Perhaps no autopsy has been performed with the frequency, and dare I say relish, as the one on Pakistani cinema. Time and again, we are regaled with causes and concerns for the cinema industry and yet the silver lining refuses to emerge amid the dark clouds.

However, what is surprising, and perhaps telling, that such magazine articles and news packages speak almost exclusively of industrial and infrastructural concerns. We get to hear of the closures of cinema halls, the lack of investments, the import of foreign films, the avenues for growth and the margins for profits.

When the discussion does belatedly turn to content, we find everyone recounting the same old story.

Contemporary Pakistani films, and indeed Pakistani films of the past few decades are formulaic, escapist, absurd, stale, vulgar, cheap, in short, not worth our time, which is why they are failing as a financial entity. However, there was a 'golden age' of Pakistani cinema, which occurred during the ’60s and ’70s, and that was also the time when cinema made money.

At this point, almost every author of such tales instructs young filmmakers with the pithy advice that they should make films with 'good scripts' and watch as the audiences come flocking in droves and bring the cinema back to life. (This piece of advice is about as useful, and obvious, as telling someone to make sure they have sound in their film, as audiences love that.) A few elaborate further, calling for films which are 'important' 'relevant' and hold a 'mirror up to society.'

But if we are to focus on the cinema as an industry, and to concern ourselves with how to make profitable films, the first thing we have to see is which films make money. A cursory glance at almost every major cinema industry all over the world would show that both the bread and butter films, and those that form the majority of the hits, are of the formulaic, predictable, cliched variety that the critics claim are the reason why our cinema has reached a nadir. In contrast, most of the critical, artistic films rarely make any money, and rarer still are films which are both commercially and critically successful. The cinema as an industry thrives on lots of simplistic, formulaic, and ultimately escapist films in most places around the world. So why do our authors and critics continue to write about how about making films which are simultaneously are artistic and financial blockbusters when it is patently clear that it is extremely difficult to have your cake and eat it too?

The confusion that arises is because our writers forget, or are perhaps not aware, of the subtle difference between a cinema industry, and a cinematic tradition. The former is the concern for producers, loan managers, production companies, media corporations, in essence, suits. The latter is what filmmakers need to worry about and think of.

Unfortunately, it is a common covenant amidst our chattering classes that Pakistani cinema has no worthy tradition, that it is trashy, vulgar, bizarre, at best to be laughed at and at worst, to be ridiculed.

Part of this reaction is caused by the fact that our films have become stale and repetitive over recent history. However, the remedy to this situation does not lie in trying to mimic cinematic traditions and movements (ranging from the Italian or Iranian realists to the glamorous Bollies and Hollies) but trying to identify, and hence revive or re-create one of our own.

The reason I say that revive and re-create is the first step of understanding Pakistani cinema because it has been around for much longer than the television, or the music industries, from a time pre-dating partition, and one which has existed in at least six, and probably more, different languages. The cinematic landscape of our country is neither barren nor desolate. It has existed for long enough to develop it own organic style, and it is this style we must investigate. To sum up, Pakistani cinema may be many things, but being dead is not one of them.

--------------------------------------

In cultures such as those in South Asia, and in the African countries where these films are proving to be hits, there is a vibrant and long-standing tradition of oral epics. Oral epics are (as the name makes clear) long, and require simple structures with flat, identifiable characters (hero versus villain). Most importantly, they are always grounded in a moral landscape. In contrast, 'literate' narratives are more concerned with plots and character development.

Thus in oral narratives, the story is driven by the moral choices of the character, and the ultimate confrontations between opposing moral values. The characters themselves are always embodiments of certain values, which means that within the course of the plot, they are not expected to have an internal psychological logic to their actions, but rather a moral one. Maula Jutt fights Noori not because of unresolved oedipal complexes, but because he is good and Noori is evil. In contrast, literate narratives are moved by their plot and situations, and the characters' responses highlight their personal psychological make-ups.

This explains the reason why Bollywood films were such hits in those African countries. It is because their oral narrative allowed the audience to understand the story in an 'oral' sense. This is why these films use techniques such as multiple zoom-ins, exaggerated scores, sudden plot twists, and this is why they are prone to the genre-blending (or to use the more popular term, masala) style that they have. In all these ways, they managed to reach their audiences even when they didn't speak their languages.

Oral narratives and styles are also prevalent in Far Eastern cinema, along with Bollywood, and the recent cinematic developments in both regions sheds light on why the Pakistani cinematic tradition finds itself currently stalled.

The advent of satellite television and Hollywood imports in these countries gave a widespread exposure to films from other narratives and traditions. These led to a variety of responses, but there are two that I would like to focus upon.

In India, the traditional style was reinvented in a form which proved to be a huge hits among the burgeoning middle classes and the NRI (non-resident Indian) crowd. Films such as “Hum Aapke Hain Kaun” and “Dilwale Dulhaniye Le Jayenge” brought in stories from the middle classes, both home and abroad. The films moved away from the traditional village and shanty towns, and in the process also left behind the staples of crime and violence. In their place came huge family weddings, saas-bahu drama, and the pressures of upholding traditional values in the modern world.

In essence, the films retained a lot of the characteristics they always had in terms of how characters were portrayed and how the plot was hostage to sudden twists, and the ultimate conclusion was as always moralistic. Yet the incorporation of new aesthetics and new situations, as well as greater individual investment in characters allowed for the revamp of the traditional style.

In the Far East, directors from South Korea to Hong Kong took a different approach. They held on to the unique visual aesthetics that in many ways typified their cinema, but began to use their character to seemingly deconstruct and question the moral landscapes which hung over their films. To explain this rather grandiose statement, I'll give an example.

Martin Scorcese's “The Departed” was a great triumph of American cinema, with its pulsating plot, its grandiose characters, its’ razor-sharp dialogue. But the film itself was a remake of a Hong Kong film called "Infernal Affairs". In the original, the focus shifts away from the breakneck speed of the plot, and settles around the choices and values of the characters. The question of what it means to be good and just is repeatedly asked by and of, both the undercover cop and criminal. It is a great example of how that film brings in elements of modern cinema and yet remains inexorably linked to its own organic rootings.

I mention these two examples because they set in contrast, the problems besetting Pakistani cinema. The industry's crisis has been its repeated failure to reinvent and revamp its styles and themes for contemporary times. And this, rather than securing sponsorships and negotiating contracts, is what the focus of new filmmakers in Pakistan needs to be – the challenge of reinterpreting and reclaiming our cinematic tradition.

Next week, watch this space for more on the future of filmmakers in Pakistan and the feasibility of making films in the country.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.