Unless cinema means something else to FTIIians than to other mere mortals, it’s fair to assume it is still a director’s medium first and foremost. So, let’s look at the most significant films of the last 20 years in the Mumbai film industry, which is where the majority of FTII graduates go to work. (Read the first part of this story here)
Inadequate Present
How’s this for a list of these films (with the same director’s other work in contention) - Satya (perhaps Company), Munnabhai MBBS (perhaps Lage Raho Munnabhai), Lagaan (perhaps Swades), Dil Chahta Hai (perhaps Lakshya), Chandni Bar, Iqbal (perhaps Dor), Maqbool (perhaps Omkara), Hazaaron Khaaishein Aisi (perhaps Khoya Khoya Chaand), Black Friday (perhaps Dev D and Gulaal), Rocket Singh (perhaps Chak De India), Khosla Ka Ghosla (perhaps Oye Lucky and LSD), Paan Singh Tomar, Udaan, Ship of Theseus, Lunchbox, Piku (perhaps Vicky Donor), Kai Po Che, Aankhon Dekhi and Masaan are the ones that stand out more than any others – any disagreements? Let’s expand it further - Taare Zameen Pe, Life In A Metro, A Wednesday, Peepli Live, Dhobi Ghat, Johnny Gaddar, Black, Rang De Basanti, Gattu, Luck By Chance, Mumbai Meri Jaan, Manorama Six Feet Under, English Vinglish, Ishqiya. The most prominent films that we will remember from the last 20 years – fair list?
Right, that’s 33 films from the last 20 years, without considering the ones in brackets. So how many of these were directed by FTII pass-outs? The answer is four. Three by 1987 direction pass-outs, and one by a 1985 pass-out. There are several films by younger people on this list, but not a single one of them is an FTIIian. In this context, Anurag Kashyap’s production house has had a better strike rate than FTII in the last twenty years; he has actually introduced more successful new talent in several disciplines than FTII has been able to produce amongst those practicing their craft/art in Mumbai. If you quibble about the list, add or leave out a few, the point of how many of them are directed by FTII graduates will probably not change much.
Of course, there are quite a few talented FTII-passed-out filmmakers making a mark in the regional circuit – Umesh Kulkarni is very significant when it comes to Marathi cinema (but there are several others in that space who are not from FTII either). There’s Gurvinder Singh in Punjabi cinema, there’s Amit Dutta with his brand of boutique (some would say esoteric) filmmaking that has an international following, and a few more, but it is still a fact that the two most significant regional films in recent times – Court and Kaaka Muttai, are not made by FTII directors.
Copy-pasting lists of awards recent FTII alumni have won in festivals (mostly short films and documentaries that no one outside those juries ever gets to see) or from the National Awards yearly lists (where a substantial proportion of winners have nothing to do with FTII) is facile and pointless. Internationally, the proportion of FTII alumni making a mark in serious (prestigious) festivals is not only far less than before, but also not in a substantial proportion compared to other Indians.
The point is not to belittle anyone but to demonstrate that the legendary chauvinism and entitlement the FTII students radiate is grossly out-of-place. It really is time to settle that issue.
Another recent pronouncement from one of their striking students was that ‘FTII should be given the status of a premier national institute like an IIT or an IIM.’ Nothing wrong with FTII being classified as a premier national institute; it should have been done by now. But to mention it in the same breath as IIT and IIM is an exercise fraught with embarrassment and delusion. Fact is, if the IITs and IIMs had even double the strike rate (or success rate or whatever it is that you want to call this) of FTII, their utility and funding would still be severely questioned.
Of course FTII produces fine craftsmen/artists – practitioners of camera, sound and editing (and acting too, lately, since they re-started this course) and most of them find gainful employment while many of them excel in their fields. This is a massive contribution; most of the films mentioned above would have FTII graduates in key technical positions. However, it should not be hard to understand that they are largely serving other people’s visions and very emphatically not leading the cinema discourse in India today, as they did in the 1970s and 1980s. Whether this is due to an overemphasis on craft is something they could introspect about if that inclination was there. But blaming the lack of state-funding or the inability to be entrepreneurial are embarrassing excuses.
It is also worthwhile to remember that, as the premier film school in India (because of its legacy), FTII does get a lot of genuinely talented people seeking admission there. These people would flower anywhere with a little direction. That is also evident from the non-FTII talent that works in this industry.
SRFTII and Whistling Woods apart, there are graduates from institutes like SIMC and XIC who are every bit as good as those coming out of FTII, if not better in some cases, as there is a lesser obsession with craft and far less arrogance. There are courses and schools in the South which foster very visible talent. The playing field is getting more level than FTIIians would perhaps like.
These FTII students might want to get their act together, which would include being a little more aware about their place in the world. Perhaps their past alumni could help them a bit and not indulge them at every stage, which has only perpetuated this tasteless chauvinism. The ‘glorious history’ FTIIians preen about is from when USSR still existed. The last 25 years have not quite been in the same league.
FTII’s Role Today
In a world where virtually every second film can be accessed online, legally or otherwise, and with so much reading material available there for free, the original intent of FTII is not valid anymore. Anybody can become a film scholar on his own today, if he or she set out to with determination. Still, this is not at all a case to close down that space, but to use it productively after solving its serious problems.
The biggest problem seems to be the manner in which so many students overstay their terms on the excuse that their diploma films have not been completed. In many cases it extends to not weeks or months, but years. Their excuse is that this has been caused by the shift from analog to digital technologies. This is such transparent poppycock that it makes you wonder about the IQ of people who swallow such nonsense.
For one, this has been a tradition in FTII, for years, decades. Many old students don’t leave, they hang around. Given the rush around equipment, you can justify overstaying for a few weeks maybe, at worst a few months, but years? Try naming a single film school in the world (or any institute really) that tolerates this kind of behaviour. Presumably their students had to go through the same technological shifts?
For some reason they are not dealt with an iron hand more often and when they are, hell breaks loose. That is actually exactly what the last Director Prashant Pathrabe did when he took charge – he decided to assess the work of 2008 batch students, who were also reportedly the main figures behind the strike. Pathrabe was gheraoed (that uniquely Indian inexplicable phenomenon where an individual is not allowed to leave until he answers specific questions) and an explanation demanded from him as to why he chose to investigate those students. Chaos ensured, police came, unrest happened, arrests were made, dismay was vented, insults were exchanged. Followed by a selectively manipulated social media campaign from the students spreading the message that Pathrabe was perfectly at ease right through that encounter. Of course, no one could quite explain the photograph of him atop a table surrounded by students – perhaps he was entertaining them with a performance from a Gajendra Chauhan film?
Students claim that the course cannot be completed in 3 years but actually takes four-and-a-half years due to resource crunches and backlogs. While that still does not quite explain what 2008-batch students are doing on campus in 2015, it does beg this question – why on earth are students not protesting that? Isn’t that a far, far more significant issue than what the blessed ‘qualifications’ of their newly appointed chairman are?
Perhaps the best solution for the institute would be to make it a day-school, where students stay outside the campus at their cost (the fees can be reduced accordingly). It would be interesting to see how many diploma films then get completed on time and how quickly the analog-digital problems are surmounted. Also, given that most of the fervent rabble-rousing students are reportedly from this breed (which seems consistent with the idea of getting a free ride at someone else’s expense, rather than going out and finding one’s place in the world), who are also said to browbeat more serious students from getting on with what they have come there for, perhaps the biggest problem FTII has faced over the years could be sorted in one fell swoop.
Their seniors can perhaps try and get some perspective as well, and develop a spine while they are at it too. It is a joke in certain circles, how so many of these seniors find the antics of certain current students appalling, but never generate the gumption to say anything against them publicly. The damage this has done is palpable.
Two-and-a-half years ago, a documentary film of mine which used filmmaker Sudhir Mishra to examine the creative culture of India, through cinema primarily, came back from the censors with a prominent cut demanded. It was unexpected and shocking because they wanted me to remove a moment where no less a figure than Naseeruddin Shah (an alumni himself) criticizes FTII students and their work (and his wasn’t even the only point-of-view in the segment). It was a familiarly chauvinistic reaction from this panel; one of the assessors was from FTII. Interestingly, two days later, the seniormost decision-maker in this context from the Censor Board personally called me up and literally persuaded me to apply for re-examination as she was deeply embarrassed by the suggested cut. Clearly, other people find this chauvinism ludicrous as well.
The Wrong Fight, For the Wrong Reasons
Many people in the film industry have supported this protest against Gajendra Chauhan because they see it as a significant fight against the government’s high-handedness and blatant attempts to saffronise via highly unimpressive anti-intellectual people. It is obviously a very worthy cause.
However, the wrong fight has been picked, for the wrong reasons. Condemning Gajendra Chauhan’s stature and his choice is one thing; undermining the system for that reason with no thought given to the bigger picture quite another. By self-righteously politicising the issue further, as the FTII students did, has only reduced the merits of the case in the first place.
Intellectual dishonesty, unbridled arrogance and delusionary name-dropping do not create a revolution. These students are not quite the worthy ‘heroes’ to take on the Modi government’s shocking saffronisation campaign. They would be well advised to get back to class, learn their craft well, find their own voices and make films that can tell some authentic stories – something we desperately need more of in our quarters. And to contribute towards rescuing Indian cinema from the predicament of being exclusively identified internationally with the embarrassing excesses of ‘Bollywood’. Gajendra Chauhan does not matter.
And when voting day comes around next time, they may want to consider a little more introspection before indulging in their democratic entitlement.
(Read the first part of this story here)
Jaideep Varma has made four full-length films, including three documentaries, one of which won the National Award.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)