| 1 | '''National Film Development |
| 2 | Corporation''' |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | The Film Finance Corporation was set up in |
| 6 | 1960 on the recommendation of the S.K. Patil |
| 7 | Film Enquiry Committee Report (1951). Initially |
| 8 | controlled by the Ministry of Finance, it was |
| 9 | transferred to the Ministry of Information & |
| 10 | Broadcasting in 1964. Its original objective was |
| 11 | to promote and assist the mainstream film |
| 12 | industry by ‘providing, affording or procuring |
| 13 | finance or other facilities for the production of |
| 14 | films of good standard’. In its first six years, it |
| 15 | extended production loans for c.50 films, |
| 16 | notably Ray’s Charulata (1964), Nayak |
| 17 | (1966) and Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne (1968). |
| 18 | Under the direct influence of Prime Minister |
| 19 | Indira Gandhi, the FFC initiated the New |
| 20 | Indian Cinema with Mrinal Sen’s Bhuvan |
| 21 | Shome and Mani Kaul’s Uski Roti (both |
| 22 | 1969). In 1971, the I & B Ministry laid down, as |
| 23 | part of the FFC’s obligations, the directive that |
| 24 | it ‘develop the film in India into an effective |
| 25 | instrument for the promotion of national |
| 26 | culture, education and healthy entertainment |
| 27 | [b]y granting loans for modest but off-beat films |
| 28 | of talented and promising people in the field’. |
| 29 | The new policy yielded instant results as a |
| 30 | whole generation of new film-makers was |
| 31 | allowed to emerge. However, both the terms |
| 32 | on which loans were granted (usually requiring |
| 33 | collateral from producers) and the limited |
| 34 | distribution outlets, exacerbated by the FFC/ |
| 35 | NFDC’s apparent inability to build its own |
| 36 | exhibition network, gave their films a |
| 37 | reputation for lacking ‘financial viability’. In |
| 38 | 1968 the FFC’s remit was extended to include |
| 39 | distribution and export. In 1973 it became the |
| 40 | channelling agency for imported raw stock, |
| 41 | and in 1974 (after the withdrawal of the |
| 42 | MPEAA from the Indian market) it started |
| 43 | importing foreign films for local distribution. |
| 44 | These activities soon became the FFC’s major |
| 45 | profit centres leading to an increasing |
| 46 | marginalisation of its film production/ |
| 47 | financing responsibilities. By 1976, the FFC’s |
| 48 | independent cinema policy came under |
| 49 | withering attack from various quarters. The |
| 50 | Committee on Public Undertakings issued a |
| 51 | Report (79th Report, 1976) on the FFC arguing |
| 52 | that ‘there is no inherent contradiction |
| 53 | between artistic films of good standard and |
| 54 | films successful at the box office [and] the |
| 55 | Corporation should [s]atisfy itself in all |
| 56 | possible ways that the films [h]ave a |
| 57 | reasonable prospect of being commercially |
| 58 | successful’. In 1980 the current NFDC was |
| 59 | established by amalgamating the FFC with the |
| 60 | partially state-owned Indian Motion Pictures |
| 61 | Export Corporation (IMPEC), making it the |
| 62 | sole canalising agent for the import of all |
| 63 | foreign films, with incentives to non-resident |
| 64 | Indians to buy, import and distribute foreign |
| 65 | films in India. Between 1981 and 1988 the |
| 66 | NFDC was also the parent organisation for the |
| 67 | Directorate of Film Festivals. With the |
| 68 | haphazard extensions of its remit and the |
| 69 | repeated policy shifts imposed on it, the |
| 70 | absence of a clear definition of the NFDC’s |
| 71 | responsibilities to the Indian cinema has |
| 72 | remained a persistent problem. In spite of its |
| 73 | monopolistic privileges in the 80s the NFDC |
| 74 | continued to describe itself as a victim of state |
| 75 | policies on e.g. taxation. The 1983-4 chairman, |
| 76 | Hrishikesh Mukherjee, stated in the 1984 |
| 77 | report that ‘Unhealthy and underhand dealings |
| 78 | particularly in the big cities are a part of the |
| 79 | national distribution and exhibition system. |
| 80 | Unless and until one becomes a part of this |
| 81 | racket, it is practically impossible to operate in |
| 82 | this area.’ Consequently, the NFDC sought to |
| 83 | institutionalise a confused desire for ‘good’ |
| 84 | cinema, measured mainly in terms of national |
| 85 | film awards and international film festival |
| 86 | exposure, that should be able to make a profit |
| 87 | in a market where it could not compete with |
| 88 | the industrial cinema’s levels of expenditure |
| 89 | on exhibition, production and promotion. In |
| 90 | the early 90s the NFDC changed again, its coproduction |
| 91 | policy with |
| 92 | Doordarshan effectively shielding it from most industrial |
| 93 | pressures. In 1993 the NFDC took over |
| 94 | Doordarshan’s private Metro Channel and later |
| 95 | its ‘Movie Club’ film channel. |
| 96 | |
| 97 | [[Glossary]] |