A case of bad casting?

Being a former student of the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune, I am passionate about anything that involves the institute. More than an institute it is a temple for the alumni. Even after 20 years, whenever I meet my FTII batchmates or alumni, our memories of the institute are always an important part of the conversation. Whether it is actors Shatrughan Sinha, Asrani or Mithun Chakraborty — who were my seniors — all are sensitive to any news concerning the FTII. Actor Gajendra Chauhan is a close friend of mine, but in order to be the chairperson of FTII you need to have a certain vision for the institute and leaves a lot to be desired in his case.

 

To be honest, when it comes to knowledge about films, we have a lot of other students from the institute who have a much better vision. When I was a student there, our director, Girish Karnad, was a huge inspiration to us.

 

So you cannot expect students to look up to and touch the feet of anyone who is lesser in experience or stature. Actors Shabana Azmi, Mithun Chakraborty, Asrani and director Shyam Benegal — these are people who have seen every aspect of how movies are made and can share their knowledge with the students at FTII.

 

I remember Benegal’s lectures — they were in a different league altogether. Unfortunately, Chauhan doesn’t have the same stature. I would consider Azmi to be ideal for the job of the chairperson. Even filmmaker Jahnu Barua, who has proven that he has the kind of knowledge and vision that could help aspiring filmmakers, would serve the post well. 

 

Having said that, we can’t transfer all the blame on Chauhan because it’s the government that has appointed him to the post. Now that the issue has snowballed into a controversy, it would be best for him to make a graceful exit by tendering his resignation, rather than adding fuel to fire. The students are clearly in no mood to relent their opposition and that is not how things should be. After all, the chairperson needs their co-operation, for it is them that s/he will be dealing with and the institute cannot function without them. If the students aren’t happy with the way things are it doesn’t make sense for Chauhan to continue in office. As an alumnus of the institute, I truly wish that the sanctity of the institute is maintained.

 

 

But that only time will tell and something that students will have to observe. In my opinion, ideally, a chairperson of an institute like the FTII requires a certain amount of experience in the industry. More than anything else, this is an educational institute so its chairman should have some understanding of professional courses. It’s also a matter of curricular practice, which is even more crucial than the syllabus. Gathering finance for the institute is not the only criteria.

 

Also, the director lives on the campus with the students and takes major decisions. He is the one responsible for the manner in which you impart education. The number of courses in the institute and how to fine-tune them are some of the basic requirements expected from the chairperson. Celluloid itself has changed over the years and everything is turning digital. We cannot fall behind on that front. You can’t judge whether somebody can deliver or not before giving him an opportunity. 

 

Besides having knowledge of world cinema, one also needs a vision about how things will shape up in the institute during one’s tenure. Financial decisions and major changes required in the institute are among the many responsibilities of the chairperson, and for this someone with dynamic ideas is required. So while a certain amount of experience is crucial, it is not the only factor on which one should pass judgment.