Photos from the book
Every nation gets the cinema it deserves, quip the editors of this volume, and if Cinema and Society has an intertitle, it is that filmmakers, like countries, have to work with they’ve got. Ali Khan and Ali Nobil Ahmad are far too astute to reduce Pakistani cinema to the dreary question of what it means to call a film Pakistani. This book, instead, is a labour of love, not least because it preserves what is probably the largest collection of photographs and film posters from Pakistani cinema across the decades.
The extracts from Mushtaq Gazdar’s Pakistani Cinema: 1947–1997 are film history at a brisk trot: from Lahore’s first silent film, The Daughter of Today (1924), to the rise of the talkie and the fate of the studios that capsized just after Partition. Among Lahore’s filmmakers, Dalsukh Pancholi — who introduced Noor Jehan as a child star in Gul Bakawali — fled to Bombay in 1947, leaving his studio to sputter on for another two years. The last film it produced was somewhat ironically titled Ghalat Fehmi.
The wary relationship between cinema and the state is clear in the film history we rarely read about: that W.Z. Ahmed’s film Roohi (1954) was banned by the censor board for being dangerously laced with socialism; that Hasan Tariq’s film Neend (1959) was the unexpected story of a woman coal worker; and that the man indirectly responsible for the repressive Motion Pictures Ordinance of 1979 was a censor board official who spliced together the raunchiest negatives from different films to prove to Gen Ziaul Haq just how much trouble the country’s morals were in.
Alamgir Kabir’s account is important not only as film criticism in its own right, but also because he treats the former East and West Pakistani cinema as an integrated body of work, showing how Urdu cinema became the face of Pakistani cinema, while Dhaka’s filmmakers struggled to remain afloat. A fierce realist, Kabir’s disdain for commercial gimcrackery makes him no less an exacting critic of the few art house films being produced then: he concedes the “sincerity” of A.J. Kardar’s Jago Hua Savera (1959), but feels it does not capture “an authentic Bengaliness.”
A compilation of rare images and journalistic, scholarly and personal writings on our cinema history
Given the traditional mistrust between politics and cinema, Iftikhar Dadi’s reading of Armaan (1966) is interesting because it locates the Urdu social film within Gen Ayub Khan’s ambitions of modernity. Cinema was now seen as something the urban middle class would happily consume with guaranteed results — a sort of frobscottle of developmental politics. It was, therefore, worth the trouble of encouraging, and a number of commercially successful and critically acclaimed films were produced during this time. True to the genre, Armaan combines melodrama and realism to tackle moral and social dilemmas. Dadi describes the film as “very self-assured” in its exploration of modernity — a modernity Americanised for the 1960s with “a visual excess of Coke” forming the backdrop to the song ‘Ko Ko Korina’.
Kamran Asdar Ali’s reading of Behan Bhai (1968) makes a similar point. He interprets the plot as an allegory for the happily-ever-after promised by “modern urban life”. A family separated at Partition, whose children are dispersed across different ethnic households and classes, is reunited in the end. Gypsy pickpocket meets Pashtun pimp meets English-speaking lawyer meets rural Sindhi brother-and-sister duo against the backdrop of an exuberant, cosmopolitan Karachi. Rural meets urban, yes, but on the latter’s turf.
There was, of course, far more to Pakistani cinema than the comfortable universe of the mainstream Urdu ‘social’. Ali Khan and Ali Nobil Ahmad’s essay on horror and violence in Pakistani cinema shows that a handful of Urdu filmmakers went against the grain in producing the sort of films cynics were sure would flop. What possible appeal could a Dracula makeover have for Pakistani audiences? As it turned out, rather a lot. Zinda Laash (1967), the authors note, was produced to high aesthetic standards with considerable effort going into the choreography, stunts and costumes. Indeed, the producer’s friends “complained they could not sleep after watching it” and one viewer reportedly died of a heart attack. Notwithstanding the essay’s splendid anecdotes, the authors have a sharp eye for what makes art house horror: if the dastardly Professor Tabani wants eternal life at any cost, his female victims are remarkably self-possessed about the whole affair. The camera is bold enough to show that they are aware of their sway over other men and — in one unexpected shot — other women.