Talking of independent film forms, independent cinema post-World War II made its way as a reaction to heavy influxes of dominant film structures oozing from Hollywood and rapidly smothering world cinema. So the Italians, the French and the rest of the world woke up, made their films with different structures and this contributed towards a changed perspective on films, with a large impact even in the US.
How can creating new systems of vertical integration led by a couple of corporate houses in pretty much the same way as our American and Indian friends mean anything at all?
But still, in these awakenings happening virtually on a global scale, an independent cinema or more the idea of films with different forms were explored in reaction to Hollywood’s rule over world screens that constantly produced films, which limited the audience’s reaction to reality, and also, stifled the local cine-industries. The “kalo chhayan” of the Hollywood genres and its realization were important trigger factors here. This lead to some absolutely nonsense and some amazing films working out of the hands of normal people—normal because they were not obliged to the corporate hoo-ha of Hollywood state of mind!
But when did any of that happen in Nepal? Nepal’s film scene has never been completely taken over by foreign films alone. Even today, when foreign distributors have taken over majority of Nepal’s screen shares, Rajesh Hamal does manage to secure his presence on the small yet scattered screens in almost every small town in the country. For me, it is those screens that are important.
So now getting back to the main topic; “Why does Nepal not have an independent film scene?” I have some answers to that.
First, cinema in Nepal realized itself only as a commercial asset, completely forgetting the fact that film before having a market is conceived out of a vision and that vision has more to do with his/her expression, which is based on a personal statement leading towards film as an art form.
Second, cinema in Nepal has always been a game played by the bourgeoisie claiming it a medium of the oppressed, thus creating double tags. The ones who have actually worked here are from classes that represent change but are working with folks that resent any change. The resentment is there because these investors have found a stable form of profit from the structures.
Third, the structures have been taken as a form of formula, a convention with fixed assets, something like opening a bank account (you open a Rs 35,000 account and get 7 percent interest). NO, that’s unfair; cinema is not an asset, at least not one with fixed exchange rates.
Fourth, all new filmmakers in Nepal just like the older ones have had their fair share of amusement related to the Kuch Kuch Hota Hai “Tushi Naa Jao” and the Rambo shootout scenes. But nowhere has the realization of the obvious need of these amusements been explored.
Yes, I figured it’s about time one would call in the documentary filmmakers here. A fair job by all of them (including myself), I must say. But where is independence even in these structures. The fair game in our documentary scene as of now has been played by either ones who realized their journalistic potential could be doubled when coupled with the hip development agendas or those from Young Asia Television needing a job once it went shut. I know I might have missed other categories but ignore my ignorance please.
So yes, the point is: If documentary is a form of cinema where we talk of change, or become active parties creating change, a form of revolutionary cinema, where has all the revolution from our documentary films disappeared? I question again: Since when did we the Kathmanduites sitting comfortably in those leather chairs and gobbling popcorns watching a girl in Rukum being raped mean change? And since when did we as filmmakers become real artists if all we are looking for are social values in a film?
So, here’s a word of caution people: If we think Nepali cinema has paced up in a certain dimension with whatever technical revamp certain projects recently have promised, I suspect we are wrong. Our cinema is just going through another round of confused state. How can creating new systems of vertical integration led by a couple of corporate houses in pretty much the same way as our American and Indian friends, and abiding with the same forms in our films, mean anything at all? Or, does it mean anything when donors throw a zero point certain percent of budget at our faces, which does nothing but stifle our creative potential? Just because we upgrade our optical toys or the LCD screens with a “piano finish” doesn’t mean we are heading anywhere at all.
I know of people here who have made films with less than 20k in their pockets but their films have died in some CD worth 10 rupees. However, I have had a similar feel watching such films as when I watched anything shot with a high-caliber equipment. Cinema comes alive from personal impressions and the desire to express, no matter whether you shoot it on a mobile phone or a 2K camera.
So long as the forms we use in our films are still the same, I don’t think we are evolving. Never before in Nepal have we been ready any better than now when it comes to making films and showing it out. As a filmmaker, what matters most to me is making a film, not anticipating audience reactions. I say all we need to do is break out of decades’ long vacuum-packed bubble of notions on cinema and run a mile that is actually real and something that leads to the true essence of our existence, where cinema comes alive as an art. Anyone can make cinema; we just need to try, and try hard. And trying hard means a lot more than not trying at all! You can make cinema but independence is born only when it is true to you.
(Writer is filmmaker, Harke-Films.)
adhirajenator@gmail.com
Related story
Film Development Board to take action against cinema halls that...
