SHANTARAM, 73 years of Filmmaking

V. Shantaram lived a log and presumably a very happy life, just short of 90 years. Of these he gave 73 years to the cinema. He began his professional life on his entering his teens with the legendary singer and actor, Bal Gandharva,s theatre company as a gofer and odd job boy. Within a couple of years he found employment at a local cinema and shortly after he became an assistant to the photographer, Baburao Painter. Soon, Baburao turned to filmmaking. Shantaram used the opportunity to learn all he could about cinema. He assisted in direction, production and editing and also became the principal actor in several of Painter,s films while he continued to be an odd job man. He would act in 15 films over the next nine years, plaing roles ranging from impoverished peasants and opulent princes to gods of the Hindu pantheon. In 1929, he directed his first film, Netaji Palkar, a historical film of one of the heroes of Maratha history. All this while most of his contemporaries were going through school and college. Shantaram,s university was the film studio.


At the age of 28, already a veteran actor and director, he started the Prabhat Film Studio with three of his colleagues, Fattelal, Damle and Keshavrao. For the next 13 years Prabhat Studios would produce some of the most path breaking and memorable films of the Indian cinema, a large number of them directed by Shantaram.

His early films were mainly based on mythology and history; costume dramas, which were in vogue at the time. But a stint with UFA studios in Germany in the early 1930,s seemed to have affected him quite profoundly. His lighting style and the manner of framing his images changed dramatically, his work became more expressionist and the montage techniques he used put him well ahead of the other filmmakers of his time. More importantly, the subject matter of his films had a strong reformist intent and social concern. Anti – colonial, political overtones could be seen in several of his films during the decade of the 1930,s. This was perhaps the most creative period for Shantaram, Films that are acknowledged classics today like AMRIT MANTHAN, AMAR JYOTI, DUNIYA NA MANE, ADMI and PADOSI were made during his time in Prabhat. The other filmmakers who made some remarkable films at the time were Fattelal and Damle who together directed SANT TUKARAM, the very first Indian film to wing the highest prize at the First International Film Festival at Venice in 1936.

In 1942, Shantaram broke away from Prabhat to start his own film studio, the Rajkamal Kalamandir in Bombay. Most of the films that he made at Rajkamal became huge successes commercially, but critically they were not as well received as his earlier films. Some of the memorable films he directed at Rajkamal were : DR KOTNIS KI AMAR KAHANI, DO ANKHEN BARA HAATH and LOK SHAHIR RAMJOSHI (a musical based on folk theatrical form popular in Maharashtra). This film would eventually create one of the most successful genres in Marathi cinema.

Prolific as he was as a producer and director of cinema features, Shantaram helped to set up a Film Advisory Board for the Government of India as its Chief Producer during the war years. Shantaram continuesd to be an active filmmaker until the very end. The film, Jhaanjhar was under production when he died at the age of almost 90.

When Shantaram passed away in 1990 the Indian film business as an established industry was 77 years old. He was part of it for 73 of those years.

His first 15 films were made during the silent era. His las film was made when digital technology had made its entry into the cinema. He was not necessarily the best filmmaker that India produced, but he certainly was among its most innovative, with a curiosity and passion for learning that remained with him till the end of his days. Shantaram was at his best when he dealt with social issues albeit done with rather heavy doses of melodrama and sentimentality. A large number of his films were hugely successful.

If you wish to know the history of Indian cinema you only need to read Shantaram,s autobiography.

SHYAM BENEGAL

THE ONCE AND FUTRE LIVING DEAD

The Once and Future Living Dead

A Fast Walk with Zombies and Other Revenants through Cine Fantom Times

Considering the Russian - Orthodox - obsession with the spirituality of the material world, the confrontational quality of godliness, it's not too surprising that death'n-decay're at the core of all things underground in the Soviet Union as well as Russia. Or: In the netherworld of all things post - from Communism to Modernism to the office -, the post mortem is the sole sign, even proof of life; the underground, the beyond has to be the zone of aliveness when daily life as such is dead: Zombies walked, ghosts spectred, cinema that made real(ist?) sense - avant-garde?, retro-garde?: fuck! that! in this fecid constant becoming - had to be a phantom.

Originally, Cine Fantom was a somewhat samizdat, homemade film magazine published for the first time in Moscow supposedly in 1985 by the late Igor Alejnikov. He and his younger brother Gleb were part of the Conceptualist Art-circles of the day, tinkering around with notions/practices like mail art etc. – and filmmaking, in a way nobody in the Soviet empire ever had made films yet, too, in a way that didn't feel alien in its obsession with violence and morbidity, as well as its absurdist sense of irony found when looking at things from just the opposite mind-angle. Just like, unbeknownst to them, several other people at that time did, most importantly: Evgenij Kondratev (nom de guerre: Debil), Evgenij Jufit and the (rest of the) NekroRealists in then-Leningrad-now-Saint Petersburg, and Boris Juhananov in Moscow.

All these people learned about each other mainly through their audience, common lore has it: They showed their works in all kinds of off-off-spaces/venues – (their own) apartments more often than not - where, sometimes, they were approached by viewers who told them about some other mad mavericks in this town or that, or just one ward away. Their backgrounds as well as artistic foundations were varied: the Alejnikovs, as mentioned, had a solid basis in the world of arts, ditto Jufit (painting, photography…) and Kondratev, whereas Juhananov, more a video- than a film-guy, came from the theatre (and psychiatrical work); as filmmakers, they’re all autodidacts, although Jufit and the Alejnikovs later were for some time adopted by major film studios: Jufit and the other NekroRealists, whose first essays were produced via an independent studio called Mžalalafilm, found shelter in an Aleksandr Sokurov-supervised experimental wing of Lenfilm, while the Alejnikovs were granted sanctuary in a somewhat similar arm of Mosfilm – alliances both doomed to fail, which they did, although they produced some of strangest works both fractions came up with: Jufit’s Rycari podnebesja (1989) and the Alejnikovs’ Zdes kto-to byl (1989) and Traktoristij-2 (1992), the latter being one of the most ‘generally readable’ works from the Parallel Cinema trenches.

It took until 1987 for Cine Fantom to become more than a notion: Starting for real with the first festival of independent cinema called, surprise!, Cine Fantom, it developed into an ever more officially recognized - if not necessarily but then again totally sanctioned - magazine-cum-screening-organizer which served as a forum for all kinds of shadow film and video activities in the Soviet Union – all that which is usually referred to as Parallel Cinema, a term coined by Igor’- some say Alejnikov, others Pospelov (a nowadays somewhat forgotten original fantom). That said: For all its transUSSR'ish attitude as well as its part-rootedness in the Leningrad/St.Petersburg underground, Cine Fantom was more a creature of Moscow than anything else: The alliances of the Moscovites with folks from anywhere else where mainly of a tactical nature – while the NekroRealists in their aloof less-being!-more-nothingness!-ways cum rather more classically materialist approach to cinema probably didn't mind using the more klischee-clusterfucking, hypersurrealism-prone dudes from the capital whose sensibilities seemed better synched to words and metaphors than images and the false safety of surfaces...

Over the decades, Leningrad/St. Petersburg developed it’s very own underground idiom, quite independently from the Moscovites – just take the experimental animations of Boris Kazakov, an epigone in the noblest and truest sense of Evgenij Kondratev, Oleg Kotelnikov and many an other tinker and thinker of things sratch- ‘n painted onto celluloide who - might have - belonged to the legendary group avant-garde outfit Severnyj poljus… Cine Fantom's heydays were the early Perestroika-years when exploring new ideas and aesthetics was something of a national pastime: Everybody incl. granny and her goat, they fondly remember, checked out these weird experiments in subversion, just to know what it is, this strange creature developing in their midst, this freedom-thing a lá Wäst.

The Alejnikovs as well as Jufit became international cause célèbres, while at home Sergej Solovev knighted Parallel Cinema in his classic ASSA (1987): the title itself is already an homage(-by-mimicry/appropriation) to Evgenij Kondratev and Oleg Kotelnikov who in 1984 made a short named AssA in which a dead chicken is ‘resurrected’ by running the material backwards (which, again, goes back to at least Vertov, etc.); more importantly, there’s a sequence for which Solovev re-mixed Kondratev’s Nanajnana (1986) with footage from Kotelnikov sporting shakily-shot scenes of performances at Puškinskaja 10 (Leningrad/St.Petersburg’s legendary cultural center) vis-à-vis weird hand-drawn and -painted images suggestings dreams and nightmares. (In 2009, Solov’ev presented 2-ASSA-2, a sequel to his cult classic that took a long, hard look at what had become of this underground’s dreams and hopes twenty years later – which is little, and most of that is the stuff too much of modern event culture is made of… Call it: a film-implosion.)

In 1990, the 17th issue of Cine Fantom appeared – the last one. Other attempts at a Cine Fantom-magazine would follow. All things Cine Fantom petered towards the mid-90s, with the plane crash-death of Igor Alejnikov in 1994 as a crassly slashed exclamation mark: End!; only Jufit developed a career inside his own system and aesthetic, even if his latest work, Pryamohoždenie (2005), a(nother) speculation about strange Stalinist experiments in quadruple-cloning (cf. 4, d: Ilja Hržanovskij, 2004), shows signs of an irritating interest in coming to terms with a wider arthouse audience.

Otherwise, other folks took over organising the unorganisable: from 1993-5, eg. a festival of underground cinema was held under the umbrella Exotica. That said: As cinema was always only one of several arts in which most of the fantoms created, they didn't really go astray, just shifted focus – Juhananov, e.g., became a kind of counter-paragon of Russian theater whose experimental offerings, adaptations of classics like Cehov's Višniovij as well as his own works like Povest o pryamostojašcem celoveke, folks still talk about; his theater group MIR, again, proved to be a breeding ground for new underground hopefuls, like Aleksandr Doulerajn who’d develop into a key-figure of Russian Parallel Cinema, or Andrej Silvestrov who’d turn into one of the most interesting video artists of the new millenium’s beginnig, or Olga Stolpovskaja and Dmitrij Trojtskij whose co-directorial feature debut effort Ja ljublju tebja (2004) became an international break-through film for a contemporary Russian indie-cinema (early Sundance cool with a Moscovite lip…).

In 1995, Cine Fantom was resurrected for the first time under the aegis of above-mentioned MIR’ean plus Gleb Alejnikov – as something like the experimental film-arm of the Moscow Cinema Museum. This went on till 2000. In the early third millennium, 2002, to be exact, the Fantom was back again – and stranger then ever: First, Cine Fantom tried to re-group in the Moscow Cinema Museum, but after a famously scandalous screening session head-lined “Better Porn than Never”, officialdom’s mighties turned uncollaborative. So, Cine Fantom became a non-structure: It exists as an idea plus social network that occasions events – an already established organizational force cum klischee, supported in this way or that by STS-TV where several of its key players could carve out (at least for some time) fat careers for themselves (above all Gleb Alejnikov who stopped filmmaking and serves now as the Fantom's organizational mastermind, Aleksandr Doulerajn and Olga Stolpovskaja); fittingly, some of the most fascinating and old school-Cine Fantom’y productions from the last years got made for TV, cf. Dulerajn’s full frontal trashy-nuts 20-part series Bunker (2004) – Lloyd Kaufman of Troma who’d been a guest of Cine Fantom would surely approve of this gem.

The development inside Cine Fantom, the whole Parallel Cinema-world, well, Russia in general, come to think of it, is probably best hinted at by looking at two quasi-remakes, the Alejnikov's seminal Traktoristij-2 and Pavel Labazov & Andrey Silvestrov & Vladislav Mamyšev-Monroe's irreverent masterpiece Volga-Volga (2006): The first, a true Perestroika-beast - and the Brother’s already second assault on the sacred tractor -, plays with, twirls, jerks around motives from Ivan Pyrev's classic of Stalinist enterganda Traktoristij (1939), while the latter invades Grigorij Aleksandrov's Volga-Volga (1938) by taking this darling of Sovtainment as such and changing only a few things around, like replacing the head of the film's star, Ljubov Orlova, with Mamyšev-Monroe's impersonation of her... The Alejnikov Brothers, during the years their country changed around and around, contemplated the notion - echt Russian: the folly of change as such: Traktoristij-2 is a sequel-as-remake, a study in aesthetic haunting, and how one can't just shed some old skin for a new one – the past is a construction one needs to work with - ever so gleefully iconoclastically - in order to get a grip on it; or: Even taking the piss is work. The film's cast presents something of a stand-of between the Old Guard and the avant-garde, with several Soviet stars in the lead side by side with icons of the underground – and it works, as a confrontation, with no quarter considered by any side.

Seventeen years later, it has become possible to campolustily indulge in the kind of aesthetics the Alejnikov Brothers needed to question: Labazov & Sil’vestrov & Mamyšev-Monroe reclaim the Soviet era for themselves, an impossible thing to do without taking an ever so pranksterish critical stance towards it, but also a necessity, for it would be a waste of history/lives/possibilities if one just wanted to forget about it; in a certain way, their Volga-Volga does similar things as a bunch of film historians and theoreticians have been doing in the last about-decade when they worked on reassessing the œuvres of masters like, well, Pyrev and Aleksandrov.

The past is also one of the many subjects of Boris Juhananov's hopeful monster Ludog princa (1986/2006-), an everything-at-once of documentary, fiction, essay, and if one can think of something else, just add it. The project, a video-roman of 20 chapters, was started in 1986, principal photography ended about '89, the basic conceptualization of how to deal with it all fixed in the mid-90s – and then, Juhananov stopped (and did other extraordinary videos), hundreds of tapes were lying around and starting to fade, some got lost, among them the chapter Godard (yes, there is significance and justice in decay).

It was only in 2005 that Juhananov started to finish his opus super-magnum – and what a whatthefuck!soever it became: A memorandum to an era whose protagonists are by now more often than not dead - that the image is so statograiny and already magnetopaled gives the whole damn thing a ghost photography charm -, as well an an exemplification of that era's theories/notions/ideals, in particular chapter #5, Nipponese, an exercise in what Juhananov calls 'fatal editing'. Two of the four chapters Yukhananov was able to finish first are, quite simply, extraordinary: #2, XO Game, and #3, Esther. The latter is a lamento-variation on the biblical story of Esther done as an allusion to the Chechen catastrophe(to come back then) as well as an essay over the ever-latent antisemitism in Russia and beyond (the credits quote Luther's ranting against the canonical status of the Book of Esther). As always, Juhananov took only a few choice elements - ranging from a Falco's Austro-pop-paean to a serial killer to a discussion with a Chechen writer going nationalistoballistic - and arranged them in such a way that they open each other up: The whole thing goes BOOOM with meaning and poetry.

XO Game, then, feels - looks, sounds, stinks really - as if someone just vomited out his soul-guts: It's a thick, rawest slice of Fuck You!, an acting-out of a sense of lostness in a country that's just not able to take whatever any more – Russia as a prison cell and a bomb is ticking, with people hemorrhaging words, walking blind in a visionless world. The main thing here, as well as in the other chapters so far, is the editing, live-giving however fatal it might be. Juhananov has a fine sense of rhythm as well as the kind of artistic ego that's capable of creating-by-chopping: Each cut is so decisive that everything happening in the image always feels just and there for a reason, no matter how amateurish it all looks – it's really more Punk than anything else, SovPunk, therefore inyerface,r than anything those Western sissies could ever gob up. Besides all that, XO Game is a most haunting experience: Not only are the images sometimes bordering on gone - cheap technology that took a hard hit from time and its desolate frolic: destruction -, but quite a lot of people seen are: gone. XO Game is the head stone of Cine Fantom.

These days, Cine Fantom is more a brand than an organization: a celebration of a fascinating past whose values and ideas/ideals shan't have been in vain. Besides having more or less regular shows with excessive after show-discussions (especially whenever über-orator Juhananov shows up…), Cine Fantom features all kinds of media works ranging from videos by artists like Jurij Lejderman or Olga Cherniševa to low-budget feature films like Petr Hazizov's forgetable Manga (2005). The presence of Hazizov shows quite well the kind of cultural/industrial ley lines along which the revenant Cine Fantom moves: Hazizov owns one of Russia's biggest CGI-outfits and is, like Gleb Alejnikov or Dulerajn, something of a force in the new world of Russian media.

Fittingly, Cine Fantomis mellowing a bit towards the middle ground and -brow, it seems: Dulerajn & Sergej Koryagin’s feature-length grotesque Ivan durak (2002) eg. feels, for all its bite and often cruel jest, positively charming and almost mild-mannered in its view of the world, while the Cine Fantom Screenings during the XXIX Moscow International Film Festival consisted mainly of works one finds in competitions of places like Locarno or Rotterdam (the most outré work on offer was easily Nina Šorina’s Nietzsche v Moskve, a fantasy about the Tyrant of Torino’s visit to nowaday’s Moscow). One should also mention that Cine Fantom isn’t cinema/video avant-garde’s centre anymore, but one of several players in the field – let’s only mention the International Kansk Video Festival (aka. The Thinking Man’s Cannes aka. The Eastern Kanne) which established itself as a prime force in underground cinema, Cine Fantom's partner eg. at a Russian Avant-garde Film festival in London, 2009; fittingly, Cine Fantom doesn’t seem to be interested in supporting as vast a range of experimental film or video modes of expression, their makers, even if they’re from around the corner – the works of Moscovite Viktor Alimpiev and his epigones like Marian Žunin and Sergej Višneskij eg. seem to mean precious little to them, ditto the mad movideo outbursts of Svetlana Baskova whose Zelenyj slonik (1999) shall for all eternity be considered a world underground art axiom…

Let’s say: Cine Fantom is the Russia avant-garde’s arrière-garde – they keep the overall project alive from the back and side-lines. As a paragon of artistic disobediance, they cast an almost impossibly long shadow over Russia’s alternative arts and mediae – essentially, they’re still the measuring rod.

OLAF MOELLER

FILM CRITIC

The making of SHANTARAM

Shantaram Rajaram Vankudre, born in 1901, was the product of his time and milieu. Cinema was still in its infancy, regarded no more than a novelty, a passing craze. Any possibility of it developing into a serious art form seemed remote. Shantaram grew up with the medium to see it become the 20th century,s most potent art form.

Much of Shantaram,s education was in the university of life, moving from job to job. He worked in a railway workshop, then became a sign painter, a photographer,s assistant and finally an usher in a cinema hall in Kolhapur.

Movies had developed with lightning speed and whatever was shown, Shantaram watched avidly. Most of all he enjoyed watching D.G. Phalke,s films. In 1920 when Baburao Painter set up his Maharasthra Film Company, Shantaram took the first opportunity to join him as an apprentice. And caught the attention of Baburao and was cast in the role of Krishna in Surekha Haran (1921), till Baburao asked him to direct Netaji Palkar (1927).

In 1929 Shantaram formed Prabhat Film Company in Kolhapur and it,s first success was Gopal Krishna (1929). In quick succession five more silent films followd, Khooni Khanjar (1930), Rani Chandrasena (1931) and Zulum (1931). His films were marked by an inventiveness of visuals and camera movements. He was just as concerned about their social imports, even though the subjects he chose were either mythological or quasi-historical.

With the advent of sound, Shantaram did not rush into production to cash in on the new novelty. He reflected, "My first reaction to talkies was rather one of diffidence. I felt that they were just stage-plays". In 1932 he made his first sound film, Ayodhya Ka Raja. For colour processing he traveled to Berlin at the peak of Hitler,s popularity and got fully cognizant of the power of film as propaganda. What particularly impressed him was the technical virtuosity of the German cinema, evident in Lang, Lubitsch and Ophuls.

On his return made Amrit Manthan (1934), reminiscent of Luis Buñuel in Un Chien Andalou. Dharmatma (1935), social reform versus orthodoxy, clearly taken from Gandhi,s crusade. Shantaram seemed particularly concerned about the condition of women in Indian society, Amar Jyoti (1936), Duniya Na Mane (1937), Admi, the story about a prostitute, (1939) and his last film at Prabhat Films was Padosi (1941), about communal tension between Hindus and Muslims.

After his departure from Prabhat Films became producer at Film Advisory Board helping the government of India in its war propaganda, but stayed less than a year and joined Wadia Movietone where he directed Shakuntala (1943). The striking success of this film, which ran for 104 weeks in Bombay, permitted the impressive anti-Japanese "war effort" film, Dr Kotnis Ki Amar Kahani (1946).

The times had by now changed and so had audience tastes. There were also market compulsions and he had to make certain compromises. However he remained till the end a socially committed and self-sacrificing artist. One cannot resist the temptation of comparing him with Frank Capra whom he had admired. Both were about the same age and had struggled for survival to see their name above the title. Both believed in the final triumph of the human spirit.


B. D. GARGA