The decadence of Indian cinema as a societal mirror

Ever since the introduction of the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1957, the Film Federation of India (FFI) has sent more than 50 entrees. However, only three films were nominated and none managed to win the award.

Although the Academy’s reputation has been called into question over the years, the foreign language category, in particular, has consistently witnessed some of the best cinematic works from across the globe. From Ivory Coast to Chile, over 27 countries have received the accolade so far. And if you delve deeper into some of these nominations and winning films, there is a visible pattern — they touch upon social issues and stand for a cause larger than their own.

What does this tell us about the Indian cinema, which has failed to register a nomination in the category since 2001? In fact, this is the same industry that has grown extensively in the past couple of decades, reaching a valuation of nearly $2.5 billion⁽¹⁾. Does this allude to the gradual decadence of Indian cinema, in the name of entertainment? If so, where did it all go wrong?

The downfall

In 1989, during a candid talk with French filmmaker Pierre-André Boutang, Satyajit Ray had this to say: “We have a fairly backward audience I must say, in spite of the film society movement. If you consider the larger audience in India, it’s a backward audience⁽²⁾”.

These are the words of a man who was conferred with Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian award, and an Academy Honorary Award. He was at the forefront of a parallel cinematic movement in India, characterized by realism and naturalism, which came to be known as the golden age of Indian cinema. This period was marked by movies such as Neecha Nagar and Ray’s Pather Panchali (1955). Set against socio-political backdrops, these movies bagged several international accolades, including the Palme d’Or at Cannes.

However, such movies failed to cater to a larger audience in India. Hence, market-driven producers swayed the industry towards the crime and “masala” genre which, although led to a few classics such as Sholay and Deewar (1975), put an end to Ray’s brand of social realism. Despite commercial success of parallel movies like Satya (1998), the mainstream Indian cinema had no appetite for anything that does not hold ‘entertainment value’. The succeeding three-Khans era further commercialized the industry, with terminologies such as “box-office collection” and “highest grossing” becoming commonplace in the entertainment media.

I believe, as creatures of habit, the Indian audience, unbeknownst to itself, developed a distorted idea of cinema, normalizing “item” songs and gravity-defying scenes in dramas. At the same time, the FFI, or the Film Finance Corporation (FFC) or the National Film Development Corporation of India did little to uplift filmmakers who were trying to build an alternative to the mainstream. By then, the Southern movie industries, too, had followed a similar trajectory, towards commercialized movies, creating a template with clichés that lacked substance. Over time, the unsuspecting mainstream audience became oblivious to critically-acclaimed movies like Piravi (1989), and directors like Adoor Gopalakrishnan, who were finding viewership overseas.

The Resurgence

Thanks to digitalization, and the consequent rise in disruptive streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc., Indians are now waking up from a long slumber of substandard cinema. And the streaming services, for their part, are keeping their end of the bargain, by churning out quality movies, at the expense of conventional ‘bollywood’. Massive popularity of streamable shows, despite the absence of “A-list” actors, is indicative of resurgence in parallel cinema — one that cuts too close to the truth.

Netflix has, in fact, adapted a noticeable creative framework for India, providing a platform for talented-but-underrated actors and directors, who are spearheading neo-realism in modern Indian cinema. “Indian films have this obsession with hygienic clean spaces, even though the country’s not so clean,” director Anurag Kashyap once said in an interview with The Guardian⁽³⁾. “They’re either shot in the studios or shot in London, in America, in Switzerland — clean places. Everywhere, except India”.

This change lends an opportune window for industry bodies, such as FFI or FFC, to drive cinematic value. They could tighten up laws against piracy, remove legal disparities between the Centre and States, and advocate for entertainment tax reforms, to support emerging, small-budget filmmakers. We need better categorization, not censoring. And we don’t need ‘smoking-is-injurious-to-health’ pop-ups every time a cigarette is lit on screen, anymore than we need clichéd romantic-comedies and cringeworthy dance routines. The second wave of the golden age is within our sights and, may be, this time we can let it thrive.