Charlie Chaplin : The immortal prodigious film maker

If any one person has dominated world cinema by the scope of his creative genius, it has been Charlie Chaplin.  Charlie Chaplin has been among the first few in the movie world to truly understand the power of the screen as a tool of education, art and entertainment. Where the others have sought the means of word, spoken or written, Chaplin succeeded in spreading his social gospel through his pantomime.

Charlie Chaplin is considered as one of the greatest filmmakers in the history of  cinema, whose movies are still popular throughout the world. In a career spanning over seventy five years, Chaplin gave many memorable performances. This versatile comic genius acted, directed, produced, wrote and composed music for almost all of his films and was recognized as ‘The Little Tramp’, the character he played in his silent films. Chaplin is widely accepted as one of the founding fathers of cinema and has influenced an array of filmmakers and comedians. His films show, through the Little Tramp’s positive outlook on life in a world full of chaos, that the human spirit has and always will remain the same. Some of his greatest films include ‘Modern Times’, ‘The Great Dictator’, ‘The Gold Rush’, ‘The Immigrant’ and ‘The Kid’.

Charlie Chaplin’s movies have always had a message of intense personal flavour and conviction. Charlie Chaplin provoked thought with his tender comedies. His humor focused on the simplicity of daily routines and the funniness within them. People all over the world identified with Chaplin’s character because he had the same problems, they had.  He had to work. He was often broke. He felt pain and sadness. He fell in love, and the women he fell in love with didn’t always fall in love with him. Chaplin made people laugh at situations that were sometimes painful—situations that his audience had experienced themselves. The audience worldwide recognized Chaplin on the screen as the Tramp, characterized by: his clown shoes, cane, top hat and a mustache.

Charlie Chaplin was a keen observer of the social structure that existed in the society. Chaplin through his films portrayed the day to day struggles that the working classes faced within that structure. Most of Chaplin’s films consist of a social message. Chaplin created depictions of class inequality in a new highly popular medium that reached large, cross-class audience not only in the United States but internationally. Chaplin’s personal experience in London’s poor districts during his childhood and his British cultural background made him a keen critic of the class difference which he portrayed in his American films.  Charlie Chaplin had more to him than just comedy. Charlie Chaplin opened his films with a static title card which announced the story of the film briefly to the audience.

Opening Title of Modern Times (1936)

Charlie Chaplin had a very rough childhood that truly affected his cinematic style. Themes of Chaplin’s own troubled life are very clearly visible in his films.  Charlie Chaplin’s dissenting views against the American Capitalist culture made him  a victim of McCarthyism and forced him to leave the country which was home to him for 40 years. Often people overlook and fail to appreciate the critical film making of Charlie Chaplin. Charlie Chaplin was one of the first few film-makers to truly understand and exploit the real potential of visuals in his films which continue to fascinate scholars and cinema buffs till date.

Chaplin had hired his own publicity staff by 1916 and was in control of the print exposure he got. Charlie Chaplin was not as quiet about his art as his silent screen persona would appear, in contrast he published prolifically throughout his career about film as a new art, his reaction to the American audience , his character of the tramp. His initial writings were confined to the publicity pieces of his early years.

The earliest serious attention given to Chaplin and his films  came from France, where the culture traditionally recognized arts and their benefits to the society. For the French, Chaplin represented the first artist on the screen who could reveal the human condition in a single gesture, bring lyricism to the physical brutality of his activities and promote a universalstatement on the nature of man and authority in the complex technocratic world of the twentieth century. Louis Dullec, key member of the French Impressionists (1920s) felt Chaplin’s films had all the tenets to prove film as art with its own expressive potential.

Kuriyama (1992), in her article “Chaplin’s Impure Comedy: The Art of Survival” goes a little in depth about Chaplin’s failed marriages. Charlie Chaplin’s first wife was named Mildred Harris and Chaplin married her, despite their iffy relations, only because she claimed she was pregnant. The claim was false, but soon Harris did actually become pregnant. Chaplin’s first son was born deformed and died a few days later. Charlie Chaplin blamed himself for the baby’s death and suffered his first extreme case of depression. Kuriyama (1992), believes that Charlie Chaplin’s inability to control his life actually drove him to perfect his films. She also believes that Chaplin wouldn’t have been the same as an actor and a director if not for all the tragedy that occurred in his life.

Charlie Chaplin’s movies not only give comic relief but also consist of elements of utopia which Chaplin often employs to depict and fulfill his version of the ‘the American Dream’. The use of elements of utopia and cynicism can be seen almost ubiquitously in most of his films. For Instance famously, in Modern Times (1936)  Charlie Chaplin and the Gamin enter into an idealized dream sequence – it is a comical and stereotypical vision of the perfect American home in a capitalistic society. They collectively imagine, through a dissolve, their happy life together in a bright cheery home. Chaplin is shown wearing a blazer over the clothes he wore in the initial factory sequence, which suggests that he dreams of a better standard of life and a higher position at his workplace just like any normal American. He also wears a scarf to add swagger and humor to his look. The gamine on the other hand is dressed like the stereotypical American wife; she is well dressed, has a charming smile, is always happy to serve her husband and always keeps the house nice and tidy. This sequence represents Chaplin’s American Dream. Chaplin is shown plucking an orange from a nearby tree just outside the window. Grapes are visible beyond the kitchen door which are also easily plucked. An obliging cow is quickly summoned outside the kitchen door, always available for fresh milk. And a steak is cooking on the stove. The Tramp is inspired to promise: “I’ll do it! We’ll get a home, even if I have to work for it.” They are brought back to the rough reality of their situation when a policeman motions them to move along. The dream sequence is backed by an appropriately fantasy like musical theme which is soft and melodious like the innocent dream of the pair of vagabonds.

In the same movie, Modern Times, in a Jail sequence Chaplin is shown enjoying all the modern comforts of home in his cell―good food, an open cell door, and friendly jailers. He reads in the newspaper about unemployment, labor unrest, and other dramatic events in the outside world. His room also consists of a poster of Abraham Lincoln, who was a civil rights activist and perhaps a household name in America.

In this scene, as Chaplin reads about the harsh life in America outside the jail room, we can hear the twerking of birds which is accompanied by a peaceful soundtrack which gives a normal day like feeling to the scene and momentarily erases the social stigma of the prison, which perhaps is a well crafted cynical social comment by Chaplin on the life in America where just like the rest of the industrial world, it is hard to make a living and the prison perhaps is a safer place to live in where a person is given food, shelter and protection. The presence of the poster of Lincoln in Chaplin’s jail room perhaps symbolises Chaplin’s outlook on social and economic conditions of America. Chaplin perhaps through his pantomimic narrative highpoints the need to initiate social and economic reforms to improve conditions in America. Abraham Lincoln perhaps is a role model for the Tramp who wants to follow in his footsteps to raise his  voice against the repressive social and economic structure of America during the Depression years.

The use of elements of utopia and cynicism is very common in Chaplin films. Chaplin uses these elements to give his idea of the perfect or ideal society, which is both thought provoking as well as humorous for the audience. Elements of utopia and cynicism make Chaplin’s cinema standout from the rest with its unique style and form.

Chaplin through his films desires for an egalitarian social system where the working classes have equal civil, political, social and economic rights. Chaplin perhaps desires for a society where individual rights of the working classes such as the freedom of thought and conscience, speech and expression, assembly and movement are protected from infringement by governments and private organizations so that they are not alienated from humanity.

Charlie Chaplin initially resisted the technological advent of sound in movies in 1930s for which he was heavily criticized. Chaplin feared that the addition of sound would lead to severe loss of the advantages of the pantomimic cinema. Chaplin’s resistance was an economic one as he feared loss of his market which he captured through is pantomimic cinema.

Charlie Chaplin

Chaplin was one of the rare film-makers who not only financed and produced all his films, but was the author, actor, director and soundtrack composer of them as well. Chaplin’s contribution to the field of cinema is of great importance because he was one of the first few film-makers to really understand the potential of film and played an vital role in defining film as an art form. Chaplin’s contribution to early cinema still holds relevance and importance in the present day and age and all the modern film-makers are in his debt.

Links to some of Charlie Chaplin’s Films:

Tamil Politics and Cinema: The Mutual Admiration Societies

Tamil cinema has a long history comparable to other Indian language cinemas. Since its beginning in the silent era, Tamil cinema has grown into a multi- million dollar industry. Located in the Chennai district of Kodambakkam, Tamil Nadu’s cinema city, it produces 150-200 feature films annually. It is often referred to as Kollywood, an amalgam of the words Kodambakkam and Hollywood. Describing the significance of cinema in Tamil society, Baskaran (1996) points out that ‘since its existence, Tamil cinema has grown to become the most domineering influence in the cultural and political life in Tamil Nadu’. Politics and cinema live off each other in Tamil Nadu where temples have been erected to marquee stars. Here stars have gone beyond the script and influenced the nature of politics at the regional and national level.

 

When cinema arrived in British India in the late 1890s, it took root in the three major metropolises, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras (renamed Chennai). Films were immensely popular as many theatres and cinema halls began appearing in these cities. Equally, many Indian pioneers fascinated by motion pictures ventured into film production. The Tamil film industry begins about the same time as Hindi and Bengali cinema in the second decade of the twentieth century.
The post-Independence years saw cinema and politics take different directions in North India. Though there was some political content in certain movies, there was no overt politicisation. Likewise, a few movie stars did get involved in politics but never played a pivotal role. While in recent times many are involved in election campaigns, and are essentially ornaments for the respective political parties.

However, in South India, and particularly in Tamil Nadu, politics and cinema are inseparably intertwined in a big way. The larger-than-life image of actors like N.S. Krishnan, M.G. Ramachandran, Sivaji Ganeshan, N.T. Rama Rao, and now Jayalalitha have dominated the political scene. Political leaders like the present Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and his mentor C.N. Annadurai also came in from careers in cinema, as screenplay and dialogue writers.
 Unlike in the north, Tamil film stars served as integral component of their parties. In most cases, they were the ´stars´ around whom their parties revolved. Significantly, from 1967, every single chief minister in Tamil Nadu has been a personality with connections to the silver screen.

Media moguls such as S.S. Vasan established film studios, production companies and cinema halls giving impetus to the growth of the industry. During the pre-WW2 period, films embraced new genres in addition to mythological dramas. Contemporary social themes of family disputes, caste discrimination, strong overtones of anti-British sentiments and Indian patriotism were seen in the films.
The post-war period also saw the proliferation of Tamil movies that were infused and influenced by Dravidian politics. Tamil Nadu is the home to India´s original rationalist movement, started by E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker (Periyar), known as the Suyamariyaathai lyakkam, or Self-Respect Movement, which promoted healthy political protest against caste oppression, the imposition of Hindi as national language and superstition in religion. Periyar also founded the Dravida Kazhagham or Dravidian Party in 1943, to which both today´s ruling party and chief opposition trace their lineage.(DMK and AIADMK) Periyar nurtured and cashed in on the talents of people like C.N Annadurai, who went on to form his own party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in 1949.

E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker (Periyar)

 C.N Annadurai, a writer, had under the guidance of Periyar wrote numerous plays that advocated the social causes that the party stood for including abolition of zamindari system, widow remarriage, and most importantly a passionate support for anti-Brahmin causes that included the gradual phasing out of Sanskrit and Sanskritized Tamil from the presidency. He was also an uncompromising defender of Tamil identity and heritage.
Socio-historical reasons had enabled the Brahmins to remain the ruling elite in the state. They were better educated and dominated most fields and professions. In addition there was the stamp of authority provided by orthodox Hinduism. The emerging non-Brahmin elites chose to adopt the Dravidian ideology to overthrow what they saw as Brahmin hegemony. The clearly perceived position of power that the numerically inferior Brahmins enjoyed, made them vulnerable targets. The democratic process made easy the mobilisation of non-Brahmin caste groups on the basis of the Dravidian ideology.
Periyar´s Dravidian movement was opposed to participation in politics. It was also very much under his autocratic control. A group of dissidents, including Karunanidhi, revolted under the leadership of C.N Annadurai and formed the DMK in 1949. Starting out as a social reform movement, the DMK later decided that change was impossible without capturing political power through democratic means. In 1957, the DMK decided to enter electoral politics and secured 15 seats in the state assembly and two in Parliament. In 1962, the figure went up to 50 in the state assembly and eight in Parliament. 1967 saw it capture power for the first time when it got 138 out of the 234 seats in the state. The DMK also won all the seats (25) it contested for the Lok Sabha. In 1971, the party registered a landslide victory when it captured 184 seats in the state and 23 in Parliament. The party seemed invincible.

“Of interest in all this is the role played by films and film personalities. It was the DMK that first attempted to use cinema for propaganda. Annadurai had once said that if it takes 10,000 political meetings to convey one message, it only takes one single ´hit´ movie to deliver the same.”

Annadurai’s plays, eloquently written in chaste Tamil and employing metaphors and alliterations gained popularity in both rural and urban areas. There was an aspect of communal bonding to his plays that were brought to life by guerilla theaters that were very popular with the people. Most of the actors who went on to rule Tamil Cinema during the prime of the Cinema-politics nexus had whetted their skills and politics in these theaters. The dominance of a Brahmin heavy bureaucracy which in turn was perceived to the be the lifeline of the Congress party in post independence India provided the fuel to the anti-Brahmin fire of DMK’s films. Plays like Nalla Thambi (Good Brother, 1948), Velaikari (Servant Girl, 1949) which were made into movies were instrumental in highlighting the excess of the Zamindari system and the avarice that the Congress supposedly stood for. Through these films Annadurai explained ‘‘some of the elementary principles of socialism and stressed that we should depend upon our own labor for our progress and well being and not some unknown factor.

The real impact of using movies to promote social causes however came with the introduction of electricity in the 1950′s to rural areas and the sudden growth of the local movie theaters. Parasakthi (1952) changed the landscape.

The courtroom scene from Parasakthi (1952)

At a time when movies had in excess of 50-60 songs, and subtle social messages, it created a furor and ushered in an era of strong political movies. The use of informal conversational dialogues written by debut writer M. Karunanidhi, delivered with all the passion of a stage actor by debut actor Sivaji Ganesan, the use of strong visuals of anti-elitism such as a priest molesting the heroine in front of a temple idol had a far greater impact than expected. Censor boards went into over drive protesting the abuse of Hindu customs and culture, but the movie stayed and catapulted both Karunanidhi and Ganesan into popular politics. In producing films under close censorship, the DMK turned to deception. The use of double meanings in dialogue became a DMK forte. They also created a character called ‘‘Anna’’ the Tamil word for older brother and the popular name for Annadurai who appeared in almost all the DMK films as a wise and sympathetic counselor. In an historical film, for example, the dialogue might go, ‘‘Anna, you are going to rule one day,’’ at which the audience would break into wild applause.
Karunanidhi developed a writing style that was flowery and alliterative, and it soon became very popular. Courtroom scenes, inquiries in royal courts in historical movies and short dramas introduced into films that had a modern setting, provided ample scope for Karunanidhi´s captivating writing style. His reputation had producers advertising their movies by proclaiming, “Story and Dialogue by Kalaingar (Artist) M. Karunanidhi”. When film titles were projected in the cinema halls, his name would be shown ahead of the stars and greeted with applause.
The 1950s was the period when Dravidian politics began to have a special bearing on Tamil cinema, with the newly formed Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam (DMK) effectively using cinema as a propaganda tool to reach out to the masses. Party functionaries and prolific scriptwriters C. N. Annadurai and M. Karunanidhi together with charismatic actors like M. G. Ramachandran (MGR) contributed to this objective. Personal differences arose between Ganeshan and Karunanidhi, and Ganeshan crossed over to the Congress. To make up for Ganeshan, Karunanidhi, whose dialogues were increasingly getting political, weaned an actor from the Congress camp into the DMK fold. This was M.G. Ramachandran, until then a popular hero playing swashbuckling action roles.
1950′s was in many ways the prime of social cinema. Movies had a message and the dialogues, story were unabashedly a political propaganda tool for a party and its social message. It had its downsides too, with an overactive congress ruled state decrying these movies and censoring them to the extent of making them comical. Anti-congress messages, praise for the Dravidian culture, social upliftment messages and the Hindi agitation resulted in a weakening of the congress party. The DMK party capitalized on this with a barrage of political movies that saw the meteoric rise of M.G Ramachandran (MGR) a constant in the party and an actor since 1945.

M. G. Ramachandran’s as a farmer in one of his films.

 

The 1960s witnessed a stronger bond between politics and stardom with MGR becoming synonymous with DMK. MGR’s movies decorated the virtues of the poor, downtrodden and the dignity of the labourer. With politically influenced costumes and songs that projected the hero and his party as the savior of the Dravidian people. Congress lost the election in a landslide to the DMK and never recovered its base in the state.
DMK filmmakers largely related the underprivileged position of women in society by treating them as a subset within the larger category of the downtrodden. Reference to the representation of the female as a ‘passive subject’ was useful in helping them achieve this objective.
Even as filmstars were used for political propaganda, they were using politics for their personal advancement. M.G. Ramachandran himself was constructing and consolidating a personal political base. Even when he starred in films not written by DMK idealogues, the lines he got carried hidden political meaning. An example was the constant reference to the rising sun, the DMK symbol. In colour productions, he would wear the party colours, black and red. Gradually, MGR´s screen persona started reflecting the DMK´s image. The difference between reality and make-believe blurred, and he continued to pull crowds.

This led to Annadurai famously remark “One million votes for his speech[MGR] and three million for his face.”

In his roles, MGR always appeared as an underdog, fighting oppression and injustice. He took special care to project a social message in most songs, and took care to act in different roles so that different segments of the population could relate to and identify with him. The movies, titled simply but astutely, in which he played lead roles include Padagotti (Boatman), Meenava Nanban (Fisherman Friend), Thoilaali (Worker), Vivasayee (Agriculturist), Rickshaivkaran (Rick-shawalla) and so on. These occupational groups began treating MGR as one of their own.
So powerful and lasting has been the MGR legacy that, 12 years after his death, the crowd cheered madly when Sonia Gandhi merely mentioned his name at an election meeting in Tamil Nadu.
A unique feature of the relationship between the movie stars of the Indian south and their fans was the proliferation of fan clubs. These clubs would hold special pujas in temples whenever a new movie of their matinee idol was released. M.G. Ramachandran probably encouraged the phenomenon of fan clubs from late 1940s onwards, and the clubs ended up as a well-knit federation that counted its membership in the millions. The clubs held annual conventions and also participated in social service projects.
 When MGR entered active politics, his fan clubs were in turn politicised and soon became an indispensable component of the DMK propaganda machine. The popularity of MGR within the party and state caused major convulsions. In a bid to counteract the phenomenon, Karunanidhi encouraged his son M.K. Muthu to enter movies. The father, while in office as chief minister, wrote the story and dialogue for Muthu´s first film Pillaiyo Pillai (Oh, What a Son). Muthu Fan clubs were set up overnight, with father Karunanidhi´s backing.
 MGR, realising what was in store, engineered a split within the party on the grounds of corruption charges against the incumbent regime. Incidentally, MGR did not have any problems in setting up new party structures―he merely converted his fan clubs into party branches.
In 1972 MGR, broke away from the party and floated his own that year. He named it after Annadurai and called it Anna DMK. MGR´s party won three elections in succession, securing 125 seats in 1977, 130 in 1980 and 125 in 1984. Karunanidhi had to remain content as opposition leader for 11 years. When MGR died in 1987 December, his wife Janaki succeeded him. But the government fell after one month. With MGR´s leading lady and then propaganda secretary Jayalalitha also staking her claim to party leadership, a split resulted. In 1989, a divided ADMK contested as two factions led by Janaki and Jayalalitha. The Janaki faction (one seat) was crushed by Jayalalitha (24 seats) but the DMK under Karunanidhi romped home the winner.
The MGR phenomenon was no doubt unique, and his mystique continues its hold over Tamil psyche even today. Before his death, he had come to personify the aspirations of the common people but as more than just a symbol. As political leader, he was also seen as a vehicle for realising their dreams.

MGR and Jayalalitha in a still from a 1960s tamil movie, appear to be pointing towards the rising sun (symbol of DMK).

Characteristics of Tamil Cinema:

Tamil cinema has a number of distinct characteristics that are unique to this industry. First, it has to be said that language is a critical marker of distinction. The Tamil language is only widely spoken in the state of Tamil Nadu. It is a classical living language and belongs to the Dravidian language group. In cinema, the use of Tamil generates a symbolic, embodied and affective connection to ‘Tamilness’ and Tamil identity. Movie dialogues and songs often glorify and celebrate the Tamil language, people, culture and identity. This locates both the film and the audience within a particular national imaginary and ethno-linguistic space which is Tamil and Tamil only. An important point to stress here is that because of the specificities of the language, Tamil cinema always portrays the Tamils while Hindi cinema more often than not represents an ‘Indian’ without an ethno-specific identity. The characters of Bollywood cinema are supposedly pan-Indian. Moreover, Tamil cinema set in particular locations in Tamil Nadu usually employ the respective district inflections or Tamil dialects.
Tamil cinema, it must be argued, also has distinct political and social content that sets it apart from Hindi cinema. The reverberation and articulation of Dravidian identity and Tamil nationalism are profound in Tamil cinema. A direct outcome of this is the particularisation of identity. Tamil cinema echoes a distinctly Tamil identity while Hindi cinema (Bollywood) is often regarded as emphasising a pan-Indian identity. The tendencies of separatism and linguistic nationalism asserted by the Tamils in South India are also a salient feature of the Tamil film industry.

South Indian Star Rajni Kant

Tamil cinema is always about Tamilians. This is not to suggest that Tamil cinema does not partake in Indian nationalism or privilege an Indian identity but rather, even in those scenarios, India is conceptualised through and from a Tamil (male) subject position. For instance, Mani Ratnam’s Roja and Bombay which were national hits begin with characters and places in Tamil Nadu caught at the centre of a national threat. The marking of ethnicity and the place of origin is quite common in Tamil cinema. Films are normally set in Tamil cities and villages even if they are fictional. These settings present recognisable differences and a social setting that is specific to Tamil Nadu. For instance, the construction of gender in Tamil society places particular emphasis on male and female bodies. Tamil masculinity is epitomised by the wearing of a moustache, physical prowess, authority, sexual virility and the capacity to control women. Clean-shaven male Tamil actors on screen are an exception, as opposed to Hindi cinema where it is a norm.

Indeed, Tamil cinema, like the other language cinemas of India, always tells a simple story with fanfare, melodrama and predictability. It is deeply moralising, self-righteous, and narrow-minded and upholds the social order; it also seeks to entertain as well as maintain the dominant values of a Hindu Tamil society. But it often always ‘only’ speaks to a Tamil audience. Tamil cinema for a Tamil audience speaks volumes about being Tamil. Where Bollywood nominally transcends such particularistic identities, depicting mostly generic characters, Tamil cinema employs Tamil-Indian identities both as a matter of fact and strategically.

References:

Baskaran, T. (1996). The eye of the serpent: an introduction to Tamil cinema. Madras: East West Books.

Cinema stars in politics, a strong link with huge appeal. (2014, February). Retrieved April 2014, from Ibnlive.com: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cinema-stars-in-politics-a-strong-link-with-huge-appeal/454665-8.html

Nalankilli, T. (n.d.). History of Dravidian Parties and Leaders in Tamil Nadu (DK, DMK, AIADMK, MDMK, PDK, etc.). Retrieved April 2014, from http://www.tamiltribune.com: http://www.tamiltribune.com/hist701.html

Rahman, S. (2014, February). The glorious history of Tamil language movement . Retrieved April 2014, from http://www.dhakatribune.com: http://www.dhakatribune.com/long-form/2014/feb/27/glorious-history-tamil-language-movement

Ravichandran, P. (2013, June). Movies to Medai – The Theater of Politics in Tamilnadu. Retrieved April 2014, from /sumpolites.nationalinterest.in: http://sumpolites.nationalinterest.in/2013/06/13/medai-to-movies-to-medai/

Ravindran, G. (2007, June). Tamil Cinema and Tamil Nadu Politics:Mutual Admiration Societies? or …. Retrieved April 2014, from /blogs.widescreenjournal.org: http://blogs.widescreenjournal.org/?p=214

Srivathsan, A. (2013, february). A revolution betrayed. Retrieved april 2014, from http://www.thehindu.com: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a-revolution-betrayed/article4373069.ece

Srivathsan, A. (2006, June). Films and the politics of convenience. Retrieved April 2014, from http://www.thehindu.com: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/films-and-the-politics-of-convenience/article3118113.ece

The Dravidian School of TAMIL CINEMA. (2000, June). Retrieved april 2014, from old.himalmag.com: http://old.himalmag.com/component/content/article/2159-TheDravidian-School-of-TAMIL-CINEMA.html

Velayutham, S. (2008). Tamil Cinema: The Cultural Politics of India’s Other Film Industry. New York: Routledge.

 

Open Source Cinema: The Future of Film Making

This gallery contains 5 photos.

Open Source generically refers to a software in which the source code is made available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design, free of charge. The term Open Source was coined in 1998 by technology publisher Tim O’Reilly. This principle has since been applied to culture: there are now open… Read more.