Of FTII Bashing

This post appears in its original context on Passion For Cinema,
http://passionforcinema.com/the-technical-vs-conceptual-ftii-debate/
in response to Jaideep Verma's observation on FTII.
Let me begin by saying that FTII is not an external entity. All of us who have a “passion for cinema” and that is important, are part of it. Let any one deny it. I have observed this fraternity closely for fifteen years and have found no reason to the contrary. Like any institution of higher learning it produces amongst others, people more advanced in skills (what you call craft), more advanced in thoughts and more advanced in artistry.
All reach the first level some the second and very few the third. These are the sorted out, well developed, rounded off yet mavericks with unique voice and an address system easy on the ear. The institute does not produce them. Though the institute helps for sure.
They are everywhere.
As far as the institute is concerned its charter explains the sarkari expectation very clearly. To quote its vision statement,
‘To impart technical education and training in the sphere of films and television’
ref http://www.ftiindia.com/newftii/citizen’s_charter.html#ann1
That, it is a training institute as far as the government is concerned is obvious from the fact that it still awards post-graduate diploma to its students and not a degree. For all it’s posturing, this opening sentence has kind of summarized the expectations of the state sponsor to me, since I first read it in my student days.
FTII is a governmental institution and its direction is determined by the state. The state has very limited interest in promoting quality in arts, at least it seems to me.
That is if you are arguing for art.
For the commerce end of cinema FTII alumni are addressing admirably.
The art end you are laughing away.
Lets get on the same page about art and technique before we progress. These so called technicians are exceptional because they are artists. The artists as are generally understood in film parlance, namely the actors and the artiste, the big name at the end of the credits, the directors are so mediocre because they are mostly technicians. That is the state of affairs in general. Not just in films. Pure original thought, new invention, breaking borders, jaw dropping, unique, rooted, fresh are terms hard to relate to most endeavors post independence. I am left wondering myself, what more will it take to move us. Nothing touches us any more. How are we going to bring around a revolution? I am mostly alarmed at the apathy of the youth.
My wife just told me of this colleague of hers. She is six months pregnant, travels from Kanjurmarg to Kharghar on local. Doesn’t get a seat before Nerul. Why? Because young college girls look at her, look at the tummy, then look out of the window. This is the font of the feminine. If there is apathy here, god save the rest of us. Boys I can relate to, girls we are all looking at you. With what are you as a film-maker going to address this lot.
I guess if bribes to party in power on national television are passé to the people then we are close to the nadir.
Anyway it makes me squirm every time they say at awards ceremony how the all the artists were a charm and how the techies pitched in too. Such a mistaken understanding of the terms.
Now the expectation that a state institute with an indifferent attitude will produce the voice of the India without being its mouthpiece is a pipe dream.
Like any mix of people, FTII produces its exceptional directors along with also rans. Trust me there are many of both. They have to operate in a field that is run by the producer/distributor.
A little understood fact is that a film speaks the producer’s language. It is a misconception that the film is the director’s medium. In this scenario’s the question is why are we as a country not producing the right producer’s.
The writing on the wall is clear. When the debate of what is the role of the state in public enterprise is settled on commercial terms, then everything travels to the market. And in the market what sells is “Race”, no matter how passionate we get about cinema. So when social subjects used to sell we had those kind of films supported by private producers, when the state sponsored film making, those kind of film got made, now the state(NFDC) hedges one third of the film. So it is going to be one third NFDCesque and the rest marketable. Or we have the couple of crore vehicle which yours if you can bring it in within budget and time and if you have a sellable face. Who needs the story. To address the market we have the Vidhu Vinod Chopra and David Dhawans and now the Raghvans but I will be darned if any of the FTII kind can come up with the masterpiece or the marketpiece by the Abbas Mustan duo. Let me offer an answer, most of us feel could solve many of your concerns. The answer is distribution. Something that the state can do and should do. More than the production the independent voiced director does not find an avenue for exhibition in our country. The state can hardly break the producer/distributor hegemony. But it can provide a stage for voices that sing a different tune. Voices you want to hear. Then let the public decide. Right now a director faced with a complete denial by the market if his voice does not fit an agenda. This is the state’s true role. To encourage, support and publish plural, multilingual extraordinary attempts. That is building soft power. That is building state equity.
The best thing about FTII is the proximity to Film Archives. You take away the campus, you take away the staff, you take away the teachers, just leave the gear and the archive vaults, and the seniors. This is the mix that does the real teaching. The result is transformative. For you taste what cinema could be. And that is why there is a strong bonding between the FTII alumni. We are all stranded in a bewildering world with only the hope of one understanding the other. Sometimes the FTIIan appears unapproachable therefore. It is not so.
Well back to the transformation. It can be a story, it can be visual treat, it can be an aural delight, it can touch you, provoke you, stroke you but more than that it changes you. It is magical and there in lies the whole charm, for not many things in life allow you to touch or stroke or provoke anyone into anything.
And time and time again you have to see it being murdered in film and TV.
Now that I mention TV, I do not understand what is the fuss about its evaluation. Surely it is the pits. Working in that medium is a soul sapping experience as is watching it. It can be great but they are not going to spoil us now. Are they. Kieslowski did not cut the grade till he was thirty eight in an environment where his director friends, all well established by then rooting for him. And have we seen any channel pick anything close to Decalogue here or elsewhere since then. “Art form borrowed from your own life”, sounds like Martian to me. Who wants a slice of reality when I want to sleep with dreams of jewellery ‘she’ wears to bed. Meaning TV is about aspirations not inspiration or reality or anything vaguely remindful of it. Reality is Big Boss or sensational and ad embalmed news. That too rehashes from phoren TV. Originality in TV is Balaji.
This snobbery about the TV is well founded if you think. The entire range of media especially TV feeds on film. It’s not just the film screenings which fill airtime of channel after channel, it is the interview, the inaugurations, the life style, the gossip, the backstage et al which take up the rest. That too with the insipid, limp, sorry films that are the bulk of their fascination.
So to your point about the “simple story”.
To quote David Byrne of Talking Heads speaking of his compositions, “The words are there to make them listen to the music”.
There is this whole myth about the story as being the thing. Some kind of magic solution to our ills. The notion that we have the ‘technicians’, ‘artists’ and resources, get a solid script and hey presto. I take that with an overdose of salt. For one, story is not necessarily the conveyor of whatever that a film is trying to convey.
It is an audio-visual medium with its own codes. The ones who have understood have been crying themselves hoarse over it.
For one, my favourite films don’t have a story that will stand the scrutiny of the script whetters of any of the film banners.
A poor brahmin family in a village. A boy, a girl, a father, a mother and a grand old aunt. Episodes around rebuke and deprivation of the kids. The father leaves the scene for a long spell in search of better prospects. The aunt dies. The girl dies.
Father returns to take the balance of the family with him.
But brother can you take your eyes of this film after Ray adds his “atmosphere” to it.
I will come back to atmosphere later.
You mentioned Kieslowski. Short film about love, Double life of Veronica, any Fellini, Tarkovsky’s Sacrifice, Mirror, actually most of them, Bunuel, un Chien Andalou if you take it to the extreme are films with slim stories. Fitzcarraldo I forgot. Total mastery. Story of a man wanting to build an opera in colonial South America. So much for motivation. His solution- Get the money by transporting rubber, a prized commodity in that time, by ship down an estuary. So far so good. But first he has to cross a hill with the ship. Trust this film to Yash Chopra or Farhan Akhtar.
Know what I mean when we say atmosphere.
Another example when the mention of Yashji and Ahktar saheb has come up. This up for scrutiny but according to industry gossip Javed saheb was more than a tad disappointed with the final reproduction of the scene as he with Salim saheb had written for Deewar. You know the one under the bridge. What do you have? I have Ma. Well if you are wondering why quote a scene which is practically a celebration of the Hindi commercial, then the written scene suggested the bridge as a metaphore, the half shadows from which Amitabh appears a a metaphore etc. etc. What you see is a literal translation not a cinematic flight. No atmosphere.
Yet the scene works. Power of the writing. So this is a double sided argument. Bottomline stories and storytellers don’t grow in institutes. We need people with a voice and something to say. People who understand the sum total and are wanting to understand some more. Extremely short supply.
For this atmosphere is that elusive mis en scene. The absolute sum total. The total which includes the interesting/not interesting story.
So when The FTIIan sees it being misunderstood or murdered he takes it just a wee bit better than the average Joe. Then he lets fly.
So accept my apologies for the bad behaviour of the cameraman. He/she might just have been too overcome/undiplomatic/juvenile. Hard to digest he was unkind. The AD, FTII or otherwise is a sorry case. Boss don’t know what to do with them myself. Know any with their head screwed right and knowing their job, you know the works, do tell me. By the way FTIII does not make a good AD. There is no formal/informal training. Yet some are great. Caveat Emptor.
Lets leave this train of thoughts with this little lament that your references to individuals on your team was ungainly in an otherwise cogent piece. Purely because they were your team. You did not spot them right early on or something happened, it’s all your private education. Can’t label an institution on that basis. You know if I opened up with the bad behaviour of practicing directors, FTII or otherwise, it will fill up this server and next.
This moderated critique of FTII that they are good at technique but stink in their attitude, some are great most are lost is like saying Muslims are bigots but some of my best friends are Muslim.
When I read it, I said to myself that this may sound combative, but let me reassure you it is coming with an overdose of love. Really there is a shortage of leaders who can show the way. The path has to be created and anyone can be that path breaker. Write some fine stories, pick the right guys and make some great movies. We will all be there to help you in the process and cheer you when you speak with that clear, sorted out, rounded off, maverick, unique voice.
A word about the genius complex. Some one corrected me a while back. That there is nothing like a superiority complex. There is only one complex and that we all know too well. It is just that life is different if you have seen through the bullshit. It just leaves the people on the other side wondering what the heck are these jokers smiling about. A bit like the cows from Gary Larson’s, The Far Side.
Welcome to the film fraternity. Tons of success to your new film.
Best,
Tanmay Agarwal
GraFTII
PS: Your mail did incite a debate on the wisdomtree group(E group of FTII alumni). What happened there is another story, but simultaneously another debate was going on about using GraFTII as a suffix after our names in the fashion of A.C.E. or W.I.C.A. etc. It could not come to a unanimous conclusion. Many of us were scared of being looked at as exclusivist worst elitist.
FTII is a national treasure like IIMs and IITs. It is a pool of resources for all. Use it.
FTII needs all the support it can get to safeguard our collective artistic pursuits. It needs policy appraisal on a regular basis and quality input from the highest quarters. Help it.
For like the Smoking Blues, ‘It is what you make of it’.