreciation of the comic antics of Charlie Chaplin or the romantic loves of Rudolph Valentino. But the use of the English language and of European music has limited the appeal of Hollywood to the less than three millions of India's population who know English. The remaining 3.50 millions have to depend for their movies upon Indian studios producing in the vernaculars.
Further, to count the number of cinemas existing or under
construction in a city such as Lahore, and infer therefrom an increasing hold on the Indian mind. by Hollywood, is equally misleading. Bombay City, for instance, has 36 cinemas, but hardly 12 of these are devoted consistently to the exhibition of American and British pictures. In comparison with Lahore's 20 and Bombay's 36, the whole of India poalesses only 650 cinemas—a figure which proves that as a cultural force the cinema is still inadequate. The vast majority of the people have yet to become cinema-conscious, to use the jargon of the day, before they can be conquered by any technique, Indian or American.
Mr. Singh, who has evidently been living abroad, has not realised the rapid progress made by the Indian motion picture industry within the last five years. The first successful Indian film was made in 1913 ; the first " talkie " appeared in 1931 ; the first multicolour production in 1933 ; and the first cartoon in 1935. India has not yet made educational pictures and news-reels, but when Government assistance can be counted upon there is no doubt that they will be produced. It is worthy, of -note that all this progress has been attained by Indian capital, Indian management, Indian talent and (for the most part) Indian technical skill. Even if we admit that the standard of attainment is low, there is no necessity to under- state the influence of Indian films upon the Indian people. This influence is greater than any dreamed of by Hollywood in India. During the first half of 1935 the Bombay Board of Film Censors passed 92 feature films, 408 " shorts," and 13 educational films imported from abroad, giving a total footage of 1,254,508. During the same period the Board passed 97 feature films and 37 " shorts " produced by Indian studios, totalling 1,270,309 feet. And what is more important, Indian films are seen by at least two to every single person who sec an imported film.
To give an exceptional example of popularity, the film Amritmanlhan, produced by the Prabhat Company of Poona, ran for a whole year in Bombay alone—a record that has not been approached within s...N'eml months by any British or American film in India.
Undoubtedly the Indian industry is in a far stronger position to educate the Indian masses than Hollywood can ever hope to be. The Hollywood advertisements and cinema chat which appear in the Anglo-Indian Press give no indication of their influence, because they are read, if at all, by only the English- knowing section of the public. That even this section is beginning to patronise Indian films may be seen from the fortnightly page of comment given to the work of Indian studios in The Times of India, an Anglo-Indian daily of Bombay. The vernacular magazines interested in film topics which Mr. Singh saw in Madras could not possibly have been devoted to Hollywood films, as vernacular publications circulate mostly among those ignorant of English, and such people we know are no patrons of Hollywood.
In spite of their many handicaps and shortcomings, it must be said that Indian producers do not fail to gauge the form and Pressure of the times. Two films now running successfully in Bombay show in what ways the Indian cinema is educating the multitude. One is Dharmalma, a reconstruction of the . life of the saintly Ekriath who acted on the belief that the un-
touchables are human beings made from the same clay as the Brahmins, and therefore in no way inferior to them. The story of his persecution by the orthodox and his final triumph is rendered with many human touches, and the applause which invariably greets certain episodes indicates that the rough and untutored masses can appreciate not only the artistic but the cultural message of the film. Another example is Dr. Madhurika, the story for which was written by Mr. K. M. Munshi, the foremost Gujerati novelist of the day. It deals with the domestic complications of a woman surgeon married to a lawyer, and the happy way in which they are solved. Sociological studies such as these cannot fail to have a tremen- dous influence on the rising generation. For sheer artistic merit, no less educational in value, the Calcutta producers cannot be beaten. Their greatest achievement up to date is Devdas, which can stand comparison with a great many western productions.
Few of the 100 or more producing companies in India are, however, working successfully. This is because of the restricted nature of the market and the high cost of production. As a result of the persistent agitation carried on by the Motion Picture Society of India the Government has recently reduced the import duty on raw films and on the machinery required by the studios. It is amazing sometimes when one comes across some good bits of photography to think that they have been produced with the minimum of equipment. Film groups have been formed in the legislatures, and the time is definitely passed for apathy on moral grounds. Even those who believe that film work is unbecoming for their womenfolk cannot resist the temptation to go to the movies or to serve on the directorate of cinema companies. .. • India is grateful to her cinema industry not only for giving encouragement to native talent and for leading a cultural revival, but for providing an escape from the almost ines- capable sadness of real life. The mimic screen helps many a burdened soul to forget all cares for an evening in the excite- ment of the adventure, mythology or contemporary social Anima that flickers for a too brief spell. True it is that India cannot afford to lose touch with the outside world which is brought into its cinemas by Hollywood. But the education of the masses is a task for Indians, and they alone can accomplish it. Despite its technical superiority, Hollywood cannot produce in an idiom understood by Indians easily : many of its studied effects, including jazz and nakedness, which might succeed in Britain, fall fiat even with the sophisticated city audiences. I am afraid the conquest of India by Hollywood so picturesquely fancied by Mr. Singh must be written down as one of the might-have-begins of history.—I tun, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
