The Association President, Rashid Khawaja, flanked by prominent TV stars and producers, demanded that the government ban Urdu versions of foreign serials. If this is not stopped, he said, the local entertainment industry may lose out to foreign serials.
While everyone kept referring to the source of threat as foreign plays, an apparently confused UPA Secretary General Raza Mir urged the regulatory authority, Pemra, to review its regulations and redefine foreign content excluding Urdu-dubbed plays from that category. Dubbing, of course, does not make them indigenous. If it does, there should be no outcry against them. Actor/producer Humayun Saeed was more forthright as he demanded that Pemra should altogether abolish its policy of permitting 10 percent foreign content showings on private channels. Basically, what these people have been saying is this: 'ban every competition because we are so bad.'
Back in the 1950s, the film people, too, had demanded and gotten a ban on Indian movies. The TV was yet to arrive. They had a captive market at their disposal. What did they do? They made passable entertainment for a while and then slid into mediocrity and then utter incompetence. Gradually, what started coming out of our studios were insufferable, cheap Punjabi melodramas, while their makers insisted that was what the people wanted. No matter if the people had little to choose from. The virtual monopoly our filmmakers enjoyed for decades failed to breathe new life into the industry. Fed up with the quality of films on offer they simply stopped going to cinema. One by one, the old movie theatres were pulled down and replaced with shopping plazas. Return of Indian films is now beginning to revive the cinema-going tradition. If the ban didn't help the film industry, it won't do anything for the TV drama.
Leaders in the drama production business resort to useless reasoning to make their case. Humayun Saeed, for instance, told a journalist "since Shahrukh Khan is the biggest actor in Pakistan, whatever remains of TV stardom will be taken over by the Turkish serials." What makes Shahrukh the superstar he is are not his looks but acting skills. Some of his rivals have more impressive appearances. Salman Khan, for one, was voted by America's People magazine as the 7th "best-looking man in the world" In 2004. Yet, Shahrukh remains the King of Bollywood.
Our TV people need to take a deep breath and clam down. They don't need to feel insecure or to have self-doubt although there is plenty of room for improvement. Our plays have given the Indian TV dramas run for their money. "Ishq-e-Mammnu" is exceptional. It was a mega hit in Turkey itself, and a huge success all over the Middle East. The characters were bold and beautiful. Pretty faces, however, are not enough to retain audiences' interest day after day. What caught the viewers' fancy was substance. The settings may be different but a powerful story, based on a classic early 20th century Turkish novel, and perceptive treatment by the director made it so watchable. Not every Turkish serial is in the same league. A case in point is "Aasi", run by a local channel during the same period as "Ishq-e-Mammnu". Few have seen or noticed it. The UPA shouldn't forget that a recent local serial "Humsafar" proved to be a sensation inside and outside this country. Besides, the regular drama audiences still avidly watch other plays. Turkish serials may have found an assured niche in this market, but only within the 10 percent content limit. That shouldn't bother our drama professionals. Unfortunately, it does. Which amounts to an indirect acknowledgement on their part that they lack the necessary creative abilities to compete.
They trot out two main arguments, like the film industry before, to seek protection. One that foreign products sell well because they show vulgarity (vulgarity in this context is associated with scenes of sexual intimacy and scantily clad women); and the other that they have big budgets, which we can't afford. The drama serial in question was heavily censored because of local cultural sensitivities. The female artistes in it did wear some revealing western dresses. That could not be a significant factor of attraction considering that cable television plays English movies and TV serials in which western women naturally wear western dresses.
Let's take a wider look on what actually sells in the international market. Hollywood blockbusters include costly but gender-neutral science fiction as well as animated cartoon films. If vulgarity sells how is it that several animated films are among the twenty all-time US box office hits? Shrek-2 (2004) is at number 8; The Lion King (1994) at 11; Toy Story 3 (2010) at 12; and Finding Nemo (2003) at 17. The animated TV programme "The Simpsons" remains one of the most popular TV series. Closer home in India is the example of an unforgettable 2007 movie, "Taare Zameen Par". It featured no romantic content, and dealt only with an eight-year-old dyslexic boy's difficulties at school. Yet it turned out to be a big box office success, also earning unprecedented critical acclaim. This year's great success story is "Burfi" which studiously avoids the usual Bollywood formula - 'vulgar' item songs, costly sets, and other forms of glitz and glamour - to tell the story of a deaf mute boy's happy life, his brief love interest, and incidental interaction with an autistic girl. Yet the film has gone on to be a 'super hit' as one of India's highest grossing films of all time. Clearly, what is needed to make a good film or TV drama is not vulgarity and hefty budget; small budgets supported by acting talent and creative imagination in other departments, can launch memorable works of art.
[email protected]