IT is heartening to discover that one television channel has, through a series to be aired over the next few weeks, considered it appropriate to revive the neo-realist tradition that Shyam Benegal had set in motion in the ’70s. Whether his films dealt with contemporary issues or with events or personalities from the past, they was a reflection of a social consciousness evidently inspired by the Satyajit Ray films made two decades earlier.

Benegal was a maker of ad films that had both style and intelligence and, by switching to feature films, he started a movement that had far-reaching results. Parallel cinema had arrived with the support of the Film Finance Corporation set up by the government to help new filmmakers outside the mainstream circuit. Regional cinema received a boost and it led to what was referred to as “parallel” cinema starting with Mrinal Sen&’s Bhuvan Shome in 1969. That problems cropped up over the loans that became bad debts, causing the government to have second thoughts on the whole idea, was a different matter. By then a new school of filmmakers, actors and technicians had emerged and many of them discovered a place in the mainstream industry.

Benegal&’s story was different. He found support from an organisation that was making ad films and which agreed to move into feature films. It was apparently so reassured by the director who had control over the medium that it was prepared to support him in his first feature film. The environment in Mumbai (then Bombay) was different. “Parallel” cinema caused a sharp dividing line to be drawn between the two kinds of films. As Benegal confessed at the revival of Ankur, made in 1974, there was hardly an audience for the film, unlike today when Anurag Kashyap, Dibakar Banerjee and Sujoy Ghosh find access not only to festivals but to the mainstream industry that offers them exhibition outlets that were virtually non-existent for films like Ankur. This was also a film that couldn’t afford stars. Shabana Azmi, Sadhu Meher and Anant Nag were newcomers who had little hope of finding access to established studios. Ankur could be made on a budget of Rs 5 lakh and, from what we now discover from Shabana Azmi, the cast and crew members were each paid Rs 15 for a meal after the day&’s work.

If Pather Panchali is the story of dedication, commitment and hardship by everyone beginning with Ray himself, the story wasn’t much different when Benegal was among the leading figures in the alternative cinema that he persisted with, despite the stiff hurdles. The ’70s constituted his most fertile period. The films selected by the television channel belong to the same production house. It would have been more rewarding to have had a more wide-ranging selection to include films like Manthan, Junoon and Mammo but the opportunity to have another look at Trikaal, Bhumika, Mandi and Nishant is exciting enough. It emphasises the range of social realities that he explored even when he was considered to be outside the industry. It required more courage to make the films he was committed to than it is now when the dividing lines have all but disappeared and Aamir Khan and Anurag Kashyap may be rubbing shoulders in their concern for exploring aspects pf contemporary life, getting commercial support and exhibition outlets and finally finding audiences in India and abroad.

That was not the situation when Benegal took it upon himself to start a trend that he was not sure would work. One quality, however, distinguished Benegal from others who belonged to what was described as the New Indian Cinema. He brought a professionalism and polish to his social concerns that impressed discerning audiences in the manner they were impressed with the work of Ray before Benegal arrived. Benegal was seen to have done for Indian cinema with his team of actors and technicians what Ray had done before him. Of course, Benegal had abundant respect for his senior — something that he expressed in a documentary in 1982. The fact remains that Benegal carved out a place for himself on the basis of his social and human concerns, the new dimension that he gave to his work as a result of his exposure to the West and, at the same time, the Indianness that he sustained with his subjects ranging from Arohan which he made in Bengal based on the land movement to Welcome to Sajjanpur, a picture of rural realities where ignorance and backwardness are interpreted in a light-hearted tone. That place has been doggedly preserved on the strength of the ideas that he continues to offer.

Benegal has insisted on walking a path of his own — whether in capturing the life and times of Netaji or in his current effort to reveal the significance of the Constitution for Rajya Sabha TV. If, in his 70s, he continues to demonstrate youthful energy, he remains the leader of the other cinema and an abundant source of inspiration for those who have come after him.

swapan mullick