• Home
• /
• Opinion

Short, not short-changed

Film directors worldwide have started experimenting with the shorter film format. It's perhaps a realisation that most of us have gotten used to watching films online.

When I was in school, we used to have précis-writing classes where we were educated - and subsequently trained - in the value of (take a wild guess!) precision. Long-drawn-out (written) communication had its own advantages: you can hair-split and have your way with purple prose. But, at times, you needed to sift the grain from the chaff and cut to the chase, without compromising on readability or effectiveness.
I was reminded of my précis-writing classes when I watched Ahalya last week. Ahalya is a 14-minute (13 minutes if you discount the opening/closing credits) Indian film that has gone viral since it was released online recently. Its director, Sujoy Ghosh, is the same guy who directed the critically-acclaimed Kahaani (yes, yes, despite certain misgivings about the goodly amount of 'inspiration' drawn from Taking Lives), so expectations were high in any case; of course, the twist in the tale (other than the cinematic one) is that, unlike the 'feature film length' of Kahaani (that ran into a little more more than a couple of hours), Ahalya boasts of a running time of a couple of Bollywood songs.
The film has attracted with mostly positive reactions, thus proving that 'the longer, the better' penchant accorded to legions of Bollywood fans is misplaced. Clearly, most of them are perfectly happy to watch a cogently packed short film that doesn't miss out on dramatics - and flair. What struck me the most was how easy it would have been to flesh it out into a two-hour format; and how the fact that it wasn't (fleshed out) doesn't interfere with either its narrative or its showcase of characterisations. I forwarded the Ahalya link to my father; his staying power in front of the screen - small and big - is limited, which is one reason why he finds most Bollywood films insufferable. He called the next day to tell me how much he enjoyed watching the 14-minute film: "It really packed a punch!"
Increasingly, film directors worldwide have started experimenting with the shorter film format. It's perhaps a realisation that most of us have gotten used to watching films online, instead of frequenting the multiplexes. and online, you can get many more Netizens to watch your film if you are presenting them with a 15-minute getaway instead of a three-hour marathon.
There's an old-fashioned (and very annoying) purist in me that is not very pleased with this turn of events. I enjoyed Ahalya very much, but if I were to be told that, soon, all movies will be concise and like the takeaway from my précis-writing classes, I'd be extremely upset. There's some sort of a romance associated with a "full-length" playing time; I never tired of hearing from my grandmother how Gone With The Wind had two intervals because it was so long. I still believe it is quite extraordinary to be able to remain focused, to not seek instant gratification... to not be distracted because there are too many other things vying for my attention. And then, there's the whole experiential trip that I missed while watching Ahalya online - including the popcorn and the cola, the reclining chair, the mad rush to buy tickets, and the furtive whispers as the auditorium switches off its lights.
It's a lot like One-Day Internationals (ODI). I've had friends - and relatives - who didn't even watch ODIs; that's just not cricket, they would say. Cricket is what unfolds over five days at a leisurely pace, and here "leisurely" does not equal to lazy. Cricket is supposed to be leisurely so its techniques can be appreciated - and honed. These days, all my 'purist' friends have become fans of the 20:20 format.
They still complain it's just not cricket, but they've stopped being as rigid as they used to be and they enjoy the excitement of the short-form format.
sushmita@khaleejtimes.com