Layman's key to the cinema conundrum

In India we tend to categorise films in a very complicated fashion. For us there is parallel cinema (the arty films) , there is mainstream cinema and now there is crossover cinema. Often i wonder that why can't we call a spade a spade and just divide films into two subjective categories-Good films and Bad films, as that would be the most simple yet the most universal yardstick to judge films. So what are good films? And how do films become bad? Are the two major questions that we will be accentuating through the length of this article. The soul of the film lies in its story, the rest are embellishments. To make a good story, we need to have an ingenuous, non-stereotypical, non-judgemental, pragmatic take on any occurence of social, political, cultural or personal relevance. Such a story would not only uproot established prejudices in telling a story but will also make us look at mundane things in the most interesting manner. We need individuals who would not show fornicating spouses in a tainted colour, thus one would neglect the inherent prejudices of the human psyche in order to do justice to his or her characters by not taking anyon's side or even when he or she has to take a side it should be on the grounds of humanism and practicality not on the grounds of the twisted concept of morality. The next is the form. Though an embellishment, the form of a film is extremely important. A story has to be crafted ( read plotted) in an innovative, unconventional( in experimental, avant garde cinema) while scripting so that the elements constituting the story does not become loose or fall apart at any point. It is very important to write a taut script, unravelling at a consistent pace so that it doesnt incite boredom. One does not necessarily have to go about screenplay writing following any established format such as one with a proper beginning, middle and end ( as negated by the films of Jean Luc Goddard), one should allow the story to unravelling in whichever way it wants to, as that would make a perfect script for a particular story. Form is also about the syntax. Like literature, contrary to popular belief in India, films do have a certain language which according to me can be primarily expressed with the innovative, out of the box and expressive use of camera. If the camera is stopped getting used as a recording machine and is used rather as an extension of the eye of the omniscient spectator (filmmaker or cinematographer), we would see elements in front of the camera conveying a meaning contrary to what it usually does. If the camera is used as a participatory device in the filmmaking process, one tends to view things differently as the motifs of the story (psychoanalytical as well) are reflected through the language of camera. for example if you are shooting Mamata Banerjee's political rallys a mid shot of her standing on the dais or a long shot of the stage does not really convey the sense of her rallys really well. It is when you have her wide lens (please pardon me the use of one technical term, the use of this lens would make her face seem on the screen as it is getting fulled from all the directions) close-up would resonate the essence of her rallys which are basically a lot of people creating ruckus. Now the mise-en-scene (sorry these film courses just stuff you with these terms, so that whenever you open your mouth, it seems to come incessantly), which the way you set up the surroundings. That would comprise of first, lighting. Its very important to colour a particular shot with the right colours as that would essentially reflect the mood of the film. This would be an interesting construct to express the emotional tone of the film through the surroundings. Like the use of the colour dark green can efficiently reflect the evilness of certain vile man or woman in a particular shot. Second would be the establishment of certain setup which would reflect the content. For example to express how a claustrophobic protagonist feels in a film, we can use a setup of rooms with low ceilings, close walls painted black, cramped furniture and without windows. Yes the set designing is very important. The third important part of a film is the performance. It is the responsibility of the filmmaker to extract a certain quality of performnace from the actors by making them be the characters, rehearsing with them with recording camera and sniping their inhibitions out. So any budding, 'in the closet filmmaker' can get working on a story of their choice to make a film in whichever way they want and does not have to be the way i have delineated as filmmaking is free and open space, one can accomodate anything in whichever way he or she wants it, as it is because of the lack of use of this space that we still have to watch films like Rock On in this country. You must be wondering that how come i answered the first question and did not go into answering the second questions regarding bad films. i think there is also no film which is bad, it is just that they are not made by the right people.

P.S: Henceforth i pledge that i would not skip my blog for a single day even if a cataclysmic event strikes Calcutta.