Art is a reinterpretation of the world we live in, possibly through the creation of new worlds. In fact, it is often by visiting these other worlds that we may know ourselves better. Any form of art should cause an emotional response from the spectator, and such a response is not only to cry, but to fall in love, to laugh, to feel both anger and forgiveness. I honestly think there can be movies that combine the commercial success of any popular cinema with the essence of art, which is, in the end, to make us feel. Consider works like Khakee or Rang De Basanti, mainstream Bollywood has taken on high production values: its films are slickly made, technically impressive and have offbeat storylines.
However, this year saw another spate of lowbrow entertainment at its best or worst, depending on your perspective - formulaic Bollywood fare - involving romance, song-and-dance routines and action scenes with their mandatory baring of brawn. Predictably, Salman Khan, the king of the front-benchers, is leading the charge. Coming on the back of mega-hits like Wanted and Dabangg, Bollywood star Salman Khan's latest release Ready has set cash registers ringing. Clearly, Khan-starrers work box-office magic. Over the past few months, we have witnessed a steady procession of mass-produced mediocrities through theatres around the country. Some flopped, others recovered costs and a few, sadly, did well enough to keep filmmakers interested in the hunt for the next super-hit. And in the process, genuinely good cinema was pushed further to the margins and discerning movie-goers sidelined.
Some would argue that popular cinema can coexist with art films without having to apologize for it. The defining marker of market-driven societies is not just what sells; it's also room to accommodate everybody's tastes and demands. Why should everyone face ugliness, gore or reality in cinema? If Bollywood “masala” has its takers, artistically made niche’ films have their own enthusiasts. Both audiences are legitimate consumers of diverse cultural products. This holds as true for books and music: there'll be takers for pulp fiction or pop just as for literary classics or classical music. There can be no uniformity in cultural consumption in democratic systems, simply because tastes can't be dictated.
But, the fact that these movies stoop down to such low levels of exhibiting art, all just for plain money – hurts me. It has been a steady downward trend since the eighties, perhaps the single worst decade for Indian cinema as far as general quality of movies produced goes. There has been a faint upswing since then, but art cinema as it used to be is all but dead. In the present day, the market dynamics are very clear: if you want to make a movie, make a commercial one or produce one yourself and own the loss. Such is the staggered pathetic plight of Indian cinema today.
Art cinema served a critical cultural function. It spoke of economic, social and cultural truths that still dominate in the vast majority of the country - truths entirely ignored by popular cinema, which sells a glossy version of urban life as an Indian reality. Letting the market decide the kind of movies that will be made is well and good, but when it results in the lowest common denominator coming to dominate an art form, the flaws in that particular logic begin to show. What we are seeing right now is the equivalent of literary fiction being dismantled in favour of graphic novels. It is curtains for culture.
The need to satisfy the crowds and yet reserve our values for innovation and art gives rise to a new genre in the broad classification of movies that target commercial success whilst maintaining a highly adorable place for innovation, art and originality: contemporary fusion movies by art cinema veterans like Shyam Benegal or the younger crop of experimental filmmakers. Movies such as “Rock On”, “A Wednesday”, etc. are notable examples. May be that’s the best way forward!
