There was a familiar ring to the announcement made by the prime minister on the recommendations of the Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage for the revival of the film industry in the country. "We are aware of the fact that quality entertainment revolves around availability of playing fields, recreations parks, tourism and cultural activities, the nucleus of which is the revival of the film industry," the prime minister stated last week.
Perhaps it is a compulsion on the part of the government that it has to offer a caveat for its decisions and, in this case, it is the standard cliché that the soft image of the country has to be presented to the world. For it is stressed ad nauseam that its real image has been only besmeared and disfigured by terrorism and other such labels imposed from the outside.
It is all very familiar, as if rereading a script drafted earlier. Relaxation in financial laws pertaining to films, exemption from taxes, a comprehensive package for honourable personalities in the fine arts, establishment of a National Film and Broadcasting Commission, National Film Institute, an Academy, studios equipped with the latest technology and gadgets compatible with requirements of modern times. Then, for the welfare and financial assistance to the artistes, there is establishment of Prime Minister’s Artist Welfare Fund so that the dignity and self-respect of those talented individuals could be safeguarded.
Remember Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s regime and National Film Development Corporation (NAFDEC). It was formed with more of less the same mandate and, after a promising start, it just fizzled out due to lack of support and financial backing by successive governments. Actually, all institutions founded in the public sector ultimately become employment exchanges for powers that be. Only sums that cover establishment costs are allocated and released, while nothing is earmarked for the task that it is supposed to accomplish.
NAFDEC, a dying institution, only took so long to be wound up because it meant retrenchment of the staff employed there. In the end, it resorted to monopolising the import of raw stock and then selling it to the filmmakers in the private sector, meeting its expenditures by this differential. In the last analysis, it thwarted film-making rather than promoting it.
Initially, the fear of Indian films caused a ban to be imposed on their import in the 1950s. This gave some breathing space to local cinema but robbed them of the chance to improve through competition. After the collapse of the local industry, imports were allowed from India a few years ago and that made people rediscover the joy of cinema-going. This indirectly helped the local cinema as the audience wanted to view local films as well in the same swing; but it was hit badly by the on again off again relationship with India.
Whatever the concessions, support and encouragement, it should be for all private film makers and not for those working hand in glove with state-aided agencies. Certain films in the past few years have been financed or overseen by some institutions of the state for promoting a soft image of the country. These films were hugely acclaimed for their incitement of patriotic fervor by the national media and were posed as examples which the films in general produced in the country should emulate.
Cinema in a society like Pakistan has to be judged on the response of the audience and the reaction of the market forces. If the film does well at the box office, then its survival or its growth does become a bright possibility; otherwise it has to be seen as a patient that has been put on the ventilator and cannot survive without it.
It is a good gesture and initiative on part of the government but then it should be offered without qualification to film makers eager to make films for their own sake. Most of all, an environment should be safeguarded where cinema and the performing arts are seen as a cherished vocation. The problem in this approach seems to be that the national and moral concerns precedes the joy of filmmaking. It is not a task or a job that one has to do or is forced to do but the urge to express oneself in this medium.
It will be badly executed if help is afforded to a few filmmakers, offering themselves to tow the line and be satisfied with the command performance. The problem with help from any quarter including the state is that it forces you into a made-to-order mould. You are expected to follow a certain script and not deviate much from it.
This is the primary reason why cinema or the performing arts do not survive and if survive do not excel. The love of film making has to come first and then patriotism and such directional restrictions imposed by censorship much later.
The minister of state, Ms Aurangzeb, has already started to mix and jumble up priorities when she linked this policy to the introduction of screen tourism to highlight its cultural diversity and scenic beauty at the international level. For her, the revival of Pakistan’s film industry was a prerequisite for screen tourism to showcase country’s true culture and heritage.
The present initiative will not take off without examining the causes of the failure of such initiatives in the past and not repeating them. It should, above all, be about film making as an independent art form and not about serving a particular cause or an interest. And for that, a certain degree of freedom is required, breaking away from the narrow confines of certain areas considered taboos in our society.
The censorship breathing down the throat is intimidating for film making and it can become overbearing if the purse string are also controlled by the same source.