Revitalising our cinema halls
Friday, 12 November 2010
Nizam Ahmad
DURING the 1960s, going to cinemas was popular in Dhaka and throughout the country. A sudden decline came in the 1970s and now three decades later the habit of going to cinemas is almost extinct. The city enjoys Indian and other movies -- but indoors, at homes or private clubs.
In the 1960s, as I remember, Dhaka movie halls used to be packed even though Indian movies were disallowed as now. There were nice cinema halls, clean toilets, good tea stalls, parking space, and decent people watching movies with friends and families but all of that have virtually disappeared.
One reason we do not go to cinema halls any more, or go rarely, is because good movies are hardly produced or imported these days. Good movies by Bangladeshi producers are hard to come by only because our film industry is one of the most protected industries in the country. With excessive protection from foreign competition the industry remains not only much below its capacity but is dying. Our movie industry has been unable to produce quality cinemas, or give good earnings to those who live off it. Acting and production standards have deteriorated. Nothing has improved although there are still cinema-goers but typically from the industrial areas enjoying locally produced movies, but their number is not adequate for the industry to survive or to thrive. That there is no new cinema halls built [other than one in a modern shopping complex] or refurbished is a proof that there is little money to be made from the current volume of cinemas on big screens.
The government owns and operates a film studio complex and remains politically promise bound to protect the industry from foreign competition for all times. This has spelled a disaster for the industry. Protection is not from English movies but from those in Hindi from India, or in Urdu from Pakistan. There is a fear that if Indian or Pakistani movies are allowed in movie halls none would see Bangladeshi movies, or even make one. There would be unemployment in thousands. This reasoning is absolutely fallacious.
There are people in Bangladesh, and will be always, who are passionate about movie making, acting, or going to a movie hall as in any country. There were good movies made in the past perhaps in competition with movies in Urdu, but without any competition today the movie industry has almost collapsed. No industry can survive or do well under a closed protective environment. To exist well or prosper, any trade or profession must be built on a competitive footing.
Other than the commercial fear of bankrupting the local film industry there is a political aspect to government protection also. A government would be blamed for opening our market as a 'bazaar' for Indian movies at the cost of our own. This would be true if only Indian movies are permitted by government to government' [G2G] arrangements. All G2G agreements, unless in the realm of foreign policies, are always questionable. Governments tend to favour a lobby that is dear to them and contemptuously ignore others. Furthermore, government bureaucrats, of any nationalities, do not understand business and consequently disfigure markets and ruin natural economic potentials that would arise spontaneously with the uninterrupted interchange of free market forces.
Economic issues with government interventions tend to remain bogged down in complicated political matters. The liberalisation move may not be questioned, or seen as a favour to one country, if the free market [i.e. any importer] is free to decide which movie to import, how many, for how long, and at what price. All a government would need to do is protect property which means protecting the cinema halls and the viewers in it. Other than this desirable and necessary role of providing physical protection to life and property, government bureaucracy or political intervention in the film industry is harmful and it has been so.
What is happening with our neighbours today in the commercial and economic context as with transit, port, and the so-called 'connectivity' is one of perplexity and misgivings because of G2G dialogues and decisions on economic issues. The correct way would be to help people conceptualise liberalised cross-border trade and investments with a prolonged, open, informative, and educational discourse on the benefits and compulsions of 'deregulations' with government taking a lesser role.
Our motion-picture industry is possibly under the grip of a private cartel emboldened by government assurances. They are perhaps in the wrong business but manage to sustain or make some profits only with government protection. For their unjustified gain the screening of Indian or Pakistani movies in cinema halls that the people of this country could enjoy to the last penny are outlawed. We watch them at home and buy them in open markets but the screening them in cinema halls becomes unlawful. This is completely irrational.
Our film industry could become extinct as the dinosaurs if it continues to shy away from competition and persistently denies the very nature of consumer preference and choice. But, the same silver screen industry, in its due time, could become vibrant and go global if it is in competition with other movie makers of the world. It is competition alone that can enrich any industry. Let the government do nothing to enhance competitiveness other than physically securing their investments, properties, and their lives.
In a democracy, a government must also defend personal rights and preferences. The protectionists or the government cannot violate this. People do not become Indian or Pakistani supporters if they enjoy their TV programmes or movies. All foreign movies should be freely importable and that alone could trigger a boom in building modern movie halls across the country. There are so many new buildings in the country but rarely for cinemas or film studios which is a shame. Cinema halls can provide people quality leisure time with friends and families, and perhaps eve teasing could decline as romantic episodes do teach that unreturned affection is perhaps undesirable but romancing itself is never without values or ethics.
Modern movie halls can satisfy the leisure and entertainment demand, if not need, of a population that has more than doubled since the 1960s. More halls across the country mean more businesses and employment to offset any job losses that may come with the end of government protection.
But, the movie halls must be free to price their tickets just as restaurants have the freedom to price their dishes. Governments must dump their traditional price fixing and only then cinema importers and makers would risk high-quality movies and price them accordingly. The hall owners may invest in screens or in the sound system, and improve or build more halls but only if there is no price caps on hall tickets, or the industry not heavily taxed by our bureaucracy and politicians who are too eager to meddle in economic issues and making a mess.
The opening or not opening of the big screen industry may not be an immediate national concern but choice and freedom of the people is a priority issue, and must be addressed with other urgent matters of the day.
DURING the 1960s, going to cinemas was popular in Dhaka and throughout the country. A sudden decline came in the 1970s and now three decades later the habit of going to cinemas is almost extinct. The city enjoys Indian and other movies -- but indoors, at homes or private clubs.
In the 1960s, as I remember, Dhaka movie halls used to be packed even though Indian movies were disallowed as now. There were nice cinema halls, clean toilets, good tea stalls, parking space, and decent people watching movies with friends and families but all of that have virtually disappeared.
One reason we do not go to cinema halls any more, or go rarely, is because good movies are hardly produced or imported these days. Good movies by Bangladeshi producers are hard to come by only because our film industry is one of the most protected industries in the country. With excessive protection from foreign competition the industry remains not only much below its capacity but is dying. Our movie industry has been unable to produce quality cinemas, or give good earnings to those who live off it. Acting and production standards have deteriorated. Nothing has improved although there are still cinema-goers but typically from the industrial areas enjoying locally produced movies, but their number is not adequate for the industry to survive or to thrive. That there is no new cinema halls built [other than one in a modern shopping complex] or refurbished is a proof that there is little money to be made from the current volume of cinemas on big screens.
The government owns and operates a film studio complex and remains politically promise bound to protect the industry from foreign competition for all times. This has spelled a disaster for the industry. Protection is not from English movies but from those in Hindi from India, or in Urdu from Pakistan. There is a fear that if Indian or Pakistani movies are allowed in movie halls none would see Bangladeshi movies, or even make one. There would be unemployment in thousands. This reasoning is absolutely fallacious.
There are people in Bangladesh, and will be always, who are passionate about movie making, acting, or going to a movie hall as in any country. There were good movies made in the past perhaps in competition with movies in Urdu, but without any competition today the movie industry has almost collapsed. No industry can survive or do well under a closed protective environment. To exist well or prosper, any trade or profession must be built on a competitive footing.
Other than the commercial fear of bankrupting the local film industry there is a political aspect to government protection also. A government would be blamed for opening our market as a 'bazaar' for Indian movies at the cost of our own. This would be true if only Indian movies are permitted by government to government' [G2G] arrangements. All G2G agreements, unless in the realm of foreign policies, are always questionable. Governments tend to favour a lobby that is dear to them and contemptuously ignore others. Furthermore, government bureaucrats, of any nationalities, do not understand business and consequently disfigure markets and ruin natural economic potentials that would arise spontaneously with the uninterrupted interchange of free market forces.
Economic issues with government interventions tend to remain bogged down in complicated political matters. The liberalisation move may not be questioned, or seen as a favour to one country, if the free market [i.e. any importer] is free to decide which movie to import, how many, for how long, and at what price. All a government would need to do is protect property which means protecting the cinema halls and the viewers in it. Other than this desirable and necessary role of providing physical protection to life and property, government bureaucracy or political intervention in the film industry is harmful and it has been so.
What is happening with our neighbours today in the commercial and economic context as with transit, port, and the so-called 'connectivity' is one of perplexity and misgivings because of G2G dialogues and decisions on economic issues. The correct way would be to help people conceptualise liberalised cross-border trade and investments with a prolonged, open, informative, and educational discourse on the benefits and compulsions of 'deregulations' with government taking a lesser role.
Our motion-picture industry is possibly under the grip of a private cartel emboldened by government assurances. They are perhaps in the wrong business but manage to sustain or make some profits only with government protection. For their unjustified gain the screening of Indian or Pakistani movies in cinema halls that the people of this country could enjoy to the last penny are outlawed. We watch them at home and buy them in open markets but the screening them in cinema halls becomes unlawful. This is completely irrational.
Our film industry could become extinct as the dinosaurs if it continues to shy away from competition and persistently denies the very nature of consumer preference and choice. But, the same silver screen industry, in its due time, could become vibrant and go global if it is in competition with other movie makers of the world. It is competition alone that can enrich any industry. Let the government do nothing to enhance competitiveness other than physically securing their investments, properties, and their lives.
In a democracy, a government must also defend personal rights and preferences. The protectionists or the government cannot violate this. People do not become Indian or Pakistani supporters if they enjoy their TV programmes or movies. All foreign movies should be freely importable and that alone could trigger a boom in building modern movie halls across the country. There are so many new buildings in the country but rarely for cinemas or film studios which is a shame. Cinema halls can provide people quality leisure time with friends and families, and perhaps eve teasing could decline as romantic episodes do teach that unreturned affection is perhaps undesirable but romancing itself is never without values or ethics.
Modern movie halls can satisfy the leisure and entertainment demand, if not need, of a population that has more than doubled since the 1960s. More halls across the country mean more businesses and employment to offset any job losses that may come with the end of government protection.
But, the movie halls must be free to price their tickets just as restaurants have the freedom to price their dishes. Governments must dump their traditional price fixing and only then cinema importers and makers would risk high-quality movies and price them accordingly. The hall owners may invest in screens or in the sound system, and improve or build more halls but only if there is no price caps on hall tickets, or the industry not heavily taxed by our bureaucracy and politicians who are too eager to meddle in economic issues and making a mess.
The opening or not opening of the big screen industry may not be an immediate national concern but choice and freedom of the people is a priority issue, and must be addressed with other urgent matters of the day.