|
|
|
Trouble in tinsel town
With the number of film productions falling drastically and their quality deteriorating, the film industry of Pakistan has been in the throes of a continuously deepening crisis for nearly a decade now. And with the last approximately five years spelling the kind of doom that was seen taking it towards a dead end; something was bound to snap. And snap it did with the Movie Artistes Association of Pakistan (MAAP), the most powerful body of professionals in the film industry, breaking up into two opposing groups.
An old fashioned individual with a strong nationalistic bias, the chairman of MAAP, Yusuf Khan, takes a rigid view of any collaboration between the two film industries of Pakistan and India, summarily rejecting the very idea. On the other hand, other industry personalities regard the support from Indian cinema as the need of the day
Successive governments in Pakistan, particularly one-man-show regimes, have followed a 10-year cycle of change. Conditions in the country and discontent with the authority expedite their departure. After over a decade of chairmanship of veteran actor Yusuf Khan, MAAP seemed set for overhaul and emulating examples at the highest level in the country. A group of artistes forming the parallel body called Artistes Association of Pakistan (AAP) has thus not come as a surprise. But it is still not clear if this development will resolve the crisis of the film industry or further exacerbate it.
Rumblings of simmering disagreement between Yusuf Khan and some of the leading artistes were there for some time now. They surfaced after a meeting of a film artistes’ delegation with the prime minister on issues facing the film industry. Yusuf Khan, a strict disciplinarian, took exception to the participation of Ghulam Mohyuddin, General Secretary of MAAP, in the meeting without permission from the organization. This led to Mohyuddin’s resignation and to the formation of the AAP.Ostensibly, this sums up the situation. But there are unstated nuance to the clash of artistes. The thaw in Pakistan-India relations, with particular reference to relations between the film industries of the two countries, is undeniably a factor in the artistes grouping. An old fashioned individual with a strong nationalistic bias — this is not to accuse others of lacking in patriotism — Yusuf Khan takes a rigid view of any collaboration between the two industries and summarily rejects the very idea. On the other hand, some other personalities of the industry regard the support from Indian cinema as the need of the local industry.
One fallout of the thaw in Pakistan-India relations for the industry is the possibility of import of Indian movies that has been pursued as the only possibility of redemption for Pakistani cinema by a group of exhibitors. Under Yusuf Khan, MAAP opposed this import tooth and nail. Many leading figures of AAP are on record for rejecting imports but they favour technical and professional collaboration. That is an anathema to Yusuf Khan.
Producers and directors who have used technical and professional facilities of Lollywood are backing AAP, and artistes who have recently worked in Indian movies have joined it. On the other hand, leading figures of AAP like its chairman Shaan, chief executive Mustafa Qureshi and General Secretary Ghulam Mohyuddin have, so far, had no truck with Mumbai. This makes for a confusing scenario but things are likely to become clear in the near future. Relations with the Indian film industry are, however, likely to be a contentious issue not merely between artistes but also other segments of Pakistan’s film industry as well.
There are major differences between the two groups on some other counts as well. MAAP restricted itself to problems of artistes with producers and vice versa; whereas the AAP has pledged to work for overall improvement in the industry’s professional and technical output and welfare of workers at all levels. This was MAAP’s mandate, too, but has remained mostly on the shelf gathering dust.AAP has been in touch with the present government and feels that support from the administration is essential for the revival of the industry. MAAP, for its part, has no disagreement with the need for improvement — Yusuf Khan, in fact withdrew from the industry as an actor for a period of time because of ‘non-professional conditions in the industry.’ But he believes in change coming from within the industry and all of its segments joining hands to restore local films to their previous excellence — the kind of work industry produced between the mid-50s to end of the nineties. AAP believes in exploring all avenues.
These, however, should have been resolvable differences. The ego and the desire to dominate the screen from both behind the camera and on screen seems a crucial component in the parting of ways by many film personalities. MAAP is now devoting itself to proving that the opponent’s move is a self-projection device while AAP has taken upon itself to create an atmosphere conducive for professionalism and quality results.
While the main office bearers of AAP are maintaining silence because of court cases instituted against them by MAAP, the organization was represented by film and stage actor and TV host-cum-actor Omar Sharif. However, a heart ailment ruled him out of that role and AAP is now expressing itself through spokesmen, while Yusuf Khan is a reluctant communicator with the media. A representative of MAAP told Images that Mr Khan looks at the parallel body as illegal and against the interests of the industry. AAP feels that MAAP has stagnated and the fact it has held no elections in the last decade makes its representative and democratic credentials questionable.
AAP has quite a few ambitious plans such as holding fund-raiser shows to build resources for ailing and needy artistes and workers at all levels of the industry, obtaining land from the government for a housing colony for film industry personnel, coordinating with the government for the uplift of the industry, updating technical facilities to bring them at par with international standards and generally organizing the industry on a professional footing.AAP also plans to seriously resolve differences among producers, directors and artistes that have contributed largely towards undermining filmmaking in Pakistan. Filmmakers complain that artistes callously exploit them and it costs them heavily when they fail to meet their commitments. They often fail to show up for shoots as per appointments and when they do, they arrive on the sets hours late.
On their part, artistes complain that sets, dresses and even scripts are often not finalized and writers pen the next scene as one sequence is being recorded. AAP representatives assure that the actors’ body would ensure a professional participation from its members and would do everything to persuade filmmakers to fulfil their end of the bargain.
To the question of investors’ availability, or lack of it, to back film production, AAP is optimistic that there are numerous people willing to finance films but they have been put off by the lack of professionalism in the industry. Hence, the members vow to set things right. Producers and directors wonder if that is possible.
Both Yusuf Khan and Shaan are top artistes and personalities of the Pakistan film industry, though for different reasons. Mr Khan has a personal image and Shaan stars in two-thirds of all local productions. They are also both widely resented for their lack of commitment to work. Even leading figures of the industry are wary of criticizing them openly but privately agree that Yusuf Khan rarely arrived on time for shootings. If the schedule started at 10am, he would turn up around 2pm on the set. However, if there was a mistake from the producer’s end, Yusuf Khan would simply take him apart.
Shaan maintains a more upsetting lack of punctuality and has the habit of telling directors off and taking over the megaphone himself. The artistes, most industry insiders say, have to put their own house in order first before thinking of injecting professionalism in the industry. Studio owner Shehzad Gul is clear on this count. He says: “Leading artistes treat their shooting commitments with contempt. They are often missing from sets for days while the producers face a loss. The attitude problem needs to be sorted out before anything can be done. Artistes have to decide if the industry depends on them and realize that whatever they are worth, they owe everything to the industry.”
|
|
|
|