Bombay Talkies

7/27/2019 Bombay Talkies

1/9

Contact| Subscribe| Site Map

HOME| CONTENTS| CONTRIBUTE| ARCHIVE

Current Editorial

Some questions about

microfinance and self-help

groups

The editorial examines howself-help groups and

microfinance may not be what

they were once intended to be -

the silver bullet to eliminate

poverty - and this could soon

become a case of the cure

being worse than the disease.

Read

Letter to the Editor

Responses to t he Editorial in

Phalanx 4

Why Does the Anglophone

Indian want to be a Novelist?

Read

Reviews

Films:

Avatar

by James Cameron

Read

3 Idiots

by Rajkumar Hirani

Read

Articles list of Issue

Home> Contents> Essay: Lalit Joshi

The magical world of Bombay Talkies

(1934-54)Lalit Joshi

The beginning of the twentieth century provided all Indians associated with the project of cultural nationalism,

an opportunity t o appropriate and define the cultural space of the nation-in-the-making. In c inema, the initiative

was seized by D hundi Rao Phalk e:

Dadasaheb Phalke, who is credited with launching the Indian film industry,

appears to have been moved by a desire to occupy the screen: to place

indigenous images in the space that had until been occupied by foreign ones.For

Phalke, who situated his project within the then current swadeshi movement.the

screen was a political space.The c inematic apparatus, i. e., t he combination of

image and the spectator was consciously figured as the microcosm of the future

nation state.(1)

As time wore on, filmm akers in India grappled hard to design an aesthetic t hat

was colonial and modern at the same time. This meant an im minent possibilit y of

a flirtatious engagement wit h American and DG Phalke European

genres such as 'action', 'comedy' or 'gangster', without c ompromising with the broader goal of creating a

product that was "uniquely, recognizably indigenous."2 Numerous films produced by Prabhat, New Theatres,

Imperial Films, Ranjit M ovietone, Wadia Movietone and others in this period, bear ample testimony to the

ambivalent project of cultural nationalism. Himanshu Rai, the founder of the Bombay Talkies (1934-54), was no

exception. However, what made his enterprise different was the cautious mobilization of German technology,

Indian capital and swadeshiliterary and theatrical skills. In the absence of any definite evidence it is difficult to

envisage why Rai, a native of Calcutta, chose the city of Bombay for his venture. However, a cursory look at

the social and cultural life of Bombay in the 1930s might help us to identify some of the factors which could

have influenced his eventual decision.

Indeed, by the beginning of the 1930s, Bombay had unpretentiously grown into a sprawling metropolis. The

beginnings of the process can be traced to 1918 when the municipal authorities had begun to deliberate upon

the need to prepare a plan for the future expansion of the city.3The task was finally entrusted to C.H. Cowan,

then development officer at Salsette and by 1921 the blueprint for the rapid expansion of the city was ready.4

That y ear a number of s uburban settlements such as Borivili, Kandivili, Malad, Chembur, Goregaon and

Bhandup were brought within the municipal limits.5 Also, t he Development Directorate commissioned the

construction of 2500 houses.6Another grant of 15 lakh rupees in 1937 triggered off a spate of constructions inthe northern parts of the city - an activity that was to change the landscape of Bombay in the near future. 7By

this time, Bombay had already become home to merchants and entrepreneurs belonging to Petit, Wadia, Tata,

Readymoney, Thakersay, Walchand Hirachand, C urrimbhai, Rehmatullah and Sassoon families as well as

distinguished lawyers such as M.A. Jinnah, M.R. Jaykar, F.E.Dinshaw, L.Sanwaldas and C.Setalwad.8 The

unprecedented growth of mercantile and entrepreneurial activit y was not unrelated to the phenomenal increase

in Bombay's labor force. In 1911, about 2,72, 000 people migrated to the city. In 1921, this number swelled to

4, 14, 000 and in 1931 stood at 4, 24,000.9 Other changes which were to transform the ways in which the

island came to be connected with India and rest of the world included, the advent of telephony in 1924 and the

laying down of a telegraph cable between Bombay and London in 1927.10

These developments were not unconnected to the emergence of a whole range of entrepreneurial activities

which were to redefine t he concepts of leisure and entert ainment in the 1930s and the 40s . The Opera Hous e,

for example, had already begun to screen films as early as 1917. 11 A decade later, the situation changed so

dramatically t hat the availability of Indian and foreign films outstripped the facilities available for screening.

Perhaps this can be cited as one of the reasons for the sudden upsurge in the number of cinema halls. For

example, the Regal came into existence in 1933, followed by the Plaza in 1935, the Central Cinema in 1936,

the Broadway in 1937 and the Eros in 193812. As new viewing facilities expanded, entrepreneurs vied with

each other in setting up film companies and production units. In the 1930s, the Bombay province had 85 film

companies with well equipped studios. Among these were the Imperial Film Company, Ranjit Movietone, Sagar

Film Company, Saroj Movietone, Prabhat Pictures, Wadia Movietone and the Bombay Talkies.13This attracted

writers , technic ians, theatre artist s and music ians from north and north west ern India. Musht aq Gazdar, the

Pakistani film historian, compares the divergent situations obtaining in Bombay and Lahore:

In comparison with Bombay, Lahore film production remained an unprofitable enterprise. It was rather a

breeding ground for newcomers who wanted to quench their thirst without making a formal living from it. Artists

and technicians who made it good in Lahore were invariably attracted to Bombay, which recognized nobody

than a successful person. Bombay filmdom or Bollywood.lured men of substance into its folds, enriching itself

and causing a brain drain at other film centres 14

For Continuing Debate http://www.phalanx.in/pages/article_i005_magic

of 9 01/07/2011 08:06


2/9

Indeed, Bombay's cultural landscape and the presence of a robust entrepreneurial community mus t have

attracted Himanshu Rai when he returned to India in 1934, armed with the latest photographic equipment from

Europe. Himanshu Rai was born in Calcutta in a wealthy Bengali family. After graduating from Calcutta

University in 1892, he moved to London, where he began to practice at the Bar. There he also met up with

Niranjan Pal, w riter and dramatist, and son of Bipan Chandra Pal, the radical nationalist leader of Bengal. Rai's

association with Pal resulted in the production of some brilliant cinema early on in the history of the Bombay

Talkies.

Himanshu Rai's career in cinema was the culmination of a process that began

with the stage in London. Among his early theatric al productions Chu ChinChow

and The Goddess won him instant recognition. Nonetheless, it was the lure of

making f ilms that brought him to Munich (1924), the German c ity which hademerged as the hub of filmmaking in Europe in the 1920s. Rai visited the Emelka

Film Company, where he explored the possibility of joint projects w ith German

filmmakers. It was at Emelka that the idea of his first film - The Light of Asia

(Prem Sanyas) - was mooted. Rai was able to raise 90, 000 rupees in India for his

debut venture.15 The scenario was written by Pal and the film was directed by

Franz Osten. Rai played the protagonist (Gautam Buddha) and Sita Devi

Himanshu Rai - an Anglo-Indian whose real name was Rene Smith -

chosen to play the female lead. The film was processed at the Emelka Studios and was ready for release in

1925. T he Company was granted exclusive distribution rights for Europe.

The Light of Asiawas premiered at theatres in Vienna, Budapest, Venice, Genoa,

Brussels and London. In London it ran for ten months where it was viewed, among

others, by King George V at the Windsor Castle. 16 However, the film made little

impact on the Indian audience, perhaps because it was positioned as a European

product. Rai lost about 50,000 rupees in his maiden venture. Undeterred, he went

ahead to make Shiraz (1928) and A Throw of Dice (1929). The first was filmed

under the Emelka banner and the second under the UFA (Universum Film

Octengesselschaft). Sita Devi was retained for the first film while a new actress -

Devika Rani replaced her in the second.

The Light of Asia Devika Rani was the daughter of the famous Indian

Surgeon General M.N.Chaudhry of Madras, besides being related to the illustrious Tagore family of Bengal. An

architecture graduate, she had also studied at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts and the Royal Academy of

Music in London. When Rai sought help in designing the sets for the Light of Asia, she readily agreed. Four

years later, when A Throw of Dicewas almost complete, the two agreed to tie the knot. Their marriage was

solemnized in 1929.

Soon after, Devika Rani began to spend more time in learning filmmaking. As an apprentice with the UFA

studios, she was able to watch closely, the work of master editors such as Sternberg and Pabst. She also got

an opportunity to assist t he leading German actress Marlene Dietrich with her make up. However, the

association between Devika Rani and the German film industry proved ephemeral. One reason for this was the

introduction of sound in the mid 1920s. Sound technology necessitated fundamental changes in t he methods of

filmmaking. Thus, many old hands were laid off and new technicians hired. Perhaps Himanshu Rai and Devika

Rani were caught unwary in this hour of transition. Another reason was the gradual but steady emergence of

the Nazi party in the early 30s. The two eventually returned to London in 1933.

Their first film in England was Karma(1933). Again, Rai and Rani played the lead roles. The event was widely

reported in the British Press. The Era called her "A glorious creature," whose "large velvety eyes can express

every emotion." The News Chronicle proclaimed that "she totally eclipses t he ordinary f ilm star. All her

gestures speak and she is grace personified." The Star, commenting on her diction noted that "her English is

perfection."17 Nonetheless, Karmaflopped in India, bringing Rai's European adventure to an abrupt end. One

day, in a voice charged with emotion, he told Devika Rani, "We should learn from them (foreigners). But use

this knowledge in our country."18 But it is doubtful if patriotism alone brought Himanshu Rai back to India.

Perhaps it also indicated his failure to make a product that appealed to Indian tastes and preferences. In fact,

as f ilm historian P.K. Nair has argued, the Light of Asia, Shiraz and the Throw of Dice, "had f lashes of

technical brilliance, feeling of outdoors, and Indian dresses, architecture and rituals, but t he attempt was

abortive.(it) could not c apture the spirit of the land."19

Bombay Talkies was established in 1934 as a joint stock company with a working capital of 25 lakh rupees. 20

A summer mansion belonging to a Paris businessman F.A. Dinshaw, situated in Malad, served as a temporary

office for the company. Perhaps Bombay Talkies was India's first film company that was established modern

corporate business. With F. A. Dinshaw, Chimanlal Sitalvad, Sir Chunilal Mehta, Sir Phiroze Sethna, Sir Richard

Temple and Cowasjee Jehangir on its Board of Directors, powerful business and political interests of Bombay

Talkies were adequately represented.21From the third year of its inception, the company began to issue yearly

dividends to its shareholders.

Recalling the early history of Bombay Talkies, the Urdu writer Sa'dat Hasan Manto who was associated with

several film projects in t he 30s and 40s wrote:

Himanshu Rai was an extremely hard working filmmaker, aloof and silent, and

who kept himself busy day and night. He laid down the foundations of the Bombay

Talkies in such a manner that it would appear as an ideal production house. This

is why he selected for his company a spot that was far away from Bombay city.

22

Manto's views are endorsed by other remembrances. In an interview Devika Rani


2 of 9 01/07/2011 08:06


3/9

shared her early impressions of t he Talkies:

One of the architects of the one-big family company was Himanshu Rai. He

supervised to the last detail, the planning and construction of the

Sa'dat Hasan Manto Bombay Talkies studio and other buildings. Selection and training of personnel

received the same minute attention. Celebrated authors and scholars were constantly enlisted to conduct

personnel sem inars. Assignment of staff workers to a variety of dut ies t hat w ould

broaden their conception of the film medium was a policy he personally

implemented. He planned recreational facilities, took interest in health problems,

and even supervised the purchase and installation of electric stoves for the

canteen.23

Furthermore, the bonding that the employees shared with each other was known

to be legendary:

It was known that at Bombay Talkies, all company members of whatever caste

ate together at the company canteen. It was even said that top actors on

occasion, helped to clean floors. Himanshu Rai, perhaps with

Devika Rani Gandhi's visit to Santiniketan insisted on such scrambling of functions.24

A report published in the Times of India of May 17, 1939, featuring the visit of the Governor of the Bombay

province - Lord Brabourne and his wife to the studio complex, provides an eye witness acc ount:

The Governor of Bombay and lady Brabourne paid a visit on Thursday evening to the studios of the Bombay

Talkies Limited at Malad. They were received by Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Sir Pheroze Sethna, Directors of the

Company, Mr. Himanshu Rai and Sir Richard Temple and shown over the most up-to-date cinematograph

studios in India.Situated in delightful surroundings these studios have been planned on a systematic and careful

plan. The original house of the small estate forms the executive offices and the living quarters of certain

executives. Close by on a slightly lower level there has been built a magnificent studio equipped with the most

up-to-date appliances to expedite the moving of scenery, the mobility of cameras, the lighting of the sets etc.

Lord and Lady Brabourne were able to witness the actual shooting of a scene from the first big film produced

by the Company in which Devika Rani, the "star" of Karma is being featured.25

The report also carried details about the technology deployed in the studios and the efforts to indigenize it. It

also highlighted some of t he problems ass ociated with filmmaking in I ndia:

Beyond the giant thickly padded sound studio is a small projecting theatre in which scenes are shown to the

executives.a few hours after being shot. Further over are dressing rooms for the artistes and a music room for

necessary rehearsals. Then again there is an up-to-date laboratory for the development, fixing, drying, cutting

and synchronization of films.What apparatus could be constructed in this country such as development and

drying plant has been produced by Indian labour while the complicated machines for intricate purposes have

been imported. There are difficulties.Such things as temperature and humidity have to be controlled. Water - at

Malad only available from a not so unfathomable well - has to be filtered and cleansed.Above all the prevalence

of dust is a veritable menace.Thus the air throughout the laboratory has to be carefully filtered. All these things

have been attended to with the result that the Company is assured of first class production. Efficiency has

been set before extravagance so that these studios are on a modest scale but the best of their kind.26

Bombay Talkies began to attract talent from all parts of the country. This included directors and technicians

such as N.R. Acharya, Najam Naqvi, R.D.Mathur, Shasdhar M ukherji, Savak Wacha, M.I.Gharamse and

actors like Ashok Kumar, Kishore Sahu, Ramshakal Sarikhe, Renuka Devi and Snehprabha - all constitutingone large family.27 Besides, every year hundreds of university graduates inundated its offices. Rai personally

interviewed them and offered lucrative placements to the talented among them.28 Thus Ashok Kumar debuted

as a laboratory assis tant, R aj Kapoor as a clap boy and Khwaja Ahmed Abbas as a s cript writer.29 At its

zenith, Bombay Talkies had about four hundred people on its rolls. Most of them were Indians except a core

team comprising of European technicians. The list incorporated Franz Osten (director), Joseph Wirsching

(cameraman), Carl von Spratti (set designer) and Len Hartley(sound recordist). Never before in the history of

colonial India had such a curious blending of global talent contributed to the creation of what has been

described as a "heterogeneous mode of production." 30

Himanshu Rai and Franz Osten were responsible for the production of several significant films such as Jawani

Ki Hawa(1935), Janambhoomi(1936), Jeevan Naiya (1936), Mamta(1936), Miya Biwi(1936), Izzat(1937),

Jeevan Prabhat (1937), Nirmala (1938) and Vachan Kangan (1939).Jawani Ki H awa, the first production from

Bombay Talkies, was a racy thriller in what film historian Garga has alluded to as the 'Agatha Christie' style.31

Kamla (Devika Rani) elopes with her lover Ratan Lal (Najmul Hasan) to evade an arranged marriage. Kamla's

father quickly manages to track them down and boards the same train. Later on, it is found out that the

assassin is a criminal called Sukhdev. Thus, a tragedy is averted and the young lovers united. However, just

before the film's release another disaster was prevented. The Parsi community of Bombay appealed to the

Censor Board to restrain the screening of the film as the inclusion of two Parsi women in the film had raised

ethical questions. The Censor Board was not convinced. However, when it was finally released, the film was

favorably reviewed by the audience.

Shashdhar Mukherji (1907-70) and Ashok Kumar (1911-2002), were the early discoveries of Bombay Talkies.

Born in Rawalpindi and brought up in Jhansi, Mukherji began started as a teacher after obtaining a first class

Master's degree in Physics f rom Allahabad University. H is father Haripado Mukherji - a leading lawyer of

Jhansi, wanted his son to step into the legal profession. He even made appropriate arrangements for his son's

education in London. H owever, a f ew days before his departure, Shasdhar Mukherji met H imanshu Rai in

Bombay. The young physics postgraduate cast a favorable spell on Rai and the latter offered him immediate

placement in the sound department.32

Mukherji, because of his k nowledge (he was a voracious reader), smartness and genuine interest in all


3 of 9 01/07/2011 08:06


4/9

departments of filmmaking, rose in the esteem of the founder and came close to him. And he was increasingly

involved in production work in addition to his duties in the sound department. 33

One of the first things that Mukherji did after joining Bombay Talkies was to invite

his brother-in-law Ashok Kumar, then a science graduate in Calcutta to try his

hands at the film industry. Ashok Kumar's father was a lawyer in Khandwa and

wanted his son to pursue law . Like Mukherji, Kumar t oo was planning to elude the

legal profession. Mukherji's letter strengthened his resolve. He landed in Bombay

only to be hired as an assistant t o Joseph Wirsching in the photography and

laboratory department. He would have remained a technician for life had it not

been for the scandal of 1936, which involved Devika R ani's elopement with the

leading star Najmul Huss ain. Manto captures the incident vividly:Ashok Kumar

Bombay Talkies plunged into chaos. Some scenes had already been shot when

Najmul Hasan took his heroine awayom the celluloid world to the real. Within the

Bombay Talkies it was Rai who was the most despondent. He was Devika Rani's

husband - the mysterious heart and brain of Bombay Talkies - the 'brain behind',

as it was c alled in English.34

Rai quickly responded by terminating the services of his colleague - Nirmal

Sengupta, w hom he suspected of conniving with Hussain at the behest of the

New Theatres in Calcutta.35However, Rai's action was not adequate to defuse

the crisis precipitated by H ussain's disappearance. Joseph Wirsching

Distressed by his mentor's c ondition, Shashdhar Mukherji, then working as an

assistant under the sound engineer Savak Wacha, decided to help:

Mukherji wanted Devika Rani to return somehow. Therefore, even without consulting his boss Himanshu

Rai.by.intrigue and cunning he.was able to persuade Devika Rani t o abandon her lover Najmul H asan inCalcutta and return to the fold of Bombay Talkies which promised full development of her personality and

skills.36

After Devika Rani returned, Rai refused to negotiate with Hussain. But how was Bombay Talkies to find an

actor of his talents ?

Once again Mukherji came to his master's rescue. His brother-in-law Ashok Kumar, still learning the craft had

'good features', could also sing.Mukherji mentioned his name for the hero's role.Rai's life had been full of

experiments. He said, "We shall see". The German cameraman took Ashok Kumar's screen test and approved

him.Franz Osten pronounced just the opposite.But in Bombay Talkies, who could express an opinion contrary

to Rai's. Hence Ashok Kumar, who was in those days a young man of twenty years, was selected Devika

Rani's hero. 37

Achhut Kanyabecame the turning point in Ashok Kumar's life. Based on Niranjan

Pal's short story 'The Level Crossing', the film tried to explore a politically charged

issue of twentieth century social reform, namely, untouchability. In the film Ashok

Kumar played Pratap, t he young brahmin boy and his tender romance with an

untouchable village girl Kasturi (Devika Rani). The railway crossing was used in

the film as a metaphor for the caste system which only allowed selective mobility.

Niranjan Pal Narrative closure occurs when Pratap and Kasturi's

jealous hus band get entangled in a v iolent phy sical combat and Kast uri is run over by a s peeding train. Achhut

Kanya was also responsible for presenting the 'idealized Indian village', for the first time on the diegetic space,

a metaphor that caught the fancy of many other filmmakers. Following the success of Achhut Kanya, Ashok

Kumar and Devika Rani featured in the next four productions - Janam Bhoomi (1936), Izzat (1937), Prem

Kahani(1937), Savitri(1937):

One film aft er another.Devika Rani and Ashok Kumar became an inseparable pair.In schools and colleges

Ashok Kumar became the idol for girls.boys began to wear long-sleeved Bengali kurtas and sang "Tu ban ki

chiriya main ban ka panchi/Ban ban boloon re.38

Ashok Kumar narrated a slightly different version to Ajatshatru, his biographer:

Himanshu Rai first asked the German director Franz Osten to take my test for Jeevan Naiya. Osten told me,

"You have square jaw. You cannot become an actor. Go home. Study law.However, human eyes are sharper,

intelligent than the camera. Himanshu Rai saw s omething in me and remained firm. W hen I think about it

today, I feel it was he who faced the first challenge.only he was with me while the entire unit was against.I

think like actors, even directors have intuition.father came to rescue me from this maligned

profession.Him anshu R ai st opped him and s aid wit h great confidence, "Let this boy s tay here, he will bec ome

famous tomorrow.39

With his transition to acting complete, his salary was fixed at 75 rupees:


4 of 9 01/07/2011 08:06


5/9

Ashok Kumar was very happy.when it became 150 rupees, he was happier.when it became 250, he got

scared." He confided to Manto, "I did not know where to keep so much money.finally kept it under the

carpet.saw bad dreams.the first thing I did in the morning was to deposit the money at the post office."40

Another significant event of 1936 w as the parting of the ways between Niranjan Pal and Himanshu Rai.

Between May and October 1931, Pal had written a series of essays in Filmland, indicting Indian filmmakers for

their greed and disregard for good cinema. Marked by remarkable self-reflexivity, Pal's essays reflect a writer's

overpowering concern for the spread of greed in the film industry and the need to promote good art in the time

of swadeshinationalism.

Who are the men at the helm? The get-rich-quick adventurers who promise the unwary financier a first class

film for 5000 rupees and 300 percent profit within three months. Everyone loves to make a fortune.The average

financier is a bit of a visionary and the invitation to quick riches finds a quick response in him. Hence the

mushroom-like growth of film companies sponsored mostly by men who know nothing about the film and who

have no desire to know anything about it. 41

And again:

The Indian film industry - such as it is - will never be able to occupy a place of honour among filmmakers in the

world until such time when a set of new men - with vision and courage - take a hand in shaping its destiny. The

men in control of the industry have f ailed woefully: they have not made any original attempt, any original

contribution to the film world.I include myself as one of the failures. 42

Warning against those who were promoting inferior art in the name of swadeshiPal wrote:

We in India are too prone to raise to the seventh heaven anything which is labeled swadeshi .The

encouragement of native products is no doubt t he primary duty of every true Indian, but why encourage

failures.The film-going public are too easily satisfied.We are all making money.why s hould we bother about

engaging better artists and technicians.43

For Pal, swadeshidid not only imply a qualitative better product but also a disavowal of all foreign expertise

and help.

I place no faith in the ability of foreign experts and technicians to make Indian films. No foreigner, even if he be

a genius, can correctly interpret the intricacies and the subtleties of our culture in a manner which will be easily

intelligible to the average filmgoers.Take the case of Franz Osten, who directed Shiraz and Throw of Dice and

who was engaged to act as co-director of the Light of Asia with my humble self. During the production of this

film I had very serious difference with him which exasperated me to such an extent that finally I had to retire

from the production44

In this Pal seems to clearly reaffirm the position taken by Phalke in 1917 when the latter wrote, "My films are

swadeshiin the s ense that the ownership, employees and stories are swadeshi.45

Pal's critique of the industry became a source of embarrassment to Rai. He asked his colleague to immediately

refrain from expressing his views in print. Pal refused and quit Bombay T alkies in a huff. When Rai failed to w inhim back, Pal was replaced by Sardendu Bannerji, a novelist from Bengal. In fact, the 1936 production Bhabhi

was based on Banerji's s tory. Another addit ion to the film fraternit y was Amiya Chakrav arty, then a clerk at the

company's canteen, but who was trained by Rai to become a script writer at the studios. Between 1937-38

three more films (Nirmala, Vachan and Durga) were released and which performed moderately at the box

office.

In 1939, just when Mukherji had put together a script and started shooting, the Second World War broke out.

The Bombay government immediately ordered the arrest of all German technicians hired by the c ompany.

There is no evidence whether all German technicians at the Bombay Talkies subscribed to Nazism but Osten

was already bec ome a m ember of the Nazi party. 46 With the arrest and internment of the entire German crew

at Deolali, production came to a standstill. Kangan was finally completed by N.R. Acharya, the production

manager and Najam Naqvi, the assistant director. The film became a box-office success. Navjeevan followed,

but failed to attract audience attention. A dist raught Rai began to w ork frenetically on the sc ript of Narayani.

As Rai continued to struggle with the script of Narayani, his mental condition began to deteriorate alarmingly.

He was admitted to Bacha's Nursing Home where, he died on May 19, 1940. 47 While Rai was still in the

hospital, a script for a forthcoming production had been finalized. As was the custom Rai's final approval wasnecessary. When it was ultimately shown to him, Rai could barely turn the pages. He clutched the pages close

to his heart, m umbled some words and died a few minutes later.48

After Rai's death t he shareholders appointed Devika R ani as the production controller of Bombay Talkies.

Meanwhile, the Directors convened a special meeting to deal with the crisis where some felt that Bombay

Talkies lacked the competence to make good cinema and sought outside help. Responding to the criticism

Chunilal, the General Manager of the company stated, "All these years, the Germans have trained a group of

dedicated and hardworking youngsters.they are capable of handling their respective departments and loyal to

the company. It will be healthy to give them a chance." 49

The basic issue thus resolved, it was time to set the agenda for the future. One of the first things Devika Rani


5 of 9 01/07/2011 08:06


6/9

did was to split production under two units. One was kept under the charge of Amiya Chakravarty (1912-1957)

and the other under Shashdhar Mukherji. Born in Bogra (East Bengal, now Bangladesh), Chakravarty was

attracted to theatre from childhood. Early in his youth, he began to perform with local theatre groups and would

have blossomed into an artist of modest reckoning had it not been for the Non-Cooperation movement of

1920-22. Between the Non-Cooperation and the Civil Disobedience (1930-32) movements, Chakravarty

remained in and out of police custody. In 1935 he visited Bombay where he met Niranjan Pal who employed

him as a t utor. Later, a chance meeting with Rai provided him the opportunity to w rite the scenario f or

Punarmilan (1940) followed by Basant (1942), Jwar Bhata (1944) and Ankhen (1944), by w hich time he

assumed charge of production as w ell.

The first film to be produced under Mukherji was Bandhan(1940). Written by Gyan

Mukherji and directed by N.R. Acharya, the film had Ashok Kumar and Lila Chitnis

in the lead. Bandhan whose script was perhaps the last to be approved by

Himanshu Rai, turned out to be a runaway success. Writer Upendranath Ashk,

recalls the event:

After Ac hhut Kanya many films of t he Bombay Talkies flopped one af ter t he other.

The financial situation was in doldrums. Around this t ime a person, who w as a

sound recordist, narrated.Chakravarty's story to Himanshu Rai and his

wife.Devika Rani. Both liked it.The film was a hit at the box-office. The name of

the film was Bandhan and the sound recordist

Lila Chitnis Shashdhar Mukherji.50

Bandhan'ssuccess set the tone for other productions such as Jhoola(1941) and Naya Sansar(1941). Directed

by N.R. Acharya, Jhoolas's song 'Main to dilli se dulhan laya', composed by Saraswati Devi of the Achhut

Kanya fame, became very popular. Likewise, Naya Sansar,a film scripted by a young Khwaja Ahmed Abbas

and whose story underscored the v irtues of fearless journalism, was received with much acclaim. Thus,

Bombay Talkies seemed to have hit upon the right formula. Ashok Kumar Devika Rani and Leela Chitnis had

indeed become household names. Pran Neville vividly remembers one such moment in Lahore:

As we grew up, we got more and more interested in romantic themes and began visiting cinema houses in

Mcleod Road where tickets for the lowest class cost six annas.By now, film music had struck deep roots in

the people's mind. Film songs were pressed into discs and gramophones became a familiar feature in many

households. Booklets containing film songs were available for one anna each, while those containing dialogues

were sold for two annas each.Among the popular songs of the days were "Chal Chal Re Naujawan", by Ashok

Kumar.A memorable event around 1941 was the maiden visit of Ashok Kumar and Leela Chitnis to Lahore.

After the resounding succes s of Kangan, Bandhan and Jhoola, I recall how the young people crowded the

Railway Station to have a glimpse of the stars as they alighted from the t rain. Later, t hey appeared on the

Regent stage during the screening of Jhoola.51

Out of the three films made by Bombay T alkies between1942-43, only one brought

significant returns at the box office. This was Kismet(1943). However others such

as Basant (1942) and Hamari Baat (1943) were moderately successful. For

Basant, Devika Rani was able to persuade Mumtaz, t he famous actor from

Lahore, to play the lead role. Besides, she cast herself opposite Jairaj for the lasttime in Hamari Baat.

The last landmark film produced by Shasdhar Mukherji was Kismet (1943). Kismet

was made at a t ime w hen the film industry was ravaged by wartim e short ages and

obtrusive censorship. The plot of the film is built around a vagabond pickpocket

Shekhar (Ashok Kumar), who befriends a former theatre owner. Shekhar's falls in

love with his f riends' beautiful daughter Rani (Mumtaz Shanti). M uch to Shekhar's consternation, financial

distress forces Rani into the dancing profession. She becomes a virtual slave of Indrajit, the new owner of her

father's theatre. The climactic scenes are played out in the film when Shekhar breaks into Indrajit's house in

order to raise money for Rani's expensive surgery and is pleasantly surprised to discover that Indrajit is his

own father. Kismet became a runaway success because of the way in which montage was deployed to

maintain the pace of the narrative and its m elodious songs.

Kismettouched upon three major areas. The first of these was the glamorization of urban vagrancy and petty

crime, a theme that was elaborated by later filmmakers like Raj Kapoor and Dev Anand. The second was the

idea of melodramatic family division and reunion called upon by several successive filmmakers. The high point

of the film however remained the invocation of mother India in the famous song Aaj Himalaya Ki Chhoti Se PhirHamne Lalkara Hai/ Dur Hato Tum Duniya Walon Hindustan Hamara Hai. The frontal positioning of mother

India in the song and her darsanic gaze became the sine qua non of post-war national awakening in India.

By the time Kismetwas released irreconcilable differences had developed between Mukherji and Devika R ani.

One writer suggests that after the stupendous success of Kismet, Mukherji wanted a raise in his salary. But

Devika R ani resolutely declined. Consequently, Mukherji along with fourteen others including Ashok Kumar,

Chunilal, Gyan Mukherji, Savak Vacha, Dattaram Pai and Marshall Braganza, quit Bombay Talkies and founded

a new company in Goregaon and named it Filmistan (1943).52 The exodus of Mukherji and Ashok Kumar from

the Bombay Talkies threw the company into further turmoil. The situation was aggravated by the production of

three flops in a row. The first of these was Char Ankhen(1944), directed by Sushil Majumdar and with Leela

Chitnis and Jairaj in the lead. The second was Jwar Bhata (1944), Dilip Kumar's debut film and t he third,


6 of 9 01/07/2011 08:06


7/9

Pratima (1945), starring Dilip Kumar and Swarnalata. Incidentally, Pratima became the last film produced by

Devika Rani.

Devika Rani married Svetsolav Roerich, son of the famous painter Nicholas Roerich in 1945 and decided to

settle down in the Kulu valley in Himachal Pradesh. 53Her shares were bought by Shiraz Ali Hakim, then owner

of the Famous Studios of Bombay. This event in fact signaled a gradual yet steady dismantling of the Bombay

Talkies. When India was partitioned in 1947, Ali Hakim decided to relocate to Pakistan. Once again ownership

switched hands. The new owner of Bombay Talkies was Gobindram Sakesria, a prosperous Marwari cotton

magnate.54 His manager Hiten Chaudhry was able to bring back into the fold Ashok Kumar, Savak Vacha and

Josef W irsching, who had been released after the war.55

A series of films followed. Among these was Milan(1946), directed by Nitin Bose, Nateeja (1947), directed by

Najam Naqvi; Majboor(1948), directed by Nazir Ajmeri; and Ziddi(1948), directed by Shahid Latifi. Ziddiw as

Dev Anand's debut film and became quite a rage. Two other films of this period deserve special mention.

Mahal (1949), written and directed by Kamal Amrohi, with Ashok Kumar and Madhubala, became s uch

sensation that it seemed that Bombay Talkies was well on its way to recovery. The second was Sangram

(1950), directed by Gyan Mukherji and which launched Nalini Jaywant to fame.

When Ashok Kumar and Vacha left Bombay T alkies for the s econd time (1950), catastrophe followed. The

management of the studios was handed over to a worker's cooperative which struggled to produce three films -

Mashaal(1950), Maa (1952) and Tamaasha (1952), all commercial failures. The Cooperative was under serious

financial debt. Ashok Kumar, Dev Anand, Meena Kumari and many others came to its rescue by pledging to

work free for its films . The last film to be produced was Badban (1954). Soon after, Bombay Talkies w as

purchased by Tolaram Jalan, a financier who had acquired Filmistan in 1953. One of the first steps that Jalan

took was to order the gates of the studio to be permanently locked. Plans were subsequently unveiled for

converting Bombay Talkies into an industrial centre. A prolonged and inconclusive legal battle ensued. It was

evident that the curtains had finally fallen over one of the most ambitious and imaginative cultural projects of

modern India.

To ascertain why a company like Bombay Talkies with a sound financial and technical infrastructure collapsed

in 1954, is not easy.56One can only surmise that the roots of the crisis lay in the failure of Bombay Talkies to

keep pace with t he new modes in w hich capital, technology and human resources w ere being mobilized to

make films. Narottam Vyas, a writer-in-residence both at Prabhat and Bombay Talkies, remorsefully recalled

the situation obtaining in the 1940s.

As the indus try gained dim ensions, m ushroom producers came in large in large numbers and the firs t thing they

did was to eliminate the position of the writers. They wrote stories themselves or adapted Hollywood films.

After the Second World W ar, making of original st ories became a taboo.57

Statistical accounts prepared by the I ndian Motion Pictures Almanac show that around 1942, there was a

sudden explosion in the number of independent producers in the film industry. 58 Evidence shows that during

the war, a whole range of new industries related to electrical and mechanical engineering, metallurgy, food,

paints and dyes were set up to meet the war demand. Thus there were profits to be made in every kind of

entrepreneurship. Besides, a domestic regime of rationed s upplies s timulated profiteering.59 It is possible that

a part of this wealth was ploughed back into the film industry.

The films made by Bombay Talkies made little pretence of refiguring

contemporary political struggles. For example there was little attempt to

address the question of class inequality when Filmistan had already

produced the much acclaimed Mazdoor - a film indicting the capitalist

syst em f or creating sharp inequalities between industrial labor and the

owners of wealth. The caste question figured in Achhut Kanya,

allegorically as the love st ory of Pratap and Kasturi, but its resolution was

sought in the refutation of untouchability and not in the rejection of the

caste system as whole. A reformed India could now gaze at its margins

with sym pathy. Like class , the women's question was treated with

indifference. T his was when productions from other Achhut Kanya

studios such as Aurat Ka Badla (1930), Amar Jyoti

(1936), Duniya Na Maane(1937) had dared challenge patriarchy.

Nevertheless, it would it would be harsh to dismiss the films made by Bombay

Talkies as light comedies as writer-director Khwaja Ahmed Abbas has done.

While the pictures of Prabhat and New Theatres w ere noted for their dramatic

appeal, Bombay Talkies established itself with light c omedies.60

Priya Jaikumar has recently suggested that t he "narrative and

K.A. Abbas visual strategies developed in Achhut Kanyaare no less

complex than in V. Shantaram's films."61 Indeed, the films of Bombay Talkies

differed from those made by its contemporaries in one significant way - they had less complicated dialogues. A

disclosure made in this regard by Colin Pal, the son of Niranjan Pal is particularly interesting.

Both Bengalis [Rai and Pal] who understood precious little Hindi stipulated that no dialogue be passed until they


7 of 9 01/07/2011 08:06


8/9

could follow it.J. S. Kashyap (dialogue writer and lyricist) would literally t ear his hair in trying to make his

dialogues simple enough.62

Bombay Talkies was clearly a modernist project, perhaps in the way all modern Indian art was. The modern

aesthetic became an instrument f or redeeming India's past f rom its recent humiliation and despair. Perhaps this

is why a frontal attack on contentious questions emerging during the nationalist movement was carefully

avoided. Had there been a direct engagement, filmmaking in the colonial period would have charted a different

course.

Notes/ references

1. M. Madhava Prasad, The State in / of Cinema, in Partha Chatterji (ed.), Wages of Freedom, OUP,

New D elhi, 1998, p.123

2. Ibid.p.124.

3. Sharda Dwiv edi and Rahul Mehrotra, Bombay, The Cities Within, India Book House, Bombay, 1995,

p.208.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid. p.209.

7. General Wage Census, First Part, Perennial Factories, Third Report, Bombay Government, Bombay,

1937, p.61-64.

8. Ibid. p. 215.

9. Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Private Investment in India, Orient Longmans, 1972, p.125.

10. Dwivedi and Mehrotra, p.209. Bombay offered other advantages such as (a) its predominance over

maritime trade (b) 90 percent of the textile industry controlled by Indian capital and (c) its

demographic heterogeneity (Meera Kosambi, Bombay in Transition, The Growth and Social Ecology

of a C olonial City, Amkvist and Wiskell International, Stockholm, Sweden, 1986, pp.50-57)

11. Dwivedi and Mehrotra, p. 211.

12. Ibid. p.229-235.

13. Sumita Chakravarty, National Identity in Indian Cinema, OUP, Delhi, 1996, p.208.

14. Pakistan Cinema (1947-1997), OUP, Karachi, p.8. By this time Bombay had also dislodged Calcutta

as an attractive destination for trade, investment and politics. But this was also partly due to the

transfer of capital from Calcutta to Delhi in 1912 and the emergence of the United Provinces as a

centre for nationalist struggle (Claude Markovits, Bombay as a Business C entre in the Colonial

Period: A Comparison with Calcutta, in Sujata Patel and Alice Thorner (eds.) Bombay, Metaphor for

Modern India, OUP, New Delhi, 1996, p.36.

15. E. Barnouw and S. Krishnaswamy, Indian Film, OUP, New Delhi, 1980, p.95.

16. Basu Bhattacharya, Pioneers from Bengal, Cinema Vision, Vol.1, No.1, 1980, p.59.

17. Cited in Barnouw and Krishnaswamy, p.98.

18. Ibid.

19. And the Swadeshi Film Was Born,Journal of South Asian Cinema , Vol.1, February, 2001, no.1, p.45.

20. B.D. Garga, So Many Cinemas, Eminence Designs, Bombay, 1996, p.105.

21. Ibid.

22. Saadat Hasan M anto, Meena Bazaar, R ajkamal Prakashan, New Delhi, 2001, p.30.

23. Cited in Barnouw and Krisnaswamy, p.119.

24. Ibid. p.103.

25. Flashback, Times of India, 1990, p.112.

26. Ibid.

27. Garga, p.111.

28. Barnouw and Krishnaswamy, p.100.

29. Ibid.

30. Prasad makes a s ignificant dist inction between filmmaking in Hollywood and Bombay. H e argues that

while in Hollyw ood it is the transf ormation of the "raw material, the story scenario, into a film", in

Bombay "separate components" are developed and "assembled into the final product." For details see

M.Madhava Prasad, Ideology of the Hindi Film, A Historical Construction, OUP, New Delhi, 1998, pp.

42-45.

31. Garga, p.106.

32. R.M. Kamtekar, S.Mukherji, Committed to Cinema, Screen, 1995, p.69.

33. Ibid.

34. Manto, p.30.

35. Bombay Talkies, in Rafique Baghdadi and Rajiv Rao, Talking Films, Harper Collins Publishers I ndia,

Delhi, p. 352.

36. Manto, p.30.

37. Ibid. p.31

38. Ibid.

39. Ajatsatru,Ashok Kumar, Samvad Prakashan, Meerut, p.25.

40 Manto, pp.31-32.

41. India and the Screen, F ilmland, May 2, 1931, reprinted in Samik Bandopadhyaya (ed.), Indian

Cinema: Contemporary Perceptions from the Thirties , Celluloid Chapter, Jamshedpur, 1993, p.80.

42. Ibid., India and the Film Industry I, Filmland, May 9, 1931, p.82.

43. Ibid.

44. India and the Film Industry II, Filmland, May 16, 1931, p.85.


8 of 9 01/07/2011 08:06


9/9

45. Essays on the Indian Cinema, Navyug, November/December, 1917, cited by Asish Rajadhyaksha,

The Phalke Era: Conflict of T raditional Form and M odern Technology, in T .Niranjana, P.Sudhir,

V.Dhareshwar (ed.), Interrogating Modernity, Seagull, Calcutta, 1993, p. 66.

46. Ashish Rajadhyaksha and Paul Willeman (eds.), Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, OUP, New Delhi,

1995, p.250.

47. Baghdadi and Rao, p.353.

48. Barnouw and Krishnaswamy, p.120.

49. Ibid.

50. Upendranath Ashk, Filmi Jeevan Ki Jhalkiyan,Vol.1, Neelabh Prakashan, Allahabad, 1993, p.34.

51. Pran Neville, Lahore : A Sentimental Journey, Harper Collins Publishers India, 199, p. 165.

52. Baghdadi and Rao, p. 355.

53. Several years later Devika Rani confessed to the film critic Iqbal Masud that she sold off the Bombay

Talkies to escape the confusion of Bombay and spend the rest of her life in idyllic conditions (Iqbal

Masud, Dream Merchants, Politics, Partition, H arper Collins, New Delhi, 1987, p.51).

54. When Masud asked Devika Rani about t he incident she cryptically answered that the Marwaris

destroyed it (p.53).

55. Baghdadi and Rao, p.356.

56. At this point one can also not resist the temptation of contrasting the situation in Bombay with that

obtaining in Hollywood in the late 1940s when hundreds of studios were closed down. Competition

from foreign films, falling number of cinema audiences, the birth of television and the interventions by

the Justic e department c ontributed to t his malaise. A c ultural shift which w as influencing the leisure

habits of thousands of Americans could also be detected. Researchers have found that m ore and

more Americans were cashing saving c ertificates iss ued during the war and buying properties in the

suburbs. This raised the cost of watching movies as most theatres were still situated in the heart of

the city. The final blow was dealt by the Justic e Department in 1948 which intervened in 1948,

accusing studio owners of block booking and violated thereby t he provisions of t he Sherman

Anti-Trust Act. Following a Supreme Court many prominent studios (MGM, Warner Brothers,

Paramount, C olumbia) were dismantled. D ouglas Gomery has examined these developments in much

detail (The Hollywood Studio System: A History, British Film Institute, London, 2006).

57. Narottam Vyas, Writers Were Better Respected, Indian Talkie, 1937-56, Film Federation of India,

Bombay, 1956.

58. Between 1940-1947, the number of independent producers increased from 42 to 125 and the total

number of producers from 100-214. These figures were prepared by the Indian Motion Picture

Almanac and cited in Barnouw and Krishnaswamy, p.121.

59. B.R.Tomlinson, The Economy of Modern India, 1860-1970, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

1995, p. 142.

60. Cited in Chakravarty, p.72.

61. Cinema at the end of Empire, Seagull, Calcutta, 2006, p.228.

62. Ibid. p.229.

Lalit Joshi is Professor of History at the University of Allahabad

Lalit Joshi is a Professor in the Department of History at Allahabad University. His areas of teaching and

research include Cultural Globalization and the History of Cinema. He has published extensively in Hindi and

English in international and national journals and anthologies. His manual on Hindi Cinema titled HOUSE FULL

is going through a second edition. His recent publications include Bollywood Texts (Vaani, New Delhi, 2010)

and Mapping India's Cultural Globalization (Orient Blackswan, Forthcoming).

Top

Home | Editor's Desk | Open Page | Content | Contribute | Archive | Manifesto | People | Contact | Subscribe | Site Map | Privacy policy | Legal

2007 PHALANX. All rights reserved | it's an iDesigns creation


9 of 9 01/07/2011 08:06

Documents

Bombay Talkies