This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 28 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Routledge Handbook of Indian Cinemas

K. Moti Gokulsing, Wimal Dissanayake, Rohit K. Dasgupta

The Indian New Wave

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 Ira Bhaskar Published online on: 09 Apr 2013

How to cite :- Ira Bhaskar. 09 Apr 2013, The Indian New Wave from: Routledge Handbook of Indian Cinemas Routledge Accessed on: 28 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203556054.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 hscnm,teohrwscnmtcraim oho omadcnet vdn nanme of number a in evident content, and form Kanku of both realism, early cinematic the was other the cinema, this 17) ..Sathyu M.S. (1970), movement. the of others several by its of number a of destiny the also Din ek ka Ashad in n h rtlsbuainadepotto flwrcse n oe.A critical a As women. and Indian castes of lower ills of the the exploitation in tradi- on of and evidenced focused orthodoxies subjugation structures the who brutal of social directors stranglehold the of Wave oppressive and the violence New power; tion; inherent Indian feudal obvious the the entrenched thus a of of injustice; was modalities with zeal lot social issues missionary a poverty; A social ambiguities, society. of society: and of of work contradictions representation transformation complexities, the a the its for in to all believed, and in was reality intent, it of necessary, of understanding seriousness an a towards drive to aesthetics, with cern The others. avant-garde an of priests high the enthusiastic by the only focus sharp not into experimentation bring cinema to experimental cinematic seemed in retrospectives commemorative investment the and 10), Kaul 1970s the during a aentol nelndisams o-xsetcruaini h eidi ewe,but between, in period the in most circulation of non-existent unavailability almost the of its his after screening underlined also work This only his 2011. not of reception July made this in was in cancer irony terrible from a death seemed premature there and full, almost was auditorium e ieai rciecmuiae tefvr togyt oei h uioim The auditorium. Kaul; the Mani in honor some to to retrospective strongly commemorative very a itself was communicated occasion practice cinematic new Mallika Mahajan Kaul Mani K.K. of of screening rare a At egigdw fteself, the of down weighing fcnmtceprmnainadnwfrsof forms new and experimentation cinematic If ’ et,teoiure aln i sa as him hailing obituaries the death, s l rm16,Ptah aaReddy Rama Pattabhi 1969, from all , ’ ooou omnctdntol e eppi n h mtns fhrlf,bta but life, her of emptiness the and pain deep her only not communicated monologue s fi H NINNWWAVE NEW INDIAN THE m:Mia Sen Mrinal lms: ‘ e nincinema Indian new ersnsntol h aia,eprmna deo h ninNwWv,but Wave, New Indian the of edge experimental radical, the only not represents – ’ aeaufle and unfolded camera s 0 hthv eandoto ec ept h rsn iia revolution. digital present the despite reach of out remained have that 80s — ’ s mlmtclyrpeetdb alhmefadKmrSaai u also but Shahani, Kumar and himself Kaul by represented emblematically amHawa Garm 1 es fteectmn hti h 90 a enascae iha with associated been had 1970s the in that excitement the of sense a ’ s fi hvnShome Bhuvan m fthe of lms ’ ’ htthese that s fi sa ae Din ek ka Ashad 17) n va Kaul Avtar and (1973), m htwiemd ucsflywr o eesd Mani released. not were successfully made while that lms r Bhaskar Ira fl ‘ e cinema new wdps ntesre,adtegaetnsof tones grave the and screen, the on past owed ‘ fi pioneer auChatterji Basu , ’ m nuuae a lal once oacon- a to connected clearly was inaugurated lms 3 s 19 Samskara fi ’ mnrainde narration lm 17) stelmi,lmnsetimages luminescent limpid, the as (1971), fthe of ’ 17) aedaSnhBedi Singh Rajendra (1970), rteNwWv movement Wave New the or ’ ‘ sa ae Din ek ka Ashad s e nincinema Indian new ’ s 7Down 27 aaAkash Sara fi e n hrceitcof characteristic one ned 2 h four-hundred-seat the 17) mn many among (1973), atllRathod Kantilal , ot er fe it after years forty ’ Gpa2011: (Gupta ’ s 3 Dastak made ’ s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 oeetwt a with movement oueo o of volume omnrsossadlre prahsta eeeieti h okta was that work the were there in Yet, evident styles. were and concerns that of approaches variety o larger immense of an the and wave by if responses a were as common they as not Finance as was seen Film marked it be the positions, time, to by or same came made the what investment At into cinema. the burgeoned artistic by movement Launched the generated. (FFC), cinema Corporation history. new national this of that juncture forms crucial a at play to role political a aepsil yteitreto fagvrmn ntaiei h omo h F.This FFC. the of form the in initiative government a of intervention the by possible made rnsoet h F tr.Stu n16 ntercmedto fteSK ai Film Patil S.K. the of the aid recommendation to the meant on over initially 1960 funded was in FFC 1968 the up by 1951, had Set of story. Report FFC Committee Enquiry the to one brings rnlSnadRti htk nfc,i stewr n h nentoa euainof reputation towards aspired international who the anyone by and emulated work Ray, be Satyajit the to of inspiration is an work it as the up fact, by held represented ‘ In was cinema Ghatak. that art Ray Ritwik parallel Satyajit from a and few been a Sen had just Mrinal name there to 1950s Roy, the re Bimal from and work Khan whose Mehboob were Kapoor, Bombay, There Raj demonstrated. Dutt, had pro- Guru Madras Shantaram, with and concern (Prabhat) a several Pune been also Theatres), di had (New the there Calcutta 1930s that Talkies), patriarchal the causes From repressive social before. with gressive existed struggle not had the experimentation or relations, caste others. and to and were gender some norms to on of important experi- Focusing as violence were to stylization. ingrained temporality India and and village duration abstraction the color, and of volume, foregrounded to town depth, that space, small impulse with work of working the modernist reality that reality the and addressing especially demonstrating mental of reality, forms project Indian aesthetic Wave contemporary the larger New varied for this The di realism, inspire in undergird ernism. project cinematic did could realist with reality sense the only engage time, broadest equated same be its the to in At project not adequately. realist of is world a sense sense sense, the a general represent and a from and in inspiration know termed an form; be art can the and expressive what and larger an a as modes display cinema to and performance spectacular of connectedness aesthetic values, forms, vision an entertainment values, a constituting privileged melodrama; the as that and seen cinema of be commercial rejection can mainstream, a which of style period, were this These during movement. others cultural few a and FFC the a iesne sBK aajapt it, puts Karanjia B.K. as since, dire was FFC three had nbet opt ihcommercial with compete to unable a otbfr twsrun was it before lost was cigo nerirsgeto aeb r adiwiesewsteIfrainand Information the was she while decisions: Gandhi crucial certain Mrs took 122), by 1998: made (Prasad 1964 suggestion in earlier Minister Broadcasting an on acting good hti eakbeaotti oeto ieai itr steteedu iest of diversity tremendous the is history cinematic of moment this about remarkable is What ttesm ie twsnta frpeettoso oilraiy ratuitcinematic auteurist or reality, social of representations if as not was it time, same the At hnei orewsdseaeynee,adKrni stenwCara fteFFC, the of Chairman new the as Karanjia and needed, desperately was course in change A ’ fi cinema. maes sacnenwt hmslk nbitopesv tutrso oit,the society, of structures oppressive in-built like themes with concern a as lmmakers, fi ff maesee ihntemisra nutisfo h 90 o15slk V. like 1950s to 1930s the from industries mainstream the within even lmmakers beat 4 fi oee,wa ersne e meu ntelt 90 a h cl and scale the was 1960s late the in impetus new a represented what However, m nte16s(aahasa20:23.Hwvr y16 h situation the 1968 by However, 233). 2009: (Rajadhyaksha 1960s the in lms ‘ fi oilconscience social m htsee oeeg udnya e ido ieata a been had that cinema of kind new a as suddenly emerge to seemed that lms ’ fl fi fi ce ocr ihcnmtcat oevr otsigni most Moreover, art. cinematic with concern a ected Krni 98 6). 1988: (Karanjia m eeeteeydvre n agdfo els otaasof portrayals realist from ranged and diverse, extremely were lms fty ‘ eiu nentoa ritcenterprise artistic international serious fi m yetbihdadreputed and established by lms ff ff erent rn etei xrsin rmcnmtcraimt mod- to realism cinematic from expressions aesthetic erent ’ fi DsGpa18:1) h e aeblee hti had it that believed Wave New the 16), 1982: Gupta (Das maesa a stebxo box the as far as lmmakers ‘ lotteetr adu aia a eneroded, been had capital up paid entire the almost fi msuisi oby(ajtMveoe Bombay Movietone, (Ranjit Bombay in studios lm r Bhaskar Ira 20 fi m hrdpltclo etei ideologies aesthetic or political shared lms — n hti oiae ytedieto drive the by motivated is that one fi ffi maes oal a who Ray notably lmmakers, ewsconcerned, was ce ’ Bnod18:18;and 148); 1987: (Binford fi midsr,and industry, lm fi acdby nanced ‘ fi h race the cantly, ff ’ beat, and Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 ilgeadnndaai ilgedlvr l aeframnmls htntol seemed only not that minimalism a for make all di delivery very dialogue non-dramatic Kaul and of dialogue austerity the common, of form the and look the dramas, urban class ti this is It avant-garde everyday, the of evocation the actors, and unknown mostly signi and most locations and real of use the movement, Bengali provided policy new nonesteraiyo i otooilnto hnh eie otk idsotn holi- bird-shooting a take to decides o he oppressive when his nation from postcolonial away o his day unknown of self-righteous, reality mostly the with a encounters location, Sen of on Mrinal Banaphool, Shot humanizing by generated. story these they faces, short discourses fresh new the and for actors reasons the and completion the with Wave contemporary New Indian the of birth the saw 1969 their that of thus is It Rathod. Kantilal bu neo e on ubn h sual oda ihhsfeig fhvn opoie his compromised having of feelings his indi with this virulent deal In and to sexuality. awkward encounters own unable the She his is also understand home. who also but or married but husband education, education, her set, young her is in her towards family feel of women joint ence will the a Prabha in of bride newlyweds hostility young of though the the the narrative that that as the sequence, claustrophobia which reality credits within the the opening everyday spaces town, stylized the the an a of of In contours streets screen represented. the the hardly through been tracks to had camera that brought one Agra was known in neighborhood middle-class Shome. of pomposity the undermines the hilariously audiences. a Saurashtra, that becomes also animation in he of Shot but use village, the innovative of extremely environment alien the in di useless completely are power and htvsa ftesaltw rmtetraeo h aiyhm eealnwt h ieaof cinema the to new all were this home of family concerns the thematic of the terrace though the Even from time. town foreground the small to the of used vistas lens shot telephoto the Prabha of close-ups and The extreme imagination. the spatial in his Samar contours and facial lenses of of use distortion his camerawork, his in ff ff h rsns ftee,teaatto fltrr aeilepcal rmteNiKahani Nai the from especially material literary of adaptation the themes, of freshness The oka h early the at look A iial,Chatterji Similarly, rn a.Sen man. erent l htcae i,adtevlaegr ar,ntol osSoeraieta i position his that realize Shome does only not Gauri, girl village the and him, chases that alo to pno aetdadpoiignwoesfo h imIsiueo usd and outside or Institute Film the from newcomers to promising and talented sponsor aaAkash Sara ’ nenlself-con internal s ff fi fi rn rmteohrtwo other the from erent fi fi ‘ mtewrso u w mnn rtr nHniadtentoa languages. national the and Hindi in writers eminent own our of works the lm ac low-budget nance formula lms, mae rnlSnfrhis for Sen Mrinal lmmaker ’ oei oae,o h es ftemdl-ls egbrodeoe nlong in evoked neighborhood middle-class the of sense the or located, is home s fi mae ohv mre n16.Bsdo oa Rakesh Mohan on Based 1969. in emerged have to lmmaker fi siRoti Uski fi aty neprmnainwt ieai omta seietin evident is that form cinematic with experimentation an cantly, maigpatcswl niaecerytecaatrsiso hsnwcinema, new this of characteristics the clearly indicate will practices lmmaking ’ sas udmna oKaul to fundamental also is htKrni eivslaunched believes Karanjia that ’ oi omi egtndb h s fjm-us reefae n an and frames freeze jump-cuts, of use the by heightened is form comic s ’ fi s fi ac,aogohr,t ecmrMn alfo h imInstitute, Film the from Kaul Mani newcomer to others, among nance, , aaAkash Sara m htwr aial di radically were that lms fl fi hvnShome Bhuvan c,o h ht ftenro ylnso h rai hc Samar which in area the of by-lanes narrow the of shots the or ict, msee orva opeeynwvsoso oilraiyt its to reality social of visions new completely reveal to seemed lm fi m,peeal u o eesrl nbakadwhite and black in necessarily not but preferably lms, ffi ’ om h lweso ep,telc fmsc h sparse the music, of lack the tempo, of slowness the form, s fi eruie ntepoes n hog i none iha with encounter his through and process, the In routine. ce fi m eeivnieadfral xeietl ae pna upon Based experimental. formally and inventive were lms ae nRjnr Yadav Rajendra on based m,btas identi also but lms, ffi h ninNwWave New Indian The iu,Wsenzd ooilriwybraca who bureaucrat railway colonial Westernized, cious, , ’ fi s aaAkash Sara rst hvnShome Bhuvan fi mi id,adnwoesBs htej and Chatterji Basu newcomers and Hindi, in lm aaAkash Sara 21 ’ s siRoti Uski ‘ ff h e aei ninCinema. Indian in Wave New the fi fi rn,bt hmtclyadfral,from formally, and thematically both erent, and meoe o nytecntitn physical constricting the only not evokes lm rst fi fi mrsrae ae nChatterji in later resurfaced lm fi dKu steebeai experimental emblematic the as Kaul ed Kanku sapaflstrclcmd bu the about comedy satirical playful a is m htej seteeyexperimental extremely is Chatterji lm, i o eperi htfollowed. what in reappear not did e hl l hs lmnsare elements these all while Yet . ’ oel n hto oaini a in location on shot and novella s respectively. fl teigo pc n the and space of attening Krni 98 6) 1988: (Karanjia ’ hr story, short s hvnShome Bhuvan ’ … ’ Karanjia middle- s … 5 to Uski ff er- ’ s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 iue3.1 Figure iue3.2 Figure Roti nteoehn n hto pc,bt xenladitra,o h te.Ku xlishis explains Kaul other. the on internal, and external lens, both telephoto space, 135mm of that in and consciousness technique hand interior one of the dramatization the on to responds Balo Kaul that of clear is Rakesh It by. that passes he as meal wr fo nw o oades h tlns fteiaeadtetmoo the of tempo the and image the of of stillness being, The of an for address. stillness of created; to deep yet how he a and knows images conveys relationship, or stop the her of bus in his the to aware of poetry at devotion kernel visual Sucha the and sheer for at commitment waiting us getting her Balo for gave essential of cinema was image relationship his him the iconic for time, instance, the that same resisted tension almost the a that At world, one real concept. was the cinema to of camera discipline the the of Kaul for that clear is It the of beginning the h xeineo uain ftm si em osadstill. stand to seems it as time of duration, of experience the lgteg fdseifi h elt fa culrtr fhrhsadgvsrs oan to rise gives husband her of to hallucination return scene a actual a an as for of appears necessary reality almost almost the husband in ambiguity, the disbelief of of edge return slight actual the that result h ocpulmeaning. conceptual the strict the of freed blurred gradually were were distinctions lenses the norm, a representation as this established faithfully Having ssti ua ujbadi bu Balo about is and Punjab rural in set is ’ neirt e alt di a to Kaul led interiority s atn ttebsso,Bl in Balo stop, bus the at Waiting iesad tl,Bl atn in waiting Balo still, stands Time ’ oens tr tepe nteltrr om oee,tecnmtcrendering cinematic the however, form; literary the in attempted story modernist s siRoti Uski — hywr rsigec te ntemdl fthe of middle the in other each crossing were they fi lm. hr econ he where ‘ aigte ersn h culadmna ieo h atn iein wife waiting the of life mental and actual the represent them making ’ ege nt say: to on goes He — ni nteedterpeetto a eesd ihthe with reversed, was representation the end the in until ff fi rn experiment erent e the ned siRoti Uski siRoti Uski r Bhaskar Ira ’ ata u tpfrhrhsadt olc his collect to husband her for stop bus a at wait s fi oreyo h author. the of Courtesy . 22 eemisl ftepyia covering physical the of itself redeem mt w ess 8mwd nl esada and lens angle wide 28mm a lenses, two to lm oreyo h author. the of Courtesy . — oepoetemaigo temporality of meaning the explore to abhav lc)ta h isn she that (lack) Ku 94 10) 1974: (Kaul fi mweethe where lm n reveal and … fi mconvey lm This ’ quite t Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 the aiet,i sas reta h iini h aiet fa of manifesto the in vision the that true su also is it manifesto, aesthetic and creative except considerations eaeand rudwiharbs hnigaotatraiecnm rcie cohered. practices cinema alternative about thinking robust a which around node a became il httemnfsoo h e ieaMvmn a envisaged had Movement Cinema New the of 1968 a manifesto in FFC the written Kaul, The was cinematic what Arun that movement. Indian sible and Movement this the Cinema chairman, in of New the intervention the moter Sen, of similar Manifesto Mrinal a the desired by from and evident art is cinematic scene valued that audience perhaps has cinema Indian which enthusiasm and received seriousness of before kind never the with discussed being are can times the of mood the and Sen moment Mrinal that of in enthusiasm seen The be year. following the Movie Best the n exhibition, and o that rbeso itiuinadehbto hog h 90,freapeteYk imco- Karnataka. Film in Yukt Navya the and example Kerala for 1970s, in solve to the Chitralekha initiatives through concrete Bombay, air, into exhibition in FFC the and the operative in of distribution was outside of materialized network ideas problems exhibition these and of distribution Some structures. alternative and new and a and audience, new rae nectmn bu e ido r iea sBka ig one u then, out pointed Singh Bikram As cinema. art of kind new a about excitement an created fi having in 1968, from years Wave o New box and the the months, with at several well work for did of ran lot it a where do show to discipline on went cinematic who how Mahajan, aurally K.K. and by and note emotional shot appropriate signi visually the the strike explore being, to work inner one the to the of sensitize all depths continued the in plumb and Kaul to one this enable follow, In would conceptually. to and was emotionally aesthetically, that enriching is terms own its at fIda eta otecneto h new the of concept the audience to Central India. of parts world of circulation the and the that is thing heartening most the clastic the Karanjia network. non-commercial exhibiting for country demands on epesee rnltbeit elt.Tesigni The reality. into translatable seemed the people among young excitement The 31). ec bu ieai osblte.Mroe,teciia n oua mato the of impact popular and critical the Moreover, possibilities. cinematic about dence ffi hsi naseecnm hti re is that cinema austere an is This htti a oetwe h xouet nentoa ieathrough cinema international to exposure the when moment a was this That uht h upieo h nutyboth industry the of surprise the to Much niscatrteFCddhv ceefrbidn hi fsaltetr costhe across theaters small of chain a building for scheme a have did FFC the charter its In fi in tutr mrcn l h he rnhsof branches three the all embracing structure cient fi fi fi fi lmmakers. maeso h iewr o l ntdb igeashtc o a hyalsge this signed all they had nor aesthetic, single a by united all not were time the of lmmakers msceyadinternational and society lm m tmd possible made it lms ’ lmmakers, ff n hc ycnetoa tnad ol econsidered be would standards conventional by which and rdthe ered ’ ’— ii. 37). (ibid.: n whose one ’ 7 a natclto fafr ftikn htwssae ymn ndi in many by shared was that thinking of form a of articulation an was h on sta hswsammn nwihtikn bu e iea a cinema, new a about thinking which in moment a was this that is point The fi fi ’ ttmnsrecon statements s msceyatvssand activists society lm lmmaker ffi ’ ’ ce. Snh17:33). 1973: (Singh ecito fthe of description s ‘ fi atcpto n involvement and participation acso u en ntewrd l hs three these All world. the in being our of cances — siRoti Uski fi u twsas oesmoi nta tgnrtdacrancon- certain a generated it that in symbolic more also was it but ‘ nipnal reo oraiehsvso nrmeldb all by untrammelled vision his realise to freedom indispensable nanced fi mcasc hog the through classics lm “ fi new, fi maeswsplal,frsdel h raso several of dreams the suddenly for palpable, was lmmakers fl mfsia icisadwnteFlfr rtc wr for Award Critics Filmfare the won and circuits festival lm a iie onn hwrlaebtmd nipc on impact an made but release show morning limited a had fi cieee si svsal euiu,adi nae ihon with engaged if and beautiful, visually is it as even ective fi h ninNwWave New Indian The ‘ mn hscmimn a e omc lto among elation much to led had commitment this rming o ugtart budget low m htwere that lms ”“ fi 6 m n a ocpulzda lentv distribution alternative an conceptualized had and lms parallel, aaAkash Sara ’ fi ‘ remarkable SnadKu 98 36 1968: Kaul and (Sen mbu lm hvnShome Bhuvan 23 fi ”“ mwsteie of idea the was lm ff fi eedel novdi raigthese creating in involved deeply were s counter msceyetuis n h he pro- chief the and enthusiast society lm hc a eesdatra nta delay, initial an after released was which , ‘ rs,ucnetoa,dsetn,icono- dissenting, unconventional, fresh, ’ fi ’ fi ol eo h idthat kind the of be would fi lm msceymvmn a rae an created had movement society lm efrac fteFCi h three the in FFC the of performance fi ac fteFCwstu literal thus was FFC the of cance mmkn:pouto,distribution production, lm-making: ’ hc a eesdi morning a in released was which , ”— Ndan 90 hsmd pos- made thus 1970) (Nadkarni ‘ oeetcnevda self- a as conceived movement alte htyuwill you what them call ‘ non-marketable – ‘ eeoiganwkn of kind new a developing 7.Wiei stu that true is it While 37). 8 — fi h FFC The m eestunningly were lms natuitcinema auteurist an fi lmmakers. fi ’ ‘ oenart modern mfestivals lm Sn1971: (Sen fi mthus lm — ff erent fi fi — ‘ lms lms the in Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 nisciiu fuprcsevoec,epottvns n yors.Altreo Benegal of three All hypocrisy. and trenchant is exploitativeness it violence, moneylenders, local upper-caste economic- of become of structures to critique loan producers oppressive its milk the in and of free farmers and enable independent that ally co-operatives milk of this formation of making two the towards these rupees in two issues contributing major each are the of oppression inability feudal Manthan of the of humiliation and power and violence of violation the re corruption The counter the elite. to vulnerability, feudal their state the of by underlining the exploitation women, caste and gender economic, these both In Advertising. Blaze by e ieai te at ftecuty seilyi h ot;teivsmn nothis into investment the south; the commercial the in of especially part country, of a emergence the directly the FFC not of here: agencies mentioning parts by worth other are cinema that in 1970s cinema early the new in developments other some tep ocreate set to is attempt it which in fi fteFCmoment FFC the of n h people the Benegal and of locale Telangana the the outside audiences of viability intervention the commercial audiences for the movement, these allowed Wave While Blaze New cinema. of the such popularized and for supported audiences numerous welcomed, the the reached in it Benegal existed if early entity the viable of economically success economic and otntbyKtnMehta Ketan notably most industries. etvlcrut swell. as circuits festival loe o h iblt ffnigfrti ieafo te ore swl.Ptah Rama Pattabhi well. as sources other from cinema this for funding of Reddy viability the for allowed Gopalakrishnan rvtl ytoecnicdo h au fadi a of value the of convinced those by privately Kazhuthai etn po state of up setting ieai ha eea whose Benegal Shyam is funded. cinema privately were others while of bodies, examples funding John some state these the are of Gopalakrishnan, Some respectively, Marathi Adoor languages. and Patel, regional of Assamese Jabbar Sharma, that Syam and Aribam Kannada, Barua of cinema in Manipuri Bengali others, Karnad Malayalam, among in Karanth, Aravindan by and Abraham work other above, of explosion virtual m r nHni u id hti in is that Hindi a but Hindi, in are lms fl While htteFCiiitv n xeietwsisiainli di in inspirational was experiment and initiative FFC the That h Benegal The h F xml loldt tt usde for subsidies state to led also example FFC The h otsigni most The cino h oiisadielg fvoec tef eea otne hs ocrsin concerns these continued Benegal itself. violence of ideology and politics the on ection fi mo the on lm ’ s Samskara 17) hc a lofne nanvlmne with manner novel a in funded also was which (1976), Manthan Kanku 17)i ai r oeeape of examples some are Tamil in (1977) fi m eesti nhaadaeciiuso eaetfuaim foregrounding feudalism, decadent of critiques are and Andhra in set were lms ’ ’ fi s iln n eciervl sas h etn o ..Tilak K.B. for setting the also is revolt reactive and violent s m utas ese ntecneto h e Wave New the of context the in seen be also must lms fi fi fi ae h a o F udn o te Gujarati other for funding FFC for way the paved — ‘ fi a ense sa as seen been has 17)adKrnhadKarnad and Karanth and (1970) h elt e reality the cant midsr tef atllRathod Kantilal itself. industry lm rst mdvlpetcroain nKraaaadWs egl hscetda created This Bengal. West and Karnataka in corporations development lm hsTlg nthe in Telugu thus — fi fi m ndi in lms h udn fa alternative an of funding the lm fi fl uet mrea hsmmn ihsc o-tt udn o o for funding non-state such with moment this at emerge to gure cigteraitpoeto h e aewt oiia message, political a with Wave New the of project realist the ecting fi Swayamvaram msceisars h rat ftecuty uine hthad that audiences country, the of breadth the across societies lm ’ s ff hviBhavai Bhavni ff ect ’ rn agae:freapeaatfo the from apart example for languages: erent s fi Nishant s two rst ’ fi eta oteraitfr Brhs19:28.Tecritical The 258). 1995: (Barthes form realist the to central m eefne ygvrmn gnislk h F or FFC the like agencies government by funded were lms ‘ developmentalist fl 17)i aaaa,adJh Abraham John and Malalayam, in (1972) fi ce n cetdb h oa agaeo h region the of language local the by accented and ected ihissehn ilnebt ffua oppression feudal of both violence seething its with , s two rst fi r Bhaskar Ira lms fi 18) oevr h mato h FFC the of impact the Moreover, (1980). m niae httenwcinema new the that indicated lms 24 Ankur fi ff m yBdhdvDsut,Gua Ghose Gautam Dasgupta, Buddhadev by lms rn ieai practice. cinematic erent ’ fi s fi fi m n uaaiin Gujarati and lms m nbt antk n eaa n the and Kerala, and Karnataka both in lms fi asaVriksha Vamsha ’ m nohrlnugsta eefunded were that languages other in lms s mmvmn nteohrlanguage other the in movement lm ’ 17)and (1973) Kanku fi m(rsd19)i hti uprsthe supports it that in 1998) (Prasad lm fi fi lm. midsr;adteipc fthe of impact the and industry; lm fi msceyadinternational and society lm eosrtsa motn aspect important an demonstrates fi maeswrigi di in working lmmakers ff Nishant rn asi loeietin evident also is ways erent fi elk amr nGujarat in farmers lakh ve fi 17)i and,Adoor Kannada, in (1971) m nteyast come, to years the in lms ’ oiia meu,and impetus, political s Manthan 17)were (1975) fi m mentioned lms ’ s fi hswsan was This . ’ m yJahnu by lms s fi Bhoomikosam fi m,a sa is as lms, Agraharathil mwsan was lm fi nanced ff ff erent beat fi fi fi lm lm lm ’ s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 thazar period to point 404) oppression (1995: the Willemen in and signi Rajadhyaksha duo the Nilamma. father-son daughter-in-law the lower-caste of indolent destruction cynical the the for gender, of especially and caste rebellion both of structures oppressive the in is patriarchy implicated If India. Katha post-independence in revolt signi Sen Mrinal and (1974) rhi oit ihisopesv rcie oddaantwmn Yamuna sanctimonious women. and against orthodox loaded of practices destructiveness preg- oppressive virulent becoming and the its seduced of being with for critique society fate powerful death-in-life Brahmin a a to is condemned nant, and out cast cruelly eain ihalwrcsewmn atbiRm Reddy social Rama Brahmin Pattabhi structures de woman, that lower-caste of purity a of question with notion the relations regressive examining a with While Bresson obsession relations. by the Inspired and Wave. touch New about political the of strand of another many formed of thrust ritual political popular the the one formed that simultaneously oppression issue is caste an Wave that and not New act feudal was the brutal exposing caste horrifyingly touch, While breaks a would suddenly helplessness. in rites, and time sister cremation grief crying the despair, his perform deep kills to of axe form brought an his been using as has and Lahanya forces who free, political leaving Lahanya, muteness and dies, wife, enforced social his the father exploitative killed using his by prison, When ages in of protest. for speak oppressed Bhiku of to community refuses Lahanya helplessness tribal wife, change. his the his to and of murdering power and humanity memorable no raping his the of has both and falsely he him, metaphorizes that for drumming possible structures passionate resistance against last only his the of as drum sequence the plays Choma untouchable earlier the of concerns the tepst i,tesqec fhrvoetadpiflaoto,adthe and abortion, painful and violent her excommunicated of sequence her the die, to attempts dniyadsl-nrseto ftepoaoitPaehhrat rtqetemoribund Kasarvalli the Girish critique Similarly, to orthodoxy. Praneshcharya Brahmin protagonist conservative debut wrenching of the practices of ritualistic self-introspection and identity eogt rdto fcutsnhpadhneaalbet l e.While men. all to trained available Salma di of a hence the implications is and upon social Salma and courtesanship cultural because of have the basis who tradition towards couple daily a Muslim a to lower-middle-class on a belong Hamid, humiliation and face Salma protagonists to confrontation its a as and has country the (1970), the in in minority addressed Two Muslim be communalism. the of of forces lives the the with with concern a was cinema these that intervention the of force the carry that sequences haunting rmciiuso rhaimwt t yancladdsrcientoso rdto and tradition of notions destructive and tyrannical its with Brahmanism of critiques Grim society Hindu of violence The fciiuso prsieBamnotooywr motn susfrapltcl cinematic political, a for issues important were orthodoxy Brahmin oppressive of critiques If fi ac scnetdt t esn nugnisadt t en h ou fthe of locus the being its to and insurgencies peasant its to connected is cance — 16) onAbraham John (1966), xlrshwcnrdcoyterssac fteopesdcnb,adhwdeeply how and be, can oppressed the of resistance the contradictory how explores fi ..Karanth B.V. ac fTlnaata otxulzdte1970s the contextualized that Telangana of cance ’ ffi ihBenegal with ute fsriighnsl namtooi.MS Sathyu M.S. metropolis. a in honestly surviving of culties fi fi lms. lm fi fi Ghattashraddha m fte18sad19s aidrSnhBedi Singh Rajinder 1990s. and 1980s the of lms ’ ’ s Telugu s ue itn ne rewt e hvnha,aadndb l,are all, by abandoned head, shaven her with tree a under sitting gure, fi hmn Dudi Chomana ’ m eeatmtn,aohriseta ufcdpwrul nthis in powerfully surfaced that issue another attempting, were lms s fi Kondura lms. ’ s gaaahlKazhuthai Agraharathil ’ fi at tutr sas drse ntosigni two in addressed also is structure caste s lm 17)adGua Ghose Gautam and (1977) 17)aottedsrcino h hl io Yamuna, widow child the of destruction the about (1977) h ninNwWave New Indian The k oi Katha Oorie Oka fi Bhoomikosam m rmteery17ssttetn o hs susto issues these for tone the set 1970s early the from lms 17)adGvn Nihalani Govind and (1975) 25 fi fi lm eet seilyaon h su fsexual of issue the around especially lement, ’ itra h ec ftehea hthave that hyenas the of mercy the at sister s ’ oiia n a and political s ’ ulmiett,i ep h focus the keeps it identity, Muslim s sosdaNxlt ideology, Naxalite a espoused sasahn aiia rtqeo h taboo the of critique satirical scathing a is 17) Telangana (1977). ’ ‘ s uaitpolitical ruralist fi Samskara ’ maonsutmtl otheir to ultimately amounts lm s thumri Maabhoomi ff ciecharge. ective ’ Aakrosh s ’ 17)ue h rssof crisis the uses (1970) igrwoi ae to taken is who singer s amHawa Garm ’ ’ fi iea n symbolic and literal s Aakrosh debut s a rc wyfrom away track nal 17)continuing (1979) fi fi ’ rblaccused tribal a , s m bu feudal about lms cant Dastak uHsr Bal- Hasard Au fi 18) The (1980). fi ’ desperate s s Naxalite rst fi lm, fi k Oorie Oka 17) on (1973), m fthe of lms mo the of lm ’ heart- s gestures Dastak fi rmly Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 aiisngtaigtepesrso hti en ob n iea riayMsisin Muslims ordinary as live and be to means it what of pressures in the ground fresh negotiating broke families Mirza Saeed Ro (1980s Muslims. Mat by mobilization Pe faced right-wing ghettoization Hindu and of prejudice wake the in especially discourse, public in history Partition. repressed with a ended not to had voice that Pakistan Tamas communalism give for of leave to forces to the attempt pressure to intense an attention under draw of Agra and in indicative family clearly Muslim a is of experiences painful the that 1970s, consequences the early directly confronts hand, other the 3.4 Figure 3.3 Figure ee elyeocsdfo oiclua eoy h ulmSca fteNwWave, New the of Social Muslim The memory. sociocultural from exorcised really never that moment historical an of million pain and sixteen terror and the dead foregrounding million time two de same almost the leaving at Asia while South displaced of cartography the changed that Nihalani stories, short his Partition the of anatomy intellectual Tamas terror, of tepe iial ocmeto h nraigcmuaiaino otmoaypolitics. contemporary of Hindu communalization increasing the on comment to similarly of attempted rhetoric the that fi Unlike h atto a hsbcm eahrfrcneprr omnls,frterepeated the for communalism, contemporary for metaphor a become thus had Partition The dhmncmrhnin ti h aaebatsakn h tet ftoePriintowns Partition those of streets the stalking beast savage the is It comprehension. human ed 9 – uhacnrvrilpbi ei vn.Bsdo hsa Sahni Bhisham on Based event. media public controversial a such ulmrosi needn ni ugse httevsea e visceral the that suggested India independent in riots Muslim (1987 ’ auaaadndb all, by abandoned Yamuna in Yamuna outcast The amHawa Garm n ti rcsl t nevninin intervention its precisely is it and 18)and (1989) – 8,o h te ad sbt,i a n Nandy and Das in both, is hand, other the on 88), amHawa Garm Tamas ’ nenlzdvoec,Gvn Nihalani Govind violence, internalized s Naseem ’ s Tamas oe ohl pa ann,adtu like thus and warning, a as up hold to hoped osbc oteimdaeatraho atto n represents and Partition of aftermath immediate the to back goes 19)i i otaa fwrigcasadmdl-ls Muslim middle-class and working-class of portrayal his in (1995) Ghattashraddha Ghattashraddha sagtweciglo ttedvsaighlcutcevent holocaustic devastating the at look gut-wrenching a is ’ n,a audr(05 1)pt t a it, puts 319) (2005: Mazumdar as and, r Bhaskar Ira oreyo h author. the of Courtesy . 26 oreyo h author. the of Courtesy . ‘ otmoaypolity contemporary fMsi dniyi otpriinIda nthe In India. post-partition in identity Muslim of ’ ouetltlvso series television monumental s – 0)hglgtdtehostility, the highlighted 90s) ’ ’ 18:19 words, 189) (1985: s Ria18)ta made that 1988) (Raina ’ ff oe n opeof couple a and novel s cso atto were Partition of ects ‘ icrlexperience visceral amHawa Garm ai Langde Salim ,it ‘ an 10 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 aigtecmuiy n oi h hwniro f18 ak h vrdyin everyday the marks 1984 of riot Bhiwandi the Ro if Mat so Pe Both and situation. community, communal the explosive facing its with Bombay contemporary 3.6 Figure 3.5 Figure atsadlgtmzdtevoec eptae nternm,aantcse omnt and community caste, against also de are best name, these realism their cinematic Furthermore, in through roles. perpetrated upper and the violence and identities empowered social the that gender the tradition legitimized oppression, the of critiqued and realities and castes the history, society, traumatic of of injustices repressions cinematic the squarely addressed that project Naseem that communities between understanding extreme and with friendship family of Muslim past ordinary gentler an of The life and the imbues insecurity that tension, December 6 preceding months oiiso h w ainsae ildcaet e hthrcoc fhm uh obe. to ought the home in of Partition choice of her afterlife what her the to that dictate accept character, will to states eponymous refuses nation The she two as the nations. of politics, two policies and the history across by individuals scattered rede families radically have Mammo, who Muslims by Benegal Shyam his through evoked father Bla 95 uás17) ieaial,teueo h rcigcmr,tepn h deep the pan, the realism camera, to tracking crucial the so of types social use of the creation Cinematically, the 1972). to Lukács leads reality that 1965; reveal emphasis (Balzac to an disposal environment, its the at and means of armature the through does cinema which 15), 1967: drama ‘ tutrldph obigottepeeitn eain hc eoecntttv fthe of constitutive become which relations pre-existing the out bring to depth, structural tis It ’ fi ii. 7.Cnrlt els iini h nxrcbecneto ewe individuals between connection inextricable the is vision realist a to Central 27). (ibid.: m uha hs htebde n de and embodied that these as such lms et nlf:tedbi ftePriinin Partition the of debris the life: in Death exile: into journey epic The ,in ’ Naseem s Mammo fi ti h ul-pt h eoiino h ar ajdi 92i the in 1992 in Masjid Babri the of demolition the to build-up the is it fi al ecieagro h v fterosta olwtedemolition. the follow that riots the of eve the on anger reactive nally e h enn fhm,rjcigntoa dniistrs upon thrust identities national rejecting home, of meaning the nes 19)as ok ttefloto hshsoyadtedi the and history this of fallout the at looks also (1994) qissas sois pk fawrdta a de had that world a of spoke (stories) fi Tamas e nBzna em as terms Bazinian in ned h ninNwWave New Indian The oreyo h author. the of Courtesy . 27 Tamas fi e h els rjc fteNwWv,a Wave, New the of project realist the ned oreyo h author. the of Courtesy . fi m htatclt h els project realist the articulate that lms ‘ a[n]br h realities the bare lay[ing] fi m oka h edend dead the at look lms fi ieycae oexist. to ceased nitely ffi ai Langde Salim ute faced culties ’ grand- s ’ (Bazin ’ s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 e aeta aedsusdhr r di realist are the here terms, discussed these have in I Understood that phenomenon. Wave social New make every to in go traits that essential relationships of network society perceptible up immediately not mediated, hidden both deeper, that one as drive of rsdse as sees Prasad image the this that of precisely frame belief the enables continuum beyond the compositions extends multi-planar does that with reality as depth ambiguous 1973), in staging (Bazin and connection take long the focus, rvlgn ftee rudubnpvryadrrlopeso o udn ytestate. the by funding a for exist oppression did there rural that and true poverty also every Cor- urban is not Development It around Film Moreover, intervention. themes National and the of role later privileging their then understood and (NFDC) period, poration Emergency mind. the to comes during women, especially of emancipation the for project means a as Prasad planning A Furthermore, family orientation. of issues their on in focuses 25) 1998: (Prasad prahn h ieai els fteNwWave Marxism/ New Structural the to the of opposed in realism As edge critical seeks. cinematic its it the it that approaching denying ideology Lukács project, of reductive contradictions Althusserianism, propagandist, the a of as exposure realism see would state state the to hta dao rjc nisl osntgaateta h uptwl eatsial on.At sound. artistically be will realist output the the of that guarantee drive not critical does the itself time, in same project the a or the idea an of that passion and integrity aesthetic hsfcsta a eta oteNwWv oiia realist political crucial Wave of New be impulse the critical should a to marginalized with central imbued aim the was thoroughly political of that a voices focus of had experiential this role life the trans- the everyday social and on to of people perspective signi committed recording ordinary critical cinema documentary a of a had the was lives above and fact, detailed oppressed, In have the formation. dehumanized I that that structures Wave social New the of cinema a ut ocsawdsra iwwe emkstepitta hscnm a basically was cinema speci this that point heightened the their makes by he mainstream when view widespread ‘ a voices Gupta Das propagandist. or were 1970s the during nutiso hi w,adtecnmtcpatc htteNwWave New the that practice of cinematic Most the making. these and is own, Gupta which Das their in that of creativity industries languages regional about regional argument the the in anomaly an is there 16 1982: Gupta (Das regional oee,ti sntt a htteeweren there that say to not is this However, nAtusra oiino els stelgtmzto fteielg ftebourgeois the of ideology the of legitimization the as realism on position Althusserian An hr r w te ruet bu h els etei htaerlvn ee Chidananda here. relevant are that aesthetic realist the about arguments other two are There ‘ ainls realism nationalist fi fi fi ac oayrcntutv oilpoetadms etknacuto ttecne.I is It center. the at of account taken be must and project social reconstructive any to cance ein n tepe an attempted and regions c ’ m aedrn hstm spr ftepoeto h F/FCta eeindi were that FFC/NFDC the of project the of part as time this during made lms ii. 9)cnb ena nipratprpcieo h a nwhich in way the on perspective important an as seen be can 190) (ibid.: ’ freality. of ncaatr nldn h Hindi the including character, in ’ ’ li orpeetthe represent to claim s naliscnrdcin Lkc 90 8,adt rsn h ottpcland typical most the present to and 38), 1980: (Lukács contradictions its all in ‘ n ftemcaim ftemdr state modern the of mechanisms the of one – 0 antb icutd rtersigni their or discounted, be cannot 80s ’ ’ – ’ on that point s oevr uása esetv loealsapreto fterealist the of perception a enables also perspective Lukácsian a Moreover, 7.Wiei stu htteNwWave New the that true is it While 17). Paa 98 62). 1998: (Prasad ‘ ‘ realist eert[]telw oenn betv elt and reality objective governing laws the penetrate[s] ’ rtclRaimwudpoieamr e more a provide would Realism Critical s ’ fi mfne yteFCND a h aepltcldrive, political same the had FFC/NFDC the by funded lm ‘ einlcaatrsisi agae rs,nmsadmanner and names dress, language, in characteristics regional ‘ ‘ authentic ne h F ei,raimbcm ainlpolitical national a became realism aegis, FFC the Under “ nation fi m ecie bv.I sipratt aetepoint the make to important is It above. described lms fi 11 r Bhaskar Ira m eebigmd had made being were lms fi ” ’ ahrta hto tt eiiiaina h project the as legitimization state of that than rather mo ha Benegal Shyam of lm hti encompasses it that oki re ocmuiaethe communicate to order in look ff fi fi 28 rn rmthe from erent m n h signi the and lms ’ m aei oby di Bombay, in made lms t fi m aedrn hstm htwere that time this during made lms fi mi nyafamn facmlxand complex a of fragment a only is lm ’ els rjc.Terait political realist, The project. realist s ’ eeoi rjc,gvn substance giving project, hegemonic s fi — ac nevle eas there because undervalued cance ‘ fi fi etei realism aesthetic htBzn(97 7 calls 37) (1967: Bazin what fi m htwr,Iwudclaim, would I were, that lms ’ maeslctdtheir located lmmakers atwr htwsproduced was that work cant Paa 98 61). 1998: (Prasad ’ s, aiBhari Hari fi fl m ersne a at was represented lms uihn mainstream ourishing ff rnitdfo the from erentiated ff ciemdlfor model ective … ’ noe[]the uncover[s] 20) which (2000), ‘ htMadhava that elt e reality fi s h FFC, the rst fi — m fthe of lms htthe that fi ‘ ff m in lms statist ff erent ect, ‘ the ’ ’ ’ Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 h F lnwsnvreeue rpry n ec hl h on otne ob sanc- be to continued loans of the aspect while this hence However, the vision. and in FFC properly, circuit completed the executed of exhibition the never element tioned, alternate was integral An plan an been FFC exhibition. had the and theaters the distribution small of dog movement: form the would of that demise problems key the eesd oeie hog hne n i upiigywl frexample (for well surprisingly did and chance, through sometimes released, signi nomenclature its as seen, industry. be mainstream also di di thus was can two Wave cinema between New middle the The of class. cinema middle political realist the why the n eu fpwr aia n prsiepbi pno,adutmtl h asoaeand accept passionate to the forced ultimately are people and structures that opinion, the reality public of the uncovering oppressive understand the and to set, second capital drive the the critical power, all in of Bombay, in in nexus similar spaces and cramped are in presented living problems of blems ( and feelings landscape family the either While ( of upholding con-man sentimental the a with terms Ghar private in resolved easily two the Mirza di o hi ees.Ti osntma htte didn they that mean not does This release. their not did for them of most However, Wave New the was it fact, In national. the against art make the to of continuing Wave were work New who the the Sen, with regions, along these and all identity, In them. from variance fi urban of problems the tensions, the postmarital of women, di role class, the the national of to and threat the susceptibility with space asserting dealt the that towards issues around orientation around identity an particularly middle-class class: of consolidation middle the and the class; about and of cinema Bhattacharya njpye Basu others, the several for and formula commercial a fi out worked had Chatterji Clearly, Chitchor its over taking by tion programme aesthetic alternative identi be to came also but awards, National won only not that Hindi 17)o rbeso ra iigi oby and Bombay, in key living urban a of is problems on Chatterji (1971) Basu cinema. class fi here mentioned be to period. that during cinema m eeHihks Mukherji Hrishikesh were lms msceycrut,adi struhteecanl fehbto httemvmn ul its built movement the that exhibition of channels these through is it and circuits, society lm midsr a h F nevninb h tt sestablishing as state the by intervention FFC the saw industry lm ff h cnmcsceso h idecnm that cinema middle the of success economic The h idecnm a aeaporae the appropriated have may cinema middle The hr saohrtr n ruetcnetdt h els etei fte17sta needs that 1970s the of aesthetic realist the to connected argument and term another is There rnebetween erence ‘ rthe or ) r Cinema Art ’ fi s m uhas such lms oa oh azrHo! Haazir Joshi Mohan 17)alaottecoc falf ate,wr rmnoscmeca successes. commercial tremendous were partner, life a of choice the about all (1975) fi m n hi eouin.I h omr h rsne rbesadcon and problems presented the former, the In resolutions. their and lms fi a idcto fteheroine the of vindication nal Katha ff ffi ’ rn formations erent ut fpiayfryugculs(bd:162 (ibid.: couples young for privacy of culty tem oevr h einlsol o ecutroe antithetically counterposed be not should regional the Moreover, stream. Katha fi ). m like lms — Dastak ‘ fi etei fatetct n simplicity and authenticity of aesthetic m fe i not did often lms h idecnm.MdaaPaa a esaieyage htthe that argued persuasively has Prasad Madhava cinema. middle the 18)and (1982) iak Ghar ka Piya and 18)i paeti n oprsbt h oiain behind motivations the both compares one if apparent is (1983) ’ ’ s fi Paa 98 2) n e h hleg hog segmenta- through challenge the met and 123), 1998: (Prasad — Anand dcmeca itiuin n hr a oohrstructure other no was there and distribution, commercial nd oa oh azrHo Haazir Joshi Mohan fi h e aecnm n h omrilcnm fthe of cinema commercial the and cinema Wave New the Sparsh m uigti eid eese spr fthe of part as seen were period, this during lms ’ h ninNwWave New Indian The s fi Anubhav uei eeoigti iea whose cinema, this developing in gure (1970), fi 17) rsdhsidenti has Prasad (1979). m fteNwWv n liaeyla oa to lead ultimately and Wave New the of lms ’ fi adbigwnb h eun utrrte than rather suitor genuine the by won being hand s and dteradecs oeo h FFC the of Some audiences. their nd fi 29 maesfo h 90 ieRy htkand Ghatak Ray, like 1950s the from lmmakers 17)and (1971) Guddi Katha fi ‘ els aesthetic realist m ndi in lms Rajnigandha fl ’ rvl hydid they travel; t uihdi h aepro foregrounded period same the in ourished n teslk Bedi like others and , (1971), ff fi rn rmtemdl ieao the of cinema middle the from erent mcm oaqiea acquire to came lm ontpeetayes solutions. easy any present not do ff Aavishkar rn einllnugsincluding languages regional erent ’ Bawarchi – ii. 2)t raeamiddle- a create to 127) (ibid.: (1974), 64). ‘ ’ realist fi rmteFFC the from fi ‘ dtoboddie fthis of drives broad two ed aallidsr ihan with industry parallel a m mentioned lms — 17) n h a Para- Sai the and (1973), — ht iBaat si Choti ’ nthe on (1972), fi eosrtshwand how demonstrates fi da India as ed m te successful Other lm. ’ s hvnShome Bhuvan Dastak fi Abhiman fi mfsia and festival lm s sbigin being as es, iak Ghar ka Piya ‘ fi Parallel m u the but lm, ‘ — 17)and (1976) fi parallel ’ national s m were lms rSaeed or h pro- the fl iaka Piya are icts (1973) fi ’ ). lm or 12 ’ Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 o-xiiino their of non-exhibition mato iuladmsclashtc spretbei hi ok hc eoitsterela- the negotiates which work, in their arts in other perceptible the arts in is and classical aesthetics cinema the deeply between with musical are tionship dialogued and that Shahani visual one ful of also and for impact is Kaul desire cinema This deep both society. the and patriarchal articulate a to in also tradition but by Rajasthan, Taran of both landscape Kaul evoke sterile Mani to freedom. subjectively environment. for and the desire powerfully changing very rapidly color is uses industrialization where landscape town feudal dilapidated the relentlessly a through (1972) olbrtdwt h tt-we eeiincanlDodrhn hc rdcdseveral produced which NFDC the Doordarshan, of channel telecast television state-owned fi the with FFC/NFDC gap the collaborated a with remained associated be there to Furthermore, government. the these by that place ensure in pro to the put needed between not processes were and good audiences structures that their the argument irrefutable, the While absolutely 151). is 1995: Willemen and Rajadhyaksha audiences approving its with circuit this while time, same the the At face. won public its and reputation ihteoeigo h iwvs orasa lofudi di it found also Doordarshan phase, post-liberalization airwaves, cinema. the the Wave In New of circuit. opening distribution the commercial the with of outside remained largely make to FFC the urged Undertakings Public on the the Committee and the that of unpaid, sure Report remained 1976 the loans sub- and the giving sector was structure, it distribution-exhibition whether viable fi about policy a FFC without the Thus, in confusion these the for to sidies pointed also have writers ua ruetaottetaetr fNwWv iea(au 97 ar 99.A h same the At 1989). Saari di 1987; the (Masud cinema despite Wave and New of time, trajectory the about argument tural iblt fthese of viability nevnini ieai rcie,bt oiia n etei,bfr lblzto n liber- and globalization and before aesthetic, cinephilia, and changed political radically both alization practices, cinematic in intervention ess ehv es ftecasrpoi n eteso Shahani sub- of inner restness and of claustrophobia explorations towards the the oriented of is in sense Kaul a it invested in have as equally Balo we even of is lenses, and interiority it content, the ontology, and While form cinematic jectivity. of of practice modernism exploration cinematic a an by this marked of is auteurs textualized emblematic a the and are excitement that an term practice generated the cinematic nevertheless a one, at realist glance political art. retrospective the cinematic a as about discourse popular for as opportunity not an 1970s though provided the of 2011 cinema in realist experimental political death the the to of return features to the like of some detail some m.Hwvr hs ntaie i o uce nmkn omrildn,adtog the though and dent, commercial a making in succeed not did initiatives these However, lms. m neesd hsbogtteFCi o o fciiimfo ihntegovernment the within from criticism of lot a for in FFC the brought This unreleased. lms h eahro h it n et fa of death and birth the of metaphor The hseprmna ieahsas encle India called been also has cinema experimental This ‘ fi Prayog m coae,i i o rn eun opybc on rer pro earn or loans back pay to returns bring not did it accolades, lms fi fi m had lms fi m,o o or lms, fi ’ sgnrtdfo h FFC the from generated ts m,i sas reta usata oyo e aewr a signi a was work Wave New of body substantial a that true also is it lms, a enue odsrb t(agr20) aiKu n ua Shahani Kumar and Kaul Mani 2006). (Gangar it describe to used been has fi haveli m nDodrhn e er nbe iwr osethese see to viewers enabled years few a Doordarshan, on lms ffi fi ff m htcouldn that lms ‘ ute fehbto htihbtdbt iclto n the and circulation both inhibited that exhibition of culties esnbepopc fbigcmecal successful commercially being of prospect reasonable a rn on htdmne oltrlfo rdcr Kk18:20). 1980: (Kak producers from collateral demanded that loans ering hr h el nrpe,adtak e ak hog h small the through walks her tracks and entrapped, feels she where fl i rcigcmr htfloshri e oeet through movements her in her follows that camera tracking uid ’ s Duvidha fi m nte18steND lotre rdcrand producer turned also NFDC the 1980s the In lm. ’ 17)smlryue oo o utt rn lv the alive bring to just not color uses similarly (1973) one h a of tag the counter t r Bhaskar Ira fi ’ fl motn frwsokadforeign and stock raw of importing s mpouto n eeto.Ihv ulndin outlined have I reception. and production lm ecdb anigadmscltaiin.The traditions. musical and painting by uenced ‘ ’ dream 30 fi s m like lms siRoti Uski ’ a fe enue n om h struc- the forms and used been often has – fi ’ — vn-ad ieaadmr recently more and cinema avant-garde s 0 oidct ute h aiKaul Mani why further indicate to 90s m fteNwWv,adwudnow would and Wave, New the of lms Duvidha facnm htwiescal con- socially while that cinema a of satmtdtruhasitn s of use shifting a through attempted is fi aca o-iblt htcame that non-viability nancial , ’ ffi hylGatha Khayal wkndsxaiyadher and sexuality awakened s utt otnet support to continue to cult ’ aa from Taran s fi fi m a esuccessful be can lms letta ssti is that llment aaDarpan Maya (1988), fi fi aaDarpan Maya m,adthe and lms, m reached lms fi ’ fi s Several ts. ctdby (cited m,they lms, fi Dhrupad nancial fi cant fl also ed ’ s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 h e aeas a t w ehiin n lentv tr,svrlo hmaesig- are whom of several stars, alternative and technicians own its had a made also ni not Wave have Mirza New Saeed even and The identity Shahani Kumar its like maintains Some that work. current practice cinema art mainstream the an of in engaged changed are the signi and in extremely active of be body to a continue us given has re that cinematic Wave the New of the examples of few a just are Mehta om vna ti oeflidcmn ftecsesse n t aeaigipc pnthe art upon impact other lacerating these its and and system cinema caste between the dialogue of indictment a powerful aesthetically a is is artist it that as form even layered forms a in poetry Vanaprastham ieto.Acrigt h rs ees,teaadctto ttsta the that states citation award the release, press the to According Direction. Kahaniyan debut Anya Aur Aurat omno ihtentrlwrdt raealrcl yhccnm eosrtn how demonstrating cinema mythic lyrical, Aravindan a interiority. with create debut our to directorial structures world myth natural deeply the with communion hsctto em oeh nislnug h signi the language its in echo to seems citation This ( Dutta Amit cinema of experimental work the the of in legacy a evident That is discernible. today are moment even Wave continues New the of impulses Kamat kant ffcs and faces, Aravindan of in seen be poetic can striking these in together expressivity aesthetic A subjects. and chosen music their legends, fi on essays myths, cinematic brings of form form the in is Shahani Duvidha h e ae lal eosrtn htteei nihrtnehr oceih akof Lack cherish. to here inheritance an is there that demonstrating clearly Wave, New the signi a of end Bhandarkar the Madhur at in in even seen some time, be that same can note the Wave to At New important the discussing. is been it have period, historical we much is that period cinema earlier the the with compared impact cinephiliac their the of Moreover, spread the diminished. and intensity the although ieai experience. cinematic (1982), m hc hl naigwt h di the with engaging while which lms fi si vdn rmtedtso the of dates the from evident is As hr r teslk rvna n hj au wh Karun Shaji and Aravindan like others are There atatr n tr fmisra industries mainstream of stars and actors cant ’ o t anigprrylo h ie fpol navlaea hybtl ihthe experi- the with the in battle frame portrayed to they inventive face Each distinctly as an existence. operate village fragile deploys body a a and Singh of space in ence Gurvinder sound, people where development. of form industrial lives storytelling large-scale the of of portrayal reality haunting its For rua hsi nashtctu efreta con that force de tour aesthetic an is This trauma. otuso nineprmna cinema. experimental Indian of contours ol otmdr xml htkistgte oktetr ui n ieai Ketan is cinema and music theater, folk together knits that example post-modern A soul. s ’ fi eu work debut s Siddheshwari lm h tesi hsls r ouetre,adtenon- the and documentaries, are list this in others the , fi ne hre aDaan Da Ghorhey Anhey ’ Marathi s maeshsldt h mrec fnwfrain n practices and formations new of emergence the to led has lmmakers acaaSita Kanchana 19)i oeflcnmtcpeeta evstgte ahkl,mscand music Kathakali, together weaves that piece cinematic powerful a is (1999) fi mseai ftdy teslk ea et n oidNhln r part are Nihalani Govind and Mehta Ketan like Others today. of scenario lm fi midsr.Gimr ftererirpltclitn a tl evsbei their in visible be still may intent political earlier their of Glimmers industry. lm (1989), hviBhavai Bhavni Piravi fi lm ’ s fi 09,Prs adr( Kamdar Paresh 2009), , obvl Fast Dombivali aboFlute Bamboo 17)and (1977) fi messays. lm n18 ihtevsa otyo h rvna rdto,adhis and tradition, Aravindan the of poetry visual the with 1988 in midsr a hne;teipc fgoa ieao new on cinema global of impact the changed; has industry lm fi 18) te okas ed ob etoe,btthese but mentioned, be to needs also work Other (1980). 21)ta utrcnl o h ainlAadfrBest for Award National the won recently just that (2011) m etoe bv,sm fthese of some above, mentioned lms h ninNwWave New Indian The Thampu Estheppan ff 20)and (2000) rn rsas itladcmuiaeasigni a communicate and distil also arts erent 20) hl nohrMrticnm ftdythe today of cinema Marathi other in while (2005), fl cinadinvto fteeprmna cinema experimental the of innovation and ection 31 17)ue h aeat atr h landscape the capture to camera the uses (1978) 17)bigmt n eedit direct a into legend and myth bring (1979) ’ fi eogt hstradition, this to belong o 13 ieaorpe,SaiKrn aehis made Karun, Shaji cinematographer, s ’ ac fteeprmna rdtoswithin traditions experimental the of cance Bhavantaran s fi fl Khargosh oa.TeND still NFDC The today. fi etyadscesul enet the reinvents successfully and dently ecsprit h oiia ocrsof concerns political The persist. uences rst fi fi mcristesgso persistent of signs the carries lm lm fi 09,adGridrSingh Gurvinder and 2009), , fi atashtcwork. aesthetic cant Nainsukh hnn Bar Chandni to ieao ohKu and Kaul both of cinema ction 19) ihteecpinof exception the With (1991). fl i,ascaie resonant associative, uid, fi 00 and 2010, , fi maes ieKarun, like lmmakers, mfroe decade. a over for lm n iia aesthetic similar a and fi mi awarded: is lm 20)adNishi- and (2001) — fi di nances ff rn from erent am Ki Aadmi fi cantly fi fi cant lms, ’ s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 agr Amrit, Gangar, Chidananda, Gupta, Das Nandy, Ashis and Veena Das, Reym, Mira Binford, Andre, Bazin, Roland, Barthes, hsa,IaadRcadAllen, Richard and Ira Bhaskar, —— de, Honore Balzac, today. of cinema experimental edgy Perhaps new, experimentation. the and for innovation here cinematic genealogy of consequent a legacy a is important and there an audiences left own its nonetheless reach has to inability an hence fi and exhibition, and distribution 1Itrsigy ieaad Ray 91 Bibekananda 2009: Interestingly, Allen 11 and Bhaskar See 10 2Mia e artdt h uhrhwM ajtao aahiFlspi i s500frtepermament the for 5,000 Rs him paid Films Rajashri of Barjatya Mr how author the to narrated Sen Mrinal 12 3SaaaAm,NseudnSa,O ui ubuhnKabnaadArs uiaejs some just are Puri Amrish and Kharbanda Kulbhushan Puri, Om Shah, Naseeruddin Azmi, Shabana 13 hl ubro consseteNwWave New the see accounts of number a While 4 o l ecin eea nhsatc ayjtRywsotihl rtclo the of critical outrightly was Ray Satyajit enthusiastic. as were reactions literary the all in Not experiments new 6 to connected intimately was Wave New The 5 tteIdaHbttCnr,NwDli nSpebr2011. chapter September in this Delhi, entitled New have Centre, I Habitat 3 India the At 2 7 Kaul Mani of stylization aural and visual The 1 ae eesda a as released Later 9 Author 8 aca o-iblt,myhv etoe h e aemvmn ytemd19s u it but mid-1990s, the by movement Wave New the destroyed have may non-viability, nancial Cinema 1995. University, Open the with association xeietlFl ie 1913 Video & Film Experimental (ed.) Sociology aionaPes 1967. Press, California Comedy Human 92,teRyin Ray the 1982), on cinema h oeet n atclryteeprmna iea e h Ray FFC the See the cinema. describe experimental the to particularly term and Karnataka. movement, the the and of Maharashtra validity in the movements questioned theater new and literature Hindi in movement di markedly di the in forms cinematic 1970s new the of in spread country and upsurge sudden eray1971 February di a radically an interiority creates cinematic of text, experience dramatic Hindi Sanskritized Cinema harstruhu h onr.Ti sfantastic! is This country. the throughout theatres ‘ ihsfor rights ae,aogothers. among names, eadn xiiin mtl htteFl iac oprto spann obidacano art of chain a build to planning is Corporation Finance Film the that told am I exhibition, Regarding enRenoir Jean fi e ninCinema Indian New mpatcsi di in practices lm e ok ree,1987. Praeger, York: New , ’ ’ 91 (1985). 19(1) neve ihMn aladMS ahui coe 1978. October in Sathyu M.S. and Kaul Mani with interview s (2005). osntcne prpitl h togipc fteFl iac oprto intervention Corporation Finance Film the of impact strong the appropriately convey not does hvnShome Bhuvan hti Cinema? is What e ok io n cutr 1973. Schuster, and Simon York: New , ff ‘ h ieao Prayoga, of Cinema The erent. . ‘ – h elt E Reality The h oenTradition Modern The 72. ‘ oit sHsoia Organism, Historical as Society ‘ fi h w iea fIndia, of Cinemas Two The fl mo video. on lm ec sol n tad n h oiia realist political the and strand, one only is uence ‘ – e ninCnm:A nlsso t eaaeIdentities, Separate its of Analysis An Cinema: Indian New ff n eesdthe released and , 0.Teterms The 80s. e eh:TeDrcoaeo imFsias 1982. Festivals, Film of Directorate The Delhi: New , rn regions. erent ‘ ilne itmod n h agaeo Silence, of Language the and Victimhood, Violence, o.I sasslce n rn.Hg ry ekly A nvriyof University CA: Berkeley, Gray, Hugh trans. and selected Essays I. Vol. ‘ saiaeClue fBma Cinema Bombay of Cultures Islamicate h ninNwWave New Indian The ff – ect, 2006 ’ – oko h e aeis Wave New the on book s 106. ’ nDni adr(ed.) Walder Dennis in xod xodUiest rs,16,246 1965, Press, University Oxford Oxford: , odn Wall London: , ’ Bibliography nKrnMraadBa ulr(eds) Butler Brad and Mirza Karen in ‘ fi Parallel mi onn hwi i w hae,weei a o year. a for ran it where theater, own his in show morning a in lm Notes r Bhaskar Ira ’ s ff ff ’ ’ sa ae Din ek ka Ashad rn rmtetetia experience. theatrical the from erent 32 ective nJh onn (ed.) Downing John in and ’ ’ Sn17:31). 1971: (Sen fi rfc oR lmnadC edlo (eds) Feidelson C. and Ellman R. to Preface fl m ntetaiino Ray of tradition the in lms ’ ‘ wrPes 2006. Press, ower r cinema Art eas h haecnesqiefreul the forcefully quite conveys phrase the because fi fi l fitneinrsrgl htrnesan renders that struggle inner intense of eld m.Hwvr irmSnhrs odefend to rose Singh Bikram However, lms. h els Novel Realist The hl okn ihMhnRakesh Mohan with working while , ff eh:Tlk ok,2009. Books, Tulika Delhi: , osineo h ae India Race: the of Conscience rn language erent ’ rdt h e ae and Wave, New the predate – ig eaein debate Singh imadPltc nTidWorld Third in Politics and Film fi m ftemvmn were movement the of lms fi ieao ryg:Indian Prayoga: of Cinema odn oteg in Routledge London: , l,eg h a Kahani Nai the e.g. eld, ’ ’ ’ fi otiuin oIndian to Contributions els DsGupta (Das realism s nSap Banerjee, Shampa in – midsre fthe of industries lm 54. ‘ e Wave New Filmfare January , ’ sO ’ ‘ ff new The and beat ’ – s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 aahasa Ashish, Rajadhyaksha, Badri, Raina, Madhava, Prasad, Dnyaneshwar, Nadkarni, aahasa sihadPu ilmn(eds), Willemen Paul and Ashish Rajadhyaksha, Ranjani, Mazumdar, aeh Mohan, Rakesh, Iqbal, Masud, ——‘ (ed.), Siddharth Kak, ——‘ ——‘ Bikram, Singh, Kaul, Arun and Mrinal Sen, Mrinal, Sen, Bibekananda, Ray, ——‘ B.K., Karanjia, ——‘ Shubhra, Gupta, ar,Anil, Saari, Georg, Lukács, Mani, Kaul, ——‘ ——‘ ——‘ Satyajit, Ray, 1998. Adaptation Film of Practice uiaBos 2009. Books, Tulika in xodUiest rs nascainwt F ulsig 1995. Publishing, BFI with association in Press University Oxford Others and Gorki Tolstoy, Zola, Stendhal, e ieaMovement? Cinema New 1980. India, up Adorno Benjamin, Brecht, Lukács, Block, Between oite fIndia of Societies iin ni,18,14 1980, India, Vision, 81 2009, Blackswan, Orient 2005. Delhi: India, New of Government Broadcasting, & Information of istry () oby imFrm 1968. Forum, Film Bombay: 1(1), , Tamas irmSnhReplies, Singh Bikram Stendhal, and Balzac oeAotteIndian the About More Roti, Uski Kak Siddharth e ieaadI, and Cinema New Quarter, a and Four Writes, Ray Satyajit , ‘ ’ h otVieo Youth, of Voice Lost The ‘ ‘ xlrtosi e imTechniques, Film New in Explorations nRbr tmadAesnr ano(eds) Raengo Alessandra and Stam Robert in h o-aktbePol r Selling, Are People Non-Marketable The ‘ ‘ ‘ aa a oce si h Raw, the in Us Touched Has Tamas nIda e Wave? New Indian An e ieai Dead, is Cinema New ‘ ‘ ieaadLtrtr:WeeDe h iwrStand? Viewer the Does Where Literature: and Cinema ‘ anhn h e Wave, New the Launching ’ els nteBalance, the in Realism ‘ sa aE Din Ek ka Ashad in i iul Talked, Visuals His dooyo h id im itrclConstruction Historical A Film: Hindi the of Ideology Atm 1974). (Autumn 8 osineo h ae India Race: the of Conscience ’ oa aehk apraKahaniyan Sampurna ki Rakesh Mohan neve ihJgihParikh, Jagdish with interview s ‘ eoyadHsoyi h oiiso dpain eiiigtePriino India of Partition the Revisiting Adaptation: of Politics the in History and Memory ieaVso,Ida sTeeaNwCnm Movement? Cinema New a There Is India: Vision, Cinema ninCnm nteTm fCluod rmBlyodt h Emergency the to Bollywood From Celluloid: of Time the in Cinema Indian – ‘ ’ ’ nte o-ugtAtFilm, Art Low-budget Another ’ ’ pca su of Issue Special 16. Filmfare 17) in (1974), xodadMle,M:BakelPbihr,2005. Publishers, Blackwell MA: Malden, and Oxford , ’ in ‘ in e ieaMvmn:Etatfo Manifesto, from Extract Movement: Cinema New Filmfare “ ieaVso ni:I hr e ieaMovement? Cinema New a There Is India: Vision Cinema e Wave New tde nErpa els:AScooia uvyo h rtnso Balzac, of Writings the of Survey Sociological A Realism: European in Studies eh:Rja osPbiain,1958. Publications, Sons & Rajpal Delhi: , 2 eray17) 1 53. 51, 1972): February (25 ’ ’ u im,TerFilms Their Films, Our 2 eray17b:53. 1972b): February (25 h ninExpress Indian The ’ ’ h ninEpesMagazine Express Indian The h idsa Times Hindustan The Filmfare ’ h ninNwWave New Indian The odn h elnPes 92 65 1972, Press, Merlin The London: , nRnl alr(rn.aded.) and (trans. Taylor Ronald in ieaVso,India Vision, Cinema ” – ’ , 99). ’ h ninPost Indian The Filmfare ’ sO 8Otbr17)(eulse in (republished 1971) October (8 odn es 1980. Verso London: , nylpei fIda Cinema Indian of Encyclopaedia ff 33 ’ etCinema beat ’ “ ie fIndia of Times ninFl utr ,Junlo h eeaino Film of Federation the of Journal 8, Culture Film Indian ono Subsidy, or Loan 1 aur 92) 21 1972a): January (14 ’ Filmfare 7Jl 01:10. 2011): July (7 eh:Rja osPbiain,1989. Publications, Sons & Rajpal Delhi: , ’ ie fIndia of Times e eh:Oin lcsa,20,100 2009, Blackswan, Orient Delhi: New , ieaueadFl:AGiet h hoyand Theory the to Guide A Film: and Literature 6Nvme 98:6 1988): November (6 1 aur 99:8. 1989): January (15 Jl 90:20. 1980): (July e eh:Pbiain iiin Min- Division, Publications Delhi: New , 4Jn 91:29 1971): June (4 e eh:Ofr nvriyPress, University Oxford Delhi: New , 8Mrh1987). March (8 1Fbur 1988). February (1 ’ ”’ Filmfare 1 uy1970). July (19 nSdhrhKk(ed.) Kak Siddharth in – eteisadPolitics and Aesthetics 23. e eh n London: and Delhi New , ’ 2 aur 93:31 1973): January (26 oby ieaVision, Cinema Bombay: – nGplDt (ed.) Datt Gopal in 84. – u im,TerFilms Their Films, Our – 31. 7. oby Cinema Bombay: e Delhi: New , sTeea There Is : Debates Close- – 33. – 7. , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 00:51 28 Sep 2021; For: 9780203556054, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203556054.ch3 hs ae netoal lf blank left intentionally page This