voiced their anger fear and frustration common to minorities in any

Voiced their anger fear and frustration common to

This preview shows page 2 - 4 out of 4 pages.

voiced their anger, fear and frustration common to minorities in any totalitarian country; instead of plastic gloss of national pride, the basic formation of the modern state was questioned. Indian documentary films came of age. But still the language and form was largely dependant on the war propaganda style. The real of the cinema varite, the god’s voice of the commentary, the agenda driven representation of people were still the basic ingredients. There was another problem. As far as the private screening was concerned, the opportunities were rare and far between. Besides, the ordinary people, after being exposed to compulsory viewing of inane documentaries of FD, got allergic to the word documentary. Hence the documentaries of 70’s and 80’s were viewed only by a privileged/elite/politicised audience. Some filmmakers, though, traveled around the country with a film projector and cans of films on their shoulders. But every filmmaker could not be that militant and thus got lost in the oblivion. By `80s film society movement became very popular in India. But even their members strongly resented documentary films for being lesser in aesthetics and didactic and moralistic. But the damage was done. The general documentary filmmaking lacked the enthusiasm to think about form and style of representation as part of the politics. The aesthetics and the gaze of war films still prevailed.
Image of page 2
Then came the waves of gender consciousness and women’s movement in ‘80s. The movement, though initially viewed as antagonistic, creatively opened up many social places. It questioned, taught its activists to re-examine every text, every form and every structure. It helped making the borders of all kinds more fluid, all identities less rigid, all expressions more multi-cultural and thus more layered. It cannot be an accident that in the 80’s came a large no. of women into documentary filmmaking. All of them were not associated with the movement, some were even antagonistic towards feminism- but they all brought a different style to documentary films, rather broke the old style of god’s voiced, definite, correct, linear documentaries. These filmmakers, both women and men, not necessarily were better than their predecessors, but definitely were different and distinct. Their style was more interactive, more transparent and definitely less polemic. In ‘90s two more twists came to be. One was the rapid expansion of satellite culture that created a need for different kinds of programmes, even if only to maintain a variety in the narrative style. Political programmes like current affairs programmes, talk shows, public debates and various other forms of
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture