Page 102

A case for film audience

S. THEODORE BASKARAN

LEAVE DISCO DANCER ALONE! — Indian Cinema and Soviet Movie-going After Stalin: Sudha Rajagopalan; Yoda Press, G 93, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.

Rs. 350.

In recent years there has been a change in approach in the realm of film history. Film scholars like Robert C. Allen say that the audience and their response to films should form part of film history. His article in Screen, in which he had argued the case for film audience, has altered the concept of film history. Stephen Hughes, for instance, has been looking at the film audience of the silent era in South India. This way a researcher would also steer c lear of the slippery field of content analysis of films, particularly when the films are not available for viewing. Audience, on the other hand, can be handled with questionnaires and with archival research. There is no need to get caught up in film aesthetics except when one tries to make the dubious distinction between commercial and “art” cinema.

Russian audience

This book is based on the author’s research on the reception of popular Hindi cinema in the Soviet Union. The book is not so much about the films that attracted the Russian audience but about the audience themselves. Following a trade agreement, from the 1950s Hindi films were imported into the Soviet Union. They proved very popular with the film-going public there. Hindi film stars built up a massive fan-following and there was even a Russian journal, Prem, dealing exclusively with films from Bombay.

Using questionnaires, interviews and archival material the author has documented an important dimension of film history. In trying to answer questions like what were the factors that went into the popularity of Hindi films and stars, she examines the social and political ambience of post-Stalinist Russia. After the death of Stalin, restriction of import of films into the Soviet Union was relaxed and that is when Hindi films found a new market. A trade agreement signed in 1946 was already in place.

Film trade

The 52 photographs featured add to the value of the book. For instance, the 1951 film delegation visit and subsequent film festivals, and publicity material used in Soviet Union have been included. Errors like labelling Ragini as Padmini and leaving an empty space only with the legend could have easily been avoided.

The author meticulously traces the development of film trade between the two countries. Beginning with K.A.Abbas’s “Darti Ki Lal” (Son of the Soil) and “Chinnamul” (The Uprooted) by Nemai Ghosh, the Soviet people began to get a regular stream of films. Nemai Ghosh incidentally, shifted to Chennai and played a crucial role in the trade union movement in the South Indian film industry.

Certain conventions developed over the years in the area of books on films have not been followed. For instance, when you list films you say what language that film is, colour or black and white, and who made it. For instance, “Mukha Mukham” (Face to Face) is a Malayalam film by Adoor and “Ezhavathu Manithan” (Seventh Man) is a Tamil film by K.Hariharan. They belong to cinemas different from what the burden of this book is.

In this book the author focuses her attention on the impact of Hindi cinema on Soviet people. Reversely Soviet cinema affected the other cinemas of India also. The film delegation from India that included K.Subrahmanyam and N.S.Krishnan and T.A.Mathuram had a big impact on Tamil cinema.

The book talks about this delegation. “Battleship Potemkin”, banned during the Raj, was allowed to be screened and grew into a cult film in India. The “Ballad of Soldier” inspired a Tamil film “Thaye Unakkaka” (For You, Mother).

The influence of Soviet cinema on India is another topic that is waiting to be researched. Sudha Rajagopalan’s book widens the areas of film study. Recently a Japanese scholar, Tamaki Matsuoka of Reitaku University, has looked at the popularity of Tamil films of Rajnikanth in Japan.