The Cannes Film Festival
is best known for it image of glamour, stars walking
up the red carpet waving at fans, and banks of
photographers catching every smile, glittering
dress, and unexpected grimace, to be shown in
magazines, newspapers and on TV screens around
the world.
60 years of coveted awards
For 60 years – for this year was its 60th
anniversary – thousands of the world's most
interesting filmakers, directors and producers
have attended the Festival, and many have won
the coveted Jury awards, the most famous being
the Golden Palm, which this year was won by the
Roumanian film 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days
by director Cristian Mungiu. The 'Grand Prix'
went to Japanese director Naomi Kawase's film
Mogari No Mori. Best Screenplay went
to Fatih Akin for the German film On The Other
Sides, Best Actress to the Korean Lee Chang-dong,
and Best Actor to the Russian Andreï Zviaguintsev.
The Jury Prize went to Persepolis an
animated feature by the Iranian director Markane
Satrapi (and an Iran-France co-production), and
the Golden Camera Award to Israeli director Eztgar
Keret's Jellyfish. Only one American
was in the list – Gus Van Sant – who
won the 60th Anniversary Award for Paranoid
Park.
The Cannes Conundrum
Have you heard of many – or any –
of the above? Probably not. Because here is the
wonderful Cannes Conundrum. The glitter, glamour,
global stars and paparazzi all hide the fact that
the Festival has always been a champion of individualistic,
honest, creative and innovative cinema, much of
which by relatively unknown filmakers. Or rather
the glitter runs side-by-side with the films –
with no apparent contradictions. All events, screenings
and red carpet walks take place in different parts
of the same building – the Palais des Festivals.
And although Cannes has never been overtly anti-American,
few are those who have won coveted awards here.
And those who have do not fit easily the mainstream
Hollywood mould – most notably Michael Moore
three years ago. But there is another facette
to the Cannes Conundrum. If the glitterati and
the films in competition are the very top part
of the pyramid, then the massive bulk of the structure
below is what Cannes is really all about –
The Market.
The Market
Cannes is the largest market for the selling,
buying, and distribution of films in the world.
It is a closed market, accessible only to professionals,
and this year there were 50,000 accreditations,
2,500 private screenings of feature films, 1,800
films in the Short Film Corner, the pavilions
of hundreds of countries and regions, and row
upon row of stands manned by film producers from
all over the world.
And there are the parties in villas or on yachts,
events, dinners, lunches, and drinks galore. A
lot of the networking in fact goes on 'after hours'
at these parties, dinners, and events, so the
contacts made are more 'human and revealing' than
in business meetings, and passing current is more
conducive to good human contact than a 10-minute
meeting in a stuffy room. It is so often at these
times that networks are created, contacts are
established, and deals are made. As Ajay Khanna,
newly appointed Head of the CII's Entertainment
& Media Division said at the end of his first
'Cannes', "There is a lot of partying
here, but underneath there is a lot of very serious
business being done". And this from
a man who is no novice in the world of global
business, and of India's place in it.
Where was India in the competition?
India has had no feature film in the Festival
itself – that is none have been selected
for the competition – for years now. No
Indian filmakers have walked up the red steps
to the eyes of the world in a long time. Many
other countries have – including China and
Hong Kong – I keep them separate, but they
are of course now essentially the same. So we
are naturally led to ask "Why?".
The answers are not simple.
• One reason often put forward is that Indian
films since the early '90s have just not been
good enough to meet the standards of content,
story, direction and acting that are required
for a film to even be selected, let alone win
awards.
• Another is that the Indian film industry
is too concerned with selling, licensing and buying
films in the Market to be bothered about critical
accolades in the Festival – quantity v.
quality.
• Yet another, more political and opaque
one, is that for an Indian film to have a chance
of selection, some kind of co-production with
a European country would be 'advisable' to get
the ball rolling. But so far international co-production
is something that Indian cinema seems unwilling
to dip its feet into in any major way. And yet,
as Serge Sobczynski, who selected the seven Indian
films for the ‘All the cinemas of the world’
section said, “In order to think globally,
Indian filmakers should increasingly look at co-production
deals not only with France but other European
countries as well. That encourages better understanding
of international cinematic trends and methods.”
• To quote the writer of a recent article
on Upperstall itself – ‘What’s
wrong with India cinema ?’ – "in
our film-crazy country, film-literacy is very
low". I think this applies not just
to the audience, but to many professionals in
the industry. How can a film expect to have an
impact on a sophisticated international audience
if it uses devices, characters, plots and sequences
which are to this audience at best either naïve
and over-simplified, or at worst have already
been used and re-used in films from other countries.
And even worse – if the writer, director,
producer and actors DON’T KNOW THIS. It
is one thing to use the language of older films
for ironic, creative or referential purposes (and
even, as the French say, as a 'clin d'œil'–
a 'wink' to the audience). It is another to do
something which has already been done, and NOT
to know it.
A short break for a couple of personal
views
Firstly, my personal view on the relation between
the Festival-Competition and the Market is that
the top tip of the pyramid gives vital coverage
and visibility to a film, a director, a producer,
a country – for it is this which is covered
by the media, not the big bulk of the market below
– and which is seen by millions worldwide
and discussed in debates on- and off-screen. This
presence then trickles down to the market, over
maybe a couple of years, so that audience demand,
created by the visibility and renown of films
crowned in the Festival, stimulates interest in
and sales of films from the country which has
been crowned. As long as India firstly does not
have films in competition, and secondly does not
win awards, it will remain very much on the sidelines,
and what will remain unsaid and unwritten is that
its films "just aren’t good enough
to make it". Secondly, as promoters
of increased collaboration between Europe and
India in cinema, we do believe strongly that more
international co-production in Indian cinema is
vital to getting many more good Indian films out
into the world.
A bigger, better Indian presence this
year nevertheless…
Back to Cannes …
While no Indian films were in the competition
part of the Festival, the Indian presence generally
this year was far bigger, and more visible, professional
and credible than in many previous years, where
it almost seemed apologetic, and slightly embarrassing
in the midst of all the other global players –
despite being the world's biggest producer of
films. It has to be said that in the past the
CII has been pretty 'underwhelming' in Entertainment
and Media, but with a growth rate of 18% in the
sector overall and 16% in film, they, and Indian
industry generally, now have to pay due attention.
This is why CII’s Khanna and his team were
brought in, and to judge by this – their
first shot at an industry which in comparison
to the more traditional sectors might seem to
have more than its fair share of 'creative chaos'
– they are well on the road to helping put
Indian cinema in the limelight where, with over
1,000 films produced per year, it should belong.
The makeover was dramatic. They first created
unity of purpose by bringing together previously
varied and disparate players, including the NFDC
and the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
in one India Pavilion. They set up a series of
'visibility markers' to put and keep India in
the minds of the thousands of attendees who are
literally assaulted by every country, producer,
and filmaker on the planet. These notably included
a series of very large strategically-placed hoardings
encouraging filmakers to come and shoot in the
almost infinite variety of locations in India;
a highly successful 'official' Indian party; a
whole day devoted to India cinema in the 'All
the cinemas of the world' section, followed by
a walk up the famous red steps by the whole Indian
contingent; and three times more Indian participants
in the Market than previously, all of whom said
they had done good business.
Which of course is the heart of the matter. There
is no doubt that this heightened presence, increased
visibility and more professional approach are
essential for a greater international awareness
of the Indian film industry, and for the marketing
of its annual production of 1,000-plus films.
But what is being marketed? Which and what kind
of films are we talking about? Are content and
quality mentioned? It seems to matter little what
is in the films as long as more and more of them
are sold. Because all this is really about quantity,
isn’t it? Moving the goods. As long as quantity
is considered the benchmark (how many times do
we hear trumpeted 'X% growth in the industry forecast
over the next Y years …'), and not quantity
PLUS quality and content, Indian films will continue
to sell only their traditional fare – in
India and to the countries of the diaspora. This
is the real challenge of Cannes and elsewhere.
The people
Many Indians in the industry had come –
or been brought – to Cannes to 'flesh out'
the makeover, and this move was much appreciated.
Film media, fans, followers and insiders like
to see, meet, and photograph PEOPLE. Among those
we met and talked to were Mani
Ratnam, Bobby Bedi, Ketan Mehta, Deepa Sahi,
Amitabh Bachchan,
Rajkumar Hirani, the Secretary & Joint Secretary
(films) of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Nina Lath Gupta – new Managing Director
of the NFDC – and Sunit Tandon, its General
Manager, Sanjoy Roy – Managing Director
of Teamwork Films and Productions, Saregama Films,
Seven Films, Maya Films, etc. A reasonable turnout.
Aishwarya was there to open 'All the cinemas of
the world', but failed to show up at any of the
Indian events. And poor Mr Bachchan seemed lost
in a town where nobody recognised him –
except for the dutiful Indian contingent –
and slightly uncomfortable as the guest of honour
at the World Premiere of Cheeni
Kum in a half-full smallish cinema in town
… not in the Palais!
The growing debate about Indian cinema
As in many things, India often does not really
care what the rest of the world thinks about it,
and just gets on with doing what it does ... being
Indian.
However, in Cannes, it was clear that there is
a growing and robust debate about Indian cinema
now and in the future – mainstream v. innovative
content, studio v. independent production, the
growth of non-traditional media through which
films will increasingly be seen (TV channels of
course, but also pay- and digital-TV, internet
streaming and video on demand, internet downloading
on mobile phones – which is growing at a
fantastic rate in South- and South-East Asia,
and which is already boosting a renaissance of
the long-sidelined short film, etc., etc.).
Perhaps the most interesting and in many ways
important debate is between mainstream production
and the studios, aiming at a still huge and profitable
domestic market used to formulaic films, and the
independent production companies and filmakers
who want to make interesting, new, 'good' films,
with content, story and character, and which can
be seen and appreciated both at home and abroad.
With the film sector expanding rapidly, the ranks
of both these camps are growing, not only with
existing players, but also with newcomers interested
either in making money in this new 'commercial
sector', or in being part of a world which fascinates
and enthuses them, and which they now see to be
opening up to their talents and interests.
I am not just talking about the flow of thirty-somethings
with MBAs entering this so-called 'new corporate
world' (although we did learn that it is apparently
less corporate than many people would like it
to seem to be ...), but about men and women in
their twenties and thirties who have already perhaps
an engineering or other degree, and who now want
to make a career in the hard but exciting world
of cinema, and who are being 'allowed to' precisely
because it is more acceptable and has greater
career prospects than before. Or who already have
a TV or small-scale animation production company
and who want to expand into live-action films
and full-length animation features. It is these
thirty-somethings who want to see Indian cinema
innovate and evolve and who want to be part of
doing just that.
A potential step for India towards the
competition
A significant event took place in Cannes during
the Festival. This was the launch of the new organisation
'Indian International Filmakers Worldwide', which
aims to develop collaboration and association
between independent Indian filmakers (including
those living outside India) so as to encourage
and promote independent cinema (www.iifw.com).
Their model is essentially the 'Sundance Festival'
and related activities created by Robert Redford
in the US, and they intend to hold a Sundance-type
independent film festival each year in India.
It is mainly the brainchild of Ketan Mehta &
Deepa Sahi, and seems to have some serious benefactor
money behind it.
Views of course were varied on this initiative,
with the 'studio-business-types' not seeing any
point in promoting these 'chaotic-independent-filmaker-types',
and others either criticizing the motives, or
questioning the chances of success.
But what is 'success'? As they say in French,
'au moins ca existe' (at least it exists), so
it's a wait-and-see. But in our opinion, it can't
be a bad thing, and could give the independents
a focal point, a collective drive, impetus and
facilities to help them create films which, who
knows, may be in competition in the Cannes Film
Festival in not too long a time.
Let's hope so.
Alan Ward is British and lives in Belgium
and France with his Indian wife, Prajna Paramita.
Together they run `IH Media`, which works for
closer collaboration between India and Europe
in film, music, and publishing. They are now concentrating
on developing co-productions in film.
|
