http://www.cinema-poet.com

Interview with Indian cinema expert Connie Haham about Indian popular cinema and its commercial prospects in France by film critic Lalit Rao

Connie Haham is a Paris based American film critic who specializes in Indian popular cinema. Her articles about Hindi films have appeared in publications like Le Monde Diplomatique, Asian cinema, Screen. It was none other than the reigning Bollywood Superstar Amitabh Bachchan who has written a forward to her book about Manmohan Desai entitled "Enchantment of the Mind: Manmohan Desai’s Films" published by Roli Books, New Delhi.

Lalit Rao : Que signifie le cinéma d’auteur indien ? Quelle est sa spécificité ?

Connie Haham : “Cinéma d’auteur” is a very French view of the cinema world. It is a useful term for those filmmakers who leave their stamp on every aspect of filmmaking. I doubt that the majority of directors do in any country, including France. In the French context, only one filmmaker is really known, partly because his films have been shown here in cinemas and on TV and books have been written about him: Satyajit Ray.

Lalit Rao : Quelle est la différence entre le cinéma d’auteur indien et d’autres cinémas d’auteurs nationaux ? Est-ce que l’appellation « le cinéma d’auteur indien » est juste ?

Connie Haham : I don’t see any difference. If one uses the French term “auteur”, it could only apply to a few directors in any country. Not many filmmakers write their own scripts, know how to light a scene, choose the music and also organize all aspects of the filmmaking. If they did, the credits at the end of films would not be so long. I think for many years New Wave cinema was considered, at least by some of its directors, to be correspond to the New Wave in France with its notion of “auteur”. If one takes that point of view, then anyone with an idea, funding and a camera could be an “auteur.” In the French context, the French critics have had a big role in educating the public and film buffs into thinking in terms of “auteurs”. A wider view of the “auteur” notion would have us apply the term to any director who leaves his/her mark on film after film. In that case, Shyam Benegal, Guru Dutt, and others — Mrinel Sen, etc. could be considered “auteurs” in the same way that Martin Scorcese or Ken Loach would be. “Auteur” implies writing. If a director writes his script — and dialogues!! --, in my mind, he/she can be considered aan “auteur” in India or elsewhere. Satyajit Ray did not write the dialogues for Shatranj Ke Khilari; I’m not sure about his other films . . . Woody Allen does write his own scripts and dialogues.

Lalit Rao : Quelle est la place du cinéma indien régional dans le contexte du cinéma indien ?

Connie Haham : You would be better able to answer this than I. I haven’t checked recently to see how regional films are doing in terms of numbers of films made and box office figures. Mani Ratnam has shown two things in the last 15 years, that cinema from the south should not be ignored and that, if cinema from the South is to be well known throughout India and abroad, films need to be remade in Hindi. In the context of what we see in France, regional cinema is fairly well represented. Bengali films, Tamil films have been able to be shown in France over the years. The interest in Hindi cinema is very recent.

Lalit Rao : Quels sont les autres cinémas indiens ?

Connie Haham : I haven’t seen many regional movies since the 80s. The “other” Indian cinema that is a worldwide phenomenon is that made by international Indians like Deepa Mehta and Mira Nair and even Gurinder Chadha, interestingly, all women. Other NRI filmmakers who live with a foot in two cultures, e.g., the spate of movies made by second generation Indians in the U.S., are making a difference in India and other parts of the world. I don’t know that they are given a special category in studies of Indian cinema within India.

Lalit Rao : Dans quelle mesure les cinémas indiens régionaux sont différents l’un de l’autre ?

Connie Haham : My answer could only be based on hearsay and vague impression. I haven’t seen enough Marathi, Orissa, etc. films to make a good judgement.

Lalit Rao : Est-ce que le cinéma indien populaire Bollywood est soutenu pas les médias français ?

Connie Haham : Yes. There is still some condescension when discussing the phenomenon of Bollywood, but there is also interest. Many magazines and television reports talk about Bollywood as though it were something new and something that the West has “discovered”, almost as Columbus “discovered” the new world. Bollywood was there long before the French press got interested in it, and few reporters have in-depth knowledge of Indian popular cinema or the culture it springs from, but they are now talking about it regularly.

Lalit Rao : Est-ce que le cinéma Bollywood a réussi en France ?

Connie Haham : It has been a success in as much as people now know what it is. Twenty years ago I said “cinéma populaire indien” and got blank stares. After Devdas posters were on kiosks around Paris for weeks in 2002, people had a mental image of that popular cinema. Financially, the French box office is a drop in the bucket for producers in India, but Indian cinema has succeeded in being acknowledged rather than ignored.

Lalit Rao : Est-ce que le cinéma indien Bollywood a suscité le renouvellement de la passion pour le cinéma indien ?

Connie Haham : I’ve never seen much passion for Indian cinema here. Satyjit Ray’s films were admired by serious cinema goers. Passion? No. Are there people who have developed a passion for Indian cinema such as never existed before? Surely. But I would say Bride and Prejudice and Monsoon Wedding have done more to awaken a longing for more good films from India or about Indians than Lagaan or Devdas or Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham.

Home Contact Us Call for articles Editorial Contributors

Advisory Board Articles in English Team cinema-poet

contact@cinema-poet.com

© Cinema-Poet Media Group, 2008-2013 Copyright this business.

All rights reserved. Hosted by Yahoo!