Against the Money-Laundering Machine

Recently we launched Contemplation Cinema movement. Earlier film movements by others mainly focused on creating awareness about art house cinema and experimental films. They emerged largely because of aesthetic differences. Their goal was to oppose the aesthetics of masala cinema and establish the idea of "pure art."

But we should ask why these efforts have remained marginalised art despite their intentions.

First, we must clarify the distinction between "Masala cinema" and "mainstream cinema."

Mainstream cinema includes filmmakers like Bong Joon Ho, Scorsese, Hitchcock, Vishal Bhardwaj, Zoya Akhtar, Anurag, Shoojit Sircar, Selvaraghavan and Mani Ratnam and few others. These directors operate within the mainstream framework yet strive to craft their own unique aesthetics with minimal compromise. They are not the focus of our discussion here.

Instead, I am referring to directors whose sole objective is commerce, those who take familiar, formulaic storylines (viewed merely as "cash cows") and repackage them with a superficial magic intended to mesmerise the audience. I am speaking primarily of star-driven cinema - Masala cinema.

The Dada movement emerged as a movement of protest. Because it was built mainly on opposition, it quickly lost its strength. Some of its artists later came together to create Surrealism. They understood that a movement cannot survive if it is based only on resistance. It must also create something new and constructive.

Today there are many movements that promote art house cinema and alternative cinema. But do any of them openly challenge masala cinema in the public sphere? No. Even the filmmakers within these movements remain silent.

Why this silence? Is it for fear of facing future controversies? Or fear of losing opportunities? or do they really want a place for money-making commercial cinema here?

An important clarification: our goal is not to eliminate mainstream cinema. Our goal is to prevent it from becoming the only accepted definition of cinema and from dominating every other cinematic form. Every kind of cinema should exist. What should not exist is the dominance of one particular kind of cinema over all others.

The mindset of many artists is that they prefer to remain on the margins. They see the center as something fake because mainstream cinema is often driven by money, easy emotional scenes, meaningless storytelling, entertainment, and celebration.The point is not that we should adopt the aesthetics of today's mainstream cinema. The point is that we should move toward the center and engage with a wider audience.

Many serious filmmakers also take pride in remaining marginalized. It gives them the image of being "pure artists." Perhaps because of this, they continue making films but refuse to communicate with audiences beyond the art-house world.

Ironically, it is often these filmmakers who divide audiences into "popular" and "niche." They make films with specific film festivals in mind, tailoring their work to fit those festivals and screening them mainly for the same festival audiences who have been attending for years. In doing so, they themselves create the category of the "festival film."

As a movement, I see Tamil Studio - Pure Cinema as one that combined creative work with strong criticism. It promoted meaningful artistic and cultural initiatives while openly challenging mainstream commercial cinema. Whether it still does that today is a different matter.

Our movement aims to do both. We want to create art and bring thoughtful ideas to people, while at the same time expressing a strong critique of commercial cinema and its dominance.

What viewers and followers of contemplative slow cinema should do is talk about these films in the public sphere. More importantly, they should challenge the dominant cinematic aesthetic of masala cinema, which continues to shape how people understand and experience cinema.