vol 7 issue 1 - academiccommons.columbia.edu

Out of Si

ght:

Archiving

Hidden

Histories

of Practic

e

Debashree Mukherjee

All photo

graphs co

urtesy Pri

ya Paul

Our unde

rstanding

of India

n cinema

would

remain in

complete

until we

acknowle

dged its

supportin

g cast o

f hairdre

ssers, po

ster pain

ters, costu

me

designers,

still pho

tographer

s, makeu

p artists

and nume

rous othe

r special

ists

invisible t

o the pub

lic eye. In

January

2013, D

ebashree

Mukherje

e curated

an

exhibition

of Hindi

film mem

orabilia

titled ‘Ma

ya Mahal

’, which

featured

artefacts

from the

private

collection

of Priya

Paul, Ch

airperson

of Apeej

ay

Surrendra

Park Hote

ls. In this

essay, M

ukherjee

uses exam

ples from

the colle

ction

to point to

hidden h

istories o

f work a

nd practi

ce, and to

give us a

fragment

ed

view of lo

w-budget

films, los

t genres a

nd the wa

ge-worke

rs who ma

rk each fi

lm

with their

individua

l skills.

The poster of Zabak (1961) directed by Homi Wadia.

ArtConnect corrected_Layout 3 6/24/2013 5:29 PM Page 43

Heterodox in its scope andrange, Priya Paul’scollection of film

memorabilia represents an eccentricmix of films. There are archives largerthan this, there are archives that aremore systematic, but the pleasure ofserendipity springs fromjuxtaposition, not from order andexpanse. Comprising approximately5,000 paper artefacts, the Priya Paulcollection was built using an intuitivelogic that brought disparate objectstogether with scant regard forcultural hierarchies. And thus,Mehboob Khan’s Mother India(1957) is shelved with K.S. Reddy’sDaku Rani Himmatwali (1984), andGuru Dutt’s Pyaasa (1957) jostles forspace with Akkoo’s Aadam Khor(1955), to create an associative magic.

In January 2013 anexhibition titled ‘MayaMahal’ presented afirst glimpse of thiscollection. As itscurator I wanted todistil the chiefpromise held outby the collectionrather thanillustrate itsrange. Thispromise was

the elemental contract of cinemaitself: to deliver sensory excitement,voyeuristic delight and magicalworlds. Thus, the exhibitionshowcased genres, practitioners andaesthetics that are often forgotten ina bid to celebrate auteurs and ‘classics’.This is an alternative history ofHindi cinema—one that is decidedlyexcessive, melodramatic, evenutopian.

Many of these films have not beenconsidered socially or artisticallysignificant by dominant standards.Most of them firmly belong to the B-circuit and were made on a lowbudget, with scant attention tosubtlety and much emphasis onthrills. B movies have traditionallycirculated in mofussil towns, ruralcentres, and the working class

neighbourhoods of big cities.The point is notwhether these

films are ‘good’ or‘bad’, but that these

are desires andimaginations that

have existed alongsidethe mainstream, often

erupting into it. Thepower of the mainstream

blockbuster draws on theaffective charge of the

44

ArtConnect: The IFA Magazine, Volume 7, Number 1


underground, the unseen. The two gotogether, much like the Ravi-Vijayduo in Yash Chopra’s Deewar (1975).In the A-circuit universe, Vijay mustbe punished for his transgressionsand die in the climax. But he is alsothe more exciting sibling, dangerousand sexy, flouting all norms andmaking us secretly root for him. Aswe celebrate the centenary of Indiancinema, we must also look at the Bmovie, the ogre in the cave, themisshapen twin of the mainstream.

Hidden histories of work and practiceare encoded within the Priya Paulcollection. Film artefacts such as lobbycards, posters and song booklets evokelayered histories—of the men andwomen who created the object in itself(still photographers, poster painters,graphic designers, printers) and ofthose who created all that is containedwithin the frame (art directors,costume designers, choreographers,background dancers, light boys). TheBombay film industry is seldomapproached as a site of work. But it isin fact an industrial-affective site wheretechnology, innovation andimprovisation go hand-in-hand withrisk, ambition and desire. Over the lastdecade, some areas of Indian film andmedia studies have clearly veeredtoward the documentation of practice.

Signs of this change in direction can beseen in Raqs Media Collective andC.K. Muralidharan’s research on ‘TheHistory and Practice ofCinematography in India’,

1Sarai-

CSDS’s project titled ‘Publics andPractices in the History of the Present’,Ranjani Mazumdar’s work onproduction designers and postermakers,

2Clare Wilkinson-Weber’s

study of ‘dressmen’ (costume managersin Hindi cinema), Tejaswini Ganti’sethnographic research on productionand Gregory Booth’s study of the musicindustry.

3

We do not have any collective memoryof the actors, producers and directorsof B- and C-grade movies. And whenit comes to the legendary classics ofmainstream Hindi cinema, we rarelyrecognise the efforts of specialists suchas art directors, costume designers,makeup artists or stunt masters. Hereare some artefacts presented in the‘Maya Mahal’ exhibition, viewed fromthe angles of labour and biography.What follows is an exercise in seeingand naming that will necessarily beincomplete and fragmented, for it willlargely take the form of an inventoryof biographies, a catalogue ofpractices. Perhaps it could also pointto possibilities for research andhistoriography.

45

Out of Sight – Debashree Mukherjee



46


47


Stunts and Action

Zimbo (1958) was acolour remake of Wadia Movietone’ssuperhit film Toofani Tarzan (1937),both directed by Homi Wadia. Thesuccess of Toofani Tarzan hadlaunched a veritable cycle of jungleadventure films; the film itselfremained in circulation for abouttwenty years. The story begins whenProfessor Chakravarty, who is workingon a formula for eternal life in his top-secret forest laboratory, is killed bywild animals. Before dying, though, hefixes the anti-aging formula in anamulet around his infant son’s neckand sets him aloft in a hot air balloon.The boy is brought up by the jungle in

Tarzan-fashion, and adopted by Dada,a chimpanzee. Seventeen years laterthe professor’s brother arrives on amission to find his nephew. He isaccompanied by his beautiful, adopteddaughter Leela. This character isplayed by Chitra and she immediatelyfalls in love with our dashing localTarzan. For the rest of the film we seeher play Jane in demure leopard skinsand battle it out with her romanticrival, Maya.

Chitra (d. 2006) was a leading lady inlow-budget films of the 1950s and1960s. Born Afsar Unissa Begum inHyderabad, her life and work havegone practically undocumented. ThePriya Paul collection, with itsemphasis on stunt and fantasy films,brings an actress such as Chitra intothe public eye. In an interview toKhalid Mohamed in 1990, Chitraconstructs her own narrative. As achild she frequently went to Bombayfor family holidays, and was soonswept up by the film craze. Her firstrole was opposite Ajit in Safdar Aah’sMaan (1954) but real success camewith P.N. Arora’s Chor Bazaar (1954)opposite Shammi Kapoor.

4

Chitra proudly listed Zimbo amongher most significant films calling it“India’s first jungle colour film.” Her


account of her short-lived professionalsuccess is bitter-sweet:

I’ve done all sorts of films… Ilived in a bungalow-type house,I changed seven cars as Ibecame more and more popular.I’ve done 111 films, I’vecounted them actually… Butthen there was an ajeebsi[strange] tragedy… Workstopped coming and therewasn’t the kind of money flowas earlier. … I’m okay, I have adecent 650 sq ft flat, a phone.God forbid, I’ve never starved.I’ve adjusted to the times. I liketravelling by auto rickshaw, it’slike sitting on a jhoola [swing].

5

Tracking biographies like Chitra’s

opens up several other narratives oflost genres such as jungle stuntfilms, and players such as Azad,the muscular Tarzan of India, oreven Pedro, ‘the humanchimpanzee’.

Opender Chanana, filmprofessional and labouractivist, starts his book onwork conditions in the

Bombay film industry with areference to a news report from 1938written by a young film journalistfrom Lahore, B.R. Chopra. Threeactors had drowned in the PowaiLake during the shooting of MohanPictures’ Vir Bala. Chanana recountsthat Chopra wrote a stridenteditorial in his magazine, CineHerald, and “called upon theProducers to give material and moralsupport and relief to the dependentsof the victims. It also suggested, asguidance for future, to stuntcompanies, to arrange for safe guardsbeforehand for those who play withdanger. It stressed the need forsecurity and assurance against loss oflife to artists.”

6This editorial did not

change the industry’s approach tosafety norms or compensation.However, it pointed to a huge blindspot in discussions around theIndian film industries—that

48


unorganised, informal labour andprecarious working conditions hadbeen ignored entirely.

In the same year as the Powai Lakeaccident, a predecessor of Chitra andAzad at Wadia Movietone faced aseries of shooting mishaps. Pramilla,born Esther Abraham, acted in morethan thirty-five films from 1935 to1961 and was closely associated withthe stunt film genre, acting inadventure films such as Jungle King(1939) from Wadia Movietone andBijlee (1939) from Prakash Pictures,where one would find her dressed intiger skins and jumping off horses.Pramilla performed her own stunts inmany films and sustained many severeinjuries. In 1938 during the shooting ofJungle King she had a couple of narrowescapes. The film unit had gone toGhodbunder for an outdoor shoot andthere was a scene in which she had tosing while swimming in a river.Unbeknownst to anyone in the crew:

A whirlpool sucked her under;she kept bobbing up and down;each time she managed to comeup she would make franticgestures asking for help. Thecamera crew continued shooting,mistaking her frantic gestures forauthentic acting. She was in her

tiger costume, which was heavy,and when she finally gave up, shewas thrown out by the whirlpoolonto the bank. Everyone came upto congratulate her – ‘Kya scenetha!’

7

The other serious accident that tookplace at the time gave Pramilla abroken nose, and for years to come shetook great pleasure in pointing out the‘dent’ in her nose.

Esther Victoria Abraham (1916-2006) was born into a wealthyBaghdadi Jewish family in Calcutta.Like in a typical melodramatic film, asudden reversal in family fortunes

49


forced Esther and her sisters to seekemployment immediately after school.Esther started her professional life as ateacher at the Talmud Jewish Boys’School. By 1934, Esther was nineteen,divorced and a single mother. During acasual visit to Bombay, she got anacting offer and immediately sent atelegram to Calcutta “saying she wouldnot be returning”.

8

As Pramilla, she excelled in roles thatpresented her as a bold, westernisedwoman, mostly playing a ‘dangerous’second lead. While Fearless Nadiaplayed the vigilante superwoman inmany of these films, Pramillaperformed the scheming vamp. Butshe seems to have recognised thatthese gender stereotypes not only sentout moralistic messages about the‘emancipated woman’ but,paradoxically, also enabled theunabashed portrayal of strong,sexually-aware female characters.

The fragmented archive of Indiancinema bears traces of these fewshooting accidents primarily becausethey involved relatively well-knownactors. It might be worth mentioningthat there is no count of the lightboys, stuntmen, setting dadas andelectricians who have died of electricshocks or fallen off tarafas (catwalks)

in their highly risky, improvisationalwork environments.

9

Publicity Art

One of the few Hindi cinema ‘classics’represented in the Priya Paulcollection is Mother India. Thecollection contains a publicity bookletfor the film, an elaborate documentthat carries production informationand a heavily illustrated synopsis. Thistwenty-two-page booklet differs fromthe song booklet genre in that itcontains no lyrics at all. Most uniqueis the fact that instead of photographicpublicity stills, it carries hand-paintedimages in which the technique of over-painting is used—the artist paintsover actors’ photographic portraitswith oils. Rachel Dwyer and DiviaPatel point out that the artist L.L.Meghanee had selected “keyphotographs illustrating the mostdramatic points in the film.” Theyanalyse the visual style, saying that “theexaggerated and rough brush strokesgive an effect similar to that ofWestern Expressionist painting.…The entire booklet is charged withan emotional and passionate intensitythat aimed to glorify India and itstraditional ways.”

10One sees a steady

rise in this kind of formal analysis ofposter art and artists, and a growing


50


interest in compiling these artists’professional histories and studying thehistory of poster printingtechnologies.

Another interesting publicitydocument is the song booklet. This isa slim pamphlet that carries aminiaturised version of the film posteron the cover, and contains thesynopsis, production stills, andcomplete cast and crew credits, besidesthe lyrics of the songs. Most songbooklets translate the textual materialinto two or more languages, such asEnglish, Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati andBengali, except for the lyrics of the

songs, which are transliterated intothose languages. Booklets were oftenmeant as publicity targeted atdistributors and exhibitors, but werealso sold directly to spectators, as theprice of four annas printed on somecovers indicates. Not surprisingly, thisfragile and slight object is one of ourmost precious resources for writing ahistory of Indian cinema today. Nearly2,200 films were produced in Bombayalone between 1931 and 1950 and atleast eighty per cent of these films arenow unavailable for viewing. Theprints have crumbled to dust, beendestroyed in fires, or simplydisappeared for lack of care andarchival attention. It would hardly bean exaggeration to say that the archiveof early Indian cinema is haunted by

51



this absence. Thus, the song bookletwith its rich information andillustrations is often the only means toreconstruct a lost history. From theperspective of visual history, the designand typeface used in these booklets alsoreflect the artistic currents of the times.For example, the stunning booklet coverfor M. Udwadia’s Shahu Chor/Prince ofThieves (1936) uses a mix of stylesincluding an art deco background andtypeface combined with photographiccut-outs. A preliminary search hasrevealed nothing about the artist, S.K.Murthy, except that he was possibly awell-known art director in south India.

Hair and Makeup

Tracking film practitioners throughfilm memorabilia is a dizzyingenterprise. Clues lead to other clues,protagonists multiply and mimiceach other, the original chase isforgotten and one starts shadowingnewer characters. One such characteris ‘Madam Solomon’ credited for the‘Hair Styles’ in S.U. Sunny’s UranKhatola (1955), a fantasy filmstarring Nimmi, Dilip Kumar andSurya Kumari. Written by AzimBazidpuri, the film is set in amythical land called Shanga, ruled bya fair queen. The plot opens whenDilip Kumar’s plane crashes in this52




land and he falls in love with the high-born local lass, Nimmi. The film waslavishly produced by Naushad whoalso scored some memorable songs forthe film. Given that there are noscreen credits for individual actors’hairstylists, it can be assumed thatMrs Solomon was responsible forstyling at least the main femalecharacters. Nimmi sports a variety ofelaborate hairdos in the film, mainlychosen for their old-world appeal. Softcurls, fancy ringlets, intricatelyarranged plaits, and semi-pompadoursfrom the Victorian era create Nimmi’spretty look. Surya Kumari’s hair ismore demurely designed to create amature and elegant effect. Bothcharacters are given a wide range ofhair accessories and ornaments to addto the exotic appeal of the imaginaryworld they inhabit. One can onlyimagine what references Mrs Solomonused to decide upon these looks, orwhat discussions there might havebeen at a pre-production stage. Thereis no trace of the mysterious MadamSolomon in the usual records.IMDb.com, however, has a listing forMrs R. Solomon and credits her witha brief filmography including Guide(1965), Dil Diya Dard Liya (1966),Ram aur Shyam (1967) and Patthar KeSanam (1967). Even if Solomon’scareer was only a decade long, as

IMDB claims, the nine films that arelisted can only represent a slice of herbody of work.

11

Hairdressers in the 1950s and 1960swere part of the small tribe of femalefilm professionals you wouldencounter in a studio. The othercareerists in this tribe were actresses,extras and dancers. Ram Tipnis, amakeup artist who started his filmcareer in the 1940s, has said in aninterview that:

In fact Bombay Talkies andFilmistan started the trend ofhaving a separate HairDepartment. Before that theactresses would get their maidsto do their hair or everyonewould just do their own hair, youknow Indian style. …Even in theCostume department we hadmen. Sometimes if they neededhelp they might call the Hairassistant, but no, there were noother women employed in thestudio.

12

By the mid-1950s the situation hadchanged somewhat. Bhanu Athaiyawas hired by Guru Dutt to designcostumes in CID (1956) and the restis history.

53


The story of women’s work in the filmindustry is waiting to be excavated fromclues such as these. While those whoworked in the first decades of the filmindustry are no more, it is yet possibleto do a much-needed oral historyproject for the 1950s and beyond.

Art Direction

When the moving image is frozen onpaper, in the form of publicity stills,our relation to it is altered. Not caughtup with following characters, actions

and events, we can have a morecontemplative relationship to the filmvisual. The Uran Khatola lobby cardcapitalises on this difference in form.It is relatively spare and showcases thetwo highlights of the film: sets andcostumes. In a fantasy film, these arethe chief attractions, and the lobbycard economically privileges these toguarantee an evening of spectacle.

Uran Khatola opens with a scene of an

54



55


old-fashioned galleon being tossedmercilessly on the high seas. Only oneman survives the shipwreck and findshimself on the shores of an unfamiliarisland. He then makes his way throughan eerie forest and reaches a tinyhouse, shabby and with a pointedroof, much like in an illustratedGrimms’ fairytale. These are carefullyconstructed sets complete withspecially moulded trees, painted skiesand artificial giant cobwebs. Coupledwith low-key lighting and wide-anglelensing, the determinedly non-naturalistic sets create anExpressionist aesthetic. Later, whenwe are taken to the mythical land ofShanga, the film treats us to adizzying series of phantasmagoricalsets. Colossal statues of gods thatbreathe fire, idyllic pleasure gardens, amusical bridge, flying chariots and aroyal bed shaped like a blossomingflower are just some of the stunningcreations of art director V. Jadhav Rao.Rao’s name crops up in films from the1950s right through the 1980s and yetone can find no systematically listedbiographical or professionalinformation about him. The same goesfor Bachubhai Mistry, the art directorof Zimbo and of several special effectsand stunt films produced by theWadia Brothers. Mistry’s namerecurrently appears in the Priya Paul

collection with films such as Zimbo,Nanabhai Bhatt’s Madame XYZ(1959), and Homi Wadia’s Zabak(1961).

Art Direction, nowadays known asProduction Design, was one of the firstspecialised film categories to beacknowledged by the Filmfare Awards.Instituted in 1953, the FilmfareAwards started with five basiccategories: Best Film, Director, Actor,Actress and Music Director. The nextyear it added the categories of Story,Supporting Roles, Cinematographyand Sound. In 1955, two morecategories were added: Editing and ArtDirection. It took another couple ofyears for Lyricist, Dialogue Writer andPlayback Singer to be included.Categories such as Action andChoreography, those staples of Bombaycinema, were only recognised post1988. The film industry has longrecognised Art Direction as being oneof the core elements of film production,but the names, filmographies,innovations and signature strategies ofart directors are difficult to come by.The Bombay film industry is oftenblamed for not documenting its ownpast but traces do exist as awardhistories, and records of crafts unionsand associations.


Choreography

Zabak is a resplendent Persianadventure film shot in Geva Colour. Itstars Mahipal as the title character, apolyglot healer and a carefree soul. Hefalls in love with the wealthy Zainab(Shyama) but the difference in theirstatus presents the first of manyobstacles in their path. After beingpersecuted by Zainab’s family, he joinsa gang of bandits. The sets, designedby Bachubhai Mistry, are extravagantin scale and breathtaking in detail.Mistry follows the Islamicateiconography of spires, domes, latticedwindows, diaphanous curtains andpendulous chandeliers. The costumes,by Mohamed Umer, follow theArabian Nights model of unisex harempants, waistcoats and fezes. Umer wasalso responsible for the costumes ofZimbo, radically different from those inZabak. The film credits three womenfor ‘Hair Styles’: Nargis, Norma, andGeeta. At this stage in my research, Ihave absolutely no information onthem.

No Persian fantasy is completewithout dances, and Zabak featuresexamples of synchronised groupchoreography. It continues a traditionseen in films such as K. Amarnath’sAlif Laila (1953) wherein the focus is

on symmetrically arranged bodies, epicsets, chorus lines and frontal tableaudisplays. The film credits threechoreographers: Satyanarayan, SuryaKumar, and Chetan. BothSatyanarayan and Surya Kumar wereprolific choreographers and dancersfrom the 1950s right up until the1980s. Satyanarayan was partial toballet and some of that proclivity isevident in Zabak. The dances in thefilm work organically with the sets andcostumes to create a unified pageant ofattractions.

Surya Kumar was Anglo-Indian bybirth and was known to his colleaguesas Robert Master. He is sometimeseven listed in a film’s credits as ‘Robert’.Symptomatic of the acute lack ofdocumentation of choreographicpractice in Bombay cinema, SuryaKumar’s professional information isnearly impossible to come by. This iscompounded by the fact that for theninety-four films he is known to haveworked on, there are many more wherehis work might be uncredited. Hehimself appeared in many of thefamous dances he choreographed, as abackup dancer, a band member, oreven to partner the lead female dancer.According to the dancer Edwina Lyonsand Thomas Daniel, it appears that heintroduced the international dance

56



57

sensation of the 1960s, ‘The Shake’, toHindi film audiences with the song‘Jaan Pehchaan Ho’ from RajaNawathe’s Gumnaam (1965).

13It is

worth mentioning that Surya Kumarwas the man behind the ‘Hum AapkiAankhon Mein’ dream sequence inPyaasa. Typically, the Priya Paularchive frequently brings up his name.He also choreographed dances in UranKhatola.

According to Lyons, Surya Kumar wasso penniless in his last years that hehad to beg his dancers to buy him apair of spectacles. He died of a heartattack sometime in the mid-1980s, in amakeup room in a studio.

In the preceding sections I have triedto demonstrate some of the tangentsone could follow while looking fortraces of film work. The Priya Paul

collection brings certain histories intofocus with its privileging of stunt andfantasy genres. Narratives of localinnovation, transnational referencing,and precarious labour are stampedonto these films. A focus on culturalwork can yield a new approach to thehistory of Indian cinema, one thatsimultaneously acknowledges itsindustrial and artistic facets. We arealso reminded that film is aninherently collaborative mediuminvolving hundreds of salaried expertsand wage-workers who mark each filmwith their individual skills. Anauteurist history of Hindi cinema isinadequate to either the memory ofthese practitioners or the complexpractices they represent.

Debashree Mukherjee is a Ph.Dcandidate in the Department ofCinema Studies, New York University.Her dissertation tracks a history offilm practice in late colonial Bombay.


NOTES

1. This research project was among the first

to be supported by IFA.

2. Ranjani Mazumdar received an IFA grant

in 2002 to study the Bombay film poster.

3. Gregory Booth, Behind the Curtain:Making Music in Mumbai’s Film Studios(Oxford & New York: Oxford University

Press, 2008); Tejaswani Ganti, ProducingBollywood: Inside the Contemporary HindiFilm Industry (Duke University Press, 2012);

Clare Wilkinson-Weber, ‘The Dressman’s

Line: Transforming the Work of Costumers

in Popular Hindi Film’ in AnthropologicalQuarterly, 79(4), pp. 581-608 and her

forthcoming book titled Fashioning Bollywood:The Making and Meaning of Hindi FilmCostume; Ranjani Mazumdar, BombayCinema: An Archive of the City (New Delhi:

Permanent Black, 2007) and ‘The Bombay

Film Poster’ in Seminar-525, 2003;

http://www.sarai.net/research/media-city.

4. http://cineplot.com/encyclopedia/chitra/

5. Ibid.

6. Opender Chanana, The Missing 3 inBollywood: Safety, Security, Shelter

58



59


(Switzerland: UNI Global Union, 2011). See

also G. Nihalani, S. Chatterjee & Gulzar

(eds.) Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema: AnEnchanting Close-Up of India’s Hindi Cinema(New Delhi: Popular Prakashan, 2003) for

the section on stunts and safety hazards.

7. R. Shahani (ed) Pramila – Esther VictoriaAbraham (Mumbai: Sound & Picture

Archives for Research on Women, 1998),

p.16.

8. Ibid.

9. A lower-rung Art Department assistant is

often called ‘setting dada’, the term ‘dada’,meaning ‘older brother’, being a mark of

respect. Setting dadas are responsible for

dressing a set according to the instructions of

the art director. It is a job that includes

everything from carpentry and painting to

arrangement of props and furnishings. A

tarafa is a narrow wooden walkway that runs

above the set in a studio and from which

light-men hang and adjust lights and cables.

10. Rachel Dwyer and Divia Patel, CinemaIndia: The Visual Culture of Hindi Film(London: Reaktion Books, 2002), p. 163.

11. See http://www.imdb.com/

name/nm1351931/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

12. Interviewed in Bombay, 2008.

13. http://dustedoff.wordpress.com

/2011/10/10/edwina-part-2-a-cast-of-

characters/(Surya Kumar)


Documents

vol 7 issue 1 - academiccommons.columbia.edu