[Reader-list] On film viewing

[Anannya Mehtta]

Introduction

I am going to make this posting in two parts. The first part is a prologue comprising of a poetic historical narrative. The second part will comprise of a series of interviews .The telling of experiences related to film viewing and film cultures of  five city dwellers. The first section is part imaginary. The writing attempts to understand - what kind of physical and mental space does the film centre denote? What happens there? Who visits these centers regularly? It also hints towards the idea that these institutions are still growing and slowly defining their own roles and public images. 

A possible journey.

A radial city turns into a web of by lanes and many centers.  

 

          The imagination of Delhi’s geography is overwhelmingly preoccupied, one could claim by certain accident of history.  Luyten’s, the famous British architect, vision for Delhi has occupied the city’s memory many years after everything else about the city seemed to have changed. Luytens’ residence for the viceroy of India was to become the centre of reference for many new buildings, housing colonies, offices, residences, parks and cultural centers.  The residences of various diplomats within the imagined circle and offices of the highest government officials remained structures of restricted access.  Yet, ironically its long imperial vistas of India Gate acquired a life of its own, a culture, mood and pace that was inviting to ordinary people.  The parks were free spaces, open for all to come and sit in and to talk and play in.  During the summer neon mobile ice cream carts criss-crossed each other offering cool sweet treats (ice creams and fizzy drinks) to the many families
 and friends that got together to sit and talk.  The winter fog gave privacy to courting couples while those sitting in little groups with loud conversation added to the generalized feelings of warmth.

 

          As the city grew and the old ideas of what constitutes the centre broke, centers of activity, visitation, conversation, play, work and fun emerged.  Examples are the coffee house in C.P. the Delhi School of Economics cafeteria within the University campus, the coffee shop at Triveni.  Here people were seen to talk politics, strategies for change were enunciated, careers were planned and gossip was exchanged (As they say there was no where else to go).  Most people knew each other not because Delhi was small, but due to the fact that he intellectual elite comprised a tiny insular circle.  These public spaces, apparently accessible and unrestricted and democratic, were in fact open to only the few. 

 

          Slowly the city dotted itself with numerous coffee shops, malls and restaurants all ablaze with life. Creating limitless options for just hanging  out in pubs, markets and malls.  These places, specially the malls morphed into sites for social and cultural transactions.  Alongside the malls, the city saw film clubs and film center’s swell into life. 

People obviously enjoy these visits and these places occupy an important part in their lives as places for friends to share their experiences and spaces through which they negotiate the city.  

 

 Cities are branded as being areas were people live their lives in private.  In the extract, “The Hotel Lobby” from The Mass Ornament, Siegfried Kracauer uses the spatial architecture of the hotel room to describe the modern experience of living in a city. The lobby of a hotel accommodates all who go there to meet no one. The lobby appears a space of silence; avoided eye contact gave anonymity and is governed by a noisy silence.  The space gives rise to a civility that confounds interaction.  The malls and pubs in the city follow a somewhat similar story, wherein strangers remain strangers. Despite this the city has spaces that bring people together, where they can share their histories, stories and aspirations for communion and conversation. 

 

                 The film centre (non commercial film centers) is the new kind of public sphere of the modern times allowing for many forms of interaction. Habermas explained that the public sphere came into Europe in the eighteenth century, creating the ground for democratic participation.  It was embodied in coffee houses, political clubs and literary journals.  For Habermas voluntary unions outside the realm of the state and the economy created the public sphere.  This ranged from churches, cultural associations and academic sites to independent media, sport and leisure activities.  The traditional notion of public sphere meant that a public would congregate to address a common purpose.  It is this notion of addressing a common idea or purpose that the modern experience of film centre disturbs.  These film clubs are not places for only rational thought, but spaces marked by possibilities for meeting ones deeper needs of emotional and intellectual stimulation. A site that aids
 exploration - perchance a hedonistic journey.

 

THE FILM CENTRE AS THE VILLAGE WELL –

                          (idea’s and conversations live in places) 

          The psychological notion of free space belongs both to the village well and the foyer of any film centre.  It is an indeterminate space, leading to a possible film screening as well as hinting towards other possibilities, a chance meeting which may be the start of something new.  The village well allows for stealing time from daily order and routine. Waiting together with others both at the village well and the film centre foyer are special since they are marked by anticipation and sharing. 

 

          Both these spaces do not necessarily demand that a common concern tie these individual together.  The kind of associations, friendships and concerns that emerge from these places remain unstructured and full of   diversity of interest with a plurality of ways of communicating.  The space is marked by causal conversations. 

 

          To use Shankar Ramaswamy idea of Tal Mel, (Ramamswamy’s works center s around the laboring classes in urban areas-He is currently a P.HD scholar at the university of Chicago) –factory workers and the lower unskilled or skilled workers find companionship and dignity in an environment which is harsh and resists a rights oriented political and social platform to the laborers) Using this idea of Tal Mel –which points towards a context through which sharing of ideas and hopes can more easily take place. I propose that the film centre also helps people to come together not for instrumental reasons but to share, empathize and to foster respect for other’s situation in an alienating environment. 

 

 

THE FILM CENTRE, WHAT FLOWS THROUGH IT ?

                                      (flows of conviviality )

          The film centre is a cauldron of entertainment. politics and issues brewing in it are uncensored movies, coffees, moods, masks, disguises, lovers and actors, jokes, borrowing and lending, a permission for multiple readings – films good ones and bad ones, different languages and technical delays. The film centre becomes a theatre were monologues about the language of film and the philosophy behind aesthetics unravel slowly and cryptically, the props being cigarettes and new books that are paraded as fashions accessories. The space is marked by many styles of greetings and gossip, with the idea that it is all a free treat come many vicarious pleasures. 

 

          Most film screenings take place in the evening – for most people it’s the time of the day when work is over.  The atmosphere seems charged and full of energy for socializing.  This time of the day is considered free time.  One sees that people sneak into the cinema hall, late, after the credits have appeared and disappeared, taking longer drags from an already dying cigarette.  This behavior is akin to saying that it is more important to greet and gossip with each other, to unwind and meet people than to be sitting inside the cinema hall.  There seems to be a mixture of curiosity and mirth in the atmosphere.  These fleeting conversations are often like talking even calendars for what else is happening in the city –

 

          What is most exciting about the film centers in the city – is the fact that their role and function are not fossilized and binding – they operate with a shy flexibility, appealing to many different interests. These spaces can change their identity and become the mouthpiece of feminist concerns for example, the Habitat Centre by hosting a bold series of films on women’s issues in collaboration with various organizations working on gender.  Due to a festival like this an obvious increase and change in the viewing public is felt, making it easier for a larger audience to enter this world of films. 

 

          “We stitched fifteen one minutes to make a short film”- a group of people from St. Stephen’s College who I happen to meet at the arts faculty canteen, told me they had shot a small film on the city with a still camera which allowed for capturing one minute worth of moving images, “we then just stitched it all together” to make a short film. We used a friend’s computer which had a simple editing program. The idea was to make a photo narrative on the city. We choose to shoot in places which we either like or are most familiar with which are the university campus, the ridge ,the new Delhi railway station.  On asking them what they did with the film – we took it to Sarai and the British Council and were hoping it would get shown as part of the experimental film festival or as a fifteen film before the Friday screening at Sarai 

 

One can’t help but think of these spaces as confused spaces, unsure and blurry about their exact role in the film circuit.   This slight confusion opens out these places to larger group, aiding in a multidisciplinary engagement with the city and its people. Since the film centers intermittently take active interest in encouraging new cinema, experimental in nature by amalgamating both theory and practice the film centre becomes a site for lectures on film theory and short workshops on filmmaking.

 

 

THE TEASING GAME

 

          The public self-image of these film centers is one of openness and freedom yet they are unable to truly reach out to a larger public.  This restriction is not necessarily a linguistic one, but is governed by access and class.  This film experience is for the public with the power to travel and with a need to be elsewhere.  It markets aesthetics and foreign cultures with that a disguised mobility. These film screenings are underlined by an idea of being open to all.  These places are “all are invited” brand of places.  The culture centre posts its notices in the national dailies making it appear as though the films are within the reach of anyone who is interested. The reality is somewhat different.  Many of the centers require membership.  For example, the India Habitat Centre and the India International Centre, which are exclusive and allow only members. The other Centers such as the French Culture Centre, Sarai and Siri Fort have no rules restricting entries.  Many of
 those who frequent these film centers feel earlier gaining entry into the film hall was a lot easier than now, even if the auditorium is empty a guard will check for a membership card (at the French Culture Centre).  A game of teasing the public by which I mean that all are invited concept knowing it does not necessarily work creates a false feeling of giving easy access to the masses.  This delusional self-image is inherently built in the very system of the film centers. Easy access is for those who dress in a certain way and speak the language of the privileged.  This implies that no real increase or change in the public is ever felt. These spaces open themselves to a larger audience yet very soon face a crisis of space, accommodation and motivation where in large hordes of students and others will be sent back because while all are invited there is only space within these events for some to partake of this experience. 

In conclusion the film centre is what Ray Oldenburg calls third places – the first and second being home and the work spaces. Oldenburg claims third places are essential for interpersonal integration. A third place is essential for identification and belonging, social support, participation, and inclusion. The features of a third place are –“Conversation is the main activity, the third place is a leveler, it is on neutral ground, there are regulars, it is a home away from home, there is a low profile, the mood is playful” (1996:42).

 

 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20050809/c0834b0b/attachment.html