Autori vari: Amul's India

Vi segnalo la recensione del saggio Amul's India, firmata da Anwesha Mittra e pubblicata oggi da The Times of India. Nel subcontinente il burro Amul è da cinquant'anni un'istituzione. Le campagne promozionali commissionate dall'azienda sono rimaste praticamente invariate nella concezione, ma con uno slogan nuovo (e una vignetta nuova) quasi ogni settimana. In modo arguto e colorato commentano qualsiasi argomento, dalla politica alla cronaca all'intrattenimento. Un fenomeno pubblicitario forse più unico che raro. Il volume include anche un contributo di Amitabh Bachchan.

'Amul’s little moppet in a red polka dotted dress and a blue ponytail delivered on a regular basis a humorous take on everything that bothered us, everything we thought deserved a repartee. Like a true spokesperson of the masses, she rose to every occasion, be it a cricketing double century, scandals surrounding politicians, to controversial diplomatic policies, with an infallible gut and a tongue-in-cheek attitude. And in the process made Brand Amul synonymous with honesty, purity and subtlety.

Since her birth in the 60s, (...) she has remained an icon of sorts in the advertising world, surviving odds of the trade and yet being steadfastly consistent. Our impish little Amul girl today not only looks the same, but retains that crispy cheekiness with which she pranced into out hearts the first time and said naively, “Give us this day our daily bread: with Amul butter.” As a deserving tribute to Amul’s journey across five decades and a massive advertising success on its back, the book Amul’s India is an attempt to deconstruct the brand, the little things that went into making a heroic success of the Amul girl, sentiments of its makers, and of those who loved to pass by an Amul hoarding each time. Like a celebration of the memorable Amul hoardings, the book in a non-linear pattern chronicles decades of having fun with subjects such as politics, Bollywood, sports and personalities among others. (...)

The journey was of course not a seamless one as the brand landed up in a couple of legal wrangles only to emerge unfazed and stronger than ever. (...) But there were those like painter M.F. Husain who loved Amul’s ‘Heroin Addiction - Fida on you’ that had the barefoot artist paint Bollywood diva Madhuri Dixit, and requested for a personal copy for his studio. (...)

Amul’s India is another interesting way to get different perspectives on popular ads that formed an inexplicable part of our growing up years. (...) Amul through various hoardings over a period has mocked at men, celebrated female achievements or at least brought them to the fore, and depicted the rapidly changing status of women. (...) Some popular brands lost out to competition in a desperate bid to change their mascot. Time and again companies attempted to reposition themselves, but Amul never did. It didn’t have to, nor does it need to, for we prefer its unvarnished views of India in that ‘utterly butterly delicious’ manner'.

Anurag Kashyap: Gangs of Wasseypur almost did not get made

Vi segnalo l'intervista concessa da Anurag Kashyap a Sonil Dedhia, pubblicata da Rediff il 19 giugno 2012. Gangs Of Wasseypur almost did not get made: 

'A lot of people are comparing the film with The Godfather. Is that justified?

At the end of the day, it's a good comparison. I take it as a compliment. (...) My films are a story of three generations and Godfather is the ultimate crime tale of three generations.

This film is your most ambitious one so far. What difficulties did you face in making it?

Gangs of Wasseypur almost did not get made. People did not believe in my film. They asked me why I wanted to work on this film and not something like Dev. D which was a success. I don't want to repeat myself. People also questioned me about making another mafia film. But I had this story which is entertaining and at the same time, it will engage the audience. In five hours and 20 minutes, the audience will explore the mafia in Gangs Of Wasseypur and I am sure they will like it.

You have been making the kind of films that you wanted to make. Do you think finally the audience and the industry is waking up to your films?

Our cinema is changing; our mainstream cinema has changed so much. I think today alternative cinema can happily exist with mainstream cinema. There are fewer struggles to make the kind of films I have been making. This is the time when you can make films without stars and they are working at the box office. Some directors who have been supporting this for a long time are finding it much easier to make their films.

As a newcomer, you took a lot of flak for the kind of films you made. Of late the industry and the critics have started praising your work.

I have always been seen as a troublemaker or a problem creator. I guess that suits my image (Winks). A lot of people are astonished that in spite of cheating the producers how does Anurag Kashyap manage to make films? Logically, businesswise, it does not make sense how I make my films (laughs). I still feel that the old-school filmmakers don't like me. I guess they don't understand the kind of films that I am trying to make. At the same time, the generation has changed. A lot of new blood has been infused into the industry and they are standing up for the same thing that I have been doing for so many years. I still feel that my acceptance is not very wide. I have a lot of support from the director and the actor community, but the distributors and producers are still trying to figure out what I want to do.

How challenging was it to make a film that you wanted to make and at the same time make it entertaining?

To begin with, it was a film that had the potential to be entertaining. I can't force entertainment in a film like That girl in yellow boots. There are different stories within the story and we brought in music to bind all of them together. The kind of music Sneha Khanwalkar has done is just phenomenal. The intention was to make an entertaining film, or else we wouldn't have been given so much money to make GOW. (...)

Do you think that the length of GOW (five hours and 20 minutes) will be a hindrance?

Eight hundred people watched the film in Cannes and gave it a standing ovation. The audience mainly consisted of people who read the subtitles and did not know the language. This has given me enough confidence that GOW is going to work. We were thinking of making the film in three parts. We wrote three scripts. We combined half of the second part in part one and the other in part two. It is one film, but we had to make it in parts. I think two parts are not enough; it could have become a TV series (laughs).

Do you think production houses have started believing in you? I remember at FICCI Frames this year you mentioned that you change the scripts on the spot and that irks a lot of producers.

The basic rule of cinema is that a script is written three times - when you are writing the script, when you are shooting the film, and then when you are editing the film. A lot of people misconstrue it. When I started my journey in films people never wrote scripts. Until six to seven years ago, there was no concept of bound scripts. People made a face when you handed them bound scripts. The same people today demand a bound script. A basic script is always treated like a map. Yes, I do change scripts but only when it is needed. Improvisation is always necessary and I don't do it alone. I consult my actors, writers and other important people. There are times when producers don't know how to read scripts. Thankfully the newer lot of producers know how to read scripts. They understand the fact that the script will evolve during the making of the film.

Your films have always been dark and intense. Would you make a completely different film?

The problem is that we make so many light-hearted, candy floss films that anything real seems dark. Barring That girl in yellow boots, my films are not dark nor are they intense. When I made Paanch, a lot of people said the film was dark and disturbing because of the kind of films that were being made by other filmmakers then. Today, the same people say that Paanch is a mainstream commercial cinema and it should have been released. I don't understand how a film that was dark when I made it suddenly becomes a commercial film. The problem is not with my films, it is with the mindset of people.

You have never worked with big stars in your films. Do you still feel that the industry is star driven and requires a big star to make a film successful?

The purpose of the industry is to grow monetarily and economically. In other countries, a lot of money is spent on research for the film. Ours is one industry that does not spend anything on research. There is a safe formula that is adopted in our industry. A star will work in our film and we will make money. This is not how films are made. I identify films with their directors and not actors, except in the case of Aamir Khan where you trust that you are bound to see a good film. (...) 

You recently mentioned in an interview that you don't want to become another Ram Gopal Varma...

Ram Gopal Varma is someone who I have learnt everything from. He taught me a lot about cinema and I diligently follow that. He has somewhere isolated himself. He has cut himself off from the rest of the world. He has a virtual presence but I believe that he has slightly cut off from what's happening in cinema. His idea about filmmaking and shot designing is quite fixed. I feel bad that he has isolated himself because I care about him. When he discovers any camera or equipment, he always talks about it as if he is the one who has found it. But all over the world, kids are experimenting with it. His experiments are becoming like a child with a toy which sometimes is good but what happens is that he is Ram Gopal Varma and people have expectations from him which burden him with restrictions. He has reached beyond the point where he is trying to impress anyone. He doesn't realise that it costs money and it is someone else's money. Things are not working for him which is making him stubborn. I will not say that he doesn't have it in him to come back'.