Essay Topics
Types of Essays
Essay Checklist
Word Counter
Readability Score
Essay Rewriter
The pursuit of art is so lonely that only a searing passion of its own vision can sustain it. To venture into unchartered territories of the human condition requires a passion and a sort of madness that is sometimes at the abyss of self-destruction. However, most makers of art films in India seem to think otherwise; after the initial struggle these cineastes want their middle-class existence to be fully secured, says Suresh Jindal. The state being run by their kind favored this indulgence. The National Film Development Corporation in its earlier designations as the Film Finance Corporation was intended to give young film makers their first chance to make a film without being polluted by the crassness and vulgarity of mainstream cinema. Suresh Jindal has rightly said that the real trouble started when the FFC folded up and the all powerful NFDC came into being. Thereafter, bureaucratic roles became dominant. In this process, a massive fraud was played on the public with the connivance of the politicians, new wave film makers, intellectuals and sections of the media. A small group of the people monopolized the scarce resources available, despite the fact that their productions were bankrupting the NFDC. For most of these films despite the claims to the contrary, never recouped their investments. The only recoveries they made later on were from the government bodies like Doordarshan and the ministry of external affairs. How many of their films found buyers abroad? We have been brainwashed and deluded into believing that tokenism of the Third World representation at international festivals of this cinema implied an appreciation for it. The Chinese cinema made its international debut much later than ours; its success at both the critical as well as box-office levels, showed us our own poverty and delusions of grar Jeer. Those who are regular festival viewers will see the complete indifference it generated among foreign critics. It is significant that all the purported profits of the NFDC have three sources: (i) the film Gandhi; (ii) the canalizing commission that the entire mainstream cinema was forced to pay on import of raw stock and export of finished film; and (iii) the monopoly over the import of foreign films along with the Motion Pictures Export Corporation of America. With the commercialization of Doordarshan, they got the monopoly over telecasting mainstream film-based programs. It is not an obvious fact that except for a handful of people invitees to special screenings, and film societies nobody has either seen these films, nor are there any chances of their being seen. The impression given in India was that "the 'natives' were not yet involved in the finer sensibilities of international cinema to appreciate these prophetic artists of the future. Hence their works were not expected to set the Ganga and the lacrica on fire." The time has come to ask the question: Have they set the Seine, the Thames, the Potomac or the Danube on fire? " The Volga certainly was put by the non-maligned commercial cinema of Raj Kapoor, Guru Dutt, Mehboob Khan, Amitabh Bachhan and so on. Whether through ignorance or through connivance, through indulgence or conspiracy, a fraud was perpetuated on the public by the selective promotion of some film makers as 'internationally famous' and 'internationally acclaimed'. Nobody cared to ask the 'fundamental 'question of how many awards were won by these producers. Mainstream cinema gives its surplus to encourage new technology, form and content. Cinema cannot be run from a bureaucratic office by decrees and licensing shops. Cinema is not like other muses writing, poetry and painting, etc. that can be individually created. Cinema requires the talents and energies of many skills. Cinema is very expensive and must have an audience which can pay for its making. This can only happen with an effective distribution and exhibition network. That requires the talents and energies of another set of people. Such people exist in the mainstream. To condemn them, humiliate them, and act morally superior to them is like committing suicide. The mainstream cinema, starting with Bhuvan Shome, has always given space-foot for this cinema at the box-office. The success of "Fire", "Bombay Boys", and "Hyderabad Blues", and "Black" shows that there is an audience for it too. Further, since all these films are made without government money, it is clear that there are producers and financiers in the private sector who are keen to support an alternative cinema. The construction of the-state-of-art theatre complexes in Mumbai and Delhi show that there is private initiative to modernize exhibition infrastructure. The government, except for formulating cinema- friendly policy has no business to be in show business. The sound bites and glory given to these filmmakers should have been used to seek a vision beyond a narrow self- interest of squandering public funds, foreign travel and unmerited wastage of media space. They should have joined their colleagues in mainstream cinema to change the shortsighted colonial policies of the state. Their very survival depends on critical changes in government policies like exemption from entertainment tax, declaring cinema as an industry, incentives for theatre construction and abolition of the films division tax which was imposed by the British government during World War II to subsidize their propaganda films. They should have rebelled against the government that penalized cinema exports by putting a canalized tax on it.
Essay Writing Checklist
The following guidelines are designed to give students a checklist to use, whether they are revising individually or as part of a peer review team.
Introduction
  • Is the main idea (i.e., the writer's opinion of the story title) stated clearly?
  • Is the introductory paragraph interesting? Does it make the reader want to keep on reading?
Body Paragraph
  • Does each body paragraph have a clear topic sentence that is related to the main idea of the essay?
  • Does each body paragraph include specific information from the text(including quoted evidence from the text, if required by the instructor)that supports the topic sentence?
  • Is there a clear plan for the order of the body paragraphs (i.e., order of importance, chronology in the story, etc.)?
  • Does each body paragraph transition smoothly to the next?
Conclusion
  • Is the main idea of the essay restated in different words?
  • Are the supporting ideas summarized succinctly and clearly?
  • Is the concluding paragraph interesting? Does it leave an impression on the reader?
Overall Essay
  • Is any important material left unsaid?
  • Is any material repetitious and unnecessary?
  • Has the writer tried to incorporate "voice" in the essay so that it has his/her distinctive mark?
  • Are there changes needed in word choice, sentence length and structure, etc.?
  • Are the quotations (if required) properly cited?
  • Has the essay been proofread for spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.?
  • Does the essay have an interesting and appropriate title?
Essay on Indian Cinema
Trending Essay Topics
Reference
Feel free to use content on this page for your website, blog or paper we only ask that you reference content back to us. Use the following code to link this page:
Terms · Privacy · Contact
Essay Topics © 2020

Essay On Indian Cinema

Words: 890    Pages: 3    Paragraphs: 17    Sentences: 44    Read Time: 03:14
Highlight Text to add correction. Use an editor to spell check essay.
              The pursuit of art is so lonely that only a searing passion of its own vision can sustain it. To venture into unchartered territories of the human condition requires a passion and a sort of madness that is sometimes at the abyss of self-destruction.
             
              However, most makers of art films in India seem to think otherwise; after the initial struggle these cineastes want their middle-class existence to be fully secured, says Suresh Jindal.
             
              The state being run by their kind favored this indulgence. The National Film Development Corporation in its earlier designations as the Film Finance Corporation was intended to give young film makers their first chance to make a film without being polluted by the crassness and vulgarity of mainstream cinema.
             
              Suresh Jindal has rightly said that the real trouble started when the FFC folded up and the all powerful NFDC came into being. Thereafter, bureaucratic roles became dominant. In this process, a massive fraud was played on the public with the connivance of the politicians, new wave film makers, intellectuals and sections of the media.
             
              A small group of the people monopolized the scarce resources available, despite the fact that their productions were bankrupting the NFDC. For most of these films despite the claims to the contrary, never recouped their investments. The only recoveries they made later on were from the government bodies like Doordarshan and the ministry of external affairs.
             
              How many of their films found buyers abroad? We have been brainwashed and deluded into believing that tokenism of the Third World representation at international festivals of this cinema implied an appreciation for it. The Chinese cinema made its international debut much later than ours; its success at both the critical as well as box-office levels, showed us our own poverty and delusions of grar Jeer. Those who are regular festival viewers will see the complete indifference it generated among foreign critics.
             
              It is significant that all the purported profits of the NFDC have three sources: (i) the film Gandhi; (ii) the canalizing commission that the entire mainstream cinema was forced to pay on import of raw stock and export of finished film; and (iii) the monopoly over the import of foreign films along with the Motion Pictures Export Corporation of America. With the commercialization of Doordarshan, they got the monopoly over telecasting mainstream film-based programs.
             
              It is not an obvious fact that except for a handful of people invitees to special screenings, and film societies nobody has either seen these films, nor are there any chances of their being seen.
             
              The impression given in India was that "the 'natives' were not yet involved in the finer sensibilities of international cinema to appreciate these prophetic artists of the future. Hence their works were not expected to set the Ganga and the lacrica on fire. " The time has come to ask the question: Have they set the Seine, the Thames, the Potomac or the Danube on fire? "
             
              The Volga certainly was put by the non-maligned commercial cinema of Raj Kapoor, Guru Dutt, Mehboob Khan, Amitabh Bachhan and so on.
             
              Whether through ignorance or through connivance, through indulgence or conspiracy, a fraud was perpetuated on the public by the selective promotion of some film makers as 'internationally famous' and 'internationally acclaimed'. Nobody cared to ask the 'fundamental 'question of how many awards were won by these producers.
             
              Mainstream cinema gives its surplus to encourage new technology, form and content. Cinema cannot be run from a bureaucratic office by decrees and licensing shops. Cinema is not like other muses writing, poetry and painting, etc. that can be individually created.
             
              Cinema requires the talents and energies of many skills. Cinema is very expensive and must have an audience which can pay for its making. This can only happen with an effective distribution and exhibition network. That requires the talents and energies of another set of people. Such people exist in the mainstream. To condemn them, humiliate them, and act morally superior to them is like committing suicide.
             
              The mainstream cinema, starting with Bhuvan Shome, has always given space-foot for this cinema at the box-office. The success of "Fire", "Bombay Boys", and "Hyderabad Blues", and "Black" shows that there is an audience for it too. Further, since all these films are made without government money, it is clear that there are producers and financiers in the private sector who are keen to support an alternative cinema.
             
              The construction of the-state-of-art theatre complexes in Mumbai and Delhi show that there is private initiative to modernize exhibition infrastructure. The government, except for formulating cinema- friendly policy has no business to be in show business.
             
              The sound bites and glory given to these filmmakers should have been used to seek a vision beyond a narrow self- interest of squandering public funds, foreign travel and unmerited wastage of media space. They should have joined their colleagues in mainstream cinema to change the shortsighted colonial policies of the state.
             
              Their very survival depends on critical changes in government policies like exemption from entertainment tax, declaring cinema as an industry, incentives for theatre construction and abolition of the films division tax which was imposed by the British government during World War II to subsidize their propaganda films. They should have rebelled against the government that penalized cinema exports by putting a canalized tax on it.
Film Essay Art Essay 
Tip: Use our Essay Rewriter to rewrite this essay and remove plagiarism.

Add Notes

Have suggestions, comments or ideas? Please share below. Don't forget to tag a friend or classmate.
clear
Formatting Help
Submit