Adoor at the French Cinematheque

The French Cinematheque, considered the Mecca of world cinema, paid homage to Adoor Gopalakrishnan by organising a retrospective of his complete work in November. The second Indian Director so honoured after Satyajit Ray, Adoor is now a familiar name to French students and film buffs. His films have been screened in different cities, notably Nantes, where the Festival of Three Continents is held.

The French Cinematheque is Paris's main film institute where members of the French New Wave receive their education. It was founded over 63 years ago by George Franju and Henri Langlois. In the same building is housed the Henri Langlois Cinema Museum, a tribute to the founder's devotion to the Seventh Art and the first Cinema Museum in the world.

It was a befitting tribute to Adoor when the jam packed inaugural evening was treated to two films, "Kalamandalam Gopi" his latest short film and "Adoor", a journey in frames by Rajiv Mehrotra.

Adoor Gopalakrishnan spoke to RAJESH SHARMA about his special relationship with France and French cinema, the reception and distribution of Indian films abroad.

Question: Let us begin with your opening remarks at the Inaugural evening and your special relationship with the French Cinematheque.

Adoor Gopalakrishnan: It may sound very strange but our new cinema has been greatly influenced by cinema in Europe, particularly French cinema. It has been so from the beginning. To start with, it was neo-realism which influenced Ray. Our generation of film makers was deeply influenced by the New Wave. It was around the same time that I came on the scene.

My association with the French Cinematheque is very old, older than my professional life in cinema. In 1969, the Ford Foundation chose a few young people, about to embark on their new careers, to attend the International Design Conference in Colorado. That was a great period when underground cinema was flourishing and things were happening all over The U.S. In those days, Pan Am had this global round-the-world ticket and you could travel anywhere. Moreover, there was no restriction on the issue of visas. I was only 24-years-old and I went on travelling. One place on my priority list was France, particularly Paris.

Once I reached Paris, I went to the Cinematheque almost in the spirit of a pilgrim, visiting the most holy place of cinema. I remember I spent one or two evenings there seeing films. I even remember the ticket I purchased. I kept it with me as a souvenir. Maybe it is still there in my collection. At that time, Langlois was already dead, but his wife was there. I didn't meet her, but I remember seeing her on the premises. I went through the same door 30 years ago as I did today, the door that went through the garden. After that, every time I came to Paris I went back to the Cinematheque, once or twice, for one of my films. Once, I came for this programme, Indomania on the occasion of the Centenary of Cinema.

Well, Indomania in 1995 was the largest retrospective on Indian cinema ever organised in France with over a hundred films.

Yes, I came for the inaugural. For us who have been through the film school, the French Cinematheque occupies a very special place. It has inspired other cinema archives all over the world. It has become a model and the ultimate institution that others want to immortalise.

This is the first time after Satyajit Ray, that the French Cinematheque has held a retrospective for an Indian film maker. But you have had retrospectives in France earlier as well.

Yes, I have had retrospectives in many places in France before. In fact, one of the first retrospectives of my films was held in La Rochelle in 1987. At that time, I had made only four feature films.

I have had many retrospectives abroad. But amongst all these retrospectives, the most important one is this one at the French Cinematheque. The second ever retrospective for any Indian film maker - even in that sense it is very prestigious. I must say that my films have been shown in so many festivals in France, in Cannes, in La Rochelle, in Amiens, in Montpellier and very regularly at Nantes.

So can we say that film maker Adoor is very well known to the French public.

(Laughs) I don't know if I am well known, I am very well shown. And at some places I have won prizes too.

Which French films makers have influenced you the most?

That is very difficult to say. I have studied cinema very academically and I have watched every film maker. I have not stopped after watching them at the film school. I keep watching them even today. I have been seeing films right from the Lumiere Brothers. I have even liked difficult film makers, such as Godard, one of the leading figures of the new wave. Or others like Eric Rohmer. If I mention two or three names, I would have left out even more important names.

One film maker I like best from France is Robert Bresson, who made "Mouchette" and "Au hasard Balthazar". That doesn't mean that I like his last few films. There are so many films makers whom I like. What I can certainly say is that I always prefer European film makers to Americans.

What kind of a response have you got for your films here? Have you found that the French public has preferred a particular film?

All my films have been shown in one festival or the other and well received. Maybe I'll single out "Walls". The film was liked very much. I remember a review appearing in the cinema journal Positif. The critic said that this film belies every notion about prison films. You may have seen one hundred prison films, but this stands out. Some people have greatly appreciated "Rat Trap" also. The French critics are very serious. There are so many of them and so many good critics.

Normally a film maker coming from India and that too from South India is at a disadvantage. One day, the British critic Derrick Malcom told me: "Adoor, you have this problem. The Indian film is little known. And South Indian life and South Indian cinema is even less known."

You can not build awareness yourself. You make the film the way you think is right. If your film has the right credentials, right outlook, right attitude, right integrity, then it may take time but it will attract the attention of the serious people. This is bound to happen. You cannot go after immediate acceptability and popularity. That can be very dangerous. Then you will be imitating the trendy and easily digestible kind of things. Then there will only be one kind of cinema, the one that Hollywood is producing.

What about the Indian Government's role in promoting our films abroad?

We have done our bit. The Government has done much, like organising international film festivals. An important part of the festival is the Indian Panorama. The year's best films are shown with sub-titles in English to enable selectors from abroad to see them. Then there is the Festival Directorate that handles these films, sends them to festivals, enters them into competitions and arranges Festivals of India abroad. There is a lot of effort, but, we are always asking for more support. We can never say enough. Because there are other countries that are doing even more.

And France is one of those countries that does a tremendous amount to support its artists and creators.

Yes, absolutely. We cannot compare ourselves with France. France insisted that culture can not be "commoditised". This has been a great stand and every artist in the world endorses the French stand. Otherwise, there would have been only one cinema, - the Hollywood cinema and we would all be watching that. I am sure every serious film maker acknowledges it as well.

Like in India, if we were to decide that Hindi is our national language and therefore let us have only Hindi films. Whereas we have films being made in at least 20 languages. That is what makes our cinema so interesting. Our national awards are like an international festival. One hundred and ten films in twenty languages competing for the prizes. It's remarkable. Exactly like a festival in Europe. In fact we have more languages than Europe.

Can Malayalam films get the same kind of success in the Middle East as Subhash Ghai has been recently getting in the US?

No, that period is gone. Films used to make money in the Middle East but now they only smuggle video cassettes. At one time there was a boom and but now that has stopped.

In the field of cinema, it is very important that the audiences know you and develop some relationship with you. I mentioned Nantes. Last year, on the last day of the festival, (a Sunday) three screenings of Kathapurusham were scheduled. It was winter, the height of winter and every show was full. This happens only because the audience has already seen my earlier work.

In the evening, one distributor was watching the film. He came to meet me, invited me to dinner and said that he wanted to distribute the film. Ultimately, it did not materialise. Unless you have someone to work for you, there can be no follow up. This is where we have failed miserably. Because we have no mechanism that can use this enthusiasm that is generated.

What you are saying is that despite the enthusiasm, despite the presence of an appreciative audience, you cannot distribute your films abroad.

Exactly, there is no genuine sustained effort or lobby to support it. That is in our national interest, but we haven't been able to do much.

Have you found distributors elsewhere?

Yes, in England, for instance. I have been showing my films in the London Festival regularly since I got the British Film Institute Award in 1982, for "Rat Trap". It was given for the most original and imaginative film. This award made me popular in England. From then onwards, every time a film of mine is scheduled at the festival, the tickets are sold out two months in advance.

In addition to Channel 4 that has shown your films, did you have a distributor for the cinema halls as well?

Yes, I did. When Channel 4 buys a film, they also presuppose that you will have a release (at least modest one) in cinema houses. The advantage being that when you schedule a cinema release, you have a preview arranged for the press. The press writes about the film and people look forward to watching it on television. It provides big publicity. It is to the television's advantage.

On the other hand, when the distributor knows that your film will be bought by Channel 4, he is also interested in buying the film for release in cinema halls. The system is interlinked. The film is probably not released in regular cinemas where popular films are shown, but the Art or Academy cinemas.

Now is a good time to launch your films commercially in France.

Living in Trivandrum how can I launch it? Despite the French Government helping distributors with some funds to distribute these films, it doesn't work. In spite of the encouragement given by the State, the distributors are reluctant and very wary of spending their own money.

Can't the French Cinematheque be of assistance?

Yes, I spoke to them and they have arranged meetings with one or two distributors. But in the end what motivates any distributor anywhere is the prospect of money. Back home also, it is getting more and more difficult for our kind of cinema to survive. Our television is showing commercial films all the time, they are least interested in our kind of cinema. What they want to do is to attract advertisements. And whenever a film has a lot of singing and dancing, it attracts the maximum number of advertisements.

Look at Doordarshan. It is a public television, it is run on public funds, on our hard earned money paid as tax. And what is the kind of stuff being shown? They have the wrong kind of priorities. When television was started, it was not meant to be a selling proposition. Now, only what sells matters to them.

Once I said that Doordarshan has become the shame of the country, it is a national shame. I was instrumental in starting many things. Two or three years before her death, Indira Gandhi convened a meeting of media people in Delhi and I was also invited. That was the time Doordarshan had started in a big way, it was on the threshold of growth. She was keen to give it a direction and asked us for ideas and suggestions.

I said that when I make a film in Malayalam, in India I am treated as a regional film maker. I have to cross the borders of this country to become an Indian filmmaker. I am unintelligible to the rest of India. Why can't we show these films on our national network?

The argument advanced was that people living in the villages, the famous and the illiterate people, could not understand Malayalam and could not read subtitles. That was the time when "The Lucy Show" was being shown on television. So I said: "Oh, every villager understands the Lucy show! What they don't understand is Malayalam and the sub-titles."

Indira Gandhi saw the sense in it straight away. So, in 1984, Doordarshan started showing the Best of Indian Cinema, particularly the films selected in the Indian panorama. And it started with my film, "Rat Trap". Suddenly you felt you were not a regional film maker any more, but an Indian film maker and your audience was all over the country.

In the recent past, all this has degenerated. Now you have films that are not necessarily quality based being selected and shown in this slot. People have therefore stopped watching this programme. They have destroyed the whole concept. When I want to show my film, I have to wait at least three years in the queue.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Plastic surgery - the danger in delay
Next     : Killing fields in Africa