When Sri Gollapudi Subba Rao asked me to suggest the topic for the Gollapudi Srinivasa Rao Memorial lecture, without a second thought I suggested  “Time as a Construct in Contemporary Cinema” for the simple reason that I am deeply preoccupied with the  incessant evolution in the technique of 'Time Manipulation' in Cinema.

Having prepared my presentation after a great deal of reflection I wonder if it has turned out to be too academic. My apologies if my fears are true.

The fundamentals of cinema are constituted by SPACE and TIME. A film-maker’s creation uses these two elements which eventually determine the authenticity of his vision. The viewer, on the other hand, is concerned only with how she/he experiences it in the most authentic manner. These contrary positions fuel my fascination with the many configurations of TIME and SPACE and their impact on the profundity of cinema as a medium.

Let me illustrate my position through two references, one from literature and the other from cinema. One of Kannada’s major writers Sri Yashwanta Chittala is, in all his creative works, deeply concerned with the existential predicament of the modern individual which is exemplified by one of his characters remarking that, "The Challenge before the modern man is that of Structuring Time."

In all traditional societies the notion of time manifested itself in terms of seasons, months and years. The agrarian society which was a part of my childhood had a different scheme for time management and work schedule. For instance, the rainy season determined the particular kind of work to be done then, as did summer. 

Similarly, the Industrial society formulated its own mode of time management. As opposed to the modalities of agrarian and pre-corporate industrial structures, we get to see the extreme commodification of time in contemporary society.

In all the earlier phases of civilization, time, by itself, was not valorised as it is being done today. The optimum utilization of time has become an obsession these days, changing the rhythm of modern life. Reflecting on this shift many film makers have engaged themselves in a serious enquiry as regards the manner in which time should be formulated and depicted in contemporary cinema.

In cinema time is realized through space which is irreducible. Let me deal with these abstract notions of time and space through a concrete physical example.

These days all of us are hard-pressed for time. Hence, we do try to save time whenever possible. For instance, those who can afford it, catch a flight from Bangalore to Chennai while those who can't undertake the journey at night either by bus or train. But one must consider what is lost in the bargain. In our effort to save time, we are losing touch with space. For film-makers who gain insights and experience through the articulation of tangible reality, this could be a losing proposition.

The journey to Chennai takes one through Hosur, a township famous for its industrial sector, Vellore, famous for its medical services and the temple-town of Kancheepuram famous for its silk sarees and many other towns each with their own unique character.

A journey during the day would have brought us face to face with people of these towns, their individualistic life-style and the culture and social ambience of these places. Whereas in a night-journey, we get to know just two spaces – the Bangalore railway station and the Chennai railway station. I hope my metaphor communicates what I intend to say.

In a sense, Cinema too, is a journey of sorts for the viewer, more in the metaphorical sense. It is a journey through an emotional landscape. My fellow-passengers are the on-screen characters. Depending on the story, I live with them for 10 -20 years of Film Time. Their conflicts, their inner tussles, their emotional complexities form the inner core, the driving force as if it were, of this journey.

Till recently, our Cinema was rooted in this kind of a ‘Day-journey’ wherein the viewer would closely interact at an emotive level with each character as it unfolded itself. Getting introduced to these fellow-passengers in the first few minutes, As the journey progresses, we become ‘partners in the emotional life of the characters’ and would complete this journey as and when the images are taken off the screen (sometimes, we would carry the journey a little further, in our inner self as is the case with many successful films).

I am using the phrase, ‘Partners in the emotional life of the Characters’, very consciously. As all of us are aware, the willing viewer is not a passive viewer or listener. He too is a fellow-traveler along with the on-screen characters. Hence, in this kind of a narrative structure, detailing was of prime importance. The exactitude in etching a given character had great relevance. To bring home this concept to you in a more tangible manner, let me draw your attention to couple of examples. These scenes and the films, of which they are a part, have been much-discussed elsewhere.

CHARULATA of Satyajit Ray is considered a classic in the Indian context. Connoisseurs as well as students of Cinema have over the years discussed the scene that depicts the solitude of Charulata, the protagonist. The fact of her loneliness could have been stated succinctly. But instead, Ray, the Master that he was, chose to utilize a screen-time of nearly two minutes and through a series of 15-20 shots designed to variously illustrate and emphasise her loneliness, bringing home to the viewer, the emotional experience of the protagonist.

There is a different way of constructing such a scene too. Mr. Mani Ratnam who is seated on the dais here today is a noted exponent of this genre. In his well-known film, BOMBAY, he details the agony of the solitude that the protagonist experiences and delivers it experientially to the viewer through a three-minute song, ‘ Uyire..’

The concern of both these Master-craftsmen is to deliver to the viewer the emotional life of the character as an experiential scene. They create ample SPACE for the viewer to swim in the emotive ambit of the characters. The construction of TIME here is ‘Traditional’ in nature.  By ‘Traditional’ I do not mean archaic but as being successful in surviving and transcending the limitations imposed by Geography and History.

Having emerged in South Africa as a leader of stature, Gandhiji returned to India in the year 1915 to a tumultuous welcome. Initiating Gandhiji into India’s freedom-struggle, Gokhale prevailed upon him to travel the length and breadth of the nation before taking an active part in the struggle. By doing so, he wanted Gandhiji to capture India in an experiential mode, that which so far had been rooted only in information. This process alone could initiate him into positive action. Mere awareness would not do. It has to become a part of one’s being. There is no substitute to experience. Through this example, we get to understand the fellowship of Journey and experience.

In today’s world where the span of time is shrinking, sharpening one’s sensibilities only through experience is not feasible. Instead one tries to get a sense of reality from various sources merely as information without ever coming in contact with actual space.

This has brought in a considerable change in the mode of expression. Instead of trying to crystallize experience through detailing, it is merely presented. This, of course, condenses precious screen time and gives the viewer a free space to articulate her/his experiences. Today’s viewer has a much higher rate of visual literacy than ever-before, hence, is able to grasp more while occupying lesser time. She/he has also acquired the capability to decipher even the minute nuances.

A film maker should not build images that trespass the viewer’s sacred Inner Space taking away her/his freedom to decipher the given communication based on her/his own perception. Excessive reliance on technology, attempting to present reality through fractured images, as we see in MTV and Music videos, dislocation of time and space mesmerizes the viewers but bound to convert them into consumers.

As a case in point I can cite imaging in our commercials. Since these films have to communicate in thirty seconds or in a minute, they depend on instantaneously decipherable details. There is a need to stick to proven formulae. The conflict needs to be kept simple. The narration is not multi-layered. The representation of a community or a character is through a single, imaginary icon that is the embodiment of all that is unique to that community. The Coding and the encryption adopted by these films are unique and highly specialized.

The brevity of such a portrayal, though admirable, cannot become the idiom of a narrative film maker whose representation of reality is multi-layered. 

If a film-maker who belongs to the narrative mode were to be influenced by such astounding display of communicative skills and tries to adopt the same in his work, the flip-side of the coin becomes self-evident. It leads to the precedence of ‘imaginary’ uniqueness over ‘actual’ uniqueness. In our anxiety to be precise, to be brief and yet deliver more, are we indulging in such encapsulation? Shouldn’t a narrative film that aspires to be worthy of its name overcome this hurdle, the tendency to indulge in it?

Let us now move on to the second point of this presentation, a statement from Luis Bunuel, the renowned Spanish film maker. He  states “The Rhythm  of my film is my political statement.”

Bunuel is greatly influenced by the surrealistic mode of expression. Hence, it is no wonder that his statements also carry traces of such para-normal expression. This statement of Bunuel applies equally well to the works of other film-makers. Rhythm, which  is nothing but articulation of time, renders the VISION of the film-maker  tangible to his/ her audience. A film-maker facilitates extending of the perception of the willing viewer beyond the realm of what is being presented to him. The time-frame that he is able to orchestrate in this process of involving the viewer in the creative act determines the ‘RHYTHM’ of the given Cinematic Creation.

So If we perceive slow pace or fast pace as a mere technique, we surely are committing a blunder of epic proportions.

“Looking” has a different connotation as compared to “Seeing”. Cinema, or for that matter, any other Visual art form aims to metamorphose our “Looking” into “Seeing” and thereby, realize a “Vision”.  If what we see gets seeped into our inner self and disturbs us, then alone do we become conscious of this phenomenon. Each film-maker has to decide the time-span in which her/his work transforms “Looking” to “Seeing”. Hence, in a narrative film, you cannot dissect “Structure of TIME” and move it away from the ‘content’ or from the ‘form’ Thus, in my view, in Cinema, it is “The Structure of TIME” that makes the narrative profound.

Well friends, if you feel that I haven’t given any definitive answers even after 15 mins of presentation, I agree with you. A character in Ionesco’s  Rhinoceros, says “I know friends, I have not given you any solution but I have framed the question properly” . This speech is an attempt in that direction.

Thank you.

Annual lecture delivered at Gollappudi Memorial award function at Chennai. Golluppudi family gives an award for the BEST DEBUTANT director of the year and it was given to the director Anusha Rizvi of the film Peepli Live.