Kartikey Sehgal
(written for print media)

Festivals are opportunities to meet and discus shared interests and the success of any film festival should be measured by the discussions it provokes among the audience. The ongoing MAMI (Mumbai Academy of Moving Image) film festival offers hardly any scope for the participating audience to meet and comfortably discuss the films. So much so that the Mumbai Young Critics’ Special Jury, organised by the management to promote youngsters to watch international films, seems like a lost opportunity.

‘The Young Critics’ are student representatives from various colleges in Mumbai. 
They will watch the films showcased in the International Competition section of the festival and decide by consensus the best film (Mumbai Young Critics’ Award)

These critics are affable, eager and polite. However, they have donned the mask of a film critic rather than a film-watcher. They go to the theatres with preconceived notions of what makes for a good film. The Turkish film ‘Majority’ seemed ‘funny’ to one ‘Young Critic’ because of the mannerisms of an actor in the film. “How was he acting? And the way he cried! We were laughing our way through the film”, said one Young Critic when asked about her opinion of the film and the effects of assuming roles demanded by the society, aka, the ‘Majority’. However, they were willing to reverse their position on the film after a small and simple discussion. We discussed the effects of strict patriarchy on Indian society and how several youngsters are abandoning their dreams to follow the comforts of ‘MBA and MNC’. We spoke of effeminacy among modern men who are bullied by societal expectations enforced upon them by their family. This made them reconsider their attitude towards the movie and reflect upon the effeminacy of the lead character and the reasons for his crying on the shoulders of a stranger (rather than his family).

It is not enough to ask some youngsters to be critics of films. They must reflect on themes, emotions and behavioural attitudes if they want to be successful in their evaluations. Discussions should precede decisions. This is where the PVR-Chandan combo fails as the venue of a thoughtful film festival. There is little space for the delegates and media to interact. The Young Critics discuss among themselves and attend some workshops and press conferences that do not serve to inform them about cinema.

(Majority later won the ‘Best First Feature Film Award’ and ‘Golden Gateway of India trophy for the Best Film’)

Kartikey Sehgal

Despite the presence of several journalists at the recently concluded Mumbai Film Festival (MAMI ) certain ‘disturbances’ have not been brought out well in the newspapers.
Since it is being talked about for its ‘seventy percent growth in delegate registration’, the behaviour of the delegates (more like a representative than a common movie watcher) must be brought out publically too.

For instance, Iranian director Saman Estereki came to the premiere of his film ‘Empty Chair’ with big and seemingly heavy bags on his shoulders. When the master of ceremonies (MC) of the screening–a woman who welcomed and introduced him to the audience—offered to help him with the luggage, he refused and spoke to the audience with all the luggage on him. He then raised his right leg to make a kicking gesture and we learned through an interpreter that he had been spoken to rudely and kicked out of accommodation from his hotel. Some audience offered to give him accommodation while some others discouraged and mocked him when he had difficulty conversing in the English language. “Thank you very much, we have come to see the movie now”, a man said loudly and others expressed their disapproval only in hushed tones.

At the premiere of the Japan-Taiwan film Torocco (Rail Truck), the producers were mocked by a section of the audience and nobody stopped them or asked them to behave. The MC, speaking in heavily accented English, made some judo actions to impress the audience and to draw some laughs.

The media has mentioned about the organisation of the festival; from the inability to screen the movies in the proper format to the delays in timings to the films being out of focus. The audience behaviour was equally abominable. Some members, including some film personalities, at times reserved an entire row of seats for their friends and colleagues who were expected to arrive during the screening of the film. “They appear more like gundas”, a festival-regular told me after she bagged one of the reserved seats since an actor’s friend didn’t turn up.  The theatre management employees did nothing to stop or discourage this practice and the audience seemed too meek to ask the actors to behave.

“I have paid 1000 to attend this festival”, an audience member shouted when a film director took time with his English language. Some others joined him and asked why the organisers don’t respect the delegates’ time. “The films have generally started on time and the speaker is not comfortable in English”, I remarked to an irked neighbour. “But why should our time suffer?”, he remarked. The film started after a seven minute delay and the irked member didn’t wait for the credits to roll up in the end.

As such there was no atmosphere of ‘serious’ cinema after the screenings of the films. Saman’s ‘Empty Chair’ was an exercise in metafiction in films that was noted at FIPRESCI (International Federation of Film Critics). What the audience got here was just the promise of a question answer round after the screening of the film. A few people I asked were happy to label the film as “interesting” or “tough”. As was the case in every film, the audience didn’t wait for the credits to roll up. Even the 1000 Rs member was missing.

If the organisation at FUN Cinemas can be marked for being clumsy, then the audience deserves an equal measure of blame for being discourteous to cinema; they complement one another perfectly.

“Indian culture is better than this”, Saman had noted well.