HOW HAVE CANNES, BERLIN AND VENICE DESTROYED WORLD CINEMA!
…AND THE FILM CAREERS OF AKIRA KUROSAWA, SATYAJIT RAY AND THE OTHERS WHOM THEY HAD HONORED!
By Mansor Puteh
This essay is based on the article I wrote called ‘Asian films at Cannes’ which was published in the Letters’ section in Time Magazine on 7 July, 1997. Below is the article which Time declined to publish this extended version.
* * * * * * *
ASIAN FILMS AT CANNES (Letters Section, Time Magazine, 7 July, 1997.)
Why are the same film makers from Asia getting recognition in Cannes? The answer is that they are making the types of films which are liked in Cannes. Basically there only five types of films; those that deal with, 1) poverty or illiteracy, 2) homosexuality or incest, 3) anti-government sentiments, 4) anti-colonialism and 5) historical or costume epics. Asian film-makers must make one of those types in order to win recognition at Cannes. Abbas Kiarostami, Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige etc., are making only the type of film which deals with homosexual characters or which demeans their religion or society. China and Iran, which are rich in history and tradition, must surely have other interesting stories that could be put on the screen. Cannes has destroyed the very essence of cinema and made the medium one for forcing film makers to scream propaganda for them. MANSOR BIN PUTEH Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
* * * * * * *
And what I said more than twelve years ago then, is still true today. And this is what’s so disconcerting and scary. Something has to be written and done to ensure that the three most prestigious film festivals in Europe or ‘the world’ do not go on conning anyone from being stuck in the rut and not being able to expand.
That the organizers and jury which are assembled by the festivals seem to have been stuck in time, that their film philosophy and attitude towards the world and in particular, Asia, had remained the same since the end of the Second World War. And the films of their choice are still the same type that their predecessors had liked earlier, while the whole world has changed. Asia has also changed tremendously, but sadly, this is not reflected in the films that they had hailed.
It is most shocking when one realizes how internationally recognized ‘film masters’ such as Akira Kurosawa and Satyajit Ray could succumb to temptations and to continue to seek ‘international recognition’ for their works again and again, like they had become not ‘masters’ but slaves.
When they were the ones who should be imposing, they only managed to kow-tow to the dictates of so few people who organized the three festivals. So now we know who are the real ‘masters’ and who are the ‘slaves’.
I must have angered Paolo Bertolin who seeks new films from Asia for his Venice Film Festival after he spoke at the Second Kuala Lumpur International Film Festival last October, by saying how his festival and Cannes as well as Berlin might have created the ‘master and slave’ relationship between the filmmakers and the festivals.
He was stunned that he could not react to what I have said which is a fact. That after a while, these and the other festivals must realize how they had actually destroyed the film careers of many of those whom they had earlier given honors, by offering official recognition amidst the hoopla and international media gaze. Because he probably thought he had come to conquer all those who were present at his talk, which in turn made him look silly, like he was a few hundred years too late and arriving together with Alfonso d’Albuquerque or some other Italian conquerors of old in their hopeless ‘Journey of Hope’. Did I pour sand into his spaghetti of weird ideas on the world cinema? Paolo sounded hollow in Kuala Lumpur…!But alas, so few of them who had been earlier honored, could come up with different films because they know they could not impress the same festivals if they did that.
So no wonder, Asian ‘film masters’ such as Kurosawa and Ray could only come up with different versions of their earlier works, because they knew if they came up with films which dealt with other issues and showed them in different ways or forms, chances were they would not have been selected.
Yes, these and the other directors, still crave the attention that they could get from having their films selected for these and the same festivals that had earlier selected their films, like they are still novices, when what they should be doing is to move on from Cannes, Venice and Berlin and not be stuck with them for life.
Now you realize how the same directors who produce films which are the same returning to Cannes, Venice and Berlin. They came there as ‘slaves’ who are willing to meet with the dictates of the organizers.
The directors they had hailed over the years seem to be trapped in the aura of acceptance that they had failed to see the deceptive qualities promoted indirectly by the same festivals that had hailed them earlier.
Prominent and influential filmmakers from Asia, such as Kurosawa and Ray of Japan and India, respectively, gained international prominence after being honored by Cannes, Venice and Berlin film festivals.
And they went on to encourage other filmmakers younger than they were to want to submit their films to these particular festivals, hoping that they, too, could get similar honors from them.
Unfortunately, for many of them, it is nothing but a distant dream. These three most prestigious film festivals in the world cannot offer them much. That from Asia, there are only to be two ‘film masters’ while the others have to make do with their occasional attendance at these festivals.
And more unfortunate is when they have been unconsciously forced to come up with works which are no different than the ones they had earlier made for which they had been recognized by these festivals earlier.
So no wonder, like Kurosawa and Ray, this younger generation of filmmakers has to come up with similar works.
In the end, we did not see more exciting works from Kurosawa or Ray, or the other directors.
This brings me to want to ask if Cannes, Venice and Berlin, especially were responsible for stunting the film careers of Kurosawa and Ray and the others.
We definitely did not get to see their best works, which are liked by their own countrymen other than by those festival organizers and jury members who hailed them for their own selfish reasons.
That to them Japan is still the old feudal Japan and not the super-modern country. And India is still backward. China, which is a growing economic giant, is seen in lights so bad that it is toxic. No wonder, the authorities in China often get the excuse to punish their filmmakers for having their films ‘selected’ by these festivals.
In the meanwhile, most other countries in Asia and elsewhere, outside of Europe, America and the West, are lost in the thoughts of the festival directors and members of their selection committee who come to these countries flying first class and staying in expensive hotels, but who are not often in touch with the ground to know how it is stirring.
So it is no surprise if they prefer to see films from Malaysia that look like faint copies of those that the filmmakers in Europe, America and the West have produced decades ago that had a huge dose of negative elements.
In other words, Cannes, Venice and Berlin are saying – you produce films like those and they will be selected. You produce films which you and your country and people like, and we won’t ‘select’ them.
Cannes, Venice and Berlin have done a lot of damage to stunt the growth of the Asian cinema. Malaysian Cinema, too, is suffering because the new generation of filmmakers, including those who are trained at prestigious film schools and universities abroad are confused with what they are looking for.
That their selection committee does not care with what they want to say, and they still prefer to impose their views on things like they know the society better.
Therefore, Cannes, Venice and Berlin have to do soul-searching and ask themselves, how their selfish ways have actually helped to destroy or at least stunt the growth of not only the Malaysian or Asian Cinemas, but the World Cinema, too.
By Mansor Puteh
This essay is based on the article I wrote called ‘Asian films at Cannes’ which was published in the Letters’ section in Time Magazine on 7 July, 1997. Below is the article which Time declined to publish this extended version.
* * * * * * *
ASIAN FILMS AT CANNES (Letters Section, Time Magazine, 7 July, 1997.)
Why are the same film makers from Asia getting recognition in Cannes? The answer is that they are making the types of films which are liked in Cannes. Basically there only five types of films; those that deal with, 1) poverty or illiteracy, 2) homosexuality or incest, 3) anti-government sentiments, 4) anti-colonialism and 5) historical or costume epics. Asian film-makers must make one of those types in order to win recognition at Cannes. Abbas Kiarostami, Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige etc., are making only the type of film which deals with homosexual characters or which demeans their religion or society. China and Iran, which are rich in history and tradition, must surely have other interesting stories that could be put on the screen. Cannes has destroyed the very essence of cinema and made the medium one for forcing film makers to scream propaganda for them. MANSOR BIN PUTEH Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
* * * * * * *
And what I said more than twelve years ago then, is still true today. And this is what’s so disconcerting and scary. Something has to be written and done to ensure that the three most prestigious film festivals in Europe or ‘the world’ do not go on conning anyone from being stuck in the rut and not being able to expand.
That the organizers and jury which are assembled by the festivals seem to have been stuck in time, that their film philosophy and attitude towards the world and in particular, Asia, had remained the same since the end of the Second World War. And the films of their choice are still the same type that their predecessors had liked earlier, while the whole world has changed. Asia has also changed tremendously, but sadly, this is not reflected in the films that they had hailed.
It is most shocking when one realizes how internationally recognized ‘film masters’ such as Akira Kurosawa and Satyajit Ray could succumb to temptations and to continue to seek ‘international recognition’ for their works again and again, like they had become not ‘masters’ but slaves.
When they were the ones who should be imposing, they only managed to kow-tow to the dictates of so few people who organized the three festivals. So now we know who are the real ‘masters’ and who are the ‘slaves’.
I must have angered Paolo Bertolin who seeks new films from Asia for his Venice Film Festival after he spoke at the Second Kuala Lumpur International Film Festival last October, by saying how his festival and Cannes as well as Berlin might have created the ‘master and slave’ relationship between the filmmakers and the festivals.
He was stunned that he could not react to what I have said which is a fact. That after a while, these and the other festivals must realize how they had actually destroyed the film careers of many of those whom they had earlier given honors, by offering official recognition amidst the hoopla and international media gaze. Because he probably thought he had come to conquer all those who were present at his talk, which in turn made him look silly, like he was a few hundred years too late and arriving together with Alfonso d’Albuquerque or some other Italian conquerors of old in their hopeless ‘Journey of Hope’. Did I pour sand into his spaghetti of weird ideas on the world cinema? Paolo sounded hollow in Kuala Lumpur…!But alas, so few of them who had been earlier honored, could come up with different films because they know they could not impress the same festivals if they did that.
So no wonder, Asian ‘film masters’ such as Kurosawa and Ray could only come up with different versions of their earlier works, because they knew if they came up with films which dealt with other issues and showed them in different ways or forms, chances were they would not have been selected.
Yes, these and the other directors, still crave the attention that they could get from having their films selected for these and the same festivals that had earlier selected their films, like they are still novices, when what they should be doing is to move on from Cannes, Venice and Berlin and not be stuck with them for life.
Now you realize how the same directors who produce films which are the same returning to Cannes, Venice and Berlin. They came there as ‘slaves’ who are willing to meet with the dictates of the organizers.
The directors they had hailed over the years seem to be trapped in the aura of acceptance that they had failed to see the deceptive qualities promoted indirectly by the same festivals that had hailed them earlier.
Prominent and influential filmmakers from Asia, such as Kurosawa and Ray of Japan and India, respectively, gained international prominence after being honored by Cannes, Venice and Berlin film festivals.
And they went on to encourage other filmmakers younger than they were to want to submit their films to these particular festivals, hoping that they, too, could get similar honors from them.
Unfortunately, for many of them, it is nothing but a distant dream. These three most prestigious film festivals in the world cannot offer them much. That from Asia, there are only to be two ‘film masters’ while the others have to make do with their occasional attendance at these festivals.
And more unfortunate is when they have been unconsciously forced to come up with works which are no different than the ones they had earlier made for which they had been recognized by these festivals earlier.
So no wonder, like Kurosawa and Ray, this younger generation of filmmakers has to come up with similar works.
In the end, we did not see more exciting works from Kurosawa or Ray, or the other directors.
This brings me to want to ask if Cannes, Venice and Berlin, especially were responsible for stunting the film careers of Kurosawa and Ray and the others.
We definitely did not get to see their best works, which are liked by their own countrymen other than by those festival organizers and jury members who hailed them for their own selfish reasons.
That to them Japan is still the old feudal Japan and not the super-modern country. And India is still backward. China, which is a growing economic giant, is seen in lights so bad that it is toxic. No wonder, the authorities in China often get the excuse to punish their filmmakers for having their films ‘selected’ by these festivals.
In the meanwhile, most other countries in Asia and elsewhere, outside of Europe, America and the West, are lost in the thoughts of the festival directors and members of their selection committee who come to these countries flying first class and staying in expensive hotels, but who are not often in touch with the ground to know how it is stirring.
So it is no surprise if they prefer to see films from Malaysia that look like faint copies of those that the filmmakers in Europe, America and the West have produced decades ago that had a huge dose of negative elements.
In other words, Cannes, Venice and Berlin are saying – you produce films like those and they will be selected. You produce films which you and your country and people like, and we won’t ‘select’ them.
Cannes, Venice and Berlin have done a lot of damage to stunt the growth of the Asian cinema. Malaysian Cinema, too, is suffering because the new generation of filmmakers, including those who are trained at prestigious film schools and universities abroad are confused with what they are looking for.
That their selection committee does not care with what they want to say, and they still prefer to impose their views on things like they know the society better.
Therefore, Cannes, Venice and Berlin have to do soul-searching and ask themselves, how their selfish ways have actually helped to destroy or at least stunt the growth of not only the Malaysian or Asian Cinemas, but the World Cinema, too.
Comments